Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
vb68

The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Raja said:

The way the Star Trek novelization writer explained it to me was it didn't matter if a TV writer adapted a character from another source. If it say Daisy Johnson was first aired on a TV show and someone wanted to use that Daisy Johnson for a movie that TV writer was getting paid. Now the Marvel Comics writer might also get paid according to his contract but that had nothing to do with the TV writers. Movie producers who were not part of that TV writers deal just refused to do it unless absolutely necessary. Setting the precedent to pay for Chloe Bennett to show up on screen for a second to be another force blast like Howard the Duck showed up was a money move, now and future.

For Star Trek, the nostalgia was being sold from folks who waited over a decade for their show to return, so many a reoccurring character went from the original series to the movies. But not as many of those" lower decks" characters made the jump from the Next Generation to their movies. A name from Voyager like the Doctor did but not other folks from 7 years of TNG.

It’s sounds like you are talking about separated rights. Most of it went over my head but it appears that the writer’s rights are complicated and determined by how they are credited. 

The section on theatrical releases does specifically address comics. 

Quote

If a principal character comes from a comic book, for exam- ple, even though the writer has written an original story using that character and has created new characters, the writer is not entitled to Separated Rights or payments for the further use of any original elements or characters. On the other hand, if that same comic book character appears in a single peripheral scene in the film, the writer may still be entitled to Separated Rights if the other previously mentioned criteria are met.

For tv this appears to be the applicable section. 
 

Quote

Generally, if the series or film is based on source material (e.g., a book or a play), there are no Separated Rights. Some of the exceptions to this general rule are if the source material is factual or the writer has written a substantially new and different story from the underlying material and is entitled to “Television Story by” credit. 

 

Edited by Dani
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anyone is credited that way in the Marvel shows…(plus, Disney is stingy with giving credits anyway, if they could, they would instead TAKE the credit which belongs to other writers and make them their own)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, swanpride said:

I don't think anyone is credited that way in the Marvel shows…(plus, Disney is stingy with giving credits anyway, if they could, they would instead TAKE the credit which belongs to other writers and make them their own)

That was only one of the credits mentioned. Marvel does use “created by” which also gives separated rights.

I found the actual agreement and it is extremely complicated. I only looked at the sections that seemed relevant and based on my understanding the writers may get paid when their characters are used. However it seems to be very restrictive and limited to completely new characters who are fully realized and developed by the writer. 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, swanpride said:

But wouldn't the same rules apply to the movies?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Television and theatrical releases are covered under the same agreement but have completely different guidelines. I have no clue how it’s handled when characters cross from movies to tv shows or vice verse. My only conclusion is that it’s a complicated system and there is no hard and fast rule. 

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post

I am just asking if it is really so much more complicated to have a TV character - say Quake - turn up in a movie than having a movie character - see Fury, Sif, Gideon Malick, President Ellis - turn up in a TV show. Especially considering that we already had a case of a character from a TV show turning up in a movie.

Share this post


Link to post

12 minutes ago, swanpride said:

I am just asking if it is really so much more complicated to have a TV character - say Quake - turn up in a movie than having a movie character - see Fury, Sif, Gideon Malick, President Ellis - turn up in a TV show. Especially considering that we already had a case of a character from a TV show turning up in a movie.

Probably not for the comic characters Marvel has the rights to like Quake. For new characters it might be a little bit more complicated but it’s probably still not a big deal. I imagine that Marvel’s contracts give them a lot of control. 

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dani said:

Probably not for the comic characters Marvel has the rights to like Quake. For new characters it might be a little bit more complicated but it’s probably still not a big deal. I imagine that Marvel’s contracts give them a lot of control. 

