[Movies] The Avengers 2
- Thread starter Cheesy1
- Start date
The Wonder Twins!
THAT'S DC, NUMBSKULL!The Wonder Twins!
Apparently, since they also have very strong ties with Avengers (arguably stronger than X-Men), it's one of those "DIBS!" kind of things. Whoever can get them on screen first gets to use them.
Marvel is getting the ball rolling already, airing commercials for their commercials for this movie!
I should say that, as much as I love Rocket Racoon, it's sad that he'll make his big screen debut before Flash, Wonder Woman, or Martian Manhunter. And maybe Aquaman.
Ehhhh, I don't know about that. I think Blade, followed by X-Men, and then especially Spider-Man had more of a hand in giving us all the superhero movies we have today.
The mad snapping up of superhero properties by the studios happened after the massive buzz and success Batman had in 1989. I know a lot of you folks are younger than me, but those of you my age or older can't be forgetting the fucking insane crazy anticipation for Batman. Everyone was nuts for it. The superhero genre was all but dead until Batman. You can dislike it all you want, but you can't deny it's success.
Oh, I won't deny its success at all. Though I will admit the Burton movies have not aged well.
That said, while we did get a slew of superhero movies, there were only a handful that were of any great quality. Sure, we got Ninja Turtles, Darkman, The Rocketeer, but for every one of those, we got quite a few stinkers, too. The quality ration of good to bad didn't really start until after Blade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_superhero_films
That said, while we did get a slew of superhero movies, there were only a handful that were of any great quality. Sure, we got Ninja Turtles, Darkman, The Rocketeer, but for every one of those, we got quite a few stinkers, too. The quality ration of good to bad didn't really start until after Blade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_superhero_films
Almost, for sure, but the studios bought up all those rights during those times. That's when the X-Men rights were picked up and James Cameron finally let go of his stranglehold on Spider-Man.
It's also fair to say that Batman would never have been made had the Christopher Reeve Superman movies hadn't done so well.
As to DC, really, they should have been poised to do what Marvel did years ago. They've been owned by WB for quite some time, they don't have to worry about liscencing all over the place because they never had to split their properties to multiple studios like Marvel did. All around, DC has done a piss poor job of making a coherent universe for their movies. As much as I love the Bale Batman movies, they don't feel like part of a larger universe like the Marvel Studios movies do.
What I'm really excited about is the fact that they said after they do their super mega-star movies in the marvel universe, we'll start to see wierder properties. I can't wait for the Dr. Strange movie.
As to DC, really, they should have been poised to do what Marvel did years ago. They've been owned by WB for quite some time, they don't have to worry about liscencing all over the place because they never had to split their properties to multiple studios like Marvel did. All around, DC has done a piss poor job of making a coherent universe for their movies. As much as I love the Bale Batman movies, they don't feel like part of a larger universe like the Marvel Studios movies do.
What I'm really excited about is the fact that they said after they do their super mega-star movies in the marvel universe, we'll start to see wierder properties. I can't wait for the Dr. Strange movie.
Well, really, they're already going with some of the weirder shit with GotG. I'm really stoked for that.
That's because the Marvel Studio movies were produced by studio created by Marvel for the purpose of having control (and profits) of their properties on the big screen. Any movie based on a DC property is going to be produced by Warner Bros. a movie company that owns the rights for the DC properties because they bought them. It's kind of unfair when people blame DC for this as WB has all the control in the process.
DC is a division of WB now. Look at the animated universe. It doesn't run into an liscencing issues because they're all under one roof. Of course DC doesn't have direct studio control, but it would be extremely easy to pull characters together. Particularly given the success that Marvel Studios has had, WB is just plain stupid to not follow suit.
That's not entirely true, they run into infighting issues too(the Batman character embargo on Justice League).
The problem with DC being owned by Warner Bros is honestly WB themselves. For one, they have no flipping idea how to make a superhero movie that isn't Batman. They wanted the new Superman to be dark, dark, dark, which had me worried but the latest trailer has my hopes up. Two, they don't seem keen on just making a good, fun superhero movie like Marvel is all willing to do. They seem wanting to make big budget arthouse movies ala the newer Bat-movies.
They seem afraid to just let the superhero stuff go nuts and have fun. Then again, I suppose they attempted that with Green Lantern and they completely fell flat on their face.
EDIT: I agree that the lack of spin-off division devoted just to making the movies like Marvel has is a distinct problem. Look at the animated division. They've done an amazing job. I'd love to see Bruce Timm have his own live-action division for all things DC, but I read somewhere that Timm has no interest in anything live-action and firmly believes animation gets a bum rap. Which I agree on, but if it meant we get Timm doing live action, I wish he'd make the sacrifice.
They seem afraid to just let the superhero stuff go nuts and have fun. Then again, I suppose they attempted that with Green Lantern and they completely fell flat on their face.
EDIT: I agree that the lack of spin-off division devoted just to making the movies like Marvel has is a distinct problem. Look at the animated division. They've done an amazing job. I'd love to see Bruce Timm have his own live-action division for all things DC, but I read somewhere that Timm has no interest in anything live-action and firmly believes animation gets a bum rap. Which I agree on, but if it meant we get Timm doing live action, I wish he'd make the sacrifice.
That movie wasn't produced by Marvel Studios, both were produced by Fox.
Well... it certainly makes sense now.
I was under the impression that Disney had the rights to Spider-Man and they were responsible for the reboot.
Sounds like Disney has a hand in the films though.
The rights to Daredevil just reverted to Marvel.
Not Spider-Man, they don't have the movie rights to the character. Sony can do whatever they want with him, movie wise. They make money off the movies via licensing fees and merchandising, but beyond that, they have nothing to do with them. They really don't have anything to do with the current Marvel movies beyond financial backing and distribution. Marvel Studios is backed by Disney, but they don't fall under the Disney movie production umbrella. Marvel Studios is basically Avi Arad's show.
Someone being good at animation doesn't mean they'll be good at live action. See: Andrew Stanton, director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E, taking on John Carter. Now, I like that movie and it's still good, but the reason the budget was so high and there were so many bumps in the road development-wise is because Stanton planned it out like he was doing an animated film and caused a lot of headaches for Disney. The nice thing about animated films is that you can make everything at once. You don't have to worry about a 30-day shoot, feeding and housing actors and extras, etc.
So I'm not saying Timm wouldn't make a good movie, but WB would likely bring the hammer down either while he was making it, thus stifling his vision, or afterward, killing a lot of potential with comic book movies from their company.
At this point, I don't really care what WB does with the DC property. Marvel was smart--they hired the right people to do work that made sense for those filmmakers. WB wants what's popular. It's like comparing Pixar and Dreamworks from a few years ago, before Dreamworks started making really good animated films. Pixar would get voice actors to match their vision; Dreamworks would get name actors to do their voices. Marvel gets people who get their material; WB wants people who are popular.
They also own the rights to the X-Men, as well as mutants in general. So Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver probably aren't going to be mutants, unless Marvel and Fox came to a deal.
The Fantastic Four deal excludes Silver Surfer and Galactus because of a deal Marvel made to let Fox keep the FF rights. Don't be surprised if they show up in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie.
Expect to hear stuff on Ghost Rider 3 soon, though Nicholas Cage already said he won't be involved. This means the franchise will ether be reverting to Marvel or a deal will be made.
Unless that Deadpool movie is in production, it's likely the rights will be reverting to Marvel soon.
Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please
I'm just going by the time frame... the last Fantastic 4 movie was released the same year as X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which depicted Deadpool (kinda). If they were willing to make a deal to extend the rights on one, that probably meant that the rights were being threatened by inaction. This means that Deadpool, as a character, is probably going back home unless the upcoming Wolverine 2 movie resets that timer.