• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

WSJ: Why Can't Marvel's Movie Superheroes Be Friends?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dai101 said:
If MAHVEL sometime gets back the FF license they should do a movie about Doom origins and the rest of the FF just as background.
Click to expand...

YES. I have thought about this too. Make a Dr. Doom movie, with him being the focus, and just have the FF in the background as "antagonists" to his motives. He's an interesting enough character to carry his own film, easily.

Of course, Sony will never do this... :(
 
Mengy said:
YES. I have thought about this too. Make a Dr. Doom movie, with him being the focus, and just have the FF in the background as "antagonists" to his motives. He's an interesting enough character to carry his own film, easily.

Of course, Sony will never do this... :(
Click to expand...

you mean Fox
 
Wafflecakes said:
I prefer when they don't mix tbh.

I never followed the comics, but most of the universes make more sense to me as separate entities.
Click to expand...

For DC I tend to agree. However Marvel comic books were conceived with a unified world in mind. The interactions, science, physics, everything is pretty self consistent (as much as any comic book universe can be). I like the idea that big cosmic stories are taking place but so are stories being told in Hell's Kitchen about street thugs and less powerful heroes. The continuity is great.
 
Im mostly happy with the current state of affairs, the only thing I would change is give FF back to Marvel, apart from that everything is sweet as is.
 
ZeroGravity said:
I don't want Andrew Garfield's horrible interpretation of Spider-Man anywhere NEAR Marvel's movies.
Click to expand...

well maybe he will die in the Sinister Six movie and we get a Miles Morales Spider-Man that then teams up with the Avengers

Seriously though, the Amazing Spider-Man run seems incompatible with the Avengers.
 
Mengy said:
YES. I have thought about this too. Make a Dr. Doom movie, with him being the focus, and just have the FF in the background as "antagonists" to his motives. He's an interesting enough character to carry his own film, easily.

Of course, Sony will never do this... :(
Click to expand...

Fox buddy, fox.

And also as a PSA for all this kind of threads:

OgQKC0r.png
 
As much as I would love to see Spidey back at Marvel I don't think it's ever gonna happen. They would have to give Sony billions of dollars for what would ultimately become a small cog in the mighty Mahvel tapestry. The character simply is not worth anywhere near as much to Disney as it is to Sony. Maybe in a universe where Disney buys Sony, I guess.

Fantastic Four is all I really care about, there is so much cool shit that is locked up because of that. Fortunately it is the hardest of the Marvel orphans to turn into a perpetual money machine, so it is the likeliest of them all to return to the fold. You know why? Because all of those fucking characters belong in the Marvel universe. That is the only cinematic environment in which they will ever thrive. Fantastic Four is worth at least as much to Disney as it is to Fox. They'd be crazy to turn down any offer that involves them getting those characters back.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
...no many will hold out hope for the rest of cosmic marvel and marvels first family to return to marvels studio. Xmen and spiderman will probably never return unless they are bombfests....

Whats making sense by having them separate anyway, is that even a concern for a movie goer over the film being good.
Click to expand...

Having a believable setup is vital to my personal enjoyment of any film.
 
It will never happen.

1. A Spiderman/X-Men/MCU crossover would make all of the money in the world, but divvying that up between Sony, Fox, and Disney would be a legal nightmare.

2. As has been said before, Marvel was bankrupt when the film rights deals for X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spidey went down with Fox and Columbia (now Sony) respectively, and thus the deals are not in Marvel's favor. I'm pretty sure Marvel only gets 5% of profits, and also all Fox and Sony have to do is make a movie every 10 years and they keep the rights, so the likelihood of them reverting back to Marvel due to inactivity is non-existant.

3. With a film like Avengers, they were lucky to get a cast of actors that didn't mind playing backup roles to one another (although apparently Downey wanted the movie to revolve around Stark and had to be talked down by Whedon). Throw in all of the X-Men, all of the Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man, all played by the same actors, and it just leads to more problems with the movie feeling bloated and just plain made for fanboys, rather than telling a good story, something the modern comics industry seems to have forgotten (tell good stories, don't just team up heroes in event comics for no reason). And while some actors, like Garfield and Jackman, would probably be okay with a reduced role, no way Sony and Fox would want their characters playing second fiddle to Disneys, etc.
 
Spidey should be on his own. His character is most interesting (and isn't completely overshadowed) when he's a sole superhero. Yeah, it's cool to see him with other superheroes so he can quip at them... That doesn't benefit his character.

X-Men should be on their own since the mutant stuff can be really far-reaching and get insanely complicated. Also, the Avengers etc. should NEVER have allowed a Days of Future Past story to ever happen.


Everyone else should mix. Avengers, Fantastic Four, other characters like Ghost Rider or Blade etc...
 
I am disappointed that so many people are saying they don't mind having multiple studios share the rights. Even if you don't like the idea of the different stories crossing over, there is no denying the fact that Disney makes the superior films out of the 3 studios. So by Disney having the rights to Spidey/x-men/FF we'd theoretically be getting better movies, which is something I'd assume everyone would want. Even though I liked ASM and I think DOOFP will be good, I always have this lingering thought in the back of my mind when watching non-MCU Marvel films that they'd be so much more amazing if Disney had the rights.
 
freeofgreed said:
I am disappointed that so many people are saying they don't mind having multiple studios share the rights. Even if you don't like the idea of the different stories crossing over, there is no denying the fact that Disney makes the superior films out of the 3 studios. So by Disney having the rights to Spidey/x-men/FF we'd theoretically be getting better movies, which is something I'd assume everyone would want. Even though I liked ASM and I think DOOFP will be good, I always have this lingering thought in the back of my mind when watching non-MCU Marvel films that they'd be so much more amazing if Disney had the rights.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is that its all theoretical. Perhaps Disney is doing so well with what they have because they have this smaller stable of properties to manage.

I can easily see excess becoming a problem if not held in check. The way MCU is going right now is just fucking perrrrrrfect. I would be weary to try and fix what isn't broken. If you could promise me that it wouldn't screw up the flow and execution then I would agree, but since we couldn't do that, let everyone keep what they have.
 
Cipherr said:
Well the problem is that its all theoretical. Perhaps Disney is doing so well with what they have because they have this smaller stable of properties to manage.

I can easily see excess becoming a problem if not held in check. The way MCU is going right now is just fucking perrrrrrfect. I would be weary to try and fix what isn't broken. If you could promise me that it wouldn't screw up the flow and execution then I would agree, but since we couldn't do that, let everyone keep what they have.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Disney's stable is pretty much everything besides Spiderman/FF/X-men, which means they have dozens if not hundreds of properties they can use but haven't. Also when they got Daredevil, Punisher, and Blade back, the MCU wasn't ruined. This shows me that if they ever do get Spider Man or X men back, they won't rush to make new movies with them and would take their time and plan it out accordingly, which is what they've been doing so far.
 
freeofgreed said:
I am disappointed that so many people are saying they don't mind having multiple studios share the rights. Even if you don't like the idea of the different stories crossing over, there is no denying the fact that Disney makes the superior films out of the 3 studios. So by Disney having the rights to Spidey/x-men/FF we'd theoretically be getting better movies, which is something I'd assume everyone would want. Even though I liked ASM and I think DOOFP will be good, I always have this lingering thought in the back of my mind when watching non-MCU Marvel films that they'd be so much more amazing if Disney had the rights.
Click to expand...

If multiple studios DIDNT own the rights, marvel would have simply been content making spider man and X-men films. Look at DC. One studio (Warner) owns the rights to all properties, and since 1990 you've gotten 7 Batman Films, 2 superman films, and a handful of horrific efforts like jonah hex and green lantern that were DOA. A decent wonder woman, flash, JLA, hawkman, doom patrol, shazam, whatever movie should have happened decades ago. but nope- batman is what sells so you get more of that.

There never would have been a NEED to go to the B and C Tier that was Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers- only milk the sure fire hits.

The only reason marvel still had the rights to those is because it couldn't sell them. all the other properties were considered to be more valuable, even ghost rider, punisher, and daredevil.

