• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

'Avengers 2' must use the term 'enhanced powers' instead of mutants

JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/avengers-age-of-ultron-set-photos_n_5023208.html

mutants = x-men, which 20th century fox owns the rights to
avengers is not a 20th Century Fox film.


but WTF?!
I can understand if DC comics cant use the term mutants since it was coined by Marvel.

but when did Marvel give exclusive rights on the term Mutant to X-men?


and holy Christ what a horrible Quicksilver:
o-AARON-TAYLOR-JOHNSON-900.jpg
 
I just glad it wasn't about some political correctness thing.

That was my first thought since Marvel = Disney now.
 
I dont get why they would have Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in Avengers 2, and not Ant Man and Wasp, since the Ultron story revolves around Ant Man. Its too bad Disney doesnt have all the Marvel rights. I would like to see Spider-man in the Avengers, and a good Fantastic Four/Silver Surfer/Galactus movie.
 
bearxor said:
The Ultron story revolves around Stark and JARVIS in the MCU.
Click to expand...

I still dont get it though...they are even releasing an Ant Man movie later that year. It would have made more sense to release Ant Man earlier in the year and then have him in Avengers 2 with the Ultron story.
 
You just can't correlate 1:1 the comics with the MCU anymore. The timing of the Ant-Man movie wasn't working out so something had to be done.
 
Thought the reason avebgers defeated ultron was that the wasp flew into its mouth and fired her stinger shot at blank range?
 
Childs said:
I still dont get it though...they are even releasing an Ant Man movie later that year. It would have made more sense to release Ant Man earlier in the year and then have him in Avengers 2 with the Ultron story.
Click to expand...

It sounded like they just weren't ready to do Ant-Man yet, which meant they couldn't fit it in before Avengers 2. It's also interesting that Ant-Man won't even be about Hank Pym... well, to a degree.
 
There would be literally no creativity if creativity was not protected by government copyright and patent law. Enjoy not being in the dark ages? Shut the fuck up about mutants and enjoy your light bulbs, TV's, modern medicine.

Assholes.
 
momeNt said:
There would be literally no creativity if creativity was not protected by government copyright and patent law. Enjoy not being in the dark ages? Shut the fuck up about mutants and enjoy your light bulbs, TV's, modern medicine.

Signed an Asshole that is defending "mutant" being copyrighted.
Click to expand...

ftfy

LMAO @ anyone who defends that draconian one sided biased POS that is copyright. Creativity flourishes regardless where do you get the impression it would just suddenly die? It was fine long before government and lawyers stepped in. While the initial reason for any of that was good in the beginning, it has been bastardized and abused. Comparing today's stupid sue happy world to the age before lightbulbs is just laughable. I'd like to know on average how many IP's and different patents just sit in a vault somewhere simply so someone else can't create anything like it compared to what actually gets released/made. The whole thing is extremely distasteful. In my usual spiel what could be good, is ruined by greed.

Much like the superbowl, you have to admit...there are some pretty stupid ones in place. This is just one more.


...and no..I don't really care about "this" thread per se. It's the overall idea.
 
Last edited:
momeNt said:
There would be literally no creativity if creativity was not protected by government copyright and patent law. Enjoy not being in the dark ages? Shut the fuck up about mutants and enjoy your light bulbs, TV's, modern medicine.

Assholes.
Click to expand...

love those who do not defend the law as it is written and only as it is manipulated
 
Ichinisan said:
I just glad it wasn't about some political correctness thing.

That was my first thought since Marvel = Disney now.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thought as well. I thought the offended mutant lobby had gotten through.

This, while still dumb and annoying, is less dumb and annoying.

KT
 
And this isn't copyright so much as contractual obligation.

Marvel sold the rights to Fox. For movies. Which is why you still get the crossovers in comics, animated movies, and game set in the comic universe like Marvel Heroes.

Don't get me wrong I wish we could get the cool crossovers in the movies but OTOH a deal is a deal.
 
Jesus christ, this thread is full of stupid.

Marvel never owned the rights to the word "mutant" and certainly didn't sell these rights to Fox. They sold all of the x-men characters/villains to Fox. The problem, though, is there are a bunch of mutants from the x-men books that were also in the Avengers, like quicksilver and the scarlet witch. Marvel wanted to use those two, but so did Fox! The compromise that the two companies came up with was that these characters could be included in the Avengers movies, but not referred to as mutants.

This has nothing to do with copyrighting or trademarking the word mutant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top