• 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!

"Disney sees big bucks in Marvel unknowns"

^Captain America is out in 2011 as part of the larger Avengers strand (along with Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk etc).

And in the tradition of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and "James Bond Origins: Casino Royale Begins: The Beginning," we'll be getting...

The First Avenger: Captain America.

In this case I think that's largely because it was, at least originally, supposed to be released mere weeks before The Avengers.
 
^
Right, well, I didn't watch those. They weren't on TV for whatever reason.

Except Amazing Friends, I think, but I don't recall Iron Man being in the main line-up. It was Spiderman and two loser heroes, that's all I remember (my kid self had a low opinion of whoever those guys were,clearly).
I wasn't referring to Batman Returns, unless I'm misremembering things and it was that film that gave her magical cat powers
It sort of implied this. She's resurrected through the power of cats, or something. Comic book fans have told me that isn't how it went down there.
 
^I always just assumed that her injuries just weren't that bad and she had survived the fall through some freak moment of luck. It has been a long time since I watched it though.

It's a world apart from the Halle Berry version I was referring to.
 
Oh yeah, Captain Planet. With the success of superhero movies and Avatar, isn't it time he got his big screen, gritty reboot? Also was he an alien or something? I recall him having oddly tinted skin, I don't remember why (or my memory may be fried, WHO CAN SAY?)

Planet could be described as an avatar or an elemental, the incarnation of nature. So his skin was 'sky blue' (although it always looked grey-ish to me) and his hair green. He could go into space, but if he got too far from Earth his powers would fail.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
You'd think Al Gore Inc would have a Captain Planet movie out.
He could have CP touting the glories of buying carbon offsets, which of course Gore would see another profit.
 
^

Except Amazing Friends, I think, but I don't recall Iron Man being in the main line-up. It was Spiderman and two loser heroes, that's all I remember (my kid self had a low opinion of whoever those guys were,clearly).
.


Amazing Friends starred Spider-Man, Iceman, and Firestar. I don't remember Iron Man being featured in any of the publicity for the show. Maybe he was an occasional guest-star?

Despite a few scattered cartoon appearances, I really don't think the general public knew who he was. Heck, even today, lots of people still can't get his name right. Look how often you see him called "Ironman" on the internet.
 
Are some of the more obscure characters in the x-men universe licensed under Fox too? Or does that only count the main guys such as the x-men and/or magneto and the brotherhood? Like do they own all the rights to any use of mutants in the whole x-universe?
They own (or, rather, lease) everything X-related.

Ant-Man's been in development for several years under Edgar Wright. Last word, I believe, was that he had written a few script drafts, but had other movies to make before he would get to it.


so how does that work with say: Scarlet Witch, possibly Quicksilver?
 
^Captain America is out in 2011 as part of the larger Avengers strand (along with Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk etc).
And in the tradition of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and "James Bond Origins: Casino Royale Begins: The Beginning," we'll be getting...

The First Avenger: Captain America.
In this case I think that's largely because it was, at least originally, supposed to be released mere weeks before The Avengers.
It's because they know that getting international audiences to see Captain America may be a hard sell, so they're trying to bind it as closely as possible to the larger Marvel filmverse.
 
You cant get regular comic readers to pick up issues with the b list heroes. Now Disney thinks the movies of these characters will make money. Artie and Leech coming to a theater near you!

That's what I thought when I first heard about the deal. "5000 characters" they may have in inventory, but how many can really carry a film?

The other annoying thing is that there is an entire "mid card" group of heroes that NEVER seem to get mentioned when they talk about bringing characters up for a tryout. I'm talking about groups like New Warriors (classic lineup), the Defenders, etc, and their individual members.

Instead people prattle on about Ant-Man, Hercules, Iron Fist, and the like.
 
Amazing Friends starred Spider-Man, Iceman, and Firestar. I don't remember Iron Man being featured in any of the publicity for the show. Maybe he was an occasional guest-star?

Iron Man was in at least one episode. Actually, now that I think back on it, Iron Man only had a cameo on Amazing Friends, but Tony Stark had a bigger part, being the one who supplied Spidey and Co. with all of the advanced equipment that they kept at Aunt May's house.
 
