The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 9

[RoosterTeeth]

Blade is a good movie and it was successful, but it wasn't a game changer.

Really ? It also had a black lead in which X-Men had almost no black dudes in it at the time & Blade was a bit more diverse at the time

I'll take Blade over X-Men any day & nothing changes the fact that came first

What exactly did X-Men do ? Like you said yourself it was successful for its time & it was a serious movie

Blade any day as its the better over all movie regardless

 

[InCali]

My take on Fox is very mixed. Liked the first 2 X movies, thought the 3rd was stupid and just bad. Origins bad. FC and DoFP good. Apocalypse so so. Logan good (but not my cup of tea and I don't think it did anything for the future of X Men). FF was not treated well (though in those days I didn't have much to compare it to and liked the first one; esp Chris Evans). Deadpool was maybe the best IMO. It was different so that maybe played into it, but it's only 1 movie. Fox has been all over the map IMO.

Clearly Marvel has had more consistent quality movies and I don't agree that they are all cookie cutter. I think that's hogwash....CW and GotG were basically the same movie......right......

 

[Spiderine]

Sony sucked it hard with Ghostrider twice. Got cocky with Spidey after the first two and thought they could do no wrong. Universal was smart to get out the game after Stank Lee Hulk and just let Marvel make his films. New Line was on a roll with Blade till the curse of the third hit them. Lionsgate tried and failed with Punisher twice.

Fox had more toys to play with and still do. More opportunities to score. When you make about 20 films you are bound to get half right........right? But they got the most popular brand at the time with Xmen after a decade of the hottest cartoon video games and toys. At least they had that in their favor. Im just glad Marvel got most of these characters back. Just give me FF and I will be a happy camper.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Without seeing the contract between Marvel and Fox, I can't say what Marvel can do or can't with the X-Men and the FF on TV. I assume there is a reason why Marvel is allowing Fox to handle all the X-Men TV projects though.

Regarding Netflix, I do not think the FF would work on a Netflix budget, Netflix was struggling to do Iron Fist well on a TV budget. I think the Netflix projects work well for properties that do not require a huge budget to do well. Daredevil, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones worked well on a TV budget, Iron Fist struggled. The FF wouldn't work on a Netflix budget, their powers are too flashy, but I think Legion was proved that some X-Men related properties might work on a TV budget, depending on which characters they choose to focus on.

True, true; the last thing we need- from either property- is another "Cormanesque" attempt.

Marvel Studios wouldn't be in a position to make business right now if they hadn't given up the X-Men rights to FOX. It is because of FOX that we have an X-men franchise, that Spider-Man has it's own films, and why we now have a Marvel Cinematic Universe. Deep down, you know this is true.



Even so, there are still people out there who do watch the X-men films and will wonder why these films aren't being promoted as heavily as the Avengers are? We all know they both were created by the same company so they should get an equal share of merchandise.

Saying that we owe the development of comic book movies of today (namely the Marvel Cinematic Universe) to Fox, I believe, is tantamount to saying that we owe the many advancements in medicine that we have today, such as knowledge of hypothermia, to Nazi human experimentation.

 

[NealKenneth]

Saying that we owe the development of comic book movies of today (namely the Marvel Cinematic Universe) to Fox, I believe, is tantamount to saying that we owe the many advancements in medicine that we have today, such as knowledge of hypothermia, to Nazi human experimentation.

Okay, when you're getting to this level...it's possible that the X-Men are just not for you. I don't think the films have aged well, but neither the first or second were that bad.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Okay, when you're getting to this level...it's possible that the X-Men are just not for you. I don't think the films have aged well, but neither the first or second were that bad.

I think WeaponXCII might have reached a bit far for the analogy, but the point is valid.

It's not like nobody had ever thought about making a reasonably high-quality Marvel film prior to X-Men. There were a lot of people thinking about and working on creating high-quality Marvel films in the '90s, but it just took some time until those films really started happening. And the barriers were more about rights and technology and the cost (in those early CGI days) of putting true comic-book visuals on screen than they were because everybody was just waiting for Fox to make X-men.

The whole reason the Corman film happened was that Constantin realized the rights themselves had value and it was worth spending a few million to keep those rights until a larger studio was ready.

Spider-man and Hulk films were inevitable and they would have happened when the technology was ready with or without X-Men.

