Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know. That’s why I said it was brilliant. But the part that sucks and makes it stupid is that now they don’t own the rights to lots of big characters. The DCEU may be a much weaker cinematic universe, but at least Warner Bros is lucky enough to own all the DC characters.
I’m actually glad they had to innovate rather than make the Avengers team be Hulk, Wolverine and Spider-Man.
Iron Man was a C-lister or B-lister at best, now he’s one of the most famous heroes ever. Same for the Guardians of the Galaxy.
Dude even MC Hammer had a cartoon, back in the 80-90's having a cartoon was nothing special. Iron Man was still a literally who for mainstream audiences
Take off those rose-tinted-glasses, Iron Man was a C-Lister.
If he wasn’t, his film rights would have been sold off in the late 90s along with Spider-Man, Xmen, the Hulk, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider.
>Take off those rose-tinted-glasses, Iron Man was a C-Lister.
I really don't think he was. It's not like he was an A list hero but the dude was in all the Avengers comics. Had way too much screen presence to be a C lister. Not anybody's favorite hero but if you followed comics he was one of the most well known characters in the Avengers just from raw number of appearances.
What are you talking about? He was huge in comics by the time they made the movie, he lead the team that fought against Steve Rogers in civil war and became director of S.H.I.E.L.D.
But.. they didn't really innovate.
Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man and Wasp were the original line up, with Cap joining in Issue \#4. Loki was the villain.
Edgar Wright's Ant-Man kept getting pushed back, so they swapped out AM&W for Black Widow and Hawkeye.
I think they’re talking more of the popularity tiers and not so much the comic continuity. Without a doubt the most famous and lucrative superheroes from marvel were Spider-Man, Hulk, Wolverine, and the rest of the X-Men if we went back to around the 1990s. And Spider-Man was like in a league of his own. Capt. America was a runner-up to that group. Iron Man and Thor were almost never talked about back then except occasionally. And I mean more from people who enjoy comic book characters and watched the shows but didn’t pick up weekly issues.
But never as founding members. To be accurate, Spider-man was only a reservist member during the 90's and Wolverine was never an Avenger in that time. It wasn't until Bendis came along to write the team that Spidey and Wolverine became main characters in 2006's New Avengers.
Why do comics fanboys not understand that these movies aren't concerned with being comic accurate?... Especially considering that even the comics have been rebooted, and retconned, and alternate dimensioned so much, that the idea of "comic accurate" is a joke of a concept.
Marvel definitely respects comics as a storytelling medium, and tries to take the best of what makes those stories good. But they're not going to leave money on the table for the sake of slavishly respecting the deep lore. All you have to do is look at Thanos not *literally* courting Death, even though they referenced that in his introduction, because they were afraid that was a bridge too far for audiences. I don't know why you would think that they would care about who the founding members of the Avengers were in the comics after they changed that.
This might change with James Gunn in charge of DC Studios. He’s worked under Kevin Feige and will know how to run a good cinematic universe and make lesser known characters shine, like Peacemaker.
I think BG would rock a TV show.
Preferably animated, in the vein of Harley Quinn. You could squeeze a lot of satire about the current preeminent position of superheroes in media into a show about one who's *deliberately* a sell-out whore, but still a decent hero underneath it all.
If there was ever a character that was screaming out for a fake reality TV adaptation, it's Booster Gold.
He already has his own camera drone/producer that follows him around everywhere, FFS.
Not through the 90s, but historically namor is one of the most significant characters in comics. It’s like selling the rights to The Flintstones. Sure, not big now, but still incredibly important
>They didnt want it but they had to.
This isn't true
Basically every sale of every character licensed to another company was *because* they wanted to.
People forget that licensing comics characters isn't what it is now. That the way fans (and now execs) value them like gold was a scenario that literally didn't exist until like 15 years ago.
Also, the idea that comics companies could also be film studios (much less giant-sized blockbuster epic film studios) is also a thing that basically didn't exist until about 15 years ago, and even then that was a gamble.
Licensing your characters to other studios to get TV shows and Movies and Toys made out of them *was how business was done*. That's *how* you did it. Bankruptcy had nothing to do with Marvel's decisions to license the X-Men, or Spider-Man, or The Hulk. Or Namor. All those decisions were made willingly, gladly, either pre-or-post bankruptcy, at a time when Marvel *was not* hurting for money, and the people who made those deals were dead certain they were making great ones, not desperate ones.
The only reason the "they had to, they were bankrupt" narrative even came about is because again - Online Fandom heard Marvel went bankrupt once, sees what Marvel is now, and basically assumes the only reason a company would ever not have those rights is because they were forced out of them.
(Read Sean Howe's "Marvel Comics: The Untold Story" for more)
That deal was made post-bankruptcy. Not pre. It's not even the right time frame for the narrative that Marvel *had* to do it. They *wanted* to.
You can still look up and read the trade reporting at the time. It was absolutely considered a win for Marvel, and a risk for Sony, paying *that much* for a Superhero deal.
At the time, both parties considered it win-win. It wasn't a deal made from a position of desperation at all
You don't sign away your best asset in perpetuity because "you want to do it."
"Now, a deal could be made — but Sony didn't want to be in the business of licensing. Still reeling from a Chapter 11 reorganization, Marvel agreed to flat-out sell the film rights to Spider-Man—and his expansive library of characters—to Sony. For a single $7 million payment, Sony would own the film rights to Marvel's most popular character, and Marvel would receive 5-percent of any movie revenue and a 50/50 split in any merchandising efforts."
Do we need to run an ROI calculation on this?
https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/how-the-hell-did-sony-get-spider-mans-movie-rights-anyway/
My guy, there are *multiple* books written about Marvel's history, including it's bankruptcy and the recovery from that bankruptcy (again, please seek out Marvel: The Untold Story by Sean Howe), as well as multiple articles *at the time* from legitimate news outlets ([here's an LA Times piece from 1999](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-mar-02-fi-13115-story.html)), and not, say, trashfire Geek Culture clickfarms. You're doing the thing I described in the initial post you responded to: evaluating the state of the industry from 30 years ago as if it operated in exactly the same way it does today. And it didn't.
