|OT| The official Marvel Cinematic Universe thread!

[ISee]

I could imagine they are going to build their own spidyverse and go from where far from home left us. With blackjack and venom instead of marvel.
Maybe go down Netflix style. Acknowledged and hint that there is more going on, without really saying anything.

But than again, Spiderman and ironman are entwined. One universe doesn't work without the other anymore.

But another reboot would be meh.

It's a mess. I also hope this isn't the end of them talking to each other.

 

[Samson]

Does anyone know exactly what the terms for the Sony-Marvel Spidey rights are anyways? What triggers the rights returning to Marvel? If they don't make an explicitly Spidey movie starring a Peter Parker character?

Or can they use any related characters like Jessica Drew or Miguel O'Hara that use a "Spider" moniker to retain the rights?

It's not about being a benevolent benefactor, it's about Kevin Feige producing the last Spider-man film and making it the biggest success in Sony Pictures history. I find it perfectly logical for Marvel Studios to ask for a better deal after that. Yes, 50% might be too much but the article indicates that Sony didn't even try to negotiate. They wanted the original deal which is laughably bad for Disney (5%). Besides, Disney offered to co-finance the films and therefore assume a significant part of the risk.

Also just in the interest of correcting misinformation, this seems overblown, and one-sided. That wasresumably leaked by a Disney-side/related source to make them look better in the initial reports, when the truth is probably way more complicated.

Original claim in the Deadline article:

Sony turned that offer down flat, and I don’t believe they even came back to the table to figure out a compromise.

Which was changed now to :

Sources said that Sony, led by Tom Rothmana nd Tony Vinciquerra, came back with other configurations, but Disney didn’t want to do that.

 

[ISee]

Is this true?

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Is this true?

Isn't the work goes into public domain several decades after the creator's death? Tolkien's still hold LOTR by the balls.

 

[ISee]

Isn't the work goes into public domain several decades after the creator's death? Tolkien's still hold LOTR by the balls.

That's why I'm asking.

What works have expired into the public domain?

• All works published in the U.S. before 1923
• All works published with a copyright notice from 1923 through 1963 without copyright renewal
• All works published without a copyright notice from 1923 through 1977
• All works published without a copyright notice from 1978 through March 1, 1989, and without subsequent registration within 5 years

Congress has passed a series of laws extending the term of copyright. Currently, the default term is life of the author plus 70 years. That means that most of the copyrighted works created from the late 1970s to the present may not become public domain during your lifetime.

In general, works published after 1977 will not fall into the public domain until 70 years after the death of author, or, for corporate works, anonymous works, or works for hire, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.

It's easy to imagine that she is hinting at the copyright renewal and subsequent registrations thing. Mickey Mouse and co arrived in the late 1920s. Maybe Disney worked hard to make sure that Donald and Mickey never entered public domain and advocated to the U.S. congress at some point in time.

Spiderman was created before 1977, so no idea.... Maybe all Sony has to do is renew the copyright every five years. Just as Disney with Mickey or the Tolkin family with LOTR.

 

[lashman]

Is this true?

yes

How Mickey Mouse Keeps Changing Copyright Law | Art Business Journal

Any new artistic work has copyright protection that can sometimes last for over a century, all because of a cute little mouse named Mickey.

alj.artrepreneur.com

 

[Samson]

Isn't the work goes into public domain several decades after the creator's death? Tolkien's still hold LOTR by the balls.

Mickey (as the most common example) should have been public domain twenty years ago.

The only reason public domain for these characters keep getting pushed back is Disney (and other mega-corps) lobbying for extensions every time the expiration is near.

January 2019 should have been the expiration for Spidey, but they got it extended again. As far as I understand it, copyright from the early 1900s through the late 70s was 28 years, plus one single 28 year extension, for a total of 56 years.

Doing the math, Spidey first appeared in Amazing Fantasy's August 1962 issue. 1962 + 56 = 2018. You enter public domain the next calendar year, boom 2019 should have been a public domain entrance for Spidey.

edit: the extensions were added in the late 70s and 90s gave everything 95 year terms, or life of the author plus 70.

edit2: Mickey is supposed to expire in 2024 or 25 I think, which means we're almost certainly going to get another extension. Which means we will almost certainly never see any of these characters in the public domain during our lifetimes.

