He's mad trolling.
ASM2 will probably clear 650 mil worldwide when all is said and done.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Marvel Cinematic Universe |OT2| Discussion on released and future projects (spoilers)
- Thread starter TDLink
- Start date
- Status
He's mad trolling.
ASM2 will probably clear 650 mil worldwide when all is said and done.
Which would be a fail for Sony, especially now that they don't have the merchandise and whatnot to fall back on.
TDLink
Member
At ABC's upfronts they confirmed that Agent Carter will be a winter "fill-in" show for Agents of SHIELD. So when SHIELD goes on break in December, Carter will start up, then run for 13 weeks, then SHIELD will resume after that. This means no long breaks like this past year.
Pretty good strategy.
Pretty good strategy.
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
Sony isn't giving those right up until they are in a bankruptcy. After seeing Amazing Spider Man Poo, I'm certainly not interested in seeing that Spider Man in the MCU.
It doesn't work like that, you are ignoring the marketing budget and the fact that studios don't take 100% of the money the movies make especially in non-US territories, were the cut they make is lower with China being the lowest (about 20% or $0.20 per dollar IIRC)
The usual (gross) estimation is that a movie has to make about double (production budget+marketing budget) to be profitable, which would mean that ASM2 has to make notably north of (educated guess) US$700M worldwide to be profitable.
why you gotta fuck with us man
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
So the big thing from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Fury made Coulson the new director and Coulson will rebuild S.H.I.E.L.D.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That's what they did with the two Wonderland shows. Good way to do things. Split seasons in half so there is just one big break instead of a lot of little breaks. Almost like getting two shorter seasons a year.
Looking forward to
the potential parallels between the founding of SHIELD and the rebuilding of SHIELD in the two shows.
Hours Left
Member
He also considers Coulson to be an Avenger.
Father_Brain
Banned
So as I suspected, the talk about it impacting the whole MCU was overblown. It could come up in future films should the writers so choose, but there's no reason why it'd have to be given
the scale at which the new SHIELD is starting out.
Rebuilding SHIELD and Coulson being director can be completely ignored by the films. The whole impacting the MCU was completely overblown. Nothing happens that would impact say Avengers 2. Unless the team shows up to give Stark some tech he can't make himself. Which I can't see happening.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I just had the craziest motherfucking idea: given that Hydra is not yet done in any shape or form, Madame Hydra needs to show up in grand style. And who would be better for the role than Eva Green?
Hire me, Marvel. Or just pay me. I can write copy and I promise I'll stop sending inappropriate tweets to Hatwell.
Hire me, Marvel. Or just pay me. I can write copy and I promise I'll stop sending inappropriate tweets to Hatwell.
Depends on the license situation. Madame Hydra was featured in The Wolverine, so it could be possible, that Marvel doesnt own the movie rights for her.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
It may be another case of split rights but we haven't had any confirmation about it as yet. Viper for FOX and Madame Hydra for Marvel maybe.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...that wouldnt make sense at all especially with the way QS and Scarlett Witch are shared. Jim Steranko created her in Captain America....so i think its her relationship with silver samurai that allows FOX to use the char.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
I am really surprised that marvel, Fox, and Sony haven't made trades for B list characters as needed for their films.
But yeah madame hydra would be great
Madame Masque would also be a great character especially if they bring her father Count Nefaria into the fray as well as some sort of evil father/daughter tandem.
As for Spiderman going back to marvel you never know. If Sony under performs why not Sell Spiderman? they could potentially get another 500 million (maybe even more) add that to the 400 million they are on track to make and thats a 900 million dollar profit off of Spiderman this year and they will get off the leash of having to make films regardless if they wanted to or not to keep the licenses.
Madame Masque ist strongly tied to Iron Man and Tony Stark, they would rather introduce her in a Avenger or Iron Man movie.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
I don't think she is a strong enough character to be used in avengers or Iron Man. She isn't really summer blockbuster super villain material.
Madame Hydra is definitely a weird situation.
Fox owns her because she's a mutant, but they can't reference Hydra at all. Hence why she was just 'Viper' in Wolverine.
Marvel owns Hydra but can't use her because she's a mutant. What's up in the air is whether they can use the name Madam Hydra and just have a non mutant in that role.
Fox owns her because she's a mutant, but they can't reference Hydra at all. Hence why she was just 'Viper' in Wolverine.
Marvel owns Hydra but can't use her because she's a mutant. What's up in the air is whether they can use the name Madam Hydra and just have a non mutant in that role.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...thats fucked up shes a captain america char ...that is a mutant thing scope is too much in this case imho.
The Original Viper isn't a mutant though. Its weird situation because the Viper in the Wolvie flick isn't like Madame Hydra at all and doesn't even share a name. So it might be a case where Marvel let Fox use her because of the Silver Samurai but only the Viper codename and the green hair.
I watched The Wolverine for the first time a while ago and Viper was easily the worst fucking part of that movie.
