The Big Picture: Wrongs & Rights

[Saltyk]

The sad thing is, that as I understand it, those contracts allow them to keep the license as long as they make a movie. It doesn't have to be a serious effort. It can be cheaply made and laughably bad, only showing for a few weeks in one or two theaters with no fanfare and no video release. Contract fulfilled and they keep the license. They did that with Fantastic Four once, I know.

 

[Scrythe]

From what I heard, The Punisher has gone back to Marvel. Movies didn't make that much money (second one was okay though) and there are no plans for another one by other studios.

Not sure how or if they'll use him considering the deal with Disney is that the movies must be PG-13.

Incidentally, the second one was the only one that made a decent amount of profit [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330793/business].

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I want a Wasp and/or Ant-man movie....for... unrelated reasons, actually.

But since the Avengers has come out and they're part of the Avengers I guess now I can use that to justify it... ;p

 

[Scars Unseen]

Disney has always been notorious for lobbying the government to increase the number of years that creative works stay out of the public domain. The reason IP and copyright laws have gotten the way they are is probably because of them.

This is a different set of IP and copyright laws than the one you're thinking of. This is an IP use law. It's not the same as the IP creation law.

If I created a character, that is my IP.
If you want to make a movie of my character, I can give you permission to use my IP, as long as you give me some money.

That's how this works.

You're right and he's right. Under current copyright law, you are correct, but that's only because the concept of copyright has been warped beyond measure. If it weren't for companies like Disney, this would all be a non-discussion because every character in every one of these movies would be in the public domain(maybe not Blade or Punisher... I think that Iron Age comic characters might still have been covered). The reason why so many movies and books deal with fairy tales and other pre-20th century literature is because those are the only preexisting works that can be used without licensing.

And it's not just that the license is needed; in some cases, the license is literally impossible to get. Over time, either multiple parties hold the rights to portions of a work(look at the trouble Beamdog had to go through to get the rights to make Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition), or in some cases no one is quite sure who owns the rights to a property. This can be a problem even in the short run, but over time it is almost a certainty unless the owner is a major company with well paid lawyers. This would be less of a problem under original copyright law since it lasted only 14 years with the opportunity for an extension of another 14 years. That's plenty of time for a person or company to profit from a work.

As broken as it patent law is, copyright law is far worse.

 

[Scars Unseen]

So all WB has to do is just come up with a Batman movie that fits with Justice League. Though the problem with that I guess is, Would people watch a non Nolan Batman movie? I guess with the right cast and directors and writers they could pull it off.

If they won't they just won't be watching Batman. Nolan said he's done with the character.

I think it's already official that Batman will be rebooted after DKR, with Nolan producing, and a goal for a massive crossover movie in the future.

Okay... I could be wrong. I'm guessing the character will still be completely different from the Batman of Nolan's trilogy if the idea is to make him suitable for a Justice League movie.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I liked Green Lantern more than Batman beginnings 0-o

I liked it more than The Dark Knight.

Frankly, I just want Nolan off Batman so we can get a director who isn't ashamed to make super-hero movies.

*think... ... think... ... think... DING!*
Yeah I kinda did to, I did like how they did the villains but the world and bat stuff felt flat.

While the green lantern had more consisnity to its more subdue pacing/style.

 

[notimeforlulz]

I think I asked for a video about this sort of thing, I don't believe bob did it for me... but still, thanks bob.

And now I'm going to watch this a couple more times till I understand some more of it.

 

[LadyRhian]

oops, double post...

 

[LadyRhian]

http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/doctor-voodoo.jpg

Marvel already has a magic man who isn't white, i give you brother voodoo , who is a bit of a badass.

Because, yeah, he's not a flaming stereotype, and I don't even want to think about the number of people who cry out about a stereotypical depiction of voodoo... or outraged parents decrying a film that makes voodoo/Vodun/Vodou look cool- just look at the backlash from Harry Potter, and that kind of magic isn't even based on anything REAL. At least Doctor Strange isn't based on any kind of real magic (but as you can see, that doesn't mean some kind of backlash anyhow). I see the same kind of problems happening with ANY magic based hero, except maybe Meggan, Captain Britain's girlfriend/wife(?), who is some kind of faery. I think. Nah, mutant. Oh well, there goes that idea...

Snowbird from Alpha Flight? Puck (also from Alpha Flight)? The problem with so many heroes in the Marvel universe is that so many are their nation's version of (Fill in the Blank) . Captain Britain is English Captain America. Silver Samurai is Japan's Iron Man (more or less) and so on.

Maybe Luke Cage

There is no maybe on Luke Cage, they got the Old Spice guy for him.

Ha! I guess this means a Luke Cage/Iron Fist movie! Or.... ooh! Moon Knight!

 

[Vausch]

So, here's a question: Why can't the studios collaborate? Y'know, like they all go "Okay we'll make the movie and divide the gross 3 ways and split the budget 3 ways. Each of us invests 60 to 100 million, each of us is almost guaranteed to get that back and then some".

Oversimplification is now done, let's see how I'm out of touch!

Actually, there's not a whole lot of reason why they can't, other than general unwillingness. Sony doesn't want to have to submit to Marvel Studios' mandates regarding their continuity (and to share more of the profits in order to do so), and Marvel makes money whether or not they make the movie in-studio.

What we'll have to wait and see is whether or not Avengers has raised the expectations of movie-going audiences such that they won't want to see a Marvel movie that DOESN'T take place in the larger universe. In other words, if Amazing Spider-Man fails, we will either see Marvel Studios getting many of their rights back, or Sony and Fox will start actively collaborating.

Of course, there's a chance that Disney will discourage any such collaboration, seeing Sony and Fox as competitors.

So yeah. It's not just about money. It's about whether or not the studios can make MORE money through collaboration and whether or not that extra money is worth sharing IP's (something Disney has never been eager to do).

]

So, in other words, if the upcoming Marvel's don't do well the odds of them getting their universes shared would increase? Well, I'm pretty sure Spiderman is going to suck anyway so no loss there.

I know Disney's evil but you'd think the prospect of "share the risk and potential huge income or get a blame figure if things go wrong" wouldn't be something they could pass up.

Basically, yes. If ASM sucks and does poorly in the box office, it's plausible that Sony will scrap its plans for a sequel and try and sell the license back to Disney while it's still worth something.

And unfortunately, Disney could get a potential huge income from a collaborative work, or they could just get a small income from a failed work done by Fox or Sony (since Marvel still makes money from those movies) and then get the rights back and make an even bigger income from an in-house production that doesn't suck. The only thing they risk going the latter route is whether audiences will get sick of the properties themselves or just sick of studios other than Marvel making Marvel movies. They potentially stand to gain a lot more if they let the other studios fail. And if the other studios don't fail, they still make money off of it. There's not a lot of incentive for them to collaborate with competing studios that they already make money off of through the licensing deal. It's not so much evil as a rational business decision (though those two things are often hard to distinguish).

Yeah that's fair (I'd think like that too in that position). Honestly, I'm rooting for it to suck. It just doesn't look right as a whole. They're hinting that Peter's powers might not be a direct result of the spider but rather this was planned to happen to a degree, the driving force for him to actually become Spiderman is being virtually ignored, and the lizard and the costume still suck. See, my question is why are they making it another origin? Why not just make a Spiderman 2 esque movie, something where Peter is already Spidey and just drop us in with a good story? Everybody knows Spiderman's origin by now, and if they don't then odds are they could just ask a friend or the guy next to them, the origin is a part of pop culture through and through!

"Hey, why can he do that?"

-"radioactive spider bit him"

"Oh, neat!"

 

[Ashley Blalock]

It's kind of funny how some of this ends up as more of a curse for studios than a blessing. They have to make a movie to keep the rights and then give part of that money to Marvel and Disney. But if the rushed out film is a flop then they get all of the bad while Marvel and Disney sit back and laugh.

Between Avengers setting the bar so high and the Ultimate Spiderman cartoon pushing a version of Spiderman towards kids they are just setting up the Sony film to be a disappointment. Just because Sony has the rights it doesn't mean that Marvel and Disney can't do things to hurt Sony making money off Spiderman.

 

[OZITOMAI]

i'm still looking forward to the new spiderman cause it does look good, your ideas on it is kinder too bias but anyways, it does make sense which really does suck

 

[LadyRhian]

http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/doctor-voodoo.jpg

Marvel already has a magic man who isn't white, i give you brother voodoo , who is a bit of a badass.

Because, yeah, he's not a flaming stereotype, and I don't even want to think about the number of people who cry out about a stereotypical depiction of voodoo... or outraged parents decrying a film that makes voodoo/Vodun/Vodou look cool- just look at the backlash from Harry Potter, and that kind of magic isn't even based on anything REAL. At least Doctor Strange isn't based on any kind of real magic (but as you can see, that doesn't mean some kind of backlash anyhow). I see the same kind of problems happening with ANY magic based hero, except maybe Meggan, Captain Britain's girlfriend/wife(?), who is some kind of faery. I think. Nah, mutant. Oh well, there goes that idea...

Snowbird from Alpha Flight? Puck (also from Alpha Flight)? The problem with so many heroes in the Marvel universe is that so many are their nation's version of (Fill in the Blank) . Captain Britain is English Captain America. Silver Samurai is Japan's Iron Man (more or less) and so on.

Maybe Luke Cage

There is no maybe on Luke Cage, they got the Old Spice guy for him.

Ha! I guess this means a Luke Cage/Iron Fist movie! Or.... ooh! Moon Knight!

snowbirds a shaman
does that count as two ethnic
and silver samurai is just a samurai lol crimson dynamo or red guard are better examples of that.

And i don't think media ought be censored because some crybabies disagree with certain types of magic on the screen, ffs we have a genre called torture porn i think we can handle voodoo.

Snowbird is a goddess. An elemental goddess. I think you are thinking of Shaman, (Michael Twoyoungmen and/or his daughter), and I remember Silver Samurai as being more of a techno-samurai rather than straight Samurai, but it's been a while and I might be mis-remembering. The only problem with most of the mages of the Marvel universe is how stereotypical they are. I mean, they are all stereotypes, like "Doctor Druid" and "Brother Voodoo". Even Shaman has his "Native American Shamanistic powers", which is just really insulting to anyone sharing those ethnicities/religions. TV Tropes "Magic Negro" for the EPIC FAIL. Just because someone comes from a culture or religion that believed in magical powers doesn't mean there should be a superhero with those stereotypical magical abilities. Magik is about the only one can think of who isn't stereotypical, because she is a white Russian girl who got blipped to Limbo and studied magic there, but she is the X-men universe, so is out of the running.

And Daimon Hellstrom is "The Son of Satan"- you can just imagine how the Christians would LOVE that...

 

[Caffeine_Bombed]

Think I might be the only person in the world who actually loved Daredevil...
I would say I relish the idea of another movie, but the rumour so far is: Daredevil reboot starring Jason Statham.
No-fucking-thank you!

Out of the characters that they have the rights to use in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (that they're actually looking at) I would be happy top see:

Black Panther
Cable
Dr. Strange
Luke Cage

I haven't made up my mind about Edgar Wright's "Ant-Man" yet.

 

[rayen020]

Is there any way marvel could get their IPs back without paying gratuitous sums of money? other than the caveat that the companys have to keep making movies, is there a caveat or loophole that says like "You really suck at this and we're suing you for slander?" Because i'd really like to see marvel get their toys back and see how they use them.

Also, Somewhat topical, Is it just me or is disney becoming a movie powerhouse again?Like there was a time between like 1996 and 2006 where it seemed like the only good movies coming from them were made by pixar? Was that just Eisner effect or am i just noticing becasue they're making movies I like again.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Ow... my head hurts. I wonder how anyone keeps any of this stuff straight...

 

[Pat Hulse]

So, here's a question: Why can't the studios collaborate? Y'know, like they all go "Okay we'll make the movie and divide the gross 3 ways and split the budget 3 ways. Each of us invests 60 to 100 million, each of us is almost guaranteed to get that back and then some".

Oversimplification is now done, let's see how I'm out of touch!

