The Incredible Hulk heading back to television

[the Dagman]

The Daredevil rights should revert back to Marvel pretty soon if Fox doesn't make use of them.

Either that, or the resolution of the Kirby Estate v. Marvel/Disney "lawsuit".

What do I mean? I believe it is all part of the pretty devious plan Disney came up with when they announced they were acquiring Marvel over a year ago. They wanted it all and even said so. Yet how could they get it all if Fox and Sony had the rights to the biggest draws of Marvel's inventory of characters? This is what led to the Kirby Estate announcing their lawsuit about a week or so after Disney announced they were buying Marvel, and their "claim" on Spider-Man in particular. Disney enlisted the Kirby's in a little bit of legal theater.

You see, all the contracts that Marvel has signed over the years would be nullified and need renegotiation if there were now another party named to be equal owners of the properties in question. So if the Kirby's win, the contracts with Sony and Fox become worthless.

So all Disney/Marvel has to do is to capitulate to the Kirby's demands on the day the trial opens. They can't lose. They would still own a 50% share of the copyrights and all of the trademarks, so they could continue to publish all they want. But a couple of weeks after the trial, after all the contracts with Fox and Sony have been shredded, Disney will announce a deal with the Kirby's to buy their rights in perpetuity for a small nine figure sum. A deal that has actually already been made. A deal that was in place before Disney ever announced it was buying Marvel.

At least, that is how I see it. It all just reeks of a devious plot with underlying motives, a typical corporate move. And it would be funny if the only losers in the Kirby/Marvel lawsuit were Sony and Fox.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

^ This is all just your theory, though, right?

 

[the Dagman]

^I said that it was at the beginning and end of the post. But it all fits. And I could easily see Disney giving the Kirby's like $150M if that nets them the movie rights to Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. And much cheaper than buying them back from Sony and Fox.

 

[Christopher]

That's a misconception that's been going around the 'net since this story broke.

ABC Family is not a kids-safe channel. They routinely show programs and movies rated TV-PG to TV-14. They're called "ABC Family" because they have different shows for different family members.

Actually the only reason they still have "Family" in the name is because, when The Family Channel's founder Pat Robertson sold it to Fox Kids Worldwide, the contract contained a clause requiring that any and all future owners keep "Family" in the channel's name. So it became Fox Family Channel, and then when Disney/ABC bought it, the best they could do to rebrand it as their own was to call it ABC Family. They've tried once or twice to get rid of the "Family" part -- they wanted to call it "XYZ" and then "ABCF" -- but the contract locks them into using it in perpetuity.

So it's really not a family-oriented channel anymore. It mainly aims for college students and young women.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ That seems awfully silly, don't care that you show anything worthwhile as long as the channel has "Family" in the name.

 

[Trent Roman]

That's a misconception that's been going around the 'net since this story broke. ABC Family is not a kids-safe channel.

My mistake. I'm not altogether familiar with the network and the name threw me off.

If they tone down Dagger's costume, it probably won't be because it may offend kids

Dagger's costume wouldn't offend kids. It's their parents who would get their knickers in a twist over it.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JonnyQuest037]

^I said that it was at the beginning and end of the post.

I know. I just wanted to confirm that you didn't have any sort of inside information.

 

[theenglish]

You also had Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan within a decade.

But, with the Hulk, both movies were decent (even if Lee's was not really the "super" hero film many wanted); it was the character that failed to draw people. There are many other series that I would like to see tried before the Hulk again.

So we're going to see 4 different actors play the same character in less than a decade? Weird. Is that a new record?

James Bond would have that beat, if you count the original Casino Royal.

That's a somewhat different situation, though, since that was a different studio, a different set of producers and a parody. And I just meant for comic book characters.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You also had Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan within a decade.

1983 to 1995 is "within a decade"?