 

[ISee]

yes

How Mickey Mouse Keeps Changing Copyright Law | Art Business Journal

Any new artistic work has copyright protection that can sometimes last for over a century, all because of a cute little mouse named Mickey.

alj.artrepreneur.com

Mickey (as the most common example) should have been public domain twenty years ago.

The only reason public domain for these characters keep getting pushed back is Disney (and other mega-corps) lobbying for extensions every time the expiration is near.

January 2019 should have been the expiration for Spidey, but they got it extended again. As far as I understand it, copyright from the early 1900s through the late 70s was 28 years, plus one single 28 year extension, for a total of 56 years.

Doing the math, Spidey first appeared in Amazing Fantasy's August 1962 issue. 1962 + 56 = 2018. You enter public domain the next calendar year, boom 2019 should have been a public domain entrance for Spidey.

edit: the extensions were added in the late 70s and 90s gave everything 95 year terms, or life of the author plus 70.

edit2: Mickey is supposed to expire in 2024 or 25 I think, which means we're almost certainly going to get another extension. Which means we will almost certainly never see any of these characters in the public domain during our lifetimes.

I see.

Thanks

 

[prudis]

some rumours with D23 going on

 

[prudis]

and lot of real news

 

[prudis]

 

[Alexandros]

Man, I remember Black Knight from some very old comics that I had read. I can't wait to see the MCU interpretation! I am disappointed however that nothing regarding Namor was announced.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Ah, Madden and Harrington being in the same film is an overdose of british woodeness, well, Dick can speak with his thick ass Scottish accent, it'll make it more tolerable (MUM).

 

[Alexandros]

The shows I'm most interested in right now are Falcon and WS, Wandavision and Moon Knight. Falcon and Winter Soldier because these two had great chemistry in Civil War, Wandavision because it sounds completely crazy and Moon Knight because I read some things about the characters and he sounds fascinating.

 

[Le Pertti]

So when is the next MCU mainline movie? I need my MCU fix!

 

[Alexandros]

So when is the next MCU mainline movie? I need my MCU fix!

That would be Black Widow, May 1st 2020. Here's the rest:

Your Full List of All Upcoming Marvel Movies — With Key Details!

San Diego Comic-Con 2024 revealed a whole lot of new info, and we break it all down.

editorial.rottentomatoes.com

It's a pretty big gap from Far From Home to Black Widow. Thankfully with the various series for Disney+ we'll never have such a big gap again.

 

[Le Pertti]

Yeah that's a huge gap!

 

[Alexandros]

Yeah that's a huge gap!

My guess is that Feige thought audiences would need a breather after Endgame. Far From Home was the epilogue of the entire Infinity Saga, this gap is probably intended to give people a bit of rest before the next big phase begins.

 

[Le Pertti]

My guess is that Feige thought audiences would need a breather after Endgame. Far From Home was the epilogue of the entire Infinity Saga, this gap is probably intended to give people a bit of rest before the next big phase begins.

Yeah you are probably right, the gap is probably needed since going forward they are going to try and build something new.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Is Black Widow a part of Phase Four or a prequel to Infinity Saga? I'm a bit confused, Eternals is most likely what's going to kick off a new Phase.

 

[Alexandros]

Is Black Widow a part of Phase Four or a prequel to Infinity Saga? I'm a bit confused, Eternals is most likely what's going to kick off a new Phase.

It belongs to Phase 4 but it is a prequel. Eternals will likely be the same way since it is rumored to take place at least partly thousands of years ago. I think that both films will contain sequences that will push the timeline forward after Far From Home but Shang-Chi will most likely be the first Phase 4 film to take place enttirely in the MCU's post-Endgame timeline.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

It belongs to Phase 4 but it is a prequel.

Hm, so, they're going to rescue old timeline Gamorra and Natasha? Not that I didn't expect this development since nobody said that they're dead for good, but it would slightly cheapen the impact of IW/Endgame, so I hope they aren't taken this route.

 

[Alexandros]

Hm, so, they're going to rescue old timeline Gamorra and Natasha? Not that I didn't expect this development since nobody said that they're dead for good, but it would slightly cheapen the impact of IW/Endgame, so I hope they aren't taken this route.

I think Natasha is dead for good, no time travel shenanigans to bring her back. Black Widow will probably work as a bridge between her and her successor (Yelena Belova). 2014 Gamora and 2012 Loki, yeah I am sure that those two characters will be around. I agree that it would have been best to let them rest in peace and just move on. Hopefully they'll handle these characters in such a way that makes clear they are not the same as their main timeline counterparts.

 

[prudis]

2012 Loki is what his show is about iirc

 

[Alexandros]

2012 Loki is what his show is about iirc

It is, yeah.
Wandavision poster:

 

[Firewithin]

i like the very subtle shadows in the background

 

[prudis]

Eternals panel

some ign D23 interviews

 

[Alexandros]

Good news, everyone!

Spider-Man Will Stay in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

After briefly breaking up, Sony Pictures and Marvel have found a way to get back in the Spider-Man business together.

variety.com

 

[Spamlynguist]

Spider-Man Will Stay in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

After briefly breaking up, Sony Pictures and Marvel have found a way to get back in the Spider-Man business together.

variety.com

EDIT: Well, looks like you beat me to the punch

 

[Firewithin]

Good news, everyone!

Spider-Man Will Stay in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

After briefly breaking up, Sony Pictures and Marvel have found a way to get back in the Spider-Man business together.

variety.com

 

[Trisolarian]

Well, the case of some money vs no money. Outcome was probably inevitable.

Would've like to see Spiderman vs venom.

 

[prudis]

Would've like to see Spiderman vs venom.

You will, looking at the "cross cinematic universes" comment

 

[Trisolarian]

You will, looking at the "cross cinematic universes" comment

No explicit confirmation but we'll see. Could be a win win. I'll confess, I had forgotten that I took the gf to see Far from home earlier this month lol. It's was that bland.

 

[gabbo]

No explicit confirmation but we'll see. Could be a win win. I'll confess, I had forgotten that I took the gf to see Far from home earlier this month lol. It's was that bland.

I mean,they're not going to drop news like that in a press release confirming his MCU appearances are safe. That would get its own release, even if it Venom and Spidey arent a lot like their comic equivalents at this point

 

[Rosenkrantz]

I swear some people on the other forum hate MCU so much they're losing reading comprehension in the threads about it.

 

[Alexandros]

I swear some people on the other forum hate MCU so much they're losing reading comprehension in the threads about it.

It's going to be a rough next twenty years for them then! With four MCU films in theaters each year plus the TV series they will have to read about the MCU all year long. It's going to be hilarious.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

It's going to be a rough next twenty years for them then! With four MCU films in theaters each year plus the TV series they will have to read about the MCU all year long. It's going to be hilarious.

I mean, people have every right to dislike MCU, no harm done. Making it a point of your superiority, however, is pretty fucking dumb. Just because you watch Wenders or Herzog or Farhadi doesn't make you a special being compared to "mindless masses".

This mentality is a real life version of "liberal arts student" memes.

 

[Alexandros]

I mean, people have every right to dislike MCU, no harm done. Making it a point of your superiority, however, is pretty fucking dumb. Just because you watch Wenders or Herzog or Farhadi doesn't make you a special being compared to "mindless masses".

This mentality is a real life version of "liberal arts student" memes.

Indeed. We live in the age of the hot take anyway so this sort of shitty behavior is actively encouraged.

 

[Trisolarian]

I swear some people on the other forum hate MCU so much they're losing reading comprehension in the threads about it.

And the MCUs most rabid defenders showed their entire ass by jumping directly to disgusting amounts of ageism. The art you consume doesn't make you smarter or "more woke" or "hip" or whatever.

Seriously, the defensivieness is off the fucking charts. Who cares if someone doesn't like your world dominating pop culture movie series backed by the most powerful entertainment mega corporation in the history of the world. Are they stopping you from seeing it? No. Should you feel guiltily for liking them as mostly brainless and sterile pop corn flicks that happen to be pretty entertaining? No, unless you're compensating for something.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

And the MCUs most rabid defenders showed their entire ass by jumping directly to disgusting amounts of ageism. The art you consume doesn't make you smarter or "more woke" or "hip" or whatever.

Age arguments certainly don't help, but gatekeeping does happen, people look at the words of Coppola or Scorcese as some kind of validation to troll MCU fans (bonus points to dudes with MHA and SW avatars, lol).

I have no problem with people not liking something I do, hell, I really dislike a lot of popular shit myself (BR2049, Oshii's GitS, The Godfather), but you won't see me stalking related threads to troll the living hell out of people (well, not these days anyway).

 

[Trisolarian]

Age arguments certainly don't help, but gatekeeping does happen, people look at the words of Coppola or Scorcese as some kind of validation to troll MCU fans (bonus points to dudes with MHA and SW avatars, lol).

I have no problem with people not liking something I do, hell, I really dislike a lot of popular shit myself (BR2049, Oshii's GitS, The Godfather), but you won't see me stalking related threads to troll the living hell out of people (well, not these days anyway).

I'm not really onboard with the term "gatekeeping" and MCU. These films are impossible to gatekeep. It would be like trying to gate keep star wars. By the sheer popularity and success of the MCU, these films have something to say about humanity and current point in history, no matter if they win an Oscar or not. (Reminder of all the trashy shit that won major awards to be forgotten and that buffy never won an emmy lol) So someone on the internet said they aren't art or they don't like them? Ok.

Part of it is also the overbearing nature of the MCU and how in certain communities it (as well as star wars!) tend to suck up all of the oxygen. This naturally invites a backlash and then the "backlash cycle" begins.

 

[Alexandros]

And the MCUs most rabid defenders showed their entire ass by jumping directly to disgusting amounts of ageism. The art you consume doesn't make you smarter or "more woke" or "hip" or whatever.

Seriously, the defensivieness is off the fucking charts. Who cares if someone doesn't like your world dominating pop culture movie series backed by the most powerful entertainment mega corporation in the history of the world. Are they stopping you from seeing it? No. Should you feel guiltily for liking them as mostly brainless and sterile pop corn flicks that happen to be pretty entertaining? No, unless you're compensating for something.

To be honest I see nothing wrong with calling out the comments made by Scorsese and Coppola.

 

[Trisolarian]

To be honest I see nothing wrong with calling out the comments made by Scorsese and Coppola.

There is nothing inherently wrong with saying, your wrong and here is why. Just a few people went overboard, then the other side reacted, then the shitstorm started.

 

[Alexandros]

If MCU fans can call Endgame hyberbolic stuff like an "epic masterpiece" and "the greatest movie ever," Scorsese and Coppola have a right to their opinion in the exact opposite direction.

Endgame was indeed an epic masterpiece, with the necessary qualifier "for a blockbuster". So many series of films and TV series shit the bed at the end, while Endgame managed to provide a perfect ending to a 23-movie saga. That is not an easy task. That said, I think that pretty much everyone accepts that it is not as well directed as, say, Terminator 2.

There is nothing inherently wrong with saying, your wrong and here is why. Just a few people went overboard, then the other side reacted, then the shitstorm started.

That's the age we live in. Social media has destroyed nuanced discussion and now even most forums contain little more than shouting matches and snarky hot takes.

 

[Trisolarian]

Endgame was indeed an epic masterpiece, with the necessary qualifier "for a blockbuster". So many series of films and TV series shit the bed at the end, while Endgame managed to provide a perfect ending to a 23-movie saga. That is not an easy task. That said, I think that pretty much everyone accepts that it is not as well directed as, say, Terminator 2.



That's the age we live in. Social media has destroyed nuanced discussion and now even most forums contain little more than shouting matches and snarky hot takes.

