• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

^Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything to the rumour. But just like Marvel got an ex-Batman to play a winged baddie & just like they got an actor who was almost Spider-Man (almost replacing Toby for S-M 2) to play the villain in their second Spider-Man film, I think it would be a neat trick to get an actor who was at one stage linked to the role of Iron Man to play the new but villainous Tony. Plus Cruise is the same sort of vintage as RDJ & also has that mix of charm, swagger, snark and cockiness that many people love and many others find obnoxious. But hey, I can dream, right?
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
Yes, but my point was that all we've seen so far is the supporting characters surrounding the Peter Parker Spider-Man. It's up in the air whether Marvel & Sony have any similar agreement concerning alternate headlining characters like Silk, Miles Morales, Spider-Man 2099, Venom, Morbius, etc.
Click to expand...

And my point was to say that I doubt it. You could easily see them in Sony-made Spider-Man movies set in the MCU and featuring MCU guest characters like Happy Hogan, but I doubt you'd see them in a Marvel Studios-made MCU movie that didn't have Spidey in it. After all, why would you? What reason would there be to include, say, Morbius in a Shang-Chi movie, or Silver Sable in a Black Panther movie? A Jameson cameo in one of those might be fun, but probably not worth the financial outlay to Marvel Studios.
 
It occurred to me that, along with Namora and Cindy Moon, there might be a question as to what category Amadeus Cho fits under, if any. As he is/was a "Hulk" (though he currently goes by "Brawn" over on Earth-616), might he fall under the same category as Bruce Banner, in terms of how Marvel Studios might be able to use him?

Which I suppose would be fine, if that still left the door open for him to team up with Silk and the other (New) Agents of ATLAS at some point. But then, She-Hulk is getting a Disney+ series, so perhaps the same might be an option for Brawn one day?
 
Last edited:
My understanding was that they could totally use any Hulk characters that they want and call them whatever they want. It's just that, if they put "Hulk" in the title, then they're required to distribute it through Universal. I'm not sure how a She-Hulk series would get around that. Maybe they had to pay a fee to Universal and agree to show some ads for Peacock or something?
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
My understanding was that they could totally use any Hulk characters that they want and call them whatever they want. It's just that, if they put "Hulk" in the title, then they're required to distribute it through Universal. I'm not sure how a She-Hulk series would get around that. Maybe they had to pay a fee to Universal and agree to show some ads for Peacock or something?
Click to expand...
Maybe they’ll call it something like Green Justice or Sensational or whatever. I suppose the MCU has never been too daring with titles.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
My understanding was that they could totally use any Hulk characters that they want and call them whatever they want. It's just that, if they put "Hulk" in the title, then they're required to distribute it through Universal. I'm not sure how a She-Hulk series would get around that. Maybe they had to pay a fee to Universal and agree to show some ads for Peacock or something?
Click to expand...

My understanding was Universal has *film* distribution rights. She-Hulk isn't going to be a film.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
My understanding was that they could totally use any Hulk characters that they want and call them whatever they want. It's just that, if they put "Hulk" in the title, then they're required to distribute it through Universal. I'm not sure how a She-Hulk series would get around that. Maybe they had to pay a fee to Universal and agree to show some ads for Peacock or something?
Click to expand...

Except that She-Hulk is a legally distinct character from the Hulk. Would using the word matter if it weren't meant as the name of that particular character, the transformed personality of Bruce Banner?

On the other hand, I gather that Chris Hemsworth and the Joker director are making a biopic about wrestler Hulk Hogan, and according to IMDb it's still officially untitled. So maybe the Universal deal does apply to the name in general and that's why they haven't picked a title yet.
 
^ Terry Bolea long ago secured a perpetual license directly from Marvel Comics allowing him to use the "Hulk" moniker as part of his personal professional brand and persona, which is what could be complicating things as far as any biopic regarding his life is concerned.
 
Christopher said:
Except that She-Hulk is a legally distinct character from the Hulk. Would using the word matter if it weren't meant as the name of that particular character, the transformed personality of Bruce Banner?
Click to expand...

While Hulk & She-Hulk are legally distinct from each other, I suspect that they're still tied together in the same brand license, kinda like how Spider-Woman is tied in with Sony's Spider-Man license (although Disney can still use Jessica Drew so long as they don't use her Spider persona).

DigificWriter said:
Terry Bolea long ago secured a perpetual license directly from Marvel Comics allowing him to use the "Hulk" moniker as part of his personal professional brand and persona, which is what could be complicating things as far as any biopic regarding his life is concerned.
Click to expand...

Holy macaroni! I can't believe it's come to this!

Does he personally own the rights to the name "Hulk Hogan" or is that owned by WWE? I ask because I recall he changed his name to "Hollywood Hogan" when he moved to WCW back in the 1990s.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
Does he personally own the rights to the name "Hulk Hogan" or is that owned by WWE? I ask because I recall he changed his name to "Hollywood Hogan" when he moved to WCW back in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, Bolea licensed the Hulk moniker from Marvel personally, and the "Hollywood" moniker was just to differentiate his Heel gimmick from his Face gimmick.
 
Bollea signed with WCW in June of 1994 and used the Hulk Hogan moniker and persona there until July of 1996 (when he turned Heel) and again during his final appearances with the company in 1999 and 2000, so his licensing of the "Hulk" moniker has never been explicitly tied to any one specific company.
 
Not surprised. I have to wonder how much longer they're going to keep pushing everything back.
If Sony got desperate enough, I wonder what streaming service it could go to? Sony doesn't have it's own, so I guess they'd have to go to somebody else. Is there a specific service that gets a lot of Sony stuff?
 
Starz has had pay tv rights to Sony's theatrical films for the last several years. Sony Animation cut a seperate deal for their content, which is why Into The Spiderverse was on Netflix for the 18 month "Pay 1" window-the period a new film lands on a pay service for the first time, (ended on Dec 25).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top