Current Events > Couldn't Marvel theoretically do this

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 6:56:42 PM #51:	Smashingpmkns posted... Marvel didn't make MVCI. Disney is the one who orchestrated the cut. Marvel was not allowed to have a say in the matter. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926420312] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Marvel didn't make MVCI.</quote>Disney is the one who orchestrated the cut. Marvel was not allowed to have a say in the matter. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 6:57:09 PM #52:	Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Still not a monopoly. You understand that you do not need to own literally everything to have a monopoly, right? You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right? --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420328] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Still not a monopoly.</quote>You understand that you do not need to own literally everything to have a monopoly, right? </quote> You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 6:57:09 PM #53:	Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... They pretty much do. Right I'm sure that's why Wolverine was cut from MVCI Marvel didn't make MVCI. Do you think Capcom and Marvel Games chose to not include the X-Men? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926420329] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> They pretty much do.</quote>Right I'm sure that's why Wolverine was cut from MVCI </quote> Marvel didn't make MVCI.</quote> Do you think Capcom and Marvel Games chose to not include the X-Men?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 6:58:43 PM #54:	Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Marvel didn't make MVCI. Disney is the one who orchestrated the cut. Marvel was not allowed to have a say in the matter. Again, it wasn't something made by Marvel. Everything that Marvel has had a hand in, including movies and comics, has been mostly hands off. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420387] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Marvel didn't make MVCI.</quote>Disney is the one who orchestrated the cut. Marvel was not allowed to have a say in the matter. </quote> Again, it wasn't something made by Marvel. Everything that Marvel has had a hand in, including movies and comics, has been mostly hands off.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:01:00 PM #55:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... They pretty much do. Right I'm sure that's why Wolverine was cut from MVCI Marvel didn't make MVCI. Do you think Capcom and Marvel Games chose to not include the X-Men? What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420474] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> They pretty much do. </quote>Right I'm sure that's why Wolverine was cut from MVCI </quote> Marvel didn't make MVCI.</quote> Do you think Capcom and Marvel Games chose to not include the X-Men?</quote> What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:01:25 PM #56:	I guess Capcom and all of the mobile game developers randomly decided to not use any characters who had their movie rights tied with Fox for mysterious reasons we'll never know or understand. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926420485] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>I guess Capcom and all of the mobile game developers randomly decided to not use any characters who had their movie rights tied with Fox for mysterious reasons we'll never know or understand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 7:01:27 PM #57:	Smashingpmkns posted... You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right? Marvel doesn't own itself so your train here is irrelevant. Anything Marvel owns they don't actually own and it's actually owned by Disney. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926420487] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right?</quote>Marvel doesn't own itself so your train here is irrelevant. Anything Marvel owns they don't actually own and it's actually owned by Disney. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 7:01:54 PM #58:	Smashingpmkns posted... What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters Marvel did not give the rights to Capcom. Disney did. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926420506] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters</quote>Marvel did not give the rights to Capcom. Disney did. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:03:24 PM #59:	Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right? Marvel doesn't own itself so your train here is irrelevant. Anything Marvel owns they don't actually own and it's actually owned by Disney. Lol that's not exactly how it works. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420577] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> You understand that Marvel owning the rights to all of their properties that they created isn't a monopoly, right?</quote>Marvel doesn't own itself so your train here is irrelevant. Anything Marvel owns they don't actually own and it's actually owned by Disney. </quote> Lol that's not exactly how it works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DoctorVader 08/22/19 7:04:49 PM #60:	They'll probably just hire Jon Watts to make other MCU movies as a small fuck you and that's about it. He hasn't been attached to 3 and 4 yet because lots of studios are trying to grab him instead. He said working with Feige was great and for the most part, both Disney and Sony were pretty much completely hands off and cool with all his ideas. --- It all just disappears, doesn't it? Everything you are, gone in a moment, like breath on a mirror. - The Doctor <cite>DoctorVader posted [p:926420635] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>They'll probably just hire Jon Watts to make other MCU movies as a small fuck you and that's about it. He hasn't been attached to 3 and 4 yet because lots of studios are trying to grab him instead. He said working with Feige was great and for the most part, both Disney and Sony were pretty much completely hands off and cool with all his ideas.