AVFCDAN Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The wolverine films were honestly terrible. Put the IP in the right hands and don't water it down to a 12 certificate and they could be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, hogso said: It did lead me to read up the copyrights for the character. I was sure there was a guy like him in the second Avengers movie, and indeed there is, they're just different takes on the character as the copyright is basically 'shared'. But the Avengers one is dead, I think, and X Men didn't have his twin sister, which Avengers does...yeah, a little confusing. Any other circumstances like that I should be aware of in other Marvel (or DC for that matter) movies? Pretty much all DC characters are tied into Warner Brothers, because Warner Brothers effectively owns DC Comics. Marvel on the other hand... Marvel partly owns the rights to the Hulk, they share them with Universal who have a binding interest in distributing any Hulk movie, however it seems this only extends to a solo Hulk movie, which appears to be why they haven't bothered doing another Hulk film... There's a similar deal in place with Namor, who is basically Marvel's Aquaman, but better, which was only recently confirmed. Any character that can be defined as a mutant or is associated closely with X-Men/mutant characters tends to be lumped into Fox's rights, who also have everything associated with the Fantastic 4, which is surprisingly large amounts of Marvel canon (some of the best villains and biggest threats got lumped into F4 rights because they are most closely associated with them, despite characters like Dr Doom, Galactus being whole universe threats on the page. There is also a co-ownership with the Skrulls, but not the specific character Super Skrull, which sits wholly with Fox). Fox's rights are so far reaching Marvel isn't even allowed to use the word 'mutant' in reference to any character, hence the twins origin in Age of Ultron is changed completely. This has also lead to some weird characters being caught in limbo - Captain Britain, who is a daft but interesting character (he's an odd mix of Captain America and Arthurian legend - think Cap crossed with Dr Strange with a bit of Excalibur) is generally believed to be held with Fox, despite not being a mutant. His sister is Psylocke, who appeared in Xmen Apocalypse without a British accent...but is a mutant. Similarly a character called Gladiator, from an alien race in the comics, is apparently held by Fox because he's most closely associated with the X-Men, and by extension that entire alien race is also in Fox's hands. Marvel are so hostile to the Fox deal that they started to try to undermine it - they binned the Fantastic 4 comic after years of continuous publication, they've heavily cut back on X-Men merchandising (they basically didn't allow X-Men toys to be made for while) and started to alter the characters and focuses in the comic to try to alter the status quo away from the movies (they killed Wolverine in the main continuity and had a female clone, X-23, take his place for instance), and also pushed the Inhumans comic to replace X-Men (which was never going to happen). Then theres Sony. Sony have Spider-man and associated characters. They wanted to establish a Spider-man universe with characters like Venom, Sinister Six and even Gwen Stacy having their own movies. However, with Sony's troubles and the Amazing Spider-man reboot not taking off as well they'd like, Marvel negotiated use of the character. The exact extent of the deal isn't clear. Initially it seemed that Marvel could use the character and would work with Sony on the creative direction of the character, but Sony would have final control. However Kevin Feige, the big man at Marvel, suggested that the deal meant Marvel basically controlled the character in everything and Sony's control is a bit of a formality. Best guess is Sony on paper have final say and probably distribution rights for solo movies, but Marvel hold the reigns now. And then went and put the best Spider-man theres been in Civil War as a glorified cameo to rub Sony's nose in it. The rights stuff is very strange. Minor characters are constantly switching around (Taskmaster, a villain and sometimes antihero, who has fought every character going, was with Fox but then was back with Marvel earlier this year, Man-Thing was bizarrely held by Lionsgate for years then Marvel suddenly started namedropping the character as a gag in some shows), and the rights are different for movies and TV in some cases, and games are completely their own entity. Hopefully Marvel eventually get all the rights back, or at least the ability to use the characters, as increasingly Marvel is going to be scraping the barrel soon with new names that can carry a movie with box office potential (I'd adore a Moon Knight movie, but it'll never happen. TV though, maybe).and characters like Wolverine, Dr Doom, Galactus are really heavily associated across Marvel comics and not just their home line. Edited June 8, 2016 by Chindie 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 They're making a shit ton of money, but as you point out it isn't exactly a very straightforward process for marvel to get those characters back, as you point out. Could they not just for throw money at the rights to try and get them back 'home'? I suppose that depends if the other companies want to play ball at all, which it seems Fox won't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 8, 2016 Moderator Share Posted June 8, 2016 Must say I was a little disappointed by The Brothers Grimsby. I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, but I was hoping for closer to Borat levels. SBC is good at what he does but this didn't have anything like the amount of laughs you'd want. It has its moments but not enough of them. 5/10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, hogso said: They're making a shit ton of money, but as you point out it isn't exactly a very straightforward process for marvel to get those characters back, as you point out. Could they not just for throw money at the rights to try and get them back 'home'? I suppose that depends if the other companies want to play ball at all, which it seems Fox won't? Some of the rights revert if they aren't used. That's how they got Daredevil back for instance, Fox made the Ben Affleck movie then did nothing with it for long enough time that the deal expired and Marvel got the character back. So they could wait for Fox to not do anything with Fantastic 4 for instance and get that back. Unfortunately Fox will absolutely not allow that to happen. The superhero movie bandwagon is making money and whilst X-Men isn't the biggest hit, it makes Fox money and whilst that happens they won't let any rights slip, even a flop like F4. They will reboot F4 in a few years, or try to smash the current cast into an X-Men crossover. Theres nothing stopping them making deals though. There was talk that Fox's X-Men rights were movie only and that they were negotiating with Marvel over extending that to TV a year or so ago, with the suggestion being that Marvel wanted F4 back in return. But that hasn't happened and IIRC Fox are now developing X-Men TV series. So who knows. I doubt Fox will be willing negotiators so Marvel might just leave it be and wait for things to wobble. Deadpool's success means that might take a while though, they are certainly making a Deadpool sequel and they have wanted to do X-Force for years where he's a big name, and the closer they can tie Deadpool to X-Men (before it burns out) only raises X-Men's takings. I don't think they'll have the Fox properties on board any time soon sadly. From my perspective, whilst it'd be great to have the X-Men on board, they exist in the comics as a strange world to themselves, with minor crossovers apart from tentpole events they are central to (AvX, etc), so that's not a huge loss to Marvel... but the stuff associated with F4... I'd love to see Marvel do Dr Doom properly, and it'd be great for them to have another huge villain, perhaps their best, on board. I don't even care about the F4 themselves. I just want to stuff around them. But it's not happening. The hope is that some of the more minor properties might be able to transfer by virtue of Fox not using them, like Taskmaster. But that's unlikely to include Doom or Galactus and co. Marvel is ok for now without them. Their slate has a bunch of new characters being introduced - Black Panther solo movie in 2018, Captain Marvel (a rare female character and another cosmic one to go with Guardians, and one they're trying to raise the profile of with Civil War 2 in the comics), Dr Strange introducing really weird magic and other dimension stuff to the universe (I maintain they'll explain this with quantum realm stuff rather than 'magic'), Inhumans (which'll be shit as theres only 1 good character in there and he doesn't speak), as well as new characters being introduced in sequels (Thor 3 introduces Skurge, Hela and the Grandmaster, Antman 2 is bringing in the Wasp, Guardians 2 might/should introduce Adam Warlock, etc). Eventually though you are looking at the much more obscure characters. We're already into tier 2 and 3 characters with the likes of the Inhumans, if they start delving into the cosmic characters the quality drops off fast (Quasar, Moondragon, Captain Universe...ugh). There are some decent minor characters, as said I'd love an Ellis era Moon Knight (who they might have hinted at in Winter Soldier) but he probably works better in a Netflix incarnation, the new Ms Marvel is universally loved and would be a good diversity choice to adapt (Muslim teenage girl) and they've got Blade and Ghost Rider back if they think they can do some of the more 'oogey boogey' stuff and make it fit. The big problem is going to be villains, especially cross over ones. But yeah, it'd be great to whole lot under 1 roof. Best bet is doing a Sony style sharing agreement, but I don't see Fox being happy with that and I don't see Marvel agreeing to the kind of terms Fox would like, and currently neither needs to