Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Marvel Studios to Produce Its Own Movies 151

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-would-make-a-great-tony-stark dept.
Dekortage writes "According to the New York Times, Marvel Studios will be producing its own superhero movies instead of licensing the superheros to other Hollywood studios. It's all about the money: despite the enormous popularity of Sony Pictures' Spiderman 1 and 2, the licensing deal only netted Marvel $62 million. The article includes some tips about upcoming works: Edward Norton as Bruce Banner in a new Incredible Hulk, and Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark in Iron Man."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marvel Studios to Produce Its Own Movies More

Marvel Studios to Produce Its Own Movies

Comments Filter:

  • Snakes in the garden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by packetmon ( 977047 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:25PM (#19552193) Homepage
    How about Marvel do what's right for a change and pay the creators their fair dues [redherring.com].

    Stan Lee Media sued Marvel Entertainment for $5 billion Thursday, claiming it co-owns Marvel's superhero characters, including Spider-Man, X-Men, and the Incredible Hulk.

    The company is no longer owned by Stan Lee, the comic book legend who more recently hosted the TV series Who Wants to Be a Superhero? on the Sci-Fi Channel, which was produced by his latest company, Pow Entertainment.

    In the suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, Stan Lee Media seeks to assert rights to the revenue generated by its superheroes that Marvel Entertainment is profiting from.

    For Marvel to come out swinging at Hollywood on money rights is the pot calling the kettle black

    • Re:Snakes in the garden (Score:5, Informative)

      by doubleofive ( 982704 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:34PM (#19552399) Homepage
      The article you link to doesn't exactly prove your point. Stan Lee Media isn't owned by Stan Lee, they're using a loophole in an already existing contract to try to make money off of The Man's work.

      A Marvel spokesperson declined to comment but later issued a statement from Mr. Lee: "I do not support this action and believe the suit to be baseless." Mr. Lee currently serves as publisher emeritus of Marvel Comics. He and Pow Entertainment could not immediately be reached for comment. In January, he filed suit against Mr. Nesfield and two of his associates alleging they illegally took over his former company and infringed on his trademarks and copyrights.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Mr. Lee currently serves as publisher emeritus of Marvel Comics.

        Huh? Emeritus means retired. You can be a publisher emeritus, but "serving" as a publisher emeritus is like a serving ex-president.

    • Re:Snakes in the garden (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsanta74 ( 1003253 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:40PM (#19552513)
      > How about Marvel do what's right for a change and pay the creators their fair dues.

      How about NOT. Stan Lee was under the employ of Timely, now known as Marvel. Working for someone else is not like working for yourself. When you work for yourself, intellectual property rights and copyrights belong to you. That's the essence of creator owned properties. When you work for somebody else, work product becomes the property of your employer. It's the difference between writing homebrew game at home and designing one for EA. If you're on the clock it doesn't belong to you.

      Present day Marvel doesn't have this trouble so much since they make a clear distinction between company owned and creator owned. In fact, there's even a label for Marvel published, creator owned works.

      Just look back at your old Marvel comics. Go ahead. I'll still be here. ... ... ... ... Done? Good. Notice that there's a nice little copyright notice in the opening pages? Notice how it doesn't say anything about it being copyrighted to Stan Lee, but to Marvel instead? That's what I figured. Marvel has and continues to hold the rights to these properties, since day one.

      This is an entirely different issue than the Superman or Captain America cases, since those cases refer to works originating decades earlier. I'm not going to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if the copyright laws saw some revisions between the 1940s and 1960s.

      This is a case of Stan Lee's lawyers putting up the stink instead of him. Stan Lee was an EMPLOYEE. Show the man respect for the works he created, but aknowledge that he created them on company time.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Verszou ( 790017 )
        It's actually not the lawyers of Stan Lee, but the lawyers of his former business partners who are trying to make money out of it. Stan Lee's company is called POW!, while Stan Lee media is not owned by him. If you read his autobiography "Excelsior!" (and I'd recommend it to any fans of Marvel comics) he does not claim at any point to own any of the characters he created, which would also be unfair since part of the creation of many classic Marvel characters was done working with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Verszou ( 790017 )
          There's actually a minor error in what I wrote above, Dave Cockrum didn't create X-Men, Lee and Kirby did, but he invented the new team with members like Nightcrawler and so on - the X-Men we know from todays comics and movies. Nightcrawler for instance was originally created for another book, but Cockrum decided to use him when he had to do the first X-Men story.

          Another interesting case where a creator didn't get the recognition, financially and otherwise, that his work deserved was Bill Finger who the Bil

        • I'm in no way an expert on US copyright laws, but I would suspect that if Marvel felt obliged to pay any one creator who'd fallen on hard times for his works they might open themselves up to a number of lawsuits, so it makes business sense for them to stick to the original agreements with the creators.

          Not really. They couldn't just give him a bunch of money and said "Hey - we feel that we owe you this", but they could have hired him as a "Creative Consultant" or some such at whatever amount they wanted to.

      • Notice that there's a nice little copyright notice in the opening pages? Notice how it doesn't say anything about it being copyrighted to Stan Lee, but to Marvel instead? That's what I figured. Marvel has and continues to hold the rights to these properties, since day one.

        Oh DO shut the fuck up. [popcultureaddict.com]

        Okay. So how did they lose the rights to Superman in the first place?

        Neal: Well they just signed a piece of paper.

        Sam: That's all it took? Well why would DC Comics screw them out of that?

        Neal: Well DC didn't screw them. There was no entity such as DC Comics at the time. There was an accountant who was one of three partners who ran a printing company who was printing comic books as a way to keep their presses moving and that was all they were really interested in doing. Of course it

      • Re:Snakes in the garden (Score:4, Insightful)

        by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @04:06PM (#19555961) Journal
        Not to be redundant, but I think your point is that when a company hires someone for a creative job, they're gambling. They're paying that person a wage, presuming that the creative output of that person will bring them more revenues than his/her cost.

        It's certainly hypocritical for that creative person then to come back later, after they've been successful, and demand more money. The company has absorbed the losses for all the failures, and should keep the benefits of the successes.

        • It's certainly hypocritical for that creative person then to come back later, after they've been successful, and demand more money. The company has absorbed the losses for all the failures, and should keep the benefits of the successes.
          No more raises, lifelong minimum wage for everyone!

  • This has happened before (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And we all know how well that worked with Capcom and the Street Fighter II movie.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by superpulpsicle ( 533373 )
      I want War machine and Iron man with the proton canon versus 100000 sentinels. I'll pay good money to see it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bman08 ( 239376 )
        Yes but if you want to see how it all turns out you're also going to have to lay down good money for a ticket to Power Pack.

  • Actors? (Score:3, Funny)

    by otacon ( 445694 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:26PM (#19552207)
    Edward Norton as Bruce Banner sounds kinda cool actually...but RDJ as Iron Man, I don't think Iron Man will be portrayed well hung over.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by joeldg ( 518249 )
      On RDJ
      just think: "less than zero"
      and then the long list of stints in rehab and on the covers of rags in grocery stores in cuffs..
      yea, think he might do okay...

    • Re:Actors? (Score:5, Informative)

      by msuzio ( 3104 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:30PM (#19552295) Homepage
      On the contrary, Tony Stark has been portrayed as a recovering alcoholic in the comics for decades now. If anything, RDJ wins extra points for knowing how to get in touch with the character ;-)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by otacon ( 445694 )
        touché, my friend, touché

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ajs ( 35943 )
        In interviews (I read this on AICN at one point), the director has said that RDJ was chosen specifically for this reason. There's some strong alcoholism-related character development in the movie, and Downy was chosen because he could give an authentic portrayal of the problems that Stark faces on the more realistic front, grounding the fantastic side of the movie.

        • Re:Actors? (Score:4, Funny)

          by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @01:51PM (#19553663)
          It was the never-ending alcoholism story that drove me to quit Iron man forever.
          The idea of my "hero" crawling around puking and suffering DT's just didn't float my boat.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Scrameustache ( 459504 )

            It was the never-ending alcoholism story that drove me to quit Iron man forever.
            The idea of my "hero" crawling around puking and suffering DT's just didn't float my boat.
            Man, it's frikkin' James Bond in a powersuit, they gotta have something to spice things up.
            Is there a fine for drunk powersuiting? Sounds unsafe.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by msuzio ( 3104 )
            I wouldn't bother reading Transmetropolitan [transmetropolitan.com] then

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ucklak ( 755284 )
      Isn't Iron Man (Tony Stark) hung over anyway?
      RDJ seems fitting.
    • Are you kidding? Who better than a man with a substance-abuse problem to play Tony Stark?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Planesdragon ( 210349 )

      Edward Norton as Bruce Banner sounds kinda cool actually...but RDJ as Iron Man, I don't think Iron Man will be portrayed well hung over.
      You don't know Iron Man very well, then.

    • Re:Actors? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:35PM (#19552407)
      RDJ is a very good actor. I'm sure he can use those method acting skills to convincingly portray a man who has problems getting over a substance abuse problem.

      ---
      And all I'm trying to say, is: Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you. / I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school, He was terrible in that film. / I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part, He's way better than Ben Affleck.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 2.7182 ( 819680 )
      Actually, I think they did that on purpose. Tony Stark became an alcoholic in issue 100+something of the original series. And he's always supposed to have been a playboy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by spellraiser ( 764337 )

      Edward Norton as Bruce Banner sounds kinda cool actually...but RDJ as Iron Man, I don't think Iron Man will be portrayed well hung over.

      On the other hand, if they got Rocco Siffredi for Iron Man, at least he would be portrayed well hung ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by monopole ( 44023 )
      Johnny Depp as Iron Man!! Set during the Stark Drunk as a skunk period!

  • oh great... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:26PM (#19552215) Homepage
    having flashbacks of "wing commander" .. which is the result of what happens when a "game designer" decides to get into the business of making movies about his own stuff..

    though, I guess that Marvel has enough money to make it 'look' exciting at any rate.

    Still think they should leave the movie making to the pro's...

    • Re:oh great... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bender0x7D1 ( 536254 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:43PM (#19552543)

      I think this could work quite well if, (and that may be a big IF), Marvel sticks to its strengths and brings in Hollywood talent to do the rest.

      For example, if they have the artists and writers for the comic books create the storyboards for the movie, and have a good director actually use that as a base for the actual movie, they could create something pretty good.

      The comic writers don't understand the difficulties of working with different camera angles or special effects, but the directors do. Of course, the directors probably don't understand the characters and would have a hard time getting the "comic book feel" right. Together, they could do both, which would make one hell of a movie. Maybe an iterative approach to the movie/story like they do at Pixar would work. Marvel puts together some storyboards, the directors go over them talking about what can be done, and what doesn't work technically and cinematically, and Marvel updates things. Repeat until both sides are happy. Schedule a blockbuster release date and collect your money.

      • Re:oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Snowgen ( 586732 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @01:51PM (#19553659) Homepage

        I think this could work quite well if, (and that may be a big IF), Marvel sticks to its strengths and brings in Hollywood talent to do the rest.

        There's a mighty thin line between "Hollywood" and "Marvel". Marvel's current comic writers include J. Michael Straczynski [wikipedia.org] of Babylon 5 fame and Josh Whedon [wikipedia.org] of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly/Serenity fame. I think both of these "comic writers" know a thing or two about writing and producing for the screen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )
      Hey! I Liked Wing Commander!

      -Rick
    • Still think they should leave the movie making to the pro's...

      And a great beam of light shone upon the low lying clouds and within it's beam was a dark symbol, a black silhouette of a steaming pile of dog crap... for this was the twat symbol calling forth for... Uew Boll !!

  • Why take on the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:30PM (#19552299)
    Why not just make better licensing deals?

