Avengers sequel will be called Age of Ultron - Page 3

~~Leo656~~ · 07-25-2013, 09:56 AM

Man, I wish the guys behind the Marvel movies had more foresight back in 2000 or so. By letting the rights to Spider-Man and others slip away before Marvel Studios was formed, they completely shattered their film universe and made it impossible for all the Marvel characters to be under one corporate film banner. It's as dumb as when Warner Bros. let the rights to Superman get licensed by the Salkinds beck in the 70s, to the point where WB didn't even own the rights to their biggest character's films until 2000 or so.

I know back in 2000 there was no Marvel Studios yet, and in fact just getting the Spider-Man and X-Men movies made at all was the biggest challenge, but I find it hard to fathom they weren't at least thinking about the *possibility* of one day doing joint films, and that maybe having their characters all licensed to different companies wasn't a great idea.

I mean, it's not world-breaking, or anything, but it sucks that we can never, ever see stuff like Spider-Man join the Avengers, or an X-Men/Avengers movie. Sony has flat-out said that the world will perish in flames before they even think about letting go of Spider-Man, and you can't really blame them. It's just the usual corporate nonsense.

*CyberCubed* · 07-25-2013, 04:27 PM

It's not a big deal. Most of the X-men and Spider-Man movies have been good, with the obvious exception of a few duds.

But they seem to be reaching their stride now. The Wolverine is getting great reviews and X-men First Class was excellent. Spider-Man 2014 looks good as well.

~~Leo656~~ · 07-25-2013, 08:35 PM

It's not a HUGE deal, but it still has relevance. Ask any Marvel fan if they would want to see, say, "X-Men Vs. Avengers" as a film, or have Spider-Man join the Avengers like in the comics, or maybe even adapt "Civil War" into a film, and the obvious answer is "YES, of course I would LOVE to see that!" And it's disheartening that it can never happen because of short-sightedness and corporate greed.

Do they NEED to do any of that for the individual movies to be good? No, but it would be terrific all the same. To make a very broad point, it's like if one film studio had the rights to TMNT, and another studio had the rights to do movies based on the Casey Jones character by himself (obviously that would never happen, just bear with me here). It would be stupid and frustrating to watch, knowing that these characters will never interact on-screen even though they really belong together by design.

But whatever, it is what it is. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that one day a Spider-Man movie bombs so badly that Sony sells the rights back, but I would never hold my breath waiting for it.

*CyberCubed* · 07-25-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

But whatever, it is what it is. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that one day a Spider-Man movie bombs so badly that Sony sells the rights back, but I would never hold my breath waiting for it.

That would have been Spiderman 3. If that movie didn't cause Fox to give up the license, then nothing will.

They'll go for another reboot.

The Sewer Lord · 07-25-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulithe

They are building towards it, he should show up in Guardians in some form and maybe be the big bad in Avengers 3?

I know. I was just so disappointed of Darkseid and Galactus' potrayals in the films I fear for Thanos. He looked promising.

*Cure* · 07-25-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

That would have been Spiderman 3. If that movie didn't cause Fox to give up the license, then nothing will.

That made $890 million dollars worldwide. Your definition of a bomb is pretty askew.

And don't give me sh*t about a score with critics or something. Money is money.

~~Leo656~~ · 07-25-2013, 09:32 PM

That movie didn't bomb, it made lots of money. It was like "Fantastic 4" or "X-Men 3"; people were so distracted by the SFX it took them about a month or so to realize they'd actually gone and paid to see a bad movie 2 or 3 times. Spider-Man 3 was the same thing; lots of people liked it *at first*, then they realized they'd been had.

But the movie had already made tons of money, so it was in no way a "bomb". They were never completely happy with Raimi's old-school reverence for the 60s comics and complete disinterest in using any of the newer, more popular villains, and they had also never been completely happy with Maguire or Dunst, either, as both were rumored to be replaced several times in between movies for various reasons (Toby got hurt while Dunst just sucked). From the very beginning, the Spider-Man franchise was built on shaky ground and about halfway through watching the second film, you somehow got the idea that it was already coming undone. Part 3 was just the final implosion on-screen of a bunch of elements that never really came together right, and they'd already more or less planned to reboot the franchise with the fourth film, anyway (if for no other reason than Maguire, Raimi and co. were too expensive to keep).

