Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Follyfoot]

22 hours ago, Chindie said:

No. Fox X-Men universe.

It was always going to be battered, it's been finished for well over a year, sat waiting for release. They've basically cut their losses and sent it out to die.

I read it based around Essex corp so would think there would be Mister Sinister angle which realigns it with the MCU universe after taking Logan’s DNA at the end of Apocalypse and also the link in the comics

[mikeyp102]

6 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

I read it based around Essex corp so would think there would be Mister Sinister angle which realigns it with the MCU universe after taking Logan’s DNA at the end of Apocalypse and also the link in the comics

Apocalypse wasn’t part of MCU... they are all marvel comics, but not ran by Marvel cinema (Kevin Feige, producer), Fox network have the rights. However, as MCU have now completed the purchase of Fox; Future X Men films (as well as the likes of Fantastic Four) will fall under MCU umbrella 

———

The joys of being unable to sleep at times... I’ll give a bit more on MCU break down although @Chindie probably knows more than me (I’m not a comic reader). 
 

During 90s Marvel as a company were struggling financially (mainly just comics and cartoons) so sold off image rights of some of their main characters (and their universe/villains) , X Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Hulk et al. They were sold to different companies, Fox Network, Sony etc, each for differing length of time. 

All X Men, Deadpool, Fantastic Four films do not come under MCU arc as owned by Fox.

Once in a stronger financial position they wanted to make films and created the MCU, but couldn’t use the characters that they had sold hence starting with one of the lesser popular characters (at the time) Iron Man.
Hulk was added (the one with Ed Norton), but as the properties weren’t owned by Marvel they didn’t make much money from it. One of the reasons they haven’t done another Hulk solo film (I believe something about the way the rights were written, the character can appear in “team ups” and still make Marvel money).

As the MCU grew and became bigger and bigger, Sony who had purchased Spider-Man were starting to struggle financially in their cinema industry. They wanted a piece of the Marvel popularity and so came to an agreement to loan Spider-Man back to MCU for 5 films including 2 Solo films. Sony who still owned the rights then used this popularity to expand the Sony Cinematic universe and create Venom, and are currently developing others, such as Morpheus. There has been further developments in the last yr-18 months which has resulted in a further extension of the use of Spider-Man character in MCU, but this will now include the whole Spider-Man universe including villains. 

MCU continued to grow and gain popularity and was bought out by Disney. Using the financial strength of Disney, Fox network has been bought out, meaning the likes of X-Men and Deadpool are now owned MCU and all future films will come under their banner. 
 

There is probably a lot more to it that I’ve missed.

Edited September 1, 2020 by mikeyp102

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, mikeyp102 said:

Apocalypse wasn’t part of MCU... they are all marvel comics, but not ran by Marvel cinema (Kevin Feige, producer), Fox network have the rights. However, as MCU have now completed the purchase of Fox; Future X Men films (as well as the likes of Fantastic Four) will fall under MCU umbrella 

———

The joys of being unable to sleep at times... I’ll give a bit more on MCU break down although @Chindie probably knows more than me (I’m not a comic reader). 
 

During 90s Marvel as a company were struggling financially (mainly just comics and cartoons) so sold off image rights of some of their main characters (and their universe/villains) , X Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Hulk et al. They were sold to different companies, Fox Network, Sony etc, each for differing length of time. 

All X Men, Deadpool, Fantastic Four films do not come under MCU arc as owned by Fox.

Once in a stronger financial position they wanted to make films and created the MCU, but couldn’t use the characters that they had sold hence starting with one of the lesser popular characters (at the time) Iron Man.
Hulk was added (the one with Ed Norton), but as the properties weren’t owned by Marvel they didn’t make much money from it. One of the reasons they haven’t done another Hulk solo film (I believe something about the way the rights were written, the character can appear in “team ups” and still make Marvel money).

As the MCU grew and became bigger and bigger, Sony who had purchased Spider-Man were starting to struggle financially in their cinema industry. They wanted a piece of the Marvel popularity and so came to an agreement to loan Spider-Man back to MCU for 5 films including 2 Solo films. Sony who still owned the rights then used this popularity to expand the Sony Cinematic universe and create Venom, and are currently developing others, such as Morpheus. There has been further developments in the last yr-18 months which has resulted in a further extension of the use of Spider-Man character in MCU, but this will now include the whole Spider-Man universe including villains. 

MCU continued to grow and gain popularity and was bought out by Disney. Using the financial strength of Disney, Fox network has been bought out, meaning the likes of X-Men and Deadpool are now owned MCU and all future films will come under their banner. 
 

There is probably a lot more to it that I’ve missed.

Blimey

[villa4europe]

I was under the impression that because marvel had sold of the rights to their old established characters they then decided to introduce new characters that they again had the rights to

with the name "the new mutants" I kind of thought that they'd sold the xmen and tried to come up with these as a newer alternative that they still owned

you might be able to tell from that that I have very little interest in this film

[Chindie]

The New Mutants comic is from the 80s. They wanted to expand the X-Men series (which at the time was Marvel's big seller) so came up with a another team that was younger than the core X-Men team and went into more teen focused themes.

