Rolling Marvel Cinematic Universe thread (+ a poll: Classic or Dud?)

i think the idea is that the kree has been funking around with our genes like they did with the inhumans and that's why some one-off character on agents of shield has super-strength or whatever

feige (before they announced the inhumans) has denied any connection between the "miracles" and the inhumans but why would he come forward and say "yes, this is how we're going to sneak mutants into our movies five years from now"

They're born with latent powers that are unlocked by exposure to the Terrigen Mists. If they're never exposed, they never exhibit powers.

xp: The Kree fucking around with human DNA is what created The Inhumans so I don't think there's a distinction here. In the comics, they've recently introduced the idea that a group of Inhumans split off centuries ago and mingled with regular humans before exposing themselves to the Mists, strewing Inhuman DNA throughout the population that was undetected until Black Bolt sets off a Terrigen bomb over NYC during a showdown with Thanos, creating a whole new set of Inhumans that didn't grow up in Inhuman society and are basically mutants by another name.

yeah honestly all i know about the inhumans is secondhand through blogs and that black bolt is on lego marvel

so is that how they got around wanda's "no more mutants," or did they reverse that in a different way?

My favourite Inhumans triva fact is that Black Bolt's 'real' name is Blackagar Boltagon

lolll

beyond quicksilver and scarlet witch were any other x-characters made avengers before 2000? adding rogue to Ultimate Funky Fresh Avengers in 2010 presumably doesn't affect the Fox contract, but are there any other characters where both companies could claim equal ownership film-wise?

Ultimate Funky Fresh Avengers

Is this a real thing?

according to wikipedia, she was a "Marvel NOW! recruit" in 2012 but i don't know what that means

until i'm driven to check out a highly acclaimed trade paperback new superhero comics exist solely to make me lol at descriptions on wikipedia

Black Bolt's 'real' name is Blackagar Boltagon

ahahahahahahaha

I hope they cast Captaina Marvelini soon

beyond quicksilver and scarlet witch were any other x-characters made avengers before 2000?

Beast has been a member since the '70s

Rogue and Havok was on Uncanny Avengers. Storm was on Avengers for a minute. Don't think any of them would be ok for Whedon to use. The 'no more mutants' was reversed by... Hm, was it the Phoenix? The Phoenix definitely helped.

the reason i said "before 2000" is because obv anybody who was in an x-movie before they were an avenger in the comics would be ripe for litigation if they showed up in an avengers movie

Firestar floats back and forth between the Avengers and X worlds and had Avenger status as of 1998.

Beast is the only other X-person who is pre-2000; Wolverine, Storm, Havok, Rogue, Sunfire, Cannonball and Sunspot are all post-2005.

I'm hopeful but doubtful that Wundagore and Bova the cow-nanny will come into play at some point.

Are they still calling Namor a mutant? They seem to go back and forth on that.

still so disappointed to learn universal gave up the namor rights, picturing jack donaghy pushing the "namorverse" was too beautiful

though universal's "monsterverse" dreams are cute too

Namor's a mutant but I don't really consider him to be an X-character, despite being a cornerstone of the books for several years during Utopia.

he also predates the x-men by almost 30 years

That doesn't mean Fox wouldn't try to claim him as a mutant. My understanding is the deals signed in the 90s for the X-verse, Spidey and Fantastic Four are incredibly broad.

if universal had the namor rights i can't imagine the language says they'd revert to fox instead of marvel

i have no doubt they're broad in terms of "anybody who showed up initially in these comics gets to be in the movies," which means sony has every spidey-born villain and fox has a kajillion mutants" but i doubt they get previously established characters who high fived spidey or wolverine

doesn't see a silver lining - they're killing off the fantastic four in the books

Marvel's two biggest pushes in 2014 have been relaunching Spidey and killing Wolverine. Third biggest is an Avengers/X-Men crossover. Their unwillingness to push non-MCU properties is overstated.

This is likely less because of the movies and more because the FF books don't sell.

feels like a false binary when it's easily two birds with one stone

I haven't read FF in decades but kinda bummed their just gonna straight up kill them (only to be revived a few years later by some star team, surely)

Not a false binary when the accusations tossed at Marvel revolve around killing titles because they don't have movie rights - when a simpler explanation is that the Fantastic Four is by far their weakest selling legacy title. The fifth-tier Wolverine books outsell FF

well they're also not allowing fantastic four toys to be made and chris claremont's saying x-authors aren't allowed to create new characters. if marvel truly had no beef with fox, surely they'd use the fantastic four movie to their promotional advantage rather than shutting down the franchise comic-wise entirely?

it's possible they're offing the legacy team so they can have fox's hip new version pop out in the comics universe once the film proves to be a hit, but you'd think they'd curb the rumors of ike perlmutter being furious if that was the case

They may well do that - Marvel timed its Spidey relaunch to coincide with the latest movie. No one outside of Marvel HQ knows what their plans are. Books that sell FF numbers get cancelled all the time so I don't see any reason to assume it's anything but a business decision for now.

As for the X-verse, I'm sure they don't want to gift a hot new character to Universal, but I would guess it's also "you have 500 mutants to play with, why do we need to put energy into a new one?"

but that's the thing - refusing to promote Fantastic Four and provide new characters to the X universe would be a business decision.

marvel makes more money by getting film rights back than by selling a few more comics off another company's movies

I'd totally forgotten in the midst of this recent newsflurry that Marvel has another five (5) series/miniseries lined up on Netflix, and another network series just around the bend.

Rumour is Marvel's TV and movie departments aren't seeing eye to eye

Marvel's Executive Vice President, Head of Television, Jeph Loeb, is disappointed that, in a departure from his work in comics, his touch has yet to turn Marvel's TV projects into the worst shows anyone has ever seen.

though universal's "monsterverse" dreams are cute too

― da croupier, Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:14 PM (52 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ugh they tried this already and it sucked a dick

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yI7SuBoVL._SY300_.jpg

Old Lunch's comment made me wonder who we can blame Stacy X on and Loeb dodged a bullet there (she was created by Joe Casey, whose X-Men run was so bad that I quit the books until he stopped writing them)

Hope they make a She-Hulk TV series based on the Dan Slott series from a few years back.

Someone told me that this week's FF, Ihumans, X-Men and Wolverine/Cap comics will be the first four Marvel titles with a creator credit for Jack Kirby

wait waht

was that part of the settlement?!

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/10/marvel-titles-now-include-jack-kirby-credit/

IIRC the movie credits just say based on comics by stan lee, jack kirby etc etc - wonder if that will change...

but that's the thing - refusing to promote Fantastic Four and provide new characters to the X universe would be a business decision.
marvel makes more money by getting film rights back than by selling a few more comics off another company's movies

It's not like doing so is going to make any rights revert, as long as superhero movies are profitable no one is going to give up a major team. - if Marvel gets the X-Men or anything else back it will be because Disney backed up Scrooge McDuck's vault for someone, knowing that they'd make money in perpetuity with a Marvel theme park.

As I said, Marvel's three biggest events of the year involve non-MCU properties.
Avengers titles are fair-to-middling sales-wise. Outside of the main Avengers title I think Black Widow is actually the top seller. Iron Man was selling FF numbers, they haven't solicited an issue in months and it's being relaunched as Superior Iron Man or Invincible Iron Man or something in the next couple of months. If all they cared about was MCU-comic synergy, wouldn't they make the Avengers or the Netflix titles their highest priority?

the idea is that marvel doesn't want this ff reboot to do well so they're doing nothing to promote it, and that while they aren't going to do the same with the x-universe, they're not going to create more characters for fox to exploit. if you refuse to believe the rumors about marvel top brass being really grumpy about fox's lock on those titles, fine, but they align pretty smoothly with what's happening.

Of course they're grumpy that Marvel sold the rights to a bunch of characters/teams 20 years before Disney was in the picture. They're grumpy about many things, I'm sure.
What I'm saying is that there's no real evidence they're in the habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face - they still make money on those properties, just less. They're never getting them back regardless of promotion by the comic wing. The only thing we know for sure is that one title that doesn't sell is getting cancelled - just like titles that are part of the MCU. On the other hand, we know that they timed their Spidey release to coincide with the movie and that their second biggest selling title of the year (behind ASM1) is about Wolverine.
Deadpool belongs to Fox or Universal, as well, and they're pumping out new Deadpool miniseries left and right - increasing his value as a potential movie.

while they're definitely not getting back the x-folk, getting back the fantastic four seems far more possible - after all, fox gave them back daredevil

No they didn't. Their option lapsed after they tried and failed to get a new movie into production

i'd argue that's a pretty semantic distinction. if they really wanted to, they could have pulled one of these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY