Christopher, I guess I see a new Rocketeer film the same way that a lot of people saw The Amazing Spider-Man. I just don't see the point.
And I think the point is obvious. Like I said, the Rocketeer is a series
character. We're not talking about something like Casablanca
or King Kong
where there's a single key story to be told and following up on it would be pointless. We're talking about a character who's had multiple stories told about him in the comics, who's got new
comics stories coming out even now, and whose only screen story to date was his origin story
-- a story that was supposed
to lead into others but never got the chance to. I'd think that most Rocketeer fans would be disappointed that they never got more movies, and at least guardedly glad that they may finally see that happen.
But would they be even able to include a character who belongs to somebody else in the MCU? I just don't see them being able to do that, unless the character was from Icon or one of Marvel's other imprints.
So long as Disney has total rights to the Rocketeer character, why wouldn't they?
First off, who says they have those rights? Having film rights isn't the same as owning a character outright.
Second, the question isn't "why wouldn't they," but "why would they?" Should they have Mickey Mouse and Buzz Lightyear join the Avengers just because it's all under the Disney corporate umbrella? (Although actually that might be kinda cool...) Corporate ownership is not, in and of itself, a legitimate creative
reason for combining different characters or universes. And there's no reason why it's a bad thing for one publisher or movie studio to have multiple separate realities under its aegis. There can be value to a shared continuity, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for that continuity to spread cancerously and engulf everything whether it makes sense together or not. Put another way, there's no reason why the MCU should be the only worthwhile thing in Disney/Marvel's cinematic stable. Diversity is a good thing.
As much as I admire your grasp of the source material, I think this statement rejects DigificWriter's "no sequel" dogma only to replace it with an equally abitraily inflexible "the next adaptation must adhere to the source material" dogma of your own.
Stevens created his own world for the series, with its own distinct flavor, and assimilating it into the Marvel Universe would not serve it at all.
Oh, that's certainly not what I meant to say. I'm not talking about the rigid details of continuity. I'm all for reinventing a concept when it's adapted, but the ideal is to find a way to tell the story in a fresh way while still serving its core essence and style. What The Rocketeer
did was something very different from what Marvel superhero comics do, so I don't see where DigificWriter
could possibly have gotten the idea that folding it into the MCU is the only possible
way to make it justifiable. That's just a complete non sequitur. The way for this to be a "justifiable" project is for it to be a good interpretation of the character and world that Stevens created. Not a copy, of course, but something that reflects the spirit of the original. And there's no reason why tying it into the MCU would be the "only" way to do that, any more than tying it into the Saw
franchise or Alvin and the Chipmunks
or any other random media franchise that it has nothing to do with.