The Superhero Thread

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Kinda fits the Captain Cold persona, IMO. He's a little.. stiff. I understand what you are saying about the overacting thing, but it wasn't a big issue with me. The show overall is kinda cheesy and in a weird way I think it works. Lol.

[butta54 371]

True True. It didn't ruin it for me or anything, just expected a different performance. I really do feel a little upset about the ending of the episodes. The fights are TOO anti-climatic

[butta54 371]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ1YhXHI3bs

Edited November 2, 2014 by butta55

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11195704/Idris-Elba-interview-Marvel-movies-are-torture.html

 

“Ironically, yesterday I had to…” Elba chuckles. He’s not meant to talk about this, but he clearly enjoys doing things he’s not meant to do. “I’m in Avengers,” he reveals. He means that his Thor character, deity-cum-sentry Heimdall, appears in Age of Ultron, the second instalment of the superhero ensemble franchise. “And I’m doing a scene with Chris Hemsworth [who plays Thor] and Tom Hiddleston [Loki], and they’re like, [whispers] – ‘Aren’t you [meant to be] in Ibiza?’ ” That bassy chuckle again, followed by a frown. Elba came straight to Ibiza party-time from a mythical Norse god/Marvel universe that has made billions at the global box office. His head is all over the place. “That’s why I was p----- about my set yesterday. I really just wasn’t there. I was annoyed.”

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I saw Elba, and I wanted that to be a Green Lantern story. You ruined my morning, Vin.

[Vin+ 3,121]

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

In other news, it looks like we may be seeing a Civil War with Spider Man (as we should). Looks like Sony is going to crack and agree to a deal.. Still early, obviously.

[butta54 371]

I have no doubt Sony is working on a deal because:

A) Spiderman reboot was a fail

B) They get paid and don't lose their property.

 

 

Just hope they recast him because I don't like Garfield or that take on Peter Parker.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think moving on from Garfield is a given at this point. He won't be back.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

It makes too much sense for Sony to make some sort of compromise that lets Spidey appear in the MCU and they still maintain rights. I just wonder if this Sinister Six and Venom movies that are supposed to be coming out in 2016 and 2017 are on the chopping block. Especially if Garfield is gone and they are ending the new rebooted universe.

But for shits and giggles, if Marvel can use Spidey, who would you want in the role? I really can't think of anyone right now.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

Also, Marvel being able to use Spidey may mean Norman Osborne and HAMMER coming to the MCU to replace SHIELD.

[butta54 371]

From what I can put together. Marvel and Sony are going to agree on an actor for Spiderman and he will have small parts in the Sinister Six and Venom movies as well as the Avengers movies.

Edited November 2, 2014 by butta55

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I have no idea either.. I actually like Garfield.. felt he had a bit of the nerd role filled, plus a lot of the sarcastic / funny / almost jerk-like attitude sometimes was really true to Peter Parker.

I don't even know who else....

[Milla4Prez63 678]

Where are you reading this? Not questioning you, just haven't seen much on the Sony/Marvel talks online.

[butta54 371]

I didn't read anything that exactly said that. I'm just putting together a guess from the few articles I read when the rumor first came out about a month ago.

 

I know it was reported that Sony wanted to put Spiderman in the Sinister Six movie like at the final fight scene and also a small part in Venom. Also it was reported that Sony doesn't want to bring back Garfield.

 

So putting it together there is no way Sony will let a different actor play in the MCU at the same time a different actor is in their movies.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

I was just wondering if there was any new articles out there about it. It's obvious that Sony needs help with Spidey, and they are probably willing to get Marvel/Disney involved but they still have enough power to hold out for a good deal. They could just bring back Garfield and release ASM3 and it would make a profit regardless of the film's quality. But I think they are getting a little over their heads with trying to expand their universe with Sinister Six, it's a movie that will probably be expensive to make and isn't a guarantee to bank in the box office. I think both sides will come to some sort of agreement where Spider-Man is rebooted within the MCU with new actors but the movies will still be produced by Sony/Columbia Pictures. It makes sense for both sides IMO.

