Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

So this is what The Sentinels will look like.

Rodimus Prime wrote:So this is what The Sentinels will look like.

Kind of ballsy to make them look like a broken image link. I don't think the redesign will go over well with the fandom.

Let's just go better...

Empire Magazine's 25 (currently 20) different covers revealing the characters.

http://www.empireonline.com/xmen/

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:So this is what The Sentinels will look like.

Kind of ballsy to make them look like a broken image link. I don't think the redesign will go over well with the fandom.

I can see it fine...

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:So this is what The Sentinels will look like.

Kind of ballsy to make them look like a broken image link. I don't think the redesign will go over well with the fandom.

I can see it fine...

It's not working for me either.

Now I can't see it either....what did you do??? Just use Burn's link...

Rodimus Prime wrote:Now I can't see it either....what did you do??? Just use Burn's link...

nah don't, It's depressing.

Why did they cover a sentinel in black post-it notes?

I'm just gonna put this right here...

You know, I really wasn't that excited about this movie, even with Batista and Vin Diesel in it, until I saw this trailer. It is WIN.

Ah, the power of marketing...

Rarely are there trailers that good.

Okay, I admit that this film does look good.

i am well pumped for this movie, it's exciting to be excited by my favourite marvel team again! particularly since the current so-called gotg comic is an abysmal pile of bendisified garbage.

i'm only a weeeeeenie bit disappointed that there wasn't any significant new footage from what we saw at comic con last year. oh well, i'm sure to see a bunch more this year before the movie comes out

Meh, that looks like a glorified SyFy channel movie to me.

Shadowman wrote:The film rights are owned by Sony, though. Daredevil's rights were owned by Fox, but the rights went back to Marvel so Fox could keep X-Men and Fantastic Four. If Marvel wants what is basically a Daredevil character to be used on a Spider-Man movie, it would mean giving up the rights again, and right now, everyone is desperately trying to hold on to what they've got.

I thought the same thing................but look at what they are doing with Quicksilver and his sister.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:The film rights are owned by Sony, though. Daredevil's rights were owned by Fox, but the rights went back to Marvel so Fox could keep X-Men and Fantastic Four. If Marvel wants what is basically a Daredevil character to be used on a Spider-Man movie, it would mean giving up the rights again, and right now, everyone is desperately trying to hold on to what they've got.

I thought the same thing................but look at what they are doing with Quicksilver and his sister.

the problem ("problem") with quicksilver and scarlet witch (she has a name okay) is that they're known as being avengers, but they're also known as being mutants and magnetos kids.

which is how both marvel and fox manage to get away with using them.

marvel can use them as they have the avengers franchise, but they're not allowed to make any mention to them being mutants or to magneto (general consensus is that coming out of the infinity event in the MCU they're going to be inhumans and not mutants, since making there be a whole bunch of new spontaneous supes via the terrigen mists is probably how marvel is getting around not being able to use kids spontaneously developing powers via mutancy).

fox own the rights to mutants (hence all the x-characters except for namor who is owned by universal (?????)) which means they can use them AND mention that they're mutants - whether or not they're decided to be inhumans in the MCU - and their relationship to magneto, but they're not allowed to make any reference to the avengers.

Renne wrote:the problem ("problem") with quicksilver and scarlet witch (she has a name okay)

I know what what her name is, I was just to lazy to type it.

........is that they're known as being avengers, but they're also known as being mutants and magnetos kids.

which is how both marvel and fox manage to get away with using them.

I also know what the "so called" problem is.........the point of my post is that the issue with the twins is no different then the issue with Kingpin.

Kingpin is as known for being a Daredevil as he is for being one of Spidies villains.,.....So if it can be done with the twins, why not the big guy?

marvel can use them as they have the avengers franchise, but they're not allowed to make any mention to them being mutants or to magneto (general consensus is that coming out of the infinity event in the MCU they're going to be inhumans and not mutants, since making there be a whole bunch of new spontaneous supes via the terrigen mists is probably how marvel is getting around not being able to use kids spontaneously developing powers via mutancy).

its my understanding that they are making the avengers Quick&Witch the twin children of Baron Von Structor.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Kingpin is as known for being a Daredevil as he is for being one of Spidies villains.,.....So if it can be done with the twins, why not the big guy?

i guess that depends on if the rogues gallery goes with the rights as well which is not something i know about. also i'm not a spidey fan so i didn't realise the kingpin was one of his to start with... i pretty much only ever hear of him in terms of coming up against daredevil.

eta; wait so is what you're saying that he's been claimed as a spidey villain?? MADNESS.

Renne wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Kingpin is as known for being a Daredevil as he is for being one of Spidies villains.,.....So if it can be done with the twins, why not the big guy?

i guess that depends on if the rogues gallery goes with the rights as well which is not something i know about. also i'm not a spidey fan so i didn't realise the kingpin was one of his to start with... i pretty much only ever hear of him in terms of coming up against daredevil.

I actually saw Kingpin in the Spider-Man cartoon before I ever saw him associated with Daredevil, so I always considered him a Spidey villain. But I guess that's because I've never been a Daredevil fan. In any case, if Kingpin made an appearance in the new Amazing Spider-Man movies, who would play him? It would seem plausible, since the Sinister Six seems to be coming together. I hope it will be an actual actor, and not CGI. Maybe a tall actor in a fat suit? Only one comes to mind right now is the WWE's Big Show. Of course he wouldn't need a fat suit.

Renne wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:The film rights are owned by Sony, though. Daredevil's rights were owned by Fox, but the rights went back to Marvel so Fox could keep X-Men and Fantastic Four. If Marvel wants what is basically a Daredevil character to be used on a Spider-Man movie, it would mean giving up the rights again, and right now, everyone is desperately trying to hold on to what they've got.

I thought the same thing................but look at what they are doing with Quicksilver and his sister.

the problem ("problem") with quicksilver and scarlet witch (she has a name okay) is that they're known as being avengers, but they're also known as being mutants and magnetos kids.

which is how both marvel and fox manage to get away with using them.

marvel can use them as they have the avengers franchise, but they're not allowed to make any mention to them being mutants or to magneto (general consensus is that coming out of the infinity event in the MCU they're going to be inhumans and not mutants, since making there be a whole bunch of new spontaneous supes via the terrigen mists is probably how marvel is getting around not being able to use kids spontaneously developing powers via mutancy).

fox own the rights to mutants (hence all the x-characters except for namor who is owned by universal (?????)) which means they can use them AND mention that they're mutants - whether or not they're decided to be inhumans in the MCU - and their relationship to magneto, but they're not allowed to make any reference to the avengers.

Actually the thing is that Quicksilver is confirmed to be in both Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past, despite everything we know up until now suggesting that can't happen. He's going to be the first character to have been in both an X-Men movie and an Avengers movie.

Shadowman wrote:Actually the thing is that Quicksilver is confirmed to be in both Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past, despite everything we know up until now suggesting that can't happen. He's going to be the first character to have been in both an X-Men movie and an Avengers movie.

yes? we know that?

that being said, from how absolutely terrible he looks in all the promo material for dofp, i don't know he's going to have much longevity on that franchise unless they do something super special with him in the movie. marvel could do almost anything and he'll be better than what fox is doing.

Renne wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Kingpin is as known for being a Daredevil as he is for being one of Spidies villains.,.....So if it can be done with the twins, why not the big guy?

i guess that depends on if the rogues gallery goes with the rights as well which is not something i know about. also i'm not a spidey fan so i didn't realise the kingpin was one of his to start with... i pretty much only ever hear of him in terms of coming up against daredevil.

eta; wait so is what you're saying that he's been claimed as a spidey villain?? MADNESS.

Kingpin first appeared in in a spiderman comic and has been a frequent enemy of spidie.

Shadowman wrote:
Actually the thing is that Quicksilver is confirmed to be in both Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past, despite everything we know up until now suggesting that can't happen. He's going to be the first character to have been in both an X-Men movie and an Avengers movie.

I think what we will see with Avengers "Quicksilver" is what we saw with the IronPatriot.

Meaning that we get a guy with the code name but not the alter ego.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:
Actually the thing is that Quicksilver is confirmed to be in both Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past, despite everything we know up until now suggesting that can't happen. He's going to be the first character to have been in both an X-Men movie and an Avengers movie.

I think what we will see with Avengers "Quicksilver" is what we saw with the IronPatriot.

Meaning that we get a guy with the code name but not the alter ego.

So, a speedster named Quicksilver...but it's not Pietro Maximoff? That makes sense. Kind of a huge cop-out, but it makes sense.

And to be honest, Iron Patriot was kind of pointless as well. They could have kept him as War Machine and nothing would have changed except cutting out a running gag.

Shadowman wrote:So, a speedster named Quicksilver...but it's not Pietro Maximoff? That makes sense. Kind of a huge cop-out, but it makes sense.

right, Not Pietro,not a mutant,not Magneto's child.

thats 1 possibility.
we might get a character named "Quicksilver thats not even a speedster.

like I posted earlier, from what I here they want to make the Avengers version of Quicksilver to be the child of Baron Wolfgang von Strucker.

In the comics, Baron von Strucker has twin children of his own that together go by the name Fenris.
http://marvel.wikia.com/Fenris

And to be honest, Iron Patriot was kind of pointless as well. They could have kept him as War Machine and nothing would have changed except cutting out a running gag.

agreed.