It was a bad movie, but in no way was it "Batman & Robin" bad, or a "bomb", especially since it made so much money. And since they were already thinking reboot, its quality (or lack thereof) really wasn't a deciding factor in anything. Just an affirmation of what they already knew, that the formula they had in place wasn't working.

*Galactus* · 07-29-2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Man, I wish the guys behind the Marvel movies had more foresight back in 2000 or so. By letting the rights to Spider-Man and others slip away before Marvel Studios was formed, they completely shattered their film universe and made it impossible for all the Marvel characters to be under one corporate film banner. It's as dumb as when Warner Bros. let the rights to Superman get licensed by the Salkinds beck in the 70s, to the point where WB didn't even own the rights to their biggest character's films until 2000 or so.

I know back in 2000 there was no Marvel Studios yet, and in fact just getting the Spider-Man and X-Men movies made at all was the biggest challenge, but I find it hard to fathom they weren't at least thinking about the *possibility* of one day doing joint films, and that maybe having their characters all licensed to different companies wasn't a great idea.

I don't think it's really hampering them. If anything necessity has encouraged Marvel to actualy put effort into boosting up their other franchises. If anyone suggested back in 2000 that an Iron Man movie would be making more money than a Spider-Man one or that Avengers would be consdered a bigger franchise than the X-Men we'd be calling them insane but there it is.

Marvel now have a thriving cinematic universe and made huge household names of characters that your average joe might only be vaguely familiar with such as Iron Man, Captain America and Thor.

Whereas it shouldn't be an issue with the DC heroes as they are all under the same company but the WB is struggling with any comic book property that isn't Batman or Superman.

Quote:

I mean, it's not world-breaking, or anything, but it sucks that we can never, ever see stuff like Spider-Man join the Avengers, or an X-Men/Avengers movie. Sony has flat-out said that the world will perish in flames before they even think about letting go of Spider-Man, and you can't really blame them. It's just the usual corporate nonsense.

There's quite a few Avengers fans who feel that Spidey shouldn't be an Avenger either in movies or publishing since he's not really a member from what is condered the traditional or 'classic' era.

I disagree but for now Marvel is ticking along fine without Spider-Man or Wolverine for that matter as Avengers in the movies. Not to mention things change over time. A few years down the line a deal could be made with Sony that can have Spider-Man or a version of him in the Avengers movies. It's a small step but if it can happen with Quicksilver then it's a start.

~~Leo656~~ · 07-29-2013, 09:16 PM

Again, not saying it's mandatory they do it or catastrophic that they can't do it. The point is, they flat-out cannot make certain things happen that every comic fan would love to see on film, and that's just sad any way you look at it. A "Civil War" adaptation would be even bigger than Avengers was, and don't think they aren't kicking themselves over the business decisions that will prevent it from ever happening. 10 years ago, no, it wouldn't have even been a consideration. But you can bet they wish they could do it now.

And Warner Bros. has always been run by the exact type of corporate-minded imbeciles that led to that kind of scenario, that's why they can't figure out how to do their DC properties as films. Logically, it should be the easiest thing ever, but they can't figure out how to even do Batman right, and even then they screw it up half the time. It's why they release a dozen Batman animated films for every Wonder Woman or Green Lantern one, for example. They're hamstrung by a very corporate mindset and thus are afraid to do anything even slightly risky.

It's also the prime motivator for the Man of Steel "Sequel"; I promise you, the following conversation took place in an office the day before Comic-Con: "Well, 'Man of Steel' made a lot of money... BUT, it only made $600 million worldwide, so technically, it's a failure, because 'Avengers' made over a billion. What do we do?" "Put Batman in the next one, Batman fixes everything."

07-25-2013, 09:56 AM	#41
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Man, I wish the guys behind the Marvel movies had more foresight back in 2000 or so. By letting the rights to Spider-Man and others slip away before Marvel Studios was formed, they completely shattered their film universe and made it impossible for all the Marvel characters to be under one corporate film banner. It's as dumb as when Warner Bros. let the rights to Superman get licensed by the Salkinds beck in the 70s, to the point where WB didn't even own the rights to their biggest character's films until 2000 or so. I know back in 2000 there was no Marvel Studios yet, and in fact just getting the Spider-Man and X-Men movies made at all was the biggest challenge, but I find it hard to fathom they weren't at least thinking about the possibility of one day doing joint films, and that maybe having their characters all licensed to different companies wasn't a great idea. I mean, it's not world-breaking, or anything, but it sucks that we can never, ever see stuff like Spider-Man join the Avengers, or an X-Men/Avengers movie. Sony has flat-out said that the world will perish in flames before they even think about letting go of Spider-Man, and you can't really blame them. It's just the usual corporate nonsense.

07-25-2013, 04:27 PM	#42
CyberCubed Overlord Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 43,887	It's not a big deal. Most of the X-men and Spider-Man movies have been good, with the obvious exception of a few duds. But they seem to be reaching their stride now. The Wolverine is getting great reviews and X-men First Class was excellent. Spider-Man 2014 looks good as well.

07-25-2013, 08:35 PM	#43
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	It's not a HUGE deal, but it still has relevance. Ask any Marvel fan if they would want to see, say, "X-Men Vs. Avengers" as a film, or have Spider-Man join the Avengers like in the comics, or maybe even adapt "Civil War" into a film, and the obvious answer is "YES, of course I would LOVE to see that!" And it's disheartening that it can never happen because of short-sightedness and corporate greed. Do they NEED to do any of that for the individual movies to be good? No, but it would be terrific all the same. To make a very broad point, it's like if one film studio had the rights to TMNT, and another studio had the rights to do movies based on the Casey Jones character by himself (obviously that would never happen, just bear with me here). It would be stupid and frustrating to watch, knowing that these characters will never interact on-screen even though they really belong together by design. But whatever, it is what it is. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that one day a Spider-Man movie bombs so badly that Sony sells the rights back, but I would never hold my breath waiting for it.

07-25-2013, 09:32 PM	#47
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	That movie didn't bomb, it made lots of money. It was like "Fantastic 4" or "X-Men 3"; people were so distracted by the SFX it took them about a month or so to realize they'd actually gone and paid to see a bad movie 2 or 3 times. Spider-Man 3 was the same thing; lots of people liked it at first, then they realized they'd been had. But the movie had already made tons of money, so it was in no way a "bomb". They were never completely happy with Raimi's old-school reverence for the 60s comics and complete disinterest in using any of the newer, more popular villains, and they had also never been completely happy with Maguire or Dunst, either, as both were rumored to be replaced several times in between movies for various reasons (Toby got hurt while Dunst just sucked). From the very beginning, the Spider-Man franchise was built on shaky ground and about halfway through watching the second film, you somehow got the idea that it was already coming undone. Part 3 was just the final implosion on-screen of a bunch of elements that never really came together right, and they'd already more or less planned to reboot the franchise with the fourth film, anyway (if for no other reason than Maguire, Raimi and co. were too expensive to keep). It was a bad movie, but in no way was it "Batman & Robin" bad, or a "bomb", especially since it made so much money. And since they were already thinking reboot, its quality (or lack thereof) really wasn't a deciding factor in anything. Just an affirmation of what they already knew, that the formula they had in place wasn't working.

07-29-2013, 09:16 PM	#49
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Again, not saying it's mandatory they do it or catastrophic that they can't do it. The point is, they flat-out cannot make certain things happen that every comic fan would love to see on film, and that's just sad any way you look at it. A "Civil War" adaptation would be even bigger than Avengers was, and don't think they aren't kicking themselves over the business decisions that will prevent it from ever happening. 10 years ago, no, it wouldn't have even been a consideration. But you can bet they wish they could do it now. And Warner Bros. has always been run by the exact type of corporate-minded imbeciles that led to that kind of scenario, that's why they can't figure out how to do their DC properties as films. Logically, it should be the easiest thing ever, but they can't figure out how to even do Batman right, and even then they screw it up half the time. It's why they release a dozen Batman animated films for every Wonder Woman or Green Lantern one, for example. They're hamstrung by a very corporate mindset and thus are afraid to do anything even slightly risky. It's also the prime motivator for the Man of Steel "Sequel"; I promise you, the following conversation took place in an office the day before Comic-Con: "Well, 'Man of Steel' made a lot of money... BUT, it only made $600 million worldwide, so technically, it's a failure, because 'Avengers' made over a billion. What do we do?" "Put Batman in the next one, Batman fixes everything."