What character should Marvel films tackle next?

[kedrell]

DD must've had a different deal than the Hulk then, cause both were released the same year yet it only took 3 years w/o a Hulk film for Universal to lose the rights while FOX still has control of DD even though there's been no sequel. I agree with you all in hoping that Marvel gets all their characters back eventually. Then it's cross-over city!t:

 

[CorpusBlack]

DD must've had a different deal than the Hulk then, cause both were released the same year yet it only took 3 years w/o a Hulk film for Universal to lose the rights while FOX still has control of DD even though there's been no sequel. I agree with you all in hoping that Marvel gets all their characters back eventually. Then it's cross-over city!t:

Unfortunately 'Elektra' was considered a sequel to the Daredevil property.

 

[kedrell]

Unfortunately 'Elektra' was considered a sequel to the Daredevil property.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info. Those sneaky bastards at FOX.

 

[CorpusBlack]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info. Those sneaky bastards at FOX.

I also don't think it helped that Affleck as Daredevil was in a scene (although deleted).

 

[tyler-durden]

Wrong, Elektra was a spin-off which is different than a sequel.

 

[CorpusBlack]

Wrong, Elektra was a spin-off which is different than a sequel.

It's still considered a sequel to the property, which is what the studio owns. For instance, Wolverine is considered a sequel/prequel to the X-Men property.

 

[tyler-durden]

Spin-offs, I believe there called.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Semantics!!!!!!

 

[CorpusBlack]

Spin-offs, I believe there called.

From a legal standpoint, spinoffs are a clever way to maintain ownership of an entertainment property. They are considered sequels/prequels to the property they are spun off from, unless there is some sort of agreement or compromise made before hand.

 

[kedrell]

They may be spin offs in reality(which they are), but for the purposes of retaining the rights, they fall under the sequel heading as far as legality and copyrights are concerned.

 

[tyler-durden]

From a legal standpoint, spinoffs are a clever way to maintain ownership of an entertainment property. They are considered sequels/prequels to the property they are spun off from, unless there is some sort of agreement or compromise made before hand.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[CorpusBlack]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I wasn't sure what you were implying after your vague dictation.

 

[Savage]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Wow, even I'm annoyed now. lol Spin-offs legally count as sequels. I don't think that Corpusblack was denying that they were spin-offs to begin with but they are considered sequels to the original property.

 

[tyler-durden]

You can be annoyed but it's okay because we still all know that are called spin-offs.

 

[cerealkiller182]

f'n semantics!

 

[Jick]

Wow, even I'm annoyed now. lol Spin-offs legally count as sequels.

not all spin-offs are sequels.
Wolverine is a spin-off prequel.
Elektra is a spin-off sequel.

 

[CorpusBlack]

not all spin-offs are sequels.
Wolverine is a spin-off prequel.
Elektra is a spin-off sequel.

Read the previous posts.

 

[Jick]

Wolverine and Elektra are sequels only in the meaning of the word. sequel of a movie...something that come after. like you said, a way to maintain ownership. but not sequel in storyline.
in storyline...Wolverine is a prequel, Elektra a sequel.
that's what I meant

 

[CorpusBlack]

Wolverine and Elektra are sequels only in the meaning of the word. sequel of a movie...something that come after. like you said, a way to maintain ownership. but not sequel in storyline.
in storyline...Wolverin is a prequel, Elektra a sequel.
that's what I meant

 

[tyler-durden]

I quit, you guys are starting to annoy me, so F' it.

 

[CorpusBlack]

I quit, you guys are starting to annoy me, so F' it.

quitter.

 

[tyler-durden]

No, I just don't have the patience to deal with the lot of you.

 

[cerealkiller182]

this is like arguing whether maroon is red

 

[CorpusBlack]

this is like arguing whether maroon is red

It is if the studio wants to maintain rights to the property.

 

[cerealkiller182]

It is if the studio wants to maintain rights to the property.

Whatever the case, its basic semantics and a silly thing to argue. Everyone agrees there is a continuation of story, who cares what you call it.