Fox: "Deadpool."
Printable View
Fox: "Deadpool."
I just realized the most amazing move they could make at this point would be for them to do a Deadpool & Fantastic Four team-up movie where Reynolds spends most of them time berating the team what happen in their past movie(s) and tries to steer them into doing things properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up
Instantly the biggest F4 movie. Brand restored. Segue it into that previously planned X-Men (possibly New Mutants) crossover movie.
One of Hollywoods greatest mysteries is why the studios don't put aside all the petty bullshit and give everything to Marvel, then all have fun cashing their enormous checks together.
The money Sony is already making from Spider-Man going to Marvel is incredible. If everyone took their heads out of their asses and followed suit, they would all win.
I think Deadpool suffers from the same problem as Lobo. These are broadly drawn caricatures and buffoons. Their appeal lies in what they are not. If they get too close to "real" superheroes, then everybody looks a little bit more ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Gale
I'd argue the brand has never been established. They've tried 3 times. People are plainly not interested in seeing these characters in these movies.Quote:
Instantly the biggest F4 movie. Brand restored.
(Besides, from a general audience point of view, what's the diff between FF and the X-Men? Nothing. Fantastic Four seems redundant next to all the other team-ups around.)
Not sure what you're referring to. Rumor has it that neither Sony nor Marvel paid cash for the cross-over. Spider-man hasn't returned to Marvel. Sony still owns the screen rights to the character.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
Sony gets free advertising in Civil War, plus and Feige's help on Homecoming. Disney still owns all the ancillary rights around the character, so anything they do to bolster Sony's franchise is a net positive.
Oh, Mr. Perlmutter... will these stories never stop?
My point is that they're both raking in the cash from the deal, and will continue to do so with each successive film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
That Fox won't get on board with this "everyone wins, big time" business model seems like nothing more than petty BS.
I'm not sure Fox thinks they need to with the X-men stuff. The last two movies grossed over $700 mil WW and Apocalypse will almost assuredly do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
The Fantastic Four stuff, they definitely should though. Those characters would best fit in the MCU anyway.
It's confusing to me what a studio considers a "success" at this point. Both ATSM movies grossed $700 mil WW and Sony was very willing to hand creative control over to Marvel. Maybe it's domstic gross?
Spider-man $403
Spider-man 2 $373
Spider-man 3 $336
TASM $262
TASM 2 - $202
My point was nobody has made any money yet, at least not directly. They won't until Homecoming comes out next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by megladon8
Fox is sitting on a big bag of money because of Deadpool. Nobody in that position looks for outside help. They think they've done something right.
Sony still has final creative control on the Spider-man movies. They haven't handed over anything. They made a bargain to get Feige involved at the producer level, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
Whatever. For Spider-man Homecoming Marvel has Creative Control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Whether you want to get into semantics of who has final-creative-control-producer's-cut-special-edition-quadbox-control is irrelevant in my eyes. He exists in a reality that Marvel can use him. That's the point Meg and I are trying to make. Fox should do this with F4.
I expect Marvel / Fox discussions to happen once Huge Jackman retires as Wolverine.
No studios but Marvel still have proven they know what they're doing with these rights. I'm still not happy with the way Apocalypse looks. It's quicksilver all over again.
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/4e428f27...12c0f72a_1.jpg
This is actually apparently not the case, according to Feige. Marvel Studios is producing the movie in-house and has full creative control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Oh good. So I wasn't losing my mind when I read that. I thought Irish was actually nitpicking when we keep saying Marvel has "creative control" and there was some kind of back-end "final creative control" that I've never heard of.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
Huh? Not a semantic argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
I get the point you and Meg are making on the bigger picture. But as you yourself just said -- why would Fox do that? What's in it for them? From a fanbody pov, yeah, it'd be cool. (I guess? Dunno why anybody would want to go near FF at this point. Unlike Spider-man, there's no track record of success there.)
Got a source? Asking because trades, wiki, etc, say differently (ie, Feige and Pascal are producers but Sony has the final say, that Homecoming is a Sony film, not a Disney film).Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
4/27/16 http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider...ontrol-a141020
3/1/15 (Final Creative Control is a real thing) http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider...oughts-a116017
Well I dont know but why is Sony doing it then? They basically don't have to lift a finger and still get distribution rights? Which means Sony can sell the movie on PSN and stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
To be fair, both designs are ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
Did you read the most recent reference? Feige describes a producer's job ... and he's a producer on this movie. HeyUGuys interprets his broad statements as Marvel having "full creative control." Say what? That isn't what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
Neither one of those articles contradicts anything I've said.
He says "They really are supportive in allowing us to make the creative decisions to make [Spider-Man: Homecoming], but they’ve been great partners".... That suggests something no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Well, it suggests he's a producer on the movie! That's what a producer does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
I didn't mean to imply Feige's roll is meaningless. The dude has made a dozen successful superhero movies. Sony hiring him for Homecoming (because that's what they're essentially doing) is a smart move.
But there's a huge gap between that and fansites claiming that Spider-Man has "returned" to Marvel and that Marvel can do anything they want. Sony has final say on anything Feige pitches, because Sony is footing the bill and distributing the end product. In other words: Homecoming is still a Sony movie, afaik.
I don't think pointing that out is splitting hairs or making a semantic argument, because the difference between the two is pretty fucking big.
It may have already been reported (even by me) but Natalie Portman won't be in Thor 3. Kinda bummed.
I believe she was really soured by Marvel replacing Patty Jenkins with Alan Taylor. IIRC, Jenkins directing was pretty much the reason she agreed to do it.
I wish these actors contracts were public. I'd like to see how many she signed up for.
Patty Jenkins was perfect for seeing the tone of Asgard, which was really needed at the time of Thor's release.
Kenneth Branagh directed the first Thor.
Patty Jenkins was supposed to direct Thor 2, and Portman lobbied for her to get the job. Marvel fired her in the middle of production and replaced her with Alan Taylor. Portman got upset and quit the movie in protest, but Marvel forced her to be in the sequel because of her contract. She did not want to be in it.
So yeah, her not being in Thor 3 is very not surprising. I doubt she'd want to show up in any of the movies again.
Well is Jane going to be recast then, or are they just dropping that storyline entirely?
Not that I'm all that disappointed that Portman isn't in it, because she had zero chemistry with Hemsworth, but that's a bummer. Jenkins would have made a much more interesting movie.