The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 10

[metaphysician]

I suspect that, when they get the FF back, they'll probably be *slightly* conservative in budget. Somewhere between 150M and 200M. However, they'd probably help the process by including a Spider-man style tease in an earlier movie.

 

[I Am The Knight]

They come home, Marvel might just pull out all the stops, for it all, big time score, big songs, big cgi budget, big name stars, proven directors, and one hell of a screenplay you know they have a rough draft of in some secret corner of Feige's desk. And, if they could, I think they will try to do it before Stan is gone, even if they have to go to fox and say "One shot deal, a tribute to stan, we make the FF, you distribute it."

And one teaser trailer would do it for us fanboys, on all sides. "This one is for Stan, Jack, (add in every other one of the ff artists/writers/editors over the years we already lost). For one movie, the hatchet is buried."
Just to honor them, the fans of the comics would come out, but it better be damned good if they do that, and preferably before stan is gone.

 

[Docker2.0]

I think Stan is talking about the F4 and was warned not to say to much. Captain Marvel and even Adam Warlock isn't a surprise to anyone being in IW. But F4 being the beginning of the new phase of Marvel, that would be a showstopper no one saw.

 

[GoblinScrier]

I think Stan is talking about the F4 and was warned not to say to much. Captain Marvel and even Adam Warlock isn't a surprise to anyone being in IW. But F4 being the beginning of the new phase of Marvel, that would be a showstopper no one saw.

Man, I want to believe that too...with all of these articles hitting recently saying that Fox still owns F4, no we don't have the rights, blah blah blah, I want to believe more than anything that it is the ultimate smoke and mirrors, that a deal has finally been reached and maybe Stan was about to drop a BOMB of epic proportions, but it could be anything...still what a beautiful idea of the F4 showing up at the literal end of Infinity War, setting up so many different directions, ideas, etc.

 

[Docker2.0]

Man, I want to believe that too...with all of these articles hitting recently saying that Fox still owns F4, no we don't have the rights, blah blah blah, I want to believe more than anything that it is the ultimate smoke and mirrors, that a deal has finally been reached and maybe Stan was about to drop a BOMB of epic proportions, but it could be anything...still what a beautiful idea of the F4 showing up at the literal end of Infinity War, setting up so many different directions, ideas, etc.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but wasn't Avengers IW title changed around the time Marvel and Fox agreed to do the tv show? Despite what's being said in the media, I don't think Marvel, especially Disney will give Fox ANY ground to thaw the ice unless something was exchanged. Call me stubborn but I guess we will see come A: IW.

 

[Crimz]

They come home, Marvel might just pull out all the stops, for it all, big time score, big songs, big cgi budget, big name stars, proven directors, and one hell of a screenplay you know they have a rough draft of in some secret corner of Feige's desk. And, if they could, I think they will try to do it before Stan is gone, even if they have to go to fox and say "One shot deal, a tribute to stan, we make the FF, you distribute it."

And one teaser trailer would do it for us fanboys, on all sides. "This one is for Stan, Jack, (add in every other one of the ff artists/writers/editors over the years we already lost). For one movie, the hatchet is buried."
Just to honor them, the fans of the comics would come out, but it better be damned good if they do that, and preferably before stan is gone.

Wow. I think I'm tearing up.

 

[terry78]

It would be wild if they just appeared at the end of the second Infinity War movie, and it's revealed they were in the ****ing Negative Zone the whole time or whatever. Very fourth wall way to bring them back in without over explaining. And they're like, we were around since the 60s, what's been going on since then?

 

[Spiderine]

Personally I would just like to see them get their powers as a result of Thanos screwing around with the Gauntlet/Stones. If Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver got powers as a result of Infinity Stone manipulations then I could see it with the FF. Kill off the Eric Selvig character and bring in Reed Richards for crying out loud as the MCU resident science genius.

 

[ADollarADay]

I love Stan....






But he has zero control over that.

If you saw the documentary "Doomed", Lee also said that after the infamous 1994 FF movie, all of the Marvel movies would be done in house. We all know how that turned out.

I think the biggest takeaway from that interview was the following:

It was also hinted at that a major new character will appear in Avengers: Infinity War. When asked if he could give us any details, his assistant whispered in his ear and told him he can't discuss it in-depth. He said that a new character (maybe even multiple) would appear and it would please the fans.

If it is multiple characters, Lee could be talking about Carol Danvers and Mar-Vell. But we know that Feige has been trying to get Galactus and the Surfer back for 6 years. And their appearance would certainly please the fans.

Since we are dreaming, it could be Wolverine. Russo brothers said it was their most wanted character after Spiderman.

 

[InCali]

Personally I would just like to see them get their powers as a result of Thanos screwing around with the Gauntlet/Stones. If Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver got powers as a result of Infinity Stone manipulations then I could see it with the FF. Kill off the Eric Selvig character and bring in Reed Richards for crying out loud as the MCU resident science genius.

The Infinity Stones were the cause of the Cosmic Storm that zapped 2 Storms (and a Richards and a Grimm). Works for me.

Man, they could have a cool story line for A3 and A4. While we're dreaming, let it happen in A3 and have the FF help overcome Thanos in A4.

 

[Random490]

Call me a conspiracy theorist but wasn't Avengers IW title changed around the time Marvel and Fox agreed to do the tv show? Despite what's being said in the media, I don't think Marvel, especially Disney will give Fox ANY ground to thaw the ice unless something was exchanged. Call me stubborn but I guess we will see come A: IW.

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain it was around when Hunger Games Mocking Jay Part 2 under preform. I believe past Deathly Hollow's Part 2 no movie with Part 2 in the title did well. Most analysis believe that it gives the audience the impression that they're only getting half a story. Once that trend was set they decide to change the titles. So I think you're getting your hopes up a little too high. The title change is for marketing.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain it was around when Hunger Games Mocking Jay Part 2 under preform. I believe past Deathly Hollow's Part 2 no movie with Part 2 in the title did well. Most analysis believe that it gives the audience the impression that they're only getting half a story. Once that trend was set they decide to change the titles. So I think you're getting your hopes up a little too high. The title change is for marketing.

The thing that intrigues me about the title is that Feige claimed the title itself was a spoiler. He's probably full of s***, but it is fun to think about what sort of spoiler could actually be in the title.

But I'm nearly 100% sure Marvel doesn't have the FF rights yet, and at best, if they get the rights soon, they might give FF characters a couple tiny teaser moments in Infinity Wars 2.

 

[The Overlord]

True, but Dr. Doom is, quite simply, the most iconic Marvel villain of all time.

I just did a quick Google search and these are the first three results that came up.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/17/top-25-marvel-villains

http://www.newsarama.com/18986-the-definitive-10-best-marvel-villains.html

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/idea/lists/top-100-marvel-villains/49380/

All three have Doom as the #1 villain.

Doom in the Marvel world is to villains what Spider-Man is to heroes. And in many ways, he's even more important than Spider-Man.

It's a general truism that a story is only as good as its villain. And no matter who your favorite Marvel characters are, chance are they've mixed it up with Doom at one time or another.

Without Doom, there is a huge, glaring, gaping hole in the MCU.

Doom is one of my favorite villains, but he really got screwed over in the adaption department.

Most of his animated appearances were sub par and he had a few good video game appearances (Marvel Ultimate Alliance) but most of those who were sub par as well.

In terms of live action, guys like Purple Man and William Stryker are more compelling. At this point, I wonder if kids even care about Doom.

It will take a lot of planning to make Doom a truly iconic villain in the movies, perhaps a slow build to his first true appearance in the MCU. Just don't make him another throw away villain.

 

[Random490]

The thing that intrigues me about the title is that Feige claimed the title itself was a spoiler. He's probably full of s***, but it is fun to think about what sort of spoiler could actually be in the title.

But I'm nearly 100% sure Marvel doesn't have the FF rights yet, and at best, if they get the rights soon, they might give FF characters a couple tiny teaser moments in Infinity Wars 2.

My theory is the title will be [BLACKOUT]Infinity Gauntlet, where Wars is about the fight over the stones which ends with Thanos successfully assembling the the gauntlet in a "Oh ****" moment[/BLACKOUT]

If F4 were going to appear in Infinity war I think we'd hear a lot more about it through leaks. No way something that big wouldn't get out by now. If there is a deal, I'm betting it's to let the contract expire. I wouldn't be expecting and F4 characters to show up anytime until after the expiration date.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Just got back from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 yesterday, and something doesn't add up (not sure if I still need to use spoilers at this point, but I will anyway. Apologies some of this is a retread of things previously discussed; I haven't been on the thread for some time:

Spoiler

So, as we all know, the Watchers appear in the movie; a lot of us thought that it meant a rights reversal of some sort, but (I believe) that claim has been refuted- or at least not confirmed. What we do know, though, is that the Watchers are shared by Marvel and Fox, but Uatu the Watcher is owned solely with Fox. To me, however, this simply doesn't add up: if Marvel co-owns the Watchers, why not use them until now? You might say that it wouldn't have added anything to include them in previous films, but keep in mind that their appearance here contributed literally nothing to the plot. In other words, if they acquired them some time ago, why did they never use them, given their highly incidental role, and if they acquired them recently, why not make an announcement? I'm trying to think of a time where they reacquired a character and didn't announce it (or that it was at least announced by another party), but I can't think of such a situation; feel free to correct me if this isn't true, though. Tying in with this, when Marvel regained the ability to use Spider-Man (hell, take any character for example, say Daredevil), plans were set in motion pretty quickly (and publicly, if I recall) to utilize said characters; it just doesn't seem to be in Marvel's character to sit on characters. Lastly, do we even have explicit confirmation that any of the Watchers depicted are not Uatu?

*Takes off tinfoil hat*

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

My theory is the title will be [BLACKOUT]Infinity Gauntlet, where Wars is about the fight over the stones which ends with Thanos successfully assembling the the gauntlet in a "Oh ****" moment[/BLACKOUT]

If F4 were going to appear in Infinity war I think we'd hear a lot more about it through leaks. No way something that big wouldn't get out by now. If there is a deal, I'm betting it's to let the contract expire. I wouldn't be expecting and F4 characters to show up anytime until after the expiration date.

I think that's very likely, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that a spoiler after we've seen this:

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Just got back from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 yesterday, and something doesn't add up (not sure if I still need to use spoilers at this point, but I will anyway. Apologies some of this is a retread of things previously discussed; I haven't been on the thread for some time:

Spoiler

So, as we all know, the Watchers appear in the movie; a lot of us thought that it meant a rights reversal of some sort, but (I believe) that claim has been refuted- or at least not confirmed. What we do know, though, is that the Watchers are shared by Marvel and Fox, but Uatu the Watcher is owned solely with Fox. To me, however, this simply doesn't add up: if Marvel co-owns the Watchers, why not use them until now? You might say that it wouldn't have added anything to include them in previous films, but keep in mind that their appearance here contributed literally nothing to the plot. In other words, if they acquired them some time ago, why did they never use them, given their highly incidental role, and if they acquired them recently, why not make an announcement? I'm trying to think of a time where they reacquired a character and didn't announce it (or that it was at least announced by another party), but I can't think of such a situation; feel free to correct me if this isn't true, though. Tying in with this, when Marvel regained the ability to use Spider-Man (hell, take any character for example, say Daredevil), plans were set in motion pretty quickly (and publicly, if I recall) to utilize said characters; it just doesn't seem to be in Marvel's character to sit on characters. Lastly, do we even have explicit confirmation that any of the Watchers depicted are not Uatu?

*Takes off tinfoil hat*

I'm afraid we've probably all been reading too much into that. There has been online speculation for quite a while regarding Stan Lee, and I think James Gunn just said: "Yeah, let's do it."

The only real thing that makes me think there could be more is it seems a bit risky for a throw-away scene. Did they get Fox's permission just to make absolutely sure Fox wouldn't make a stink? If they didn't have the rights and they didn't have Fox's permission, even though they probably still have a strong legal argument about using the characters, I would imagine Marvel lawyers saying: "Let's just not take any chances."

 

[Panacea]

Just got back from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 yesterday, and something doesn't add up (not sure if I still need to use spoilers at this point, but I will anyway. Apologies some of this is a retread of things previously discussed; I haven't been on the thread for some time:

Spoiler

So, as we all know, the Watchers appear in the movie; a lot of us thought that it meant a rights reversal of some sort, but (I believe) that claim has been refuted- or at least not confirmed. What we do know, though, is that the Watchers are shared by Marvel and Fox, but Uatu the Watcher is owned solely with Fox. To me, however, this simply doesn't add up: if Marvel co-owns the Watchers, why not use them until now? You might say that it wouldn't have added anything to include them in previous films, but keep in mind that their appearance here contributed literally nothing to the plot. In other words, if they acquired them some time ago, why did they never use them, given their highly incidental role, and if they acquired them recently, why not make an announcement? I'm trying to think of a time where they reacquired a character and didn't announce it (or that it was at least announced by another party), but I can't think of such a situation; feel free to correct me if this isn't true, though. Tying in with this, when Marvel regained the ability to use Spider-Man (hell, take any character for example, say Daredevil), plans were set in motion pretty quickly (and publicly, if I recall) to utilize said characters; it just doesn't seem to be in Marvel's character to sit on characters. Lastly, do we even have explicit confirmation that any of the Watchers depicted are not Uatu?

*Takes off tinfoil hat*

They didn't acquire them or reacquire them, they always had them. The only reason that scene was in the movie was because James Gunn heard the fan theory and liked it.

 

[WeaponXCII]

I'm afraid we've probably all been reading too much into that. There has been online speculation for quite a while regarding Stan Lee, and I think James Gunn just said: "Yeah, let's do it."

The only real thing that makes me think there could be more is it seems a bit risky for a throw-away scene. Did they get Fox's permission just to make absolutely sure Fox wouldn't make a stink? If they didn't have the rights and they didn't have Fox's permission, even though they probably still have a strong legal argument about using the characters, I would imagine Marvel lawyers saying: "Let's just not take any chances."

Oh, there's definitely more to it! Just kind of frustrating for us fans to speculate what exactly. Even though it is fun to theorize, I suppose our energy might be better spent just enjoying what we get now, and just hope that we get more in the somewhat near future.

They didn't acquire them or reacquire them, they always had them. The only reason that scene was in the movie was because James Gunn heard the fan theory and liked it.

Again, though, they always had them, but never used them until now? And when they did end up using them, they served a (non-)purpose that could have been filled in any other film? Further, Gunn heard the fan theory and liked it... for Guardians 2, but not the first one? (Perhaps the first Guardians predates the

Spoiler

Lee-as-Uatu

theory, though; if someone could verify this, I'd appreciate it.) They only theories I can come up with to explain this is that Gunn, while in the process of developing the first film, never got word of said theory (if by being made aware by Marvel Studios, then at least his own "research"- after all, it only takes a few mouse clicks to find these ideas), or that Gunn, changed his mind from disliking the theory to liking it? What made him change his mind? Also, I can buy Gunn liking the theory, but what I don't think I can buy is that none of the other directors heard this fan theory and liked it. After all, if they did, surely one of them would have filmed it, or at least made plans about it, which we would later hear about.... Well, I think I've taken this theory as far as I can; again, it's still fun to speculate, though. As I sit here wondering about all of this, I'm reminded of something that one of my old professors once told me: I'm forgetting that people don't always think or act as rationally as I might expect them to.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Oh, there's definitely more to it! Just kind of frustrating for us fans to speculate what exactly. Even though it is fun to theorize, I suppose our energy might be better spent just enjoying what we get now, and just hope that we get more in the somewhat near future.



Again, though, they always had them, but never used them until now? And when they did end up using them, they served a (non-)purpose that could have been filled in any other film? Further, Gunn heard the fan theory and liked it... for Guardians 2, but not the first one? (Perhaps the first Guardians predates the

Spoiler

Lee-as-Uatu

theory, though; if someone could verify this, I'd appreciate it.) They only theories I can come up with to explain this is that Gunn, while in the process of developing the first film, never got word of said theory (if by being made aware by Marvel Studios, then at least his own "research"- after all, it only takes a few mouse clicks to find these ideas), or that Gunn, changed his mind from disliking the theory to liking it? What made him change his mind? Also, I can buy Gunn liking the theory, but what I don't think I can buy is that none of the other directors heard this fan theory and liked it. After all, if they did, surely one of them would have filmed it, or at least made plans about it, which we would later hear about.... Well, I think I've taken this theory as far as I can; again, it's still fun to speculate, though. As I sit here wondering about all of this, I'm reminded of something that one of my old professors once told me: I'm forgetting that people don't always think or act as rationally as I might expect them to.

You raise a very interesting point, because as far as I know,

Spoiler

Uatu is basically "Earth's Watcher", sure, we know there are other Watcher's out there and Marvel likely has the rights to those Wathcers, but Uatu has always been the one who hangs around Earth (and interferes when he shouldn't because of his interest in Earth), and Stan's character has certainly been hanging around Earth. So as soon as Marvel associates a Watcher with Earth as they have in this case (without the rights) they would almost certainly be on shaky legal ground. I think if Marvel tried to claim Lee was a Watcher, but not Uatu (when the comic books have established that Uatu is THE Watcher who hangs around Earth) Fox would have clear grounds for a lawsuit if they still have the rights to Uatu. Even if they don't name him "Uatu" he is playing the role that has been established as Uatu. It would be like creating a character who wears armor and is the ruler of Latveria named "Von Peril" and claiming it was a different character than Dr. Doom.

 

[Zarex]

I thought it was pretty clear that Lee wasn't [BLACKOUT]a Watcher[/BLACKOUT] since he had a human appearance and was wearing [BLACKOUT]a space suit.[/BLACKOUT].

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I thought it was pretty clear that Lee wasn't [BLACKOUT]a Watcher[/BLACKOUT] since he had a human appearance and was wearing [BLACKOUT]a space suit.[/BLACKOUT].

I was wondering about that also, but since the fan theory was that

Spoiler

Stan was Uatu

and since Gunn seemed to indicate he was confirming that theory, where does that leave us?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I was assuming

Spoiler

Lee was a watcher, but still playing the human role - since nobody would get it if he was standing there not looking anything like Stan Lee.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Or, he's a watcher in training OR he's just an affiliate of the watchers.

My question is, if they are implying it was all the same "Stan Lee." How'd he come back to life after drinking the guarana soda?

 

[TheVileOne]

He's the Watcher's informant.