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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would perfer new actors to replace characters, so that these stories can carry onward without any changes to the history as we have come to know it, though difficult if Marvel is keeping the years as "real time"...
 
:up: 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.
I think Disney and Fox are still using first half of 2019 as a safe bet since they do not want shareholders to be pissed if they say closes at the end of this month but does not.
 
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.

But again, that is not the same thing. Hank Pym was Ant-Man in backstory only. What film prior to Ant-Man showed him as Ant-Man? He never had one. Therefore to the audience, he was never really Ant-Man. Into the Spider-Verse created a new continuity where Miles took the mantle. But Into the Spider-Verse is not based in an old continuity. It creates its own new world. We never saw THAT Peter Parker before Into the Spider-Verse. Hank Pym never had a solo film before Ant-Man. So it's not like saying "Hey, this guy who got maybe 40 mins of screen time in all these movies. He's Captain America now, and the guy you loved for 9 movies is gone." And again, why even do this? We're getting the FF, the X-Men, etc. Don't you want to see movies based on new and exciting characters rather than Diet Captain America? Do we want to waste a slot on a character people are not going to love or respect like they did Steve Rogers? I don't see the point at all.
 
But again, that is not the same thing. Hank Pym was Ant-Man in backstory only. What film prior to Ant-Man showed him as Ant-Man? He never had one. Therefore to the audience, he was never really Ant-Man. Into the Spider-Verse created a new continuity where Miles took the mantle. But Into the Spider-Verse is not based in an old continuity. It creates its own new world. We never saw THAT Peter Parker before Into the Spider-Verse. Hank Pym never had a solo film before Ant-Man. So it's not like saying "Hey, this guy who got maybe 40 mins of screen time in all these movies. He's Captain America now, and the guy you loved for 9 movies is gone." And again, why even do this? We're getting the FF, the X-Men, etc. Don't you want to see movies based on new and exciting characters rather than Diet Captain America? Do we want to waste a slot on a character people are not going to love or respect like they did Steve Rogers? I don't see the point at all.

I would like to see both, and I don't see it as "wasting a slot". The next Captain America (or Thor, or Iron Man) is not doomed to be the diet version that no one could possibly love or respect. If the characters are well portrayed, people will embrace them. As they clearly have done with Miles Morales.
 
I would like to see both, and I don't see it as "wasting a slot". The next Captain America (or Thor, or Iron Man) is not doomed to be the diet version that no one could possibly love or respect. If the characters are well portrayed, people will embrace them. As they clearly have done with Miles Morales.

But Miles didn't spend 6 movies getting barely any development. There is a clear difference. We have much more interesting stories to tell outside of Bucky becoming Captain America. I'd rather see us explore the depth of the MCU, rather than try to live off the same 3 or 4 properties with characters I know won't get the same level of care. You know how I know? Because we already know Bucky and Falcon are getting a show for Disney+. Not a 150-200 million movie that will be seen theatrically. That's his place: second banana.
 
I would perfer new actors to replace characters, so that these stories can carry onward without any changes to the history as we have come to know it, though difficult if Marvel is keeping the years as "real time"...

I'm in this camp as well. In the comics, all characters exist at once and they can pop in and out of any story, and since the goal of the MCU should be to create, on film, something very close to what exists in the comics this is what I'd like to see. In the comics, if one artist leaves, a new one jumps in and adds their own flavor, and I'd like to see something similar with actors in the movies.

Time passage can create some problems (like when Reed Richards was still a WWII vet when that clearly wouldn't have made sense), but I think fans are willing to let some of those things slide and evolve without saying: "Wait a minute! In 2011...."
 
At the end of the day, what is another month or two? As long as it happens.
 
What’s your thoughts on that new Spidey movie?

Spider-Fan already beat me to the difference, so I will just quote him.

