The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

[thenammagazine]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Seems like there is no possible way that Sony would allow Spider-Man to appear in this movie. Unless it's an Andrew Garfield cameo intended to promote their upcoming reboot. That would actually get more fans excited about the new actor and might help to sway people who were on the fence. Then the question would be whether or not Marvel/Disney want to contribute to the success of the competition. They probably would rather see Spider-Man die at Sony so they can reclaim the rights.

Just imagine if Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Daredevil, etc. all belonged to Marvel Studios. The things they could do with their movies would be mind blowing.

Yeah, I don't see it happening.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Yeah, I don't see it happening.

party pooper

 

[thenammagazine]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

party pooper

Go wash your trenchcoat.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Go wash your trenchcoat.

July 2012

 

[Sachiel]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Just imagine if Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Daredevil, etc. all belonged to Marvel Studios. The things they could do with their movies would be mind blowing.

And distracting... and possibly a big mess.

 

[stormbringer]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

So close now to release date....really hope this movie delivers

 

[lozric]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Seems like there is no possible way that Sony would allow Spider-Man to appear in this movie. Unless it's an Andrew Garfield cameo intended to promote their upcoming reboot. That would actually get more fans excited about the new actor and might help to sway people who were on the fence. Then the question would be whether or not Marvel/Disney want to contribute to the success of the competition. They probably would rather see Spider-Man die at Sony so they can reclaim the rights.

Just imagine if Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Daredevil, etc. all belonged to Marvel Studios. The things they could do with their movies would be mind blowing.

Don't see this happening either, but have thought of the possibilities before if they were to loan out their charcters to one another. Always thought of Captain America either on ice appearing in x-men or in flash back with wolverine for a trade of giving Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch in an avengers sequel.

 

[EVILFACE]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Does Sony's license cover only live actiom movies? Since Disney owns Marvel, is it possible they can have Pixar make a animated Spidey movie?

 

[Oscar_the_Gungan]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

I could see how a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation" could benefit both parties but I guess there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff since Disney took over Marvel that we don't know about. I imagine the Disney lawyers looked into it but it sounds like those contracts are pretty air tight. You would think with how interconnected the Marvel Universe is that some gray areas exist that both parties are afraid to touch and if they could amicably agree about those areas it would be a win for everyone.
I have wondered if also if those contracts included television since Marvel is making a move toward live-action television, but I don't know. Sounds like its time for The Mike to chime in.
My guess is Jenny Agutter's comment on Spider-Man was a misquote or misunderstanding by her or the interviewer. I would kind of worry that if it was true that Spidey being the iconic character he is, would derail the movie and take too long for it to get back on track. It sounds like Whedon has quite the juggling act on this film. With Serenity he had the luxury of killing off characters when he was done with them.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Enjoy.

 

[FLOSI]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Stifler's Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[K07]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Stifler's Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the blurbs about "Skyfall" and "Bourne Legacy" excite me more than "The Avengers." No. Wait. I know they excite me more.

 

[FLOSI]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

I think the blurbs about "Skyfall" and "Bourne Legacy" excite me more than "The Avengers." No. Wait. I know they excite me more.

Well, the Scarlett cover is the only thing that really excites me, but that's not an appropriate conversation for this forum. :

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Stark is saying

"STOP, DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!"

 

[intothevoid]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

WTF is up with Stark's hair? Like he walked out of a huge hairdryer

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

WTF is up with Stark's hair? Like he walked out of a huge hairdryer

With Thor

 

[Khev]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Looks like Thor can't believe its not butta.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

RDJr looks like Powers Booth in that pict.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

That is so not even legally possible

That is incorrect, it is completely legally possible if the right agreements were struck. It would simply require Marvel Studios to sign over a percentage of the box office receipts over to Sony for usage of the character. The lawyers would have to fight over how much of a percentage would belong to Sony due to the draw of the Spider-Man character which is always the hiccup but it's definitely possible. The trickest part comes with merchandising, anything Spider-Man related by contract of Marvel/Sony would belong to Sony but also anything Avengers related would have to cut a percentage over to Sony as well as they can argue that Spider-Man created the want/desire for said pieces. It's messy and would have taken a lot of work done before the film even began filming but it's definitely doable. Whether any of the studios would WANT to do so is the bigger issue. I don't see Disney simply signing over any money for any reason.

Can you imagine If their legal agreements have been ammended to include Spidey or other Marvel character in this Avengers movie

The biggest one other than the revenue issue would be the actor's contractual piece. If Andrew Garfield were signed for three for example, he'd be legally able to count this as a Spider-Man performance and renegotiate without much of a problem once his two Sony films were done. I'm sure Sony wouldn't want that issue and so would probably try and get Disney to fork over any difference in cost which I'm sure the Mouse would scoff at. Not only that would the issue that if they didn't show Garfield's face at all, therefore not actually needing him, the actor could sue under contract that he is signed to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man for a duration of time (usually it's 5 years) and that both Disney and Sony were trying to sidestep out of it.

Does Sony's license cover only live actiom movies? Since Disney owns Marvel, is it possible they can have Pixar make a animated Spidey movie?

Yes and no. Sony owns any film likenesses or right to use Spider-Man in any incarnation, Garfield, Maguire or otherwise. While Disney could do an animated Pixar Marvel film they couldn't put it in the theaters using any of the characters that are owned by other studios because while it's not live action, the placement of the film in an actual theater infringes upon the clause which states that Sony would handle the movie rights and creates competition against their own settings. Disney could create a direct to video film or even a TV animated film without a problem, it's putting in actual theaters which is the issue.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

That is incorrect, it is completely legally possible if the right agreements were struck. It would simply require Marvel Studios to sign over a percentage of the box office receipts over to Sony for usage of the character. The lawyers would have to fight over how much of a percentage would belong to Sony due to the draw of the Spider-Man character which is always the hiccup but it's definitely possible. The trickest part comes with merchandising, anything Spider-Man related by contract of Marvel/Sony would belong to Sony but also anything Avengers related would have to cut a percentage over to Sony as well as they can argue that Spider-Man created the want/desire for said pieces. It's messy and would have taken a lot of work done before the film even began filming but it's definitely doable. Whether any of the studios would WANT to do so is the bigger issue. I don't see Disney simply signing over any money for any reason.



The biggest one other than the revenue issue would be the actor's contractual piece. If Andrew Garfield were signed for three for example, he'd be legally able to count this as a Spider-Man performance and renegotiate without much of a problem once his two Sony films were done. I'm sure Sony wouldn't want that issue and so would probably try and get Disney to fork over any difference in cost which I'm sure the Mouse would scoff at. Not only that would the issue that if they didn't show Garfield's face at all, therefore not actually needing him, the actor could sue under contract that he is signed to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man for a duration of time (usually it's 5 years) and that both Disney and Sony were trying to sidestep out of it.



Yes and no. Sony owns any film likenesses or right to use Spider-Man in any incarnation, Garfield, Maguire or otherwise. While Disney could do an animated Pixar Marvel film they couldn't put it in the theaters using any of the characters that are owned by other studios because while it's not live action, the placement of the film in an actual theater infringes upon the clause which states that Sony would handle the movie rights and creates competition against their own settings. Disney could create a direct to video film or even a TV animated film without a problem, it's putting in actual theaters which is the issue.

Yup, no Spidey in Avengers