durdencommatyler wrote:Maybe they're just introducing and setting up the Planet Hulk story (for a later film) in a Thor movie more than watering it down and cramming it into a Thor movie.
Peeps wrote:what the fuck kind of foolishness is this, trying to make b feel better
How weird.bune wrote:What he means is that Marvel can't make a Hulk movie so they'd have to partner with Universal much like they did with Sony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cro ... 67512.html
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
Ah. Thank you.theplatypus wrote:It was produced by Marvel Studios and is officially in the MCU canon, but that was before Marvel was acquired by Disney. It was distributed by Universal
Yeah, this is a big piece of it. For "legal reasons" Marvel can't make a stand-alone Hulk movie (aka Planet Hulk), or at least, they can't do it w/o sharing money with Universal, but they can put Hulk in other Marvel movies.durdencommatyler wrote:How weird.bune wrote:What he means is that Marvel can't make a Hulk movie so they'd have to partner with Universal much like they did with Sony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cro ... 67512.html
I didn't read that entire article, so maybe it addresses this (sorry if it does; just call me an asshole and tell me to read the whole thing) but wasn't Norton's Hulk movie a Marvel film? Have the rights lapsed or something since there hasn't been a stand alone Hulk film since?
This shit is way too complicated.B wrote:Yeah, this is a big piece of it. For "legal reasons" Marvel can't make a stand-alone Hulk movie (aka Planet Hulk), or at least, they can't do it w/o sharing money with Universal, but they can put Hulk in other Marvel movies.durdencommatyler wrote:How weird.bune wrote:What he means is that Marvel can't make a Hulk movie so they'd have to partner with Universal much like they did with Sony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cro ... 67512.html
I didn't read that entire article, so maybe it addresses this (sorry if it does; just call me an asshole and tell me to read the whole thing) but wasn't Norton's Hulk movie a Marvel film? Have the rights lapsed or something since there hasn't been a stand alone Hulk film since?
durdencommatyler wrote:How weird.bune wrote:What he means is that Marvel can't make a Hulk movie so they'd have to partner with Universal much like they did with Sony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cro ... 67512.html
I didn't read that entire article, so maybe it addresses this (sorry if it does; just call me an asshole and tell me to read the whole thing) but wasn't Norton's Hulk movie a Marvel film? Have the rights lapsed or something since there hasn't been a stand alone Hulk film since?
To be fair, no one gave a shit about Ironman and Thor prior to 2008.bune wrote:Also: Marvel keeps making big announcements about wanting to get all their properties back but so far they've gotten...Daredevil, Ghost Rider, maybe Namor but who really cares about fish-face?
Man, and you thought what I posted before was confusing.In 2012, Marvel CCO Joe Quesada thought Namor's film rights had reverted to Marvel, but in August 2013 it was revealed by Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige that this was not the case, and the rights remained at Universal Pictures.[105] Borys Kit of The Hollywood Reporter stated in May 2014 that Marvel now has the rights for Namor.[106][107] On June 3, 2014, Kit confirmed that Marvel, not Universal now has the Namor film rights.[106] On July 18, 2014, Feige told IGN in an interview that the Namor film rights are not with Universal or Legendary Pictures, but he explained there are a number of contracts and deals that need to be sorted out.[108] In June 2016, on the podcast Fat Man on Batman, Quesada again stated that, to his knowledge, Marvel owned the film rights to Namor.[109]
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.