How Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Just Blew Up the Marvel Universe

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

How Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Just Blew Up the Marvel Universe

The mid-season finale of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is big... and not just for Marvel's television endeavors.

Read Full Article

Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

vid87:
Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

I get where you're coming from, but one question.

Did Quicksilver being able to point at Magneto and say "that's my dad" actually have any real importance in the comics? I don't think it did.

Zontar:
Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

Not that I doubt you or anything, but, uh... any chance of a source for that?

Wait, they retconned Magneto being Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's father? Aww, that's lame.

Darth Marsden:

Zontar:
Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

Not that I doubt you or anything, but, uh... any chance of a source for that?

Sure, no problem, it's right here from an article written about 9 months ago.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/03/13/avengers-age-of-ultrons-mutants-will-not-be-inhumans-says-kevin-feige/

vid87:
Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

It's not Marvel it's Disney that are ordering the changes which means that Mutants may themselves be actually Inhumans without a complete transformation.

The reason that Marvel are redoing so many big storylines is so that the characters can become more like the live action film versions.

Remember Disney does not care about the comics they want the films/TV/merchandise.

This is what Disney does they did it with the Star Wars extended universe and now are doing it with the Marvel universe.

I just hope they don't ruin both studios like they did with Pixar. Remember that the only reason Disney original movies got better is that John Lasseter of Pixar switched from overseeing Pixar films to the Disney studio.

Jonathan Hornsby:

vid87:
Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

I get where you're coming from, but one question.

Did Quicksilver being able to point at Magneto and say "that's my dad" actually have any real importance in the comics? I don't think it did.

Probably not in the grand scheme of things but thematically and on a personal level I would say so. Being a member of the Avengers and opposing your own father based on philosophy and morality makes for good drama and I'm sure there were times where they both questioned if they share destructive traits of his (I've heard QS described as arrogant which falls a bit in line with Magneto's personality).

I will say though that the inverted moral compass gimmick, even if it's to shake up the teams and create a new scenario, is just plain stupid.

You'd have to go back to the original revelation that Magneto was their father in the comics (which took 19 years from the moment they were introduced) to get the full context. To a large degree it existed as a point of shame and manipulation for the characters. That they now reveal it was untrue... I think is brilliant!
Remember also that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, while introduced in the X-men title as members of Magneto's Brotherhood, were only on that title (and team) for 5 or 6 of the first 12 issues before they moved on to the Avengers team and would primarily remain thus from then on out. (Excepting Peter David's use of Quicksilver in X-factor, which is also brilliant but has always been fairly a-side from the rest of the X-mutant books anyway.) And neither have EVER been a member of any 616 universe team of "X-men."

My observation is that Fox/Singer only added Quicksilver into DoFP as a dig at Marvel to begin with, due to Whedon's announcement that the twins would be in Avengers 2. (The character was not written into the film, nor an actor cast as the character prior to the announcement. Look it up. The evidence is there.)
Dick move on Fox's part and, despite most opinion, I don't think adding QS to DoFP made any sense or added anything of true value to the film. It was a throw away scene that they could have filled with just about anything. The choice to do it was so they could claim it first, not do it so it was done in a way that made sense to the story. It was trite, contrived, and patronizing. I'm honestly disappointed fans of the film point to that as why they liked it, but it speaks volumes.

IMO, the out-of-house studios that have Marvel rights have not, over time, honored fans in the best way in their use of those rights and their films have shown it. So if Marvel wants to distance itself from them in various ways... I think it's worthwhile and totally acceptable. Marvel has more of my trust than Sony or Fox at this point.
The possibility that Spider-man film IPs will revert to Marvel is exciting! The unfortunate truth about the X-men IPs is that they aren't as likely to revert to Marvel any time soon because, while the run of X-men films haven't always been great, they have made enough money for them to warrant producing more.
Which is fair enough... but I'm more likely to spend money at the box office on an MCU film and wait for the out-of-house Marvel films to go to DVD when I can check them out from a library for free.

Zontar:

Darth Marsden:

Zontar:
Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

Not that I doubt you or anything, but, uh... any chance of a source for that?

Sure, no problem, it's right here from an article written about 9 months ago.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/03/13/avengers-age-of-ultrons-mutants-will-not-be-inhumans-says-kevin-feige/

Thanks.

The actual wording of that is... well, it's hardly definitive. He could well be saying that SW+QS aren't Inhumans in the same way that the comics portray them (Terrigenesis event et al) but are more in line with what Agents of SHIELD - which hadn't even started airing its second season at the time he made the comment - has shown special people to be prior to exposure to the Mists.

Also... people lie. Businessmen especially so.

Burnouts3s3:
Wait, they retconned Magneto being Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's father? Aww, that's lame.

Its because of Fox that they can't use Magneto being their father because they have the film rights to all X-Men characters and using the term Mutant. They were able to grasp Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch because they appear mostly with The Avengers, but Fox still has the right to use them as well since they are classified as Mutants.

So its hard for me to really call it a Retcon when they really don't have a choice in the matter and needed to come up with something.

Edit: Bleh fixed studio mixup.

"Apparently Magneto isn't the real father, after all.".

Okay, WOW... ultra low blow there!!! :O
Lamest reason for a retcon ever; not "because it's a cool twist/story/set-up!" but "spite the enemy and bolster something technically unrelated to make more cash".

Bob, you don't have to sound so surprised that they started this on AoS, while it may not be the most viewed show, or even have ratings as high as marvel might like. it is in no way bad, just kinda meh, but getting better, and what better way to re-boost ratings by making it actually relevant to the rest of the universe, instead of just kinda there but in no way actually affecting the movies.

Kenjitsuka:
"Apparently Magneto isn't the real father, after all.".

Okay, WOW... ultra low blow there!!! :O
Lamest reason for a retcon ever; not "because it's a cool twist/story/set-up!" but "spite the enemy and bolster something technically unrelated to make more cash".

I personally think it's awesome, for the reason of "Why can't it be both a cool twist AND a spiteful moneymaker?" There's also a LOT of potential for this revelation in the comics, considering that Magneto wasn't always known to be their father in the first place.

I, for one, will not be joining the ragers in the streets to do their best Spoony impressions.

SeeDarkly_Xero:

My observation is that Fox/Singer only added Quicksilver into DoFP as a dig at Marvel to begin with, due to Whedon's announcement that the twins would be in Avengers 2. (The character was not written into the film, nor an actor cast as the character prior to the announcement. Look it up. The evidence is there.)
Dick move on Fox's part and, despite most opinion, I don't think adding QS to DoFP made any sense or added anything of true value to the film. It was a throw away scene that they could have filled with just about anything. The choice to do it was so they could claim it first, not do it so it was done in a way that made sense to the story. It was trite, contrived, and patronizing. I'm honestly disappointed fans of the film point to that as why they liked it, but it speaks volumes.

Even though what you're saying (regarding why Quicksilver was in DOFP) is 99.99% true, I don't see how it's "trite, contrived, and patronizing". Honestly I feel as though they used the character pretty well, his scenes were visually appealing/impressive and the character was quite likable. It all kinda gelled together nice and for me it made sense why he didn't come along to help out for the rest of the film. In other words, I think that they could've done a far worse job integrating him into the story than what we were given.

OT: ...kay

Kenjitsuka:
"Apparently Magneto isn't the real father, after all.".

Okay, WOW... ultra low blow there!!! :O
Lamest reason for a retcon ever; not "because it's a cool twist/story/set-up!" but "spite the enemy and bolster something technically unrelated to make more cash".

Seeing as it's part of one of those "Change-everything-forever!!!" events, which I'm not reading because there should only be one a year, thank you very much, I wonder if it will stick for sure this time. I always thought it was all Rick Remender's idea, which speaks to his skill as a writer.

bug_of_war:

Even though what you're saying (regarding why Quicksilver was in DOFP) is 99.99% true, I don't see how it's "trite, contrived, and patronizing". Honestly I feel as though they used the character pretty well, his scenes were visually appealing/impressive and the character was quite likable. It all kinda gelled together nice and for me it made sense why he didn't come along to help out for the rest of the film. In other words, I think that they could've done a far worse job integrating him into the story than what we were given.

