Hi all.
We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
Unless Marvel Studios gets the rights of Spider-Man and X-Men, don't expect any of them to appear in a Avengers movie. Fox Has X-Men and the Fantastic Four and Sony has Spider-Man. I heard Fox is going to try and build their own universe with the X-Men and FF while Sony will try the same with Spider-Man. X-Men can pull it off, even without the FF because there are so many X-Men and different X-groups like X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, and so on. Spider-Man will be a little tougher to do. We do have special cases like Quicksilver, but as we all know they'll be different. Quicksilver won't be the same for me without his backstory though. It was one of the most compelling things about him for me.
Okay. I'll try again. What I'm telling you - I'm not guessing, I'm not hypothesizing, I'm not going "well, but..." - is that movie rights and television rights are not the same. It is wholly irrelevant which characters you've seen appear on TV. As the rights are structured right now, Marvel Studios has most of the characters and Sony and FOX have a few each.
Barring future modifications to these rights - which none of the sides are inclined to change, for now - these properties cannot, legally or practically, cross over in films from company to company. Again, this is completely separate from what you've seen as far as character appearances in cartoons, which are separate and irrelevant here.
Please read this thoroughly, please understand and please do not respond "well I saw this character in a cartoon on TV so it COULD happen in the movies!" I can't phrase this any differently.
Unless Marvel Studios gets the rights of Spider-Man and X-Men, don't expect any of them to appear in a Avengers movie. Fox Has X-Men and the Fantastic Four and Sony has Spider-Man. I heard Fox is going to try and build their own universe with the X-Men and FF while Sony will try the same with Spider-Man. X-Men can pull it off, even without the FF because there are so many X-Men and different X-groups like X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, and so on. Spider-Man will be a little tougher to do. We do have special cases like Quicksilver, but as we all know they'll be different. Quicksilver won't be the same for me without his backstory though. It was one of the most compelling things about him for me.
It really is a shame that there are no mutants in the Avengers universe. They'll have to change a lot things up because of that. Also no Spiderman, unless they work out some sort of a deal.
Generally I feel most invested in the Avengers universe.
Yeah Ruffalo is probably the best Hulk out of Bana, the 2008 one, and himself. But the Hulk as you said isn't too popular, and I'd rather see movies based on other, maybe lesser known heroes instead of another Hulk movie. Marvel says if they were to do another one, it would be after Avengers 2, so we still have a bunch of time for the character and Ruffalo to develop enough for another one.
I still think that Cap is bland.. But it did have the best plot of the current Phase2 films.
IM3 was boring and basically concluded a trilogy pretty solidly, so seeing him again in Av2 will be.. out of place.. But mèh, RDJ plays him well.
T2 was basically T1 revisited: Thor goes where he isn't supposed to go, opposing his fathers wishes and blablabla. But I guess the scale was nice, but the plot was bad.. But Loki is cool. Also.. Dark elves.. -.-
Cap2 had a decent enough plot for an action movie and a very, very game changing plot twist.. Made me re-watch IM (I/II) again, because of that fat guy who deliberately crossed Tony's efforts, apparently was a part of HYDRA.
Where you can probably skip T2 (aside from Aether exposé, which will be retouched upon in GotG) and perhaps IM3, you can't skip Cap2 between watching Av1 and Av2 because of SHIELD being dissolved. Because suddenly Cap is swinging the orders, Fury is gone and Maria Hill is a Stark employee..
That being said, I'm more interested in Bucky to be fair. Chris Evans has like two movies left in his contract, while Bucky's actor has said he has signed a NINE movie contract. Why the heck does the Winter Soldier/Bucky character need EIGHT more movies if Cap only has two left (one excluding the Av2???)?
Captain America dies and Bucky takes his place as the Captain America persona.. Why else? It's quite simple as we know they apparently have planned movies up to 2028:
Phase 2: Ends with Avengers 2
Phase 3: Captain America 3 - The last movie in Chris Evans' Marvel contract.
Bucky's actor probably has 5 more movies after Captain America 3, if he also appears in Avengers 2.
- Captain 1: As Bucky
- Captain 2: As the Wintersoldier
- Avengers 2: As the Wintersoldier
- Captain 3: As Wintersoldier/Bucky
- 5 movies left: As Bucky/Captain America
Now I know that they tend to oversize the contracts just in case, but nine movies seems a bit excessive when the main protagonist of that series only has two left.
It really is a shame that there are no mutants in the Avengers universe. They'll have to change a lot things up because of that. Also no Spiderman, unless they work out some sort of a deal.
Generally I feel most invested in the Avengers universe.
Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch appear in the midcredits-scene after Winter Soldier, so 'miracles' have entered the MCU. They had to change the backstory, and you can't call them mutants though.. Sony has those rights.. If I wasn't mistaken.
We know far too little about exactly how they'll explain what Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch are at this point to assume that it's going to be that simple.
