Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 12:14:44 GMT -5
Please. Anyone but Disney. Think that proposed New Mutants trilogy and X Force movie still happen? I'm pretty sure Disney would scrap everything Fox was working on to incorporate these properties into the MCU/Avengers-verse. That's why I'm not looking forward to the idea of basically an even smaller superhero oligopoly for film projects.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 5, 2017 12:18:22 GMT -5
Think that proposed New Mutants trilogy and X Force movie still happen? I'm pretty sure Disney would scrap everything Fox was working on to incorporate these properties into the MCU/Avengers-verse. That's why I'm not looking forward to the idea of basically an even smaller superhero oligopoly for film projects. Yeah I feel like Reynolds as Deadpool is the only one safe and that's only because they know the fan backlash would be massive (or maybe not. I've learned that some Disney/Marvel fans are pretty forgiving of most anything) It'll be a damn shame. I was really looking forward to Fox's upcoming projects. Deadpool and Logan were breaths of fresh air and knowing that all of that work is just going to be paved over with the same old same old Disney brush is sooooo disappointing and that's just on a creative level. The bigger implications of this buyout is a whole other discussion of grossness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 12:23:37 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Disney would scrap everything Fox was working on to incorporate these properties into the MCU/Avengers-verse. That's why I'm not looking forward to the idea of basically an even smaller superhero oligopoly for film projects. Yeah I feel like Reynolds as Deadpool is the only one safe and that's only because they know the fan backlash would be massive (or maybe not. I've learned that some Disney/Marvel fans are pretty forgiving of most anything) It'll be a damn shame. I was really looking forward to Fox's upcoming projects. Deadpool and Logan were breaths of fresh air and knowing that all of that work is just going to be paved over with the same old same old Disney brush is sooooo disappointing and that's just on a creative level. The bigger implications of this buyout is a whole other discussion of grossness. I think Disney would be open to keeping Reynolds as Deadpool but the character def will be modified to be more Disney-friendly. I don't think there'd be any real backlash about it either. Superhero fans will be too busy being stoked about another one of their fav characters interacting with the MCU characters. The amount of "OMG, Wolverine in the Avengers!?!?!" kind of stuff really makes me think its a real "toys in the toybox" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 5, 2017 12:24:35 GMT -5
If the deal gets done, I hope they wipe it all out to start over except Deadpool. Have him be the homage to the previous series as he can be aware that it existed. But does DP get watered down and only carry laser arms and etc. etc.?
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 5, 2017 12:31:09 GMT -5
Good: to save Fantastic Four FINALLY and get all Star Wars movies together and hopefully get theatrical 1977. 1980, and 1983 versions out there officially and not like those previous half-assed releases. Bad: Do they let the X and Deadpool Universes be their own thing or do they become watered down versions and are made to fit into the "very special sitcom episodes where bad things happen, so let's make a joke" style? (Now I like MCU when it's at its best, but I will not deny its weaknesses...this sort of thing is what makes me wish WB would get its stuff together finally and deliver an alternative product. But...that's as good as the multiple chances we gave TNA to be one to WWE's product) It's kind of like WWE when they sign NJPW or indy guys. They might still work out, but is it the same watching them work WWE style? Now, the F4 example is more akin to WWE rescuing ex-TNAers, but you know what I mean. Other thoughts: does Simpsons somehow get a fire lit under their asses or has that boat passed never to return? Does Family Guy get watered down or even last? Tinker Bell vs. Marilyn Monroe animated movie?
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 5, 2017 12:32:32 GMT -5
I think Disney would be open to keeping Reynolds as Deadpool but the character def will be modified to be more Disney-friendly. For sure. Less sex jokes, more internet meme humor. Can't put a character like that on a million Rice Krispie treat boxes without making some adjustments! What I'm gonna miss is shit like the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy. An out of nowhere dead serious reinvention of a franchise.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Dec 5, 2017 12:43:47 GMT -5
I think Disney would be open to keeping Reynolds as Deadpool but the character def will be modified to be more Disney-friendly. For sure. Less sex jokes, more internet meme humor. Can't put a character like that on a million Rice Krispie treat boxes without making some adjustments! What I'm gonna miss is shit like the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy. An out of nowhere dead serious reinvention of a franchise. Disney has more or less left Marvel entirely alone. Deadpool is still the same as he ever was in the comics, not to mention they just put out the Punisher on Netflix for the violence aspect is not a problem. Ignoring that Disney has put out adult things in the past (hell every Miramax movie from 1993 until 2010 was Disney, so the entire View Askewniverse)
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 5, 2017 12:47:57 GMT -5
For sure. Less sex jokes, more internet meme humor. Can't put a character like that on a million Rice Krispie treat boxes without making some adjustments! What I'm gonna miss is shit like the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy. An out of nowhere dead serious reinvention of a franchise. Disney has more or less left Marvel entirely alone. Deadpool is still the same as he ever was in the comics, not to mention they just put out the Punisher on Netflix for the violence aspect is not a problem. Ignoring that Disney has put out adult things in the past (hell every Miramax movie from 1993 until 2010 was Disney, so the entire View Askewniverse) Difference between leaving a character untouched in the comic books and a Netflix brand built on more adult themes. The comics, TV shows and Netflix shows are pretty much entirely separate in direction and tone. Folding Deadpool into the MCU would bring some changes because the movie side of things is very clearly advertised for families and marketed toward children. They want everyone to see every movie in the Avengers series and you'd get some raised eyebrows if you follow up sugary sweet Spider-Man 2 with Deadpool talking about his dick for 20 minutes.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 5, 2017 12:48:26 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what they'd do with the X-Men. Probably something akin to X-Men: Evolution, which I would not mind at all.
