They've got it all figured out.
Ish.
The Undefined Gamer:
We all know that the Marvel Universe is split into three fine parts by lawyers over
at Fox, Sony, and Disney. The reason being that these companies assume
that shared properties would automatically call for a collaboration
between studios, and in such collaborations, profit sharing can be
awfully tricky.
Once rationally thinking about this, you'd realize that that would
never work. Aside from conflicts of interest, a multi-studio film
would run the risk of developing a film with conflicting styles,
tones, etc.
I say out with this idea.
Out with profit-sharing, too.
Both are impossible to figure out. However, why should this require
the Marvel Universe to be separated into three pieces?
Another way can work.
Whenever a studio like Disney uses a Marvel character they do not own,
like Spider-Man, they should pay an up-front user fee. This fee should
be reasonable; not ridiculous, but enough to justify to companies like
Sony and Fox a reason to write this clause in while clearly making the
rental of the licence itself clearly an investment not to be taken
lightly. This will allow the Marvel Movie universe to follow a loose
continuity. Similar to the comics, while ensuring that crossovers
between the three licence holders have profound meaning; they'll exist
only because the investing studio believes they'll be able to use the
license well enough to earn back their investment.
Of course there will be restrictions. No full length movies can be
based off of borrowed licenses with the exception of short films such
as the Marvel "One Shot" series, though borrowed characters can play
major roles in other films. Cameos will cost significantly less. No
large multi-studio projects should be allowed, though license holders
will have to approve the script on the basis of continuity issues. A
rental of a character also merits the rental of his/her actor in that
role, unless if the renter obtain special permission from the license
holder. We don't need 20 actors playing the same character in the same
time line.
I think that covers most things. Honestly, I think it can work. It'll
take a ton of legal buttkicking, but it'll be worth it.
at Fox, Sony, and Disney. The reason being that these companies assume
that shared properties would automatically call for a collaboration
between studios, and in such collaborations, profit sharing can be
awfully tricky.
Once rationally thinking about this, you'd realize that that would
never work. Aside from conflicts of interest, a multi-studio film
would run the risk of developing a film with conflicting styles,
tones, etc.
I say out with this idea.
Out with profit-sharing, too.
Both are impossible to figure out. However, why should this require
the Marvel Universe to be separated into three pieces?
Another way can work.
Whenever a studio like Disney uses a Marvel character they do not own,
like Spider-Man, they should pay an up-front user fee. This fee should
be reasonable; not ridiculous, but enough to justify to companies like
Sony and Fox a reason to write this clause in while clearly making the
rental of the licence itself clearly an investment not to be taken
lightly. This will allow the Marvel Movie universe to follow a loose
continuity. Similar to the comics, while ensuring that crossovers
between the three licence holders have profound meaning; they'll exist
only because the investing studio believes they'll be able to use the
license well enough to earn back their investment.
Of course there will be restrictions. No full length movies can be
based off of borrowed licenses with the exception of short films such
as the Marvel "One Shot" series, though borrowed characters can play
major roles in other films. Cameos will cost significantly less. No
large multi-studio projects should be allowed, though license holders
will have to approve the script on the basis of continuity issues. A
rental of a character also merits the rental of his/her actor in that
role, unless if the renter obtain special permission from the license
holder. We don't need 20 actors playing the same character in the same
time line.
I think that covers most things. Honestly, I think it can work. It'll
take a ton of legal buttkicking, but it'll be worth it.
Cinema Won:
In theory, the idea the Undefined Gamer has is not a bad one. In many ways, a user-fee could work. Except for one thing. Marvel Studios doesn't need Spider-Man. Or X-Men. Or the Fantastic Four. Honestly, though I get where many fans are coming from, Spider-Man in the Avengers has never really worked. When both him and Wolverine joins the New Avengers, it wasn't really that great a story. Spider-Man, especially the new Andrew Garfield one, works better on his own. Same for Wolverine.
Hell, I don't even get people begging for X-Men/Fantastic Four. There's a reason why not every single Marvel Comic features multiple characters. Many characters who were created as solo characters work best solo. Yes, the Avengers were all solo heroes at first, but Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man, they were all classically Avengers characters, so they fit. Even characters like Doctor Strange or Ms. Marvel, who don't have movies yet would work if they are set up as Avengers. But Spider-Man isn't set up as an Avenger. Honestly, asking for all the characters to be in one film is nothing more than blatant fanservice. Fanservice that probably
won't make a decent film.
I mean, you'd have to be foolish just to, I don't know, bring your biggest characters together in one film, even if they aren't prepared or set up for it. I mean, doing it entirely to please fans after, let's say, the start of your cinematic universe turned out kinda crap and instead of fixing it, you're adding in the one character you know how to "use correctly", just would make for a probably awful film. But who'd be stupid enough to do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment