was that part of the settlement?!
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 30 October 2014 20:09 (nine years ago) link
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/10/marvel-titles-now-include-jack-kirby-credit/
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 30 October 2014 20:46 (nine years ago) link
IIRC the movie credits just say based on comics by stan lee, jack kirby etc etc - wonder if that will change...
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 30 October 2014 20:50 (nine years ago) link
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?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 30 October 2014 22:45 (nine years ago) link
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.
― da croupier, Thursday, 30 October 2014 22:53 (nine years ago) link
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.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:04 (nine years ago) link
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
― da croupier, Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:13 (nine years ago) link
No they didn't. Their option lapsed after they tried and failed to get a new movie into production
― Number None, Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:44 (nine years ago) link
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
― da croupier, Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:47 (nine years ago) link
and it still would have been better than the Affleck version!
― Number None, Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:50 (nine years ago) link
I'm curious about the cancelling of important but low selling characters. Wonder Woman is a prime example of a character who has always had a title going because DC feels she's too important to cancel. Fantastic Four is extremely important in Marvel's history and I'm pretty surprised they'd ever cancel it, so that makes the grudge reason seem more plausible.
I think for a few decades there has usually been more Superman titles than makes business sense because they feel he needs to appear to rival Batman?
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Friday, 31 October 2014 00:03 (nine years ago) link
I may be wrong, but I think DC have to publish Wonder Woman regularly or else lose the rights, so they keep her going even when it's not very financially sensible because of her importance to the DC Universe as a whole
― ornamental cabbage (James Morrison), Friday, 31 October 2014 00:06 (nine years ago) link
OK, that no longer seems to be the case: from http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2005/06/03/comic-book-urban-legend-revealed-1/COMIC URBAN LEGEND: DC must publish at least four issues of Wonder Woman a year or else lose the rights to the property.
STATUS: False
It has long been said that if DC did not publish Wonder Woman at least four times a year, that the rights would revert back to the estate of William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman.
Writer Kurt Busiek addressed the rumors earlier this year,
They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time – as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with “Wonder Woman” as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That’s why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew – the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.
They specifically didn’t want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn’t want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.
In the intervening years, though, I’m given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.
― ornamental cabbage (James Morrison), Friday, 31 October 2014 00:08 (nine years ago) link
really curious about the details of that - did all-american publications make a special deal with marston? the implication otherwise is that ALL those JSA types were at least partially creator owned
― da croupier, Friday, 31 October 2014 00:12 (nine years ago) link
I think Marston was a special case--in more ways than one, tbh
― ornamental cabbage (James Morrison), Friday, 31 October 2014 01:54 (nine years ago) link
Oh my god the new Fantastic Four movie is going to bomb so hard:
KEBBELL: He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor Von Doom in our story. And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that. The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer. Very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites I’m “Doom”.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 12:17 (nine years ago) link
also
http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-sonys-now-working-on-an-aunt-may-movie
― Number None, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 14:46 (nine years ago) link
In the context of the topic of discussion ITT, that is the most insane thing I've ever read.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:00 (nine years ago) link
that this was even spitballed is indeed a sign of how desperate they are to keep and exploit the brand, but studios spitball all kinds of shit. this prequel may have just been on a long list of spidey stories they have the rights to, and considering agent carter it does belong on that big list
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:23 (nine years ago) link
also gotham. an exec might have said "give me a list of 15 spideyverse titles" to which some assistant said "jesus fuck, i dunno that stupid aunt may prequel that flopped" when they got home
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:24 (nine years ago) link
I... what
― the farakhan of gg (DJP), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:25 (nine years ago) link
If this is honestly where they're at, selling the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel has to be the better business decision for Sony at this point.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:33 (nine years ago) link
Maybe Sony could partner up with Fox and finally adapt Aunt May, Herald of Galactus. (Only if Rosemary Harris reprises the role!)