Different studios means marvel was forced to dig deep into their catalogue and make Cap, Thor, and I.M. relevant properties, and Avengers a household name. Given that the only drawback seems to be that some fans are slightly disappointed that they'll never see the "perfect" version of spider man they always wanted (and this would NEVER happen, Greed always wins out over vison) I think we're better off with marvel not having the rights to those properties.
 
They should have Donald Glover playing Miles Morales as Spider-Man in MCU, but keep Parker at Sony played by Andrew Garfield.

Or Ben Reilly, but that would be too messy.
 
Manmademan said:
The only reason marvel still had the rights to those is because it couldn't sell them. all the other properties were considered to be more valuable, even ghost rider, punisher, and daredevil.
Click to expand...

False. They were all licensed out. Even Black Widow, Nick Fury, and Hawkeye had been licensed out. They just were able to get them back.

In November 2005, Marvel gained the film rights to Iron Man from New Line Cinema. Marvel revealed that it has regained the film rights to The Incredible Hulk in February 2006.[38] In April 2006 Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to Thor from Sony. That year the film was announced to be a Marvel Studios production.[39] Lions Gate Entertainment subsequently dropped the Black Widow motion picture project it had since 2004 giving the rights back to Marvel.
Click to expand...
 
Manmademan said:
If multiple studios DIDNT own the rights, marvel would have simply been content making spider man and X-men films. Look at DC. One studio (Warner) owns the rights to all properties, and since 1990 you've gotten 7 Batman Films, 2 superman films, and a handful of horrific efforts like jonah hex and green lantern that were DOA. A decent wonder woman, flash, JLA, hawkman, doom patrol, shazam, whatever movie should have happened decades ago. but nope- batman is what sells so you get more of that.

There never would have been a NEED to go to the B and C Tier that was Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers- only milk the sure fire hits.

The only reason marvel still had the rights to those is because it couldn't sell them. all the other properties were considered to be more valuable, even ghost rider, punisher, and daredevil.

Different studios means marvel was forced to dig deep into their catalogue and make Cap, Thor, and I.M. relevant properties, and Avengers a household name. Given that the only drawback seems to be that some fans are slightly disappointed that they'll never see the "perfect" version of spider man they always wanted (and this would NEVER happen, Greed always wins out over vison) I think we're better off with marvel not having the rights to those properties.
Click to expand...

Marvel and DC are two very different companies. By your logic Marvel shouldn't even be making risky films like GoTG and Ant-man when they can just make 9 Iron man films and 7 Captain America films right? Yet they aren't which shows that your Warner bros. Disney comparisons are pretty off base. Also I'am not saying I regret the fact that other studios have used their properties in the past, I am saying moving forward I would prefer if those properties went back to their proper owners.
 
Meh, Im fine with it. Most of marvel's own films are emotionally and dramatically inert, bland, uglau and lack any memorable traits.Mostly alll by the books.

Webb's Spidey flicks, flawed as they are, at least have a beating heart beneath them
 
Dead said:
Webb's Spidey flicks, flawed as they are, at least have a beating heart beneath them
Click to expand...

I would say the opposite is true. Webb's Spider-Man comes off sterile and has an obvious corporate handling to them. Where as marvel understand its characters and obviously cares about the source material. Hart and love of the character comes across clearly in MCU films. The original Spidey trilogy as well.

The "surprise ending" to ASM2 really shows its corporate hand. Hell the whole movie.
 
GodDuckman said:
3. With a film like Avengers, they were lucky to get a cast of actors that didn't mind playing backup roles to one another (although apparently Downey wanted the movie to revolve around Stark and had to be talked down by Whedon). Throw in all of the X-Men, all of the Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man, all played by the same actors, and it just leads to more problems with the movie feeling bloated and just plain made for fanboys, rather than telling a good story, something the modern comics industry seems to have forgotten (tell good stories, don't just team up heroes in event comics for no reason). And while some actors, like Garfield and Jackman, would probably be okay with a reduced role, no way Sony and Fox would want their characters playing second fiddle to Disneys, etc.
Click to expand...

Really? I wanna hear more about that. I read Downey Jr was like a hero to the cast during salary negotiations.
 
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
Really? I wanna hear more about that. I read Downey Jr was like a hero to the cast during salary negotiations.
Click to expand...

