The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 7

[Orba]

I believe that casting call synopsis has long been pulled but I saved it for reference:


I believe Trank debunked this however. Like he debunked the Teller and Jordan casting rumors.

I have also read that the Josh Gad rumour that he denied had some truth to it and Josh Gad was tested for the Grimm role.

I'm starting to wonder if we've all been off-base about this rights retention thing. Maybe the point is not to pump out a quickie so they can hang onto the property for another 7+ years, but to simply wipe their ass with it before handing it back to Marvel, like it's the chocolate-covered pretzel of movie licenses.

I guess a combination of both would be more likely. If this bombs I can't imagine why they would want to continue paying rent on it.

So they make a turd movie. If it profits they hang onto the license, if it bombs they let it go, but in such a toxic state MS won't dare use it for years and years.

The one problem I have with this theory is that if they were trying to poison the license then they would want to keep it far closer to the kind of adaption that Marvel would make (in other words something far closer to the 616). If they were trying to poison things they would have a sucky film based on the 616, instead they look to be making something not really based on any existing version of the characters. As it stands the film they are making has changed enough that I'm not sure how much long term impact it will have on the GA's impression of the franchise.

 

[Dark Raven]

I have also read that the Josh Gad rumour that he denied had some truth to it and Josh Gad was tested for the Grimm role.



The one problem I have with this theory is that if they were trying to poison the license then they would want to keep it far closer to the kind of adaption that Marvel would make (in other words something far closer to the 616). If they were trying to poison things they would have a sucky film based on the 616, instead they look to be making something not really based on any existing version of the characters. As it stands the film they are making has changed enough that I'm not sure how much long term impact it will have on the GA's impression of the franchise.

Fox and Trank are taking the same approach to this as the 1967 Casino Royale. The rights to that movie were owned by another studio, not EON/MGM, who owned all the other Bond movies. The director of Casino Royale 67 at first wanted to make a serious adaptation, but when he found he couldn't possibly compete with the official series, set out to destroy it and the Bond character instead.

He made it absolutely ludicrous with only a shred of the original plot - enough so someone would recognise it - but such a complete lampoon of the Bond franchise. It is almost unwatchable as a film.

It was only 40 years later that EON reacquired the rights and made a proper, serious version of the book in 2006 with Daniel Craig.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

The one problem I have with this theory is that if they were trying to poison the license then they would want to keep it far closer to the kind of adaption that Marvel would make (in other words something far closer to the 616). If they were trying to poison things they would have a sucky film based on the 616, instead they look to be making something not really based on any existing version of the characters. As it stands the film they are making has changed enough that I'm not sure how much long term impact it will have on the GA's impression of the franchise.

Fair enough, you're probably right. I wasn't going to be able to rest until I had made the chocolate-covered pretzel joke though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They call it "Foxholm syndrome". But until the studio situation for F4 and XM changes I simply refer to it as "Meh, what else is out..."

I'm fine with it because I like the films. Although I admit that it is helped that some of my favorite X-characters in the comics are Wolverine, Xavier, and Magneto, while I don't really care for characters like Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Rogue.

I do wish Marvel could use the term mutant (especially since mutation is a scientific term) without having to duck around the issue by calling them 'gifted' and the like. But that's just a small nuisance.

 

[Orba]

Fair enough, you're probably right. I wasn't going to be able to rest until I had made the chocolate-covered pretzel joke though.

Fair enough, probably time to mention that this franchise is being screwed in some place very uncomfortable then.

 

[Docker2.0]

I know. It sucks. To me Galactus and the Thing not being done justice are the toughest to swallow.

After seeing that floating Celestial head and what Marvel did with GOTG, man I can only imagine what they would have done with the Big G.

And as far as the ever-lovin' blue eyed Thing, I was one of the few that actually really disliked the bust on set of the reboot that leaked on the Internet. I just can't help but wonder how Marvel would have done it instead. Look at how Marvel brought the armor of Iron Man to life, Hulk, Cap's shield, Winter Soldier's metal arm, Mjolnir, Asgard, the Destroyer, Groot, Rocket, etc. etc. People want to hate Ant-Man but the art direction looks incredible. (Dude is riding a freaking flying ant!)

Instead of a generic looking mossy-rock Kronan look-a-like with a pissed-off facial expression, I really believe Marvel would have given us something much more faithful to Ben Grimm that would have given us that same warm and fuzzy feeling inside we get when we watch their other movies.

