Can we now retire the term "Cronenbergian body horror"?
Please?
I cannot speak to the topic of this thread as I have not seen Fantastic Four nor intend to but....
Cronenbergian body horror is a valid adjective. He may not have invented the genre but he certainly mastered the "artform". Watch his earlier films and that is the medium he is creating in. Actually watch the majority of his films and you will see body horror done right. His directorial signature is as strong enough to deserve an adjective. Say Spielberg, Hitchcock and Lean to name a few and you can picture what their films look like. Cronenberg is on that list at least in the sense of his identifiable style.
I actually find Spielbergian, Hitchcockian, and... Leanian?... is that even a word?... anyway, I actually find those overused, too. Okay, not Leanian, as I personally don't see a lot of references to him these days, but those first two are overdone.
Hitchcockian I kind of get, because it's almost a genre unto itelf, but Spielbergian - what makes a film that? I used to think average families caught in the middle of unusual circumstances, but that doesn't really apply to much of what he does these days.
And I feel like Cronenbergian is overused, as it's slapped onto anything that's A) involving body parts and B) gross.
Can we now retire the term "Cronenbergian body horror"?
Please?
I cannot speak to the topic of this thread as I have not seen Fantastic Four nor intend to but....
Cronenbergian body horror is a valid adjective. He may not have invented the genre but he certainly mastered the "artform". Watch his earlier films and that is the medium he is creating in. Actually watch the majority of his films and you will see body horror done right. His directorial signature is as strong enough to deserve an adjective. Say Spielberg, Hitchcock and Lean to name a few and you can picture what their films look like. Cronenberg is on that list at least in the sense of his identifiable style.
I actually find Spielbergian, Hitchcockian, and... Leanian?... is that even a word?... anyway, I actually find those overused, too. Okay, not Leanian, as I personally don't see a lot of references to him these days, but those first two are overdone.
Hitchcockian I kind of get, because it's almost a genre unto itelf, but Spielbergian - what makes a film that? I used to think average families caught in the middle of unusual circumstances, but that doesn't really apply to much of what he does these days.
And I feel like Cronenbergian is overused, as it's slapped onto anything that's A) involving body parts and B) gross.
A) B) C)
Every. time.
I just caught that and fixed it before I saw your post.
I feel like everything I'm seeing is pointing towards Fox making some kind of pitch to Marvel.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have. - They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe. - They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I feel like everything I'm seeing is pointing towards Fox making some kind of pitch to Marvel.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have. - They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe. - They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I truly hope this is the case. If the franchise is returned to the Marvel cinematic universe, they can at least attempt to undo some of the damage this crap-tastic film did to them, perhaps by placing the characters in the "80s" past ala Hank and Janet Pym of the Ant-Man movie.
I feel like everything I'm seeing is pointing towards Fox making some kind of pitch to Marvel.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have. - They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe. - They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I truly hope this is the case. If the franchise is returned to the Marvel cinematic universe, they can at least attempt to undo some of the damage this crap-tastic film did to them, perhaps by placing the characters in the "80s" past ala Hank and Janet Pym of the Ant-Man movie.
Yes and maybe we can actually see a good Doctor Doom in a movie for once.
I feel like everything I'm seeing is pointing towards Fox making some kind of pitch to Marvel.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have. - They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe. - They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I can see Fox making the pitch but I do not see Disney/Marvel making a trade. Buying the rights straight up or a profit share deal - yes, but not a trade of properties.
I am sure Marvel would love to have the rights back for the FF, but they do not "need" the rights back. They have movies planned out for years. Every movie they put out makes money.
They can let Fox sit on a FF property that is basically dead until they get the exact deal they want. To give up anything X-Men is crazy. Disney would be smarter just to make their own X Men tv show and air it on ABC.
Marvel has all power here. They know Fox has to do one of the following:
1. Make a FF sequal or FF reboot in a few years which is a huge financial risk. If it fails, Fox would probably beg Marvel to take FF back.
2. Do nothing and let the rights revert back.
3. Throw the FF in a X Men movie which Fox studio suits may think is now a risk to the X Men francise
4. Make a deal with Marvel and try to get something out of the FF property.
So Fox can take cash or Marvel can just wait them out.
I feel like everything I'm seeing is pointing towards Fox making some kind of pitch to Marvel.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have. - They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe. - They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I can see Fox making the pitch but I do not see Disney/Marvel making a trade. Buying the rights straight up or a profit share deal - yes, but not a trade of properties.
I am sure Marvel would love to have the rights back for the FF, but they do not "need" the rights back. They have movies planned out for years. Every movie they put out makes money.
They can let Fox sit on a FF property that is basically dead until they get the exact deal they want. To give up anything X-Men is crazy. Disney would be smarter just to make their own X Men tv show and air it on ABC.
Marvel has all power here. They know Fox has to do one of the following:
1. Make a FF sequal or FF reboot in a few years which is a huge financial risk. If it fails, Fox would probably beg Marvel to take FF back.
2. Do nothing and let the rights revert back.
3. Throw the FF in a X Men movie which Fox studio suits may think is now a risk to the X Men francise
4. Make a deal with Marvel and try to get something out of the FF property.
So Fox can take cash or Marvel can just wait them out.
Exactly. Why negotiate for the FF when you can just wait them out?
I have to agree with @wildpigcomics's Chris Eberle. FOX has done great damage to this historic property, the likes of which will take many years for it to recover. I'm not sure Marvel could do anything with it for quite some time.
Marvel has so much on their plate right now that they'd probably prefer to leave FF on the backburner anyway, taking it on when they need a fresh batch of properties.
Who knows, maybe they ditch the traditional origin, and post-Inhumans they can do something where all four of them are exploring Attilan and get their powers from Terrigen crystals. It would be a way to tie a high-profile property into the status quo of their film universe.
By 2020, how many of the Avengers cast will probably still be involved with the MCU? I can foresee Marvel waiting to reacquire the FF property & start using them as the big team movies. Granted, you probably won't be able to rotate out the roster, but it could offer more "united" storylines.
Some things can be a great, and an historical thing of their time, and of their medium. And simply remain as that.
Maybe all that the time and effort spent spinning, repairing, updating, or retro-embracing the FF is time better spent on something else?
Personally, I'd like to see for phase whatevertheheckphaseitisinthe2020s feature something set in the MCU that is completely original.
New.
By then, the MCU will be a complex, built out place that will already be in its own Bronze Age. Rather than twist themselves in knots to fit another nearly 60 year old concept into that place, why not ask current filmmakers to take a look at this interconnected universe of films that they have built, and make up a story that is original and native to that medium? Connecting with, and organically responding to, the continuity of that place, and all the specific world-building that has been done there?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Maybe so, but I still think the core idea is strong and unique. A family with superpowers who also engage in high-concept scientific exploration. It doesn't need to be retro to work, like some are saying. Maybe the comic itself is a little tired (although it still sold better than some titles that have continued publishing), but it would be a fresh angle for the MCU. It lends itself naturally to a family-friendly film, which might be welcome given some of the more serious ones coming down the pipeline. It would stand out from Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Inhumans, etc.
Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing what Marvel could do with FF than Spider-Man.
That said, though, I think the series definitely needs a rest. Three failed films in ten years is a lot of baggage. If anyone can sell a less than popular concept, it's Marvel, but even they'd face an uphill battle after this last debacle.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
I think we may eventually see more of that, but there's a whole lot of existing IP to be mined first.
Seeing relatively new characters like Jessica Jones, Maria Hill and Daisy Johnson* in prominent positions is probably the closest we'll see for a while.
*BTW: Marvel has sure gotten their money's worth out of Bendis.
I'd like to see Marvel focus on some characters that haven't had the silver screen treatment yet before returning to the poisoned well of the FF.
Maybe Moon Knight (Netflix), She-Hulk (Netflix), Nova (cinema), Namor (cinema), even a Ms. Marvel film would work. I'm not sure how they could get the first family into the established Marvel U at this point without going Ultimate universe style like this recent film incarnation did.
I would seriously forego my director's fee if someone would greenlight Kamala Khan (don't tell my agents I tweeted that).
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
I understand that perspective. Someone who is interested in or is a student of Greek mythology may be much more interested in stories featuring the legendary Greek pantheon than in tales featuring a "newer retelling" or in stories of completely new 'gods' (no Kirby pun intended). More fun to discover or learn more about previously established characters than investing in an all-new gallery of characters.
Probably why the Hobbit movies were made instead of a sequel to LotR.
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
That is such an unusual distinction to make.
What makes a "new to you" character superior to a "new" character?
"New to me" are characters previously existing. Aside from Parker & his supporting cast, I don't really know any of the Marvel characters. Watching the MCU are "new to me."
Marvel just making up brand new characters to make movies about instead of using what they have seems very strange to me. I can't imagine I'd be the only one who's say "why is this getting a movie instead of this list of characters who've been around for years?"
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
I understand that perspective. Someone who is interested in or is a student of Greek mythology may be much more interested in stories featuring the legendary Greek pantheon than in tales featuring a "newer retelling" or in stories of completely new 'gods' (no Kirby pun intended). More fun to discover or learn more about previously established characters than investing in an all-new gallery of characters.
Probably why the Hobbit movies were made instead of a sequel to LotR.
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
That is such an unusual distinction to make.
What makes a "new to you" character superior to a "new" character?
"New to me" are characters previously existing. Aside from Parker & his supporting cast, I don't really know any of the Marvel characters. Watching the MCU are "new to me."
