The Official "Marvel" Thread (Movies,Comics etc)

[Gamebreaker]

Ok, so I'm a little bit pissed about Disney forcing Marvel to basically kill off the X-Men since they can't make all the money off them as they can their other properties. Later this year, Marvel Comics is releasing a new crossover called "Death of X". Basically, it's all over for the mutants. They have been slowly killing them off, not giving them the best talent to revive popularity, and canceling books for years. Their plan as been to replace the X-Men with the Inhumans, which is a pretty ****ty substitute if you ask me.

They've already retired the Fantastic Four from the comics(Fox's other license), now Reed and Sue aren't even in the same dimension. The Thing is with the Guardians of the Galaxy, and Human Torch is an Avenger. Their send-off was pretty nice, but would've never happened if Marvel was able to make movies for them. 

The same is happening here for the X-Men, but it seems like they aren't even trying to make it a good ending because Fox cares more for the X-Men license. They don't even want to them to have one more good storyline to base a movie after. Speaking as a fan of this franchise since I was 11, I think what Disney is doing is disrespectful to the fans, as well as the artists and writers who helped create a brand so popular it kept Marvel Comics from closing up shop during their lean years. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Gamebreaker

[Metalhead]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

Ok, so I'm a little bit pissed about Disney forcing Marvel to basically kill off the X-Men since they can't make all the money off them as they can their other properties. Later this year, Marvel Comics is releasing a new crossover called "Death of X". Basically, it's all over for the mutants. They have been slowly killing them off, not giving them the best talent to revive popularity, and canceling books for years. Their plan as been to replace the X-Men with the Inhumans, which is a pretty ****ty substitute if you ask me.

They've already retired the Fantastic Four from the comics(Fox's other license), now Reed and Sue aren't even in the same dimension. The Thing is with the Guardians of the Galaxy, and Human Torch is an Avenger. Their send-off was pretty nice, but would've never happened if Marvel was able to make movies for them. 

The same is happening here for the X-Men, but it seems like they aren't even trying to make it a good ending because Fox cares more for the X-Men license. They don't even want to them to have one more good storyline to base a movie after. Speaking as a fan of this franchise since I was 11, I think what Disney is doing is disrespectful to the fans, as well as the artists and writers who helped create a brand so popular it kept Marvel Comics from closing up shop during their lean years. 

Edit - Sorry, I just read some of your previous posts, you're aware of Fox screwing up.

I also grew up on the 90's X-Men and the original Age of Apocalypse. Basically, Fox destroyed every film property they owned. You should check out the timeline, script rewrites, drafts, production, and hiring contracts of the last FF film. Fox put Marvel in this tough position. The Fox-owned characters are D.O.A. and Marvel is now trying to salvage them. Movies sell comics in today's market. Great movies sell ever more comics and LOTS of merchandise.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Are the movies even successful enough for Fox to keep making them?

Feel like it Would it be better for Fox to work out some royalty rights or something so Marvel can actually make good successful billion dollar movies and Fox can get percentages of that for as long as they make movies. 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

Ok, so I'm a little bit pissed about Disney forcing Marvel to basically kill off the X-Men since they can't make all the money off them as they can their other properties. . . .

 

Yeah, there seems to be something about intellectual property laws that really seems to bring out the ***hole in a whole bunch of people.  We;ve seen things like people making intentionally crummy, internet-only movies, just so that they can activate a clause in their contract, to keep rights from reverting back to someone who actually wants to do something with them. 

(And I'm casting equal blame on both parties, in this particular case.) 

To me, what should have happened was for Disney, Fox, and Sony to come to an agreement (meaning a payoff) to bring all of the Marvel titles back together.  I think Disney has demonstrated that they can do a much better job with those properties than Fox or Sony have.  Therefore, "Disney X-Men" is worth more than "Fox X-Men" is. 

[Gamebreaker]

13 hours ago, Metalhead said:

Edit - Sorry, I just read some of your previous posts, you're aware of Fox screwing up.

I also grew up on the 90's X-Men and the original Age of Apocalypse. Basically, Fox destroyed every film property they owned. You should check out the timeline, script rewrites, drafts, production, and hiring contracts of the last FF film. Fox put Marvel in this tough position. The Fox-owned characters are D.O.A. and Marvel is now trying to salvage them. Movies sell comics in today's market. Great movies sell ever more comics and LOTS of merchandise.

No one in this thread has been a louder critic of Fox's mishandling of the X-Men movies than I.  I disagree that movies sell comics in today's market. Movies make already popular comics sell even more. There are great comics that sell very well without a tv or movie deal. And it's not just the movies that Disney is sharing the revenue with Fox. It's merchandise, toys, video games. Disney is just petty. They don't want to share any of that money. We wish Fox would give up the license because the movies suck, Disney doesn't care about that they just want the money. 

