The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 8

[TheVileOne]

Were you scarred as a child or somethin when you found out Santa didnt exist? Emotions ran high and you vowed never to let it happen as long as you live again?

No. I'm Jewish.

 

[TheVileOne]

What I very specifically said was:

Do you have an answer to that mystery? I'm a curious person. When something is incongruent, it makes me ask 'why'?

If you don't have an answer, doesn't it make you curious?

Marvel 101 is a video series that offers a short crash course on a specific character of the Marvel Universe. It's not really incongruent. That one character is hardly a unique outlier because going down the list you have the likes of Silk, Spider-Gwen, Hyperion, Howard the Duck, Blade, Spider-Woman, Thundra, Amadeus Cho Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Nova, and Angela.

Marvel is popular and a lot of these longtime mainstay characters are showing up in movies and TV shows now, so it's not really a big mystery. These major characters of the Marvel Universe are now fixtures in film and TV as well because they have significance.

 

[Docker2.0]

Its gotten to the point where it is probably best to ignore the self-appointed devil's advocate to the "Keep Hope Alive" board. On multiple occasions I have pointed out that he has flat out lied about the content of posts in order to support his position that this board is filled with loons. And rather than apologize for twisting other folks words into something that matches his reality, he soldiers on with his version of the truth.

I get enough "alternative facts" from our Glorious Leader in the White House. I don't need it in the place I go to escape from the wit and wisdom of Commandant Trump.

Exactly! I've been saying that for a minute now. No matter what is said, he will say something just to dispute it for fun. If you keep ignoring a hungry dog, eventually he will go somewhere else to eat.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

That one character is hardly a unique outlier because going down the list you have the likes of Silk, Spider-Gwen, Hyperion, Howard the Duck, Blade, Spider-Woman, Thundra, Amadeus Cho Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Nova, and Angela.

None of which are controlled by Fox.

 

[TheVileOne]

None of which are controlled by Fox.

Bound to happen at some point in an ongoing video short series about Marvel Universe characters by process of elimination. Slapstick is not controlled by Fox, but he's unlikely to appear in a movie or TV show.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Bound to happen at some point in an ongoing video short series about Marvel Universe characters by process of elimination. Slapstick is not controlled by Fox, but he's unlikely to appear in a movie or TV show.

So there are eighty videos of characters and story-lines that are fully or partly controlled by Marvel and one, Silver Surfer, that, as far as we know, is not fully or partly controlled by Marvel and you don't even stop to say: "Hmmmm, that's interesting."?

The rest of us do find that interesting (though nobody has made any specific claims other than the fact that it is interesting) and if you don't find it interesting (or don't admit it) you are the one being irrational (or refusing to admit the obvious because of your obsession with pushing your singular viewpoint). There's no other way to spin it.

 

[Web-Head]

Looks like Thor is taking Silver surfers role in the MCU anyway
http://furiousfanboys.com/2017/02/thor-taking-surfer-surfers-roles-mcu/

 

[TheVileOne]

So there are eighty videos of characters and story-lines that are fully or partly controlled by Marvel and one, Silver Surfer, that, as far as we know, is not fully or partly controlled by Marvel and you don't even stop to say: "Hmmmm, that's interesting."?

No the character still is a Marvel character and has been a major part of Marvel history and events going back decades.

The rest of us do find that interesting (though nobody has made any specific claims other than the fact that it is interesting) and if you don't find it interesting (or don't admit it) you are the one being irrational (or refusing to admit the obvious because of your obsession with pushing your singular viewpoint). There's no other way to spin it.

It's fine if you think I'm being irrational. I think trying to find hidden secrets or meaning behind Marvel 101 is irrational.

The implication being made here since it's being pointed out is that maybe a backdoor deal was made on Silver Surfer's film rights since Marvel 101 is historically only looking at Marvel characters and things they can put in their own films and TV shows and not 20th Century Fox.

 

[InCali]

So there are eighty videos of characters and story-lines that are fully or partly controlled by Marvel and one, Silver Surfer, that, as far as we know, is not fully or partly controlled by Marvel and you don't even stop to say: "Hmmmm, that's interesting."?

The rest of us do find that interesting (though nobody has made any specific claims other than the fact that it is interesting) and if you don't find it interesting (or don't admit it) you are the one being irrational (or refusing to admit the obvious because of your obsession with pushing your singular viewpoint). There's no other way to spin it.

I think most people would say "Why Silver Surfer only? Why not others?" It's a reasonable question that could have a lot of reasonable answers.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

It's fine if you think I'm being irrational. I think trying to find hidden secrets or meaning behind Marvel 101 is irrational.

The implication being made here since it's being pointed out is that maybe a backdoor deal was made on Silver Surfer's film rights since Marvel 101 is historically only looking at Marvel characters and things they can put in their own films and TV shows and not 20th Century Fox.

We're not looking for any "hidden secrets" with these videos dude. We're just having a fun discussion regarding this video on Silver Surfer. No one is implicating anything. That's what this thread is about you silly goose.

 

[TheVileOne]

We're not looking for any "hidden secrets" with these videos dude. We're just having a fun discussion regarding this video on Silver Surfer. No one is implicating anything. That's what this thread is about you silly goose.

Que sera, sera.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

No the character still is a Marvel character and has been a major part of Marvel history and events going back decades.

The same could be said for: The Thing, Dr. Doom, Reed Richards, Galactus, Magneto, Charles Xavier, Johnny Storm, Jean Grey, Wolverine, Cyclops, Storm etc. etc. etc.

Why Silver Surfer and not any of those? It's a valid, interesting question (to comic book fans who spend a lot of time studying and thinking about these things) whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

In fact, if we made a list of the top 20 or 30 Marvel characters of all time, it's clear that ALL of the Marvel controlled characters who would be on that list have videos, while NONE of the Fox controlled characters have videos... except for the glaring exception of Silver Surfer.

The pattern is striking and impossible to ignore to anyone who is knowledgeable and objective.

 

[Zarex]

But you continue to ignore all of the fictional posters who were convinced the FF rights reversion would be announced last year at Comic-Con, and who were devastated that the recent Marvel video game announcement did not involve the FF rights. Why is everybody ignoring the pain of these posters who do not exist?

 

[BeserkerHilf]

Looks like Thor is taking Silver surfers role in the MCU anyway
http://furiousfanboys.com/2017/02/thor-taking-surfer-surfers-roles-mcu/

This saddens me a little. I loved that moment in Infinity Guantlet where Silver Surfer is waiting in the wings for Adam Warlock to give the signal when Thanos raises his hand to surf at the speed of light and (unsuccessfully) swipe the Gauntlet.

 

[Spiderine]

The same could be said for: The Thing, Dr. Doom, Reed Richards, Galactus, Magneto, Charles Xavier, Johnny Storm, Jean Grey, Wolverine, Cyclops, Storm etc. etc. etc.

Why Silver Surfer and not any of those? It's a valid, interesting question (to comic book fans who spend a lot of time studying and thinking about these things) whether you want to admit it or not.

I like how they took the time to make Slapstick a vid before Professor X Wolverine or Jean Grey Phoenix. Not a single Xmen other than Legion characters from that show Marvel invested in. At least as of now

But we are just delusional and irrational for looking into this. Im glad Vile One is here to set us straight.

 

[TheVileOne]

But you continue to ignore all of the fictional posters who were convinced the FF rights reversion would be announced last year at Comic-Con, and who were devastated that the recent Marvel video game announcement did not involve the FF rights. Why is everybody ignoring the pain of these posters who do not exist?

Are you not the person who has been debating repeatedly that Disney would not have been willing to deal the TV rights to the X-Men franchise without getting something like the Fantastic Four rights? You are using sarcasm, but that's been your thesis.

 

[Zarex]

Are you not the person who has been debating repeatedly that Disney would not have been willing to deal the TV rights to the X-Men franchise without getting something like the Fantastic Four rights? You are using sarcasm, but that's been your thesis.

I have been consistent in my belief that the rights to the FF family of characters have either reverted or will revert before Phase 4 of the MCU.

What I haven't done is lie about what others have written in order to discredit those with whom I disagree. Which you have done. Repeatedly.

 

[TheVileOne]

I have been consistent in my belief that the rights to the FF family of characters have either reverted or will revert before Phase 4 of the MCU.

What I haven't done is lie about what others have written in order to discredit those with whom I disagree. Which you have done. Repeatedly.

I am also consistent in my belief that isn't true. I haven't lied about it either.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Yet you think that there is something wrong with having a discussion on this when that is the point of this thread.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I have been consistent in my belief that the rights to the FF family of characters have either reverted or will revert before Phase 4 of the MCU.

I am also consistent in my belief that isn't true.

Before Phase 4 starts, or before Phase 4 ends? That's an important detail.

Fox released Fant4stic in 2015, that means they will have to, at the absolute latest, start production of a new film in 2022 or forfeit the rights.

Phase 4 is scheduled to run from approximately 2020 to 2028.

Therefore it is highly likely that Marvel will have the rights during phase 4.

The only alternative is that Fox will make another film and that is highly unlikely by any reasonable analysis.

 

[Zarex]

I am also consistent in my belief that isn't true. I haven't lied about it either.

I honestly don't give a rat's behind whether or not you believe that the FF rights will revert now, next week, in 2027 or the day after the heat death of the universe. And if it is your calling in life to cast wisdom on the poor misguided FF fans that populate these boards, have at it. But if you feel the need to keep lying about other posters in order to strengthen your argument, perhaps you should take some time to actually think about some of the goofy theories presented on these boards. Maybe then you can add something to the conversation.

 

[InCali]

Before Phase 4 starts, or before Phase 4 ends? That's an important detail.

Fox released Fant4stic in 2017, that means they will have to, at the absolute latest, start production of a new film in 2024 or forfeit the rights.

Phase 4 is scheduled to run from approximately 2020 to 2028.

Therefore it is highly likely that Marvel will have the rights during phase 4.

The only alternative is that Fox will make another film and that is highly unlikely by any reasonable analysis.

It was 2015 as I recall. Am I missing something?

Is it the production start time or release date that would cause the rights to revert? Say they started production or shooting 7 years after the release of Fanstinky 4. Wouldn't that cause a reversion of rights to Marvel?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

It was 2015 as I recall. Am I missing something?

Is it the production start time or release date that would cause the rights to revert? Say they started production or shooting 7 years after the release of Fanstinky 4. Wouldn't that cause a reversion of rights to Marvel?

Doh!! Of Course. Which cinches things up quite a bit. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Going back to edit.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Is it the production start time or release date that would cause the rights to revert?

From what I've seen, both. I believe they need to start Principle photography within approximately 7 years and the film needs to be released within approximately 8.5 years. That may not be exact, but based on everything we have seen and heard about FF and other contracts, I think those numbers are damn close.