Marvel Live-Action TV and Film General News and Discussion Thread

[GDB]

Well, based on the comics and prior movies, people didn't really know about them. They blended in with society and attacked their prey with stealth, not leaving any evidence behind.

I do agree it feels more like a fit for streaming, though. Having 10-13 episodes to build up the culture, enemy, etc is much more fitting than trying to make it "epic" enough for a movie.

Surprised we still don't have a Moon Knight movie though. Like... why does Marvel think "Batman but batshit insane" would be less popular than Shang Chi or the Eternals? Those two movies, unless they're damned near perfect, will get by solely on the Marvel brand as even Marvel fans in general don't really care about them all that much. Moon Knight would fall in the same boat, but at least he'd get that Batman-like appeal to make it fun.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by TnAdct1

Actually, the real Mandarin was in the plans since 2014, as the short "All Hail the King" reveals that that he actually exists and has learned about the bogus one in Iron Man 3.

Yeah, but MCU fans (especially Shane Black fans) often dismiss it because "It's just a short. It doesn't matter much!". Well, with the Shang-Chi movie, they no longer have such excuse.

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Wasn't the whole fake Mandarin thing was the result of Iron Man 3 being funded by a Chinese company that they had to make changes to the plot as not to offend the Chinese Censors over Yellow Peril stereotypes and even added extra scenes in the Chinese version of the movie that serve not purpose but to advertise Chinese products and make some Chinese characters we never saw and the Chinese government as allies of Iron Man

I mean, they still call it "Mandarin" in IM-3 and his base of operation is in the Middle East (back in Iron-Man 1) instead of China. So...why even make him a fake only to have yet another businessman villain with his dumb "fire-men" goons? And now, they seem to make an actual Chinese Mandarin with China still being a top market for MCU. I think the Mandarin-thing is more a creative choice than simply being afraid of China. Dr. Strange this is not.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

So...as many of you all know by now, due to further negotiation between Disney & Sony collapsing, Spidey is now divorced from MCU.

Like, what the hell, Disney?! You had a good deal with Sony and both of you received a great deal of money from the Spidey movies and its merchandises, but you got too greedy and asked too much (Sony didn't even ask for a cut-raise). Now you have to loose your precious (leased) cash-cow for something so pathetic.

[Kanon]

Spider-man is one of my favorite super hero (in the top 2) and I liked his MCU version despite initially having misgivings about his age, so this sucks majorly for me. I hope they'll rethink this and come to an agreement because I really want to see what happens after Far from Home's ending.

At least I still have the yet to be announced but obvious incoming sequel to the video game to look forward to.

[Chosen_Hero]

[Wandering Soul]

As a huge Spider-Man fan, this really sucks. Hopefully, they can come to some sort of arrangement that will allow him to stay part of the MCU and not just leave things on that Far from Home cliffhanger.

[justavisitor]

Originally Posted by Wandering Soul

As a huge Spider-Man fan, this really sucks. Hopefully, they can come to some sort of arrangement that will allow him to stay part of the MCU and not just leave things on that Far from Home cliffhanger.

plus the relationship between aunt may and Happy

Some say it's Marvel's fault, and others blame on Sony. I just hope it will work out eventually.

[Diluc]

BlackSpider-man, Superior Spider-man, Scarlet Spider-man are Marvel and Disney property right?

Maybe they can alter Tom Holland Spider-man into these for mean time until they get back Spider-man in case the negotation take a long time.

[MeoTwister5]

Unless both sides suddenly hate money I doubt this will be the case. Sony and Disney should be aware that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose if their connection deal goes south. This rebooted webslinger's success is both due to Sony's much better handling of the franchise after Garfield's take, and on Marvel's stellar inclusion on him in the MCU. Fans know this is the case, and losing one will mean another 3rd movie curse for the friendly neighborhood Spider-man.

Pretty obvious to me that both sided will do whatever it takes to find an agreement.

[erneiz_hyde]

Well, it obviously hinges on Disney not being a dick, and that would be a major historical event. I'm pessimistic.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Oberstein

BlackSpider-man, Superior Spider-man, Scarlet Spider-man are Marvel and Disney property right?

Maybe they can alter Tom Holland Spider-man into these for mean time until they get back Spider-man in case the negotation take a long time.

These deals always included everything commonly associated with that property. As such, the only "Spiders" that Disney/Marvel would have access to are Black Widow and Spider-Woman.

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Well, it obviously hinges on Disney not being a dick, and that would be a major historical event. I'm pessimistic.

Yes, let's personalize these giant corporations who primarily look to their bottom-lines first and foremost.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by BetoJR

Yes, let's personalize these giant corporations who primarily look to their bottom-lines first and foremost.

It's not so much personalizing as it is going by historical precedent. While you're right that these mega entertainment corporations only look to their bottom line, Disney is notorious for being particularly relentless in the pursuit of more money. It's not a coincidence that a certain piece of legislation in the US is nicknamed "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act".

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Dextro

It's not so much personalizing as it is going by historical precedent. While you're right that these mega entertainment corporations only look to their bottom line, Disney is notorious for being particularly relentless in the pursuit of more money. It's not a coincidence that a certain piece of legislation in the US is nicknamed "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act".

But that's precisely my point: Sony is no different than Disney. At all. I mean, the Playstation brand only came into existence out of spite for Nintendo - and the notion of making money in a booming market, if we're being honest.

[Diluc]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/onhygON2Vrk

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Well that fast

[Ruki0089]

I really hope that's true~

[MeoTwister5]

I read that profits were divided 90:10 in their previous arrangement. I'm guessing probably 70:30 now.

[GDB]

I had read something asinine like 95:5 in prior arrangement, which is truly insane when you consider how poorly Spiderman movies performed when it had actual competition from other superhero movies prior to the agreement. Definitely needs to be at least 70:30, if not 65:35.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I read that profits were divided 90:10 in their previous arrangement. I'm guessing probably 70:30 now.

Care to clarify to whom the ratio is referring to so we know the order of the companies involved? Thanks.

[GDB]

Sony:Disney