Likable? Eh, to each their own. Like I said, I can hardly believe people point to him as a reason they liked the film. And how it gelled? I saw it as hammered into a slot of the film that hadn't previous planned to use him. As far as making sense? Wolverine "knows a guy" of whom we've never seen in any previous film or story... When they could have gotten a younger Kurt Wagner for the same operation and that make better sense. And Quicksilver doesn't join them for the remainder... just because? Hell... his entire motivation to participate was lacking. He was built in to be part of an insulated scene because it would have required too much of the rest of the film be re-written (if not re-filmed, which I can't be entirely certain of off the top of my head)... and it showed. I could concede that had it been their original plan to cast him from the start, maybe it could have made the entire film better. But instead it came off like a reactive move meant to protect their usage rights and not really to honor fans of the material.

Again... they are doing "X-men" films... so why, with the tremendous character base of actual X-men at their disposal, would they need to add a character that has never been one (let alone was never part of the source material for the film either?)

That's a completely rhetorical question since at least I am convinced of the reason stated previously, while you seem at least .01% unconvinced. ;)

Another way to recognize a key difference between Marvel films and the out-of-house studios:
The first time the public saw Fox's Quicksilver it was to sell breakfast sandwiches for Hardee's.
The first time the public saw MCU's Quicksilver was an after-credit scene that further developed an on-going story.

What does that tell you?

Zontar:
Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

lol. because they would never lie in order to preserve a secret for the film.

SeeDarkly_Xero:
Again... they are doing "X-men" films... so why, with the tremendous character base of actual X-men at their disposal, would they need to add a character that has never been one (let alone was never part of the source material for the film either?)

Having grown up in the nineties and knowing most of my lore from the cartoons I'd disagree with your problem here. To me, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch have always been a part of the X-Men franchise since he was a mainstay of the show. This continued on in every other iteration of the X-Men shows by having them play bigger and bigger roles in the stories up to the last venture into animated territory for the X-Men, the excellent Wolverine and the X-Men where their relationship with Magneto was a central plot point.

If the X-Men franchise is anythin like the Batman franchise, I can guarantee you more people remember the storylines from the shows than they do the the comics.

To be honest, i don't think the MCU really needs mutants at this point.
And maybe are better off without them.

As the movies are written, S.H.I.E.L.D. wants to hold the monopoly on superhuman powers.(or at least contain awareness of them)
With mutants living among the normal humans that wouldn't even be remotely doable.

If 10% of the population of New York could shot dead ray's out of their body, the battle of New York in the Avangers would have felt quite different.

SeeDarkly_Xero:

Likable? Eh, to each their own. Like I said, I can hardly believe people point to him as a reason they liked the film. And how it gelled? I saw it as hammered into a slot of the film that hadn't previous planned to use him. As far as making sense? Wolverine "knows a guy" of whom we've never seen in any previous film or story... When they could have gotten a younger Kurt Wagner for the same operation and that make better sense. And Quicksilver doesn't join them for the remainder... just because? Hell... his entire motivation to participate was lacking. He was built in to be part of an insulated scene because it would have required too much of the rest of the film be re-written (if not re-filmed, which I can't be entirely certain of off the top of my head)... and it showed. I could concede that had it been their original plan to cast him from the start, maybe it could have made the entire film better. But instead it came off like a reactive move meant to protect their usage rights and not really to honor fans of the material.

Yeah, each their own for that, but as for how Wolverine knew him? Well there's a good amount of time between X3 and Wolverine, as well as between Wolverine and DOFP, plenty a space to have him get to know someone. And getting Nightcrawler? He was roughly 30 in X2 which was in what, 2004? He would be at most like 4 years old in 1970, and even if he weren't he would be in Europe in a circus. He doesn't join them cause a) he's still a teenager. b) He only helped them for the fun of breaking into the most guarded place in the US. c) Magneto, Wolverine and Beast should've been plenty to stop Mystique.

Again... they are doing "X-men" films... so why, with the tremendous character base of actual X-men at their disposal, would they need to add a character that has never been one (let alone was never part of the source material for the film either?)

That's a completely rhetorical question since at least I am convinced of the reason stated previously, while you seem at least .01% unconvinced. ;)

Another way to recognize a key difference between Marvel films and the out-of-house studios:
The first time the public saw Fox's Quicksilver it was to sell breakfast sandwiches for Hardee's.
The first time the public saw MCU's Quicksilver was an after-credit scene that further developed an on-going story.