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:04:50 PM #61:	Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters Marvel did not give the rights to Capcom. Disney did. Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420640] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> What level of involvement did Marvel have in any of the MVC games other than giving Capcom the rights to use the characters</quote>Marvel did not give the rights to Capcom. Disney did. </quote> Ok so Marvel wasn't involved.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 7:06:13 PM #62:	Smashingpmkns posted... Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926420685] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Ok so Marvel wasn't involved.</quote> Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:08:14 PM #63:	Marvel isn't involved in the talks with Sony either going by your logic. Marvel isn't fighting to get control over Spider-Man. Disney are. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926420765] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Marvel isn't involved in the talks with Sony either going by your logic. Marvel isn't fighting to get control over Spider-Man. Disney are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:08:56 PM #64:	Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926420796] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Ok so Marvel wasn't involved.</quote> Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property </quote> Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:11:39 PM #65:	Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games There's a Marvel Games division that did have input with Capcom and any other Marvel licensed games since Disney moved to licensing games out themselves. So they had some input. Everything needs to go through them. Star Wars has a similar thing. Developers don't get the license and are able to do what they want with it. Anything they can do can be vetoed. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926420903] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Ok so Marvel wasn't involved.</quote> Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property </quote> Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games</quote> There's a Marvel Games division that did have input with Capcom and any other Marvel licensed games since Disney moved to licensing games out themselves. So they had some input. Everything needs to go through them. Star Wars has a similar thing. Developers don't get the license and are able to do what they want with it. Anything they can do can be vetoed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:16:00 PM #66:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games There's a Marvel Games division that did have input with Capcom and any other Marvel licensed games. So they had some input. Everything needs to go through them. Star Wars has a similar thing. Developers don't get the license and are able to do what they want with it. Anything they can do can be vetoed. Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926421084] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Ok so Marvel wasn't involved. </quote> Which means Marvel isn't allowed to do what they want with their own property </quote> Again, how big of an involvement did Marvel have with the other MVC games</quote> There's a Marvel Games division that did have input with Capcom and any other Marvel licensed games. So they had some input. Everything needs to go through them. Star Wars has a similar thing. Developers don't get the license and are able to do what they want with it. Anything they can do can be vetoed.</quote> Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:19:38 PM #67:	Smashingpmkns posted... Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite Game development involved Capcom Japan, Capcom USA, and Marvel Games.According to Mike Jones, Executive Producer at Marvel Games, Infinite was designed to be a "more elegant and simplified" game which remained as "complex and hardcore" as past Marvel vs. Capcom installments. IIRC MvC Infinite was the first game from the current Marvel Games licensing stuff. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926421224] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all.</quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite <quote>Game development involved Capcom Japan, Capcom USA, and Marvel Games.According to Mike Jones, Executive Producer at Marvel Games, Infinite was designed to be a "more elegant and simplified" game which remained as "complex and hardcore" as past Marvel vs. Capcom installments.</quote> IIRC MvC Infinite was the first game from the current Marvel Games licensing stuff. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MichaelKaySeeYa 08/22/19 7:19:44 PM #68:	MichaelKaySeeYa posted... Darmik posted... MichaelKaySeeYa posted... Highest selling streaming show sounds like a flawed goal to shoot for. Money is money. Who fucking cares how it's made. It's not worth the money though. That's the issue. Disney+ isn't for a Spider-Man level movie that doesn't make money at the box office. What's better? $0 or close to a billion? --- https://i.imgtc.ws/B7Fq7zo.jpg <cite>MichaelKaySeeYa posted [p:926421230] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>MichaelKaySeeYa posted...</cite> <quote>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>MichaelKaySeeYa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Highest selling streaming show sounds like a flawed goal to shoot for. </quote> Money is money. Who fucking cares how it's made.</quote> It's not worth the money though. That's the issue. Disney+ isn't for a Spider-Man level movie that doesn't make money at the box office.</quote> What's better? $0 or close to a billion?</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:23:27 PM #69:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite Game development involved Capcom Japan, Capcom USA, and Marvel Games.According to Mike Jones, Executive Producer at Marvel Games, Infinite was designed to be a "more elegant and simplified" game which remained as "complex and hardcore" as past Marvel vs. Capcom installments. IIRC MvC Infinite was the first game from the current Marvel Games licensing stuff. Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926421396] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Can't find much on Marvel's involvement with any of the MVC games online though. Likely they didn't get involved at all.</quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite <quote> Game development involved Capcom Japan, Capcom USA, and Marvel Games.According to Mike Jones, Executive Producer at Marvel Games, Infinite was designed to be a "more elegant and simplified" game which remained as "complex and hardcore" as past Marvel vs. Capcom installments.</quote> IIRC MvC Infinite was the first game from the current Marvel Games licensing stuff. </quote> Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DoctorVader 08/22/19 7:27:47 PM #70:	The reason for the X-Men and F4 ban and other very bad decisions before 2015 was because of Issac Perlmutter. Marvel's chairmen. Shit, even Iger was annoyed by this guy. So it wasn't really Disney pulling the strings. He's just that type of guy. Since then Feige is in full charge and they're trying to be better about these things. --- It all just disappears, doesn't it? Everything you are, gone in a moment, like breath on a mirror. - The Doctor <cite>DoctorVader posted [p:926421564] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>The reason for the X-Men and F4 ban and other very bad decisions before 2015 was because of Issac Perlmutter. Marvel's chairmen. Shit, even Iger was annoyed by this guy. So it wasn't really Disney pulling the strings. He's just that type of guy. Since then Feige is in full charge and they're trying to be better about these things.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:30:11 PM #71:	Smashingpmkns posted... Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc. Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926421660] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc.</quote> Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:35:27 PM #72:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc. Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. Probably less to do with Disney involvement and more to do with Marvel. Disney, for one, doesn't really give a fuck about games. And for two, Marvel was moving towards pushing Inhumans over Xmen even in the comics at the time. That was hardly a Disney decision. As the poster up there said, Perlmutter was shit. He didn't like that Fox owned both Xmen and F4. It's probably more likely he had more to do with this than Disney ever did. Most of the Marvel stuff is completely hands off from Disney. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926421857] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote> Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc.</quote> Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. </quote> Probably less to do with Disney involvement and more to do with Marvel. Disney, for one, doesn't really give a fuck about games. And for two, Marvel was moving towards pushing Inhumans over Xmen even in the comics at the time. That was hardly a Disney decision. As the poster up there said, Perlmutter was shit. He didn't like that Fox owned both Xmen and F4. It's probably more likely he had more to do with this than Disney ever did. Most of the Marvel stuff is completely hands off from Disney.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 7:44:51 PM #73:	Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926422182] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 7:51:53 PM #74:	Darmik posted... Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? Perlmutter is still involved with Marvel today lol pretty sure he's chairman. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926422485] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? </quote> Perlmutter is still involved with Marvel today lol pretty sure he's chairman.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DoctorVader 08/22/19 7:55:12 PM #75:	Darmik posted... Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? Perlmutter is not gone and still has influence. Other executives have spoken about how they've been trying to limit him as much as possible but he's still there. 2015 made it so Feige would report to Alan Horn instead of Perlmutter. So the influence on Marvel Studios was severed, but he's still there for the rest of Marvel. Disney did a good thing if anything. --- It all just disappears, doesn't it? Everything you are, gone in a moment, like breath on a mirror. - The Doctor <cite>DoctorVader posted [p:926422599] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Marvel vs Capcom Infinite came out two years after Perlmutter left. The blacklist stuff wasn't really thawing until around 2017-2018. Which is probably around the time when Disney knew they could buy Fox. I mean we're only speculating at this point but Disney seems like the much more obvious culprit for stuff like that. Why wouldn't Marvel Games want to use X-Men when they had the rights to? </quote> Perlmutter is not gone and still has influence. Other executives have spoken about how they've been trying to limit him as much as possible but he's still there. 2015 made it so Feige would report to Alan Horn instead of Perlmutter. So the influence on Marvel Studios was severed, but he's still there for the rest of Marvel. Disney did a good thing if anything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