    • Re:Why take on the risk? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:37PM (#19552447)
      It's becoming apparent that there's a lot of money to be made off selling super hero movies when they are done right. The problem is, is that it's not proven as to whether or not Marvel can do it right. What they did was license the characters to the movie studio and got a $62 Million cheque. That's a pretty good sum of money for signing a piece of paper for the license rights, and not actually having to do any work. Making a good movie is not all that easy. Comics don't always lend themselves to a easy movie script.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SurturZ ( 54334 )
        Perhaps this is about Marvel shifting its core business? Does anyone *start* reading comics nowadays, or is the comic book market an aging one?

    • Re:Why take on the risk? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:46PM (#19552605)
      Because other quality producers won't work for the better licensing terms.

      And when you get down to only unproven or shakey characters willing to sign on to your blockbuster, it's a far riskier proposition -- particularly when crap movies have the very real ability to damage your franchise.
      So why not just pick up a fairly competent producer or two and make your own studio?

      Marvel wanted a better deal and they did just about the only thing they could to get it.
    • They obviously don't believe they have the required business acumen to negotiate better licensing deals (and the evidence is there to prove them right; several licensing deals on which they pretty much gave away the cow AND the milk...) On the other hand, they've never failed at running an entire movie production studio before, so what do they have to lose?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpapet ( 761907 )
      What risk?
      1. media conglomerate buys script/concept for pennies.
      2. The typical studio gets others to foot the production bill. (financing)
      3. The studio outsources the actual movie production. (producer)
      4. Go/no-go decision is the media conglomerates alone.
      5. Media conglomerate promotes/distributes movie and the charges are paid by the film owners.

      And what happens if the studio doesn't like the final package? Financers are SOL.

      No one really cares about the monopoly on media distribution though, so whatever.

    • Because of Hollywood Accounting (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @01:06PM (#19552895) Journal
      Basically because of Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org].

      In a nutshell, they calculate a shitload of costs (and often actually give that money to their daughter companies and such) as percentages of the income. E.g., marketting for the movie might be calculated as, say, 25% of the income, so even if your film sells a billion copies, that expense just increases accordingly. Often to the point where the movie _will_ look like it made them a loss, even if it became the greatest success of all time and sold a billion copies.

      And since there is no time when you can say "ok, it's over", you can't even really call the bluff. There is no date when you can say "ok, it's over, let's divide the loot." There's always the DVD version, the Blue Ray version, the remastered edition, the "han shot third" edition, etc, so they can just say they earmarked those funds for marketting those. So, see, it's still not a profit, it's money your movie cost them.

      It's not a joke, such movies as Forrest Gump or the LOTR movies, according to Hollywood, actually made a loss. Mind-boggling as that sounds.

      _Why_ they do it, is so they can shaft you on royalties. Any contract where they promise you x% of the profit, is almost guaranteed to be x% of zero, since they'll massage it into looking like it made a loss.

      Frankly, Marvel already made a damn good deal if they made anything at all.

      Which also tells you why they'd rather take the risks. Because it beats getting shafted. Someone probably woke up to the reality that they got shafted again, and trying to get a better contract is like tilting at the windmills. So they're trying to avoid Hollywood, if they can.

      Wouldn't even be the only one. The author of Forrest Gump, IIRC, also refused to sell them the rights to the sequel, after being shafted on the first (and thus only) movie. Since they said the first one made them a loss, he said something like that he can't in good conscience let any more money be wasted on a failure.

      Marvel, on the other hand, obviously doesn't want to just give up on movies completely, like that guy did. So they're trying to do it themselves.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MrNiceguy_KS ( 800771 )
        Having read "Gump and Co.", I'd say we didn't miss much. I thought it was clearly an attempt to cash in on the success of the movie. And later, having read "Forrest Gump", I gained a full understanding of why "Gump and Co." was so bad. It was because the scriptwriters for "Forrest Gump" took a mediocre book about an interesting idea for a character, and turned it into an incredibly good movie, but nobody took "Gump and Co." and turned it into something tolerable.

        "Forrest Gump" is on my short list of bo

        • 1. I'm sorry, but that's still no excuse for fraud and deceit. If you think someone's ideas or books are crap, then just offer less for them in the first place. Hiding money via generous transfers to daughter companies and bogus overhead rates, isn't the honest solution any way you want to slice it.