What does that tell you?

I'm not unconvinced, I'm just not gonna say anything was done for a reason with 100% clarity until the horse speaks. I agree that Marvel care about what they're building, and that Fox are simply making a movie so that they can make money, but at least the movie was fun (for me and a few others at least). I would like to see Wolverine in the Avengers, but him not being there doesn't lessen my enjoyment of that series.

SeeDarkly_Xero:

Likable? Eh, to each their own. Like I said, I can hardly believe people point to him as a reason they liked the film. And how it gelled? I saw it as hammered into a slot of the film that hadn't previous planned to use him. As far as making sense? Wolverine "knows a guy" of whom we've never seen in any previous film or story... When they could have gotten a younger Kurt Wagner for the same operation and that make better sense. And Quicksilver doesn't join them for the remainder... just because? Hell... his entire motivation to participate was lacking. He was built in to be part of an insulated scene because it would have required too much of the rest of the film be re-written (if not re-filmed, which I can't be entirely certain of off the top of my head)... and it showed. I could concede that had it been their original plan to cast him from the start, maybe it could have made the entire film better. But instead it came off like a reactive move meant to protect their usage rights and not really to honor fans of the material.

Again... they are doing "X-men" films... so why, with the tremendous character base of actual X-men at their disposal, would they need to add a character that has never been one (let alone was never part of the source material for the film either?)

That's a completely rhetorical question since at least I am convinced of the reason stated previously, while you seem at least .01% unconvinced. ;)

Another way to recognize a key difference between Marvel films and the out-of-house studios:
The first time the public saw Fox's Quicksilver it was to sell breakfast sandwiches for Hardee's.
The first time the public saw MCU's Quicksilver was an after-credit scene that further developed an on-going story.

What does that tell you?

I agree with you as well, it just seems they went "okay we are going to cash in on the MCU by using the same character they are" move. If Quicksilver was a bigger part of the movie instead of just showing up at that one point because of "reasons" it might not feel so out of place, but the way they did it just feels out of place compared to the rest of the movie.

Mutants are a clusterfuck and always have been "whoa, lets admite all the heroes, oh no, they have powers from birth, KILL IT WITH FIRE!" so yeah, I could frankly care less. Also, the paternal relation between magneto and the siblings has always been a sidething at best. Hell, without being able to establish what the hell a Magneto is in the Marvel movie universe, it has no value at all either way. Inhumans? non descript whatevers? sure, why not, it's not like they can't change it back to mutants if they ever get the rights again and if it doesn't, it at least gives a great bridge to start the Inhumans movie, I mean, I would REALLY like to see Black Bolt in action.

shintakie10:
Having grown up in the nineties and knowing most of my lore from the cartoons I'd disagree with your problem here. To me, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch have always been a part of the X-Men franchise since he was a mainstay of the show. This continued on in every other iteration of the X-Men shows by having them play bigger and bigger roles in the stories up to the last venture into animated territory for the X-Men, the excellent Wolverine and the X-Men where their relationship with Magneto was a central plot point.

If the X-Men franchise is anythin like the Batman franchise, I can guarantee you more people remember the storylines from the shows than they do the the comics.

Growing up in the 90's doesn't dismiss the prior 30+ years of lore from which those cartoons were founded. That's subjective personal exposure, not contextual or objective. Your guarantee is assumptive at best, because you can't know what others have been exposed to or what they know of the origins. All that material is available for everyone to find and doesn't get unwritten because of the 90's cartoons. That's like saying people best know Beowulf from the Angelina Jolie movie when the tale has been around for centuries. That they know the movie at all is because the original story was written.

W&tX was excellent, but ran for a short period than the X-men Evolution cartoon (which was adapted from comic material to do a high-school centric storyline and was rewritten as to be highlight high-school life way differently than its core origins.) Evolution also ran for a shorter time period than the previous X-men toon, which was drawing its storylines almost entirely from the comics (adapting for their chosen cast.) In that, "Evolution," and "Wolverine & the..." the Twins weren't "mainstays" of the X-men. They were Brotherhood or part of Magneto's agenda and their relationship with him was hardly "central." The very last cartoon iteration of the X-men (which was Marvel Anime not "W&tX") did not feature either Magneto or the twins at all.
The only cartoons that featured the twins as heroes were Avengers-centric... (United We Stand, Iron Man, Super Hero Squad, etc...) That dates back to the 60's in the first TV appearance of Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver. It is interesting that neither ever appeared in the Earth's Mightiest Heroes toon... it was unfortunately cancelled in favor of the current Avengers toon before they could get to them I guess. (Though I think the comic book supplement to that A:EMH/W&tX universe DID have the twins meet the Avengers because they thought Wasp was a mutant.)

But as I stated earlier, and despite ALL the cartoon examples of them not being X-men, when I speak of the twins as not being X-men... I'm speaking of the comic 616 Universe teams of X-men, of which they have never been members, and in the original comic they were in the Brotherhood for no more than 5 issues, 19 years before they were told (the lie) Magneto was their father. (Though the recent "First Class" comic ret-conned at least 6 more issues of them as Brotherhood members.) They pop up in the book, now and then, but most prominently as Avenger cross-over stories. A significantly low percentage of their story has anything to do with X-men. Hell, even MAGNETO has been a member of the X-men in the 616... but Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver never have been.
Therefore... putting Quicksilver in X-man films doesn't make a lot of sense to me when they have so many other actual X-men characters from which to pick.

(I'm a life-long X-men fan, but completely objectively... the X-men franchise couldn't possibly have the kind of recognition the Batman franchise has. Batman has saturated various media for FAAAAR longer then X-men have and Batman comics tend to substantially outsell X-men books. But the seminal source for Batman, X-men, or any other Marvel or DC superheroes on film is from their comic books, not their cartoons.)

Zontar:
Uh, bob, I think you speculation that Quicksilver and Witch are Inhumans seems to ignore that Feige was explicit about the fact they were not Inhumans, and that the Inhumans would not stand in for mutants in the MCU.

I've had similar thoughts and remember this statement myself. One thing a lot of people tend to forget is that during the big X-things boom Mutants were so popular that there was an effort to pretty much retcon things so pretty much everyone was a mutant. Most so called "Altered Humans" were implied to simply be mutants whose powers developed in times of crisis, and tended to take on aspects of whatever the crisis was. Mutant eruptions being a well established theme at the time. Thus for example "The Hulk" was not a gamma irradiated monster, but rather Bruce Banner's mutation that allowed him to survive the Gamma Bomb. In his case I believe it was mentioned briefly that this explained "logically" why all the attempts at a "cure" failed, he was approaching things from the perspective of radiation being the key factor, and yeah while The Hulk was gamma infused, he was not created by the radiation, the issue was Bruce not radiation. The same logic applying to Spider Man (Peter Parker's mutation kicked in to survive the spider bite, and just happened to do so by absorbing the DNA), and others. The Inhumans were ALSO mutants with the Kree simply screwing around with the mutant potential that was already there and pretty much upping the evolution for them to the point they would all have powers, in a way proving what Charles Xavier says, they didn't need to destroy humanity, the simple passage of time would lead to regular humans dying out and everyone being a mutant. Indeed for those who follow such things you might be familiar with the old TSR "Marvel Super Heroes" RPG, the one based on the FASERIP system, the odd thing about that was that when it was created it was supposed to be an official product, and the original idea and contract was that RPG updates would be released at the same time as the comics, allowing Marvel fans to basically have an RPG campaign setting accurate up to the last couple of issues. This deal lasted for a bit, and indeed the old "Gamers Handbook To The Marvel Universe" could be considered fairly accurate. Marvel and TSR had a falling out though because Marvel did not want to give TSR information and storylines ahead of time in the long run and lock itself out from last minute changes. While there were some "current events" updates in Dragon Magazine once in a while it just didn't work and things died a horrible, screaming, death, and while fondly remembered the FASERIP system wound up in such a weird legal limbo it proved impossible to resurrect which is doubtlessly why it's more or less become public domain (or at least nobody claims the rights to object to it's circulation).