Marvel just making up brand new characters to make movies about instead of using what they have seems very strange to me. I can't imagine I'd be the only one who's say "why is this getting a movie instead of this list of characters who've been around for years?"
M
OK. Now I get the distinction you're making. Understood.
I contend that new characters can genuinely enhance established properties.
Joe West on the Flash, John Diggle on Arrow, Phil Coulson in the MCU all add great things to the worlds they inhabit.
Just showing up in a comic first shouldn't be a prerequisite for existence in an adaptation of a comic book.
That's different. Those are supporting characters. The movies aren't specifically about them. Coulson might be interesting to some as a lead, but I've enjoyed him more as a supporting cast member.
Like a Will Ferrll. Some people find him hilarious as the lead. For me, his best role has still been in Old School, where he had a supporting role.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
Do you also hate newspapers? ;)
Yes, I have google.
M
But do you have a filter that makes sure it only gives you older results?
Comments
B)
C)
Every. time.
- They want the TV rights to make an X-Men TV show which Fox doesn't have.
- They did a 180 in saying FF isn't apart of the X-Men Universe.
- They've given priority to a Deadpool Sequel over FF.
So I'm thinking that Fox will try and trade. Fox gets the X-Men TV rights and Marvel gets FF movie rights.
I truly hope this is the case. If the franchise is returned to the Marvel cinematic universe, they can at least attempt to undo some of the damage this crap-tastic film did to them, perhaps by placing the characters in the "80s" past ala Hank and Janet Pym of the Ant-Man movie.
I am sure Marvel would love to have the rights back for the FF, but they do not "need" the rights back. They have movies planned out for years. Every movie they put out makes money.
They can let Fox sit on a FF property that is basically dead until they get the exact deal they want. To give up anything X-Men is crazy. Disney would be smarter just to make their own X Men tv show and air it on ABC.
Marvel has all power here. They know Fox has to do one of the following:
1. Make a FF sequal or FF reboot in a few years which is a huge financial risk. If it fails, Fox would probably beg Marvel to take FF back.
2. Do nothing and let the rights revert back.
3. Throw the FF in a X Men movie which Fox studio suits may think is now a risk to the X Men francise
4. Make a deal with Marvel and try to get something out of the FF property.
So Fox can take cash or Marvel can just wait them out.
Who knows, maybe they ditch the traditional origin, and post-Inhumans they can do something where all four of them are exploring Attilan and get their powers from Terrigen crystals. It would be a way to tie a high-profile property into the status quo of their film universe.
M
Maybe we don't need an FF movie.
Some things can be a great, and an historical thing of their time, and of their medium. And simply remain as that.
Maybe all that the time and effort spent spinning, repairing, updating, or retro-embracing the FF is time better spent on something else?
Personally, I'd like to see for phase whatevertheheckphaseitisinthe2020s feature something set in the MCU that is completely original.
New.
By then, the MCU will be a complex, built out place that will already be in its own Bronze Age. Rather than twist themselves in knots to fit another nearly 60 year old concept into that place, why not ask current filmmakers to take a look at this interconnected universe of films that they have built, and make up a story that is original and native to that medium? Connecting with, and organically responding to, the continuity of that place, and all the specific world-building that has been done there?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing what Marvel could do with FF than Spider-Man.
That said, though, I think the series definitely needs a rest. Three failed films in ten years is a lot of baggage. If anyone can sell a less than popular concept, it's Marvel, but even they'd face an uphill battle after this last debacle.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Seeing relatively new characters like Jessica Jones, Maria Hill and Daisy Johnson* in prominent positions is probably the closest we'll see for a while.
*BTW: Marvel has sure gotten their money's worth out of Bendis.
Fixed it :)
Maybe Moon Knight (Netflix), She-Hulk (Netflix), Nova (cinema), Namor (cinema), even a Ms. Marvel film would work. I'm not sure how they could get the first family into the established Marvel U at this point without going Ultimate universe style like this recent film incarnation did.
Lexi Alexander (director of Punisher: War Zone) would even direct a Kamala Khan film for free
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
What makes a "new to you" character superior to a "new" character?
Probably why the Hobbit movies were made instead of a sequel to LotR.
Marvel just making up brand new characters to make movies about instead of using what they have seems very strange to me. I can't imagine I'd be the only one who's say "why is this getting a movie instead of this list of characters who've been around for years?"
M
M
M
Joe West on the Flash, John Diggle on Arrow, Phil Coulson in the MCU all add great things to the worlds they inhabit.
Just showing up in a comic first shouldn't be a prerequisite for existence in an adaptation of a comic book.
Like a Will Ferrll. Some people find him hilarious as the lead. For me, his best role has still been in Old School, where he had a supporting role.
M
None of this news! I want the olds! ;)