|
|
|
MikeS
|
If I recall my bronze age reading I think Kang is a relative of Dr. Doom so maybe that makes him an FF character and is controlled by Fox? I imagine back in the late 90s when Marvel was selling the film rights they just had some intern make up a list of characters that were included in the deal without any real thought put into it. |
|
|
|
|
derekwc
|
The article says it as well, but Rama Tut and it also made me think anyone in the Fantastic Four Classics line is off-limits. Still sucks though. In my mind, Kang is one of the number one Avengers villains. Typical Fox cock-block.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 05:49:42 pm by derekwc »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
fishmilkshake
Pants optional
Administrator
SDCC Anti-Monitor
QC: 733
 Offline
Base of Operations: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 22330
AFB Podcast's Ben
|
If I recall my bronze age reading I think Kang is a relative of Dr. Doom so maybe that makes him an FF character and is controlled by Fox?
That's right. Which of course rules out Immortus too. Yeah, I've wondered about Ronan. Clearly an FF villain yet shows up as the main bad guy in the GotG movie. I'm pretty sure characters like Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Black Panther are exempted because of long time ties to the Avengers.
Somehow I don't think being a mutant qualifies. Wanda is more Avenger than X-Man. If being a mutant were the criteria then Fox would be adding Namor to their film slate. We're pondering who fits into which camp, you have to wonder if there's a team of lawyers whose entire day is spent doing much the same thing? |
|
|
|
|
Gardner Grayle
|
All very true. But I believe that somewhere, someone, has a list of characters that FOX controls. Whether we ever see that list or not remains to be seen. And yeah, it's probably a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
fishmilkshake
Pants optional
Administrator
SDCC Anti-Monitor
QC: 733
Offline
Base of Operations: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 22330
AFB Podcast's Ben
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gardner Grayle
|
It does make sense. Starve FOX out of any other revenue streams. Make them rely on ticket sales.
It may even work with the FF. This sci-fi reboot is ill conceived at best. The X-Men could be another matter entirely. FOX will hold on like grim death.
I've found the X-Men flicks to be fairly enjoyable. Particularly the last one. I've often wanted to drop RFK Stadium on the White House.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kcekada
|
Fox just seems intent on making the franchises utterly unrecognizable as if to say "hahaha look what we are gonna do."
At least sony realized after their two unamazing spider-letdowns that it'd be a wiser move to partner up with marvel....fox had yet to pull their proverbial head from the sand.
That's because to date -- they haven't needed to. As long as their X-movies are making a profit, they can screw Disney and Marvel. |
|
|
|
|
|
kcekada
|
If I recall my bronze age reading I think Kang is a relative of Dr. Doom so maybe that makes him an FF character and is controlled by Fox?
That's right. Which of course rules out Immortus too. Damn! I was really hoping Marcus Immortus would show up in that Captain (Ms.) Marvel film.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
fishmilkshake
Pants optional
Administrator
SDCC Anti-Monitor
QC: 733
Offline
Base of Operations: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 22330
AFB Podcast's Ben
|
Kee-rist!!  |
|
|
|
|
derekwc
|
I think the original premise of "the rules" is flawed.
Honestly, there's some random list of characters out there. If it were truly based on 1st app. then Ronan, Black Panther and the Inhumans would be tied up.
Unless James Gunn's response leads to even more legal bs, b/c this the first time Fox paid attention to it's FF rights beyond Galactus and the Silver Surfer.
They can't use the Badoon? So strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fishmilkshake
Pants optional
Administrator
SDCC Anti-Monitor
QC: 733
Offline
Base of Operations: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 22330
AFB Podcast's Ben
|
I just assumed that if a licensor is past a certain point in the production process they could continue.
|
|
|
|
|