compromise. All of this makes it even more funny how badly DC managed to **** up. Warner Brothers can do anything it likes with these characters, and they've got the Big 2. And so far they've **** it with no sign of sorting it out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Mmm. Nothing screams 'promising piece of artwork' more than admitting 'we've made this movie only because if we didn't we lost our exclusive intellectual property rights'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooligan Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The Tree Of Life (2011) Reading up on various reviews of this film it seems you either enjoy watching this film or you dont.. I come into the latter.I just could not get into this film It is certainly not a film that will stay in my memory I would score it 6/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 JK Simmons getting bizarrely stacked to play Commissioner Gordon for Justice League. This man is in his 60s. I'm in my 20s and barely 5x5 40odd kilos on a bench Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Bonkers & doesn't make much sense at all & has the worst opening credit music ever but I still enjoyed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said: Bonkers & doesn't make much sense at all & has the worst opening credit music ever but I still enjoyed it. Watched that again not so long ago as I was watching anything with strong Lovecraft references. It has it's moments (the bike etc) but it hasn't aged particularly well and was way more effective when I first saw it at the cinema. Probably the last decent film Carpenter made too. I suppose The Ward wasn't too shabby but nothing touches his early work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, pooligan said: The Tree Of Life (2011) Reading up on various reviews of this film it seems you either enjoy watching this film or you dont.. I come into the latter.I just could not get into this film It is certainly not a film that will stay in my memory I would score it 6/10 That film is pretentious shite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I've watched 'Tree of Life' twice and could easily watch it a third time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: That film is pretentious shite. It's an incredibly divisive movie. I found it vastly overrated and ultimately quite irritating as I thought it bit off a little more than it could chew. Yet from a technical standpoint it was superb (as is all of Malick's work). Certainly not one i'll watch again in any great hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I've been on the lookout for Lovecraft stuff myself. Surprisingly underrepresented in film (although plenty of films take his ideas/themes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said: I've been on the lookout for Lovecraft stuff myself. Surprisingly underrepresented in film (although plenty of films take his ideas/themes). Yep, there's literally hundreds of horror/sci-fi movies that have references to his work but not that many actual adaptations. Re-Animator would probably be the most famous but even that has limited similarities to the written story. There is a 2005 film of the Call of Cthulhu but I haven't managed to watch that yet. Apparently, Call Girl of Cthulhu is great fun too (not even kidding ) Edited June 8, 2016 by Designer1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 There are a couple of interesting looking games out next year that seem to adapt his work. Not much in the way of film though, unless that Del Toro fella finally gets his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 8, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2016 48 minutes ago, Designer1 said: It's an incredibly divisive movie. I found it vastly overrated and ultimately quite irritating as I thought it bit off a little more than it could chew. Yet from a technical standpoint it was superb (as is all of Malick's work). Certainly not one i'll watch again in any great hurry. I'm sure from a technical standpoint it's excellent. It looked amazing. But it was boring. Tried to be too clever for it's own good and came off looking pretentious. You'd have to pay me to watch it again. Shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Watched The Nice Guys tonight. I really enjoyed it. It's a bit silly but it's very fun and there's a fair few laugh out loud moments. Crowe and Gosling had good chemistry and the latter stole the show, he was hilarious. I love 1970s America as a period too. 8/10 would happily watch again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 4 hours ago, useless said: I've watched 'Tree of Life' twice and could easily watch it a third time. Maybe by the 5th time you'll be able to stay awake and see it through to the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 It's to films as Pink Floyd are to music, seems pretty out there in isloation, but really in comparison to the competition it's pretty easy going. I couldn't get through 'The New World', though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts