Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff

Lithium93_

Couldn't Marvel just buy the rights for Spider-Man outright from Sony?

FunLover18

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Couldn't Marvel just buy the rights for Spider-Man outright from Sony?

I would imagine that that would be ridiculously expensive given what Spider Man is worth in terms of box office. I'm sure that idea has already been suggested in the Marvel/Disney boardroom

Agent Coulson

I read somewhere last week Sony looking for Star Wars money to gives the rights back.

Thats a in the billions so can see Marvel/Disney paying that for Spiderman.

FunLover18

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I read somewhere last week Sony looking for Star Wars money to gives the rights back.

Thats a in the billions so can see Marvel/Disney paying that for Spiderman.

I hear the exchange rate between US$ and Tattooine$ is very good at the moment.

Soft Falling Rain

Lol at Sony if that's true, they must really be in trouble if they're looking for billions for a franchise that has been exhausted under their stewardship.

bur

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Lol at Sony if that's true, they must really be in trouble if they're looking for billions for a franchise that has been exhausted under their stewardship.

One has nothing to do with the other. Just common sense that they would want massive money for something that is worth...massive money.

Agent Coulson

Here is the thing Spiderman is burned out at Sony 5 films in 12 years and reboot in that time.

Spiderman & The Sinister Six won't get Sony on to the Superhero money train that the MCU, X-Men Universe & The DC/Warner films are on.

If Sony were smart they would sell back the rights to Marvel/Disney for a good cash price and a % backend on each film Spiderman is in for the next 20 years.

Otherwise Spiderman will sit on the shelf for a long time making no one money and probably revert back to Marvel/Disney for free in the end anyway.

Lithium93_

ANT-MAN rumoured to tie in with Captain America: Civil War

http://www.starlog.com/rumor-how-will-ant-man-connect-to-captain-america-3/

Really not seeing the point of bringing in Ant-Man and having Stark create Ultron

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

Really not seeing the point of bringing in Ant-Man and having Stark create Ultron

The character was not introduced in time to have him as such a crucial part of the next Avengers movie. Stark is a well established, massively popular character and fits perfectly with the creation of Ultron. Makes perfect sense to me.

Also, it sounds like we'll be losing an Avenger or two in the coming movies so introducing Ant Man later allows him to slot in and replace the outgoing Avenger without bloating the team member count.

Agent Coulson

I have a feeling Ant-Man could be introduced in Agent Carter next month with a cameo in one of the episodes.

cloud493

An email sent by Marvel president warning Sony about the mistakes of ASM 2

Soft Falling Rain

cloud493 wrote: »

An email sent by Marvel president warning Sony about the mistakes of ASM 2

I stopped reading that pretty sharpish. The fact that he says that it was meant to be a prequel to the first trilogy sums up the idiocy. Yes, a prequel, to even ****ing before Spider-Man was Spider-Man. :rolleyes:

The darkness of the storyline wasn't the problem either I'd argue, rather it was the absolute disastrous strategy towards the villains.

The dark ending to TASM2 was the only thing they actually did well as it was something they developed properly from the first film.

Nervous Wreck

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I stopped reading that pretty sharpish. The fact that he says that it was meant to be a prequel to the first trilogy sums up the idiocy. Yes, a prequel, to even ****ing before Spider-Man was Spider-Man. :rolleyes:

The darkness of the storyline wasn't the problem either I'd argue, rather it was the absolute disastrous strategy towards the villains.

The dark ending to TASM2 was the only thing they actually did well as it was something they developed properly from the first film.

I agree with parts of this. The notes are ridiculous in some parts because they assume the premise of the films should be somethig they're not (prequels in an existing canon).

The darkness of the story isn't 'the' problem with the movie but it's definitely one of them. Spider-man should be fun and this movie was not at all fun. They tried for grit with a character who is the exact opposite of grit. The fact that Spider-man is NOT gritty is not only his charm, it's his defining characteristic. He's the wise-cracking, happy-go-lucky hero. There's tragedy in his life, sure, but he soldiers on in spite of it and does his best to get past it.

Agree again with you that the death at the end is one of the best parts of the movie (because of the acting involved) but completely agree with the notes that it was premature. It should have been planned to happen in the third movie.

Bowlardo

Bacchus wrote: »

I think it would be quite refreshing (and welcomed by audiences) to have one of the MCU movies NOT end with a "hero saves the world" scenario. If the heroes keep on winning every time, audiences will grow weary of the same thing over and over. Their biggest problem right now is their villains, they are disposable and generic. Only Loki has any traction with audiences.

how many films have they mad and he is the only one that I can actually remember

Soft Falling Rain

I don't even find Loki to be that memorable of a villain. Hiddleston does a great job but if I compared him to Ledger's Joker he's not exactly the ground breaking character some like to portray him as.

Bowlardo

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I don't even find Loki to be that memorable of a villain. Hiddleston does a great job but if I compared him to Ledger's Joker he's not exactly the ground breaking character some like to portray him as.

Thread is " Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff ". Ledgers Joker is not relevant to this thread

Bowlardo

Bowlardo wrote: »

Thread is " Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff ". Ledgers Joker is not relevant to this thread

Why not?

Soft Falling Rain

It was just a comparison to illustrate that Marvel don't put enough into their villains to make them memorable. I'm sure Ultron and Thanks will buck that trend though.

Soft Falling Rain

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

It was just a comparison to illustrate that Marvel don't put enough into their villains to make them memorable. I'm sure Ultron and Thanks will buck that trend though.

Thanos?

Don't defend the comment (while I disagree so you can defend the sentiment?) it is perfectly valid to use a stand out performane from their competitor as a comparison.

I don't agree though, Red Skull was good as was Redford and the Dude (Tony Stark built it in a cave... With a box of SCRAPS ). Loki's performances all depend on where they are going, they could be outstanding in how subtle things play (or unfulfilling admittedly)

Mandarin was a disaster for anyone wanting a serious Iron Man arc, outside Avengers.

Soft Falling Rain

Yeah Thanos, bloody auto correct!

Don't get me wrong all the actors do a good job (I actually thought Pace did a great job as Ronan until they made a goof of him towards the end).

I just think that likes of Hiddleston and Pace can be given so much more to do than what they're getting.

Totally agree with Ronan but he was always on a hiding to nothing. Thanos was the big bad here even though barely there. It was to introduce Guardians and Nebula with a disposable Little Bad.

Still think that Loki is playing the long game that will tie in subtle actions over last few films

astrofool

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I stopped reading that pretty sharpish. The fact that he says that it was meant to be a prequel to the first trilogy sums up the idiocy. Yes, a prequel, to even ****ing before Spider-Man was Spider-Man. :rolleyes:

The darkness of the storyline wasn't the problem either I'd argue, rather it was the absolute disastrous strategy towards the villains.

The dark ending to TASM2 was the only thing they actually did well as it was something they developed properly from the first film.

I don't think he meant literal prequel (or that wasn't the tone I read it in), but a prequel for the character as a high school kid, and allowing stories to develop from that setting.

Agent Coulson

I am Groot...Vin wants another role in the MCU. This is the cover of his Facebook page.

FunLover18

Are the obelisks in AoS anyway related to the infinity stones?

Nervous Wreck

FunLover18 wrote: »

Are the obelisks in AoS anyway related to the infinity stones?

No, they tie in to

The Inhumans movie which is scheduled for late 2017

.

spacecoyote

The trend continues of trailers for trailers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOSgoawQ7DE

Plus an ant man trailer, very cheeky, I have no idea what it shows though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQjhJf1R4k4

FunLover18

Wasn't RDJ's new contract only for Avengers 2 & 3? I wonder does that include 3 part 2

Loughc

FunLover18 wrote: »

Wasn't RDJ's new contract only for Avengers 2 & 3? I wonder does that include 3 part 2

Most likely it would as they will film 3 part one and two back to back, remember he is signed on to FILM Avengers 3, they could FILM it as one movie and release it as 2.

FunLover18

Loughc wrote:

Most likely it would as they will film 3 part one and two back to back, remember he is signed on to FILM Avengers 3, they could FILM it as one movie and release it as 2.

You're probably right but I think we're all agreed that part 1 needs to end on a downer only for the Avengers to make good in part 2. The direction they're heading with Stark in AoU and CW it would be pretty interesting of they killed him off at the end of part 1. It's never gonna happen but it just occurred to me with the whole contract situation. Again though you're probably right.