X-Men just happened to be the first reasonably well-done Marvel film. It was nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Just to illustrate it was all about the technology and the advancement of CGI (and the crossroads we were at in the early 2000's) to get to the point these films were possible, here's a clip of an animatronic Hulk they were developing before they decided to do it as CGI:

[YT]_rGQZDYNpa4[/YT]

 

[RoosterTeeth]

It's not like nobody had ever thought about making a reasonably high-quality Marvel film prior to X-Men

But somebody did make a HIGH QUALITY MARVEL film BEFORE FOX did

This can not be ignored & before anyone says MARVEL did not make it well MARVEL did not make X-Men or or Hulk or Fantastic Four or Spider-Man back in the day either

 

[Dark Raven]

Just to illustrate it was all about the technology and the advancement of CGI (and the crossroads we were at in the early 2000's) to get to the point these films were possible, here's a clip of an animatronic Hulk they were developing before they decided to do it as CGI:

[YT]_rGQZDYNpa4[/YT]

That transforming Hulk arm looks like they just pumped air into it to make it swell. But Ang Lee's Hulk transformations looked exactly like that, and even Ed Norton's transformations had an element of that. It didn't look like solid muscle bursting through but had a jelly-like look to it, like someone inflated a sausage in a sausage factory, if you've ever seen footage of that when they pump the meat into a sausage skin.

I'm still not 100% convinced by the Ruffalo transformations yet, but they haven't shown too much of that. The one at the end of Avengers just looked like a morph.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

But somebody did make a HIGH QUALITY MARVEL film BEFORE FOX did

This can not be ignored & before anyone says MARVEL did not make it well MARVEL did not make X-Men or or Hulk or Fantastic Four or Spider-Man back in the day either

Blade was relatively low-budget, not well-received by critics (Rotten Tomatoes score 54%), and it wasn't a box-office juggernaut (though it probably made a profit because it didn't cost much).

And it was based on a minor Marvel character who isn't recognized as a Marvel character by most people.

It may have been better than the absolute crap we had seen up until that point (Howard the Duck, Captain America and Punisher), but it's only something special when compared to that very low bar.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

That transforming Hulk arm looks like they just pumped air into it to make it swell. But Ang Lee's Hulk transformations looked exactly like that, and even Ed Norton's transformations had an element of that. It didn't look like solid muscle bursting through but had a jelly-like look to it, like someone inflated a sausage in a sausage factory, if you've ever seen footage of that when they pump the meat into a sausage skin.

I'm still not 100% convinced by the Ruffalo transformations yet, but they haven't shown too much of that. The one at the end of Avengers just looked like a morph.

Yeah, the transformations haven't been impressive and some of them are very distracting in their use of CGI that creates an unnatural feel. I think some animatronics combined with some mystery (do we really need to see the actual transformation?) would have worked better.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The real game changer was Spider-Man. That was the film that made so much money that everyone in Hollywood could now see the potential in CBMs.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The real game changer was Spider-Man. That was the film that made so much money that everyone in Hollywood could now see the potential in CBMs.

I agree, but not only because of money. Spider-Man is the first film to really put a major Marvel character on the screen in a way that was recognizable and felt like it really captured the visual essence of a character we knew from Marvel Comic books. Every film that came before felt like a compromise and didn't feel like a comic-book come to life.

 

[RoosterTeeth]

And it was based on a minor Marvel character who isn't recognized as a Marvel character by most people.

You are really gonna count this against Blade when people such as yourself don't know the differences between FOX & Sony & MARVEL Studios ? You were in another thread giving MARVEL credit for Fantastic Four after all when it should be FOX given the credit as MARVEL had nothing to do with that crap

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You are really gonna count this against Blade when people such as yourself don't know the differences between FOX & Sony & MARVEL Studios ? You were in another thread giving MARVEL credit for Fantastic Four after all when it should be FOX given the credit as MARVEL had nothing to do with that crap

What are you even talking about? You sound pretty bat-s*** crazy at the moment. When did I blame Marvel for Fantastic Four?!?!

 

[RoosterTeeth]

What are you even talking about? You sound pretty bat-s*** crazy at the moment. When did I blame Marvel for Fantastic Four?!?!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=35081841&postcount=787

It should be FOX's biggest slap in the fact & NOT MARVEL's

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=35081841&postcount=787

It should be FOX's biggest slap in the fact & NOT MARVEL's

Oh, good lord. If you look at the original post from that thread:

With Marvel fans spanning the globe as well as decades I would like to know what they feel was the biggest slap in the face of their favorite characters brought to the screen on behalf of Movie Moguls.

For example:

Galalctus being a puff of smoke. Not Marvel

Dead Pool catastrophy Not Marvel

Electra"Nuff said" Not Marvel

Punisher "Nuff said" Not Marvel

Wolverine being 6'3 Not Marvel

Venom Disaster Not Marvel

Ghost Rider"Nuff said" Not Marvel

Ghost Rider 2 "Nuff said" Not Marvel

Hulk 1 Not Marvel

Hulk 2

Manderine disrespect from Iron man 3

Abomination Rendition from Hulk 2

Aborbing man Zax(Bruce banner's dad)from Hulk 1 Not Marvel

Whiplash fiasco from Iron man 2

Etc.Etc.