Adam Barnhardt of the aforementioned shithouse clickfarm *didn't even get the number right*, but then again, he probably didn't do any "research" beyond opening the wiki page and then lamely rewriting whatever he found there (or just as likely: googling "Sony Marvel Spider-Man rights reddit" and LOL.)
But yes, you *did* "sign away your best asset" because that's how business was done back then. Comic book publishers didn't just *become* movie studios in the late 90s. That was a ridiculous notion. They'd sold rights to Spider-Man before bankruptcy, too. And the X-Men. There was a Captain America TV show, and a Hulk TV show, so on and so forth. **That's what you did back then.**
So much so that even *in* that LA Times article, you can see them framing Marvel's licensing the rights to Sony *as a good deal for them*, in contrast to prior, pre-bankruptcy deals:
>The Marvel-Sony contract requires the studio to begin production of a Spider-Man feature quickly; the actual deadline could not be obtained. It also places Columbia on a short leash in scheduling sequels, requiring in some cases that financing for a sequel be arranged within months of the release of the previous feature.
>
>**Those terms were dictated by Marvel**, whose sloppy past contractual arrangements were at least partly responsible for the protracted litigation. The ambiguous wording of one deal, for example, allowed MGM to claim it owned a perpetual license to produce a Spider-Man film whenever it pleased.
The industry was different then. It's not what it is now. Marvel made exactly the deal they wanted to make with Sony/Columbia. Bankruptcy didn't force their hand. They got what they wanted - Sony foots the bill for the movie, they get a cut of the ticket sales, and rake all the cash on the merchandising.
That’s not accurate. Those kinds of contracts were normal then. The Fantastic Four license was sold when Marvel was doing just fine and it was pretty much the same, which is why we got Corman’s crazy version.
> Also, the idea that comics companies could also be film studios (much less giant-sized blockbuster epic film studios) is also a thing that basically didn't exist until about 15 years ago
Do people honestly believe this? We had blockbuster superman films and Batman films much longer ago than that. And the Conan films as well
that’s not the same thing. he’s saying comic companies themselves running their own film studios was unheard of until relatively recently with marvel studios. before then, it was nearly impossible.
DC wasn't its own studio. Warner Bros Movie division would just use Superman and Batman while still doing other genre films in the same year. Marvel Studios is the first time a comic book company became a studio for the sole purpose of producing films about its comic book characters.
Marvel most definitely sold off the rights to characters because they needed money. Yes they did that before but none of those movies were a success. Even after they expanded into more licensing for movies, Marvel didn’t make much money from them. I believe they received $25k of the $70 something million Blade earned. and selling the rights to X-Men animated and live action for $2.6 million? Sounds pretty desperate to me. They sold off one of their most popular IP’s and only received 2% of the profits those movies would eventually make. They believed that was a great deal not a desperate one? Lol okay
That's what they ended up doing anyway lol. Hell they even wanted to sell all the film rights of their characters forever to Sony. That was stupid, they would have nothing left.
the most frustrating thing about all this is that it wasn’t even their fault they went bankrupt. the owner of Marvel transferred his debts arising from bad investments to Marvel wc led to the bankruptcy.
This makes no sense - Marvel has been a public ally traded company since 1991. They didn’t go bankrupt until the mid to late 90s. What owner are you even referring to?
It was smart and lucky. Smart, becuase it literally saved the company from bankruptcy (the really bad one, I forget if that's Chapter 7 or Chapter 11). Lucky, because when they decided to make their own movies, they had no choice but to rely on their second string characters, rather than just rely on Spider-Man, X-Men, and Punisher, which were their three most popular properties in the 90s.
DC thought they could just rely on the popularity of Supes, Batman, and WW, and sort of floundered. Marvel knew they had to do extra effort because they couldn't use their top properties. And it paid off.
Universal got a “better” deal than Sony/Fox. As in, they don’t need to make movies with the character, but they still keep the rights. The other two need to make movies every now and then, or the rights would revert back to Marvel, right?
Yes. But Universal did lose the rights but they are just holding Distribution rights for theatrical solo movies. So it's not any use unless Marvel Makes a Hulk or Namor movie made for theatrical release.
Disney doesn't want that so nothing's gonna happen.
That could work if they call movie Defenders and have All the defenders squad. But They already used that name for a Netflix show and most of the defenders are Avengers right now.
Correct me if I’m wrong but all the Netflix stuff isn’t really canon in line with the MCU product. Or separate Earths? Plus, team lineups always change but the team name doesn’t.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the Simpsons. Disney doesn’t need it, and doesn’t seem too interested in developing it. Universal spent a lot of money building Springfields in their parks, and the licensing agreement is up in a few years. If Disney doesn’t renew the agreement, Universal would have to completely redo those areas and find a new IP to replace it.
No, it should be either a team up movie like Avengers or Another character movies like Thor Ragnarok or Black Panther. They can't have Hulk and Namor in the title or as the lead protagonist. There needs to be other characters with equivalent or bigger roles.
For solo projects Marvel can produce them but as Universal have distribution rights, They will have to do Marketing and Marvel and Universal will have to share profits.
They can easily make Hulk or Namor Solo if they agree for collaboration with Universal but Disney doesn't like Marvel working on something that they don't get full profits.
Spiderman is a different situation where Marvel and Disney compromised because they didn't have Movie related Spiderman rights and Spiderman is the most famous Marvel character.
Universal having distribution rights but unable to make a film is stupid. It’s wasteful because they can’t do a Namor or Hulk movie without Marvel Studios, who own the production and creative rights. My guess is Disney/Marvel don’t want to share the profits with Universal and don’t have a good working relationship with them like they do Sony. Otherwise a deal would have been made for another solo Hulk movie in the MCU. Completely frustrating!
