The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 6

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]515437[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]512575[/split]

 

[Zant]

Mr. Miller got a lot of leeway from Marvel Studios because he has worked with them in the past - as recently as CA:CW - and also directed the excellent CGI shorts that introduced Iron Man to the public before his live action film debut. He was able to clear up an issue with NTW's power change by talking to Kevin Feige directly

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/One-Thing-Deadpool-Writers-Needed-Approval-From-Marvel-113837.html

I wonder if they would have given him so much leeway if they knew Deadpool would do so well.

Just watch as Fox shoehorns Deadpool into the Gambit and X-Force films or vice versa.

 

[Kanon]

Here is the article in Marvel.com that lists "the latest names to hit the MCU" and features "Legion"

Meet the Stars of San Diego Comic-Con 2016

https://marvel.com/cards/357/meet_the_stars_of_san_diego_comic-con_2016/all

Probably just an unfortunate way of wording things... But it's interesting to note that the X-Men show it's already reported to be out of the X-Men movies continuity

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Probably just an unfortunate way of wording things... But it's interesting to note that the X-Men show it's already reported to be out of the X-Men movies continuity

I heard that stated somewhat specifically in the past, but I haven't seen any specific explanation of what universe it is in.

It seems like Deadpool and Legion may be part of a new X-Men reality (which is badly needed IMO). It seems at this moment it could be in the MCU or it could be a new, unique X-Men world.

I think it would be smart to keep options open no matter what is or isn't going on behind the scenes.

 

[Zant]

Or maybe Legion is just in its own universe and not connected to the X films or the MCU. We will know soon enough.

 

[Kanon]

I heard that stated somewhat specifically in the past, but I haven't seen any specific explanation of what universe it is in.

It seems like Deadpool and Legion may be part of a new X-Men reality (which is badly needed IMO). It seems at this moment it could be in the MCU or it could be a new, unique X-Men world.

I think it would be smart to keep options open no matter what is or isn't going on behind the scenes.

Deadpool can be it's own thing with no problem. And I feel there should be more certaintity at this point about future X-Men movies. It's weird, so I don't discard the X-Men reboot in the MCU at all yet. And if X-Men movies are coming into the MCU, there is no way Fantastic Four isn't coming back too.

Legion showrunner Noah Hawley on ties to the X-Men movies

Where does it fit in the larger X-Men cinematic universe?

It's conceived more as a standalone. I don't want to say too much more about it on that level, but certainly it's not constructed as a back-door anything. It's more just that there's a story that I want to explore that has to fit into that larger universe, which is exciting.

http://www.tvinsider.com/article/47...eveals-details-behind-his-x-men-pilot-legion/

You mentioned talking with Simon. Does this show take place in continuity with the X-Men movies? Is this a world where mutants have been public with powers?

No, it's not. It's a little more of a fable in my mind. If you were to say, "Where is it, and when is it?," it's not exactly clear, I think. And a lot of it is because he's not exactly clear. It's the world as perceived subjectively on some level. The recent X-Men movies, starting with First Class, are rooted in a time period and a world and playing with history in interesting ways. This isn't doing that.

So it's not like people need to go see the recent films to follow what you're doing.

No. It's a standalone kind of thing.

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-wa...3-x-men-spin-off-legion-and-his-new-hit-novel

 

[Zarex]

I wonder if they would have given him so much leeway if they knew Deadpool would do so well.

Just watch as Fox shoehorns Deadpool into the Gambit and X-Force films or vice versa.

Between merchandise sales and a bigger BO stake, The Mouse appears to have made a bundle on the film. Pool may be the one Marvel licensing agreement they are ok with.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/134...dpool-is-paying-dividends-for-disney-too.html

 

[WeaponXCII]

Thought you guys would find this interesting:

http://www.**************.com/aveng...mcfeely-on-the-status-of-the-avengers-a144082

"So basically, the big scene is when Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus get together and....[laughs]. "

This definitely doesn't confirm anything, but still....