 

[Buck Rogers]

I posted on ScreenRant this post
" I would watch a Incredible Hulk TV series if it follows a combined format from the original series,and new adventures taking place after The Incredible Hulk series ended.
As to Moon Knight,and Cloak and Dagger I’ll wait for casting news,writing chores,and show runner news .

I’m waiting for a Invincible Iron Man series that takes place in the movie-verse,but that should be launched when IM#3 is off the movies screens,and that they can afford RDJ in the title role or an unknown that is a true lookalike for the part."
Any thoughts
Signed
Buck Rogers

 

[Christopher]

^^ That seems awfully silly, don't care that you show anything worthwhile as long as the channel has "Family" in the name.

That doesn't follow from the situation I described. I'm sure the current heads of the network want to show worthwhile programming. They bought The Middleman, which was very worthwhile, and tried very hard to keep it around despite insufficient ratings. But they're not the ones who feel obligated to keep "Family" in the name. They'd happily get rid of it. But that stipulation that the network's original owner stuck into the contract ties their hands.

If you're saying that it's odd that Pat Robertson would require keeping the word "Family" in the name no matter what programming choices future owners of the network might make, then yes, that does seem rather superficial. On the other hand, the contract also requires the network to show a certain amount of religious programming, though that's generally just on mornings and weekends, I think.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ Yeah, I was referring to the second thing you said.

 

[theenglish]

You also had Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan within a decade.

1983 to 1995 is "within a decade"?

Man, you just made me feel really old--I remember it like it was a decade.

 

[Jack Bauer]

If they do put Rick Jones in they'll probably make the character female and have the typical will they/won't they get together type of thing..

 

[Kelso]

It doesn't matter how many different actors play that dude who turns into the hulk... because nobody gives a crap about that dude who turns into the hulk. Can't wait for this show, it should be a lot of fun.

 

[PsychoPere]

Guillermo del Toro and David Eick will reportedly be pitching a take for the Hulk series.

The del Toro / Eick pitch was accepted.

 

[Christopher]

Not comfortable with Eick's involvement; his Bionic Woman was pretty bad, and I tend to think he was responsible for the facets of BSG I wasn't fond of. But del Toro's involvement is intriguing.

I read an interesting comment about Hulk adaptations on io9 today:

Here's the thing about Bruce Banner: He becomes a hero before he becomes the Hulk. In the comics, he's a scientist testing a horribly destructive bomb, and he sees a young kid sneaking out onto the testing range. So he rushes out and pushes the kid out of harm's way, taking the full blast himself. That moment of self-sacrifice defines him, and even though the Hulk always seems like a totally self-centered force of id and destruction, you know that he'll always wind up putting others first when the chips are down. Because the Hulk was born in a moment of self-sacrifice, and he's a weird mixture of rage and softness. (The Hulk's compassion and inability to understand cruelty is a major feature in a lot of the comics.) For some reason, people adapting the Hulk's origin always dispense with the bomb and the kid, Rick Jones, who's the most interesting supporting character in many of the comics.

I don't have a strong opinion on the question myself, but it's an interesting insight, and the author does have a point: It's good for the character to have a defining act of heroism like that. And the Rick Jones character has never been adapted to live action, so it'd bring a different dynamic to the show if he were included.

 

[Admiral_Young]

My interest in this has increased after reading the article posted by Pyscho Pere. I'll definitely be checking out the pilot when it airs.

 

[theenglish]

I'm interested in the take mentioned in Christopher's post. The thing the recent movies have left out is the Hulk's sense of morality. He is not just a raging monster. The recent Planet Hulk series showed that quite well, as did World War Hulk and the idea that no matter how angry Hulk was he couldn't bring himself to kill anyone.

 

[Christopher]

Just to avoid inadvertently starting a rumor, the comments I quoted about Rick Jones were not in relation to the TV adaptation, but were in the context of a post criticizing the movie adaptations. I was reminded of the comments and thought they were worth bringing up when I saw the update to this thread. As yet, we have no information on what characters might or might not be involved in the show.