Also, I hope they go full classic with the FF. It'd be nice to see Johnny Storm be an actual teenager and not suffer Chris O'Donnel syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Dec 5, 2017 12:51:47 GMT -5
Disney has more or less left Marvel entirely alone. Deadpool is still the same as he ever was in the comics, not to mention they just put out the Punisher on Netflix for the violence aspect is not a problem. Ignoring that Disney has put out adult things in the past (hell every Miramax movie from 1993 until 2010 was Disney, so the entire View Askewniverse) Difference between leaving a character untouched in the comic books and a Netflix brand built on more adult themes. Folding Deadpool into the MCU would bring some changes because the movie side of things is very clearly advertised for families and marketed toward children. Disney also aren't stupid and aren't going to mess with a cash cow. If Deadpool continues to make money they'll let it do it's thing, if nothing else Deadpool just won't show up in the big Avengers movies even if he is still in the Universe. Which is fine since Deadpool never really should be an Avenger. though if done correctly due to his whole schtick you could easily fit him in the family friendly thing complaining about it.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 5, 2017 12:53:14 GMT -5
My issue with X-men interacting with the greater Marvel verse has been my issue from the very beginning. I just think X-men work better when they're on their own.
The whole story of the X-men is that they're hated by people. They represent evolution in humanity and it evokes religious and political issues because the world revolves around mutants. If the mutants also exist in a world with Inhumans, Spider-Man and The Hulk. The whole mutant issue isn't a big deal. Why are people worried about Mutants when they've openly rooted for freaks before? AND after TWO alien invasions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 12:57:30 GMT -5
Difference between leaving a character untouched in the comic books and a Netflix brand built on more adult themes. Folding Deadpool into the MCU would bring some changes because the movie side of things is very clearly advertised for families and marketed toward children. though if done correctly due to his whole schtick you could easily fit him in the family friendly thing complaining about it. I think that's going to be Disney's overall intention if they buy these properties. They're very, very smart marketers. If Deadpool can make $700MM aimed solely at a Rated-R crowd, I'm sure Disney believes they can not only beat that but also make it last for many, many movies by make it more palatable for a larger audience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 13:03:15 GMT -5
I think Disney would be open to keeping Reynolds as Deadpool but the character def will be modified to be more Disney-friendly. What I'm gonna miss is shit like the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy. An out of nowhere dead serious reinvention of a franchise. That's a big part of it too - in terms of superhero movies, Fox has been hit or miss depending on the property, but they've had a good variety of films under their banner. That's something I'm not sure Disney sees inherent value in. While there was a time when Disney dabbled in distributing more mature films, nearly all their properties (iirc) are pretty much under the "vaguely family friendly" banner at this point. I don't see that changing if they buy 20th Century Fox.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 5, 2017 15:07:36 GMT -5
Difference between leaving a character untouched in the comic books and a Netflix brand built on more adult themes. Folding Deadpool into the MCU would bring some changes because the movie side of things is very clearly advertised for families and marketed toward children. Disney also aren't stupid and aren't going to mess with a cash cow. If Deadpool continues to make money they'll let it do it's thing, if nothing else Deadpool just won't show up in the big Avengers movies even if he is still in the Universe. Which is fine since Deadpool never really should be an Avenger. though if done correctly due to his whole schtick you could easily fit him in the family friendly thing complaining about it. Also, on the Disney messing with a cash cow thing, there was a reason that some of the recent Pixar sequels were scrapped even though Disney wanted them to happen. Pixar essentially said "Erm, yeah, we have other ideas and stuff we want to do so those would probably be happening in, like, 30 years from now at best" and Disney looked at the box office for almost every other Pixar movie and went "...Fair point" and left them to it. It's also like Disney hasn't had adult films under their bracket before. They owned Miramax for years which is, like, 50% of Quentin Tarintino's back catalogue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 15:21:00 GMT -5
Disney also aren't stupid and aren't going to mess with a cash cow. If Deadpool continues to make money they'll let it do it's thing, if nothing else Deadpool just won't show up in the big Avengers movies even if he is still in the Universe. Which is fine since Deadpool never really should be an Avenger. though if done correctly due to his whole schtick you could easily fit him in the family friendly thing complaining about it. It's also like Disney hasn't had adult films under their bracket before. They owned Miramax for years which is, like, 50% of Quentin Tarintino's back catalogue. True, but that was a very different Disney back before Marvel/Starwars. By 2009 Iger had no interest in anything that doesn't allow them to be able to promote across their various brands. Its been nearly a decade and I don't see Disney really seeing any significant dollar value in NOT incorporating properties into the larger brand as that's been their MO for nearly a decade now.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 5, 2017 15:27:10 GMT -5
It's also like Disney hasn't had adult films under their bracket before. They owned Miramax for years which is, like, 50% of Quentin Tarintino's back catalogue. True, but that was a very different Disney back before Marvel/Starwars. By 2009 Iger had no interest in anything that doesn't allow them to be able to promote across their various brands. Its been nearly a decade and I don't see Disney really seeing any significant dollar value in NOT incorporating properties into the larger brand as that's been their MO for nearly a decade now. For what it's worth, Iger is set to retire in 2019 and as part of the deal it's looking increasingly likely that James Murdoch will be taking up a senior position at Disney, possibly being groomed as Iger's replacement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 15:33:03 GMT -5
I'm torn. I want Disney to have Fantastic Four back so it stops being unpersoned, but X-Men works waaaaaay better on its own than it does as part of the broader Marvel universe.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 5, 2017 15:33:45 GMT -5
It's also like Disney hasn't had adult films under their bracket before. They owned Miramax for years which is, like, 50% of Quentin Tarintino's back catalogue. True, but that was a very different Disney back before Marvel/Starwars. By 2009 Iger had no interest in anything that doesn't allow them to be able to promote across their various brands. Its been nearly a decade and I don't see Disney really seeing any significant dollar value in NOT incorporating properties into the larger brand as that's been their MO for nearly a decade now. Honestly, it’s not THAT different a Disney from the Eisner days. Not that I am comparing the two but Disney were the company that brought the Muppets for the singlular reason that it was an IP that could be spread across several different age groups, having success with adults and kids in the same way something like Looney Tunes did at one point for Warner Bros. It’s pretty much the same reason Nick only brought TMNT. Also, this was the company that brought Fox Family and all the franchises with it pretty much because a) there was a spare network slot for a boys channel, Fox Kids/Jetix which lead to Disney XD and b) because, like when they brought Marvel and Star Wars, they had no idea how to make a boys franchise. They could make a great family film but a lot of the stuff that was produced for a general audience. And, throwing my own theory out there, if you could put some stuff outside of the normal Disney fare on a Disney only streaming service, that’d be something that could give it something in the battle against Netflix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 15:34:55 GMT -5
True, but that was a very different Disney back before Marvel/Starwars. By 2009 Iger had no interest in anything that doesn't allow them to be able to promote across their various brands. Its been nearly a decade and I don't see Disney really seeing any significant dollar value in NOT incorporating properties into the larger brand as that's been their MO for nearly a decade now. For what it's worth, Iger is set to retire in 2019 and as part of the deal it's looking increasingly likely that James Murdoch will be taking up a senior position at Disney, possibly being groomed as Iger's replacement. Rupert's son is going to POSSIBLY be CEO of Disney? Maaaaaaaaan, they'd go from "hey, seriously, we're not evil" to "nevermind - we're totally evil" in one fell swoop. Well, either way, hopefully there are some kind of anti-trust laws that stop this from happening.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 5, 2017 15:43:51 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Iger is set to retire in 2019 and as part of the deal it's looking increasingly likely that James Murdoch will be taking up a senior position at Disney, possibly being groomed as Iger's replacement. Rupert's son is going to POSSIBLY be CEO of Disney? Maaaaaaaaan, they'd go from "hey, seriously, we're not evil" to "nevermind - we're totally evil" in one fell swoop. Pretty much. Can' put too much stock in Iger's MO when he won't be around much longer.
|
|