Will the Marvel films ever sever ties completely with the TV shows?

[Dark Raven]

If they set Agents of SHIELD before the events of the Avengers and Winter Soldier, they would've had freedom to develop the characters more easily without having to adhere too closely to what is going on in the movies. Coulson would've still been alive and SHIELD wouldn't have disbanded.

Of course, they wouldn't be able to keep name dropping the Avengers all the time, but they would've also had more independence and autonomy.

 

[2kt09]

Why do you think this?

Marvel-Dsiney has pretty much all characters for TV animation, but the same is not true for live action tv.

But still, going back to your point above, why do you think that it's the MCU continuity that is preventing these other possible live action shows from being made?

But again, what is it that you think the MCU continuity is blocking in these scenarios?

Underlined is false until sources dictate otherwise. There's always been a separation between tv and film with those rights not live-action and animation.
If they have them for tv animation, they have them for live-action tv.
In other words the MCU continuity shared universe (as in whatever they own film-wise) is preventing characters not owned by the film division or shared for that matter to be featured on tv.

If the shows were not beholden to the cinematic universe, they could have done so much more on the live-action tv front.

 

[Endeavor]

Underlined is false until sources dictate otherwise. There's always been a separation between tv and film with those rights not live-action and animation.

It is not false.
Even if you don't believe what Zarex proved to you, the recent announcement of FOX's production on Hellfire and Legion proves that not all live action tv rights are at Marvel-Disney.

If they have them for tv animation, they have them for live-action tv.
In other words the MCU continuity shared universe (as in whatever they own film-wise) is preventing characters not owned by the film division or shared for that matter to be featured on tv.

If the shows were not beholden to the cinematic universe, they could have done so much more on the live-action tv front.

This claim you keep making is what I don't understand. Where are you getting the info that leads you to these assumptions?
Marvel is a growing brand and they will continue to grow, but they've shown to be careful in the expansion. At first it was probably because of limited funds. Now it's more likely because they saw that the careful approach served them well. But the announcement of the various things coming down the pipeline is proof that they're going to continue making strides.
However, your claim that the reason they haven't done more because of the existence of the shared universe is just an assumption. And it's one without merits, in my point of view.

 

[2kt09]

It is not false.
Even if you don't believe what Zarex proved to you, the recent announcement of FOX's production on Hellfire and Legion proves that not all live action tv rights are at Marvel-Disney.

Marvel signed over at least partial live action X-Men family character rights this fall and are working with FOX on the TV shows "Legion" and "Hellfire"

Uhh...Fox has had to go to Marvel-Disney to get those made, which means the rights reside under them and it's the X-Men tv rights in general.
Wolverine and the X-Men, which was done under Viacom with Marvel, ended before the Disney merger happened.

This claim you keep making is what I don't understand. Where are you getting the info that leads you to these assumptions?
Marvel is a growing brand and they will continue to grow, but they've shown to be careful in the expansion. At first it was probably because of limited funds. Now it's more likely because they saw that the careful approach served them well. But the announcement of the various things coming down the pipeline is proof that they're going to continue making strides.
However, your claim that the reason they haven't done more because of the existence of the shared universe is just an assumption. And it's one without merits, in my point of view.

I thought I was pretty clear. The clear as day example is making up a newspaper brand instead of going with the Daily Bugle because they weren't in any contact with the Spidey movie rights at the time.

 

[Endeavor]

Uhh...Fox has had to go to Marvel-Disney to get those made, which means the rights reside under them and it's the X-Men tv rights in general.
Wolverine and the X-Men, which was done under Viacom with Marvel, ended before the Disney merger happened.

Neither company could produce live action TV shows. FOX just didn't have the rights and needed Marvel to sign off on it. Marvel couldn't because of FOX's claims that those live action shows would "damage" their efforts with the IP on film and that claim was being given validity in court (which is what Zarex showed you).

I thought I was pretty clear. The clear as day example is making up a newspaper brand instead of going with the Daily Bugle because they weren't in any contact with the Spidey movie rights at the time.

I don't see how this is proof of what you're claiming.
They didn't use Daily Bugle because of the Sony rights issue? Ok, how does that translate to "the existence of the shared universe limits the tv production"? In this scenario, if there was no shared universe, if everything was completely independent of each other (no movies connected to each other, no TV shows connected to the movies, etc) you still wouldn't have been able to use the Daily Bugle, unless Sony signed off on it. Not because the MCU exists, but because Marvel-Disney didn't have rights to the IP.
So, the shared universe had nothing to do with it. It didn't limit anything.

 

[Fincher]

I don't think they should try to separate Agent Carter from the Captain America films. It was designed to follow from Captain America, and while the ratings might not be good, they'd be worse if people were told this was a separate continuity and we wouldn't be learning how S.H.I.E.L.D. got started and how Hydra infiltrated them. Maybe they could introduce Charles Xavier or their own version of Thor, but Agent Carter doesn't need them, they're not part of the show's base concept.

I don't follow Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but I think it would just confuse some viewers to be told now that this Coulson is a different Coulson from the one in the movies. Wasn't a big plot point in the show the reaction to Winter Soldier, which would now be a separate continuity event? Maybe the Netflix shows could be disassociated, but if Marvel wanted to capitalize on TV rights to Spider-Man or X-Men, it seems like the best way to do that would be a new show specifically designed to do that.

 

[2kt09]

Neither company could produce live action TV rights. FOX just didn't have them and needed Marvel to sign off on it. Marvel couldn't because FOX's claim that those live action shows would "damage" their efforts with the IP on film was being held up by the courts (which is what Zarex showed you).

Which he responded by stating they couldn't fight the "exploitation" clause since they didn't have the means.

At the time of the lawsuit Marvel was coming out of bankruptcy and was not part of the Disney empire. Settling, which they did eventually, was a much better option than fighting back against NewsCorp.

^Zarex

I don't see how this is proof of what you're claiming.
They didn't use Daily Bugle because of the Sony rights issue? Ok, how does that translate to "the existence of the shared universe limits the tv production"?

It deals with the shows being limited by film legalities. They couldn't use the Daily Bugle.
Ben Urich works at the Daily Bugle, not the NY Post (DD movie) and not the NY Bulletin (the MCU).

In this scenario, if there was no shared universe, if everything was completely independent of each other (no movies connected to each other, no TV shows connected to the movies, etc) you still wouldn't have been able to use the Daily Bugle, unless Sony signed off on it. Not because the MCU exists, but because Marvel-Disney didn't have rights to the IP.
So, the shared universe had nothing to do with it. It didn't limit anything

Of course they would, since Disney owns the general tv rights to Spider-man.

 

[mace1]

Here some talk about the recent marvel animated shows.

Thread: Which Avengers show is better: EMH or Assemble?

 

[Endeavor]

Here some talk about the recent marvel animated shows.

Thread: Which Avengers show is better: EMH or Assemble?

EMH, no contest.

 

[Cosmic Blaster]

I don't think they will. They seem to be holding a very firm grasp over all the various shows and movies

 

[MbJ]

Here some talk about the recent marvel animated shows.

Thread: Which Avengers show is better: EMH or Assemble?

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[MbJ]

Eh, I think it can be done under a certain set of circumstances. Maybe they could get a what would normally be a half season's budget for this 6-hour event. Also, as I said I'd make this part of the IW production utilizing the same production locations, sets, and VFX staffs to lower the cost of production.

I don't think there's even a slight chance of that. The Marvel people on the film side are barely aware of what is being done on the TV shows. You think they're gonna give them access to sets and expensive budgets to make their show?

They did Doomsday and King Shark on a tv budget.

And he looked like utter crap.

The Russos had hinted at possibly bringing back the one-shots to promote Infinity War. At this point, I feel like that's the best bet for actually trying to crossover the movies and TV shows. Do a one-shot about how Jessica Jones and the gang are dealing with the events of the movie and then maybe have Hawkeye or someone cameo in it.

Would the films want to acknowledge AOS ultimately? Or just let them operate in their own little corner, as long as they're not harming anyone?

I don't think anyone in the film division hates AOS or anything like that. They just don't consider it a priority. They have enough on their plate as it is.

 

[mace1]

What does that have to do with this thread?

I was replying about the animated cartoons endeavor mention in his post.He knows why i posted it and that's why he replied back.
It was more for him.

