RRA Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 9 minutes ago, Barnack said: Going in line with the argument that getting some properties is a bit irrelevant no ? Do they really need any properties at all to make those movie ? I feel like they could just come up with new stuff by now and be able to make it work anyway, the success is not base at all on how known those properties are, as long that they are MCU release it seem like. Marvel and Feige want FF back at the least for one reason: their historical importance as the first Marvel sensation which launched the Marvel comics universe. add to that whatever creative potential/merit there is to this property, there is also ego: we can pull off what 4 previous movies failed to do. And considering their track record, there is some justification for that arrogance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aabattery Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 1 minute ago, DMan7 said: Yea at this point the MCU can dish out a Korg and Friends movie and it will be very successful box office and critically. Well duh. That would be the best movie ever, so of course it would make money and be well received. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, RRA said: Marvel and Feige want FF back at the least for one reason: their historical importance as the first Marvel sensation which launched the Marvel comics universe. add to that whatever creative potential/merit there is to this property, there is also ego: we can pull off what 4 previous movies failed to do. And considering their track record, there is some justification for that arrogance. I can imagine they're is something about wanting them (or more not wanting other to have them and make bad movies with your logo at the beginning of the movie), but from an audience point of view.... Does it change anything if it is the Fantastic 4 instead of the next The Incredible movie, you can pretty much do anything you would do it look like, same for the X-men cannot you do the exact same movies saying what you want to say but calling them the Inhumans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRA Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 47 minutes ago, Barnack said: I can imagine they're is something about wanting them (or more not wanting other to have them and make bad movies with your logo at the beginning of the movie), but from an audience point of view.... Does it change anything if it is the Fantastic 4 instead of the next The Incredible movie, you can pretty much do anything you would do it look like, same for the X-men cannot you do the exact same movies saying what you want to say but calling them the Inhumans... Feige when he got free of Ike kicked INHUMANS off his movie slate. He didn’t want to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 16 hours ago, Barnack said: Going in line with the argument that getting some properties is a bit irrelevant no ? Do they really need any properties at all to make those movie ? I feel like they could just come up with new stuff by now and be able to make it work anyway, the success is not base at all on how known those properties are, as long that they are MCU release it seem like. I'm sure Marvel could do a lot of things and just make up new characters. They've proven they can make minor characters popular. But that doesn't help fans of X-men and FF who want them to be in good movies. 17 years ago a lot of X-men fans probably were excited at the prospect of seeing characters like Storm, Cyclops, Rogue, Nightcrawler, and Colossus onscreen. That turned into Fox's Wolverine and Friends franchise instead. And how exciting it must have been to think about Dr Doom, Silver Surfer, and Galactus being put onscreen back in 2005? That dream was squashed by Fox. So it's really more about the characters than about Marvel being successful in my mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRA Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Harpospoke said: I'm sure Marvel could do a lot of things and just make up new characters. They've proven they can make minor characters popular. But that doesn't help fans of X-men and FF who want them to be in good movies. 17 years ago a lot of X-men fans probably were excited at the prospect of seeing characters like Storm, Cyclops, Rogue, Nightcrawler, and Colossus onscreen. That turned into Fox's Wolverine and Friends franchise instead. And how exciting it must have been to think about Dr Doom, Silver Surfer, and Galactus being put onscreen back in 2005? That dream was squashed by Fox. So it's really more about the characters than about Marvel being successful in my mind. There is though it goes without saying adding X-Men and Wolverine into the MCU as two proven franchise draws (and MCU has a stacked bench as it is!) is the equivalent of the Astros signing two major free agents that they don’t need to win titles, but gee it’s nice to have the extra insurance. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Disney Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, RRA said: There is though it goes without saying adding X-Men and Wolverine into the MCU as two proven franchise draws (and MCU has a stacked bench as it is!) is the equivalent of the Astros signing two major free agents that they don’t need to win titles, but gee it’s nice to have the extra insurance. It's different since Marvel wants to use their own characters. These aren't free agents. In the comics, they ARE a part of the Marvel universe. It's logical to want that on the big screen as well. I mean logical everywhere except this board, where I have heard the strangest rationalizations for keeping the X-Men out of the MCU. Edited December 10, 2017 by Walt Disney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRA Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 59 minutes ago, Walt Disney said: It's different since Marvel wants to use their own characters. These aren't free agents. In the comics, they ARE a part of the Marvel universe. It's logical to want that on the big screen as well. I mean logical everywhere except this board, where I have heard the strangest rationalizations for keeping the X-Men out of the MCU. You took my analogy too literally. Regardless you hit upon the simple realization that people sooner or later will have to accept: X-Men won’t be in its own universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) Do we know why Murdoch wants to sell ? Edited December 11, 2017 by The Futurist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Disney Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, The Futurist said: Do we know why Murdoch wnats to sell ? The reports are that he feels his studio can't compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google. He doesn't think 20th Century Fox can get big enough to compete. He believes that the assets he is selling are still are valued high right now, and the longer he waits to sell the more they will decrease in value. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Walt Disney said: It's different since Marvel wants to use their own characters. These aren't free agents. In the comics, they ARE a part of the Marvel universe. It's logical to want that on the big screen as well. I mean logical everywhere except this board, where I have heard the strangest rationalizations for keeping the X-Men out of the MCU. It will kinda weird throwing in mutants after all these years they never been mentioned. Plus the government likes heroes but does not like Mutants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Disney Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Darth Suburious said: It will kinda weird throwing in mutants after all these years they never been mentioned. Plus the government likes heroes but does not like Mutants? This has been said countless numbers of times over the past 5 years, but I guess I can repeat it. Depending on how they choose to handle things, it could be that mutants have existed, but are only just being discovered by the general population. Kind of like the government has kept their existence a secret. Some government elements may not like mutants because they're different than others. And the general population as a whole will have the same issue. With other superheroes, they're normal people who obtained special powers and are known to be good. But the thing that makes this line of questioning ridiculous (and has for the past 5 years on this board) is that mutants have existed in the Marvel universe since the beginning because Namor (one of the first Marvel heroes/ anti-heroes) is a mutant. No one has ever said "Marvel needs to sell these mutant characters" or "Marvel needs to get these characters out of the 616" or "Wolverine should not be teaming up with the Avengers." No one EVER had a problem with the Marvel universe in the comics. No one has a problem with them now. It is only people on this board (usually the same people who don't really enjoy the MCU movies) who have this agenda of keeping the X-Men separate from the rest of the MCU because *insert reasons*. Edited December 11, 2017 by Walt Disney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXT Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 According to a WSJ report , Disney will fold Fox into their main studio and it will function similar to Lucasfilms and Marvel so theyw ill be making maybe 3-4 movies per year for Disney if it pans out. That's a sucky situation because not only will it kill Fox, it will hurt studios like Sony and Paramount who will now have to face even more $200 million Disney movies. Hopefully a few studios will still stick to some mid-range movies. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 5 hours ago, RRA said: There is though it goes without saying adding X-Men and Wolverine into the MCU as two proven franchise draws (and MCU has a stacked bench as it is!) is the equivalent of the Astros signing two major free agents that they don’t need to win titles, but gee it’s nice to have the extra insurance. Now that's an indication of how well Marvel has done this past decade. In early 2008, no one would have said, "Marvel has a stacked bench!" It was more like, "Marvel wants to make their own movies? With what? Iron man? (snicker)...Captain America? (guffaw)" Marvel's only big characters were at other studios. Now after a decade, Marvel has altered the landscape so dramatically that adding X-men and FF is seen as adding "extra insurance". 48 minutes ago, BXT said: According to a WSJ report , Disney will fold Fox into their main studio and it will function similar to Lucasfilms and Marvel so theyw ill be making maybe 3-4 movies per year for Disney if it pans out. That's a sucky situation because not only will it kill Fox, it will hurt studios like Sony and Paramount who will now have to face even more $200 million Disney movies. Hopefully a few studios will still stick to some mid-range movies. Not sure it will change any "200 million movies" in the marketplace. If it's a movie Fox would have released, that changes nothing. Now if you are saying that Marvel will make X-men and FF into more successful movies than they would have been at Fox, I'll buy that. It's always been weird that X-men were one of the lower tier franchises and the FF failure at Fox is pretty embarrassing. So Marvel could be adding 200 million X-men and FF movies at certain times that would have been lower grossing at Fox. But there is also that thing that no one seems to mention...that Marvel has the ability to NOT make a movie if they have the characters. So we could (I say should) get less X-men movies because they will only be made when needed at Marvel instead of how Fox has to fulfill a contractual obligation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Darth Suburious said: It will kinda weird throwing in mutants after all these years they never been mentioned. Plus the government likes heroes but does not like Mutants? Were black and white veterans equally treated in the 1950's? Aren't they both heroes/veterans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, grey ghost said: Were black and white veterans equally treated in the 1950's? Aren't they both heroes/veterans? It will come across as silly in the films but the marvel films are already silly so i guess no one will care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 3 hours ago, The Futurist said: Do we know why Murdoch wnats to sell ? Hard to say they went a bit of a 180 degree, from trying to buy Time Warner for 80b to selling a lot of the assets in just 3 year's: https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/5/5972427/21st-century-fox-ends-its-80-billion-bid-to-buy-time-warner https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/16/5904407/time-warner-21st-century-fox-takeover-bid-rejection https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/rupert-murdoch-said-to-have-made-offer-for-time-warner/ A feeling that it is the best (and maybe last time off a short windows) to monetize a movie library in a world with a lot of digital buyer, disney, amazon, netflix still competing with traditonal dvd/tv market, if in a decade there is just 2 or 3 of them instead of many, the price could go down. Change of management from him to is sons with different ambition ? Wanting to expend Fox News/Sports segment and be better at it... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 What Murdoch will have left then ? His english tabloids ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 29 minutes ago, Darth Suburious said: It will come across as silly in the films but the marvel films are already silly so i guess no one will care. Silly compared to what? Harry Potter? Jurassic Park? Avatar? Fast and Furious? STAR WARS? Not really. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeCee Posted December 11, 2017 Author Share Posted December 11, 2017 If it ends up being an all share deal 21st Century Fox would end up being the biggest shareholder in Disney with around 20-30% depending on the assets involved and the ultimate valuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