FOX on the other hand, they are finally getting things right with X-Men and have no reason to even talk to Marvel. Which doesn't bother me, I don't like how the characters mesh together anyways. I'd prefer the X-Men to be in their own universe. Their Fantastic Four reboot is probably going to suck and bomb though, and I kind of hope they just hand the rights back over so Marvel can have Galactus.

[butta54 371]

See IMO no one is giving up their rights to anything because of how profitable the genre is. Like we said Sony is going to get a good deal in which they make money for lending the property and money for box office sales. I don't see Marvel letting anyone else produce their movies because they have a machine in place that is on a tight schedule.

 

Now with that being said realistically Sony should sell the property outright IMO because that is the only major property they have right? Spiderman has a deep and rich history...but the REAL money is in the eventual crossover movie with multiple big names. Without any major properties they can never have that type of movie and will spin their wheels with Spiderman.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Nah, they will make more money retaining the rights and selling them on a per movie basis. MUCH more than they would just selling the IP outright.

[butta54 371]

No that's what I said. I'm saying realistically Sony needs to sell it because they can't do anything with it.

 

They can gamble and try to milk Marvel over time, but Marvel doesn't have to use Spiderman past phase 3 and then Sony would be right back where they were.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ah, my bad, Sounds like you are saying they should just give the property back to marvel for a price...

 

I was just saying, from a Sony perspective, they will do a lot better keeping the property and loaning it out. Doesn't matter if Marvel wants to use it passed phase 3 or not... They can loan it out for a few films, make bank off Avengers or whatever... Then go back to making their own spidey films.

 

Even though many say The Amazing Spider Man 2 was disappointing, it still raked in 500 million bucks. It doesn't make sense for Sony to EVER fully give back or sell back Spider Man. EVER. Now, as a fan of the character and the MCU... Ya, I'd love Sony to give it up... but as a business person, it just won't.

As Milla alluded to... Sony is better off making shitty spidey films for eternity than to actually completely sell the rights back. Against, just from a business / $ perspective.

 

Just a misinterpretation on my part, I guess.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

You also have to remember Sony gets nothing but profit from the films they release. They recently made a deal with Disney giving them mostly everything else back. They are very limited on what they can do and make money on with Spider-Man, and the movies they are doing have the arrow pointing down. I'd be surprised if nothing happens there.

[butta54 371]

Yeah we are on the same page. When I said "realisticially" I meant looking at it from a fan perspective I think Sony should sell it back because they won't ever have enough to make a large successful universe.

 

I guess to that point I would maybe disagree that the best business decision is to keep rebooting Spider-man. If they could sell the IP for a ridiculous amount AND a promised a small piece of all profits from Marvel movies with Spider-man then I would say that is a better deal, because I can see a second reboot falling flat an no where near close to Amazing Spider-man.

Edited November 2, 2014 by butta55

[Milla4Prez63 678]

Anyways, I'm interested in seeing how many characters will partake in Civil War. I suspect it will be pretty small scale compared to the comics and will focus on mainly Steve vs. Tony and no other Avengers except maybe Hawkeye will show up. Black Panther is expected to debut, maybe we'll see Ant-Man? Idk, but I'm really curious to see the casting news for this very soon.

[butta54 371]

Yeah making Cap 3 into Civil War instead of Avengers 3 was interesting to me.

 

I thought infinity gauntlet arc would be Avengers 4.

 

I really do think this is the phase in which we will see all the main avengers popping up throughout the rest of the movies. I don't see how else they will fill a Civil War movie even if you get Spidey. That's him, Black Panther, Thor, Widow, Hawkeye, and Iron man that's it?

 

I think something will happen to the Hulk at the end of Avengers 2 like he is sent away or something.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

I just think we're going to see a main focus on Steve and Tony. I don't see it being an Avenger vs Avenger kind of thing. Too expensive to have all the actors there for a movie that is branded as a Captain America movie. I expect it to be very personal, but we'll probably see supporting characters like Hawkeye pop up. T'Challa will be there and I'm curious to see why he and Wakanda could be involved. But we saw Andy Serkis as Klaw in the AOU trailer, so maybe there will be something going on in Wakanda in that movie which will lead to BP getting involved with Civil War.