As down as I am about the FF, at least we can look forward to Wakanda, the Celestials, Thanos, and maybe even Adam Warlock someday. I'd like to think we'll see Namor's underwater kingdom as well but with the Universal rights tangle and the fact that DC is bringing Aquaman to the big screen first I think Marvel is going to wait a while on that.

Ah man don't remind me! When I saw that Celestial destroy a world, I was thinking if only that was Galactus! That scene left me in awe because it seems to be the only scene I've seen thus far in a comic book movie where they have trusted their source material without any changes. I like TDK but I think Nolan is the worst thing that happened to comic book movies because everyone is trying to be "realistic and gritty", which is why we are getting this imitation of F4. Superman and F4 are not gloomy characters but do to a cash grab, DC and Fox are imitating them. I don't get why they don't trust their material because Marvel is staying true to theirs and they are winning.

 

[Kelly]

Ah man don't remind me! When I saw that Celestial destroy a world, I was thinking if only that was Galactus! That scene left me in awe because it seems to be the only scene I've seen thus far in a comic book movie where they have trusted their source material without any changes. I like TDK but I think Nolan is the worst thing that happened to comic book movies because everyone is trying to be "realistic and gritty", which is why we are getting this imitation of F4. Superman and F4 are not gloomy characters but do to a cash grab, DC and Fox are imitating them. I don't get why they don't trust their material because Marvel is staying true to theirs and they are winning.

I don't even think we are getting an imitation...

 

[BETArayBill]

Brian Posehn was on a radio show I lisetend to in the morning and they asked him what was his worst movie and he says fantastic four rise of the silver surfer but then goes but the new one they're making will make ours look like a classic I couldn't help but start laughing.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Somehow though I can still see this movie getting praise from critics for the sheer fact that it thumbs its nose at the genre.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Brian Posehn was on a radio show I lisetend to in the morning and they asked him what was his worst movie and he says fantastic four rise of the silver surfer but then goes but the new one they're making will make ours look like a classic I couldn't help but start laughing.

That does seem to be what's happening. We're realizing we had it better than we realized.

Somehow though I can still see this movie getting praise from critics for the sheer fact that it thumbs its nose at the genre.

My fear is it will thumb its nose at FF fans while embracing the cliche's of the genre.

 

[Flint Marko]

Maybe the point is not to pump out a quickie so they can hang onto the property for another 7+ years, but to simply wipe their ass with it before handing it back to Marvel, like it's the chocolate-covered pretzel of movie licenses.

I LOLed at this, that's probably exactly what they're doing.

 

[Dasher10]

What's funny is that most versions of characters who people whine about being unfaithful are still somewhat so. Silver Samurai was based on the second man to take up the armor while Ronan The Accuser, Thor and Nick Fury were based on their Ultimate counterparts. Even Mandarin was based upon the Knauf/Fraction characterization (despite guy Pierce not being Chinese which made a LOT of people upset).

This Doom however, isn't based on any incarnation anywhere.

 

[Tymminator]

Actually MCU Thor is nothing like Ultimate Thor.

Ultimate Thor was overall a hippy pacifist huge Ecology/"save the environment"guy. One time Colossus got the better of him. They don't even look the same either except that they both rarely wear their helmets.

 

[starscream22]

Originally Posted by Joe Comicbook
When Fox’s Gianopulos was asked during the roundtable if he felt Marvel Comics pulling the Fantastic Four comic was an attempt by Disney’s Marvel to strangle Fox’s Marvel, Gianopulos said, “No, I don’t think so. I don’t know how that decision came about. The comic was not a huge seller. The Fantastic Four is a very established group of characters, and the film is awesome. Yeah, I think…I don’t know how that played into their decision, but it wasn’t…the book wasn’t selling as well as others.” Gianopulos also reiterated that it didn’t matter from their perspective.

After Gianopolus finished talking, Disney’s Horn chimed in, “Fully independent decision, by the way, I didn’t even know about it. I mean, honestly, we don’t even [shrugs his shoulders].”

......Okay...
We don't even...what, Gianopolus?!

Is it..
A) ...keep up with the comic books or its source material anyway!"
B) ...give a crap about this franchise to begin with!"
C) ...know what the hell we're doing!"
D) ...care as long as our ransom demands are met!"
E) All of the above?

 

[First Avenger]

Thor is not based on Ultimate at all.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Thor is not based on Ultimate at all.

