The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - Part 18

[Art Freak]

Is it, though?

 

[Big Bang]

I would expect some of the larger institutional investors to make a stink. And the board would be taking a risk that voters will reject the Disney deal (even if the Comcast bid isn’t on the ballot ). And some investors could potentially sue.

That’s all assuming a large number of investors ( and investors with large holdings) think the Comcast bid is worth at least considering. If shareholdrs generally agree with the board ( in that hypothetical ) and aren’t interested, it could go fairly smoothly and move on to the July vote.

But I think the bid is attractive enough that they do have to pause and consider it.

The larger the holding, the bigger the tax hit in an all cash bid. Some large investors might see the benefits with going with the Disney all-stock bid, which doesn't bring the tax hit that a cash bid does. Disney's bid could also potentially turn into a bigger bid if they play the long game.

 

[MasterCat]

The larger the holding, the bigger the tax hit in an all cash bid. Some large investors might see the benefits with going with the Disney all-stock bid, which doesn't bring the tax hit that a cash bid does. Disney's bid could also potentially turn into a bigger bid if they play the long game.

Even with an immediate capital gains tax, 18% more money is still more money. And don't forget that stock-to-stock is "tax deferred" rather than completely un-taxed.
If Disney doesn't make a higher bid, the only Fox shareholders who could benefit from taking the worse deal would be the Murdochs.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The larger the holding, the bigger the tax hit in an all cash bid. Some large investors might see the benefits with going with the Disney all-stock bid, which doesn't bring the tax hit that a cash bid does. Disney's bid could also potentially turn into a bigger bid if they play the long game.

The tax implications are a key detail that could make a bigger difference than anybody seems to think at the moment (and would certainly be something the board could use to justify going with the Disney bid in any case).

It is a bit complicated though: Some investors may prefer taking the hit now. If we imagine somebody bought the stock at $15, they’re going to get hit with a hefty capital gains tax bill. But they’re also going to sell the Disney stock at some point, and then they’ll still get hit with the original capital gains plus additional capital gains on Disney’s side. Even with the hit, some investors may want to ‘cash out’ now and start fresh in terms of additional capital gains down the road.

And then on the other side, there are some investors who bought the stock at a price above the current value ( though if the bids continue to go up, those investors will get rarer and rarer). For those people there would actually be a tax advantage with a loss they could apply against other gains for 2018.

 

[TheVileOne]

http://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2018/06/15/avengers-infinity-war-doctor-doom-movie-writers/

How the IW would address Doom in the MCU

They say that. But they still did this to Zemo:

Easy for them to say that. But let's see if they'd actually do it that way when push came to shove.

 

[TheVileOne]

Thanks. I don't think Marvel will use a character that is essentially Satan anyways. Maybe for Blade or Ghost Rider or even Doctor Strange, but not the Avengers.



Fant4stic and what I'm describing is not the same thing. Fant4stic was taking popular characters and making major changes to them. That almost always gets the fans in an uproar. The more popular a character, the harder it is to change them. Selling a complete unknown or original character is significantly easier. Not only that, but Fant4stic was very obviously cheap garbage with no artistic merit very early on in the process. Kinberg and Trank are incompetent. Feige is not.

Beyond that, we've seen it with the MCU already that they are able to take unpopular or poorly known characters and make them popular. Their entire brand is basically built on it. Specifically from a villain standpoint, just look at Spider-Man. The previous three films prior to Homecoming had popular villains Venom, The Lizard, and The Green Goblin. Fans rejected all three. Then they liked the Vulture, a character who in the comics was an old man in tights that even the fans made fun of how lame he was. We live in a world where Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor outgrossed a Justice League movie released in the very same calendar year. Marvel can be very successful without Dr. Doom and Galactus. They've already been doing it.

The fans also know that Marvel isn't using them because they legally can't, not because of neglect. There is understanding there.

They used Hela, the Goddess of Death.

 

[MbJ]

They say that. But they still did this to Zemo:

And they also did a movie where Peter Dinklage played a giant CGI dwarf blacksmith that also included Thanos, a bunch of aliens and the Black Order.

They can do out there and more comic booky concepts just fine.

 

[TheVileOne]

And they also did a movie where Peter Dinklage played a giant CGI dwarf blacksmith that also included Thanos, a bunch of aliens and the Black Order.

They can do out there and more comic booky concepts just fine.

I'm still not happy about what they did to Zemo. Yeah they did those things, but they aren't always true to the characters' background in the comics.

And they also completely changed Thanos' backstory and motivation as well.

 

[Detective Conan]

I'm still not happy about what they did to Zemo. Yeah they did those things, but they aren't always true to the characters' background in the comics.

And they also completely changed Thanos' backstory and motivation as well.

Dude, I swear in every Thanos appearance in the MCU prior to Infinity War it seemed to me that his characterization was going to be the grinning psychopath of the comics but then they did a complete 180 in Infinity War and took his character in a totally different direction to the point he became a different character.

 

[MbJ]

Yeah they did those things, but they aren't always true to the characters' background in the comics.

So basically, "they don't keep stuff from the comics except for all those times when they do."

And they also completely changed Thanos' backstory and motivation as well.

Ah yes. Thanos in that movie was completely unrecognizable, obviously. They changed him to a businessman/hacker named Thanos Jones.

 

[Zarex]

I'm still not happy about what they did to Zemo. Yeah they did those things, but they aren't always true to the characters' background in the comics.

And they also completely changed Thanos' backstory and motivation as well.

Wiping out half the universe in order to save those who are left was a direct lift from the Silver Surfer comic that preceded Thanos Quest. His dysfunctional fatherly relationship with Gamora and cruelty towards Nebula came right from the comics as well.

Dude, I swear in every Thanos appearance in the MCU prior to Infinity War it seemed to me that his characterization was going to be the grinning psychopath of the comics but then they did a complete 180 in Infinity War and took his character in a totally different direction to the point he became a different character.

I LOVE the emotionally stunted Mad Titan from the comics. But we probably wouldn't be talking about Brolin's version as an all timer if Feige and company didn't put a more sympathetic version onscreen.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

They say that. But they still did this to Zemo:

Easy for them to say that. But let's see if they'd actually do it that way when push came to shove.

I doubt the MCU would screw up Doom, considering how popular he is. They’ve been doing a decent job on their villains recently so I’m willing to give them a chance. In any case, it can’t be any worse than FOX’s two attempts.

 

[honestbharani]

THAT Zemo was a better villain than both Dr. Dooms done by Fox.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I doubt the MCU would screw up Doom, considering how popular he is.

It is much more palatable to change a relatively minor character. I just don't understand why, when a filmmaker wants to tell a story very different from the comics, they don't simply create a new character.

I think they believe they're servicing the fans by using a name from the comics, but it's really the opposite.

I suspect the Russo's may have learned something from the fan response to Zemo. I don't think they have the kind of arrogant view Kinberg has in which, when fans complain, they're the ones who are wrong.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

In fairness to Fox, they did originally have Tim Blake Nelson's character named Harvey Elder and at least had the wisdom to change it to "Dr. Allen" before release.

… not that that was enough to save the film.

 

[1627523]

http://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2018/06/15/avengers-infinity-war-doctor-doom-movie-writers/

How the IW would address Doom in the MCU

Noah Hawley's take sounds better IMO. The IW writers are great, but I doubt they could write something like Legion. I'm not trying to hate, but Noah sounds WAY more exciting.

 

[Zarex]

Noah Hawley's take sounds better IMO. The IW writers are great, but I doubt they could write something like Legion. I'm not trying to hate, but Noah sounds WAY more exciting.

Legion looks great and is certainly different. But too much of it seems to screaming "Ain't I Clever?" and it's impossible to become invested in anything that happens based on its shifting reality. Hawley's talented, but I wouldn't hire a Doom: Origins writer (actually, I would never do a Dr. Doom prequel at all) based on a wacky show like Legion.

