|
Post by impulse on Feb 24, 2022 11:58:29 GMT -5
Well, don't leave us hanging. Open it! How many is it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 12:20:10 GMT -5
Well, don't leave us hanging. Open it! How many is it? It's still in transit.....
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 24, 2022 14:19:05 GMT -5
Boooooo.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 24, 2022 16:01:21 GMT -5
I had started asking a question about Aunt Petunia's fate in another thread, then realized I could just google the information. My original post ended like this :
"Was Petunia ever seen again? Hopefully nobody decided to have her turned into a Skrull cyborg clone or to pack her in a fridge to establish how bad ass a new villain was."
Well, that later part is exactly what happened to her. She seems to have resurfaced with no explanation, but still.
As far as I'm concerned, bringing back an an old character just to kill them to establish how seriously a new villain should be taken is lazy writing. Create your own characters if you want to kill someone!
There. I said it!
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 24, 2022 20:24:31 GMT -5
Ugh, glad I never read any of that. She was a nice supporting character in that first story.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 24, 2022 21:10:20 GMT -5
I had started asking a question about Aunt Petunia's fate in another thread, then realized I could just google the information. My original post ended like this :
"Was Petunia ever seen again? Hopefully nobody decided to have her turned into a Skrull cyborg clone or to pack her in a fridge to establish how bad ass a new villain was."
Well, that later part is exactly what happened to her. She seems to have resurfaced with no explanation, but still.
As far as I'm concerned, bringing back an an old character just to kill them to establish how seriously a new villain should be taken is lazy writing. Create your own characters if you want to kill someone!
There. I said it!
There was a storyline that had her killed in the Millar run, but There's a theory that it was an illusion to torment the Thing.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 24, 2022 21:35:06 GMT -5
I had started asking a question about Aunt Petunia's fate in another thread, then realized I could just google the information. My original post ended like this :
"Was Petunia ever seen again? Hopefully nobody decided to have her turned into a Skrull cyborg clone or to pack her in a fridge to establish how bad ass a new villain was."
Well, that later part is exactly what happened to her. She seems to have resurfaced with no explanation, but still.
As far as I'm concerned, bringing back an an old character just to kill them to establish how seriously a new villain should be taken is lazy writing. Create your own characters if you want to kill someone!
There. I said it!
They JUST did this in Nightwing this month, and I said the very same thing!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 0:16:48 GMT -5
Although I have never really been into statues, figures etc...got one of these Black Widows (this pic is from the net but same production line)....which will look great on the shelf with the HCs.
For women's day.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 9, 2022 5:35:21 GMT -5
That's a great likeness of Scarjo. I'm guessing she gets paid for the use of it.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 9, 2022 5:59:22 GMT -5
That's a great likeness of Scarjo. I'm guessing she gets paid for the use of it. One would hope so, but who knows, she might have had to sign a contract beforehand that gave all those rights to whomevr Mrvels owners happen to be.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 9, 2022 6:55:24 GMT -5
That's a great likeness of Scarjo. I'm guessing she gets paid for the use of it. One would hope so, but who knows, she might have had to sign a contract beforehand that gave all those rights to whomevr Mrvels owners happen to be. Yeah, that has to be it. It's covered in the contracts they sign.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 8:32:48 GMT -5
That's a great likeness of Scarjo. I'm guessing she gets paid for the use of it. One would hope so, but who knows, she might have had to sign a contract beforehand that gave all those rights to whomevr Mrvels owners happen to be. Likeness rights are a nightmare maze to figure out, especially on older properties. Most modern contracts include likeness rights of the actors as part of the contract but also include a percentage of merchandising revenue paid to the actors as part of their residuals for the project, especially in properties that have strong toy tie ins like Star Wars, Marvel Studios, etc. So yes, they sign away the likeness rights but yes they get paid for it. Some older properties it is different. For example, you can license Dracula from Universal but you can't use Lugosi's likeness unless you also license it form his estate. It's something I have seen as an observer of Mego since its return a few years back, who have struggled with likeness rights, especially in their initial licenses that Target acquire for them. For example, they had the Charlie' Angels license, but not the likeness rights for any of the actors, so they could put of Charlie's Angels figures garbed in costumes form the show and with the same hair color as the Angels, but they couldn't use any of the women's likenesses in the sculpts or in the packaging. For their Bela Lugosi Dracula figure, they got the Lugosi rights initially, but not the Universal horror rights and were going to do a "Lugosi vampire" figure until they secured the Universal license as well. You really need an IP lawyer to figure out a lot of this stuff if you are going to engage in producing licensed products these days. -M
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 10, 2022 5:12:24 GMT -5
One would hope so, but who knows, she might have had to sign a contract beforehand that gave all those rights to whomevr Mrvels owners happen to be. Likeness rights are a nightmare maze to figure out, especially on older properties. Most modern contracts include likeness rights of the actors as part of the contract but also include a percentage of merchandising revenue paid to the actors as part of their residuals for the project, especially in properties that have strong toy tie ins like Star Wars, Marvel Studios, etc. So yes, they sign away the likeness rights but yes they get paid for it. Some older properties it is different. For example, you can license Dracula from Universal but you can't use Lugosi's likeness unless you also license it form his estate. It's something I have seen as an observer of Mego since its return a few years back, who have struggled with likeness rights, especially in their initial licenses that Target acquire for them. For example, they had the Charlie' Angels license, but not the likeness rights for any of the actors, so they could put of Charlie's Angels figures garbed in costumes form the show and with the same hair color as the Angels, but they couldn't use any of the women's likenesses in the sculpts or in the packaging. For their Bela Lugosi Dracula figure, they got the Lugosi rights initially, but not the Universal horror rights and were going to do a "Lugosi vampire" figure until they secured the Universal license as well. You really need an IP lawyer to figure out a lot of this stuff if you are going to engage in producing licensed products these days. -M That's interesting. Any time lawyers get involved it becomes a mess, but I can't imagine there are many people that even know who Bela Lugosi is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2022 8:21:12 GMT -5
Likeness rights are a nightmare maze to figure out, especially on older properties. Most modern contracts include likeness rights of the actors as part of the contract but also include a percentage of merchandising revenue paid to the actors as part of their residuals for the project, especially in properties that have strong toy tie ins like Star Wars, Marvel Studios, etc. So yes, they sign away the likeness rights but yes they get paid for it. Some older properties it is different. For example, you can license Dracula from Universal but you can't use Lugosi's likeness unless you also license it form his estate. It's something I have seen as an observer of Mego since its return a few years back, who have struggled with likeness rights, especially in their initial licenses that Target acquire for them. For example, they had the Charlie' Angels license, but not the likeness rights for any of the actors, so they could put of Charlie's Angels figures garbed in costumes form the show and with the same hair color as the Angels, but they couldn't use any of the women's likenesses in the sculpts or in the packaging. For their Bela Lugosi Dracula figure, they got the Lugosi rights initially, but not the Universal horror rights and were going to do a "Lugosi vampire" figure until they secured the Universal license as well. You really need an IP lawyer to figure out a lot of this stuff if you are going to engage in producing licensed products these days. -M That's interesting. Any time lawyers get involved it becomes a mess, but I can't imagine there are many people that even know who Bela Lugosi is. I wouldn't let shaxper hear you say that. But Lugosi was recently the subject of a best-selling biography in graphic novel form and is an icon among horror fans, and the licensing of his likeness is a million dollar industry for his estate, so there are a lot more people than you expect who are aware of Lugosi and his legacy. His works remain in heavy rotation on channels/services like TCM (Turner Classic Movies), especially during Halloween sales, anthologies of his films sell well on Blueray for smaller niche publishers who cater to the collector's markets, Universal Monsters are licensed to 6 or 7 different toy manufacturers right now (NECA, Super 7, Mego, and a few more I can't recall right off the top of my head) and are a hot seller for all of them, and all have also licensed the Lugosi likeness rights because it nearly doubles potential sales on such products among collectors. So I'd venture to say Lugosi is pretty ubiquitous in pop culture and the collector's markets right now and is fairly well known because of that. -M
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 10, 2022 8:43:25 GMT -5
One would hope so, but who knows, she might have had to sign a contract beforehand that gave all those rights to whomevr Mrvels owners happen to be. Likeness rights are a nightmare maze to figure out, especially on older properties. Most modern contracts include likeness rights of the actors as part of the contract but also include a percentage of merchandising revenue paid to the actors as part of their residuals for the project, especially in properties that have strong toy tie ins like Star Wars, Marvel Studios, etc. So yes, they sign away the likeness rights but yes they get paid for it. Some older properties it is different. For example, you can license Dracula from Universal but you can't use Lugosi's likeness unless you also license it form his estate. It's something I have seen as an observer of Mego since its return a few years back, who have struggled with likeness rights, especially in their initial licenses that Target acquire for them. For example, they had the Charlie' Angels license, but not the likeness rights for any of the actors, so they could put of Charlie's Angels figures garbed in costumes form the show and with the same hair color as the Angels, but they couldn't use any of the women's likenesses in the sculpts or in the packaging. For their Bela Lugosi Dracula figure, they got the Lugosi rights initially, but not the Universal horror rights and were going to do a "Lugosi vampire" figure until they secured the Universal license as well. You really need an IP lawyer to figure out a lot of this stuff if you are going to engage in producing licensed products these days. -M The real example of this was the biggest licensing deal in history - Star Wars. Famously, Lucas owned the licensing rights, in exchange for profit points from ticket sales... but came out the big winner, making Gagillions from the toys, etc. He neglected, however, to get the rights to the actors' likenesses. That's why the action figures never really looked like the actors. This wasn't really a problem for the licensing success he was hoping to emulate (and by far surpassed) for Planet of the Apes. The studio owned the likenesses of the masks, already. With the prequel trilogy, he corrected that mistake, and not only acquired the rights to the characters' likenesses, but used new-at-the-time technology to 3-d scan the actors' faces to give the action figures absolute (and sometimes eerie) accuracy to the actors' faces. Pretty much any deal since then has included actors' likenesses for licensing purposes. It's just part of the deal, now. NOW, the fuzzy area is whether or not the studio has the rights to the actors' likenesses in order to create digital actors to actually be IN the movies, themselves.
|
|