 

[rockman1216]

Here is the article in Marvel.com that lists "the latest names to hit the MCU" and features "Legion"

Meet the Stars of San Diego Comic-Con 2016

https://marvel.com/cards/357/meet_the_stars_of_san_diego_comic-con_2016/all

Probably just an unfortunate way of wording things... But it's interesting to note that the X-Men show it's already reported to be out of the X-Men movies continuity

If that was the case then that would have changed in the article days ago it came out on the 28th things like this get changed a day in, not 3 not in 3 days

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Deadpool can be it's own thing with no problem. And I feel there should be more certaintity at this point about future X-Men movies. It's weird, so I don't discard the X-Men reboot in the MCU at all yet. And if X-Men movies are coming into the MCU, there is no way Fantastic Four isn't coming back too.

Legion showrunner Noah Hawley on ties to the X-Men movies


http://www.tvinsider.com/article/47...eveals-details-behind-his-x-men-pilot-legion/


http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-wa...3-x-men-spin-off-legion-and-his-new-hit-novel

That top quote:

"It's conceived more as a standalone. I don't want to say too much more about it on that level, but certainly it's not constructed as a back-door anything. It's more just that there's a story that I want to explore that has to fit into that larger universe, which is exciting."

Is interesting. It seems like there's something more going on than it being a simple standalone.

It seems like he and others may be calling it "standalone" to keep things simple for now, but if it really was that simple, why the verbal gymnastics in that quote?

 

[Art Freak]

Thought you guys would find this interesting:

http://www.**************.com/aveng...mcfeely-on-the-status-of-the-avengers-a144082

"So basically, the big scene is when Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus get together and....[laughs]. "

This definitely doesn't confirm anything, but still....

I know he's making a joke but there are other characters he could have named so it's interesting what his subconscious allowed him to say. Markus/McFeely may have just inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.

Or it could simply mean that it's funny to say 'Galactus'.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I know he's making a joke but there are other characters he could have named so it's interesting what his subconscious allowed him to say. Markus/McFeely may have just inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.

Or it could simply mean that it's funny to say 'Galactus'.

My initial thought was: "Eh, he's just throwing out a name. That doesn't mean anything."

But if you consider the specific context, it does become a little more interesting.

"When we lock ourselves in a room with the Russo brothers and a couple of execs from Marvel, one wall has cards for movie one and the other wall has cards for movie two and another wall has little baseball cards of every character still alive in the Marvel universe - down to Darcy's boyfriend in Thor 2 - literally, anybody who did not die and has been established as alive. And then we looked at that began to shuffle the cards around. So basically, the big scene is when Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus get together and....[laughs]. "

So he's talking about being locked in a room and staring at all these cards with the various characters - he's not talking about the entire Marvel Comic Universe, but characters that are on the cards that he's been staring at for the past several days. I'm sure there is a card with Darcy's boyfriend on it and hundreds of other cards with other characters. There probably are not cards with Dazzler or Man-Thing . . . or even characters like Luke Cage or Punisher since they're not part of the film universe and likely won't be used in these stories.

So when he makes this statement, his brain is focused on those cards he has been working with and the large but limited set of characters he has been shuffling around and working with.

In that context, if you imagine him speaking quickly without thinking (similar to a word-association psychological test in which people just say the first thing that comes to mind), I'd expect his brain to go to two very disparate characters from his set of cards "Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus". Since the conversation was about the cards and his brain was on those cards, it seems like it would stay on those cards and not jump to a completely unrelated character.

It's not much, but it does slightly increase the chance and hope that Galactus is one of the characters on the cards they're using to build their story.

 

[Zarex]

It's not much, but it does slightly increase the chance and hope that Galactus is one of the characters on the cards they're using to build their story.

I agree that it could be nothing. But I can't think of another situation in which a key Marvel insider talked about a character held under another studio's licensing agreement - in this case more than once - without being asked about said character.

Galactus flew off the tongue of Mr. Markus (or was it McFeely?) very easily, which is something we simply haven't seen before. It wouldn't shock me if Galactus and the Surfer came over as part of the X-Men TV arrangement, with the rest of the FF character family to transition at a later date.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I agree that it could be nothing. But I can't think of another situation in which a key Marvel insider talked about a character held under another studio's licensing agreement - in this case more than once - without being asked about said character.

Galactus flew off the tongue of Mr. Markus (or was it McFeely?) very easily, which is something we simply haven't seen before. It wouldn't shock me if Galactus and the Surfer came over as part of the X-Men TV arrangement, with the rest of the FF character family to transition at a later date.

It's got to be tough to be involved in one of these films. Part of your job is to go out there and do interviews and talk to people about what you're doing . . . but be careful what you say, or people will be going nuts.

Most people here remember some of the things people associated with FF said along the way that caused a lot of controversy and forced them to walk things back or explain what they really meant.

I think in most cases if we went back and looked at those statements, we'd see the truth was in the initial statement, but it was a truth the studio didn't want out there, so the person or studio rep had to rephrase what they had said.

Here's one example I remember:

Kate Mara said:

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published. So I chose to follow his instructions. The one fact is I am a fan of comic book movies, so it's very exciting to be part of a movie like this."

After we went ape-sh**, we got this:

*** UPDATED: 7/16/14 *** The folks at Entertainment Weekly have reached out to Ms. Mara and this is apparently just a poor translation. What she meant to say was that the film won't be based on any particular comic book storyline. See? We told you to relax!

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/...d-kate-mara-not-to-read-fantastic-four-comics

 

[Marathon]

The nonchalant sidelining of the Inhumans was weird for the reason given: too congested schedule. That might fly if Marvel also didn't fast-track a sequel for, with all due respect, Ant-freaking-Man.

I'm going to put my most magical magic hat on and predict that the Inhumans are pretty much dead in the water. They might have been prepared as a cynical ersatz X-Men for the MCU but since the X-Men seem like returning, there is no need for such a (no pun intended) gambit. And that's good, I say. This article explains why the Inhumans are nothing like the X-Men in terms of ethos/pathos/logos: http://comicsalliance.com/super-inhumans-vs-mutants/

 

[NotNickFury]

The X-Men are not headed for the MCU anytime soon, I'd say. As someone said on another thread, the show isn't called "Marvel's Legion" like we get with "Marvel's Agent Carter" or "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD."

 

[Zarex]

The nonchalant sidelining of the Inhumans was weird for the reason given: too congested schedule. That might fly if Marvel also didn't fast-track a sequel for, with all due respect, Ant-freaking-Man.

I'm going to put my most magical magic hat on and predict that the Inhumans are pretty much dead in the water.

An Inhumans movie may be dead in the water, but I'm pretty confident we will see the Royal Family introduced in Phase 4 in an Avengers, Guardians or FF movie. Feige has said that they will be a part of Phase 4, though they may be introduced as "baddies" for the heroes to battle - before realizing, of course, that they need to come together to fight the REAL threat.

http://heroichollywood.com/kevin-feige-inhumans-certainly-slate/

 

[WeaponXCII]

My initial thought was: "Eh, he's just throwing out a name. That doesn't mean anything."

But if you consider the specific context, it does become a little more interesting.

"When we lock ourselves in a room with the Russo brothers and a couple of execs from Marvel, one wall has cards for movie one and the other wall has cards for movie two and another wall has little baseball cards of every character still alive in the Marvel universe - down to Darcy's boyfriend in Thor 2 - literally, anybody who did not die and has been established as alive. And then we looked at that began to shuffle the cards around. So basically, the big scene is when Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus get together and....[laughs]. "

So he's talking about being locked in a room and staring at all these cards with the various characters - he's not talking about the entire Marvel Comic Universe, but characters that are on the cards that he's been staring at for the past several days. I'm sure there is a card with Darcy's boyfriend on it and hundreds of other cards with other characters. There probably are not cards with Dazzler or Man-Thing . . . or even characters like Luke Cage or Punisher since they're not part of the film universe and likely won't be used in these stories.

So when he makes this statement, his brain is focused on those cards he has been working with and the large but limited set of characters he has been shuffling around and working with.

In that context, if you imagine him speaking quickly without thinking (similar to a word-association psychological test in which people just say the first thing that comes to mind), I'd expect his brain to go to two very disparate characters from his set of cards "Darcy's boyfriend and Galactus". Since the conversation was about the cards and his brain was on those cards, it seems like it would stay on those cards and not jump to a completely unrelated character.

It's not much, but it does slightly increase the chance and hope that Galactus is one of the characters on the cards they're using to build their story.

Exactly. If Marvel is so meticulous (and we know that they almost always are) that they're accounting for a character that's not even tertiary (quaternary? quinary?), it'd be a tremendously uncharacteristic oversight to mention a character outside of their grasp- especially in conjunction with the former character.

By the way, the link I posted somehow got messed up with asterisks. Anyone know what I might have done wrong.

 

[Spiderine]

I thought Inhumans removal had more to do with the announcement of Indy 5 being scheduled in July 2019. They had to reshuffle. Its been clear to me that they have still been heavily promoting Inhumans in other media and merchandise.

 

[Silvermoon]

Exactly. If Marvel is so meticulous (and we know that they almost always are) that they're accounting for a character that's not even tertiary (quaternary? quinary?), it'd be a tremendously uncharacteristic oversight to mention a character outside of their grasp- especially in conjunction with the former character.

By the way, the link I posted somehow got messed up with asterisks. Anyone know what I might have done wrong.

My guess is that the link was to an article on CBM.com? Not allowed to link to that site here on SHH. You're usually better off linking to the original source, which in this case would be: https://www.facebook.com/YahooMovies/videos/10155098260304832/

 

[Marathon]

An Inhumans movie may be dead in the water, but I'm pretty confident we will see the Royal Family introduced in Phase 4 in an Avengers, Guardians or FF movie. Feige has said that they will be a part of Phase 4, though they may be introduced as "baddies" for the heroes to battle - before realizing, of course, that they need to come together to fight the REAL threat.

http://heroichollywood.com/kevin-feige-inhumans-certainly-slate/

Yes, it's still possible that they will appear in some form but after all the brouhaha, especially letting AoS have their own Inhuman shenanigans, they are now suddenly what seems to be a footnote at best. I'm hoping it's because the X-Men are returning, but yeah, that might be a tad optimistic, haha.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

By the way, the link I posted somehow got messed up with asterisks. Anyone know what I might have done wrong.

You didn't do anything wrong. The site you linked to is "The Site That Shall Not Be Named" on SHH, so whenever you enter it, it gets censored.

Most of us old-timers know what's what, so as soon as I saw the asterisks, I went to the site I knew it came from.

 

[InCali]

The nonchalant sidelining of the Inhumans was weird for the reason given: too congested schedule. That might fly if Marvel also didn't fast-track a sequel for, with all due respect, Ant-freaking-Man.

I'm going to put my most magical magic hat on and predict that the Inhumans are pretty much dead in the water. They might have been prepared as a cynical ersatz X-Men for the MCU but since the X-Men seem like returning, there is no need for such a (no pun intended) gambit. And that's good, I say. This article explains why the Inhumans are nothing like the X-Men in terms of ethos/pathos/logos: http://comicsalliance.com/super-inhumans-vs-mutants/

I can see a reason for that though. They might feel it best if Inhumans were brought in during the next phase (esp Royal Family) and Ant-Man and Wasp might very well play a key setup role. AM was a very risky movie that appears to have paid off. While the BO wasn't spectacular, it was very, very solid. If it had failed miserably (a la FFINO), there wouldn't have been a next time.

If I get a Royal Family appearance without the FF, something will just not be right and I'm going to be very, very disappointed.

 

[WeaponXCII]

My guess is that the link was to an article on CBM.com? Not allowed to link to that site here on SHH. You're usually better off linking to the original source, which in this case would be: https://www.facebook.com/YahooMovies/videos/10155098260304832/

Ah, yeah, it was CBM. Thanks for the info. I'll do that in the future.

You didn't do anything wrong. The site you linked to is "The Site That Shall Not Be Named" on SHH, so whenever you enter it, it gets censored.

Most of us old-timers know what's what, so as soon as I saw the asterisks, I went to the site I knew it came from.

Not to get too off-topic but... what's the deal with "The Site That Shall Not Be Named"? Are they not a reputable source or something? Just curious to know "what's what" along with the rest of the "old-timers" .