Aren't they alien rings?
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Aren't they alien rings?
Yep. From an dragon-like alien, IIRC.
All magic is essentially alien tech, one way or another. <Insert Clark's Law Here>
It's up, and nope. No footage from or acknowledgment of the Norton movie whatsoever, which is odd considering that the project that this is promoting, She-Hulk, picks up characters from that movie. If they do a Legends episode for Blonsky, how are they going to avoid Norton?
When Armor Wars rolls around, and they do a Legends episode for Rhodey, are they going to avoid any footage from Iron Man 1?
Last edited:
Is Armor Wars still happening though? It wasn't on the agenda during the ComicCon few weeks ago
It might have been removed in favour of Ironheart.
There are still eight open unannounced slots for Phase 6 that will probably be announced at d23.
Oh, right! Sjees, there was so much talk about how the two new Avengers movies would end Phase 6 that I completely forgot they still hadn't blocked that Phase in detail. Derp.
Coolcool.
Hmm. Aren't there some rights issues with the Hulk and Universal, which is the reason they haven't done a solo Hulk movie since the first one? If they just showed footage of Blonsky and Hulk and avoided Norton, that would suggest it was about dodging acknowledgment of the actor change. But if there's no footage from The Incredible Hulk whatsoever, that suggests it's more of a licensing issue with Universal. In which case it wouldn't apply to Rhodey.
It is called a mess; the Norton film is undeniably a part of the MCU, yet Disney is trying to write this film out of existence where Norton is concerned, and as you point out, She-Hulk's conflict rests on characters from the Norton Hulk film.
Where other Hulk issues for the MCU are concerned, according to a ScreenRant piece from April of this year:
"However, despite the character’s continuing popularity, the MCU has only made one attempt to tell his story away from the wider cinematic universe. Much like Marvel’s deal with Sony for each Spider-Man film, the studio is in a similar position with the Hulk since Universal owns the character’s distribution rights. This means that Universal gets the final say on releasing any Hulk project outside of multi-character films. This undoubtedly poses a problem for Marvel studios, but it is not to say that the contractual rights are their biggest reason for not providing the character with another solo film. From a troubled backstory to his continued role as a supporting character, the Hulk’s lack of a sequel ultimately comes down to how difficult he is to adapt to the big screen."
"By financing and distributing 2003’s Hulk, the rights to the Hulk character went to Universal. This slightly changed in 2008, when, after the studio was unable to get a Hulk sequel into production within the terms of their contract, the production rights reverted to Marvel Studios, who then released The Incredible Hulk. The distribution rights, however, are still owned by Universal, granting the studio the right to choose how many theatres a future solo film would play in, when it would be released, and how to handle its marketing.
Marvel Studios have demonstrated its ability to produce solo films under a character’s co-ownership in the past. Starting with Spider-Man: Homecoming, the MCU has collaborated with Sony on three Spider-Man films, striking a deal in which both Sony and Marvel benefit. On the other hand, negotiations with Universal have not been as fruitful, resulting in the character only making supporting appearances in the MCU which voids Universal’s distribution rights provided the Hulk stays away from the lead role."
The fact Norton was in a solo Hulk film, and as such, his footage cannot be used/referenced due to the Universal matter might be the answer.
Might be simpler than that.
Do the actors receive royalties or have to sign off on anything used for these Legends pieces? That may very well preclude Norton or Howard if so, even if it's just a choice by Disney to avoid things altogether.
Do the actors receive royalties or have to sign off on anything used for these Legends pieces? That may very well preclude Norton or Howard if so, even if it's just a choice by Disney to avoid things altogether.
If it were just about the actor, then they probably would've shown some footage of Blonsky/Abomination from TIH, or of the Hulk transformed (maybe avoiding his face if it's considered a likeness of Norton). If there's no footage whatsoever from TIH, that suggests it's more about the movie rights.
Yeah, that makes sense (I haven't watched yet so it was just a guess on my part). Is Incredible Hulk even on Disney+?
Apparently not. Although a few of the animated Hulk productions are (the '96 series, Agents of SMASH, and a Hulk/Iron Man crossover called Heroes United).
Well, if they don't have the rights to even put it on Disney+, then that probably explains that.
Still surprising, though, that they have the whole MCU except that one. I mean, they've been able to use the character, and there was TIH footage in Iron Man 2 (though these days it could've been digitally replaced). I thought the issue was just making a sequel, not simply showing the movie.
There's a difference between the right to use footage in another movie and the right to distribute TIH via Disney+. Especially since it is in the distribution specifically that Universal's rights lie.
I doubt the lack of footage is directly related to the rights issue, except perhaps in that somebody views Legends as a form of promotion for D+ and is therefore unwilling to point casual viewers toward a movie that isn't available on D+.
I doubt the lack of footage is directly related to the rights issue, except perhaps in that somebody views Legends as a form of promotion for D+ and is therefore unwilling to point casual viewers toward a movie that isn't available on D+.
Distribution rights are a funny thing and tied up in legalese.