The main three X-Men books were still selling. Even with the crappy storylines and the handcuffs they've put on the writers. If this a long term plan to force Fox to drop the license, they are wasting their time. That is never going to happen. Especially after the success of Deadpool. And furthermore, even if Fox gave the rights back and they wanted to revive the comic. What are you reviving? 

Unlike the FF, who's members are still alive just disbanded, they are literally killing off the entire mutant race. I know popular characters are revived all the time. But this is very different then that. 

[Gamebreaker]

10 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Are the movies even successful enough for Fox to keep making them?

Feel like it Would it be better for Fox to work out some royalty rights or something so Marvel can actually make good successful billion dollar movies and Fox can get percentages of that for as long as they make movies. 

This worked with Sony because the last two Spider-Man movies bombed at the box office AND they were bleeding money from other failed projects. 

Fox isn't in the red like Sony was. And the only X-Men movie to do bad in the box office is the last one. Deadpool's success entrenches their hold even more. Once upon a time Disney was able to get daredevil back, but that was back when their relationship wasn't as bad as it is now. It would actually be to Fox's benefit to work out a deal for FF, but they won't. Expect another dud 2-3 years from now. 

[Going Commando]

Stan Lee wrote the best and most iconic period of the Fantastic Four.  Any FF movie that's going to be good needs to channel the Silver Age and mimic Stan Lee's highly entertaining style.  A FF movie should be a campy, extraordinarily fun and whimsical sci fi romp.  A dark, realistic modern update is the ****ing dumbest concept you could afflict on the Fantastic Four.  Jetsons is the proper asthetic.  Not Dark Knight.

And in fact, if I were writing a FF movie outside the MCU, I'd go full on early 1960's period.  The Cold War would be the backdrop and exploration would be the story line.  Subterranean exploration to involve Mole Man.  Deep ocean exploration to involve Namor.  Space exploration to involve all of the wacky aliens in the FF universe, especially Galactus and the Skrulls.  And a creative and impressive visual depiction of Reed's powers is the most important thing I have to nail.  None of the FF movies have ever used his powers well, and yet no other Marvel character has the potential to delight and entertain movie audiences as much as Mr Fantastic.  So much spectacular and comic potential there, he's a goldmine for a talented writer and visual effects artist.

Fox will never make a good FF movie though.  It breaks my heart.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

I'm an X-Men guy (sn gives it away) first when it comes to comic franchises. Those are my guys. My soul hurts

[ksun247]

3 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I'm an X-Men guy (sn gives it away) first when it comes to comic franchises. Those are my guys. My soul hurts

Same here. Storylines in the books are bad. Killing off popular characters stinks. Still pissed about the death of Wolverine.

[PCS]

 

[Going Commando]

Looks like the aesthetic of the film is inspired by the Old Man Logan comics.

[Metalhead]

On 10/19/2016 at 8:14 AM, Gamebreaker said:

No one in this thread has been a louder critic of Fox's mishandling of the X-Men movies than I.  I disagree that movies sell comics in today's market. Movies make already popular comics sell even more. There are great comics that sell very well without a tv or movie deal. And it's not just the movies that Disney is sharing the revenue with Fox. It's merchandise, toys, video games. Disney is just petty. They don't want to share any of that money. We wish Fox would give up the license because the movies suck, Disney doesn't care about that they just want the money. 

The main three X-Men books were still selling. Even with the crappy storylines and the handcuffs they've put on the writers. If this a long term plan to force Fox to drop the license, they are wasting their time. That is never going to happen. Especially after the success of Deadpool. And furthermore, even if Fox gave the rights back and they wanted to revive the comic. What are you reviving? 

Unlike the FF, who's members are still alive just disbanded, they are literally killing off the entire mutant race. I know popular characters are revived all the time. But this is very different then that. 

I think I understand your concerns but you're not watching Marvel's current business model - characters never die and only #1 issues sell. No series goes to 50 issues anymore. Hell, Doctor Strange was rebooted (AGAIN) in less than 12 months, Captain Marvel rebooted twice, Moon Knight rebooted twice, X-Men rebooted to #1 several times in the last 6 years. Any new story arc or ceeative team now constitutes, or is enough to sell, a new first issue.

Poor movies can critically damage a comic property. Fantastic Four comics were already selling horribly (less than 30k copies a month, which is the magic cancellation point) and the final movie put the nail in the coffin. The FF are DOA. There is nothing Marvel could, or can, do to revive the property except give it some time off and hope to generate anticipation upon a return.

Now imagine sales of the first issues of all the rebooted X-Men series upon their return...lots of money rolling in.

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, Metalhead said:

I think I understand your concerns but you're not watching Marvel's current business model - characters never die and only #1 issues sell. No series goes to 50 issues anymore. Hell, Doctor Strange was rebooted (AGAIN) in less than 12 months, Captain Marvel rebooted twice, Moon Knight rebooted twice, X-Men rebooted to #1 several times in the last 6 years. Any new story arc or ceeative team now constitutes, or is enough to sell, a new first issue.

Poor movies can critically damage a comic property. Fantastic Four comics were already selling horribly (less than 30k copies a month, which is the magic cancellation point) and the final movie put the nail in the coffin. The FF are DOA. There is nothing Marvel could, or can, do to revive the property except give it some time off and hope to generate anticipation upon a return.

Now imagine sales of the first issues of all the rebooted X-Men series upon their return...lots of money rolling in.

I have the Marvel Unlimited license, and I've been reading consistently again since the first Civil War crossover a little while ago. I know about their current model and it's terrible. And I considered that they could be doing this here, but this doesn't seem to be a marketing gimmick like Spider-Man or Captain America "dying". 

I watched a video of a guy who has a theory that Disney saw they were able to get Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch into the MCU by changing their backstories and no longer making them mutants. And they were legally able to get away with this because per some language in the contract with Fox, there is a big emphasis on the characters being licensed to Fox due to their status as mutants. He spoke about how Marvel is actually planning on coming out with a bunch of their #1 issues soon for a large number of X-Men who've never had their own series before. He thinks this will be after an InHumans vs. X-Men crossover, in which any surviving X-Men will become a new species, a mutant/Inhuman hybrid. And this new species, no longer mutants, may allow them to introduce the more popular X-Men(likely called something else) into the MCU and avoid legal ramifications from Fox. If that is true, I don't know how I feel about that. But I guess it's better than just wiping them out and moving on. 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Metalhead said:

Any new story arc or ceeative team now constitutes, or is enough to sell, a new first issue.

I think this is a natural consequence of comics becoming increasingly complex in their stories and art.  They're dark, moody, serialized graphic novels now, as opposed to the breezey episodic adventure stories as which they began.

I think today's writers are much more artistically ambitious about what they can do in the medium and a talented new writer for a series does not want to have to pick up where the old creative team left off.  They've got their vision and they don't want to have to compromise it by spending half their story retconning in explanations and smoothing over continuity breaks.  And that's also true for the art too, although comic book audiences have always been way more accepting of those than breaks in storytelling.

Comic book characters have essentially become folk heroes, except that the authors aren't anonymous.  The characters are well branded and their new stories will already have large built in audiences.  So if a writer gets a new series, he can take over a character and tell a heroic narrative arc.  Then he can leave it when he's done and a new author can start pretty fresh if they get a reboot.  It's a good deal.  A lot easier to do that than come up with original characters every time.

As far as FF goes, I think that shifting tastes in the comic book audience have slowly killed them.  People have wanted the post apocalyptic and/or gritty and that just doesn't suit the FF at all.  And I also think that a lack of inspiration and comparable creative talent to some of Marvels other major teams/character is a factor.  I don't see a MacArthur Genius like Ta Nehisi Coates writing FF.  A top notch writer with the proper vision for the FF could come in and revive their popularity.  Comic fans are smart enough to not hold what Fox does against a comic's creative team.  I think the moment is becoming right for it.  Got a little bit of a rivalry with Russia heating back up and there is going to be a new atmosphere of exploration if we're serious about conducting a manned mission to Mars within the next ten years.

[Gamebreaker]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I think today's writers are much more artistically ambitious about what they can do in the medium and a talented new writer for a series does not want to have to pick up where the old creative team left off.  They've got their vision and they don't want to have to compromise it by spending half their story retconning in explanations and smoothing over continuity breaks.  And that's also true for the art too, although comic book audiences have always been way more accepting of those than breaks in storytelling.

Comic book characters have essentially become folk heroes, except that the authors aren't anonymous.  The characters are well branded and their new stories will already have large built in audiences.  So if a writer gets a new series, he can take over a character and tell a heroic narrative arc.  Then he can leave it when he's done and a new author can start pretty fresh if they get a reboot.  It's a good deal.  A lot easier to do that than come up with original characters every time.

That's all well and good for the writer who is trying to get his name out there, but if that type of process has been happening to the X-Men books for years and it hasn't made the quality better. Every new series has a new writer and a new artist(Every artists that draws the X-Men can't seem to figure out if Beast is a cat or a dog, or something else.) The writer, take Brian Michael Bendis when he took over the X-books, comes in with zero understanding of the characters and just pisses off the fanbase who know the characters better than him. 