 

[ImSGirl95]

Yeah, I prefer Fargo way much. And yeah the idea of a whole origins Doom movie is not that good either.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Noah Hawley's take sounds better IMO. The IW writers are great, but I doubt they could write something like Legion. I'm not trying to hate, but Noah sounds WAY more exciting.

McFeely said: "One: I would do the thing that they never do which is to stick to the comic book and make him the king of his own country and have a big metal helmet on," Markus said. "He looks like Darth Vader. It works in Star Wars, just do it again. They're like, 'He's an American scientist who is jealous of their relationship.' No! He's a nut-bag with a metal mask!"


Hawley says: “What’s interesting to me about Doom’s character is he’s the king of an Eastern European country and is there a version of this that is more of a political thriller that mixes genre.” Hawley mused further on the inner-workings of the character, asking, “Is he a hero? Is he a villain? What does he really want?”


How does Hawley's take sound "way more exciting"? Neither statement really says much. Either could be great. Either could suck.


And just for comparison, here's another statement: “I had to go dark, and mix it with lighter moments. One minute you’re laughing, the next minute you’re shooting a hole in someone… I had to show that Von Doom could destroy people and on the other side I had to show the human qualities of the characters.” That's from Tim Story. It's easy to say something that sounds good, harder to actually make it work.


Based on history, if Marvel is involved, there's a good chance it will be great. If Fox is involved, there's a good chance it will suck.

 

[Big Bang]

Even with an immediate capital gains tax, 18% more money is still more money. And don't forget that stock-to-stock is "tax deferred" rather than completely un-taxed.
If Disney doesn't make a higher bid, the only Fox shareholders who could benefit from taking the worse deal would be the Murdochs.

That depends on how you look at it. 18% more cash against the current value of Fox. The tax deferent rate would be based on the value of the combined company, and the key part that there is that the tax applies when capital gains is acquired (i.e. those shares are sold). The latter part the individual shareholder has direct control over vs. taking the immediate hit, whether or not they are prepared for it. It boils down to the level of control each shareholder wants to exert over their investment. There is potential for those shareholders to make gains even higher than what Comcast will bid. Long game vs short. The Murdochs being the biggest holders obviously stand to get the biggest hit, but all holders stand to gain by taking shares in the combined entity. It comes down to how the holders want to progress, but right now I'd gather that Comcast is worried they are still slanted toward Disney's proposal given the lengths they have announced they are prepared to go already.

The tax implications are a key detail that could make a bigger difference than anybody seems to think at the moment (and would certainly be something the board could use to justify going with the Disney bid in any case).

It is a bit complicated though: Some investors may prefer taking the hit now. If we imagine somebody bought the stock at $15, they’re going to get hit with a hefty capital gains tax bill. But they’re also going to sell the Disney stock at some point, and then they’ll still get hit with the original capital gains plus additional capital gains on Disney’s side. Even with the hit, some investors may want to ‘cash out’ now and start fresh in terms of additional capital gains down the road.

And then on the other side, there are some investors who bought the stock at a price above the current value ( though if the bids continue to go up, those investors will get rarer and rarer). For those people there would actually be a tax advantage with a loss they could apply against other gains for 2018.

It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall of the board, and the shareholders who have the rest of the voting power, and hear what is being discussed. There is obviously going to be a mix of both sides that want either the cash or the stock. I think one of the deciding points is going to be the value in the combined entity. Each of the investors' stake could in theory become more valuable than what they've been offered by Comcast. Part of that is going to depend on Disney's performance, post merger, should they prevail. It's a risk with either decision, but they all knew that before buying shares in either (or both) organization(s).

 

[1627523]

McFeely said: "One: I would do the thing that they never do which is to stick to the comic book and make him the king of his own country and have a big metal helmet on," Markus said. "He looks like Darth Vader. It works in Star Wars, just do it again. They're like, 'He's an American scientist who is jealous of their relationship.' No! He's a nut-bag with a metal mask!"


Hawley says: “What’s interesting to me about Doom’s character is he’s the king of an Eastern European country and is there a version of this that is more of a political thriller that mixes genre.” Hawley mused further on the inner-workings of the character, asking, “Is he a hero? Is he a villain? What does he really want?”


How does Hawley's take sound "way more exciting"? Neither statement really says much. Either could be great. Either could suck.


And just for comparison, here's another statement: “I had to go dark, and mix it with lighter moments. One minute you’re laughing, the next minute you’re shooting a hole in someone… I had to show that Von Doom could destroy people and on the other side I had to show the human qualities of the characters.” That's from Tim Story. It's easy to say something that sounds good, harder to actually make it work.


Based on history, if Marvel is involved, there's a good chance it will be great. If Fox is involved, there's a good chance it will suck.

Noah is WAY more credible than Tim Story. Noah Hawley actually has the experience and track record to back up what he says. He's also more versatile than the IW writers seem to be. Marcus and Mcfeely are pretty much relegated to action/fantasy movies while Noah seems to have the more different genres. I think they would both do a good representation of Doom, but Noah seems like he could take it to TDK level.

 

[Detective Conan]

Hawley says: “What’s interesting to me about Doom’s character is he’s the king of an Eastern European country and is there a version of this that is more of a political thriller that mixes genre.” Hawley mused further on the inner-workings of the character, asking, “Is he a hero? Is he a villain? What does he really want?”
How does Hawley's take sound "way more exciting"? Neither statement really says much. Either could be great. Either could suck.

Its funny since he cites the MCU film Winter Solider as an example of a political thriller mixing genre(as well as looking at as inspiration).

 

[Detective Conan]

Noah is WAY more credible than Tim Story. Noah Hawley actually has the experience and track record to back up what he says. He's also more versatile than the IW writers seem to be. Marcus and Mcfeely are pretty much relegated to action/fantasy movies while Noah seems to have the more different genres. I think they would both do a good representation of Doom, but Noah seems like he could take it to TDK level.

As much as I'd like to see MCU Doom I'd be curious to see a movie version of this.

[YT]Yx9P_37Xdj4[/YT]

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Noah is WAY more credible than Tim Story. Noah Hawley actually has the experience and track record to back up what he says. He's also more versatile than the IW writers seem to be. Marcus and Mcfeely are pretty much relegated to action/fantasy movies while Noah seems to have the more different genres. I think they would both do a good representation of Doom, but Noah seems like he could take it to TDK level.

I loved both Fargo and Legion, but I have concerns that what I like in those shows might not translate.

First off, the style and story-telling involved in a 13 episode TV series is vastly different than a big-budget feature film. Can Hawley make the leap? Maybe, but it is a risk because he's never done a film before.

There's also a key phrase that McFeely said that I haven't heard in any form from Hawley: "I would do the thing that they never do which is to stick to the comic book". Does Hawley know and like and respect the Doom from the comics or is he simply going to use the name and create a political thriller that has no relation to the character we want to see? Until I hear more from him, I don't know.


And that brings up the final and most important point: If Hawley is working for Marvel, I can't wait. because Marvel has shown they understand the characters and respect the characters and the final film will feature the comic-book character. If they were behind Hawley, I'd know the film would be based on the comic books.


Fox has shown contempt for the comic books and an unwillingness to do the things necessary to pay tribute to the comics. As long as Hawley is working for Fox (or Comcast), I have no faith the final product will be anything close to what I want to see.


Josh Trank showed a lot of talent with Chronicle. And I believe to this day, if Trank had been working for Marvel, they would have given him the guidance and support and surrounding talent (production design, etc) that he could have made a great FF film. But we saw what happened when he was working with Fox.


I have no reason to believe Hawley won't have his talent squandered in a similar way if he's working for Fox (or Comcast).

 

[honestbharani]

Its funny since he cites the MCU film Winter Solider as an example of a political thriller mixing genre(as well looking at as inspiration).

Yep and in case people have not made the connection, WS was written Markus and McFeely, the men who had suggested an alternate way to handle the character.

To be completely honest, I do not really feel either Hawley's or M&M's interpretations will be that mutually exclusive.