Please give us your thought on the biggest slap and tell us why?

You would see the actual intent of the thread and not your false interpretation of the intent.

 

[WeaponXCII]

I think WeaponXCII might have reached a bit far for the analogy, but the point is valid.

It's not like nobody had ever thought about making a reasonably high-quality Marvel film prior to X-Men. There were a lot of people thinking about and working on creating high-quality Marvel films in the '90s, but it just took some time until those films really started happening. And the barriers were more about rights and technology and the cost (in those early CGI days) of putting true comic-book visuals on screen than they were because everybody was just waiting for Fox to make X-men.

The whole reason the Corman film happened was that Constantin realized the rights themselves had value and it was worth spending a few million to keep those rights until a larger studio was ready.

Spider-man and Hulk films were inevitable and they would have happened when the technology was ready with or without X-Men.

X-Men just happened to be the first reasonably well-done Marvel film. It was nothing more and nothing less.

Probably so, but sometimes you have to be a bit dramatic to make sure the point comes across! Thanks for having my back on this one- I was pretty sure you would.

 

[TheVileOne]

Without seeing the contract between Marvel and Fox, I can't say what Marvel can do or can't with the X-Men and the FF on TV. I assume there is a reason why Marvel is allowing Fox to handle all the X-Men TV projects though.

Marvel technically had the X-Men live TV rights before a deal was made. However, they couldn't really do anything without risking another lawsuit with Fox. IE, the Mutant X thing from over a decade ago. That show was made independent of 20th Century Fox, and the studio sued Marvel, claiming it was copyright infringement for the movie franchise.

It would've been a slippery slope for Marvel to do X-Men TV without Fox involvement. Why? Marvel wants all their live TV in an inter-connected universe with the films. So you can't have mutants exist in the same world where all your movie characters dwell because Marvel can't use mutants in their movies.

 

[TheVileOne]

Really ? It also had a black lead in which X-Men had almost no black dudes in it at the time & Blade was a bit more diverse at the time

I'll take Blade over X-Men any day & nothing changes the fact that came first

What exactly did X-Men do ? Like you said yourself it was successful for its time & it was a serious movie

Blade any day as its the better over all movie regardless

Really really.

 

[Dark Raven]

Yeah, the transformations haven't been impressive and some of them are very distracting in their use of CGI that creates an unnatural feel. I think some animatronics combined with some mystery (do we really need to see the actual transformation?) would have worked better.

What I liked about the transformations from the TV series is that it built up the suspense, so that the transformations were like a pressure cooker being released and came across as terrifying. They were something to be feared, and although of course you wanted to see it, you also didn't, because you knew that all hell would break loose.

And also, the TV transformations looked like a solid arm, leg or back tearing through fabric (because they were) and not like someone pumped air into a rubbery, inflatable body. You also didn't see everything in the TV transformation (partly because the budget couldn't handle something full blown) and so it left a lot up to the imagination, but it was effective.

The films could take a page from that, but also improve the actual onscreen transformations. I think they occur too quickly that they look cartoonish. Although of course, it wouldn't happen in slow motion like the TV series, at least that gave you time to see thinks unfolding and gave it a more realistic quality.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

What I liked about the transformations from the TV series is that it built up the suspense, so that the transformations were like a pressure cooker being released and came across as terrifying. They were something to be feared, and although of course you wanted to see it, you also didn't, because you knew that all hell would break loose.

And also, the TV transformations looked like a solid arm, leg or back tearing through fabric (because they were) and not like someone pumped air into a rubbery, inflatable body. You also didn't see everything in the TV transformation (partly because the budget couldn't handle something full blown) and so it left a lot up to the imagination, but it was effective.

The films could take a page from that, but also improve the actual onscreen transformations. I think they occur too quickly that they look cartoonish. Although of course, it wouldn't happen in slow motion like the TV series, at least that gave you time to see thinks unfolding and gave it a more realistic quality.

Yeah, even though the TV versions were seriously low-tech, they worked better in some ways.

There's probably no way you can make a person transforming into a huge green beast look 'real', but that's all the more reason to limit what you actually show.

Even with CGI, I think it would work better if they focus on an eye or on an arm etc.

Something like that would be more familiar (since we've seen transformations like that in werewolf films etc.) and that familiarity would make it feel a little more real and right.

 

[Endeavor]

Blade is a good movie and it was successful, but it wasn't a game changer.

It was the first Marvel property to be done with serious effort put in, and showed that the Marvel IPs could be profitable.

 

[NotNickFury]

It was the first Marvel property to be done with serious effort put in, and showed that the Marvel IPs could be profitable.

Making me nostalgic...need to pop that DVD back in and give Blade a re-watch sometime soon.

 

[Endeavor]

It is a good, fun movie. I don't know why I never bought the DVD. I should get it.