Yes it has. I used to fall into it myself. I can't believe how many posts I made defending a series of films (x men) that frankly, I ended up not caring about all that much lol. (haven't re watched any since the last release and I'm not in a hurry to do so). I've stepped way back on forum involvement since the summer and its better that way. If I was in the pit still, slugging it out, I would have made time to re watch the last x men movie and probably convinced myself that I liked it when really, just like most MCU films, I saw it in the theater and I'm not pushing aside any of my free time to re watch.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

But the part where I diverge is that people who watch those films tend (emphasis on tend, not always) to be more willing to critically examine and discuss movies. Whereas within MCU discussions, there's a much larger undercurrent of fanboyism and willful anti-intellectualism.

I can agree on prestige cinema, most people who are into it aren't going to enter every page on the internet to spread the gospel. However, I have to point out that there's a certain group of people who basically worship what considered to be a mainstream flicks with brain (BR, Akira, new wave of horror movies etc.) that can be as bad as the most rabid of MCU fans, just try to say something negative about BR 2049 on the other place and you will be swarmed by angry people demanding satisfaction in place of Villeneuve.

But that in turn has spawned this horrifically annoying backlash where MCU fans go around trumpeting whatever the latest addition to the franchise is as the "greatest film ever made" or a "complete masterpiece" or hilarious nonsense like "A modern Lawrence of Arabia" (and yes there was an infamous /r/movies comment that literally said that).

Par of the course, the same happened with TDK, Fury Road and BR 2049. People will always try to proclaim their favorite movies to be among the greatest cinema of all time, it doesn't help that historically relevant works like Laurence of Arabia or Ben-Hur are hardly a part of modern cultural discourse outside of film schools and the only formative films an average person can name are Seven Samurai and Citizen Kane.

The thing is though: THE MCU IS LITERALLY THE LARGEST AND MOST POWERFUL POP CULTURE PHENOMENON ON THE ENTIRE PLANET. By definition, film-snobs cannot really gatekeep such an overpowering, all-encompassing phenomenon

I think we have to clarify what gatekeeping means in this case. To me the situation is similar to, using the gaming analogy, old-school CRPG fans on places like Codex slamming JRPGs for not being a true RPGs because they lack in interactivity and RP elements. Does it mean that the majority of people agree with their ideas? Of course not. But it's still an attempt at gatekeeping. The same is happening here, a group of people who have a particular view on what constitutes as cinema (not talking about any directors, just users on forums) is trying to impose their views on the others (again, bonus points to dudes with a new WSJ hotness and SW on their avatars). In that sense, I think it's fair to call behavior like that a gatekeeping, whatever it's successful or not (obviously, in the grand scheme, it means nothing) is a different matter.

 

[Alexandros]

I think the distinction between a film fan with valid criticism and a pretentious douchebag is pretty simple.

"I don't enjoy Marvel films, I believe they should be striving for more and they should have more depth in them" - prefectly fine criticism.
"I don't watch this corporate dreck, I only watch real cinema" - pretentious douchebag.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

And as a further aside, I think it's really, really, really goddamn weird how you can go on "progressive" forums where people rant about the ills of capitalism...but then brush over the fact that Disney is using their market presence to "impose" all kinds of shit on the industry.

Now mate, you're just getting personal, if someone else feels that way, sign in below, I'll be happy to oblige.

The discussion at hand wasn't about Disney's business practises but specifically about the reaction of some parts of the internet to the MCU after the comments of Scorsese and Coppola. Nobody brought "but what about Disney?" angle because it's, frankly speaking, irrelevant. Does it mean that Disney is some kind of benevolent force improving the industry? No, they're a corporation that is in the business of making money, whatever it takes. However, should it be brought at every discussion surrounding their output? I don't know. Do people bring Rupert Murdoch in every discussion of Fight Club or Gone Girl?

 

[Firewithin]

concept image from the hawkguy show has (potentially) pizza dog!

 

[Alexandros]

Well, Disney just dropped a metric ton of new announcements about upcoming Marvel Studios projects. Saddle up, it's pretty exciting stuff! Here's the full reveal by the man himself: