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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Atlantis wouldn't be gone; like Asgard, it's a people, not a place. Back in 1962, it had only been partially destroyed (or an outpost was), while most of the populace had survived the city's destruction and moved to another site. In the panels I posted, Namor said that his people had dispersed and he couldn't find them in the vastness of the ocean. Eventually, he found Atlantis and fought that wretched jerk Atuma, but that came later. The point is that Namor would retake the throne sometime after regaining his memories and have the Atlantean army at his back for his war on the surface world.

Namor also has a bunch of deep sea monstrosities he can command to wreak havoc on ports and maritime traffic. With his powers, he could do a lot of damage on his own.

But if Namor is ruling an undersea kingdom and riding sea monsters, the MCU has 2nd Place Aquaman. I would prefer MCU Atlantis be in ruins to differentiate between the characters.
 
But if Namor is ruling an undersea kingdom and riding sea monsters, the MCU has 2nd Place Aquaman. I would prefer MCU Atlantis be in ruins to differentiate between the characters.

I haven't seen it yet. Does Aquaman have "monsters". I've seen sharks etc., but if they didn't use the kind of "monsters" we've seen associate with Namor, that's a way they could set him apart.

But I say just use him to tell the stories Kevin Feige wants to tell. If people complain, it gives an opportunity to remind them Namor predated Aquaman.
 
I haven't seen it yet. Does Aquaman have "monsters". I've seen sharks etc., but if they didn't use the kind of "monsters" we've seen associate with Namor, that's a way they could set him apart.

But I say just use him to tell the stories Kevin Feige wants to tell. If people complain, it gives an opportunity to remind them Namor predated Aquaman.

Yes.
 
Namor would be a different character entirely to Aquaman. He's not a "bro" like Jason Momoa. He would be more of an arrogant anti hero whom we might even think could be a villain.

There have been several films over the years that have come out within a short time of each other that are very similar. There was White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. Or Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. And many others.

Even if people think Marvel is copying DC at first, the thing is that if Namor did well and were more critically acclaimed, then it wouldn't really matter. People would simply remember that it is the better film and connected to a richer universe.

I think they shouldn't do a Namor solo first anyway. Have him appear as a seeming villain in another movie like a Fantastic Four film. At first it would seem that he's just attacking the surface world for the sake of it. Eventually it would be revealed that the surface world are actually the ones at fault and that Namor was merely defending his territory. Later on Marvel can put out a Namor solo once his character has been established.
 
Exactly. Namor could just use his aquatic powers to try and just drown the damn world for how we pollute the waters, how we take the environment for granted until MCU Sue Storm gives him a talking to and he comes to a realization.

All this after a few cool battles with the Fantastic Four of course.


Namor would be a different character entirely to Aquaman. He's not a "bro" like Jason Momoa. He would be more of an arrogant anti hero whom we might even think could be a villain.

There have been several films over the years that have come out within a short time of each other that are very similar. There was White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. Or Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. And many others.

Even if people think Marvel is copying DC at first, the thing is that if Namor did well and were more critically acclaimed, then it wouldn't really matter. People would simply remember that it is the better film and connected to a richer universe.

I think they shouldn't do a Namor solo first anyway. Have him appear as a seeming villain in another movie like a Fantastic Four film. At first it would seem that he's just attacking the surface world for the sake of it. Eventually it would be revealed that the surface world are actually the ones at fault and that Namor was merely defending his territory. Later on Marvel can put out a Namor solo once his character has been established.
 
If anything the success of Aquaman might make Universal more open to negotiate something with Marvel. So this could work in our favour. You wont be able to avoid comparisons with aquaman. But it would be cool to finally see him brought to the big screen.
 
If you ask me, Marvel is actually at an advantage when it comes to Namor with Aquaman coming out first, since they can look back at it and see what worked and what didn't (I haven't seen it yet, so maybe someone else can speak to the specifics?), and hopefully craft a better film for it.

And this idea that Marvel can't do Namor now because DC did Aquaman is tired and absurd. Is Marvel not able to do Dark Avengers because DC did Suicide Squad? I don't know, maybe there's a better comparison, but I don't think that idea needs more attention. That might've come across more hostile than intended- don't mean to alienate anyone.

