Renegade Cut 55 - The Absence of Superhero Diversity

[Gravekeeper]

Don't forget that Marvel had bad years movie wise too, that they're only putting behind them now that they have the house of Mouse behind them.

Actually, the first one put out with Mouse House was The Avengers. So they were already in the upswing with the unified movie universe. They didn't move the studio into Mouse House's offices until 2013.

It wasn't exactly the tech. Marvel basically had to prove that a superhero movie could work as a big budget film again. Plus they had to reacquire film rights to pretty much all of their properties. Which had been sold off to various companies over the years.

The other big difference between them, I think, is that Marvel's willing to take the chances with their B and C listers. Announcing an Ant-Man movie and a Guardians movie made everyone go WTF, but now GOTG is possibly one of the more anticipated movies for the summer, and Ant-Man's looking more and more promising.

There's also Dr Strange, Black Panther and Ms Marvel in the works. They actually really want to get a female lead superhero movie out. Plus we're getting Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Falcon, Agent 13 and Vision introduced in the next few movies. They're doing a great job of bringing in the lesser knowns into the greater knowns to get audiences familiar with them.

It probably goes along with Marvel not having A+ listers like DC. They've got a solid A-tier, most of them in the Avengers, but they have flexibility to go to the lower tiers and try them out.

Spiderman's definately an A+ lister.

DC/WB, they have an A+ tier with Batman and Supes, and then everyone else is B-tier and struggling to find their voice. They (DC/WB) seem stuck in the idea that "If it doesn't tie into Bruce and/or Clark, it's Crap), which is leading to the increasingly name heavy Batman and Superman movie.

and look how many swings it took to get Batman and Superman back on the big screen after fucking them up with horrific sequels. -.-

At least on the TV side WB seems to be more flexible. Certainly Smallville was Clark focused, but Arrow is standing strong on its own and kicking out Flash. But it doesn't build the movie universe like Marvel's trying with SHIELD.

They have the same problem TV side. Tends to be all about Supes and Bats. They cancelled the animated Green Lantern series which was actually really good. All because of poor toy sales from the live action movie. It was the series that salvaged the character for me after watching the movie.

Both companies have done a good job diversifying through the years (but can still do better), but their strongest properties still come from those origins and changing those origins risks a huge backlash.

Marvel seems to be doing good here progress wise. DC, not so much. Remember, Marvel had Blade to begin with and they recently got the film rights to him back. So they're looking into getting him up and running again too. Along side a Black Panther movie and a Ms Marvel movie they're definitely trying to diversify the big screen affairs.

DC.......yeah. No sign of any end to their wounded white brooding brunettes thing and I fear they're going to fuck up WW in the Batman vs Superman then just shrug and blame it on the audience instead of themselves. So she'll go back in the closet for another 10-20 years.

[Ginger Tea]

Forgot blade was a marvel character, the first movie was ok in and of itself, (unless you watch the previs original ending), the other two, watchable but not super great.

Even though Xmen 3 was kinda shite they still would not be able to get the rights back for some time after, but as Wolverine is part of that package, they can just churn out more of Mr Jackman and prequels (cos I forgot there is a 2nd one in production).

FF could have gone home had the current rights holders not made a trashcan movie in the mid 90's, the clips I've seen make it look like a TV show feature length pilot than a movie, but it was meant to say "Hey we are working on FF so you cant have the rights back for another decade", giving them enough time to bring us the real movie and sequel, even if I did think they were shite (actually might not have seen 2nd cos of firsts crapness).

I don't know how many DC rights were sold off pre Warner take over and how many are still off limits, but they have been under the wing of a movie studio for quite some time now.

Marvel might have been traded around more times than a cheap whore at a stag night selling rights to stave off bankruptcy more times than not, but the house of mouse's pockets might not be deep enough to prise Parker away from Sony.

[lordlundar]

Plus they had to reacquire film rights to pretty much all of their properties. Which had been sold off to various companies over the years.

And something that they've only had limited success in. Spiderman's still in Sony, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, and Iron Fist are being handles by Netflix, and anything mutant or Fantastic Four related is handled by Fox. How they even managed to get Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch for Avengers 2 is beyond my wildest guess.

Spiderman's not likely to get back under Marvel's control any time soon (it's why Sony's been pumping out the movies) and the others are a "your guess is as good as mine".