The X-Men deal for films was so far reaching they wouldn't have been able to do 'New Mutants' as a get around even if they wanted to. The deal went as far as using the term or concept of 'mutants' was strictly Fox's. Which is why Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver, who are Magneto's children and are themselves mutants, in the MCU had their origin changed - Marvel couldn't even hint at them being mutants.

[sne]

Quote

Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country, The Last Black Man in San Francisco) has been tapped to play one of the Marvel Universe’s biggest villains against its smallest hero. Majors will play Kang the Conqueror in Ant-Man 3, according to Deadline.

Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, Kang is legendary throughout the Marvel Universe for his timehopping ways — it would not be much of a stretch to call him The Master but for the Marvel Universe. And with Ant-Man facing a time-travel villain, it would not be much of a stretch to say that we’ll probably return to the Quantum Realm technology introduced in Ant-Man & the Wasp, which fueled the plot of Avengers: Endgame.

According to Deadline’s sources, “with so many new characters in the MCU, there could be a twist with how the character is featured in future films, but as of now he is likely to be one of the main villains in the next installment in the [Ant-Man] franchise.”

The thing about Kang is that he’s hopped through time so much and so liberally that younger and older versions of himself have even established themselves as basically their own Marvel characters, including the older villain Immortus and the young superhero (yes, superhero) Iron Lad (yes, Iron Lad). If there are plans to feature Kang other Marvel movies, writers and creators could go pretty much anywhere they wanted with the character, simply by explaining that this is Kang from a different phase of his very, very long life.

https://www.polygon.com/2020/9/14/21436481/ant-man-3-cast-marvel-mcu-kang-conqueror-jonathan-majors

[Chindie]

The MCU has its She-Hulk. Tatiana Maslany.

[Brumerican]

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

The MCU has its She-Hulk. Tatiana Maslany.

The worlds first monthly TV show ?

[mikeyp102]

Wandavision official trailer out 

 

Here

 

Wanda losing her mind and creating scenarios, likely to lead to creation of mutants 

[Tegis]

Is vision actually dead?

Marvel: yeah, but actually no, but it can be a yes, or maybe a no. What do you think?

[ender4]

On 18/09/2020 at 22:31, Chindie said:

The MCU has its She-Hulk. Tatiana Maslany.

Does that mean there will be a hulk and a she-hulk going forward?  Or is the normal hulk retiring?

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

Does that mean there will be a hulk and a she-hulk going forward?  Or is the normal hulk retiring?

It should mean there's a Hulk and a She-Hulk.

[mikeyp102]

3 hours ago, Tegis said:

Is vision actually dead?

Marvel: yeah, but actually no, but it can be a yes, or maybe a no. What do you think?

Yes Vision is dead, well as far as we know. The stone was destroyed. 
People are saying that WandaVision, is Wanda having a breakdown after the death of Vision. She’s creating a blissful life in her head about living with Vision. However, with her being so powerful, these may affect real life. People are saying this series is vital in the next arc of the films, as it will create other universes hence the next Dr Strange movie 

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, Tegis said:

Is vision actually dead?

Marvel: yeah, but actually no, but it can be a yes, or maybe a no. What do you think?

In fairness that basically is fitting with Scarlett Witch's power.

[Tegis]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

In fairness that basically is fitting with Scarlett Witch's power.

Yep, my point And the story will probably be too complicated for me to hang around. Multiverses and time-travels do my head in eventually. (Unless Doc Brown is involved)

[villa4europe]

The multiverse plus spiderman stuff sounds interesting... Fair play to them if they pull that off

[Brumerican]

On 21/09/2020 at 08:37, Tegis said:

Is vision actually dead?

Marvel: yeah, but actually no, but it can be a yes, or maybe a no. What do you think?

Does any comic book character stay dead when there is time travel and multiverses ?

[Rds1983]

9 hours ago, Brumerican said:

Does any comic book character stay dead when there is time travel and multiverses ?

There used to be 3 characters that always stayed dead no matter what: Ben Parker (spiderman's uncle), Jason Todd (2nd Robin who was killed by the Joker) and someone else who I cannot think of right now. However even these ppl now have been resurrected at times. 

So no, nobody ever stays dead. 

[Brumerican]

Just now, Rds1983 said:

There used to be 3 characters that always stayed dead no matter what: Ben Parker (spiderman's uncle), Jason Todd (2nd Robin who was killed by the Joker) and someone else who I cannot think of right now. However even these ppl now have been resurrected at times. 

So no, nobody ever stays dead. 

I'm a 2000AD guy because all Dredd's enemies stay dead.

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

There used to be 3 characters that always stayed dead no matter what: Ben Parker (spiderman's uncle), Jason Todd (2nd Robin who was killed by the Joker) and someone else who I cannot think of right now. However even these ppl now have been resurrected at times. 

So no, nobody ever stays dead. 

Bucky is the other one.

In fairness Todd and Bucky coming back actually worked because they ended up doing something interesting with them. It wasn't just a resurrection of the same character like we usually see.