Hasbro Cinematic Universe

Interesting. So, by cinematic universe do they mean that all of their various IPs will share the same universe, meaning that we could see Joes in a MASK movie, and vice versa?
 
Huh... Considering G.I. Joe and Transformers crossed over several times... And considering I always liked my pet notion that the Joe team incorporated Cybertronian tech for a sub-group within the organization that had innocuous vehicles that transformed into attack modes (M.A.S.K.)... I wouldn't mind seeing that. But I want all of that to be part of the Marvel universe, as the comics were (well, not M.A.S.K., but you know what I mean). Ditto Rom. Visionaries is an entirely different time period, so...

--Jonah
 
Well... I prefer it when related properties maintain that on the big or small screen. Spider-Man's been involved with stuff in both G.I. Joe and Transformers, Rom is solidly in the Marvel Universe, etc. So to ignore those connections can be either utterly irrelevent... or drastically damaging. Good example of the latter is how the MCU is utterly lacking all the mutants and the Fantastic Four (and all baddies associated with them) that the Avengers have had to deal with, as well. Civil War without the X-Men won't be the same conflict with the same stakes as in the comics, Wolverine and the Hulk can't fight, etc. As with everything, if handled right, it can be awesome, and if handled badly, it can be atrocious.

--Jonah
 
Does everything really need a "cinimatic universe" now.

From Hollywood's perspective? Yeah. Because it creates a built-in marketing platform for multiple different properties, where each property can, itself, launch additional merchandising options.

A M.A.S.K. movie offers the possibility for:
- video games
- comic books
- novelizations
- Burger King merch deal
- toys (duh)

A M.A.S.K. movie that ties into G.I. Joe lets you cross market and sell products that include both teams and such.


I mean, it's really kind of a no-brainer if you own all the properties anyway. And basically, Hasbro owns the rights to almost every major toy line from the 1980s and early 1990s.
 
Why bother having multiple cinematic universes at all? The various studios should just drop ALL the barriers & see what happens.


Wolverine could show up in a post-credit scene after Star Wars #8.

Or how about Indiana Jones vs Deadpool?

Hogwarts could call the Ghostbusters.

James Bond & Jason Bourne vs. the Fast & Furious bunch.

TMNT puts the smack down on the Lannister family.

He-Man & Thor end up as rival male models in Zoolander#3.


The possibilities are endless.
 
Last edited:
From Hollywood's perspective? Yeah. Because it creates a built-in marketing platform for multiple different properties, where each property can, itself, launch additional merchandising options.

A M.A.S.K. movie offers the possibility for:
- video games
- comic books
- novelizations
- Burger King merch deal
- toys (duh)

A M.A.S.K. movie that ties into G.I. Joe lets you cross market and sell products that include both teams and such.


I mean, it's really kind of a no-brainer if you own all the properties anyway. And basically, Hasbro owns the rights to almost every major toy line from the 1980s and early 1990s.


It's like the "cinematic" equivalent of cancer metastasizing. The prognosis is fatal. God, I miss movies. I miss them so much.
 
Holy overreaction, batguy! I do not see the problem when characters and properties that have been connected and associated in other media continue that on television and in films. I do not see the problem with incorporating previously unassociated, but thematically similar I.P.'s, hoping the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. It is a huge leap of illogic to project that to crossing over widely divergent time periods and genres -- and on an ongoing basis. And even then, it wouldn't be like that was something new. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? The Harlem Globetrotters on Scooby-Doo?

How about letting them get beyond saying "these are the writers we have and these are the properties we're developing" before we assume they're all going to be in the same playpen. Almost twenty years on, Fox still hasn't crossed over X-Men and Fantastic Four, and by the source material, they not only live in the same state and have semi-frequent encounters, but in one alternate uture Rachel Summers of the X-Men was romantically involved with Franklin Richards, son of two founders of the FF. Don't misinterpret our hopefulness that properties we've always seen as connected -- or always hoped would be -- might finally now be in cinematic terms... for a declaration of the intent of the company developing them.

Me, I'd rather see Marvel Studios fight to acquire TMNT and Transformers, partially to get them away from Bay's deranged approach to them, and partially to fold them into the Marvel Universe where they've been since the '80s. And if you didn't know that the Turtles were created by the same incident that created Daredevil, then you need to turn in your fan card. :p

--Jonah
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy overreaction, @batguy! I do not see the problem when characters and properties that have been connected and associated in other media continue that on television and in films. I do not see the problem with incorporating previously unassociated, but thematically similar I.P.'s, hoping the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. It is a huge leap of illogic to project that to crossing over widely divergent time periods and genres -- and on an ongoing basis. And even then, it wouldn't be like that was something new. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? The Harlem Globetrotters on Scooby-Doo?

How about letting them get beyond saying "these are the writers we have and these are the properties we're developing" before we assume they're all going to be in the same playpen. Almost twenty years on, Fox still hasn't crossed over X-Men and Fantastic Four, and by the source material, they not only live in the same state and have semi-frequent encounters, but in one alternate uture Rachel Summers of the X-Men was romantically involved with Franklin Richards, son of two founders of the FF. Don't misinterpret our hopefulness that properties we've always seen as connected -- or always hoped would be -- might finally now be in cinematic terms... for a declaration of the intent of the company developing them.

Me, I'd rather see Marvel Studios fight to acquire TMNT and Transformers, partially to get them away from Bay's deranged approach to them, and partially to fold them into the Marvel Universe where they've been since the '80s. And if you didn't know that the Turtles were created by the same incident that created Daredevil, then you need to turn in your fan card.


I wasn't being especially serious back there. Just goofing around.

Sometimes crossing franchises can indeed bear fruit.



But I do wonder about the drawbacks of anything Hollywood does when it becomes such a strong trend. In this case I wonder if it will lead to the individual movies losing effort/resources in favor of the compilations.

It already frustrates me how often the first movie in a series will end up mainly as a "setup" show, and its own plot becomes an afterthought. It's arrogant of the filmmakers to assume they have my attention for several movies just because of the IP.
 
Well, if it's good, I'll stay for however long the ride is. TV had to learn viewers would do that several times over. They knew in the '60s that longform storytelling worked when the finale for the Fugitive had higher ratings than the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Glen Larson knew it when he was developing Battlestar Galactica as a miniseries in the '70s. Joe Straczynski proved it again in the '90s with Babylon 5. And it's been a staple of daytime and primetime melodramas like General Hospital or Dallas since the beginning. Likewise, those Saturday morning serials that George was emulating and amplifying with Star Wars, but that Hollywood didn't really pick up on as a thing until fairly recently. I honestly think Marvel has led the way with their universe-building in the MCU, and I don't see it as a bad thing.

There are enough films coming out each year that you definitely have an easy choice to not see the ones you don't want to see. If longform storytelling isn't your thing, skip it. I think it can be done well or badly. I feel Marvel is doing it well, and DC is doing it badly. I saw Man of Steel once and haven't been able to bring myself to watch it again all the way through on home-video. I haven't been able to bring myself to see Batman v. Superman yet, just because of how little the trailers have compelled me, with help from the in-depth reviews. On the other hand, Iron Man surprised me, and I ended up seeing it three times in the theater, and ultimately ended up seeing Avengers in the theater seven times. And even after repeated home-video viewings, I am nowhere near getting tired of those films. And it's not about fandom...

The first comic I bought was Rom: Spaceknight #1 in 1979. I was a fan of the X-Men and their related books all the way through the '80s and into the '90s, and Iron Man, as well. Meanwhile, over at DC, I have loved their Elseworlds offerings, Green Lantern, I adore Mike Grell's run on Green Arrow, and most of the stuff under the Vertigo imprint. Just as with the Star Trek vs. Star Wars argument, I consider myself "bi" in the matter. So I don't have an inherent distaste for DC characters coloring my desire to see their films or my opinions of them -- it is purely on the merits of the films themselves.

And in this matter, one of the biggest reasons I want to see Hasbro team up with Marvel on this is that Hasbro wanted to sell toys. To that end, they approached Marvel Comics. Marvel's approach to G.I. Joe and the Transformers was far deeper, characterful, and even epic (in the case of TF) than I think Hasbro expected or ever understood, to this day. And, I'll be honest, I would love, beyond my ability to express, to see Rom show up in Infinity War...

--Jonah
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top