Yea it doesn't really make sense to me that characters from the tv shows couldn't show up in the movies because of any creator rights a screen writer might have, especially when you look at the money involved. A movie budget is huge, especially for a Marvel movie, so paying off a tv writer to use say Agent May if they wanted to should be relatively small potatoes. On the flip side the budget of a tv show is small by comparison, so paying off a movie writer could be a significant cost. And yet Nick Fury has appeared in several Agents of Shield episodes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Granted, Samuel L. Jackson really wanted to be on the show, so I guess he was ready to wave his usual salary and settled for something which was affordable for a TV show. And most likely he only turned up for one or two days of shooting and the writers made the most out of it. If you really pay attention you realise that he most likely was never even in a room with the other actors in the various scenes he turned up in. They most likely just shot his part and later puzzled what they needed together.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, swanpride said:

Granted, Samuel L. Jackson really wanted to be on the show, so I guess he was ready to wave his usual salary and settled for something which was affordable for a TV show. And most likely he only turned up for one or two days of shooting and the writers made the most out of it. If you really pay attention you realise that he most likely was never even in a room with the other actors in the various scenes he turned up in. They most likely just shot his part and later puzzled what they needed together.

But if as stated above the writers who first wrote the character have to get paid, wouldn't there have to be a fee paid to the four writers of Iron Man? If that wasn't cost prohibitive for a tv show, why would it be too much to pay Whedon if an AOS character were to show up in a movie?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But if as stated above the writers who first wrote the character have to get paid, wouldn't there have to be a fee paid to the four writers of Iron Man? If that wasn't cost prohibitive for a tv show, why would it be too much to pay Whedon if an AOS character were to show up in a movie?

Everything I’ve read says that the screenwriter who first wrote a characters only get that fee if it’s a completely original character. So for Fury Marvel only needs to worry about their deal with the writer who created the character for the comics. 

The movie deal goes a step farther and if one of the principal characters is from a comic the writer isn’t paid for any characters including original ones. So Marvel doesn’t have to pay any screenwriters for characters that first appear in their movies. Which makes sense because Coulson was created by the Iron Man writers and I doubt Marvel would use him so much if they were paying every time. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/21/2020 at 9:47 PM, Dani said:

[1] I really don’t think that’s going to be much of an issue just because Marvel has built up the reputation to bring people in opening weekend. If the movies good and a lot of people see it opening weekend it will have decent legs. 
Maybe if they completely blow the marketing campaign or if the movies before it bomb. Now I do think going that if they had gone with Jane as Thor as the last movie in Thor’s trilogy it would be a completely different story. Post-Ragnorok Thor will have to have major issues to fail. 

[2I just think you and I have very different ideas of success and failure. Agents of Shield wasn’t massive success but I wouldn’t call it a failure either. To me something lasting for years and completing it’s arc on it’s own terms isn’t a failure. Longevity is a form of success in entertainment. 

[3 Then would you say that most comic books are ultimately failures? 

I added the bracketed numbers above - I honestly couldn't figure out how to break your post up while also multi-quoting.  Apologies for editing your quote.

[1] - I agree with your analysis.  However I think they "peaked" a bit with Endgame.  I think that MCU = "must see" is kind of done.  It is for me, anyway, & I'm a comic book geek.  They need to build that back up.  I'm obviously going to eventually watch everything they put out, but I'm no longer going to automatically see every movie in the theater.

[2] - AoS I address below.

[3] Yes.  Very few titles have sustainability.  Even top tier titles.  Remember when Wolverine had like 194 titles every month & appeared in every comic to boost sales?  Punisher?  Ghost Rider even?  Almost everything fails.  But that's not really the issue.  Some things never even succeed.  #1 Collector's Item Edition!!! can work on any character - but success requires long-term sustainability.  Most comics fail, as do most TV shows.

On 2/21/2020 at 10:28 PM, clack said:

In today's politicized cultural climate, people sometimes like or dislike the concept of a comic or movie without concerning themselves with whether it's actually good.

...

The whole situation sucks. Everything is seen through the lens of the culture war. Fiege will have his work cut out for him in the years ahead in maintaining a undivided fan base for the MCU -- something the Star Wars franchise has failed at.