― Your Favorite Album in the Cutout Bin, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 15:40 (nine years ago) link
sony are straight-up trolling at this point
― bizarro gazzara, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:09 (nine years ago) link
Wasn't Trouble written as a teen girl romance comic that just happened to feature Spiderman's family? I think it was part of an effort to see if they could do old genres in a new way and get a new audience.
How are they going to turn that into a franchise film? This is several steps beyond Smallville.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:14 (nine years ago) link
teen girl romance by... mark millar
― jenny holzer, ilxor (mh), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:27 (nine years ago) link
It's still a stupid idea but to be clear it is a different stupid idea to Trouble
The target mood is some sort of espionage story in the vein of AMC’s Mad Men, which sounds like a way of saying “classier Agent Carter” without name-dropping Marvel’s upcoming series.
― Number None, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:28 (nine years ago) link
finally the aunt may romance we've all been waiting for
― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:28 (nine years ago) link
unless elizabeth moss walks out at the nexy sony shareholders meeting under a sign saying MAY RISING - MAY 2019 i think this gossip is all that will come of it.
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:58 (nine years ago) link
captain mayvel
― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:59 (nine years ago) link
the real takeaway here is that sony is a) determined to keep the spidey rights and b) open to suggestions as to how to make the most of them
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:00 (nine years ago) link
personally i vote for THE BUGLE, a new workplace mockumentary starring jk simmons
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:01 (nine years ago) link
they should just start adapting the hostess ads
― Dokken played here for a Ribfest and people were total assholes (Sparkle Motion), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:02 (nine years ago) link
I thought that's what they were already doing
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:05 (nine years ago) link
This desperate attempt to maintain the Spider-License without actually making another Spider-Man film feels very AfterM*A*S*H/Hogan Family-esque.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:18 (nine years ago) link
I actually think a Daily Bugle show isn't a half bad idea.
peter parker making jim-face to the camera every time jonah yells about spidey
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:22 (nine years ago) link
the newsroom except with pictures of spiderman occasionally
― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:24 (nine years ago) link
i wonder if simmons, elizabeth banks, tobey maguire and bill nunn would actually be down to do a like eight-episode thing for cable or whatever. i mean maguire did the spoils of babylon.
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:33 (nine years ago) link
Of course that's already been done, albeit with a character that Marvel owns
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pulse_(comics)
― Number None, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:35 (nine years ago) link
The strongest runs on Spider-Man IMO are those that focus more on the ensemble and reduce Spider-Man to something like a supporting role. The Pulse is definitely in line with that, yes.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:44 (nine years ago) link
Like, I think I'm starting to realize that I just don't care that much about Spider-Man/Peter Parker as a character divorced from the context of his supporting cast.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:45 (nine years ago) link
I for one would LOVE to see a Trouble trainwreck adaptation
― Nhex, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 19:10 (nine years ago) link
"And that baby that her future husband's brother's future wife eventually had...became the Amazing Spider-Man."
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 19:13 (nine years ago) link
Millar is such a creep. Remember the covers for these things?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marvel_Trouble_1.jpg
― Number None, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 19:40 (nine years ago) link
I remember lots of suggestions in the lead-up to its release that it was gonna be something sleazy.
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 19:46 (nine years ago) link
tbf they're not that off from other YA-targeted book covers. i didn't actually get a crepey vibe from those
― Nhex, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 20:22 (nine years ago) link
http://www.comicvine.com/spider-mans-tangled-web/4050-7255/
This series was mostly about his supporting cast. The Rhino two part story was my favourite, it was much like that Simpsons episode in which Homer gets the crayon removed from his head and can't deal with being intelligent. Nothing else really grabbed me.
Venom had quite a lot of titles so that wouldn't be too hard. But those were mostly reliant upon insatiable Venom fans in the 90s.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 21:02 (nine years ago) link
Hi, I remember that Flower for Algernon-style Rhino story. It was pretty all right.
― Nhex, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 21:14 (nine years ago) link
Milligan and Fegredo, IIRC?
― i only wanted freidn (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 21:16 (nine years ago) link