I'd actually rather see Wolverine pitted against the Hulk.
That is how he started in the comics, after all
Shut up and take my money. <insert meme .gif here>
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Shut up and take my money. <insert meme .gif here>
I remember reading that the rights to Namor were still unclear. My guess is that it is similar to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch in that he could appear in the FF or with Captain America (an Invaders movie anyone?) along with the Avengers.
Well, I suspect not since he was an entirely separate franchise controlled by Universal. The consensus is the rights to Namor are fully controlled by Marvel now, but the rights to distribute a Submariner movie still belong to Universal.
So my hopes of Namor and Jim Hammond appearing in a WWII Cap film are not totally dashed.
Well, the quote from Feige was that things had to be worked out to make a movie, so my guess is it's the exact opposite of the Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch situation. Rather than either being able to do something independently, the movie can be made only if both sides agree (or, more accurately, Marvel can make the movie if it wants to, but it's not getting released without Universal's agreement). Some think Hulk is the same way, which is why he's not getting any solo movies.
How much would it take for Marvel Studios to get the distribution rights back? Is it too much to hope?
That would depend on what, if anything, Universal wants. There's no buyout clause if that's what you're asking.
I don't think your hopes will be dashed. Everything I've heard about the new FF makes the other two sound good.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
Regarding Hulk not getting solo movies,Isn't the Incredible Hulk (2008) Marvel studios production and hence MCU canon? Granted Hulk/Banner look different, but they did tag Tony Stark towards the end chatting with Ross, as well as the Super soldier serum and the Stark industries logo.
The scene with Tony is a bit confusing in context with the other MCU stuff (especially Iron Man II and Avengers) as it looks like Tony is onboard with the Avengers initative when it's clear from those movies that it's not quite like that unless I'm missing something like it was explained at some point).
The scene with Tony is a bit confusing in context with the other MCU stuff (especially Iron Man II and Avengers) as it looks like Tony is onboard with the Avengers initative when it's clear from those movies that it's not quite like that unless I'm missing something like it was explained at some point).
Tony's presence in Incredible Hulk is explained in the short, "The Consultant."
It is part of the canon of Marvel movies in continuity with all the other films. Banner was merely recast, same as Rhodes.
But my point wasn't whether it's a Marvel Studios film. My point was whether or not Disney can release an Incredible Hulk movie. Keep in mind Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger were distributed by Paramount Pictures but the rights were acquired by Disney. Avengers was always distributed by Disney (although, as part of the deal, Paramount receives some credit).
It seems that's not the case with the Hulk. The Hulk's distribution rights are still apparently owned by Universal and a Hulk movie couldn't be released without their involvement. According to this theory, that's why we haven't gotten any more Hulk movies (Disney doesn't want to share) and why we haven't gotten any Namor movies (same deal there).
I would think the more likely explanation for the lack of Hulk solo movies would be the indifferent critical and commercial reception of the first one the studio made.
I'd actually rather see Wolverine pitted against the Hulk.
That is how he started in the comics, after all
Shut up and take my money. <insert meme .gif here>
They made an animated movie of that. It was just ok.
It's certainly a plausible alternative explanation, but why do you think it's a more likely explanation?
You can see the idea of Disney not wanting to share profits elsewhere: merchandising. Marvel owns 100% of the merchandise rights to Spider-Man, so they've been making Spider-Man toys for awhile. They have to share profits with Fox for X-Men. No X-Men movie toys get made even though Marvel could make a profit off of them.
I suspect it's a combination of distribution rights and draw. If there were super-mega-awesome truckloads of money to be made from a Hulk movie, they'd bring it, rights be damned. There aren't though, compared to the amounts that can be made doing other things. They'd rather spend $1.00 to make $2.00 than a $1.75 which they'll have to split, so to speak; if they were instead splitting $3.00, it might be different.
And it takes place after IM2.