Marvel ain't touching DC in the next few years.

[Bryan Danielson]

I explained this to you before. Avi Arad is a co-founder of Marvel Studios and he was the CEO of Marvel Entertainment. He and Marvel Entertainment were producers on Fantastic Four, Daredevil, The Punisher, the Spider-Man films with Tobey, all that shyt from the early 2000s.

They and Stan Lee had some input in the properties but ultimately it is the studio that has the final say. Marvel Studios didn't produce their own film until Iron Man and that's when they had full creative input. We have no idea how much input they had on the earlier films unless there is an interview that explains what role they took on..

So all this bullshyt you keep posting... it's for naught.

Maybe you're right..... just from my understanding... it was a Marvel produced Film under the Marvel Knights banner which does the darker tone movies ala how under the comic imprint Marvel Knights comic (all still under Marvel) are always darker and gorier and more violent than the Marvel comics. Lionsgate was just the distributor no different from how Iron Man one was produced by Marvel but distributed by Paramount or how now Avengers is produced by Marvel but now distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictured

 

[MartyMcFly]

Maybe you're right..... just from my understanding... it was a Marvel produced Film under the Marvel Knights banner which does the darker tone movies ala how under the comic imprint Marvel Knights comic (all still under Marvel) are always darker and gorier and more violent than the Marvel comics. Lionsgate was just the distributor no different from how Iron Man one was produced by Marvel but distributed by Paramount or how now Avengers is produced by Marvel but now distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictured

Ok ok ok. So if the director of the flick says it was a lionsgate produced movie with marvels name attached to it and that they had no say in the final product, why doesn't that change your view lol. That's what I'm trying to understand. We aren't pulling this shyt out of our asses, this comes directly from the person who was in charge of the production

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Marvel and Disney is the same thing. Marvel Studios is under the Disney umbrella. It's very different. Yes, Marvel Studios started out as a partnership with other distributors but they owned the properties and the distributor did just that.

Marvel Studios didn't own the rights to The Punisher until recently. It was Lionsgate who said that they handled the project and basically told Marvel to kick rocks.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

This dude doesn't understand the concept of multiple producers and one distributing studio. A film can have multiple producers but it is the studio that distributes the movie that canmake changes to the final product and ultimately has the final say.

Marvel Studios films are distributed through Disney. They are the lone distributor with Spider-Man being the exception. Sony and Disney will co-distribute Spider-Man movies but I believe Sony has agreed to allow Disney creative control. I will have to read further on that.

No... I get that... and I'm not denying that....

Oh and to answer you and @MartyMcFly

Na, I never heard the director say that... my bad if I missed that.

And I'm not trynna be a dikk brehs... this is some actually good discussion.

Ok so bet.... in comparing Ironman to PWZ


Ironman production companies was Marvel and Fairview Entertainment

Whiles PWZ was Marvel Knights (Marvel sub company) and Valhalla Motion Pictures


Are you basically saying possibly in the IM partnership in producing Marvel had maybe more power in the split and in PWZ VM Pictures had more power?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Marvel and Disney is the same thing. Marvel Studios is under the Disney umbrella. It's very different. Yes, Marvel Studios started out as a partnership with other distributors but they owned the properties and the distributor did just that.

Marvel Studios didn't own the rights to The Punisher until recently. It was Lionsgate who said that they handled the project and basically told Marvel to kick rocks.

Exactly. Lionsgate owned it and and got the marvel entertainment seal just as fantastic four has and just as x men has.

 

[IllustratorMike]

Ok.... maybe I need a refresher of what is considered DARK.

Cuz I know some claim Joker off screen killing like 2 people and that one magic trip death scene which in more "implied" than actually shown is considered "dark" but Frank Castle cutting off heads isnt and is over the top?

What are some "dark" moments in the Batman .... oh.... I'm sorry.... DC movies?

Didn't Frank put his fist THROUGH a face? Cmon, breh if that ain't over the top alone...

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Fairview Entertainment is Jon Favreau's company. As the director of the film he obviously had a lot of say but Marvel Studios owned the rights and can tell him to make changes, etc. They have the final say but I didn't hear about them having any issues with Favreau. Marvel's films didn't start being micromanaged until Disney bought them out. Now Disney for the most part hires directors who won't talk back.

 

[MartyMcFly]

No... I get that... and I'm not denying that....

Oh and to answer you and @MartyMcFly

Na, I never heard the director say that... my bad if I missed that.

And I'm not trynna be a dikk brehs... this is some actually good discussion.

Ok so bet.... in comparing Ironman to PWZ


Ironman production companies was Marvel and Fairview Entertainment

Whiles PWZ was Marvel Knights (Marvel sub company) and Valhalla Motion Pictures


Are you basically saying possibly in the IM partnership in producing Marvel had maybe more power in the split and in PWZ VM Pictures had more power?

Marvel ended up owning iron man straight up. They used paramount to distribute. Think of it as roc a fella records being its own company but using def jam as a distributor. Then Disney purchased marvel meaning they wouldn't need a distributor anymore. They have the full backing of the Disney empire so they don't have to shop their movies around for distribution.

Lionsgate lost the rights to the punisher after they didn't produce a movie for x amount of years. That marvel knights thing was just some fancy letterhead because really it was all lionsgate. Now that they own punisher outright, they can do whatever they want with him. They had to sell the rights to these characters years ago to stay afloat after going bankrupt. Some of them they got back, some they didn't.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

That's also a big reason why I have high hopes for these DC projects because Warner Bros. hires a director like David Ayer and he writes/directs his own movie. They put the project in his hands and let him cook. Just like they put the Batman/Superman into Snyder/Terrio's hands. They have main bullet points of an overall story arc and the rest is filled in with the director's own vision.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

Fairview Entertainment is Jon Favreau's company. As the director of the film he obviously had a lot of say but Marvel Studios owned the rights and can tell him to make changes, etc. They have the final say but I didn't hear about them having any issues with Favreau. Marvel's films didn't start being micromanaged until Disney bought them out. Now Disney for the most part hires directors who won't talk back.

Cool beans... I got you my 11-5 Niners breh..... I just always thought Liongates was just a distributor.... didnt know they produced films too.

Marvel ended up owning iron man straight up. They used paramount to distribute. Think of it as roc a fella records being its own company but using def jam as a distributor. Then Disney purchased marvel meaning they wouldn't need a distributor anymore. They have the full backing of the Disney empire so they don't have to shop their movies around for distribution.

Lionsgate lost the rights to the punisher after they didn't produce a movie for x amount of years. That marvel knights thing was just some fancy letterhead because really it was all lionsgate. Now that they own punisher outright, they can do whatever they want with him. They had to sell the rights to these characters years ago to stay afloat after going bankrupt. Some of them they got back, some they didn't.

Gotcha...... lol.... sorry.... still kinda skeptical.... but I got ya now

 

[MartyMcFly]

That's also a big reason why I have high hopes for these DC projects because Warner Bros. hires a director like David Ayer and he writes/directs his own movie. They put the project in his hands and let him cook. Just like they put the Batman/Superman into Snyder/Terrio's hands. They have main bullet points of an overall story arc and the rest is filled in with the director's own vision.

There's a review of ant-man on aintitcool that I think you may like breh.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72341

 

[MartyMcFly]

Cool beans... I got you my 11-5 Niners breh..... I just always thought Liongates was just a distributor.... didnt know they produced films too.



Gotcha...... lol.... sorry.... still kinda skeptical.... but I got ya now

lol it's cool. Just listen to the podcast breh. She goes into plenty of details some of it pure fukkery on the part of the studio. And she's an entertaining listen too.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

There's a review of ant-man on aintitcool that I think you may like breh.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72341

Good look, will read tomorrow at work

 

[MartyMcFly]

Also that's the reason why fox has fantastic four and x men and why Sony has spider man. Marvel still had their name slapped on them but it wasn't marvel studios it was marvel entertainment

 

[MartyMcFly]

Good look, will read tomorrow at work

It's not a negative review at all but he talks about the studio system and his issues with it and how it comes out in the movie