Doctor Strange 2 announced. 7 7

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:19 AM, Bosco685 said:

Check yourself. If you read through what you have been posting about films before they come out, you may be shocked how negative your messaging is.

Not sure if this is linked to a dedication to Zack Snyder, but it is like it is on your weekly punch card to note how little you are excited for Matt Reeves' The Batman.

Check yourself. Baseless inferences like this are why I think that taking a break may be in your best interests.

I get 2 different opening-weekend tickets to see it, but I'm 'not excited'?

Edited February 16, 2022 by theCapraAegagrus

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:22 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Check yourself. Baseless inferences like this are why I think that taking a break may be in your best interests.

I get 2 opening-weekend tickets to see it, but I'm "not excited"?

Baseless? Go read your posts in that thread. Then look in the mirror as the wakeup call dawn on you.

Dude, you force yourself to have these situations. Nobody is forcing you to pop up in thread that you have little to no interest in to state "this is probably going to be bad".

Good on you for buying a ticket. You bought two tickets to Captain Marvel (I think you are not a fan of that movie - but could be wrong). 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Bosco685

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:25 AM, Bosco685 said:

Baseless? Go read your posts in that thread. Then look in the mirro as the wakeup call dawn on you.

Dude, you force yourself to have these situations. Nobody is forcing you to pop up in thread that you have little to no interest in to state "this is probably going to be bad".

Good on you for buying a ticket. You bought two tickets to Captain Marvel (I think you are not a fan of that movie - but could be wrong). 

This is the Multiverse of Madness thread and someone else brought up The Batman. Get a grip.

I was excited to see Captain Marvel, too, genius.

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:27 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

This is the Multiverse of Madness thread and someone else brought up The Batman. Get a grip.

I was excited to see Captain Marvel, too, genius.

I have a grip. Check your own posts and see how well your psychoanalyst has helped with your emotions.

So to see a movie twice so as to confirm how disappointed you were in it Captain Marvel - genius, huh? 

[Sauce Dog]

For those needing a summery of this thread over the last few pages without having to read any of the above posts:

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:30 AM, Bosco685 said:

I have a grip. Check your own posts and see how well your psychoanalyst has helped with your emotions.

So to see a movie twice so as to confirm how disappointed you were in it Captain Marvel - genius, huh? 

Going off the rails after someone posts some box office predictions makes you a leading authority?

You forgot that I buy 2 tickets to any/every movie that I am excited for, okay. If you think that The Batman will be as bad as Captain Marvel, that's not on me.

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:34 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Going off the rails after someone posts some box office predictions makes you a leading authority?

You forgot that I buy 2 tickets to any/every movie that I am excited for, okay. If you think that The Batman will be as bad as Captain Marvel, that's not on me.

Going off the rails? Not at all. You just want to make sure it is clear you had some point to make. Yet to compare a brand new franchise on a character to the 28th film in the MCU with loads of other benefits, where is the link between them? Show me. And I won't even call you 'genius' or 'going off the rails'.

Show the logic behind the comparison.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:37 AM, Bosco685 said:

...You just want to make sure it is clear you had some point to make...

Show the logic behind the comparison.

My only point was a box office prediction. I would have never thought that such an innocent post would offend anyone.

Already mentioned: Someone else brought up The Batman.

[zuckuss2003]

Just needs someone to argue with. Its not worth your time.

[fantastic_four]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:17 AM, Bosco685 said:

Spider-Man rights belonging to Disney/Marvel Studios

• Spider-Man (TV rights - live and animated): News Article #1.
• Spider-Man (merchandising rights): News Article #1.

 

THANKS!!!  So they sort of swapped rights back in 2011--Sony got Marvel's cut of movies, and Disney got Sony's cut of merchandise.  Kind of a weird deal, but it makes some sense given that Sony doesn't do toys and doesn't have the relationships with toy manufacturers that Disney does.  I'm somewhat surprised Disney would give up their cut of the films, though, given how massively profitable Spider-Man films were up through 2011.  Feels like Sony won that deal, although that's impossible to say since we don't know how much both paid for the rights they got.

[Buzzetta]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:13 AM, Bosco685 said:

Sony owned the merchandising rights until it sold it back to Disney in late 2011 (also covered in the Marvel rights thread).

Fox never owned the merchandising rights. Marvel retained these rights, but spited itself by cutting down on an X-Men focus during the time of X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past.

This is really for FF but I’m on my phone.  I thought I quoted both.  But Bosco add in if I’m missing anything or get anything wrong.

______________________________
Yup… which is why Disney is not interested from a financial point in outright buying back Spider-man.  
 

Disney still owns Spiderman 

Sony has the Spiderman license to create live action movies so long as they are continually developing aspects of the license. 
 

Disney continues to retain rights to TV, cartoons etc

Disney has the merchandising rights to Spiderman.  
 

Prior to 2011 Sony took a piece of the action on movie related merchandising when it came to Spiderman.  So the Toy Biz Spiderman figures depicting character designs from the movies have Sony a cut.  However if it was a generic Spiderman t shirt featuring a Romita design sold in Target then Marvel (Disney) profited. 
 

After 2011, as Bosco said, Sony needed money so they sold the merchandising rights back to Disney.  Now, no matter what anyone does with the character Disney makes money.  Sony only profits off the films.  

 

 

[fantastic_four]

You either discuss to explore and learn, or you do it to feed your ego.  I've learned to easily identify the latter--they inevitably use logical fallacy, particularly ad hominems which we've just seen numerous examples of over the past two pages.  If you're discussing for fun and not ego it's NEVER worth engaging with the Master Debaters.  

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:45 AM, fantastic_four said:

THANKS!!!  So they sort of swapped rights back in 2011--Sony got Marvel's cut of movies, and Disney got Sony's cut of merchandise.  Kind of a weird deal, but it makes some sense given that Sony doesn't do toys and doesn't have the relationships with toy manufacturers that Disney does.  I'm somewhat surprised Disney would give up their cut of the films, though, given how massively profitable Spider-Man films were up through 2011.  Feels like Sony won that deal, although that's impossible to say since we don't know how much both paid for the rights they got.

 

On 2/16/2022 at 8:45 AM, Buzzetta said:

This is really for FF but I’m on my phone.  I thought I quoted both.  But Bosco add in if I’m missing anything or get anything wrong.

______________________________
Yup… which is why Disney is not interested from a financial point in outright buying back Spider-man.  
 

Disney still owns Spiderman 

Sony has the Spiderman license to create live action movies so long as they are continually developing aspects of the license. 
 

Disney continues to retain rights to TV, cartoons etc

Disney has the merchandising rights to Spiderman.  
 

Prior to 2011 Sony took a piece of the action on movie related merchandising when it came to Spiderman.  So the Toy Biz Spiderman figures depicting character designs from the movies have Sony a cut.  However if it was a generic Spiderman t shirt featuring a Romita design sold in Target then Marvel (Disney) profited. 
 

After 2011, as Bosco said, Sony needed money so they sold the merchandising rights back to Disney.  Now, no matter what anyone does with the character Disney makes money.  Sony only profits off the films.  

It really is interesting as this was long before Sony got hacked in 2014. But it was struggling financially to keep all its divisions whole. So the hacking brought out more of the details from 2011 what was going on at the time. To include the emails from Ike Perlmutter how female superhero films never do well.

But before then, Disney saw an opportunity and pounced. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried for all rights, and then settled on the merchandising rights which at that time was bringing in $1.2B/annually as an estimate. A very wise move!

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:50 AM, fantastic_four said:

You either discuss to explore and learn, or you do it to feed your ego.  I've learned to easily identify the latter--they inevitably use logical fallacy, particularly ad hominems which we've just seen numerous examples of over the past two pages.  If you're discussing for fun and not ego it's NEVER worth engaging with the Master Debaters.  

Uh-huh. Hear ya, but also recognize over the years all the Water Cooler fun and excitement you have been part of. 

[fantastic_four]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:51 AM, Bosco685 said:

Yup… which is why Disney is not interested from a financial point in outright buying back Spider-man.

 

On 2/16/2022 at 8:51 AM, Bosco685 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried for all rights, and then settled on the merchandising rights which at that time was bringing in $1.2B/annually as an estimate. A very wise move!

Yea, I assume they DO want Spider-Man film rights back, but at this point have to just wait for Sony to struggle at some point and be forced to sell.  Love how Amy Pascal likes the dangle yanking Spidey back out of the MCU to the press during contract negotiations...classy move to threaten to shank the fans every few years.  

[fantastic_four]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:53 AM, Bosco685 said:

Uh-huh. Hear ya, but also recognize over the years all the Water Cooler fun and excitement you have been part of. 

The ONLY topic I debate is comic book grading.  Debate is a tool best used for achieving some social or political end, not a mode of discussion used arbitrarily.  But I haven't debated grading in over a decade, so 99.9% of what I've ever posted here is navigating the interest--or, if necessary and not overly unpleasant, the egos--of whoever I'm talking to, searching their brain for whatever information is in the topic at hand that I'm interested in.

If you go back to 2002 you can definitely find me using more logical fallacy then than now with a gradual decrease in usage over time.  Meh...like most things, we learn, and later we un-learn.  It decreases every year as I identify more and more fallacies that I may have indiscriminately used in the past.

Edited February 16, 2022 by fantastic_four

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:06 AM, fantastic_four said:

The ONLY topic I debate is comic book grading.  Debate is a tool best used for achieving some social or political end, not a mode of discussion used arbitrarily.  But I haven't debated grading in over a decade, so 99.9% of what I've ever posted here is navigating the interest--or, if necessary and not overly unpleasant, the egos--of whoever I'm talking to, searching their brain for whatever information is in the topic at hand that I'm interested in.

If you go back to 2002 you can definitely find me using more logical fallacy then than now with a gradual decrease in usage over time.  Meh...like most things, we learn, and later we un-learn.  It decreases every year as I identify more and more fallacies that I may have indiscriminately used in the past.

MEANWHILE, we all have a community area to discuss the games, movies and TV shows that are either comic book related or otherwise. And yes, not everyone is going to appreciate the same content nor should they.

But when you factor in positive and negative affect in how some get attached to a topic, it can be a good and a bad thing with forum discussions. Which is why it can lead to heightened attention when someone gets so linked to a topic such as DC vs Marvel, degrading the general atmosphere. And yet this can be perception more than reality. It happens.

Like your assumed concern over ad hominems. When you brought up Doctor Strange vs The Batman, I noted the logical reasons why this comparison doesn't add up. There are variables that clearly distinguish between the two that wouldn't even lead to a proper comparison without a number of disclaimers. Other than one made more money than the other, and we add assumptions to the analysis why we think it happened. Though some will insert biases into the dfiscussion how it clearly must be Studio X that did something unique (or didn't) leading to a final box office. But nowhere were you referred to as genius, knucklehead or any other deragatory attempts.

Now with the assumption Ike Perlmutter helped break down Fox Studios by excluding their characters from comic books and merchandising - that's a perception situation. Disney spent $71.3 billion to acquire all properties belonging to Fox Studios so as to fill its Disney+ planned pipeline. Although massively expensive, we are seeing already the roadmap they had planned with Aliens, Predator, Planet of the Apes, Home Alone, Cheaper By the Dozen, the remaining Star Wars franchise ownership concerning A New Hope rights, and so much more. And yes, Fantastic Four and X-Men. But if your focus was just Marvel properites, the assumption is IKE WON! But really happened here was much bigger due to Disney+. Otherwise, we could have had more years of Fox Marvel vs. Disney/Marvel Studios tradeoffs. Though with the latter I enjoyed having competing studios that were releasing 1-3 productions annually with Marvel characters.

[Buzzetta]

There is a factor that Strange has over Batman.  The first trailer was released as an end credits scene to Spiderman.  Marvel just basically told the spiderman audience that the continuation of this story (Spider-Man) is in Dr Strange.  
 

I don’t think they ever did that before where the tag at the end was the actual trailer for the next… not a scene like winter soldier but a trailer 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:40 AM, Buzzetta said:

There is a factor that Strange has over Batman.  The first trailer was released as an end credits scene to Spiderman.  Marvel just basically told the spiderman audience that the continuation of this story (Spider-Man) is in Dr Strange.  
 

I don’t think they ever did that before where the tag at the end was the actual trailer for the next… not a scene like winter soldier but a trailer 

The Avengers trailer played at the end of Captain America, IIRC. Somewhat different scenario, though.

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:40 AM, Buzzetta said:

There is a factor that Strange has over Batman.  The first trailer was released as an end credits scene to Spiderman.  Marvel just basically told the spiderman audience that the continuation of this story (Spider-Man) is in Dr Strange.  
 

I don’t think they ever did that before where the tag at the end was the actual trailer for the next… not a scene like winter soldier but a trailer 

I think that was a first. As it was rumored there was going to be a trailer in the end, and many reporting sites dismissed this stating Marvel Studios doesn't do credit scenes like that.

Definitely different.