Which Property Will Marvel Regain The Film Rights?

Possibly, there aren't many westerns being made now for instance.

Good stories and enough variety (Guardians Of The Galaxy and The Dark Night aren't exactly similar) should prevent burnout. After all, how many people think the action movie bubble, or the sci-fi bubble will burst ?

 

People have been saying that for literally over a decade now, with no end in sight. The president of Paramount was positive that super-hero movies were a "fad" that would burn itself out with the release of X-Men 3. He even had charts to to prove it.

 

I don't know, they're shaking things up especially Marvel but I remember hearing that we're expecting about 24 super hero movies in the next four years. Now I would argue that the super hero genre is a bit more specified than sci-fi and what not. Now I'm enjoying a fair few of the super hero movies, especially the Marvel stuff but even I think we're gonna hit peak tight point soon. I could well be wrong and I hope I am.

 

Kevin Feige would disagree with you...

 

We already had 4 this year, and three of them were often praised as the greatest of their franchises, so I don't think there'll be much of a problem having 6 in one year.

 

to be fair it was kind of a fad. The superhero movies 10 years ago were terrible, and predictable, and contrived. Now when they make a superhero movie, it isn't just a good superhero movie, it's a good film. And when they aren't a good film, there is a massive back lash.

 

Everyones making very good points and as I say I'm no psychic and I kind of hope I'm wrong but with the budgets increasing it seems for each one out of the gate I'm still not convinced. Still with this going up on the internet feel free to point this post out to me in five years or so and rub it in my face

 

On the other hand, how many romantic comedies get released every year? Or horror movies? Or historical costume dramas?

 

For that matter from the 20s through the 70s how many Westerns got released every year?

Superhero movies may be the new westerns. It's a fad, but one that could last for decades.

 

There's also the fact that the general audience may not make the same fine distinctions that we do when it comes to distinguishing between science-fiction movies, action movies, and superhero movies. To the average moviegoer, Godzilla, Transformers, and Captain America are probably all the same genre: big, summer blockbuster.

That one is based on a comic book, another on an old toy line, and another on some vintage Japanese monster movies, probably doesn't make much of difference in how they're perceived--except by the hardcore fans, possibly.

 

I'd disagree with that. I just watched "Amazing Spider-Man2", and while it was a little bit better story wise than ASM1, I was having a really hard time buying the Harry Osborn story, as Harry was suppose to be 20 in the film, but the actor playing him looked to be about 12, and between Peter and Harry I think the age difference is supose to be months, not 8 years. Plus I really did not give a care for the Gwen character. I realize that in the comics she is Peter's first girlfriend, but I found that there was no chemistry between the actors in the movie.

So to date, I would say the Spider-Man films from 10 years ago are holding up better than the newer films. Plus in ASM2 I was able to tell when an effect was a CGI effect a lot more easily than the CGI in the 10 year old films.

So I wouldn't mind seeing Sony relinquish their rights to Spider-Man. X-Men on the other hand, I saw it about a month ago and a Fox is doing a good job joining the two movie storylines into a cohesive story: sure there were some duds like XOW, but out of the 3 new super hero films I've seen (X-Men, ASM2, Man Of Steel), the X-Men movie was by far the best.

 

no clue what you're disagreeing with. TASM2 is a horrible film.

 

Yep. As soon as The Avengers showed everyone that a superhero movie could literally make a billion dollars, any hope of those properties going back vanished in a puff of smoke.

There's a new annoying trend amongst fanboys who think that a profitable movie that didn't make as much as the studio (or they) thought it would, somehow makes a movie a flop. See STID and MoS, both successful movies, and both moving forward with sequels.

Even if the new FF movie bombs (and so far I haven't heard or seen anything that seems to suggest it will be anything but a bomb) it's not going back to Marvel. They'll simply reboot it. They may even go back to a more traditional look as well as adapt a specific classic storyline like Cap 2 did.

 

That would be so cool. I do think Fox missed a trick in not making a 60s-set FF movie and tying it in with X-Men First Class.

 

^ This

I'm hoping this new FF takes off. The first series had potential but Tom Story sabotaged his own franchise by not making his sequel as well as he could have. I giant frakking cloud?! Seriously.



I would love to see Dr. Doom take on the Avengers, X-Men, and FF in an Ultimate Alliance type deal. Dr. Doom has always been able to rock the entire Marvel universe in the comics and gather rogues together. I doubt the Marvel Studios and Fox would ever work together on such a thing.

 

I'm too lazy to post a link, as I don't believe the story, but I saw rumours over the weekend that Wesley Snipes was to reprise the role of Blade. Haven't Marvel regained the rights to that character too?

 

Though sometimes studios act the same way.

 

There's also a tendency to confuse critical with commercial disappointments, as well as confusing one's own opinions with the box offiice results, as in "nobody I know liked that movie, so it must have bombed, right?"

Not necessarily.

And this isn't exactly a new trend. I remember having this same discussion about STARGATE (the movie) and SPECIES back in the day:

"That was a bomb, right?"

"No, it was quite successful and made a ton of money."

"Really? I had no idea!"