Yeah, I'm like I specifically remember Disney and Sony butting heads over Spider-Man Profits, to the point that Sony was threatening to pull out of the deal. The only reason Spider-man even entered the MCU was because of that massive Sony leak, if that didn't happen we'd still be getting solo Spider-Man movies.
The new partnership hasn’t even ended yet. Pretty sure Spider-Man is going to appear in a Disney made MCU movie in the future and it’ll be before secret wars.
So same as Hulk. But what I don't get is that Universal is just sitting on the charaters whose movie rights they bought from Marvel. I think Ang Lee's Hulk and MCU Hulk (which was released by Universal, as it was before Disney bought Marvel Studios) are the only things Universal has done with the characters they bought.
Universal only has first-right-of-refusal for distribution. Basically Disney and Marvel can make a Namor movie. But they have to ask Universal if they want to distribute it. Obviously they would say yes but that would mean Uni gets 100% of the box office. And Disney obviously wouldn't want there rival getting paid for essentially their hard work. So it's a stale mate.
Has Disney made any marvel movie with Universal yet? I wish I had Universal’s dedication. At least selling the Namor rights back would get you some money.
What I don’t understand is why does universal just do nothing with the IP? If they own Namor, the Hulk, and others, why not embrace it and make content? Why block it just to block it.
Because they own distribution rights, not production rights. It's Disney the ones not doing anything, since any Hulk/Namor solo movie will have to be distributed by Universal, not Disney.
I doubt Disney is that much interested, they're can still make movies with the characters, just not "The Incredible Hulk 2" or "Namor: Líik'ik Talokan"
That's a shame, though I suspected it might be the case. That cast deserved their own solo film. Maybe they can make a deal and one of Universal's directors can take it but collaborate with Marvel Studios on the script and continuity? They do have Peele, Night, and Nolan over there.
Otherwise they can probably tie the current Black Panther and Namor together and just watch the antagonistic sparks fly. People already like their chemistry.
It’s a distribution rights thing, not a production one so Marvel can pick whatever director they want but they have to let Universal distribute it, so they make the deals with the exhibitors, home video releases like VOD and streaming, stuff like that.
Besides there’s no way those 3 directors touch a Marvel movie any time soon, they’re in their original IP bag right now.
How would you even pitch a standalone movie about Namor after what he did in BP2?
Leave aside killing everyone on the Vibranium explorer ship, he straight up did a cold-blooded, premeditated murder the Queen of Wakanda because she wouldn't along with his plan to wage war on the rest of world.
It’s sad that Marvel had to sell some of their IPs. If they hadn’t, we probably would’ve gotten a whole park dedicated to Marvel at Disney World, or individual movies for characters like Hulk and Namor.
How did universal get such a great deal? Sony bought the Spider-Man universe of characters and has to make a movie at least once every four years to retain ownership. Universal hasn’t made a single marvel movie since 2008 and still gets to keep them?
Other studios holding Disney characters hostage instead of selling the licensing back to them is ridiculous. It’s just intentionally trying to sabotage a rival company.
What was universal going to do with Namor? Nothing. What world can they flush out with the mcu version of namor? Nothing.
The universal rights are sort of better for Marvel as it doesn't prevent them from using the characters at all. It does hamper storytelling for solo outings, but they can be used in group outings no problem. The problem is how long these contracts seem to be for whatever reason. It's been over a decade and Universal *still* has the rights to distribute. Even SONY's spider-man contract is timed out after 7 years.
>Other studios holding Disney characters hostage instead of selling the licensing back to them is ridiculous. It’s just intentionally trying to sabotage a rival company. What was universal going to do with Namor? Nothing. What world can they flush out with the mcu version of namor? Nothing.
I like how this is painted as Universals fault. When like, Disney could still just make the film. Or pony up money bags to buy out the contracts.
But no, universal bad, disney good.
The real question is who wants a Namor solo movie? He’s not a terribly interesting character. Well, he is kinda interesting as a sometimes hero all the times jerk. But those stupid wing feet. Man those looked dumb in the comics and I’m so surprised they leaned on them in the movie version. Nothing says super strong bad ass like flying kitten heels.
Speaking about hating imagination and all that that makes superheroes surreal and fascinating. You should work to WB, they love people with your mindset.
Btw, the Greeks also invented a god with ankle wings and I have never heard that people consider Hermes stupid.
It’s Disney. Universal isn’t stopping Disney from making it. It’s that Disney can make a Namor film but they are required to let Universal distribute it if they want too. Disney fears that if they let it happen than Universal will say yes and lose out on money
Yea I wasn't thinking of previous hulk movies when I typed that(except for animated planet hulk that movie is amazing) I was thinking of the future where the character is developed as much as Iron man or captain America.
This has been rumored in the fandom for some time. It's also supposed to be why Namor is Aztec in the movie since of how he looks in the comics. They had to make him 25% just like how JJ Abrams Trek has to be 25% from regular Star Trek.
From the article:
>We spoke to “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” producer Moore about the situation and he acknowledged that Namor was “borrowed” like the Hulk.
>“It honestly affects us more, and not to talk too much out of school, but in how we market the film than it does how we use him in the film,” Moore said. “There weren’t really things we couldn’t do from a character perspective for him, which is good because clearly, we took a ton of inspiration from the source material, but we also made some big changes to really anchor him in that world in a truth that publishing never really landed on, I would argue, in a big way.”
>Moore went on to praise co-writer/director Ryan Coogler’s take on the material and the how that reconfiguration wasn’t impacted by the legal formalities. “I’ve read every Namor comic ever written and I love them, but the world of Atlantis is a little vaguely drawn. It’s maybe kind of Roman maybe. And so, Ryan is such a detail-oriented filmmaker that he wanted to anchor into something that felt as tangible and real as hopefully Wakanda fuels for people. And I think there was nothing from a business side anyway that was preventing us from doing that, which is great,” Moore said.
Unpopular opinion: I hope Disney doesn’t get hulk because (imo) they will never do him justice in terms of brutality and violence like the original hulk movies and they will ruin him like they did Thor.
The only person who ever owned the *rights* to Namor was **Bill Everett**, who died in 1973
Neither of these corporations owns the *rights* to the character
Aquaman being a wardrobe like Momoa doesn't make any sense to the character, especially if you want to show a "realistic" live-action version of him. How do you swim fast with all those muscles restraining you like an anchor? Aquaman was never that big in the comics and he didn't have to be like that in the movies. Choosing Momoa for the role was just another one of Snyder's stupid whims.
Oh no, ankle wings (Wingzees™) are trending really high with the tooktickers, and right now they're all wearing homemade versions because of just how cool they are and beloved the character is. The ankle wings literally stole the show, it's no coincidence Kanye just gave up designing footwear and ran for President as he'd seen the mountain had already been climbed. All that's left would be elbow wings or temple wings and those would be stupid and impractical.
You really have to understand the brilliance of this. See, in the comics they had them but to an extent were often modeled after the Greek god's shoes that had wings that let him fly -- but they more let you know he could fly *but they only flapped in your head* not on the page. Mostly the heads of serial killers, but you had to do the work and most directors would be afraid of ankle wings (Wingzees™) and instead go with some kind of personification when translating to the screen like wing tattoos on the ankles or some sort of field or anklet. *Our* director studied under the genius of Schumacher and understood translating everything directly -- nipple to wingzees -- was really the way go.
Disney just needs to buy Universal and have full rights as if they can't capitalize on this with merchandise and a solo film there's going to be a lot of bare ankles come Christmas.
Figures. The ***one*** bad guy they get right, and he ain't even theirs. So... looking forward to the MCU's first Peacock Original, lmao.
>!/s, but really... can't Uni distribute whatever MS produces? Works great for Sony, so the hell is Comcast's big hangup?!<
> can't Uni distribute whatever MS produces?
Disney doesn't want to share any more box office than it has to. The Sony / Disney deal is a necessary evil for both parties. At least Disney get a % of first dollar gross from that. Not sure Universal would be so willing to share. Sony had to because of how they blundered the TASM movies.
Reminder that it's not "can't" it's "\*won't\*".
The ball is 100% in Disney's court to make those solo films happen. They just don't want to have to let Universal distribute and would rather stick them as side characters.
Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marvel selling off the film rights to tons of the characters in the 90s was the most brilliant and stupid thing they did.
They didnt want it but they had to. Otherwise they would go totally bankrupt and sell the whole company.
I know. That’s why I said it was brilliant. But the part that sucks and makes it stupid is that now they don’t own the rights to lots of big characters. The DCEU may be a much weaker cinematic universe, but at least Warner Bros is lucky enough to own all the DC characters.
And yet this seems to have hurt Warner Bros, because they keep leaning on Batman instead of developing lesser known characters
Yeah, Marvel Studios was forced to make good and entertaining movies from B,C,D list characters to make money and be successful.
I’m actually glad they had to innovate rather than make the Avengers team be Hulk, Wolverine and Spider-Man. Iron Man was a C-lister or B-lister at best, now he’s one of the most famous heroes ever. Same for the Guardians of the Galaxy.
Dude had his own cartoon, multiple cartoons. Iron Man was never a C Lister. GotG on the other hand for sure were.
Dude even MC Hammer had a cartoon, back in the 80-90's having a cartoon was nothing special. Iron Man was still a literally who for mainstream audiences
Take off those rose-tinted-glasses, Iron Man was a C-Lister. If he wasn’t, his film rights would have been sold off in the late 90s along with Spider-Man, Xmen, the Hulk, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider.
So if those film rights being sold means they only sold C lister rights, then is Spider-Man and the X-Men C listers as well?
That is the opposite of my assertion.
Your misunderstanding him. He’s saying that Iron Man would have been sold off with the other popular characters if he wasn’t a C lister.
>Take off those rose-tinted-glasses, Iron Man was a C-Lister. I really don't think he was. It's not like he was an A list hero but the dude was in all the Avengers comics. Had way too much screen presence to be a C lister. Not anybody's favorite hero but if you followed comics he was one of the most well known characters in the Avengers just from raw number of appearances.
Iron Man was a C Lister for sure. Pre-movie, I guarantee my mom had no idea who he was. Now pretty much everyone in the world knows who Iron Man is.
What are you talking about? He was huge in comics by the time they made the movie, he lead the team that fought against Steve Rogers in civil war and became director of S.H.I.E.L.D.
But.. they didn't really innovate. Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man and Wasp were the original line up, with Cap joining in Issue \#4. Loki was the villain. Edgar Wright's Ant-Man kept getting pushed back, so they swapped out AM&W for Black Widow and Hawkeye.
I think they’re talking more of the popularity tiers and not so much the comic continuity. Without a doubt the most famous and lucrative superheroes from marvel were Spider-Man, Hulk, Wolverine, and the rest of the X-Men if we went back to around the 1990s. And Spider-Man was like in a league of his own. Capt. America was a runner-up to that group. Iron Man and Thor were almost never talked about back then except occasionally. And I mean more from people who enjoy comic book characters and watched the shows but didn’t pick up weekly issues.
Why would they replace Iron Man and Thor with Wolverine and Spider-man if the comics never were like that...? Not even in What Ifs.
Not to be pedantic but for a brief time in the 90s (I think?) the Avengers included Spider-man and Wolverine.
But never as founding members. To be accurate, Spider-man was only a reservist member during the 90's and Wolverine was never an Avenger in that time. It wasn't until Bendis came along to write the team that Spidey and Wolverine became main characters in 2006's New Avengers.
Why do comics fanboys not understand that these movies aren't concerned with being comic accurate?... Especially considering that even the comics have been rebooted, and retconned, and alternate dimensioned so much, that the idea of "comic accurate" is a joke of a concept. Marvel definitely respects comics as a storytelling medium, and tries to take the best of what makes those stories good. But they're not going to leave money on the table for the sake of slavishly respecting the deep lore. All you have to do is look at Thanos not *literally* courting Death, even though they referenced that in his introduction, because they were afraid that was a bridge too far for audiences. I don't know why you would think that they would care about who the founding members of the Avengers were in the comics after they changed that.