I agree - I think we're on the same page (cut the rest of your post for brevity 'cause I agree with it).   I inadvertently stepped in poop with this topic that I wasn't intending to.  I think they're adapting a story that wasn't popular sales-wise, involving a character from the movies people in general don't much care for - Portman's Jane.  That was my take on this.  It's just that this one had "buzz" so my stance was apparently controversial.  Will the people buzzing about it pay to see it?  I'm not so sure those groups overlap.  They didn't for the comic.

On 2/21/2020 at 10:32 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As far as the movies go, casting is literally everything, particularly for the previously unknown characters. Dafne Keen was twelve or thirteen when she appeared in Logan, and they needed someone who could play a character who was nonverbal and bordering on feral for three-quarters of the film. When it's finally revealed that Laura can speak, it's well into the third act and after a lot of the action has happened. For young actors, I can't imagine how many candidates they'd have had who could pull it off.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to disparage the actress playing Laura *at all*.  She was awesome.  Sorry if I came off as doing that in any way.

On 2/22/2020 at 3:40 AM, swanpride said:

AoS isn't a failure AT ALL!!! Did it lose a lot of viewers in the beginning because the show was not what a lot of them expected? Yes. But it is ALSO Marvels longest running TV show by a mile, one study has shown that it is one of the most watched shows Worldwide period, and when Disney Plus made a test launch in the Netherlands, AoS was the second most watched property directly after Avengers Endgame. Not Star Wars, not any of the other Marvel Movies, AoS. It also brought new fans to the MCU because some people actually START with AoS and then decide to check out the movies, too.

AoS has more viewers than some shows where there internet has decided that they were a success...and that includes all of the CW shows and all of the Marvel Netflix shows.

 

On 2/22/2020 at 4:46 PM, Perfect Xero said:

You're calling a show that has well over 100 episodes and counting a failure because its ratings dropped after an initial high first handful of episodes and are mentioning it alongside shows that were cancelled in their first season.

You seem to be setting the standard for a 'failure' as anything that isn't a top 5-10 comic/show at the time, which is a ridiculously high standard to use in discussion.

Re: Agents of SHIELD...

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-six-ratings/

The ratings were bad.  I like the show!  I watched from Episode 1.  I tried to convince friends (heck, even family!) of mine who dropped it that it got so much better.  They still didn't watch.

Ratings dropped from 8.3 million in Season 1 to a little over 2 million in the last season.  Good for a CW show sure, just awful for any of the "big" networks.  It's not a ridiculously high standard.  It's just a standard.  Not Top 10, but what about Not Even Top 100?  Hell's Kitchen Season whatever it's on had 4 million viewers (it was the #100 show when I Googled the 2019 list).  I honestly think if AoS didn't have the Marvel/Disney support, it'd have been cancelled several seasons ago.  Which would have been a shame for me personally 'cause I like it, but understandable.

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I added the bracketed numbers above - I honestly couldn't figure out how to break your post up while also multi-quoting.  Apologies for editing your quote.

[1] - I agree with your analysis.  However I think they "peaked" a bit with Endgame.  I think that MCU = "must see" is kind of done.  It is for me, anyway, & I'm a comic book geek.  They need to build that back up.  I'm obviously going to eventually watch everything they put out, but I'm no longer going to automatically see every movie in the theater.

[2] - AoS I address below.

[3] Yes.  Very few titles have sustainability.  Even top tier titles.  Remember when Wolverine had like 194 titles every month & appeared in every comic to boost sales?  Punisher?  Ghost Rider even?  Almost everything fails.  But that's not really the issue.  Some things never even succeed.  #1 Collector's Item Edition!!! can work on any character - but success requires long-term sustainability.  Most comics fail, as do most TV shows.

I agree - I think we're on the same page (cut the rest of your post for brevity 'cause I agree with it).   I inadvertently stepped in poop with this topic that I wasn't intending to.  I think they're adapting a story that wasn't popular sales-wise, involving a character from the movies people in general don't much care for - Portman's Jane.  That was my take on this.  It's just that this one had "buzz" so my stance was apparently controversial.  Will the people buzzing about it pay to see it?  I'm not so sure those groups overlap.  They didn't for the comic.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to disparage the actress playing Laura *at all*.  She was awesome.  Sorry if I came off as doing that in any way.

 

Re: Agents of SHIELD...

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-six-ratings/

The ratings were bad.  I like the show!  I watched from Episode 1.  I tried to convince friends (heck, even family!) of mine who dropped it that it got so much better.  They still didn't watch.

Ratings dropped from 8.3 million in Season 1 to a little over 2 million in the last season.  Good for a CW show sure, just awful for any of the "big" networks.  It's not a ridiculously high standard.  It's just a standard.  Not Top 10, but what about Not Even Top 100?  Hell's Kitchen Season whatever it's on had 4 million viewers (it was the #100 show when I Googled the 2019 list).  I honestly think if AoS didn't have the Marvel/Disney support, it'd have been cancelled several seasons ago.  Which would have been a shame for me personally 'cause I like it, but understandable.

As I said it just sounds like you have a different standard for judging what is a failure than me. To me there is a middle ground between something being extremely successful and being a failure and a lot of projects live in the middle ground. We just see things differently. 

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

\Re: Agents of SHIELD...

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/marvels-agents-of-shield-season-six-ratings/

The ratings were bad.  I like the show!  I watched from Episode 1.  I tried to convince friends (heck, even family!) of mine who dropped it that it got so much better.  They still didn't watch.

Ratings dropped from 8.3 million in Season 1 to a little over 2 million in the last season.  Good for a CW show sure, just awful for any of the "big" networks.  It's not a ridiculously high standard.  It's just a standard.  Not Top 10, but what about Not Even Top 100?  Hell's Kitchen Season whatever it's on had 4 million viewers (it was the #100 show when I Googled the 2019 list).  I honestly think if AoS didn't have the Marvel/Disney support, it'd have been cancelled several seasons ago.  Which would have been a shame for me personally 'cause I like it, but understandable.

Production companies often prop up the last few seasons of a successful show in spite of falling ratings because it's a boost to their value in syndication and streaming packages, Networks will, likewise, keep airing such a show because the core fanbase is well understood and they can sell ads around that and use it to get attention for new shows that target a similar group.

Shows don't reach that point, however, without having been a solid success in the first place. Saying a show is a failure because of its ratings in Season 6 while ignoring that it was successful enough to make it to Season 6 in the first place is either a very high standard or a very different interpretation of what is or isn't a success than most people use in common discussion on such a topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Both of the above are totally fair.  "Different definitions of success" is a perfectly valid point of contention.  Longevity based on past success is one definition.  Latest success is, I contend, one definition as well.  A show (or a comic) can be a past success AND a current failure (look at The Walking Dead).  The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Both of the above are totally fair.  "Different definitions of success" is a perfectly valid point of contention.  Longevity based on past success is one definition.  Latest success is, I contend, one definition as well.  A show (or a comic) can be a past success AND a current failure (look at The Walking Dead).  The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Are you judging purely on live TV ratings?

Out of curiosity what recent TV shows would you classify as a success. Based on the standard of latest performance The Big Bang Theory is the only one I can think of that would qualify.  

Share this post


Link to post

AoS is known for being a show which did WAY better in streaming than live. Those live ratings you quote? Yeah, AoS more than doubled, sometimes tripled those numbers within three days, and that is not counting all the people to get to it within a week or waited until it dropped on streaming. That's because AoS isn't really a good show for live TV, since the show works of the assumption that the audience not just watches every episode, but also remembers what happened in the show five seasons later. It's exactly what I love about it, but it lead to a lot of people preferring to stream it instead of watching it live. Didn't help that sometimes AoS had an extremely erratic schedule, especially during its first episodes and in 2016, during which there were constantly episodes not shown in some areas due to the elections.

Nielson numbers only provide half of the picture nowadays, and they are an outdated system to truly measure the popularity of a show. Like I mentioned, once they looked into streaming, it turned out that AoS is one of the most popular and most watched show worldwide. Which is exactly why they keep the show going.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, swanpride said:

AoS is known for being a show which did WAY better in streaming than live. Those live ratings you quote? Yeah, AoS more than doubled, sometimes tripled those numbers within three days, and that is not counting all the people to get to it within a week or waited until it dropped on streaming. 

I'm not doubting you, but could you provide evidence of this?  My Google-fu did not turn up anything to support this. Quite the opposite - Live+7 ratings put it at #51, below a CW show (Flash), right around the Joey Tribbiani show Man With A Plan.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/live7-ratings-for-week-of-may-6-agents-of-shield-premiere-sees-solid-gain-1203226802/

EDIT: And that was for the last premier episode

Edited by ICantDoThatDave

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I'm not doubting you, but could you provide evidence of this?  My Google-fu did not turn up anything to support this. Quite the opposite - Live+7 ratings put it at #51, below a CW show (Flash), right around the Joey Tribbiani show Man With A Plan.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/live7-ratings-for-week-of-may-6-agents-of-shield-premiere-sees-solid-gain-1203226802/

EDIT: And that was for the last premier episode

2017-18 Live+3 Season Ratings

Quote

Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (ABC, 21 telecasts) •
Adults 18-49 rating: +0.5 [#27] / +100% [#2] (L+SD: 0.5; L+3: 1.0) •

Total Viewers: +1.292M [#57] / +62% [#6] (L+SD: 2.077M; L+3: 3.369M) •

2016-17 L+SD to L+3 gains: +0.7 in adults 18-49 rating; +1.511M in viewers


For Season 5 Agents of Shield doubled its rating in the 18-49 demo in 3 days.  It was 2nd in increase percentage for the season. 

There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent list for season 6 but looking at a few weeks it appears AoS  reached the same point in 7 days. Not surprising since it had moved to summer at that point. 

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, swanpride said:

AoS is known for being a show which did WAY better in streaming than live. Those live ratings you quote? Yeah, AoS more than doubled, sometimes tripled those numbers within three days, and that is not counting all the people to get to it within a week or waited until it dropped on streaming. That's because AoS isn't really a good show for live TV, since the show works of the assumption that the audience not just watches every episode, but also remembers what happened in the show five seasons later. It's exactly what I love about it, but it lead to a lot of people preferring to stream it instead of watching it live. Didn't help that sometimes AoS had an extremely erratic schedule, especially during its first episodes and in 2016, during which there were constantly episodes not shown in some areas due to the elections.

Nielson numbers only provide half of the picture nowadays, and they are an outdated system to truly measure the popularity of a show. Like I mentioned, once they looked into streaming, it turned out that AoS is one of the most popular and most watched show worldwide. Which is exactly why they keep the show going.

Which brings me to a related question - when the new Marvel content starts airing on Disney +, will that affect AoS, which I've never been able to get into? The site has all of the films except for Ant Man and the Wasp, and even that's going to be available at some point in June, I think, but they don't offer AoS even though Agent Carter is available. Streaming in general has changed the market as far as ratings go, since binge-watching shows has become enormously popular over the last few years, but since Netflix dropped the axe on all of their Marvel shows I'm still wondering what will eventually become of those characters. Sorry if this makes not much sense, it was a long week today.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Which brings me to a related question - when the new Marvel content starts airing on Disney +, will that affect AoS, which I've never been able to get into? The site has all of the films except for Ant Man and the Wasp, and even that's going to be available at some point in June, I think, but they don't offer AoS even though Agent Carter is available. Streaming in general has changed the market as far as ratings go, since binge-watching shows has become enormously popular over the last few years, but since Netflix dropped the axe on all of their Marvel shows I'm still wondering what will eventually become of those characters. Sorry if this makes not much sense, it was a long week today.

AoS’s final season will be finished before the Disney+ shows are released. 

AoS isn’t on Disney+ because of ABC’s deal with Netflix. I imagine it will show up on Disney+ as soon as they can. AoS is a strong streaming show and 100+ episodes will a be a big boost to their Marvel content.

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post

AoS is scheduled to be on Disney Plus over here in Europe, so I suspect the only reason it isn't on the American version (yet) is because of the contract with Netflix.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size