The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[DyfeddRex]

Same here... plus I'd love to see what Vibranium does on contact with Adamantium.

If memory serves me right... you get a certain frisbee, one that won't break like in Tony's Scarlet Witch induced nightmare.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Spider-Verse taught us that ANYONE can wear the mask. What makes you (insert Cap/Panther), makes you (Insert Cap/Panther). When Wolverine dies, X23 should take his place, Logan illustrated this perfectly by positioning Laura as the next Wolverine. Legacy characters exist for a reason -- these characters are symbols meant to represent an ideal/concept, they don't die with the current proprietor. That's what makes them so powerful and that's why kids from all walks of life see themselves in these characters. I'd argue that it would be a disservice to Steve Rogers' legacy to let the idea of Captain America die with him. Bucky is the perfect successor to carry on the legacy. The Falcon/Bucky show I'm hoping will end with Barnes realizing that he must honor Steve. And coming back to the movies as the new Captain Marvel

But X-23 was not advertised in Logan as Wolverine. She was advertised as X-23 in the movie, who was a clone. But there was not a hint of her adopting Logan's name and moniker. Bucky can carve his own legacy as Winter Soldier and Sam as Falcon. The second you put the name "Captain America" on there, they're living in Steve's shadow. This is a thing that is cool for fans and such, but I find this a disservice to their characters. You're trying to honor Steve Rogers by basically removing the chance for Bucky or Sam to carve their own legacies in their own identities. How does that serve Sam or Bucky? All that does is make people think "Gosh, I miss Steve Rogers." In the case of Into the Spider-Verse, Miles was created to be a legacy to Peter Parker in the Ultimate universe. Bucky and Sam were not created to that end. They got shoehorned into those roles because they killed Steve Rogers and wanted to move Captain America merch still. Also at this point, Bucky and Sam have been in many movies. Does it really feel like they earned that type of upgrade? Sam has barely been developed, and Cap's spent 2 movies saving Bucky from being arrested or killed for past mistakes. Bucky would be viewed as Captain America-lite. He would never get the development or importance Steve did. So there is no point in saddling him with a legacy he ultimately cannot live up to. Let him carve out his own legacy as Winter Soldier or White Wolf. That serves the character of Bucky better than a marketing gimmick of passing the mantle. Steve Rogers is Captain America. When he is gone, Captain America should go with him. 90% of legacy characters gain nothing by taking the mantle of a character we liked more.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Characters are characters. Full stop. Nobody views Dorothy Gale, Vito Corleone, and Han Solo "legacy characters". Why should it be any different for Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, or Bruce Banner?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I'm alright with whatever feige's plans are for when an actor eventually wants to hang it up for good

especially with the new acquisitions on the horizon, plenty of characters to plug in and take the spotlight

 

[WeaponXCII]

I'd also echo Spider-Fan's sentiments about "living in the shadows of other characters' legacies"; characters like Bucky and Falcon should be great in their own right.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Falcon and Winter Soldier are far more interesting as Falcon and Winter Soldier than as Captain America Jr. You're taking away something that makes than stand out on their own, and killing that just to make them an imitation of somebody else.

I also think it sends a bad message. That these characters (often visible minorities) aren't "real heroes" unless they are pretending to be some other guy/girl (usually white) and stealing his/her look, name, and mannerisms.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Whatever.

I just hope we get a MCU Quentin Quire and they start selling official “Magneto Was Right” graphic t’s.

 

[Robin's Gambit]

I enjoyed Batman Beyond back in the day. It's one of the few legacy character adaptations that I ever got behind. Really liked it, thought it honored Bruce correctly, he was in every episode, thought Terry McGinnis was great...but at the end of the day...Bruce Wayne is Batman. And no matter how good the writing on the show was or even how good of a character Terry was, Terry was never viewed as THE Batman. Falcon or Bucky as Cap would be messy. And in this case this is live-action we're talking about. The general audience knows Chris Evans is Steve Rogers and Steve Rogers is Captain America. What's the point of even doing it? Just so either of them can be dubbed as an inferior version? It would serve them well to just stay the Falcon and the Winter Soldier/White Wolf. Into The Spider-Verse, like Beyond, is pleasurable-enough as an animated spin-off but unless Peter Parker goes away entirely for a decade, Miles, Ham, Peni, etc. will never be the definitive versions of Spiderman. Same with X-23 and Wolverine. Same with Jane Foster as Thor.