 

[mace1]

EMH, no contest.

True,but i like to new one too,and new the marvel animated shows.
I think they are good and i enjoy them and they have gotten better overtime.

 

[Zarex]

Which he responded by stating they couldn't fight the "exploitation" clause since they didn't have the means.

Marvel likely would have lost regardless. I was just explaining why a long drawn out court battle wasn't feasible.

It deals with the shows being limited by film legalities. They couldn't use the Daily Bugle.
Ben Urich works at the Daily Bugle, not the NY Post (DD movie) and not the NY Bulletin (the MCU).

Of course they would, since Disney owns the general tv rights to Spider-man.

I could see complaining about rights complications a few years ago. But now? Spidey is a card carrying member of the MCU and I'm confident the FF will be joining him sooner rather than later. A film featuring a dozen Marvel heroes is set to dominate the big screen and a Netflix series featuring an obscure street level character just brought home a Peabody Award. We're living in a time of peak superhero and we can look forward to seeing Dr. Strange, Iron Fist, Cloak and Dagger and Captain Marvel over the next few years. If you're a Marvel fan, relax. You've won.

 

[flickchick85]

I could see complaining about rights complications a few years ago. But now? Spidey is a card carrying member of the MCU and I'm confident the FF will be joining him sooner rather than later. A film featuring a dozen Marvel heroes is set to dominate the big screen and a Netflix series featuring an obscure street level character just brought home a Peabody Award.

Whoa, I missed the news of JJ winning the Peabody. That's awesome.

 

[OB12]

I don't think there's even a slight chance of that. The Marvel people on the film side are barely aware of what is being done on the TV shows. You think they're gonna give them access to sets and expensive budgets to make their show?

A little advice, read my whole post before responding in attempt to claim authority on the subject. You are coming off quite rude. I said it is wishful thinking. However, if they wanted to make this happen it could get done just the way I described.

 

[MbJ]

If they set Agents of SHIELD before the events of the Avengers and Winter Soldier, they would've had freedom to develop the characters more easily without having to adhere too closely to what is going on in the movies. Coulson would've still been alive and SHIELD wouldn't have disbanded.

The problem comes from there then being even less reason for people to watch it. Practically the only reason people stuck with it in Season 1 was because of the heavily promoted tie-ins to The Dark World and The Winter Soldier.

 

[Mike Murdock]

The reason to watch the show is for the show's plots and characters. It's the only place you'll find the Secret Warriors, for example.

 

[2kt09]

If you're a Marvel fan, relax. You've won.

Try to be a fan of cb adaptations in general, which I prefer serialized on the smallscreen.
Though yeah, most of us are here on this forum to discuss those one night stands.

 

[metaphysician]

And why couldn't DD do the same things?

Because his ability to do such is inferior and redundant to the ability possessed by other existing Avengers? Unless Thanos has a space ninja minion Matt can try to take down by repeatedly hitting the ninja's fists with his face. . .

 

[OB12]

Because his ability to do such is inferior and redundant to the ability possessed by other existing Avengers? Unless Thanos has a space ninja minion Matt can try to take down by repeatedly hitting the ninja's fists with his face. . .

Daredevil can do just as much damage as Black Widow or Hawkeye hand-to-hand.

 

[MbJ]

The reason to watch the show is for the show's plots and characters. It's the only place you'll find the Secret Warriors, for example.

I don't deny it improved. I'm saying the first season wasn't very good and that were it not for the heavily advertised connection to the movies, I don't think people would have stuck with it.

Because his ability to do such is inferior and redundant to the ability possessed by other existing Avengers? Unless Thanos has a space ninja minion Matt can try to take down by repeatedly hitting the ninja's fists with his face. . .

Well they do keep Haweye around...

 

[Mjölnir]

Well they do keep Haweye around...

Hawkeye has his arrows, which apparently can even [BLACKOUT]stun Vision for a while.[/BLACKOUT]

(the blackout is a minor one for Civil War, so no one doesn't look at it without wanting to)

 

[MbJ]

Hawkeye has his arrows

I know. It was a joke because people always make the same comments about Hawkeye that people were just making about Daredevil. There's a lot of reasons we might not see the TV characters in the movies, I just don't think "Daredevil is useless" is one of them.