warnerbroman 08/22/19 8:52:53 PM #76:	Darmik posted... I don't think anyone was rushing to make a Superman movie again Gunn was offered Mimp guy wanted a reboot and WB said no Tyranthraxus posted... You understand that you do not need to own literally everything to have a monopoly, right? No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. --- 1478 4237 6903 Xavier Flying....you can't stop staring can you? <cite>warnerbroman posted [p:926424614] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think anyone was rushing to make a Superman movie again</quote> Gunn was offered Mimp guy wanted a reboot and WB said no Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You understand that you do not need to own literally everything to have a monopoly, right?</quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 9:09:16 PM #77:	warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926425198] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote>No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good.</quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 11:09:09 PM #78:	Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926429546] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good.</quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SailorGoon 08/22/19 11:15:18 PM #79:	Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. --- Me irl: https://i.imgtc.ws/DaWXgKp.png <cite>SailorGoon posted [p:926429736] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good.</quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly.</quote> Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Skye Reynolds 08/22/19 11:16:09 PM #80:	"But, guys... the villain's the one with the shared universe." <cite>Skye Reynolds posted [p:926429762] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>"But, guys... the villain's the one with the shared universe."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 11:19:06 PM #81:	SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926429867] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. </quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly.</quote> Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say.</quote> Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
warnerbroman 08/22/19 11:22:27 PM #82:	Smashingpmkns posted... Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. didn't say Marvel. --- 1478 4237 6903 Xavier Flying....you can't stop staring can you? <cite>warnerbroman posted [p:926429980] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative</quote> <quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly.</quote> didn't say Marvel.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SailorGoon 08/22/19 11:25:49 PM #83:	Skye Reynolds posted... "But, guys... the villain's the one with the shared universe." Nobody is saying Sony is the good guy here. They're both money hungry corporations. It's just Disney is the one fucking things when they're the ones with the least rights to do so. They want more money when they already have a metric fuckton after buying nearly every damn franchise. Had they stuck with the status quo we'd have more options. We'd have the shared universe and there would also be side stuff. They made the deal years ago. It's kinda on them that they made one that doesn't satisfy them. They weren't forced into the situation. They're the ones that wanted Spidey in the MCU. They went to Sony. They asked what it would take and made their deal. They still could have profited off of all the merchandise. Still could have profited off of all the collaborative movies like Civil War. They've every other hero at their disposal. --- Me irl: https://i.imgtc.ws/DaWXgKp.png <cite>SailorGoon posted [p:926430072] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Skye Reynolds posted...</cite> <quote>"But, guys... the villain's the one with the shared universe."</quote> Nobody is saying Sony is the good guy here. They're both money hungry corporations. It's just Disney is the one fucking things when they're the ones with the least rights to do so. They want more money when they already have a metric fuckton after buying nearly every damn franchise. Had they stuck with the status quo we'd have more options. We'd have the shared universe and there would also be side stuff. They made the deal years ago. It's kinda on them that they made one that doesn't satisfy them. They weren't forced into the situation. They're the ones that wanted Spidey in the MCU. They went to Sony. They asked what it would take and made their deal. They still could have profited off of all the merchandise. Still could have profited off of all the collaborative movies like Civil War. They've every other hero at their disposal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ViewtifulGrave 08/22/19 11:28:59 PM #84:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc. Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. But theyre just functions right? --- You enjoy teaching high schoolers, and I'll enjoy creating my crappy manga. Let's see where we both are in a year. TheDoorMouse Update https://imgur.com/vz0c9xf <cite>ViewtifulGrave posted [p:926430175] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Sounds like MVCI was the only MVC game that had any Marvel input. The other wikis do not include anything about Marvel Enterprises which would have been their gaming division at the time iirc.</quote> Yeah I know. But that's also the only MvC game that had the ban. </quote> But theyre just functions right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 11:29:01 PM #85:	Smashingpmkns posted... It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games Nintendo lent out their IP to Ubisoft and Bandai Namco no problem <_< They've also licensed out movie rights for Mario to Universal and Detective Pikachu to Warner Bros. Which any company that bought out Nintendo would need to stick with the existing arrangements. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926430176] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote>It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games</quote> Nintendo lent out their IP to Ubisoft and Bandai Namco no problem <_< They've also licensed out movie rights for Mario to Universal and Detective Pikachu to Warner Bros. Which any company that bought out Nintendo would need to stick with the existing arrangements.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SailorGoon 08/22/19 11:32:44 PM #86:	Smashingpmkns posted... SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative. No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore. --- Me irl: https://i.imgtc.ws/DaWXgKp.png <cite>SailorGoon posted [p:926430293] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. </quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly.</quote> Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say.</quote> Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative.</quote> No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 11:35:59 PM #87:	Darmik posted... Smashingpmkns posted... It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games Nintendo lent out their IP to Ubisoft and Bandai Namco no problem <_< They've also licensed out movie rights for Mario to Universal and Detective Pikachu to Warner Bros. Which any company that bought out Nintendo would need to stick with the existing arrangements. You're really missing the point. Marvel/Disney lends out their properties to make video games too. If owning an IP means you have a monopoly on that specific IP than almost every company has a monopoly, which is silly. Change Mario to Super Smash or whatever IP only they make. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926430411] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games</quote> Nintendo lent out their IP to Ubisoft and Bandai Namco no problem <_< They've also licensed out movie rights for Mario to Universal and Detective Pikachu to Warner Bros. Which any company that bought out Nintendo would need to stick with the existing arrangements.</quote> You're really missing the point. Marvel/Disney lends out their properties to make video games too. If owning an IP means you have a monopoly on that specific IP than almost every company has a monopoly, which is silly. Change Mario to Super Smash or whatever IP only they make.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 11:38:01 PM #88:	SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative. No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore. So WB has a monopoly on DC because they bought them a long time ago? It's one thing for a company to have a monopoly on movies, or comic movies. But it wouldn't be a monopoly to own the rights to all of the properties to a company they purchased. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926430478] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote> Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. </quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. </quote> Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. </quote> Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative.</quote> No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore.</quote> So WB has a monopoly on DC because they bought them a long time ago? It's one thing for a company to have a monopoly on movies, or comic movies. But it wouldn't be a monopoly to own the rights to all of the properties to a company they purchased.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/22/19 11:41:39 PM #89:	Comic books are interesting in the sense that the biggest things are from or owned by DC or Marvel. Now both of them are owned by two movie companies. I can't think of any other industry that's similar. You can't buy a single book publisher or video game company and automatically own close to the majority of the stuff that's relevant to adapt. No real way to avoid it and it makes connected universes easier to manage but it is an interesting consequence. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926430596] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Comic books are interesting in the sense that the biggest things are from or owned by DC or Marvel. Now both of them are owned by two movie companies. I can't think of any other industry that's similar. You can't buy a single book publisher or video game company and automatically own close to the majority of the stuff that's relevant to adapt. No real way to avoid it and it makes connected universes easier to manage but it is an interesting consequence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SailorGoon 08/22/19 11:50:05 PM #90:	Smashingpmkns posted... SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... SailorGoon posted... Smashingpmkns posted... Tyranthraxus posted... warnerbroman posted... No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative. No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore. So WB has a monopoly on DC because they bought them a long time ago? It's one thing for a company to have a monopoly on movies, or comic movies. But it wouldn't be a monopoly to own the rights to all of the properties to a company they purchased. That also gets murky because unlike Disney, Warner Bros isn't at the top of their respective food chain. They don't have the same authority Disney does as nobody owns Disney. Not to mention they don't nearly have as many assets as Disney to be considered a monopoly. What makes it different here is how much shit Disney owns and also the fact that nobody owns them. --- Me irl: https://i.imgtc.ws/DaWXgKp.png <cite>SailorGoon posted [p:926430867] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote> Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> warnerbroman posted... </cite> <quote> No it has to be 99% and might it a monopoly. As long as there is (irrelevant) competition there's no such thins as a monopoly. the others just need to get good. </quote>That is incorrect. Monopolies have scopes. You can have a monopoly in one City but not any other cities, for example. You can also have monopolies per commodity even if you don't have the entire industry monopolized. Probably the most basic example of this I can think of is Apple has a monopoly on devices that support IOS. </quote> Okay but saying Disney has a monopoly on Marvel products is silly. </quote> Is it? Because they'll be the only ones allowed to make spiderman films. Before you had marvel films coming from production companies all over. Now it's strictly Disney and Sony. If I understood this deal correctly, they'd be taking more creative control this time had Sony agreed. Meaning if Sony wanted to make a sequel to Spiderverse and Marvel also wanted to make the sequel, Disney would be within their rights to shut it down regardless of what Marvel wanted to with their property because Disney has final say. </quote> Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative.</quote> No it's nothing like saying that. Mario originated from Nintendo. Spiderman did not originate from Disney. Marvel did not originate from Disney. Furthermore these marvel characters didn't originate as film characters. Unlike Nintendo video game characters being created by a video game company. The relationship is far more intricate than you try to make it seem. That's what happens when you sell your rights. Once you sell something it doesn't belong to you anymore.</quote> So WB has a monopoly on DC because they bought them a long time ago? It's one thing for a company to have a monopoly on movies, or comic movies. But it wouldn't be a monopoly to own the rights to all of the properties to a company they purchased.</quote> That also gets murky because unlike Disney, Warner Bros isn't at the top of their respective food chain. They don't have the same authority Disney does as nobody owns Disney. Not to mention they don't nearly have as many assets as Disney to be considered a monopoly. What makes it different here is how much shit Disney owns and also the fact that nobody owns them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/22/19 11:50:21 PM #91:	Smashingpmkns posted... Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative. There's no problem with Marvel having a monopoly on marvel but that's not the case. Disney has a monopoly on marvel. Not just movies but everything. Nintendo does not have a monopoly on Nintendo games or Nintendo consoles. While they're the main distributors of such, there are third party games as well, unlicensed accessories, and retroclones. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:926430876] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Smashingpmkns posted... </cite> <quote>Yes it is because these are all Marvel properties and Disney owns Marvel. It's like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Mario games, or WB has a monopoly on DC movies. It's silly and completely changes the meaning of what a monopoly is in order to fit this specific narrative.</quote>There's no problem with Marvel having a monopoly on marvel but that's not the case. Disney has a monopoly on marvel. Not just movies but everything. Nintendo does not have a monopoly on Nintendo games or Nintendo consoles. While they're the main distributors of such, there are third party games as well, unlicensed accessories, and retroclones. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 08/22/19 11:53:35 PM #92:	MichaelKaySeeYa posted... -Buyout Holland's contract SONY would have to be willing to sell. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:926430987] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>MichaelKaySeeYa posted...</cite> <quote>-Buyout Holland's contract</quote> SONY would have to be willing to sell.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/22/19 11:55:40 PM #93:	SailorGoon posted... That also gets murky because unlike Disney, Warner Bros isn't at the top of their respective food chain. They don't have the same authority Disney does as nobody owns Disney. Not to mention they don't nearly have as many assets as Disney to be considered a monopoly. What makes it different here is how much shit Disney owns and also the fact that nobody owns them Being the best at something, for lack of better words, doesnt make it a monopoly. Tyranthraxus posted... There's no problem with Marvel having a monopoly on marvel but that's not the case. Disney has a monopoly on marvel. Not just movies but everything. Owning another company doesn't mean you have a monopoly. Again, you guys are being really loose with the definition of a monopoly. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926431041] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>SailorGoon posted...</cite> <quote>That also gets murky because unlike Disney, Warner Bros isn't at the top of their respective food chain. They don't have the same authority Disney does as nobody owns Disney. Not to mention they don't nearly have as many assets as Disney to be considered a monopoly. What makes it different here is how much shit Disney owns and also the fact that nobody owns them</quote> Being the best at something, for lack of better words, doesnt make it a monopoly. <cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>There's no problem with Marvel having a monopoly on marvel but that's not the case. Disney has a monopoly on marvel. Not just movies but everything. </quote> Owning another company doesn't mean you have a monopoly. Again, you guys are being really loose with the definition of a monopoly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 08/23/19 12:00:27 AM #94:	As someone with a major in Economics, the level of ignorance in this topic makes me cry. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:926431193] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>As someone with a major in Economics, the level of ignorance in this topic makes me cry.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/23/19 12:01:11 AM #95:	I don't think being the best at something has anything to do with it. Instead of having 6-8 major movie companies it's eventually only going to be 3-4 because everyone is being swallowed up by massive corporations. Even Sony Pictures themselves have talked about this and recognize that they've either got to expand or they'll just get bought out. I'm not really sure it's a good thing. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926431219] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>I don't think being the best at something has anything to do with it. Instead of having 6-8 major movie companies it's eventually only going to be 3-4 because everyone is being swallowed up by massive corporations. Even Sony Pictures themselves have talked about this and recognize that they've either got to expand or they'll just get bought out. I'm not really sure it's a good thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 08/23/19 12:04:18 AM #96:	Darmik posted... I don't think being the best at something has anything to do with it. Instead of having 6-8 major movie companies it's eventually only going to be 3-4 because everyone is being swallowed up by massive corporations. Even Sony Pictures themselves have talked about this and recognize that they've either got to expand or they'll just get bought out. I'm not really sure it's a good thing. That's not what we're arguing here and even if we were, Disney is still not a monopoly at this point in time. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:926431323] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think being the best at something has anything to do with it. Instead of having 6-8 major movie companies it's eventually only going to be 3-4 because everyone is being swallowed up by massive corporations. Even Sony Pictures themselves have talked about this and recognize that they've either got to expand or they'll just get bought out. I'm not really sure it's a good thing.</quote> That's not what we're arguing here and even if we were, Disney is still not a monopoly at this point in time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
archedsoul 08/23/19 12:06:43 AM #97:	Lmfao. You guys are trying way too hard. Sony bought the movie rights from Marvel a long time ago and it was built in that it would be returned to Marvel if it they didn't make a movie every x years. They did nothing with Black Panther, Thor, and Luke Cage, so they quickly lost them. They made 2 good Spider-Man movies before they fell into garbage territory by fucking up Spider-Man 3, and Ghost Rider 1 and 2. Then to continue keeping the contract, they forcefully made ASM 1 and 2 and also lost Ghost Rider. They simply don't have a good track record outside Feige guided movies and a cartoon and the fact that the director might not even be returning for the next 2 movies seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Y'all trying too hard with the Disney is evil crap. They own the Spider-Man IP. Them getting the movie rights back is just then becoming whole again. --- "Fear cuts deeper than swords." <cite>archedsoul posted [p:926431381] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Lmfao. You guys are trying way too hard. Sony bought the movie rights from Marvel a long time ago and it was built in that it would be returned to Marvel if it they didn't make a movie every x years. They did nothing with Black Panther, Thor, and Luke Cage, so they quickly lost them. They made 2 good Spider-Man movies before they fell into garbage territory by fucking up Spider-Man 3, and Ghost Rider 1 and 2. Then to continue keeping the contract, they forcefully made ASM 1 and 2 and also lost Ghost Rider. They simply don't have a good track record outside Feige guided movies and a cartoon and the fact that the director might not even be returning for the next 2 movies seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Y'all trying too hard with the Disney is evil crap. They own the Spider-Man IP. Them getting the movie rights back is just then becoming whole again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 08/23/19 12:19:29 AM #98:	To be fair when those deals were made the thought of Marvel having their own movie studio wasn't something anyone imagined. The deals of 'These rights will revert back to us if you don't make a movie' weren't made with the expectation that this circumstance was inevitable. It was simply so they could proceed to sell the rights to someone else and not lose money because someone was sitting on the property and doing nothing. So much has changed in the last 10 years. Hell even when Marvel started Marvel Studios I doubt they expected to be bought out in a few years. They were dealing with Paramount and Universal and trying to work their way up that way. I wonder what a world where Marvel Studios remained independent would look like. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:926431744] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>To be fair when those deals were made the thought of Marvel having their own movie studio wasn't something anyone imagined. The deals of 'These rights will revert back to us if you don't make a movie' weren't made with the expectation that this circumstance was inevitable. It was simply so they could proceed to sell the rights to someone else and not lose money because someone was sitting on the property and doing nothing. So much has changed in the last 10 years. Hell even when Marvel started Marvel Studios I doubt they expected to be bought out in a few years. They were dealing with Paramount and Universal and trying to work their way up that way. I wonder what a world where Marvel Studios remained independent would look like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
archedsoul 08/23/19 12:28:02 AM #99:	Darmik posted... To be fair when those deals were made the thought of Marvel having their own movie studio wasn't something anyone imagined. The deals of 'These rights will revert back to us if you don't make a movie' weren't made with the expectation that this circumstance was inevitable. It was simply so they could proceed to sell the rights to someone else and not lose money because someone was sitting on the property and doing nothing. So much has changed in the last 10 years. Hell even when Marvel started Marvel Studios I doubt they expected to be bought out in a few years. They were dealing with Paramount and Universal and trying to work their way up that way. I wonder what a world where Marvel Studios remained independent would look like. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I said. We already know studios pump out unnecessary shit like F4ntastic, ASM and Dark Phoenix just to keep the rights. It doesn't matter what their intention was when they reverted back. They're collecting everything back. I see why Sony is being stubborn, but they've fucked up enough. It's Disney's character and IP. Sony simply has movie rights. This monopoly nonsense has nothing to do with it. --- "Fear cuts deeper than swords." <cite>archedsoul posted [p:926432006] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>To be fair when those deals were made the thought of Marvel having their own movie studio wasn't something anyone imagined. The deals of 'These rights will revert back to us if you don't make a movie' weren't made with the expectation that this circumstance was inevitable. It was simply so they could proceed to sell the rights to someone else and not lose money because someone was sitting on the property and doing nothing. So much has changed in the last 10 years. Hell even when Marvel started Marvel Studios I doubt they expected to be bought out in a few years. They were dealing with Paramount and Universal and trying to work their way up that way. I wonder what a world where Marvel Studios remained independent would look like.</quote> I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I said. We already know studios pump out unnecessary shit like F4ntastic, ASM and Dark Phoenix just to keep the rights. It doesn't matter what their intention was when they reverted back. They're collecting everything back. I see why Sony is being stubborn, but they've fucked up enough. It's Disney's character and IP. Sony simply has movie rights. This monopoly nonsense has nothing to do with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SailorGoon 08/23/19 12:30:30 AM #100:	Being better doesn't make one a monopoly. Correct. And I will concede being the only one, in this it's Disney, doesn't inherently make one a Monopoly. But they're definitely the closest thing to it and they do hold a monopoly on Marvel. I don't see how anyone can advocate for Disney buying and owning everything. Oh wait, I guess I can. People love their Avengers right. Disney is doing this for the fans. This is a good thing for the fans. Except it isn't. We clearly saw that multiple studios could coexist. We had spiderman in the MCU and independent spiderman films with no connection. It doesn't matter whether you liked Venom or not. That didn't make an impact on Homecoming or Infinity War. By advocating for these merges you're advocating for less films. It's ironic that this is what people are pushing for for a property that's part of the comic book industry. The same industry that has multiple authors, distributors, writers, variations of the same franchise and their respective characters which could coexist. --- Me irl: https://i.imgtc.ws/DaWXgKp.png <cite>SailorGoon posted [p:926432097] in Couldn't M... [t:77957499]...</cite> <quote>Being better doesn't make one a monopoly. Correct. And I will concede being the only one, in this it's Disney, doesn't inherently make one a Monopoly. But they're definitely the closest thing to it and they do hold a monopoly on Marvel. I don't see how anyone can advocate for Disney buying and owning everything. Oh wait, I guess I can. People love their Avengers right. Disney is doing this for the fans. This is a good thing for the fans. Except it isn't. We clearly saw that multiple studios could coexist. We had spiderman in the MCU and independent spiderman films with no connection. It doesn't matter whether you liked Venom or not. That didn't make an impact on Homecoming or Infinity War. By advocating for these merges you're advocating for less films. It's ironic that this is what people are pushing for for a property that's part of the comic book industry. The same industry that has multiple authors, distributors, writers, variations of the same franchise and their respective characters which could coexist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Couldn't Marvel theoretically do this (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Couldn't Marvel theoretically do this