News FOX selling out to Disney?

[Turtletrekker]

Just came back from Thor: Ragnarok. Undoubtedly Disney’s most humorous Marvel comedy to date!

I agree that it was Marvel's most humorous comedy, as well as a desperately needed breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant franchise. Marvel does make comedies (Ant-Man, Guardians, Ragnarok), that's one of their strengths. But to say that every movie is a comedy just because there is humorous content or quippy characters remains an utterly absurd argument. It's called striking a balance. Are any of the Captain America movies comedies? Despite Tony Stark being a quirky, quippy type, are the Iron Man movies comedies? Was Doctor Strange a laugh a minute? Really? Even Spider-Man Homecoming, featuring a character that is generally played on the light humorous side, couldn't be considered a comedy.

ETA:

Can’t wait to laugh with Disney’s X-Men as well!!!

I agree. "Kitty's Fairy Tale" remains one of my all-time favorite X-Men stories. And Deadpool took itself far too seriously.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I agree that it was Marvel's most humorous comedy, as well as a desperately needed breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant franchise. Marvel does make comedies (Ant-Man, Guardians, Ragnarok), that's one of their strengths. But to say that every movie is a comedy just because there is humorous content or quippy characters remains an utterly absurd argument. It's called striking a balance. Are any of the Captain America movies comedies? Despite Tony Stark being a quirky, quippy type, are the Iron Man movies comedies? Was Doctor Strange a laugh a minute? Really?

Further, I don't think anyone expects Black Panther to be a comedy either. Drama with some quips like the Captain America and Iron Man films, but definitely not a comedy.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I agree that it was Marvel's most humorous comedy

Exactly this, thank you very much. Who knew Thor was so funny? Certainly not anyone reading Thor comic books for the last 50 years.

Further, I don't think anyone expects Black Panther to be a comedy either. Drama with some quips like the Captain America and Iron Man films, but definitely not a comedy.

It better not be another one of Disney’s comedies. I really have high hopes for Black Panther. I hope it meets my expectations and joins Captain America: The Winter Soldier as my favorite MCU films.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Who knew Thor was so funny? Certainly not anyone reading Thor comic books for the last 50 years.

I actually re-read Walt Simonson's Thor run recently and was very surprised at how much funnier it was than I remembered. Simonson had his tongue-in-cheek the whole time. YMMV.

ETA: And so what if I acknowledge that the film was a comedy? It was marketed as a comedy from the start. You oh, so, conveniently edit out the part where I mention that the franchise was becoming stale, nor do you acknowledge my argument that the fact that Marvel makes some comedies is one of their strengths, you only deride the notion of humor as a bad thing. (The only way you could find to "prove" your point was to quote me for half a sentence! Very FOX News of you.) If Marvel had churned out another Dark World, nobody would have cared. Also, you still can't justify your argument that all Marvel movie are comedies.

*yawn*

Next!

 

[Skywalker]

Of course they already lost their opportunity to be the first modern heroes as they were in the comics, so that makes Marvel's task of making them relevant very difficult, but again, if anyone can do it, Marvel can.

Make it a period piece set in the 1960s?

The only way that can fit into continuity is if they die at the end... Or go to space I suppose...

Or get thrown into the future.

First film ends with them getting trapped in the Negative Zone.

Second film has them battling Annihilus or Blastaar and ends with them escaping the zone. Turns out that time works differently and it's modern day now.

I'm certainly not against this idea. But one potential issue with this is that it would make the Fantastic Four the third group of Marvel heroes to be active at some point in the past, only to mysteriously disappear until returning in the present day. (Preceded by Captain America in the 1940s, and soon Captain Marvel in the 1990s.) I just worry that it'd be a little repetitive by that point.

 

[LJones41]

Oh God. The Disney monolith marches on.

Who knew Thor was so funny? Certainly not anyone reading Thor comic books for the last 50 years.

I did when I first saw the 2011 movie.

t was marketed as a comedy from the start.

It was marketed as a comedy from the start? A movie about the fall of Asgardian realm was marketed as a comedy from the beginning? I'm too disgusted to say anything further.

 

[Anwar]

I'm certainly not against this idea. But one potential issue with this is that it would make the Fantastic Four the third group of Marvel heroes to be active at some point in the past, only to mysteriously disappear until returning in the present day. (Preceded by Captain America in the 1940s, and soon Captain Marvel in the 1990s.) I just worry that it'd be a little repetitive by that point.

No one cared about Ant-Man operating in the past and disappear.

 

[Skywalker]

No one cared about Ant-Man operating in the past and disappear.

That's not nearly the same thing as Cap's situation, or presumably Carol Danvers' (though at this point we're still just speculating on how she gets from her '90s-set movie to present-day Avengers 4) and you know it.

 

[Jayson1]

It's silly to argue over the nuances of retcons vs. reboots, because these aren't terms that have any official definition to begin with. "Reboot" is a slang term, a figure of speech borrowed from computers, which in turn borrowed it from the expression "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps," which is facetious and physically impossible.

In industry usage, the term "reboot" originally meant any revival of a dormant property, regardless of whether it was the same continuity or a different one. After all, the computing term just means restarting a program, not replacing it. But the term became popularized with the general public by the 2004 Battlestar Galactica revival, which was a full continuity reset, and so people came to associate the word "reboot" with that specific kind of revival to the exclusion of others, even though that wasn't how it was originally used in the industry (and even though it's pretty much the exact opposite of what the computing term means). Since then, fandom has gotten into the habit of using the word specifically for that, but that's just a popular vernacular usage, not some formal, legally dictated definition.

And of course, as with most things, there are gradations between different categories rather than absolute, impermeable dividing lines. Something like Kelvin Star Trek or the post-DOFP X-Men films represents a middle ground between a continuity revival and a continuity reboot in the modern sense; it serves the function of a reboot by making a fresh start that isn't bound to past continuity, but it uses time travel to justify the changes so that it can simultaneously present itself as a continuation, and thereby have it both ways.

As for "retcon," that's supposed to mean something that reveals new information about a past story without contradicting it, which is why it's called retroactive continuity. If a retcon does actually contradict the original facts, then it's a flawed retcon, or simply a deliberate inconsistency -- unless the original facts can be explained away as a deception or error (for instance, Obi-Wan telling Luke that Darth Vader killed his father). Ideally a retcon should agree with the established facts, just add new facts alongside them or reveal that they didn't mean what we thought they meant.

I wonder why nobody ever uses the term, "Remake" anymore. I think they way people see reboot's is that you are getting something new but still somehow slightly connected to the old movie or tv show.

Jason

 

[FreezeC77]

Exactly this, thank you very much. Who knew Thor was so funny? Certainly not anyone reading Thor comic books for the last 50 years.



It better not be another one of Disney’s comedies. I really have high hopes for Black Panther. I hope it meets my expectations and joins Captain America: The Winter Soldier as my favorite MCU films.

Those Thor roommate shorts. I never expected that Thor would show up in the movies. Love him so much.

 

[Anwar]

That's not nearly the same thing as Cap's situation, or presumably Carol Danvers' (though at this point we're still just speculating on how she gets from her '90s-set movie to present-day Avengers 4) and you know it.

You're assuming this hypothetical FF MCU story would make them big worldwide celebrities instead of maybe just a group known to the Government.

It's all hypothetical anyways.

 

[Christopher]

I wonder why nobody ever uses the term, "Remake" anymore. I think they way people see reboot's is that you are getting something new but still somehow slightly connected to the old movie or tv show.

Well, "remake" implies a new version of a specific, single story. For instance, Kenneth Branagh's new Murder on the Orient Express that opens this week is a remake, and the RoboCop movie a couple of years ago was a remake. But if you're creating a new version of a series, you're generally not retelling the same specific stories, although you might draw on some elements from them. It's called a "reboot" because it's restarting an ongoing process, as opposed to redoing a single finite thing.

You're assuming this hypothetical FF MCU story would make them big worldwide celebrities instead of maybe just a group known to the Government.

Well, how else would you do the Fantastic Four? Their celebrity status is one of their defining features. Besides, I think the Josh Trank movie made them a secret government group, and I don't think anyone would want to remind audiences of that version.

 

[Anwar]

Well, how else would you do the Fantastic Four? Their celebrity status is one of their defining features. Besides, I think the Josh Trank movie made them a secret government group, and I don't think anyone would want to remind audiences of that version.

Make them celebrities after they return to Earth. First film sets them up on the road to being celebrities, then before it happens they "die" being pulled into the Negative Zone. Then they make it back to Earth by end of movie 2 and become celebrities then.

Question is how to include Doom in this. Maybe he starts off as an ally, gets sucked with them into the Zone. Something happens there that disfigures him, which is his own fault but he blames Reed. Then they all escape to Earth with Doom going to Latveria and using tech he developed or stole from the Zone to take over and plan his revenge.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

For some other examples of flat out "remakes" that are often beat-for-beat recreations of previous films, I would direct you to compare the 1954 & 1995 versions of Sabrina or the 1931 & 1941 versions of The Maltese Falcon or the 1933, 1970s, & 2005 versions of King Kong.

 

[Christopher]

Make them celebrities after they return to Earth. First film sets them up on the road to being celebrities, then before it happens they "die" being pulled into the Negative Zone. Then they make it back to Earth by end of movie 2 and become celebrities then.

I don't see the need to start them in the past. As others have said, it would be repeating something Marvel's already done a couple of times now. And really, by the time any rights deal could be completed, a number of the first-generation MCU leads would probably be ready to move on and Marvel would need to start introducing a new generation of heroes to take their place. So starting out the FF as a new team might actually work well in that context. (And they'd go well with Spider-Man and Black Panther as two of the major faces of the "second generation," since both those characters have close ties to the FF in the comics.)

Question is how to include Doom in this. Maybe he starts off as an ally, gets sucked with them into the Zone. Something happens there that disfigures him, which is his own fault but he blames Reed. Then they all escape to Earth with Doom going to Latveria and using tech he developed or stole from the Zone to take over and plan his revenge.

That would be repeating one of the biggest mistakes of the previous two adaptations. Making Doom's origin part of the same event as the FF's origin isn't necessary and just gets in the way. Not every character needs an onscreen origin story.

Hmm... as with Spider-Man, it would take time to develop and shoot a film with the FF once Marvel Studios got the rights, so they could potentially cast the actors and give them supporting roles in earlier MCU films to set them up for their own film. So perhaps an earlier film could introduce Reed Richards as an up-and-coming genius who's seen as the next Tony Stark, as well as introducing Victor von Doom as a Latverian dictator who has a longtime rivalry with Reed. So their history could be established that way, and then the FF film could just go ahead with the Four's origin without trying to crowbar Doom into it.

 

[fireproof78]

Logan was very much the usual "Humans doing something bad to mutants, mutants respond" plot when you get down to it.

If MCU had the X-Men, they have them try to be proactive and making change in the world instead of hiding out at Xavier's Mansion all the time merely reacting to stuff. And maybe start to succeed in their mission to make things better for mutants as opposed to the status quo never changing.

Deadpool was more an independent movie made by Ryan Reynolds than a real FOX film.

I don't think Disney will do anything different with it though. It will become part of the monolith and lose its distinction.

 

[YLu]

With each installment, the MCU has, gradually, diverged further and further from 'realism.' This isn't a bad thing. It also means they could probably get away with having a Fantastic Four film start off with them already famous as a *non-superpowered* family whose been getting into mad adventures for years. Nothing on quite the same level as their typical comic stories, but they could be the folks who discovered the abominable snowman and braved some trap-laden Aztec temple or whatever.

Then the movie could be about them getting powers from their latest bizarre exploit, propelling them to a higher level of fame and adventure.

Doctor Doom is a storytelling problem, I think. His past relationship with Reed is such a big part of the character, but if you keep that it becomes a ridiculous coincidence that this Eastern European dictator and the FF's leader happened to know each back in college. In the comics, it works better because Doom is one of the *many* supervillains populating the world. In a film, it would stand out more. The past films got around it by jettisoning the whole Latveria angle in the first place, but who wants to see that again?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Also, you still can't justify your argument that all Marvel movie are comedies.

*yawn*

Next!

Nice strawman. I can’t justify an argument that I never made in the first place? Maybe it’s because I never claimed that ALL Marvel movies are comedies?

Nice try though. By all means please continue replying to your own made up propositions.

And Deadpool took itself far too seriously.

Shock and awe! FOX made a comedic film out of a comedic comic book character! Who knew that you could make a successful comic book movie and still be respectful to the source material? Certainly not Disney!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The term "reboot" first came into association with fictional continuity in 1985 with DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths and its aftermath...

...which by your definition was not in fact a reboot at all.

Didn't we do this one before?

 

[Turtletrekker]

And Deadpool took itself far too seriously.

[QUOTE="Captain of the USS Averof]
Shock and awe! FOX made a comedic film out of a comedic comic book character! [/QUOTE]

Even with a double winky, sarcasm escapes you.