          I mean, picture I offer you a generous 20% royalties if you let me make a movie based on your novel. Then somehow the movie actually does surprisingly well, but I come and say, "oh, sorry, we actually made a loss

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by MrNiceguy_KS ( 800771 )
            Geez... I'm really sorry if my post came off as defending Hollywood accounting, because that's the last thing I intended. Wow, I feel like I need a shower just thinking about it. As bad as Forrest Gump (the book) was, I feel that Winston Groom should have been fairly paid out of the profits from the movie. Just like Peter Jackson should have been fairly paid for LOTR.

            Actually, now that I think about it, if Groom would have gotten a fair share from the Gump movie, maybe he wouldn't have written Gump

            • "And if anyone thinks I'm exaggerating how bad that book was, here's a short spoiler: Forrest joins the space program and ends up captured by cannibals. He has to keep beating their chief in chess so they won't eat him. If you still want to read it, go ahead. You've been warned."

              Please, dear God, tell me that is a joke. Please. I never read the first one, so I don't know how bad -that- is, but please tell me the 2nd book is not as you described.

        • "Forrest Gump" is on my short list of book-movie translations where movie>book. The other two on my list are Last of the Mohicans and Fight Club.
          You can add the Godfather to that. The book was pretty average.
      • That's also a good way to avoid taxes. Since revenue isn't taxed they can just roll the money back into the company and claim it as an "expense".
    • Agreed, seems more logical not negotiate for a few points of the gross rather than risk the substantial up front cost of making the movie themselves. If a couple of movies tank Marvel will be in serious diffs. Also they are going to have to hire some very creative accountants. The movie studios are notorious for their bookkeeping practices, which contributes substantially to their profits.

  • Well of course (Score:4, Funny)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:30PM (#19552311)
    I mean certified accounting shows both spider man I & II barely broke even. /wag

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by delt0r ( 999393 )
      Yea, first theres all the Sony Sound Stuido(TM) Fees, followed by the high cost of Sony Cameras and of course the editiong and mastering with the Sony Edtition Station Pro(TM). There was the hugh cost of Marketing from Sony Marketing and then there was all these licence fees for Blu-Ray mastering and DVD mastering (A Sony subsidary company). We havn't even talked about the cost of film (Sony Colour Tech) or film duplication (Sony Film Distrabution) and don't get me started on the Sony Legal deparment overhe

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by OldeTimeGeek ( 725417 )
        Yes, we all know that shady accounting is a Sony invention. These techniques were never practiced at MGM, Universal, Fox, Paramount, RKO or Warner Brothers.

        Sony rants are popular with the Slashdot crowd, but zero-profit movies have been the practice in Hollywood for a long, long time.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by delt0r ( 999393 )
          I have nothing agaist sony and find some sony products good value for money compared to the competion. It was just the example at hand. Although I did forget the DVD/BluRay rootkit devlopment overheads. ;)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khaed ( 544779 )
          'cept your anger about Sony rants is misplaced: Sony is the company that Marvel worked with on the Spider-Man movies. Thus, they're the appropriate company to bitch about in this case. ;)
  • I thought there was some new news from Marvel.
    Like me and my comix geek buddies we were saying a few weeks ago: that Ironman suit looks pretty good!

  • Could it be possible to make superhero films WORSE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:32PM (#19552351)
    Before everyone cheers this notion, may I remind every of Marvel's *TERRIBLE* track record of creative endeavors where they "went it alone," and the resulting mess of legal entanglements that seem to follow them like the plague. It's easy to think of the Marvel movie franchise as this great thing, but before the modern incarnations of the X-men and Spiderman (produced through studio partnerships)--Marvel had a LONG and notorious history of bad films (anyone remember the 70's and 90's "Captain America" movies? The bad TV-series? The Roger Corman version of Fantastic Four?).

    Marvel should stick with comic books. Making movies is a completely different endeavor--best left to the pros and not done "on the cheap" (as Marvel will likely try to do).

  • I'm dubious. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DwarfGoanna ( 447841 ) on Monday June 18, 2007 @12:32PM (#19552355)
    1) My first reaction was that this was a good thing. One of the reasons Spider-Man is roundly regarded as the best of these movies is because it stays reasonably close to the source material. I just saw the new Fantastic Four movie and was left with the impression that they didn't grok the fundamentals of the series at all (Most notably in the abso-fuckin-lutely retarded "reimagining" of Dr Doom, one of Marvel's strongest characters ever...anyway).


    2) But then I realized that it was Marvel's insistence on including Venom that ruined the last Spider-Man. The first two probably came out so well because Raimi himself was a fan, and probably understood the heart of the characters better than whatever goons are currently running Marvel.


    3) Then I realized just how long it's been since I bought a new Marvel Comic (decades) versus how often I read old Marvel comics (weekly).


    4) Crap.

    • One of the reasons Spider-Man is roundly regarded as the best of these movies is because it stays reasonably close to the source material. I just saw the new Fantastic Four movie and was left with the impression that they didn't grok the fundamentals of the series at all...

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the original Invisible woman actually have ANY personality outside her role of useless housewife stereotype? All I could see about her in the original cartoons was something like "Oh, Reed, what's going to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )
      I'd say it was Raimi's insistence on making a movie about Sandman, one of the sorriest characters in comics who is a good guy most of the time anyway, that was a bigger problem than including Venom. If Raimi knew anything about Spiderman then the first thing he'd realize is that half of Spidey fans consider Venom to be by far the coolest member of his rogues gallery. Raimi doesn't like Venom and blew him off as a character completely, which is 20% of the reason Spiderman 3 is a travesty. The other 80% are f

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by laffer1 ( 701823 )
        Read the damn reprints. Venom didn't exist that early in Peter's life. The movies are already skipping a lot of good character development as it is. Venom is one of my favorite characters, but there was so many interesting things in the early Spider-man comics. Sadly, it should have been the sandman and the vulture.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sciros ( 986030 )
          Why be such a stickler for Spidey's timeline? The movies didn't follow it to begin with. Goblin kidnapped Gwen Stacy, not Mary Jane. And in the comics Spidey got the symbiote during the Secret Wars. So, yeah, how are the reprints relevant again?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Himring ( 646324 )
      1) My first reaction was that this was a good thing. One of the reasons Spider-Man is roundly regarded as the best of these movies is because it stays reasonably close to the source material.

      Reasonably close? The fact that Spiderman's ingenious web shooters were totally absent, and he instead shot web ... out of his wrists! elude you? That, alone, for any self-acclaimed Spiderman fan should have been enough to trounce any thought that it was pure and true to the source. Even Stan Lee commented on this

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edwdig ( 47888 )
        The fact that Spiderman's ingenious web shooters were totally absent, and he instead shot web ... out of his wrists! elude you? That, alone, for any self-acclaimed Spiderman fan should have been enough to trounce any thought that it was pure and true to the source. Even Stan Lee commented on this part with regret.

        The comments I saw after the first movie came out had Stan Lee agreeing with that change. He thought it would've taken up too much screen time to have him invent the web shooters.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Himring ( 646324 )
          That's entirely opposed to both the comic book story as well as an interview I saw with Lee where he lamented the change.
    • But wow, this turned into GeekTown super fast. Probably faster than a speeding bullet.

      This is pointed at the parent's other repliers, btw, not the parent.

      No, I am not a comic book guy, but talking about Sandman's good/evil ratio, when Venom showed up, and if the first bad guy was actually the Goblin dude? Yikes. Or even that whole wrist/equipment web shooter thing? Didn't that go away like 5 years ago? Double yikes. Have I missed the convo where we argue about Scooby Doo's breed, yet?

  • Scarlet Witch (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't really care who owes who but would be nice if they were to have Wanda the Scarlet Witch as in 1960's. Her costume like a Playboy bunny outfit, big hair, heavy makeup, long gloves, go-go boots,...
    • Sounds like someone needs to buy his girlfriend a Scarlet Witch outfit....
  • Marvel Studios will be producing its own superhero movies instead of licensing the superheros to other Hollywood studios. It's all about the money

    Desilu in it's prime had I Love Lucy and its successors, innovative series like The Untouchables, Mission: Impossible and Star Trek to its credit. But, in the end, it was too small and too fragile to survive as an independent studio.

    Disney has a 75 year back list of marketable films, plus revenue streams from cable and broadcast TV, music sales, theme parks, st

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Disney has a 75 year back list of marketable films, plus revenue streams from cable and broadcast TV, music sales, theme parks, stage productions, publishing, product licensing, etc., etc.

      Yet how many times has a string of failures like Treasure Planet brought the studio to edge of bankruptcy?

      Not ever?

      Disney in the '80s was on the rocks, sure, and the Disney of the '90s was racking up the animated successes at the box office, but a relative flop like Treasure Planet is something a company like Disney can ea

      • but a relative flop like Treasure Planet is something a company like Disney can easily shrug off. The modern Disney is a highly diversified company

        which makes my point. Disney has resources that Marvel does not.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ant P. ( 974313 )
      I disagree, this is a great idea.

      With the extra profits they'll make, there's slightly less incentive for them to dilute one-half part content with three parts movie like they've done for the past 5 years or so.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Marvel and DC both almost went belly up after the great Comic book crash.
      I had a friend that owned a comic store back then. He got out just before the crash, lucky guy.
      In case you don't remember people where buying three and four copies of everything. Comics where for investment and not for reading back then. I wonder how many copies of the Death of Superman or Spiderman's wedding where published. When the bottom fell out both Marvel and DC almost went belly up.
      I hope them well.
  • Somehow I don't feel too sorry for Marvel -- first they profited from the comics and all their iterations, then without too much of their own effort, they get another huge payday, enough to fund their own movie production using a healthy chunk of the movie profits -- from works that were already paid for by comic book purchaser's $ years and years ago.


    How many publishing companies of other more serious works would LIKE to be so lucky?

  • But this wasn't it. For the last year or so Marvel has been releasing some dumb-ass DVDs of "The Avengers" that really suck balls. I've seen them on Cartoon Network. Once was enough, thank you.

    Here's the guts of the article detailing the incredible risk they are taking:

    "What they've done is take themselves from a niche licensing company and have really knocked the cover off the ball as far as execution where the stock is concerned," said Brad Ruderman, of Ruderman Capital Partners. "If they can make app

  • If its taken seriously and decent directors, writers and producers can be found keeping the Marvel characters inhouse opens up possibilities that would exist otherwise. Movies about teams like the Avengers, Inhumans or Defenders simply couldnt be done due to licensing issues. Now by having the characters all in house Captain America, Iron Man, Thor and Hulk in the same movie is at least a possiblity.

    I noticed alot of posts regarding the integrity of the films suffering if it was all in-house, but history
  • Didn't Marvel already say they were going to do this? I could've sworn they did...

    As for Edward Norton as Bruce Banner: I am Jack's trepidation.

  • the licensing deal only netted Marvel $62 million

    Oh boo hoo! They took virtually no financial risk, and they got a $62 million payday out of it? And what, we're supposed to feel sorry for the giant corporation?

  • the licensing deal only netted Marvel $62 million.

    Are you trying to imply that 62 MILLION dollars is not enough for a single SIGNATURE at the base of a contract ?!? Now at least they will have to do some work...

    Superzeros suck anyways, don't you americans have any other form of comic book ? You know, like something the reader can identify with, with real stories and some brain instead of shiny muscles ? I mean, for one genius Hard Boiled or Sin City, you get 2000 garbage super/spider/whateverman comics t

  • Only? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jon-1 ( 470969 )
    Only 62 million? For how much work? Talk about wanting the entire pie.
  • Generally, sequals do not get better. And the first one was pretty darn bad. It was almost as bad as "Zombie Lake" - look up that winner on IMDB.

    But to each his own.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close