At any rate the point of the above is that the 1990s were so mutant-centric that in working with Marvel TSR listed The Inhumans in "The Ultimate Power Book" under the category of "Breed Mutants" which is to say you come from a sub race or community that is 100% mutant and everyone has powers, one of the origins possible in extended character generation.

As I've said before, it's quite possible that using "Inhumans" the way Bob suggests could actually hurt Disney/Marvel if someone did the homework, and the contracts are written where they can potentially include ANY character or concept that had been tied to mutants, which can in theory include almost everyone. At the very least weaker cases have been made and Disney could be locked out of a lot of it's IPs in court while Fox could go on making X-men movies as their right to do that wouldn't be under question.

If I have to guess they will probably reduce the "Inhumans" in scope like they do most things in The Marvel Universe. They will probably be more direct Human-Alien hybrids, and won't be popping up everywhere. In playing it safe I expect Marvel will be keeping things "old school" with heroes largely coming from tech and/or physical training, or being the result of specific freak accidents (and of course magic).

It's not that Bob's opinion is a bad one, it's just that he doesn't think like a paranoid lawyer. If Disney/Marvel was to try and skirt around this problem on a technicality and simply erase the term "mutant" and replace it with "inhuman" the spirit of the agreement between two companies that hate each other would lead to lawyers going over everything with a fine toothed comb, eventually someone would find crap from the time period I'm talking about, and next thing you know the lawyers are getting richer while we go without decent hero movies. With the mess that is comic book legality and the rights, obeying the spirit of the existing agreements is going to be a big deal. What's more with all the discussion of the "Inhumans" I'm personally kind of surprised they aren't held alongside The Fantastic Four rights.

I'll also be blunt about something else, Disney has been at this a long time and realizes that eventually every hot movie franchise dies out and becomes a joke, oftentimes losing money while the fat cats are in denial. I suspect this is part of why they didn't think far enough ahead to have some of these actors they are using under much longer contracts or didn't push for them when they saw how things were turning out. There is scads of money to be made from movies, but Disney also realizes a lot of it's bread and butter comes from it's parks. Despite claims to the contrary, apparently Disney is taking a bit of a beating (or perhaps more accurately not doing the business they want) due to Universal having the "Harry Potter" rights and having opened a huge two-location park in Orlando, with a new one planned for Hollywood in 2016. Universal ALSO holds the rights to Marvel as far as theme parks go, and of course the Marvel boom has brought people to Universal's gates and not theirs, though apparently Universal is about to see those rights expire in another couple of years (not sure when) and it's already thinking of what to replace that section of the ailing "Islands Of Adventure" with. Disney knows it can make reliable, long-term, money off of nostalgia with it's theme parks, compared to the short term, if massive, movie revenue. Basically for them the IP from movies can be a bigger deal than the movies themselves. I expect in the next couple of years Disney is going to re-focus it's efforts on it's resorts, it CAN focus on more than one thing, but I estimate in the next few years we'll see less of a push to make movies and instead billions of dollars spent on their resorts. I think Universal gave them a scare the last few years.

Therumancer:
I expect in the next couple of years Disney is going to re-focus it's efforts on it's resorts, it CAN focus on more than one thing, but I estimate in the next few years we'll see less of a push to make movies and instead billions of dollars spent on their resorts. I think Universal gave them a scare the last few years.

They've already begun to do that as we speak with the Star Wars, so I think your assessment of what Disney will be doing with its IP is spot on. They didn't put down 4 billion buying Marvel just for the movies, and they certainly didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Marvel's current mandate is a pretty simple one as it stands: make 2 big budget movies each year for distribution. It is pretty simple, even if it means the studio has been making more movies then it had before the buyout. Though it's true eventually things will die down, it will take quite a bit of time for the movies to fall to a level of not being profitable enough to continue production due to Marvel's logo being enough to bring in large crowds coupled with Disney's international market overlook (a flop in the domestic which makes 500 million profit on the international market is still 500 million profit after all).

In the long run I'd have to say Disney buying Marvel was probably one of the safest investments they've ever made due to the IP fitting remarkably well within the House of Mouse (there are a lot of people I know who had no idea Big Hero Six was a Marvel comic). Though I wouldn't go so far as to say they've already made their investment back, by the time we get Infinity Wars I think that being the case is assured. Disney's recent long term planning has been pretty remarkable over the past few years, so much so I wouldn't be surprised if Sony tried to nab a few of their people at the top to try and save their movie studio.