Actually, there's not a whole lot of reason why they can't, other than general unwillingness. Sony doesn't want to have to submit to Marvel Studios' mandates regarding their continuity (and to share more of the profits in order to do so), and Marvel makes money whether or not they make the movie in-studio.

What we'll have to wait and see is whether or not Avengers has raised the expectations of movie-going audiences such that they won't want to see a Marvel movie that DOESN'T take place in the larger universe. In other words, if Amazing Spider-Man fails, we will either see Marvel Studios getting many of their rights back, or Sony and Fox will start actively collaborating.

Of course, there's a chance that Disney will discourage any such collaboration, seeing Sony and Fox as competitors.

So yeah. It's not just about money. It's about whether or not the studios can make MORE money through collaboration and whether or not that extra money is worth sharing IP's (something Disney has never been eager to do).

]

So, in other words, if the upcoming Marvel's don't do well the odds of them getting their universes shared would increase? Well, I'm pretty sure Spiderman is going to suck anyway so no loss there.

I know Disney's evil but you'd think the prospect of "share the risk and potential huge income or get a blame figure if things go wrong" wouldn't be something they could pass up.

Basically, yes. If ASM sucks and does poorly in the box office, it's plausible that Sony will scrap its plans for a sequel and try and sell the license back to Disney while it's still worth something.

And unfortunately, Disney could get a potential huge income from a collaborative work, or they could just get a small income from a failed work done by Fox or Sony (since Marvel still makes money from those movies) and then get the rights back and make an even bigger income from an in-house production that doesn't suck. The only thing they risk going the latter route is whether audiences will get sick of the properties themselves or just sick of studios other than Marvel making Marvel movies. They potentially stand to gain a lot more if they let the other studios fail. And if the other studios don't fail, they still make money off of it. There's not a lot of incentive for them to collaborate with competing studios that they already make money off of through the licensing deal. It's not so much evil as a rational business decision (though those two things are often hard to distinguish).

Yeah that's fair (I'd think like that too in that position). Honestly, I'm rooting for it to suck. It just doesn't look right as a whole. They're hinting that Peter's powers might not be a direct result of the spider but rather this was planned to happen to a degree, the driving force for him to actually become Spiderman is being virtually ignored, and the lizard and the costume still suck. See, my question is why are they making it another origin? Why not just make a Spiderman 2 esque movie, something where Peter is already Spidey and just drop us in with a good story? Everybody knows Spiderman's origin by now, and if they don't then odds are they could just ask a friend or the guy next to them, the origin is a part of pop culture through and through!

"Hey, why can he do that?"

-"radioactive spider bit him"

"Oh, neat!"

That's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure I have a good answer. They probably would have had an easier time just doing the James Bond thing and continuing Spider-Man's story ignoring or acknowledging as much or as little of the movie continuity as they wanted and most people wouldn't care. But I guess someone early on in development decided that they should make this movie closer to the comics so that people might accidentally think it's connected to the MCU. They wanted to put Gwen Stacey in her traditional role, give Spidey web-shooters instead of a weird wrist-gland, and they wanted to put in the weird parents back-story (which I'm not entirely sure they can properly pull off without being able to use S.H.I.E.L.D.). Also, someone probably argued that a reboot would be more popular than a sequel considering how poorly Spider-Man 3 was received. They probably looked at "Batman Begins" as a template and figured that was a good way to go.

The problem is, Batman in his original franchise never really got an origin story. He talked about his origin in flashbacks, but we never actually saw him become Batman before. But general audiences HAVE seen a movie about the origin of Spider-Man, and even if this movie tries to be a little different, they'll still feel like they've already seen it and wonder why they are doing a reboot so soon. On top of that, with the success of "The Avengers", general audiences may also wonder why this movie doesn't have Iron Man or Nick Fury in it. If the movie also fails to impress critics, it may just fail to garner enough interest from general audiences to do very well.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that "Amazing Spider-Man" will do about as well (or poorly depending on your definition) as "Green Lantern" did last year, which would likely be construed as a box office failure by Sony, potentially prompting them to try and sell back the license to Marvel Studios.