It's absurd that Disney owns the rights to characters it had no connection in creating. Characters, that, by all rights, should gradually be reverting to the public domain.
 
It's absurd that Disney owns the rights to characters it had no connection in creating.
Erm, no. They bought the rights (or, more properly, the entity that owned the rights). Happens all the time (with patents too).
The other annoying thing is that there is an entire "mid card" group of heroes that NEVER seem to get mentioned when they talk about bringing characters up for a tryout. I'm talking about groups like New Warriors (classic lineup), the Defenders, etc, and their individual members.

Instead people prattle on about Ant-Man, Hercules, Iron Fist, and the like.
Well, partly that depends on what comics properties are being done well at the moment (the latter two you cite there, for example), but it's also about the sorts of properties that can be easily translated to the screen since they're like other genres.

Someone else noted above that Blade is a vampire movie. Iron Fist is a superpowered kung fu movie; China makes those all the time. Hercules is, well, Hercules (if the current wave of Greek mythology films like the Clash of the Titans remake do well, I'll be interested to see if Marvel doesn't consider doing something with their version; his current series is brilliant; though maybe he'd be most likely to show up in a Thor sequel).
 
It's absurd that Disney owns the rights to characters it had no connection in creating. Characters, that, by all rights, should gradually be reverting to the public domain.

The characters will never be in the public domain so long as they are trademarked, in any case.
 
It's absurd that Disney owns the rights to characters it had no connection in creating. Characters, that, by all rights, should gradually be reverting to the public domain.
They bought Winnie the Pooh and the Muppets as well.
To say these should become public domain is silly talk.
 
so how does that work with say: Scarlet Witch, possibly Quicksilver?

Judging by the X-men: Evolution cartoon, I believe they've been lumped in with the X-men.

As for the "unknowns", Marvel has some really great ones. I've always thought that "Guardians of the Galaxy" would make a great television or film series; it was Farscape before Farscape ever existed. The recent Marvel MAX mini-series showed just how good Terror, Inc. could be; and there are others such as Darkhawk that would be interesting to explore.

As always, the key is in how much Disney pays attention to what they have. If all they're looking at is modern successes like Runaways, then they're going to miss out on alot. There are many Marvel properties (such as the above examples) that have never been real successes but are primed to be.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not absurd to assume that comic book characters should eventually revert to the public domain. Disney's entire catalog of classic animated films is built upon centuries of popular culture and mythology which reside within the public domain.

We've been drawing from the well of previous centuries, but since 1923, have essentially been adding nothing new to the public domain. It's time.

Macaulay demonstrated a century and a half ago that intellectual property rights are, at best, a necessary evil, that should be of a limited duration. His remarks before Parliament on the works of Samuel Johnson are apropos:

I will take an example. Dr. Johnson died fifty-six years ago. If the law were what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr. Johnson’s works. Who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we may venture to guess. I guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the Doctor’s servant and residuary legatee, in 1785 or 1786. Now, would the knowledge that this copyright would exist in 1841 have been a source of gratification to Johnson? Would it have stimulated his exertions? Would it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon? Would it have once cheered him under a fit of the spleen? Would it have induced him to give us one more allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal? I firmly believe not. I firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was writing our debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, he would very much rather have had twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a cook’s shop underground.

And more to the point:

We have, then, only one resource left. We must betake ourselves to copyright, be the inconveniences of copyright what they may. Those inconveniences, in truth, are neither few nor small. Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly. . . . I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company’s monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex’s monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good
 
It's absurd that Disney owns the rights to characters it had no connection in creating. Characters, that, by all rights, should gradually be reverting to the public domain.
Did the previous owners of Marvel create any of those characters? Or the owners before that?
 
^Captain America is out in 2011 as part of the larger Avengers strand (along with Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk etc).

Sub-Mariner could be interesting, as long as they are true to the character and admit that he is no hero.
Indeed. I want to see Namor mess up New York. Well, any coastal city will do. Or all of them at once. The film writes itself.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top