Well, I have no idea how it works with continuity and movie production, but legally, it's a load of nonsense.
Copyright covers actual art - plot, characters, setting (dubiously), stuff like that. Copyright does not cover concepts and ideas, so even if Marvel did pass some "rights" to the idea of mutants, such a document would be void.
No one can legally enforce such a thing because "mutants" as "people born with superpowers" are too broad a term. And Marvel selling rights to "mutants" would be equal to Starbucks selling rights to "cappuccino".

Roofless:
Well, I have no idea how it works with continuity and movie production, but legally, it's a load of nonsense.
Copyright covers actual art - plot, characters, setting (dubiously), stuff like that. Copyright does not cover concepts and ideas, so even if Marvel did pass some "rights" to the idea of mutants, such a document would be void.
No one can legally enforce such a thing because "mutants" as "people born with superpowers" are too broad a term. And Marvel selling rights to "mutants" would be equal to Starbucks selling rights to "cappuccino".

The rights issue is far more specific than your "cappuccino" example.

In this case, the rights to use of the term "mutants" is relative specifically to Marvel Comics characters in the films based on Marvel Comics properties. Not "mutants" generally.

You're not wrong that any company can use the term generally. However, in their agreement with Marvel and purchase of the X-men film rights, Fox stipulated that no other Marvel IP's would be allowed to use the term. Marvel accepted that at the time, probably because no one ever imagined then that the MCU could happen.
But that was their arrangement and they have been legally and contractually bound by it.
The shared-use film rights of Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch binds Marvel from calling them mutants, or naming Magneto their father... and that's specific to them because they are far more closely associated to the Avengers.
And they CAN be "born with powers." Nothing says they have to be "Inhumans." So on that... we'll just wait and see.

Mutation and mutants are present in many other media that Marvel can not influence in any way. Unless of course someone were to film the "N-Men!" made up of a team of "New-Tants" or what ever... and even then, Fox would be the ones in the position to pursue legal action because they made that arrangement with the primary owners of the properties.

It's likely that part of the reason Fox sped to put Quicksilver in a film was doubtless to prevent the possibility that they might lose the usage rights to Quicksilver due to non-use in the face of Marvel's plans for the character they currently share rights to use, (since non-use of the X-men IPs could revert the rights back to Marvel as part of the usage agreement,) if such a case could even be pursued on such specific characters. It seems evident it was a possibility because they really had no reason to force the character into the story otherwise.

Sanunes:

Burnouts3s3:
Wait, they retconned Magneto being Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's father? Aww, that's lame.

Its because of Fox that they can't use Magneto being their father because they have the film rights to all X-Men characters and using the term Mutant. They were able to grasp Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch because they appear mostly with The Avengers, but Fox still has the right to use them as well since they are classified as Mutants.

So its hard for me to really call it a Retcon when they really don't have a choice in the matter and needed to come up with something.

Edit: Bleh fixed studio mixup.

The bolded part makes my eye twitch whenever i see it.

If they were able to grab QS and SW for Avengers because they regularly appear in Avengers comics etc, then why can't they get Spiderman? Or Wolverine? Or the Fantastic 4? Why can't they snag up other characters that other studio's own because of there affiliation with the Avengers?

It makes my brain hurt, really it does.

Jonathan Hornsby:

vid87:
Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

I get where you're coming from, but one question.

Did Quicksilver being able to point at Magneto and say "that's my dad" actually have any real importance in the comics? I don't think it did.

Yeah it did, it was brilliant in many ways. It made Quicksilver have really interesting ever-changing loyalties, character conflict and led to a lot of cool story like House of M, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

endtherapture:

Jonathan Hornsby:

vid87:
Wow, putting it all in that context makes this sound a lot worse than I realized. I'm not a fan of the bridge burning tactic Marvel's doing with the other franchises and I realize this kind of thing happened repeatedly for many longtime comic readers, but I think, personally, this is the first time a major thing I've been following has flipped the table and declared everything I knew to be a lie, not for the sake of creativity or keeping things more concise, but for brand management and the bottom line.

I get where you're coming from, but one question.

Did Quicksilver being able to point at Magneto and say "that's my dad" actually have any real importance in the comics? I don't think it did.

Yeah it did, it was brilliant in many ways. It made Quicksilver have really interesting ever-changing loyalties, character conflict and led to a lot of cool story like House of M, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Yeah, but outside of those few stories the other 99.99999999999999999999% of Quicksilver's history had nothing to do with Magneto and his relation to him in any way whatsoever. Everybody remembers shit like House of M, but they are quick to forget that is just one story out of nearly sixty years of them. Big picture; Quicksilver being related to Magneto isn't really that big a deal, and rarely ever even came up.

Jonathan Hornsby:

endtherapture:

Jonathan Hornsby:

I get where you're coming from, but one question.

Did Quicksilver being able to point at Magneto and say "that's my dad" actually have any real importance in the comics? I don't think it did.

Yeah it did, it was brilliant in many ways. It made Quicksilver have really interesting ever-changing loyalties, character conflict and led to a lot of cool story like House of M, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Yeah, but outside of those few stories the other 99.99999999999999999999% of Quicksilver's history had nothing to do with Magneto and his relation to him in any way whatsoever. Everybody remembers shit like House of M, but they are quick to forget that is just one story out of nearly sixty years of them. Big picture; Quicksilver being related to Magneto isn't really that big a deal, and rarely ever even came up.

So, everyone remembers the stories where they are related, but doesn't remember the ones where it isn't actually much of a big deal? So you're basically saying it is best when they are related because it makes for the best stories, rendering the retcon stupid.

arc1991:

The bolded part makes my eye twitch whenever i see it.

If they were able to grab QS and SW for Avengers because they regularly appear in Avengers comics etc, then why can't they get Spiderman? Or Wolverine? Or the Fantastic 4? Why can't they snag up other characters that other studio's own because of there affiliation with the Avengers?

It makes my brain hurt, really it does.

There's a major difference between QS and SW versus the other characters you mentioned. Spiderman IS his own franchise; that's what Sony bought the rights to. Fantastic Four ARE their own franchise; that's what FOX bought the rights to. It's not just the affiliation with the Avengers. The legal hubbabaloo is basically saying QS and SW are more known for their roles in the Avengers comics than they are for their roles in the X-Men comics. Spiderman may have been an Avenger, but let's face it--is he known more for Spiderman, or is he known more for the Avengers? This also goes for your point about the Fantastic Four. And I'm sure I don't even need to bring up Wolverine (probably the most recognizable X-man depending on who you ask).

endtherapture:

Jonathan Hornsby:

endtherapture:

Yeah it did, it was brilliant in many ways. It made Quicksilver have really interesting ever-changing loyalties, character conflict and led to a lot of cool story like House of M, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Yeah, but outside of those few stories the other 99.99999999999999999999% of Quicksilver's history had nothing to do with Magneto and his relation to him in any way whatsoever. Everybody remembers shit like House of M, but they are quick to forget that is just one story out of nearly sixty years of them. Big picture; Quicksilver being related to Magneto isn't really that big a deal, and rarely ever even came up.

So, everyone remembers the stories where they are related, but doesn't remember the ones where it isn't actually much of a big deal? So you're basically saying it is best when they are related because it makes for the best stories, rendering the retcon stupid.

I would argue that people remember those stories more for Magneto than Quicksilver, as the Master of Magnetism is simply a more interesting and popular character. I mean as we've just established nobody remembers Quicky for much more than being Magneto's kid, but Maggy has lots of interesting and powerful stories that don't involve his offspring in any way. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch have always been B-list (maybe even C-list) characters for a reason, with or without their relation to Magneto.

So if anything allowing them to step out of (not) daddy's shadow might allow the writers to redefine them and make them interesting in their own right, rather than constantly trying to make them relevant by reminding us that their family ties have thus far been the only interesting thing about them. Hell just look at X-Men Days of Future Past; did Quicksilver steal the show because of that one wink and nod to the camera when he said his father could control metal, or was it that mind-blowing needle drop action sequence? I submit that these characters don't need the family tie to Magneto, and that such a thing has actually been holding them back all these years.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.