Anyway, it would make literally no sense for Fox to be able to use that character in Wolverine movies but Marvel can't in their Captain America / Avengers movies. They'll probably just refer to her as Madame Hydra to remove any association with "Viper" from the Fox movies which shouldn't be hard considering that Viper was never a mutant in the first place.
Anyway, it would make literally no sense for Fox to be able to use that character in Wolverine movies but Marvel can't in their Captain America / Avengers movies. They'll probably just refer to her as Madame Hydra to remove any association with "Viper" from the Fox movies which shouldn't be hard considering that Viper was never a mutant in the first place.
http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-could-zac-efron-be-marvels-next-franchise-star
Latino Review (lol) is reporting that Zac Efron is up for an MCU role.
Latino Review (lol) is reporting that Zac Efron is up for an MCU role.
Hmm. Didn't see this one coming, even as a rumor.http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-could-zac-efron-be-marvels-next-franchise-star
Latino Review (lol) is reporting that Zac Efron is up for an MCU role.
I actually think he could be a good outside the box Daredevil. A casting of someone of his prominence could result in that character's inclusion in Avengers 3.
I'm still holding out for Jon Hamm as Doctor Stephen Strange.
TDLink
Member
http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-could-zac-efron-be-marvels-next-franchise-star
Latino Review (lol) is reporting that Zac Efron is up for an MCU role.
I remember when they said Viggo Mortensen was up for a role. He would have been cool too.
Question for Marvel movie rights...
How does it work for characters made after Sony and Fox's deal?
If a character is releated to spider-man (like the new character Silk), can Marvel use them because they were made after the deal or no because they're related to spiderman?
What about mutant characters in the comics? Can they use them that were made after the deal so long as they're not referred to as mutants?
How does it work for characters made after Sony and Fox's deal?
If a character is releated to spider-man (like the new character Silk), can Marvel use them because they were made after the deal or no because they're related to spiderman?
What about mutant characters in the comics? Can they use them that were made after the deal so long as they're not referred to as mutants?
TDLink
Member
With Spider-man characters, if they weren't included in the deal then they aren't part of the deal. Each character was named specifically in the agreement. So newer characters fall under Marvel jurisdiction. However, even if they use them they can't mention Spider-Man or show any relation to him.
Fox's X-Men deal was broader. They covered everything that used "mutant". Therefore every character that is a mutant in Marvel's history, both before and after the deal, they have the rights to. There are certain exceptions allowed for both Fox and Marvel to use the characters if those mutants are largely on other established Marvel teams (such as the case with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch).
In other words, we shouldn't expect Marvel to create any more mutants that are in any way marketable.
White Black Panther confirmed
I can see sony giving up spidey
" all the divisions of our company that isn't playstation is exploding, and even playstation is running at a loss right now. Also spidey is our entire film business and its making way less money than it should, maybe we should get rid of our film business "
" all the divisions of our company that isn't playstation is exploding, and even playstation is running at a loss right now. Also spidey is our entire film business and its making way less money than it should, maybe we should get rid of our film business "
Hot Coldman
Banned
http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-could-zac-efron-be-marvels-next-franchise-star
Latino Review (lol) is reporting that Zac Efron is up for an MCU role.
...Iron Fist? He's got the body for it.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Latino Review...
yankeehater
Member
I thought that there were rumors about Sony looking into unloading their film business. The problem with that though is they would probably auction off the rights that they own individually, and someone could out bid Disney for the Spiderman rights.
James Cameron is buying it
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
'Marvel Cinematic Universe Stars Unite To Help A Cancer Patient'
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=100103
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=100103
yankeehater
Member
No.
It is not likely but is not totally impossible. The SM franchise has grossed billions, I dont think the idea of lots of companies bidding for it is to far fetched.
Make a list of movie studios that you think could outbid Disney.
Not only that
Why the hell one someone buy spider man, a brand Sony is using poorly already and showing signs of some sort of fatigue . So not only would the new studio be tasked of making spider man exciting, they would have to pay out money to Disney to do it. Along with that, if they wait until spider man cools down it will be too late and Disney would just get spiderman for free.
Also how the hell do we know they could even transfer that contract, it could be as such if Sony stops doing spider man, no one else but marvel could get spidey.
Dawwwwwww............ a good way to start a day.
;__; even Agent Nailedthothefloor is there ;-;
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I don't see it happening any time soon, but in the unlikely event that Sony decides to unload their movie studios and rights revert back to Marvel/Disney, they should take a break from Spidey-focused movies and just have him in guest roles in the New York street-level stuff for now. Rebooting the Spidey movies a third time in such a short span does not seem like it would go over well, unless they skipped the origin story entirely.
http://www.ibtimes.com/ignoring-amazing-spider-man-fatigue-sony-stubbornly-forges-ahead-1583121
The Spider-Man series is already showing signs of faltering under Sony.
I don't see how a movie focusing on the Sinister Six will be appealing or financially successful.
The Spider-Man series is already showing signs of faltering under Sony.
I don't see how a movie focusing on the Sinister Six will be appealing or financially successful.
- Status