Thats sounds like tmz gossip. Not like RDJ at all. He really helped his castmates, i dont believe him being the diva nor attention whote to get the movie around his character. If anything the character that got more screentime was the Cap.
 
Dai101 said:
Thats sounds like tmz gossip. Not like RDJ at all. He really helped his castmates, i dont believe him being the diva nor attention whote to get the movie around his character. If anything the character that got more screentime was the Cap.
Click to expand...

Cap had the most screen time by a couple minutes. There was a blog post somewhere where someone broke it down.
 
BananaSprinkles said:
Hopefully they recast Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk. He's a far better actor, in my opinion, than either Eric Bana (Hulk) or Ed Norton (The Incredible Hulk) and it would be nice to have the same character play the same role for more than one movie.
Click to expand...

I think you mean something other that what you say. Ruffalo is coming back as The Hulk for the foreseeable future. If there is a solo Hulk movie after A2, Ruffalo is the only consideration at this point in time.

recast is what they did when they brought Ruffalo in to replace of Norton.
 
I wanted to see way more of Ruffalo. He plays quiet and pained very well. I honestly think they've denied Planet Hulk way too much for it not to happen. If Guardians of the Galaxy does well, I see no reason why PH couldn't.
 
I hope these movies never revert back to Marvel. I've only seen one of the Disney-owned Marvel films: The Avengers (well, ~1 hour of it before I turned it off) and it was just horrendous to me. The dialogue was horrible, action scenes seemed a bit off and I just had to turn it off. I've not seen the other movies, but I'm not sure I would want to.
 
TheSinkingKnight said:
The dialogue was horrible, action scenes seemed a bit off and I just had to turn it off. .
Click to expand...

Are you a fan of comic books, or the characters at all? The movie was a comic book bought to life in every sense. Cheesy dialogue? "Avengers Assemble". Action scenes a bit off? Nothing that would be out of place on the pages of the latest Avengers issue. I just honestly don't see how someone who enjoys the Avengers franchise can not in some small way appreciate the film.

And wait, non-MCU Marvel movies have great dialogue? "What happens to a Toad when it gets struck by lightning" and "Don't tell Harry!" are examples of excellent writing to you?
 
Echoenigma said:
Namor's in a weird limbo, but Man-Thing is back at marvel. He got referenced in agents of shield, i think.
Click to expand...

Apparently a subplot within Iron Man 3 was a direct reference to Man-Thing.

Though the movie is technically about Iron Man, a great deal of its DNA actually comes from a very different Marvel character: the mysterious Man-Thing. In the comics, you see, the cult hero called Man-Thing was originally a scientist who was doing top secret research on plants in the Everglades when his wife betrayed him to AIM. In desperation, he injected himself with his untested formula, only to discover it had seriously unexpected consequences. All of that, of course, is in "Iron Man Three," with AIM using a formula based on plant research to give people superpowers. Need more? Well, how about this: The female AIM agent (played by Stephanie Szostak) who battles Tony to the death midway through the film is named Ellen Brandt, who is best known to comics fans as Man-Thing's treacherous wife. The character even has the scar on her face she received fighting Man-Thing in the comics! So what does all this mean for a possible Man-Thing appearance in Phase Two? Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

iron-man-three-ellen-brandt300x220.jpg
 
BananaSprinkles said:
Hopefully they recast Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk. He's a far better actor, in my opinion, than either Eric Bana (Hulk) or Ed Norton (The Incredible Hulk) and it would be nice to have the same character play the same role for more than one movie.
Click to expand...

Recast isn't the word you mean to say here. Recast means to cast again which would mean replacing Ruffalo with someone else.
 
MasterBalls said:
Are you a fan of comic books, or the characters at all? The movie was a comic book bought to life in every sense. Cheesy dialogue? "Avengers Assemble". Action scenes a bit off? Nothing that would be out of place on the pages of the latest Avengers issue. I just honestly don't see how someone who enjoys the Avengers franchise can not in some small way appreciate the film.

And wait, non-MCU Marvel movies have great dialogue? "What happens to a Toad when it gets struck by lightning" and "Don't tell Harry!" are examples of excellent writing to you?
Click to expand...
That's probably my problem. I've never read any of their comic books and I'm not really familiar with the characters.

Well, yeah, my grievances do apply to other non-MCU Marvel films as well. I guess I just thought The Avengers film was just going to be a lot different than what it was.
 
TheSinkingKnight said:
That's probably my problem. I've never read any of their comic books and I'm not really familiar with the characters.

Well, yeah, my grievances do apply to other non-MCU Marvel films as well. I guess I just thought The Avengers film was just going to be a lot different than what it was.
Click to expand...

I've never read any of the comics and I love the Avengers. So I don't think it's a necessary component. You simply didn't like it and that's fine.
 
freeofgreed said:
Marvel and DC are two very different companies. By your logic Marvel shouldn't even be making risky films like GoTG and Ant-man when they can just make 9 Iron man films and 7 Captain America films right? Yet they aren't which shows that your Warner bros. Disney comparisons are pretty off base. Also I'am not saying I regret the fact that other studios have used their properties in the past, I am saying moving forward I would prefer if those properties went back to their proper owners.
Click to expand...

By my logic, marvel already HAS made three iron man films and two cap films with a third confirmed to be on the way. They're ALREADY stacking the deck with films known to be successful. There are two hulk films as well, but neither was particularly successful and only one of them is a part of their current film strategy.

Marvel is experimenting with their lower tier titles for a couple of reasons- first, that strategy has worked phenomenally for them, raising the value of all of their brands which bleeds back into their core business of books and merchandising. This would likely not be happening had it not already worked with I.M. Thor and Cap, which they were pretty much forced into using.

Second, the longer they lock these actors into contracts the more expensive it is. Iron man 4 and 5 if they come at all are going to be very, very expensive to get robert downey jr to do- unless they replace the actor entirely. It's much less risky for them to take a franchise that isn't well known, lock new or unknown actors into contract on them, tie them into avengers somehow for the exposure and kick them out the door to see what works.

Finally- Marvel/Disney has a limited amount of money and release windows in which to actually schedule these films. If Marvel/Disney actually DID have the rights to make spiderman and X-men alongside of everything else there is NO WAY you would be getting ASM2 this year that close to winter soldier, or GOTG that close to X-men: DOTP. They'd eat into each other's runs, reduce overall budget for film production and risk burning out audiences.

As it is Sony doesn't really care if winter soldier's audience is obliterated by ASM, they're out to make money for their own studio, not for disney. The current arrangement means we're going to be getting more high budget films in a shorter amount of time. The warner arrangement means that DC is extremely limited in what it can produce in a year, lest it end up competing with it's own properties as well as everything else warner puts out that's not comic related.
 
happypup said:
For DC I tend to agree. However Marvel comic books were conceived with a unified world in mind. The interactions, science, physics, everything is pretty self consistent (as much as any comic book universe can be). I like the idea that big cosmic stories are taking place but so are stories being told in Hell's Kitchen about street thugs and less powerful heroes. The continuity is great.
Click to expand...

How is it different for DC?
 
Dead said:
Meh, Im fine with it. Most of marvel's own films are emotionally and dramatically inert, bland, uglau and lack any memorable traits.Mostly alll by the books.

Webb's Spidey flicks, flawed as they are, at least have a beating heart beneath them
Click to expand...

i agree with you on both. though i think cap 2 is a better film than webb's spidermans (or any other MCU movie)

plus i don't think marvel studios could be capable of making an xmen film as good as X2 (and hopefully DOFP)

also ang lee hulk is underrated. not only one of the most interesting comic book films but definitely one of the most well acted. ruffalo may possibly be a better actor than bana. but bana easily had the most interesting performance as banner. really tragic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bonjour, my French GAF friends.
2
67
814
p_xavier replied
OpenAI admits AI hallucinations can't be fixed
News 
24
980
kruis replied
Why Movies Just Don't Feel "Real" Anymore
2
69
2K
Major Insano replied
A Django/Zorro Crossover Movie is in The Works
25
275
jason10mm replied
  • Poll
If you suddenly became rich, would you give any of it to your friends/family?
2 3
113
1K
DeVeAn replied
Top Bottom