Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Ndreare]

Wait, who see has rights to Hulk?

[mrinku]

Universal has the rights to distribute Hulk movies. Marvel can make films with him in it, but if they make a standalone Hulk movie they basically make megabucks for Universal. A similar situation may exist for Submariner, but details of that one are quite sketchy.

 

Originally Marvel were too small to do their own distribution work, which is why all these deals. Once Disney bought them, they started getting back their distribution rights (Paramount distributed the earlier MCU ones), as Disney can do its own distribution.

 

Sony has Spider-Man, but was able to come to an mutually beneficial agreement with Disney. So far Universal hasn't shown any signs of doing so (probably read: holding out for a better deal). 

 

There's also some thought that because the first two Hulk movies were not very successful that Disney is just not interested in a split deal. Spider-Man always makes a lot of money, so horse trading with Sony would have been a much easier proposition.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Universal better be smart, Hulk isn't much of a property right now and it looks like Disney has zero interest in doing any more Hulk solo films.

[Lord Liaden]

There's been a lot of buzz about the Hulk being one of the bigger drawing factors for Ragnarok right now. And as Mark Ruffalo has described it, Hulk essentially is getting a full film's worth of story arc, just spread over Ragnarok and the next two Avengers films. So it's not so much that Disney doesn't want to do a Hulk standalone, as they found a way to do it by end-running around Universal.

[mrinku]

It may not cost Universal anything to sit on the rights. That's a pretty common situation... they've paid whatever they paid back in the day, made a couple of movies and eventually ended up in the black, but are wary of funding a third one that either flops or doesn't make enough profit.

 

As far as Submariner goes... despite being the original over Aquaman by a couple of years, he's basically an unknown or forgotten property, while a lot of people know Aquaman from the various cartoons (going back forty years). So anyone doing Namor is going to run up against the perception that Marvel is finally ripping off DC... especially if Jason Mamoa nails it in Justice League (which from the trailer, he just might). Ironically, his savage look is probably more Namor than Arthur. I'd certainly cast him as the Avenging Son!

[Bazza]

Sub-Mariner would work for Marvel if they cast a straight-jawed actor like Aaron Eckhart and put wings on his feet. And shirt-less. 

[Bazza]

New interview with Marvel Studio's head, Kevin Feige

http://amp.denofgeek.com/us/movies/thor-ragnarok/268663/thor-ragnarok-avengers-and-the-future-of-the-marvel-cinematic-universe

[Starlord]

Now Disney just needs go Vince McMahon and buy WB. 

[Bazza]

Don't give them ideas. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sub Mariner is notably different than aquaman in several ways.  First off this Aquaman appears to have zero connection to any sort of underwater kingdom.  Second, hes kind of a tough guy redneck, whereas Namor is an aristocratic snob.  Third, Namor is while quite strong, more lean, untatooed, and has wings on his ankles that lets him literally fly rather than stomp around.

 

I think they could work Namor into a Fantastic Four story quite well as an antagonist that they eventually ally themselves with, and Sue is all swoony over.  An arrogant, noble type who is king of Atlantis primarily, not protector of some sea village.

[Greywind]

They could be working from the latest incarnation of Aquaman, who wasn't aware there was an Atlantis or that he was royal blood.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Either way, it sets Namor apart significantly right now from Aquaman and prevents the "they copied him!" charge from being very effective.

 

It would be difficult to retcon the DC Cinematic universe to include ancient long standing stuff like Atlantis though.  It all kind of starts with Superman, with heroes suddenly showing up.  Although they did do it with Wonder Woman, so who knows.

[zslane]

If Marvel introduced Namor, cries of copying Aquaman would spread like all other Twitter virii, deserved or not. The most effective defense against those cries would be to simply do Namor way, way better than DC does Aquaman.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Greywind said:

They could be working from the latest incarnation of Aquaman, who wasn't aware there was an Atlantis or that he was royal blood.

 

Aquaman's wife is in it, so probably not. (Meera?)

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Either way, it sets Namor apart significantly right now from Aquaman and prevents the "they copied him!" charge from being very effective.

 

It would be difficult to retcon the DC Cinematic universe to include ancient long standing stuff like Atlantis though.  It all kind of starts with Superman, with heroes suddenly showing up.  Although they did do it with Wonder Woman, so who knows.

 

Atlantis is one of the things they actually could get away with. It's under the sea. It has advanced tech and magic to hide its presence even more.

[mrinku]

16 hours ago, Bazza said:

New interview with Marvel Studio's head, Kevin Feige

http://amp.denofgeek.com/us/movies/thor-ragnarok/268663/thor-ragnarok-avengers-and-the-future-of-the-marvel-cinematic-universe

 

Very interesting. Hadn't previously heard that Captain Marvel  was going to be set in the 1990's. I approve - things are getting crowded in the 21st century.

 

Which leads into a thought I'd had yesterday, thinking about MCU getting X-Men and FF back.

 

What if their MCU versions are set earlier in the timeline? I think that might work particularly well for the Fantastic Four, as well as enabling them to be restored as pioneers of the modern superhero era. They mined the Walt Simonson era for Thor, why not mine the Byrne era for FF?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Very interesting. Hadn't previously heard that Captain Marvel  was going to be set in the 1990's. I approve - things are getting crowded in the 21st century.

 

While I agree the "superheroes suddenly showed up and they're everywhere now for no good reason" thing is silly... this retrofitting them into the past after establishing that everything started with (superman/iron man) is a bit tough to swallow.  There were none around, then suddenly they all showed up, starting with this guy!  Except these other people who were in the past.  Which we forgot about.

[bigdamnhero]

On 11/6/2017 at 1:22 PM, slikmar said:

If I might ask, what is Disney doing to piss off theaters?

They also banned LA Times film critics from advance screenings because the LA Times did an investigative piece on some of Disney's business dealing. Other papers & outlets said they wouldn't write advance reviews of Disney movies until the LA Times ban was lifted, and Disney just backed down.

 

https://www.avclub.com/amid-pressure-from-critics-disney-ends-its-ban-on-the-1820227467

[zslane]

Captain America was the "first Avenger" back in WWII, and Hydra goes back centuries before that. We know that Celestials and Kree fiddled with human DNA back in our pre-history. In effect, the MCU's superhero "history" goes back a very long time. But as for publicly known superheroes, no they don't really exist until Iron Man happens upon the scene. But if I'm not mistaken, Nick Fury says something along the lines of, "What, you think you're the only hero in the world?" to Tony Stark in IM2. That wasn't necessarily a nod to just Bruce Banner. I don't think it will be difficult to insert Captain Marvel into the 1990s without her being known to the general public (or even the Avengers) in 2017.

[mrinku]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Captain America was the "first Avenger" back in WWII, and Hydra goes back centuries before that. We know that Celestials and Kree fiddled with human DNA back in our pre-history. In effect, the MCU's superhero "history" goes back a very long time. But as for publicly known superheroes, no they don't really exist until Iron Man happens upon the scene. But if I'm not mistaken, Nick Fury says something along the lines of, "What, you think you're the only hero in the world?" to Tony Stark in IM2. That wasn't necessarily a nod to just Bruce Banner. I don't think it will be difficult to insert Captain Marvel into the 1990s without her being known to the general public (or even the Avengers) in 2017.

 

There's also Hank Pym Ant-Man and Janet Van Dyne Wasp, who were active a generation earlier. I don't think it's actually ever been stated that Iron Man is the only publicly known Superhero in the MCU since Captain America. And all I'd take from Fury's line to Stark would be that there weren't any recent public heroes.

 

Of course, it's also possible they were never in the limelight. The thing is, what continuity we have been presented with so far isn't extensive enough to forbid this sort of thing. There may well be extended universe and supplementary material that says otherwise, but as happens with other film franchises *cough* starwars *cough*, if it didn't happen on screen, they can change those. 

 

Edit: Not public heroes, but it's clear high end SHIELD operatives such as Black Widow and Hawkeye have also been around for some time. They almost certainly pre-date Iron Man in the MCU continuity.

 

In any case, it appears the Fox/Disney negotiations may not have been about this at all, and have broken down anyway. Of course, Sony worked out a mutually profitable deal over Spider-Man, so there is always hope for an X-Men/FF one.

[slikmar]

7 hours ago, Greywind said:

They could be working from the latest incarnation of Aquaman, who wasn't aware there was an Atlantis or that he was royal blood.

what? I know I am behind a bit, but only a few months. Currently, Arthur has been ousted from being king by a coup, but he is definitely aware of Atlantis (as of my reading, he is fighting a gorilla war in Atlantis). Mera, after trying to batter the shield around Atlantis down for 3 straight days came to the notice of the JL, because she almost cause the eastern seaboard to be wiped out. After a brief skirmish (per superhero storytelling), cooler heads prevail and she joins them.

[Lord Liaden]

"Wasn't aware," not "isn't aware." 

[Bazza]

13 hours ago, mrinku said:

 

Very interesting. Hadn't previously heard that Captain Marvel  was going to be set in the 1990's. I approve - things are getting crowded in the 21st century.

 

Which leads into a thought I'd had yesterday, thinking about MCU getting X-Men and FF back.

 

What if their MCU versions are set earlier in the timeline? I think that might work particularly well for the Fantastic Four, as well as enabling them to be restored as pioneers of the modern superhero era. They mined the Walt Simonson era for Thor, why not mine the Byrne era for FF?

 

Info about Captain Marvel was revealed at Comic-Con this year. Didn't you get the memo?  

 

And I subscribe to the fan theory that the X-Men series & MCU are alternative timelines, involving the appearance/non appearance of Hydra. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I don't think it will be difficult to insert Captain Marvel into the 1990s without her being known to the general public (or even the Avengers) in 2017.

 

OH I have no doubt they'll do it without hesitation, but if you're building a careful and intricate universe with heavy continuity, these kinds of decisions are always troublesome, particularly to long-term fans.  There's already been the inevitable continuity violations in both DC and Marvel, but its best to try to limit them.

 

Quote

I don't think it's actually ever been stated that Iron Man is the only publicly known Superhero in the MCU since Captain America.

 

No, not officially or specifically, but the Iron Man film definitely implied that by the reaction of people.  There was no "not another one" or "he's like (insert previous hero)!"  Just "wow, who's that, its totally new!"  Its a minor quibble, I just have a personal dislike for retconning.  I could stand Captain America because its such a classic concept and it was far enough back people wouldn't have him in mind.

[zslane]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

OH I have no doubt they'll do it without hesitation, but if you're building a careful and intricate universe with heavy continuity, these kinds of decisions are always troublesome, particularly to long-term fans.  There's already been the inevitable continuity violations in both DC and Marvel, but its best to try to limit them.

 

 

I would hesitate to characterize the MCU as a "careful and intricate universe with heavy continuity". I feel that ascribes far more scope and depth to it than it actually has. And the rather hodge-podge manner in which all the different media paths have been woven together (movies, broadcast tv, Netflix, etc.) clearly shows that being careful and consistent is not part of the MCU mandate.