That being said, I'm more interested in Bucky to be fair. Chris Evans has like two movies left in his contract, while Bucky's actor has said he has signed a NINE movie contract. Why the heck does the Winter Soldier/Bucky character need EIGHT more movies if Cap only has two left (one excluding the Av2???)?
Captain America dies and Bucky takes his place as the Captain America persona.. Why else? It's quite simple as we know they apparently have planned movies up to 2028:
It could really work if they bring back Agent Rumlow as Crossbones, who is what Rumlow is in the comics, and then Crossbones kills Captain America like he does in the comics. I mean, showing that Rumlow wasn't dead towards the end of the movie implies that he is coming back, and his outfit before he fought Falcon looked similar to Crossbones', so I'm thinking that's what's going to happen.
Unless Marvel Studios gets the rights of Spider-Man and X-Men, don't expect any of them to appear in a Avengers movie. Fox Has X-Men and the Fantastic Four and Sony has Spider-Man. I heard Fox is going to try and build their own universe with the X-Men and FF while Sony will try the same with Spider-Man. X-Men can pull it off, even without the FF because there are so many X-Men and different X-groups like X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, and so on. Spider-Man will be a little tougher to do. We do have special cases like Quicksilver, but as we all know they'll be different. Quicksilver won't be the same for me without his backstory though. It was one of the most compelling things about him for me.
It could really work if they bring back Agent Rumlow as Crossbones, who is what Rumlow is in the comics, and then Crossbones kills Captain America like he does in the comics. I mean, showing that Rumlow wasn't dead towards the end of the movie implies that he is coming back, and his outfit before he fought Falcon looked similar to Crossbones', so I'm thinking that's what's going to happen.
It's a sad thing though.. The movies from the MCU come off as respectable to the source material, while in recent events, the Sony flicks come off as being made for the sole purpose to retain the rights.. and thus cashcows..
I'm not trying to placate the madness Disney is planning with the Star Wars rights, but at least with the MCU they have something solid and worth watching.
That being said, I'm more interested in Bucky to be fair. Chris Evans has like two movies left in his contract, while Bucky's actor has said he has signed a NINE movie contract. Why the heck does the Winter Soldier/Bucky character need EIGHT more movies if Cap only has two left (one excluding the Av2???)?
Renewing contracts is a thing. Downey Jr's was up but it was renewed for another two films. I highly doubt Marvel would kill off what is arguably their flagship character.
Renewing contracts is a thing. Downey Jr's was up but it was renewed for another two films. I highly doubt Marvel would kill off what is arguably their flagship character.
Captain America is probably their second, but that's a personal thing.. They're paying more for RDJ then for Evans for example. But anyway, I'm not saying kill off their franchise, I'm saying let Bucky assume the role of Captain America, exactly like he does in the comics.
Besides, Chris Evans has stated that he wants to focus more on directing..
But the only Sony films recently - as in, in the last five years - have been Amazing Spider-Man x 2, neither of which really comes off as "being made for the sole purpose to retain the rights.. and thus cashcows".
But the only Sony films recently - as in, in the last five years - have been Amazing Spider-Man x 2, neither of which really comes off as "being made for the sole purpose to retain the rights.. and thus cashcows".
But the only Sony films recently - as in, in the last five years - have been Amazing Spider-Man x 2, neither of which really comes off as "being made for the sole purpose to retain the rights.. and thus cashcows".
To me, without looking into it too much, it seemed like they were kinda done with Spiderman artistically, were sitting on the rights - making no money - and made ASM in a relative hurry to make money.
The truth of the matter is that they were working on Spiderman 4, but couldn't cut it creatively/time constraints and thus the project was cancelled. In order for the rights not to go to waste, they just rebooted the entire thing instead: which is creatively easier then making a fourth movie of a franchise that was effectively running out of steam (though they hadn't even touched the Kingpin yet).
I can only see that as using the rights and putting a movie forth just because of the monetary reasons. If it were for the artistic aspect, then they would've given Spiderman 4 more time in the production stages. But they didn't. They wanted a movie to bring in revenue and they wanted it quick. Continuing the previous arc proved heavy on time schedules and thus they simply cut it short because bringing out a simpler movie would make money and sitting on rights while waiting for a director to agree to a script doesn't.
The fact that the writing team for Spiderman 4 and ASM1 were basically identical further underscores this need for a quick movie/cash. They weren't able to produce a decent 4th installment, but were more then ready to rewrite/boot the series in half the time because they incorporated ideas for Spiderman 4 into ASM1, specifically the Lizard.
The truth of the matter is that they were working on Spiderman 4, but couldn't cut it creatively/time constraints and thus the project was cancelled. In order for the rights not to go to waste, they just rebooted the entire thing instead: which is creatively easier then making a fourth movie of a franchise that was effectively running out of steam (though they hadn't even touched the Kingpin yet).
I can only see that as using the rights and putting a movie forth just because of the monetary reasons. If it were for the artistic aspect, then they would've given Spiderman 4 more time in the production stages.
Here's the first problem. If you're familiar with what a Spider-Man 4 would have entailed - in as much as you can believe what you read on the Internet - it would have been not good. Like, really not good. Like, if you're complaining about what The Amazing Spider-Man turned out to be, you would have been in utter shambles had what would have been Spider-Man 4 came out as it was set to.
But they didn't. They wanted a movie to bring in revenue and they wanted it quick. Continuing the previous arc proved heavy on time schedules and thus they simply cut it short because bringing out a simpler movie would make money and sitting on rights while waiting for a director to agree to a script doesn't.
Here's your second problem. It wasn't quick, at all. Spider-Man 3 was released in 2007. What would have been Spider-Man 4 would have been out no more than two years after that and was officially cancelled three years after that, in 2010. The Amazing Spider-Man didn't come out until 2012.
Two years - the time between Spider-Man 4's cancellation and the subsequent decision to reboot, and the release of The Amazing Spider-Man - is not an overly accelerated timeline in major motion pictures. It's about average, really: a year to sign a director, get the script ready to shoot and cast the film and a year to shoot it, edit it and get it ready to release. That's pretty standard. It isn't "quick" at all and in and of itself doesn't at all jive with your criticisms of "quick money grab" and the like.
It doesn't underscore that at all, particularly as hardly anything from what would have constituted Spider-Man 4 was carried over. You could argue the Lizard was one such element--
They weren't able to produce a decent 4th installment, but were more then ready to rewrite/boot the series in half the time because they incorporated ideas for Spiderman 4 into ASM1, specifically the Lizard.
--and you do argue that here, but that isn't particularly egregious at all. The Lizard is a perfectly reasonable and logical villain for a first Spider-Man installment given Dr. Connors' work as a scientist and Peter's interests and work in those areas even as a high school student. It isn't as if they used a villain who needs massive amounts of setup - Carnage, the Hobgoblin, whomever - in a first film just because it was in the script for a scuttled film.
The point here is that you're falsely criticizing them of rushing a film into production when that simply wasn't the case at all. Two years is not "quick" - it's pretty standard for a film that a studio is ready to get behind and see put into production. And the script writers were the only holdovers from what would have been Spider-Man 4. A new director was needed, a new cast was needed and so on.
Yeah he was pretty weak. He was very predictable too, and I don't think anyone really cares/knows about Crossbones. But that's what I like about this universe. They can take a lesser-known character and turn them into someone that everyone knows.
To me, without looking into it too much, it seemed like they were kinda done with Spiderman artistically, were sitting on the rights - making no money - and made ASM in a relative hurry to make money.
The truth of the matter is that they were working on Spiderman 4, but couldn't cut it creatively/time constraints and thus the project was cancelled. In order for the rights not to go to waste, they just rebooted the entire thing instead: which is creatively easier then making a fourth movie of a franchise that was effectively running out of steam (though they hadn't even touched the Kingpin yet).
I can only see that as using the rights and putting a movie forth just because of the monetary reasons. If it were for the artistic aspect, then they would've given Spiderman 4 more time in the production stages. But they didn't. They wanted a movie to bring in revenue and they wanted it quick. Continuing the previous arc proved heavy on time schedules and thus they simply cut it short because bringing out a simpler movie would make money and sitting on rights while waiting for a director to agree to a script doesn't.
The fact that the writing team for Spiderman 4 and ASM1 were basically identical further underscores this need for a quick movie/cash. They weren't able to produce a decent 4th installment, but were more then ready to rewrite/boot the series in half the time because they incorporated ideas for Spiderman 4 into ASM1, specifically the Lizard.
Movie studio do not make films meaningless to retain rights and make them cash cows. What they have done in the past is create low budget flicks with limited distribution and/or no release. This is what FOX did with Fantastic Four in 1994.
There's a reason a lot of franchise films don't make it more than 2 or 3 films with the core cast and crew in tact. Having 2 or 3 successful films in a role mean that actors and crew are demanding more money based on their past success and they're getting offers from other studios or maybe even other lines of work. Sometimes they get burned out. Spider-Man 4 under Raimi was very unlikely to happen, and anyone reading the gossip sites on the Behind the Scenes stuff for SM3 knew that.
There is absolutely no ideas incorporated into TASM1 that was carried over from the Raimi films. I won't go on a rant about how horrible the Raimi films are/have aged horribly, but they're two completely different takes on a character (and both valid takes, just as Batman can both be grim and dark and campy, Spider-Man can both be light hearted and a bit campy or a coming-of-age film).
The Lizard in ASM1 is absolutely nothing like the character Dr. Conners is in the Raimi films.