[Gravekeeper]

FF could have gone home had the current rights holders not made a trashcan movie in the mid 90's, the clips I've seen make it look like a TV show feature length pilot than a movie

It was pretty bad, yes, and the FF are a hard sell to begin with as their golden age shows pretty bad so to speak.

This also prevents them from making a TV show of Spiderman.

Marvel let them keep Spidey's movie rights in exchange for getting back all of the TV rights it looks. So they could do something TV if they wanted.

Lois & Clark was kinda silly but I recall enjoying it as a kid most the time. Though the only episode I remember is the one where Clark's identity got revealed to Lois by one of the villains. And he spent a couple of minutes ridiculing her for how god damn stupid she was for not seeing through the worst disguise ever. -.-

As for TNG, the movies started after the show ended. But the first movie was already filming before the show ended. So it ended up coming out only like 6 months later or something I think.

And something that they've only had limited success in. Spiderman's still in Sony, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, and Iron Fist are being handles by Netflix, and anything mutant or Fantastic Four related is handled by Fox. How they even managed to get Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch for Avengers 2 is beyond my wildest guess.

They still hold rights there though ( In the case of Netflix ). And they got back the rights to Daredevil, Ghost Rider and The Punisher last year.

Fox is rebooting the Fantastic Four though based on the Ultimate FF.

Apparently, Marvel can use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as long as they're not called mutants. In fact they could theoretically use a few of the more exclusive X-Men as long as they did not use the word mutants and used their real names instead of code names.

The wonders of legal loopholes.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

You know, I actually rewatched Superman Returns for the first time since I saw it in the theaters and I'm not sure that it isn't an unfairly savaged film. It's not awesome, but Iron Man 2 is an apt comparison. As a film, it has it's witty banter, its visual gags, and it had its borrowed ethos from the original Superman films which still worked. Kevin Spacey was flat out great on screen and Routh was pretty good too. What wasn't great was the plot choices like the super kid, or Luthor's ridiculous plan. When I think why Lois wasn't great in the film, it really comes down to those plot choices. I'm not sure Bosworth couldn't have done more with what she was working with.

It's sort of like because Singer came off the Xmen films and X3 was such crap, people needed Superman Returns (which was not a reboot) to be something it couldn't be, attempting to be a direct sequel to Superman 2. And the resulting rage has sort of left that film looking far worse than it actually is.

Sorry, random DC film thoughts.

[Gravekeeper]

You know, I actually rewatched Superman Returns for the first time since I saw it in the theaters and I'm not sure that it isn't an unfairly savaged film.

Actually, most critics at least liked it or thought it was passable. It was audiences that didn't like it so much mainly because it tried to be a direct sequel. I thought it was, eh, alright though a bit too grim and heavy to be a sequel to Reeves. But yeah the plot choices and the casting of Lois were meh. Even putting Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex aside, it sort of made Superman a statutory rapist, as Bosworth was only 22 and Lois got knocked up 5 years ago in the movie timeline. >.>

It's sort of like because Singer came off the Xmen films and X3 was such crap, people needed Superman Returns (which was not a reboot) to be something it couldn't be, attempting to be a direct sequel to Superman 2. And the resulting rage has sort of left that film looking far worse than it actually is.

X3 is sort of a similar boat actually. People remember it like it was dog piled with hate and disdain. But it was a commercial success and a decent brain off popcorn flick. Its problem was the reverse of Superman Returns. It lacked any of the emotional depth or themes of X1 and X2. While Superman Returns lacked the sort of campy joy of the original movies.

Man of Steel has the same problem but even more so. Since they tried to Dark Knight it. DC is trying to turn all its movies into these dark, emotionally draining character studies.

On the upside, X-Men First Class was really good and Days of Future past is looking great too.

[Andara Bledin]

Man of Steel has the same problem but even more so. Since they tried to Dark Knight it. DC is trying to turn all its movies into these dark, emotionally draining character studies.

Someone there has forgotten that people watch big budget action movies to have fun.

[Ginger Tea]

I'd be happier if they skipped origin stories in reboots, OK so the Ramis trilogy of Spiderman is now unrelated to Amazing spiderman, woop do, I was not very inclined to watch it and even less if I had to sit through Uncle Ben's death again.

If you have to shoehorn an origin of a well known character into the movie (I do know a lot of movie goers do not know everything about the guys and girls on screen, but a fair chunk still for the time being know the origin as it's been rehashed for 50+ years in most cases), do what Tim Burtons bat man did, he was established and active and his origin was aluded to in flashbacks. In the Nolan trilogy it was written to tie in to Ras Al whatever his name is, so it kinda made sense having it be the focus for a while.

But I am sick of parkers origin, sick of Super mans too.

On the whole I think the Avengers do kinda need something as they are way less known, I've not seen Capt but I am sure his is justified as outside of the comics hes probably long forgotten and they didn't retcon him out of WWII, Hulk again not seen, but I guess it would need some explaining, just not half the damn movie (thankyouverymuch spiderman) but if the movies did not exist then Avengers without back story would be a bit too much to handle.

Hell looking back I've only seen the Ironman trilogy and Avengers out of my box set (which didn't have IM3), it's all about pacing, I didn't mind most of Tony's origin (nor did I care how it differed from the source and other comic reboots) it was all about pacing and honestly if they decide to reboot spiderman again, I will kill Uncle Ben my damn self.

[lordlundar]

Hulk again not seen, but I guess it would need some explaining, just not half the damn movie (thankyouverymuch spiderman) but if the movies did not exist then Avengers without back story would be a bit too much to handle.

Good news then, the Hulk movie that is tied into the Avengers project doesn't do the "half movie spent on origins" stuff. In fact it takes place some time after the events that turned Bruce into the Hulk.

[HYHYBT]

On the whole I think the Avengers do kinda need something as they are way less known, I've not seen Capt but I am sure his is justified as outside of the comics hes probably long forgotten and they didn't retcon him out of WWII, Hulk again not seen, but I guess it would need some explaining, just not half the damn movie (thankyouverymuch spiderman) but if the movies did not exist then Avengers without back story would be a bit too much to handle.

That sounds like "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." I enjoyed it in some ways, but the whole movie felt like a pilot.

[crashhelmet]

They still hold rights there though ( In the case of Netflix ). And they got back the rights to Daredevil, Ghost Rider and The Punisher last year.

Fox is rebooting the Fantastic Four though based on the Ultimate FF.

They had the rights to The Punisher and Ghost Rider for a while. The first movie released under the Marvel Studios banner was Punisher: War Zone, although they sneakily reclassified that as Marvel Knights before the big push with the others came out. The second Ghost Rider debacle was Marvel Knights as well.

Fox gave up Daredevil so that they could keep FF. I don't remember if they couldn't complete both movies in time to save them, or if Marvel actually made them choose one or the other.

Apparently, Marvel can use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as long as they're not called mutants. In fact they could theoretically use a few of the more exclusive X-Men as long as they did not use the word mutants and used their real names instead of code names.

The wonders of legal loopholes.

The reason they were able to have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in both franchises is that the agreement is they can use characters that were both Mutants and Avengers, with the exception of any previously used character in the franchise (Read: Wolverine).

As to whether or not they're going to change them to be something scientific/technical or mystical/alien instead of mutant, I don't know. To my knowledge, the idea of genetic mutants hasn't been addressed at all in any movie in the current universe.

[lordlundar]

As to whether or not they're going to change them to be something scientific/technical or mystical/alien instead of mutant, I don't know. To my knowledge, the idea of genetic mutants hasn't been addressed at all in any movie in the current universe.

Only in the X-Men portion where mutation was the ONLY reason given (Juggernaut pissed me off over that) and that's because it's Fox's turf.

:sigh: Is it any wonder why I prefer the animated series stuff more?

[Gravekeeper]

They had the rights to The Punisher and Ghost Rider for a while. The first movie released under the Marvel Studios banner was Punisher: War Zone, although they sneakily reclassified that as Marvel Knights before the big push with the others came out. The second Ghost Rider debacle was Marvel Knights as well.

Ghost Rider's movie rights reverted to Marvel in May of last year along with Punisher. The second GR debacle was still Sony / Warner Bros and War Zone was still Lion's Gate. Yes, Marvel Knights was in on both films, but they did not have the license and weren't the ones calling the shots.

The reason they were able to have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in both franchises is that the agreement is they can use characters that were both Mutants and Avengers, with the exception of any previously used character in the franchise (Read: Wolverine).

Quicksilver is in the next X-Men movie as well as in Avengers 2. Different actors of course. Scarlet Witch doesn't wear her comic outfit in Avengers 2 either. So there's some weird legalese going on in the fine print too.

On a side note, I would love to see Marvel sneak Spider-Woman into the Avengers. >.>