It''s bad enough that Marvel doesn't have right to make movies with the Fantastic Four, what compounds the issue is all of the other characters that are also off limits as part of the deal. I'd love to see Namor, or The Skruls or especially Kang to show up in an Avengers or Captain America flick, but unfortunately until Marvel gets all of its characters back, it's not going to happen.
Supposedly they've got the rights to Namor. Those were a separate deal and very tangled among at least three parties, but if it's worked out Disney should have full rights for film and digital properties now.
ReplyDeleteWow. What was the source for the Seven Soldiers part?
ReplyDeleteDC's Convergence event.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just---plain---WOW!
ReplyDeleteGreat cover, Ross!
ReplyDeleteI would think that Marvel would have the movie rights to Kang. He's always been much more closely associated with the Avengers than with the Fantastic Four. I mean I know that Kang is also Rama-Tut who began as an FF villain yadda, yadda, yadda, but in his Kang identity, his story is much more a part of the Avengers mythos.
As for the Seven Soldiers, I've always found them to be rather interesting because of the iconic nature of most of their members. You have a cowboys, a knight of the round table, Robin Hood and Will Scarlet, two fellows who together represent a living American flag ... and Crimson Avenger and Wing. If those last two would have remained true to their Green Hornet and Kato clone roots they could have represented the iconic pulp heroes of the 1930s....
One problem with using Kang, as I understand it (I could be wrong, of course), isn't necessarily the Rama-Tut rights with FF; it's got to do with the fact that time travel stories are outlawed in China. It sounds strange, but it's one of the genres or hooks of story-telling the country doesn't allow. Being such an important market, even if they had Kang, I think they'd be reluctant to use him.
ReplyDeleteTake care
Don
Really? They don't show Star Trek movies in China? Back to the Future? Days of Future past?
ReplyDeleteTerminator?
ReplyDelete@Sonofjack Well: I believe Marvel has actually stated outright that they can't use Kang because of Fox having the FF license. It may not make much sense, but... that's just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the rights to Namor *are* separate from the FF; Universal had licensed him, and I believe the rights either have reverted back to Marvel or should any day now. (Or something. Keeping track of these things is complicated, but Fox definitely did not get the license to Namor along with the FF.)
That sounds promising. I bet marvel really wishes they could have beaten Aquaman to the punch.
ReplyDeleteRoss, here's a Daily Mail article on it. There's a few others as well, and some of them clarify the intent of the ban (which isn't stressed here). So it's muddled, but at some level, it's a thing. The deeper definition appears to be focused on the idea of "not allowing disrespect for the past." It's a fascinating thing to dig into in general, for sure.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376771/Great-Scott-China-bans-time-travel-cinema-TV.html
Take care
Don
Yeah. Especially if that "disrespect" is for the regime responsible for the 1964 "Cultural Revolution" and the Tianamen Square "Incident."
ReplyDeleteYes, OX has full rights to Kang from the FF umbrella as well as Marvel does have Namor back, that occurred sometime in the last year or two. Also time travel stories are indeed... oddly enough... outlawed in Japan but it doesn't stop them from having a female Doctor Who manga. Go figure?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Chris: does the Good Girl Doctor at least wear a fedora and long coat over the otherwise mandatory mini-skirted schoolgirl outfit?
ReplyDelete