Why be the second-version, the girl-version, the black-version, or the gay-version of an established hero when you can simply uplift an original character or create an original character with a mythology that is his or her own? Marvel has too big of a roaster to go that route, especially now with the impending acquisition.

Feige is a smart man and for the most part he's been faithful to the classic source material. When the X-Men arrive, I don't think I have to worry about waking up and reading about MCU Wolverine not being Logan and instead starting off with Laura Kinney (X-23) despite the virtue signaling and re-canons some want.

 

[HBarnill]

Falcon and Winter Soldier are far more interesting as Falcon and Winter Soldier than as Captain America Jr. You're taking away something that makes than stand out on their own, and killing that just to make them an imitation of somebody else.

I also think it sends a bad message. That these characters (often visible minorities) aren't "real heroes" unless they are pretending to be some other guy/girl (usually white) and stealing his/her look, name, and mannerisms.

What’s your thoughts on that new Spidey movie?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I enjoyed Batman Beyond back in the day. It's one of the few legacy character adaptations that I ever got behind. Really liked it, thought it honored Bruce correctly, he was in every episode, thought Terry McGinnis was great...but at the end of the day...Bruce Wayne is Batman. And no matter how good the writing on the show was or even how good of a character Terry was, Terry was never viewed as THE Batman. Falcon or Bucky as Cap would be messy. And in this case this is live-action we're talking about. The general audience knows Chris Evans is Steve Rogers and Steve Rogers is Captain America. What's the point of even doing it? Just so either of them can be dubbed as an inferior version? It would serve them well to just stay the Falcon and the Winter Soldier/White Wolf. Into The Spider-Verse, like Beyond, is pleasurable-enough as an animated spin-off but unless Peter Parker goes away entirely for a decade, Miles, Ham, Peni, etc. will never be the definitive versions of Spiderman. Same with X-23 and Wolverine. Same with Jane Foster as Thor.

Why be the second-version, the girl-version, the black-version, or the gay-version of an established hero when you can simply uplift an original character or create an original character with a mythology that is his or her own? Marvel has too big of a roaster to go that route, especially now with the impending acquisition.

Feige is a smart man and for the most part he's been faithful to the classic source material. When the X-Men arrive, I don't think I have to worry about waking up and reading about MCU Wolverine not being Logan and instead starting off with Laura Kinney (X-23) despite the virtue signaling and re-canons some want.

This guy gets it!!!!

 

[Zarex]

The idea that people don't accept legacy characters has been proven wrong time and time again, including this year with hit movies "Ant Man and the Wasp" and "Into the Spiderverse" along with the ongoing "The Flash" and "Supergirl" and upcoming "Stargirl" TV show. I would prefer Bucky and Sam keep their day jobs, but it seems ridiculous to me that no one else should be allowed pick up the shield, wield the hammer or put on the armor after Evans, Hemsworth and Downey hang up their weaponry. Throw the old guys a party, give them a gold watch (or a burial) and after a respectable period of mourning let's see what the next generation can do.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The idea that people don't accept legacy characters has been proven wrong time and time again, including this year with hit movies "Ant Man and the Wasp" and "Into the Spiderverse" along with the ongoing "The Flash" and "Supergirl" and upcoming "Stargirl" TV show. I would prefer Bucky and Sam keep their day jobs, but it seems ridiculous to me that no one else should be allowed pick up the shield, wield the hammer or put on the armor after Evans, Hemsworth and Downey hang up their weaponry. Throw the old guys a party, give them a gold watch (or a burial) and after a respectable period of mourning let's see what the next generation can do.

I am not saying the new generation should not be given a chance to shine. I am saying though that these characters are better served forging their own identities. Bucky and Falcon can shine without being called Captain America. In fact, I think they're in a better position to succeed without that moniker. Give Captain America his gold watch, sure. But let someone like Captain Marvel take his place. Marvel is full of unexplored characters. We don't need to cling for dear life to the name "Captain America" or "Iron Man" at this point. We can build new characters with new legacies who fill that same void.

 

[Iceman]

From Bloomberg:

Fox won't bid for regional sports networks Disney may sell

 

[Abudefduf]

Some legacy characters are really good, though. In some respects they are even better than their predecessors

 

[Spider-Fan]

Some legacy characters are really good, though. In some respects they are even better than their inspirations

There are exceptions to every rule. But for every Miles Morales there is Jason Todd. Jason Todd was despised as Robin, but as Red Hood he is popular. John Walker was despised as Captain America. Ben Reilly despised as Spider-Man (loved as Scarlet Spider). We're arguing in Bucky's favor, but the fact he was Captain America is more discussed than anything he did as Captain America, and his run wasn't that long. Yeah, people loved Wally West, but they didn't like Kyle Rayner, Jean-Paul Valley, etc. Why attempt to use these characters that have an inherent disadvantage when you have unexplored people? Especially when Marvel has shown they can build new brands, and they're getting the FF/X-Men back and those alonse can fuel the MCU for years?

Cap, Iron Man, Thor, etc. They had their time. We loved and enjoyed it. Pass it on to new talent and forge ahead with something new.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Another thing we have to remember: The MCU puts out 3 movies a year. They may eventually do 4. All these movies lately are making like $800 mil. You know why we got legacy Flash, Batman, etc? It's because comics have less books that sell and last, so they had to keep those books running to stay in business. Comics don't net a company $800 mil internationally. They make far less money on a comic book. The MCU has proven they can make money without Cap, Iron Man, etc. They don't need those IPs to stay afloat. So there is no need for legacies to them. Especially when a company like Marvel or DC can have 20 or more on-going comic titles that come out monthly, but the MCU has 3 or 4 movies a year. That means space is at more of a premium.

 

[WeaponXCII]

From Bloomberg:

What implications does this have for the deal? I'm trying to recall all the facts, but nothing seems to come to mind....

 

[Iceman]

What implications does this have for the deal? I'm trying to recall all the facts, but nothing seems to come to mind....

I don't think it makes much of a difference to the deal, but means one less major bidder for Disney's rights that they need to sell as part of the condition of the deal going through. Here's some more details, again from Bloomberg:

The new television-focused Fox emerging from 21st Century Fox Inc's sale of entertainment assets to Walt Disney Co. said it won't bid for the regional sports networks might sell as part of an antitrust agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.

• Under the agreement, Disney must sell 22 Fox regional sports networks, which hold television rights to 44 professional basketball, baseball and hockey teams, including the Green Bay Packers and the Atlanta Braves.

Key Insights

• The decision removes the new Fox from the array of potential bidders circling the sports networks. The assets had preliminary interest from media and technology companies including Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., YouTube Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., as well as buyout firms such as Blackstone Group LP, CVC Capital Partners and Apollo Global Management LLC, people familiar with the matter said last year.
• The New York Yankees have the right to buy the YES Network, and are moving ahead with plans to line up financing from several strategic investors, a person familiar with the matter said in November.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If I recall, they didn't have to sell anything off until something like 60 days after the deal closes with the possibilities of extensions beyond that. Correct? So I don't think anything related to sale of the sports channels will hold up the closing.

 

[WeaponXCII]

I don't think it makes much of a difference to the deal, but means one less major bidder for Disney's rights that they need to sell as part of the condition of the deal going through. Here's some more details, again from Bloomberg:

If I recall, they didn't have to sell anything off until something like 60 days after the deal closes with the possibilities of extensions beyond that. Correct? So I don't think anything related to sale of the sports channels will hold up the closing.

Cool. Yeah, the details are coming back to me now. Thanks for the info, guys.

 

[KBX]

The Disney-21st Century Fox transaction is expected to close by early March.

Fox Confirms It Won’t Bid on Disney’s Regional Sports Networks

 

[Zarex]

There are exceptions to every rule. But for every Miles Morales there is Jason Todd. Jason Todd was despised as Robin, but as Red Hood he is popular. John Walker was despised as Captain America. Ben Reilly despised as Spider-Man (loved as Scarlet Spider). We're arguing in Bucky's favor, but the fact he was Captain America is more discussed than anything he did as Captain America, and his run wasn't that long. Yeah, people loved Wally West, but they didn't like Kyle Rayner, Jean-Paul Valley, etc. Why attempt to use these characters that have an inherent disadvantage when you have unexplored people? Especially when Marvel has shown they can build new brands, and they're getting the FF/X-Men back and those alonse can fuel the MCU for years?

Cap, Iron Man, Thor, etc. They had their time. We loved and enjoyed it. Pass it on to new talent and forge ahead with something new.

The impact of legacy characters is quite a bit larger than that. We've had two critically well received BO hits starring legacy characters this year (AMATW, SM:ITSV) and we're (probably) getting another one next year with Captain Marvel. Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Johnny Storm, Carol Danvers, Scott Lang, Hope Van Dyne, Miles Morales, Kamala Khan, Courtney Whitmore, America Chavez, Damien Wayne, Jaime Reyes and Kate Bishop are all legacies that either have made a big impact in the comics or are coming soon to a screen near you.

I don't know see why Feige and company can't do both - introduce exciting new characters while putting a fresh coat of paint on old favorites. It's a WIN WIN!

 

[Spider-Fan]

The impact of legacy characters is quite a bit larger than that. We've had two critically well received BO hits starring legacy characters this year (AMATW, SM:ITSV) and we're (probably) getting another one next year with Captain Marvel. Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Johnny Storm, Carol Danvers, Scott Lang, Hope Van Dyne, Miles Morales, Kamala Khan, Courtney Whitmore, America Chavez, Damien Wayne, Jaime Reyes and Kate Bishop are all legacies that either have made a big impact in the comics or are coming soon to a screen near you.

I don't know see why Feige and company can't do both - introduce exciting new characters while putting a fresh coat of paint on old favorites. It's a WIN WIN!

Here is a major difference though: Hope Van Dyne is a legacy, but we never saw a movie with Janet as Wasp. So effectively, she is MCU Wasp. Janet is merely backstory the audience never saw, therefore is not attached to. Same can be said Miles. While Spider-Man has had movies, there was no attachment to THAT Spider-Man. Captain Marvel will be same deal. Even if Mar-Vell is in the movie, he has never been a featured character. We have nearly 9 movies of Cap, Thor, Iron Man, etc. It's not the same thing. You're competing with well established legacies, not adding them as backstory no one ever saw. Same thing for Hal, Scott, Barry, etc. There has not been a true legacy character in one of these movies. Meaning they took the mantle from someone we had seen carrying that mantle for movie(s) prior to them taking it over. Plus, the MCU doesn't need to do it. There is so much material to mine. There is not 20 on-going comics at 1 time where 5 books pay for all of them. All these characters are creating their own brands. Let them.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The Disney-21st Century Fox transaction is expected to close by early March.

Fox Confirms It Won’t Bid on Disney’s Regional Sports Networks

That's the first time I've seen anybody put anything that specific on it, but they just throw it out there without any attribution.

I wonder where exactly that "early March" estimate is coming from. That's pretty close to the late February I've been assuming, but I'd love to hear something official.

 

[Zarex]

Here is a major difference though: Hope Van Dyne is a legacy, but we never saw a movie with Janet as Wasp. So effectively, she is MCU Wasp. Janet is merely backstory the audience never saw, therefore is not attached to. Same can be said Miles. While Spider-Man has had movies, there was no attachment to THAT Spider-Man. Captain Marvel will be same deal. Even if Mar-Vell is in the movie, he has never been a featured character. We have nearly 9 movies of Cap, Thor, Iron Man, etc. It's not the same thing. You're competing with well established legacies, not adding them as backstory no one ever saw.

I can see you point with Carol, but OG Ant Man was in the same movie with (relative) newbie Scott. And while some comic readers threatened to reject Old Man Pym, that didn't happen. Miles was introduced into an environment in which Peter Parker IS Spider-Man. Until Miles Morales was Spider-Man, and the audiences thought this was pretty great.

I have no doubt some superhero movie fans are going to B and M when Eli Bradley picks up the shield, Kate Bishop pulls on the bow and Riri Williams puts on the armor. I don't think it will be the problem you are expecting it to be.