It's one thing to take a character in a bold new direction. That's fine, we want these characters to evolve and grow, but you create plots that affect these characters in a believable fashion that results in those changes. Bendis, he brought a teenage Jean Grey into current day times, and she is nothing like Jean Grey AT ALL. Not in speech, not in demeanor or behavior. It would be better writing and better accepted if she would've been in this time longer before acting the way she does, not after one issue. In an effort to demonize Scott Summers even further, everyone in the Marvel Comics hates Cyclops for killing Xavier will being under the influence of the Phoenix. Yet Scarlet Witch gets a pass for killing multiple Avengers while under the influence of some Chaos demon. The readers can see this hypocrisy a mile away, and these lame attempts to force a character to look like a villain or anti-hero doesn't work. Hey, let's ignore the entire history of a character and make him gay. It's insulting to everyone who is a fan of the brand and character, gay or straight. 

A writer's vision shouldn't retcon every writer's work before him, I guess is what I'm saying. 

 

[ksun247]

42 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

That's all well and good for the writer who is trying to get his name out there, but if that type of process has been happening to the X-Men books for years and it hasn't made the quality better. Every new series has a new writer and a new artist(Every artists that draws the X-Men can't seem to figure out if Beast is a cat or a dog, or something else.) The writer, take Brian Michael Bendis when he took over the X-books, comes in with zero understanding of the characters and just pisses off the fanbase who know the characters better than him. 

It's one thing to take a character in a bold new direction. That's fine, we want these characters to evolve and grow, but you create plots that affect these characters in a believable fashion that results in those changes. Bendis, he brought a teenage Jean Grey into current day times, and she is nothing like Jean Grey AT ALL. Not in speech, not in demeanor or behavior. It would be better writing and better accepted if she would've been in this time longer before acting the way she does, not after one issue. In an effort to demonize Scott Summers even further, everyone in the Marvel Comics hates Cyclops for killing Xavier will being under the influence of the Phoenix. Yet Scarlet Witch gets a pass for killing multiple Avengers while under the influence of some Chaos demon. The readers can see this hypocrisy a mile away, and these lame attempts to force a character to look like a villain or anti-hero doesn't work. Hey, let's ignore the entire history of a character and make him gay. It's insulting to everyone who is a fan of the brand and character, gay or straight. 

A writer's vision shouldn't retcon every writer's work before him, I guess is what I'm saying. 

 

Well said! Great examples about Beast, Jean Grey, Cyclops, Scarlet Witch and Ice-man. I primarily only read the X-books, but i'm sure some of this is happening in the rest of the MCU. Now, if only Marvel will listen to us fans. I hope they get their act together, but I won't hold my breath. 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

A writer's vision shouldn't retcon every writer's work before him, I guess is what I'm saying. 

I agree with you.  Those are just flat out bad decisions in plotting and characterization.  Stretching to do something different, and not having a good enough comfort level with the characters going in.  If you step in to write a beloved series, you do have to be fully aware of the history of the characters and be respectful to it.  Otherwise, you're right, the readers won't suspend their disbelief for you and get immersed in your story.

1. Bendis is actually emblematic of the "noirization" (just made that word up) of Marvel comics that I don't care for.  Feels like his fingerprints are on everything Marvel has done since 2000.  His event story lines are definitely different and iconic, but I don't think I actually enjoyed a lot of them and they do jumble the universe up.  I myself actually prefer long and consistent, mostly episodic runs in comics.  That's why I pretty much just read the old Silver Age comics now.  Stan Lee is my favorite writer.  But I don't begrudge good writers coming in and taking over characters and putting their stamp on them, even if it screws up some continuity.  I can still get into a jarringly different story arc so long as its good.

Edited October 20, 2016 by stevemcqueen1

[The Evil Genius]

Oh my.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Div0iP65aZo

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Why is Patrick Stewart's Xavier in that movie. I haven't seen Apoclaypse but I thought they went with the new timeline and characters 

[Mr. Sinister]

Those characters are set in a different timeline. Wolverine was sent back in time in Days of Future Past to interact with them.

[justice98]

I hate when they place a movie in the future, but they make it post-apocalyptic so it basically looks like a western.

Edited October 21, 2016 by justice98

[StillUnknown]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/director-tim-miller-exits-deadpool-152847512.html

Quote

After a series of creative differences between Deadpool director Tim Miller and star Ryan Reynolds, Miller has exited Deadpool 2. He hadn’t formally signed a deal to continue, but he was developing the script and by all accounts had planned to return behind the camera for a film Fox will release in 2018.

I’ve confirmed from studio insiders this exit was over mutual creative differences, but this all ended amicably and the studio is very high on Miller and the expectation is the filmmaker will jump right into another big Fox project: Influx, an adaptation of the Daniel Suarez novel that has a Mark Bomback script and is expected to launch a film trilogy.

 

thats disappointing

[Gamebreaker]

Definitely not news that bodes well for a film. 

[JCB]

Dr. Strange exceeded my already high expectations. Vaulted immediately into my top 3 Marvel flicks. If at all possible, treat yourself to IMAX 3D!