But again, that is not the same thing. Hank Pym was Ant-Man in backstory only. What film prior to Ant-Man showed him as Ant-Man? He never had one. Therefore to the audience, he was never really Ant-Man. Into the Spider-Verse created a new continuity where Miles took the mantle. But Into the Spider-Verse is not based in an old continuity. It creates its own new world. We never saw THAT Peter Parker before Into the Spider-Verse. Hank Pym never had a solo film before Ant-Man. So it's not like saying "Hey, this guy who got maybe 40 mins of screen time in all these movies. He's Captain America now, and the guy you loved for 9 movies is gone." And again, why even do this? We're getting the FF, the X-Men, etc. Don't you want to see movies based on new and exciting characters rather than Diet Captain America? Do we want to waste a slot on a character people are not going to love or respect like they did Steve Rogers? I don't see the point at all.

It is an apple and oranges comparison. There is a big difference between introducing a character as a legacy character right off the bat, compared to taking already well-established heroes with their own characters and personas and then altering them years later into a clone version of another already established popular, successful hero that audiences have loved for years. Even in the comics that rarely works. Once in a while it does, but the exceptions are far outweighed by the failures leading to the original hero taking up the mantle once again in short order.

Even then, how successful was Into the Spider-Verse really? Yes, it was a great film. Yes, it is winning awards and is beloved by critics. But it is also sitting at less than $300 million worldwide a month after release, which is by far the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever and it isn't even close. You can say it is because it was animated, but there was another animated superhero film that came out just six months ago featuring original characters that grossed over $1.2 BILLION worldwide, so that's a tough argument to make.
 
I can't say I wasn't hopeful for that final week of January closing report, but I feel the same- either way, I'm excited by the fact that it's going to be a reality soon enough.
 
I would perfer new actors to replace characters, so that these stories can carry onward without any changes to the history as we have come to know it, though difficult if Marvel is keeping the years as "real time"...

I would prefer that as well and eventually it will happen. There is just too much money in having Tony Stark and company on-screen. It could be 10-20 years and it might be after a reboot and after Feige is gone, but it WILL happen. Disney will demand it. This is the same company that is remaking all of their animated hits because they are proven to make money. Lots and lots of money.

But if they are going to be off-screen for awhile and have a movie about Bucky Barnes instead, there is far more potential in having a Winter Soldier movie (a character he is already well known and established as) than an imitation Captain America where he would always be in the shadow of the old version. Winter Soldier would also be different so it gets points on the originality front as well.
 
Huh? I thought it was end of January or even early Feb. Now how come it's early March? What other delays have cropped up?

As far as I know, official word is still "in the first half of 2019". I think anything beyond that is speculation along with evidence that things are happening quicker than expected.

I've generally been thinking the end of February has sounded right for a while, and the beginning of March isn't much different than the end of February.
 
There is just too much money in having Tony Stark and company on-screen.

This is a key point. And personally, I don't want to get to the point where $200 million of the budget is required to have the big stars and only $50 million is left for Special effects etc. There are thousands of talented actors out there who could play these roles. They may not be exactly the same character, but that will make it fun/interesting/constantly evolving - again, like the comic books.
 
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.

Completely agreed.
Though I wouldn't put Black Panther in the Capt. America/Iron Man/ Spider-Man bracket. The BP moniker/concept wasn't created by T'Challa, it's been around for a long time before T'Challa and will be around a long time after he's gone. Someone else taking up/earning the mantle is natural to the mythos.
That's the same kind of bracket I'd put Green Lantern in.

It's the self-made heroes I don't like becoming legacy acts.

Spider-Verse taught us that ANYONE can wear the mask.

That's a lesson I fundamentally disagree with. To put it in musical terms, I see most legacy characters as being akin to Tribute Bands. Sure you can dress up like [insert iconic band], and learn to play their music note for note, you can even make some money if you're really good at it, but you will never actually be the real deal. And all people are thinking of when they're listening to you play is the original band - "These guys are good... but they're not ______, ....man I wish I could go see a real _____ show right now."

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.

What makes Capt America is Steve Rogers. There is only one Steve Rogers.

Legacy characters exist for a reason --

Yep --> Money! :oldrazz:

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

The idea of Cap wouldn't die with him though. Jimi Hendrix's music didn't disappear when he died.


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.

Completely agreed. Bucky or Sam taking on the Capt America moniker is just pushing them into Steve's shadow and doing them a disservice because they will never be Steve Rogers. There's only one Gary King!

As you say, and I've said it before myself, it's a bad message to send. It's like, "hey kid, see that iconic hero up there? Yeah? Don't be you, be him." Being a pale imitation of someone else rather than the best version of yourself is not a good message.


Using the tribute band example again, which is better - Idolizing a band, say Metallica, and being inspired by them to go on to:
a) - Start a Metallica tribute band, dressing up like them and playing their songs
OR
b) - Start your own original band and write your own music.

For me it's option B, all day every day.
 
What's the likelihood of Disney/Marvel keeping on Simon Kinberg after the deal goes through? After all, he is a somewhat "respected" filmmaker in the business and has produced some things (like Disney's Cinderella). It's not like Disney haven't worked with him before.

I don't see them treating him like dirt and telling him he has absolutely no place now either in New Fox or Disney-Fox. But how much of a role would he even have? Would it be merely a token role or something actually significant?
 
No-one is going to want Black Panther substituted for Hulk for Wolverine's debut. Hulk vs Wolverine is too iconic.

And a Hulk movie with Wolverine can work. Hulk can be fighting Wendigo first and Wolverine will be after one of them, or maybe both of them. They can set it in the Canadian rockies, which would be a different setting to any of the MCU films so far. There's really a ton they can do with that story.
ConcreteLiquidGilamonster-size_restricted.gif

I would love to see a stand-alone Hulk movie with Wolverine...

But given the current landscape of the MCU, and seeing as how people involved in the MCU don't really rip one source of material anymore, I just don't see it as enough justification to bust out a Stand-alone Hulk movie for it. If I were to present a quick cameo or present an introduction to Wolverine soon to audience... he'll probably be served better in an encounter with Black Panther.

Maybe you see it... as you're probably hoping for a Hulk stand alone movie. But I'm not... I'm good with so many characters on our plate already.
 
What's the likelihood of Disney/Marvel keeping on Simon Kinberg after the deal goes through? After all, he is a somewhat "respected" filmmaker in the business and has produced some things (like Disney's Cinderella). It's not like Disney haven't worked with him before.

I don't see them treating him like dirt and telling him he has absolutely no place now either in New Fox or Disney-Fox. But how much of a role would he even have? Would it be merely a token role or something actually significant?

He may be fine as a producer. He just has no creative talent/ability. If I were Disney/Marvel, I'd offer him a job in which there was no real creative control. If that offended him, he could walk and the problem would be solved.
 
He may be fine as a producer. He just has no creative talent/ability. If I were Disney/Marvel, I'd offer him a job in which there was no real creative control. If that offended him, he could walk and the problem would be solved.

In that case, they can say tell him: "Simon, gofer or else!" If he thinks that's too menial, they can tell him "Simon, go fer a walk!" :o
 
ConcreteLiquidGilamonster-size_restricted.gif

I would love to see a stand-alone Hulk movie with Wolverine...

But given the current landscape of the MCU, and seeing as how people involved in the MCU don't really rip one source of material anymore, I just don't see it as enough justification to bust out a Stand-alone Hulk movie for it. If I were to present a quick cameo or present an introduction to Wolverine soon to audience... he'll probably be served better in an encounter with Black Panther.

Maybe you see it... as you're probably hoping for a Hulk stand alone movie. But I'm not... I'm good with so many characters on our plate already.
Hulk may not be around come time for Wolverine's debut in the 2020s. T'Challa/Black Panther will, so there may not be much of a choice.
 
As far as I know, official word is still "in the first half of 2019". I think anything beyond that is speculation along with evidence that things are happening quicker than expected.

I've generally been thinking the end of February has sounded right for a while, and the beginning of March isn't much different than the end of February.

yea look at this way. Brazil cant approve till January 30th at the earliest. Mexico and a few other regions are still TBD as far as we know. "By early March" doesnt rule out closing earlier though. Variety could just be playing it safe and not over estimating.

Last thing they want is to get in trouble for saying it closes in January then it doesnt. Thats why it was a throwaway line in that NBC article because they didnt have 100% confidence in the source.

And even if its not till early march that would mean the captain marvel press tour just got a lot more exciting. Feige should be able to talk more openly about the Fox franchises at that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,142
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"