In any case, I have little to no doubt that Marvel will at some point put the spotlight on Namor like they have with all the others- and when they do, it'll be just as amazing.
 
It really doesn't matter if there are comparisons. Sometimes the original is better. Other times the copy or the one that followed after is considered better. It allows for different tastes.

Look at things like Star Trek Discovery and the Orville. Both came out around the same time. STD had a higher critic score but a lower audience score while the Orville was vice versa.

Or what about 2 versions of "Let it Go". One by Idina Menzel and one by Demi Lovato. Both were official. Different audiences like different things.

There were several movies made about 9/11 in the wake of the attacks, all coming out within a short space of each other.

Also there was Armageddon and Deep Impact, or Volcano and Dante's Peak, and many others.

It's typical to have 2 movies similar to each other that come out one after the other.

There were even two movies called "Black Rain" that came out in the same year (1989), both about Japan.
 
It really doesn't matter if there are comparisons. Sometimes the original is better. Other times the copy or the one that followed after is considered better. It allows for different tastes.

Look at things like Star Trek Discovery and the Orville. Both came out around the same time. STD had a higher critic score but a lower audience score while the Orville was vice versa.

Or what about 2 versions of "Let it Go". One by Idina Menzel and one by Demi Lovato. Both were official. Different audiences like different things.

There were several movies made about 9/11 in the wake of the attacks, all coming out within a short space of each other.

Also there was Armageddon and Deep Impact, or Volcano and Dante's Peak, and many others.

It's typical to have 2 movies similar to each other that come out one after the other.

There were even two movies called "Black Rain" that came out in the same year (1989), both about Japan.

Exactly. BVS came out before Civil War, but it was CW that made more money despite having a somewhat similar hero vs hero theme. However, Feige will have to be careful to distinguish Namor from Aquaman, and have him appear in other movies first before his own, so people will see the difference between the two. Besides, Namor did came out in 1939, two years before Aquaman in the comics.
 
Question: If Universal wanted to, could they make a Namor or Hulk movie like Sony could with Spidey or would they need Disney to okay it?
 
Question: If Universal wanted to, could they make a Namor or Hulk movie like Sony could with Spidey or would they need Disney to okay it?
There are the “film production” rights and there are “film distribution” rights.

Film production rights are the most important ones, as they’re the ones that dictate whether you can actually, you know, produce a film with an intellectual property. Marvel Studios currently has the film production rights to Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy, while Sony owns the film production rights to Spider-Man and Fox owns the film production rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. Marvel owns the film production rights to the Hulk, which is why they’re able to use him in the Avengers.

Film distribution rights, however, are a whole other thing that is still quite important. Distribution rights are the right to actually put the film into theaters. They make the film prints of the film, they make the deals with the theaters and they make the final call on the release date of the film and how the film is relased (video on demand, etc.). Not a lot of people out there can actually distribute a film. It is a very expensive undertaking, so pretty much only the major film studios can afford to do it. Marvel Studios, when they first started in the business of producing their own films, could not afford to do it. Therefore, they worked out a deal with Paramount Studios to distribute their Marvel Studios films such as Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The First Avenger. The distributor gets a percentage of the film’s box office (plus expenses typically) in exchange for distributing the movie. Universal Pictures, however, has a different deal. They initially had the film production rights on the Hulk, as they produced the 2003 Hulk film. The film production rights eventually reverted to Marvel, who produced 2008’s Incredible Hulk. Universal, though, continued to distribute the film under a deal where Universal would get the first chance to distribute any future Hulk movies.
 
Exactly. BVS came out before Civil War, but it was CW that made more money despite having a somewhat similar hero vs hero theme. However, Feige will have to be careful to distinguish Namor from Aquaman, and have him appear in other movies first before his own, so people will see the difference between the two. Besides, Namor did came out in 1939, two years before Aquaman in the comics.

Exactly. If Namor shows up as a character in FF - Kind of mysterious... kind of a villain - without us seeing his home and origin etc., he's going to feel very different from Aquaman. And then, as we slowly learn more about him, we'll want to learn more. Nobody is going to object 4 films in when we start to learn more about him and say: "Wait a minute! This guy is starting to look too similar to Aquaman.

I grew up with both characters, and never really thought much about them being too similar. Just like I didn't spend a lot of time worrying about the similarities between Thor and Hercules or any of 1000 characters we could compare and contrast.
 
I am very much interested in seeing Namor onscreen, but I think it would be a big mistake to introduce him within an "Aquaman-y" fantasy undersea environment. I wouldn't be opposed to Mr. McKenzie finding survivors at some point and using his wealth to rebuild his former kingdom. But I would bring him into the MCU as a ruthless billionaire leader of industry with ankle wings.
 
Superheroes rescue Hollywood's box office
Despite threats from streaming services and an overall feeling that Hollywood is bereft of new ideas, the movie industry turned in its best year ever in 2018, with the United States leading the way to almost US$42 billion (S$57.4 billion) in global ticket sales.


zJ90jBh.png


:ftc:
 
Aquaman was a lot of fun but who'd it thought it was going to become a near billion dollar grosser?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if they might change Namor's origin slightly so it dont have to deal with comparisons to Atlantis. Could they change it so Namor is of Wakanda origin? You could hint at Atlantis if you really wanted to but i feel like there would be complaints that marvel ripped of Aquaman.

You could do a story line where you think Namor is of Wakanda origin and is rescued by Tchalla and given a safe haven in Wakanda after atlantis is "destroyed" eventually someone from Atlantis comes to Wakanda to find Namor and reveals his origin and tries to turn Namor against Wakanda to start a war. Namor forgot atlantis after whacking his head. And Tchalla lies and tells him it was destroyed creating friction between the two nations. Black Panther 3 would be atlantis vs wakanda at the centre of the conflict is namor and tchalla.

p.s its new years eve i might be a bit tipsy haha.
 
I wonder if they might change Namor's origin slightly so it dont have to deal with comparisons to Atlantis. Could they change it so Namor is of Wakanda origin? You could hint at Atlantis if you really wanted to but i feel like there would be complaints that marvel ripped of Aquaman.

You could do a story line where you think Namor is of Wakanda origin and is rescued by Tchalla and given a safe haven in Wakanda after atlantis is "destroyed" eventually someone from Atlantis comes to Wakanda to find Namor and reveals his origin and tries to turn Namor against Wakanda to start a war. Namor forgot atlantis after whacking his head. And Tchalla lies and tells him it was destroyed creating friction between the two nations. Black Panther 3 would be atlantis vs wakanda at the centre of the conflict is namor and tchalla.

p.s its new years eve i might be a bit tipsy haha.


tenor.gif
 
My head hurts a bit this morning. But its January 1st here happy new year folks. If NBC was right the Disney-Fox deal should close this month!
 
My head hurts a bit this morning. But its January 1st here happy new year folks. If NBC was right the Disney-Fox deal should close this month!
If it does, no question we get some kind of mention of Galactus or Doom after the credits of End game. All this talk Feige has about not made any plans are BS. They had a script on hand for Civil War just in case Spiderman was available and low and behold he was. Fantastic Four is tailor made for Disney and we all know Marvel got something for giving Fox the X-men TV rights. I still say Gunn was wrong and that guy they showed with the power stone was Galactus in the pre-universe.
 
I wonder when they're going to introduce characters like the Sentry, Spider-Woman, Ares and She-Hulk. I'm guessing they're gonna be introducing Cassie/Stinger in Endgame since they cast an older actress and then establishing Kate Bishop in the Hawkeye spinoff on Disney+ (Maybe that's who Katherine Langford is playing)

Also, if Marvel ever introduces Norman in the MCU - Michael C. Hall (Dexter) would be my ideal choice for the role. Really hope we get Dark Reign one day with a revamped Iron Patriot, Moonstone, Ares, Bullseye-Hawkeye and Sentry.
 
It makes no sense to me that they are seriously thinking about Eternals over other characters.
 
It makes no sense to me that they are seriously thinking about Eternals over other characters.

Yeah. I can't imagine Feige thinking "We're getting the FF and the X-Men back. Classic characters with so many stories. I know! Let's do Eternals!"
 
Same could (and was) said about Guardians of the Galaxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"