Right.

Hawkeye is more like his Ultimate version though. He's a serious soldier/mercenary working for the US Government as opposed to the wisecracking, ex-villain of 616.

 

[Zarex]

......Okay...
We don't even...what, Gianopolus?!

Is it..
A) ...keep up with the comic books or its source material anyway!"
B) ...give a crap about this franchise to begin with!"
C) ...know what the hell we're doing!"
D) ...care as long as our ransom demands are met!"
E) All of the above?

That quote was from Horn, not Gianopolus.

 

[starscream22]

That quote was from Horn, not Gianopolus.

!!!!!!!!!

Oops! My bad....

 

[First Avenger]

Right.

Hawkeye is more like his Ultimate version though. He's a serious soldier/mercenary working for the US Government as opposed to the wisecracking, ex-villain of 616.

Hopefully he will be funnier in AOU.

 

[The Infernal]

Sadly Hawkeye's character hasn't really be delved into all that much. They could still go anywhere with him really. Though it has been said that AoU will do more with him (hopefully it pays off).

 

[fangz]

Robinson's run hasn't been that bad of a seller. if you look at things that sell around that same amount and below, you'll see a lot of things.
also cancelling the run in June of next year isn't really any kind of drastic cancellation.

if you look at Marvel's recent release strategy, the issue would hinge more on 'why hasn't another FF title been announced?' and not 'why was Robinson's FF cancelled?'
these runs are no longer supposed to last for 5 years even. they are modeled to be packagable as trade paper backs.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Sadly Hawkeye's character hasn't really be delved into all that much. They could still go anywhere with him really. Though it has been said that AoU will do more with him (hopefully it pays off).

I don't get the people who complain about Hawkeye. Whedon had so many characters to juggle - everyone can't possibly be in the spotlight. I think Joss made the right call focusing on the characters who mattered the most first. It was more important that you see the main franchise characters gelling together - otherwise the Avengers concept doesn't work and he nailed that perfectly. Whereas Hawkeye wasn't even Hawkeye the majority of the film - he served the plot as one of Loki's drones - nothing more. But when he wasn't mind controlled you began to see a little of his sardonic personality creeping out during the battle of New York and I believe people will change their minds about him dramatically when AOU comes out. Even with the little teaser footage we saw at Stark Tower, you could see already he was becoming the Hawkeye we all know and love.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Some characters are going to naturally fall to the wayside. You can't have 8 main characters (counting Loki and Fury). There is only so much screentime to go around. Obviously Iron Man and Cap need to be higher priorities than Hawkeye. Marvel certainly did a better job with Hawkeye who at least gets a decent amount of action and screentime than Fox has with their X-Characters in a similar position (such as Colossus and Rogue). I'm just saying Hawkeye is not who he is in the 616 comics.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Thor is not based on Ultimate at all.

Thank you. Thor is not some hippie wannabe god with groupies and a supersuit. The only "Ultimate" aspects of Thor in the films are the fact that:

A) He doesn't wear his helmet
B) He wore a capeless costume similar to the Ultimates in the Avengers
C) He doesn't have an alter ego like Donald Blake

And as far as that last point, even Simonson ditched the alter ego during his classic 616 run. And Branagh had said in commentary the alter ego was something they thought they might explore down the road.

Otherwise Thor is very much Thor from the 616 universe. Even though they've cooled it with the Shakespearean dialect (which as much as I love it - doesn't even make sense anyway) he still speaks like you would expect Thor to. Any other changes to his character are drawn from other storylines like Warren Ellis' or Straczynski's run.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Some characters are going to naturally fall to the wayside. You can't have 8 main characters (counting Loki and Fury). There is only so much screentime to go around. Obviously Iron Man and Cap need to be higher priorities than Hawkeye. Marvel certainly did a better job with Hawkeye who at least gets a decent amount of action and screentime than Fox has with their X-Characters in a similar position (such as Colossus and Rogue). I'm just saying Hawkeye is not who he is in the 616 comics.

Yes at this stage, I'd say he's leaning more Ultimates in the mercenary department - but again considering the mindless drone thing, I think we need to wait until we see a bit more character development from him in another film. He's only been in one film really (I don't count the Thor cameo). Whereas Fox had 3 films to get someone like Cyclops or Storm right and they never did IMO. I haven't seen DOFP yet however so I don't know if they were magically fixed somehow.