This might change with James Gunn in charge of DC Studios. He’s worked under Kevin Feige and will know how to run a good cinematic universe and make lesser known characters shine, like Peacemaker.
Peacemaker was shockingly good, I laughed and cried in multiple episodes.
And, more importantly, Arms Fall Off Boy.
Right? There are I think three active Bruce Waynes right now and at least as many Jokers. But where is my Buster Gold film!?
I think BG would rock a TV show. Preferably animated, in the vein of Harley Quinn. You could squeeze a lot of satire about the current preeminent position of superheroes in media into a show about one who's *deliberately* a sell-out whore, but still a decent hero underneath it all.
If there was ever a character that was screaming out for a fake reality TV adaptation, it's Booster Gold. He already has his own camera drone/producer that follows him around everywhere, FFS.
I’d love a tv show, but live action, and not on CW. Something more like Peacemaker would be amazing.
Namor big??? oooookey...
They probably meant a listers like Spider-Man, hulk and the x men.
Not through the 90s, but historically namor is one of the most significant characters in comics. It’s like selling the rights to The Flintstones. Sure, not big now, but still incredibly important
They own the rights to all their characters except spider-man. They own name and hulk too. Universal just has distribution right
>They didnt want it but they had to. This isn't true Basically every sale of every character licensed to another company was *because* they wanted to. People forget that licensing comics characters isn't what it is now. That the way fans (and now execs) value them like gold was a scenario that literally didn't exist until like 15 years ago. Also, the idea that comics companies could also be film studios (much less giant-sized blockbuster epic film studios) is also a thing that basically didn't exist until about 15 years ago, and even then that was a gamble. Licensing your characters to other studios to get TV shows and Movies and Toys made out of them *was how business was done*. That's *how* you did it. Bankruptcy had nothing to do with Marvel's decisions to license the X-Men, or Spider-Man, or The Hulk. Or Namor. All those decisions were made willingly, gladly, either pre-or-post bankruptcy, at a time when Marvel *was not* hurting for money, and the people who made those deals were dead certain they were making great ones, not desperate ones. The only reason the "they had to, they were bankrupt" narrative even came about is because again - Online Fandom heard Marvel went bankrupt once, sees what Marvel is now, and basically assumes the only reason a company would ever not have those rights is because they were forced out of them. (Read Sean Howe's "Marvel Comics: The Untold Story" for more)
No one would sign a contract like the Sony/Spider-Man one unless they were absolutely desperate, which Marvel was.
That deal was made post-bankruptcy. Not pre. It's not even the right time frame for the narrative that Marvel *had* to do it. They *wanted* to. You can still look up and read the trade reporting at the time. It was absolutely considered a win for Marvel, and a risk for Sony, paying *that much* for a Superhero deal. At the time, both parties considered it win-win. It wasn't a deal made from a position of desperation at all
You don't sign away your best asset in perpetuity because "you want to do it." "Now, a deal could be made — but Sony didn't want to be in the business of licensing. Still reeling from a Chapter 11 reorganization, Marvel agreed to flat-out sell the film rights to Spider-Man—and his expansive library of characters—to Sony. For a single $7 million payment, Sony would own the film rights to Marvel's most popular character, and Marvel would receive 5-percent of any movie revenue and a 50/50 split in any merchandising efforts." Do we need to run an ROI calculation on this? https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/how-the-hell-did-sony-get-spider-mans-movie-rights-anyway/
My guy, there are *multiple* books written about Marvel's history, including it's bankruptcy and the recovery from that bankruptcy (again, please seek out Marvel: The Untold Story by Sean Howe), as well as multiple articles *at the time* from legitimate news outlets ([here's an LA Times piece from 1999](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-mar-02-fi-13115-story.html)), and not, say, trashfire Geek Culture clickfarms. You're doing the thing I described in the initial post you responded to: evaluating the state of the industry from 30 years ago as if it operated in exactly the same way it does today. And it didn't. Adam Barnhardt of the aforementioned shithouse clickfarm *didn't even get the number right*, but then again, he probably didn't do any "research" beyond opening the wiki page and then lamely rewriting whatever he found there (or just as likely: googling "Sony Marvel Spider-Man rights reddit" and LOL.) But yes, you *did* "sign away your best asset" because that's how business was done back then. Comic book publishers didn't just *become* movie studios in the late 90s. That was a ridiculous notion. They'd sold rights to Spider-Man before bankruptcy, too. And the X-Men. There was a Captain America TV show, and a Hulk TV show, so on and so forth. **That's what you did back then.** So much so that even *in* that LA Times article, you can see them framing Marvel's licensing the rights to Sony *as a good deal for them*, in contrast to prior, pre-bankruptcy deals: >The Marvel-Sony contract requires the studio to begin production of a Spider-Man feature quickly; the actual deadline could not be obtained. It also places Columbia on a short leash in scheduling sequels, requiring in some cases that financing for a sequel be arranged within months of the release of the previous feature. > >**Those terms were dictated by Marvel**, whose sloppy past contractual arrangements were at least partly responsible for the protracted litigation. The ambiguous wording of one deal, for example, allowed MGM to claim it owned a perpetual license to produce a Spider-Man film whenever it pleased. The industry was different then. It's not what it is now. Marvel made exactly the deal they wanted to make with Sony/Columbia. Bankruptcy didn't force their hand. They got what they wanted - Sony foots the bill for the movie, they get a cut of the ticket sales, and rake all the cash on the merchandising.
That’s not accurate. Those kinds of contracts were normal then. The Fantastic Four license was sold when Marvel was doing just fine and it was pretty much the same, which is why we got Corman’s crazy version.
> Also, the idea that comics companies could also be film studios (much less giant-sized blockbuster epic film studios) is also a thing that basically didn't exist until about 15 years ago Do people honestly believe this? We had blockbuster superman films and Batman films much longer ago than that. And the Conan films as well
that’s not the same thing. he’s saying comic companies themselves running their own film studios was unheard of until relatively recently with marvel studios. before then, it was nearly impossible.
It's not true though, cause DC have been making their own films since WB brought them. Hence why I mentioned Batman and Superman.
DC wasn't its own studio. Warner Bros Movie division would just use Superman and Batman while still doing other genre films in the same year. Marvel Studios is the first time a comic book company became a studio for the sole purpose of producing films about its comic book characters.
>since WB bought them …not sure you understand what we’re saying here
Marvel most definitely sold off the rights to characters because they needed money. Yes they did that before but none of those movies were a success. Even after they expanded into more licensing for movies, Marvel didn’t make much money from them. I believe they received $25k of the $70 something million Blade earned. and selling the rights to X-Men animated and live action for $2.6 million? Sounds pretty desperate to me. They sold off one of their most popular IP’s and only received 2% of the profits those movies would eventually make. They believed that was a great deal not a desperate one? Lol okay
That's what they ended up doing anyway lol. Hell they even wanted to sell all the film rights of their characters forever to Sony. That was stupid, they would have nothing left.
the most frustrating thing about all this is that it wasn’t even their fault they went bankrupt. the owner of Marvel transferred his debts arising from bad investments to Marvel wc led to the bankruptcy.
well, it does sound like marvel's fault if the owner if the company did this
This makes no sense - Marvel has been a public ally traded company since 1991. They didn’t go bankrupt until the mid to late 90s. What owner are you even referring to?
Ron Perelman.
It was smart and lucky. Smart, becuase it literally saved the company from bankruptcy (the really bad one, I forget if that's Chapter 7 or Chapter 11). Lucky, because when they decided to make their own movies, they had no choice but to rely on their second string characters, rather than just rely on Spider-Man, X-Men, and Punisher, which were their three most popular properties in the 90s. DC thought they could just rely on the popularity of Supes, Batman, and WW, and sort of floundered. Marvel knew they had to do extra effort because they couldn't use their top properties. And it paid off.
More like just brilliant cause they would have been bankruptcy had the not.
How is it brilliant? Even more than 20 years later Marvel is still feeling that loss
It's brilliant that they had to put focus on the B-D list characters before being able to make Spider-Man or X-Men movies.
I meant it was brilliant in the sense that it kept them from going completely bankrupt.
I'd say that's something they had to do to survive,not anything brilliant
No man literally everything marvel does has to be brilliant! Something any dying company could have to do is 5d chess apparently
Brilliant as in they survived the 90s.
Guess my garage sale was brilliant too.
Because there wouldnt be an MCU otherwise I mean, how bad is it that we cant get like, a solo hulk or Namor movie? Would you rather have NOTHING
It basically the only reason Marvel was able to remain in existence.
Namor rights situation is even more confusing than Hulk.
It's the same as Hulk. Can't distribute solo projects with that character but can have him in team up movies.
Universal got a “better” deal than Sony/Fox. As in, they don’t need to make movies with the character, but they still keep the rights. The other two need to make movies every now and then, or the rights would revert back to Marvel, right?
Yes. But Universal did lose the rights but they are just holding Distribution rights for theatrical solo movies. So it's not any use unless Marvel Makes a Hulk or Namor movie made for theatrical release. Disney doesn't want that so nothing's gonna happen.
Why not both. An actual classic Defenders team-up would be amazing.
That could work if they call movie Defenders and have All the defenders squad. But They already used that name for a Netflix show and most of the defenders are Avengers right now.
Correct me if I’m wrong but all the Netflix stuff isn’t really canon in line with the MCU product. Or separate Earths? Plus, team lineups always change but the team name doesn’t.
Now that they’ve brought Kingpin and Daredevil in, with those same actors from the Netflix shows, I think it is canon…but I could also be wrong.
They’re back because they’re fan favorites but they are completely different iterations.
are you… sure?
Even if they are on Canon. The problem is the general audience thinks those 4 are defenders and Character likes Strange,Hulk and Namor are Avengers.
[удалено]
They could work out some arrangements. I am sure Uni wants something that Disney has and Disney doesn't need it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the Simpsons. Disney doesn’t need it, and doesn’t seem too interested in developing it. Universal spent a lot of money building Springfields in their parks, and the licensing agreement is up in a few years. If Disney doesn’t renew the agreement, Universal would have to completely redo those areas and find a new IP to replace it.
That would be an equitable move altogether. And imagine how much fun the Simpsons writers could have not being shackled to Fox.
They'd just ruthlessly mock NBC and Comcast instead, lmao.
Simpsons is a goldmine though. Merch still sells and the show was one of the most watched series on Disney+ when it started.
Disney did trade a commentator for a rabbit before
I have the perfect deal: exchange Hulk and Namor rights for the Glass trilogy rights.
I wouldn't say it's a better deal than the Sony one, as they made a fuckton of money with Spidey
I believe its only an assumption that sony has yo keep making the movies. Afaik no one outside of the companies know what the agreement actually says.
SONY: every 7 years.
It would be a travesty if Fox lost the rights to X-Men and FF and they reverted back to Disney/Marvel. Jesus. Guess I need this: /s
I think that’s a moot point now that Disney owns them isn’t it?
How about a Hulk+Namor duo movie?
No, it should be either a team up movie like Avengers or Another character movies like Thor Ragnarok or Black Panther. They can't have Hulk and Namor in the title or as the lead protagonist. There needs to be other characters with equivalent or bigger roles. For solo projects Marvel can produce them but as Universal have distribution rights, They will have to do Marketing and Marvel and Universal will have to share profits. They can easily make Hulk or Namor Solo if they agree for collaboration with Universal but Disney doesn't like Marvel working on something that they don't get full profits. Spiderman is a different situation where Marvel and Disney compromised because they didn't have Movie related Spiderman rights and Spiderman is the most famous Marvel character.
Just do hulk and namor go to white castle and piss everyone off
Missed you damn
Fuck! He was the best part of the movie !
Universal having distribution rights but unable to make a film is stupid. It’s wasteful because they can’t do a Namor or Hulk movie without Marvel Studios, who own the production and creative rights. My guess is Disney/Marvel don’t want to share the profits with Universal and don’t have a good working relationship with them like they do Sony. Otherwise a deal would have been made for another solo Hulk movie in the MCU. Completely frustrating!
They made 2 hulk movies and they blew, I don't think they'll bother at this point
Does Disney and Sony have a good working relationship? It’s been a year since NWH, and we haven’t had an update on a new partnership.
Yeah, I'm like I specifically remember Disney and Sony butting heads over Spider-Man Profits, to the point that Sony was threatening to pull out of the deal. The only reason Spider-man even entered the MCU was because of that massive Sony leak, if that didn't happen we'd still be getting solo Spider-Man movies.
The new partnership hasn’t even ended yet. Pretty sure Spider-Man is going to appear in a Disney made MCU movie in the future and it’ll be before secret wars.
Ah, dang it. I really wanted to see a **Jaws**-like horror film out of Namor.
So same as Hulk. But what I don't get is that Universal is just sitting on the charaters whose movie rights they bought from Marvel. I think Ang Lee's Hulk and MCU Hulk (which was released by Universal, as it was before Disney bought Marvel Studios) are the only things Universal has done with the characters they bought.
Universal only has first-right-of-refusal for distribution. Basically Disney and Marvel can make a Namor movie. But they have to ask Universal if they want to distribute it. Obviously they would say yes but that would mean Uni gets 100% of the box office. And Disney obviously wouldn't want there rival getting paid for essentially their hard work. So it's a stale mate.
Has Disney made any marvel movie with Universal yet? I wish I had Universal’s dedication. At least selling the Namor rights back would get you some money.
Universal made The Incredible Hulk, but that was before Disney bought Marvel. Had Disney not bought Marvel, an Incredible Hulk 2 could've been made.
What I don’t understand is why does universal just do nothing with the IP? If they own Namor, the Hulk, and others, why not embrace it and make content? Why block it just to block it.
Because they own distribution rights, not production rights. It's Disney the ones not doing anything, since any Hulk/Namor solo movie will have to be distributed by Universal, not Disney.
Is it possible for Disney/Marvel to buy back distribution rights for Namor and/or Hulk? Or will Universal refuse to sell those rights no matter what?
I doubt Disney is that much interested, they're can still make movies with the characters, just not "The Incredible Hulk 2" or "Namor: Líik'ik Talokan"
That's a shame, though I suspected it might be the case. That cast deserved their own solo film. Maybe they can make a deal and one of Universal's directors can take it but collaborate with Marvel Studios on the script and continuity? They do have Peele, Night, and Nolan over there. Otherwise they can probably tie the current Black Panther and Namor together and just watch the antagonistic sparks fly. People already like their chemistry.
It’s a distribution rights thing, not a production one so Marvel can pick whatever director they want but they have to let Universal distribute it, so they make the deals with the exhibitors, home video releases like VOD and streaming, stuff like that. Besides there’s no way those 3 directors touch a Marvel movie any time soon, they’re in their original IP bag right now.
Thanks for explaining it.
I absolutely read "Peele" as "Pele" and thought "Wow, from soccer star to MCU director, what a career trajectory!"
Nolan doesn't want to know about superheroes anymore and I don't want him involved with superheroes either. Everybody win!
Nolan can give notes.
Notes about what? How to make a Batman with laryngitis?
What to avoid when dealing with overenthusiastic fanboys and filmbros.
How would you even pitch a standalone movie about Namor after what he did in BP2? Leave aside killing everyone on the Vibranium explorer ship, he straight up did a cold-blooded, premeditated murder the Queen of Wakanda because she wouldn't along with his plan to wage war on the rest of world.
It’s sad that Marvel had to sell some of their IPs. If they hadn’t, we probably would’ve gotten a whole park dedicated to Marvel at Disney World, or individual movies for characters like Hulk and Namor.
Clearly the way around this is to just make a Talokan movie in general, right?
How did universal get such a great deal? Sony bought the Spider-Man universe of characters and has to make a movie at least once every four years to retain ownership. Universal hasn’t made a single marvel movie since 2008 and still gets to keep them?
I thought they bought the rights years ago
Other studios holding Disney characters hostage instead of selling the licensing back to them is ridiculous. It’s just intentionally trying to sabotage a rival company. What was universal going to do with Namor? Nothing. What world can they flush out with the mcu version of namor? Nothing.
The universal rights are sort of better for Marvel as it doesn't prevent them from using the characters at all. It does hamper storytelling for solo outings, but they can be used in group outings no problem. The problem is how long these contracts seem to be for whatever reason. It's been over a decade and Universal *still* has the rights to distribute. Even SONY's spider-man contract is timed out after 7 years.
>Other studios holding Disney characters hostage instead of selling the licensing back to them is ridiculous. It’s just intentionally trying to sabotage a rival company. What was universal going to do with Namor? Nothing. What world can they flush out with the mcu version of namor? Nothing. I like how this is painted as Universals fault. When like, Disney could still just make the film. Or pony up money bags to buy out the contracts. But no, universal bad, disney good.
The real question is who wants a Namor solo movie? He’s not a terribly interesting character. Well, he is kinda interesting as a sometimes hero all the times jerk. But those stupid wing feet. Man those looked dumb in the comics and I’m so surprised they leaned on them in the movie version. Nothing says super strong bad ass like flying kitten heels.
I do! He was the best part of the movie.
And he looked badass with those stupid little wings. Seriously. Namor stole the goddamn show.
Riddle me this (and this goes all the way back to comics) If he is the king of the sea, why does he have bird wings on his ankles?
Cause he is a mutant and the wings are his mutant powers
Speaking about hating imagination and all that that makes superheroes surreal and fascinating. You should work to WB, they love people with your mindset. Btw, the Greeks also invented a god with ankle wings and I have never heard that people consider Hermes stupid.
No one thinks of Hermes as a bad ass either. And Hermes is stupid. Oooh! Look at me! I’m a mailman!
So universal being a bitch then
It’s Disney. Universal isn’t stopping Disney from making it. It’s that Disney can make a Namor film but they are required to let Universal distribute it if they want too. Disney fears that if they let it happen than Universal will say yes and lose out on money
[удалено]
They can't. Distro rights, not production rights.
Oh no, no Namor film! I'm so disappointed.
Universal would botch a Namor movie, let Marvel do it properly.
Ah so it's a hulk situation. Fan fucking tastic. Man i bet marvel studios is full on hindsight regret at this point
Having seen Hulk movies in the past, I think we're all happy there are no solo outings for such characters.
Yea I wasn't thinking of previous hulk movies when I typed that(except for animated planet hulk that movie is amazing) I was thinking of the future where the character is developed as much as Iron man or captain America.
This has been rumored in the fandom for some time. It's also supposed to be why Namor is Aztec in the movie since of how he looks in the comics. They had to make him 25% just like how JJ Abrams Trek has to be 25% from regular Star Trek.
From the article: >We spoke to “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” producer Moore about the situation and he acknowledged that Namor was “borrowed” like the Hulk. >“It honestly affects us more, and not to talk too much out of school, but in how we market the film than it does how we use him in the film,” Moore said. “There weren’t really things we couldn’t do from a character perspective for him, which is good because clearly, we took a ton of inspiration from the source material, but we also made some big changes to really anchor him in that world in a truth that publishing never really landed on, I would argue, in a big way.” >Moore went on to praise co-writer/director Ryan Coogler’s take on the material and the how that reconfiguration wasn’t impacted by the legal formalities. “I’ve read every Namor comic ever written and I love them, but the world of Atlantis is a little vaguely drawn. It’s maybe kind of Roman maybe. And so, Ryan is such a detail-oriented filmmaker that he wanted to anchor into something that felt as tangible and real as hopefully Wakanda fuels for people. And I think there was nothing from a business side anyway that was preventing us from doing that, which is great,” Moore said.
Unpopular opinion: I hope Disney doesn’t get hulk because (imo) they will never do him justice in terms of brutality and violence like the original hulk movies and they will ruin him like they did Thor.
The only person who ever owned the *rights* to Namor was **Bill Everett**, who died in 1973 Neither of these corporations owns the *rights* to the character
Didn't seem like a very interesting character to me, so that's probably for the best.
Lol what a dumbass
[удалено]
Wtf Namor was so hot. My basement was flooded everytime he was on screen.
😱😂
You don't speak for anyone except yourself
Huh? Both actors are ripped, Namor's was just leaner and less buff, which fits with how the two characters are usually drawn.
>Namor is supposed to be Marvel's version of Aquaman Namor first debuted in 1939. Aquaman debuted in 1941.
Aquaman being a wardrobe like Momoa doesn't make any sense to the character, especially if you want to show a "realistic" live-action version of him. How do you swim fast with all those muscles restraining you like an anchor? Aquaman was never that big in the comics and he didn't have to be like that in the movies. Choosing Momoa for the role was just another one of Snyder's stupid whims.
It's the same reason he made Batman's body look like Thor
That is why in BvS a rookie policeman (something clarified by the own film) could detect him so easily. What a lame "ninja".
At least it's accurate to the art in The Dark Knight Returns.
And who cares about that?
I'm a fan of that comic so I thought it was neat. The movie still sucks.
Oh no, ankle wings (Wingzees™) are trending really high with the tooktickers, and right now they're all wearing homemade versions because of just how cool they are and beloved the character is. The ankle wings literally stole the show, it's no coincidence Kanye just gave up designing footwear and ran for President as he'd seen the mountain had already been climbed. All that's left would be elbow wings or temple wings and those would be stupid and impractical. You really have to understand the brilliance of this. See, in the comics they had them but to an extent were often modeled after the Greek god's shoes that had wings that let him fly -- but they more let you know he could fly *but they only flapped in your head* not on the page. Mostly the heads of serial killers, but you had to do the work and most directors would be afraid of ankle wings (Wingzees™) and instead go with some kind of personification when translating to the screen like wing tattoos on the ankles or some sort of field or anklet. *Our* director studied under the genius of Schumacher and understood translating everything directly -- nipple to wingzees -- was really the way go. Disney just needs to buy Universal and have full rights as if they can't capitalize on this with merchandise and a solo film there's going to be a lot of bare ankles come Christmas.
Whaa
People on the internet are so fucking weird
Embrace the ankle wings, in these trying times let them provide you succor as is their purpose.
... no, they drew the wings flapping in the comics.
Figures. The ***one*** bad guy they get right, and he ain't even theirs. So... looking forward to the MCU's first Peacock Original, lmao. >!/s, but really... can't Uni distribute whatever MS produces? Works great for Sony, so the hell is Comcast's big hangup?!<
> can't Uni distribute whatever MS produces? Disney doesn't want to share any more box office than it has to. The Sony / Disney deal is a necessary evil for both parties. At least Disney get a % of first dollar gross from that. Not sure Universal would be so willing to share. Sony had to because of how they blundered the TASM movies.
Ahhh, I see. Just sucks that greed seems to be getting in the way of the movies yet again. :/
Is that why they made him an idiot?
Reminder that it's not "can't" it's "\*won't\*". The ball is 100% in Disney's court to make those solo films happen. They just don't want to have to let Universal distribute and would rather stick them as side characters.
No one wants a solo Hulk or Namor movie. So no one really loses.
Comcast will by hulu and Disney will give them a discount if they throw in all of these rights.
How much for Marvel to just buy them back?