November 14, according to Vulture, is the date when the Ghost Rider rights will revert from Sony to Marvel… unless the Japanese corporate giant has a movie in production by that date. And Sony is so serious about meeting that date they’re thinking of going ahead with Ghost Rider 2 even if Nic Cage isn’t available.
And it’s very likely Cage won’t be available. National Treasure 3 could start shooting this fall, and that paycheck will likely be bigger than Ghost Rider 2‘s paycheck. Supposedly Sony is asking for an extension on the rights, but Marvel really wants their characters to come home, so I can’t imagine they’re going to grant one.
This is the face of bad studio decision-making in action. The reality is that nobody actually wants a Ghost Rider 2, but Sony doesn’t want Marvel getting the character back and possibly making a movie that earns some cash. That will make the Sony execs look like the dummies who let the good property get away – this is the exact reasoning behind Fox developing new X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil movies. They aren’t all that worried about making them good or particularly successful, they just want to make sure Marvel doesn’t get the rights back and then make successful versions of the movies.
If Ghost Rider did revert to Marvel it’s hard to imagine the studio jumping on a new movie any time soon. They have their hands full for the next couple of years, and Ghost Rider isn’t a particularly vital part of the Marvel Universe. But I know that Kevin Feige looks to all the lost and wandering characters and really wants to have them back.
15 comments
Shit, like a rush-produced Ghost Rider 2 could be any WORSE than the one they spent years building up to? What a f**king awful film. Mark Steven Johnson, you are in my shit books.
Is there some clause in these licensing agreements where if the licensor thinks their property is not being handled "properly" they can sue to get it back or something?
Though I suppose the criteria would have to be so blatant and egregious that it'd be almost impossible to prove.
I think this is a character Marvel can let wander the wastelands of rights limbo forever. He's a pretty fucking cheesy character.
Similar to the Punisher, Ghost Rider is a fun character that could be made into a good movie. It just hasn't come close to happening. The CGI wasn't ready, I'm not sure it is now.
I'd like to see Ghost Rider as a 25 million dollar horror movie. It will still suck, but I'd like to see it.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can only make a character on a fucking motorcycle with a flaming skull look only SO REAL boys and the 1st GHOST RIDER accomplished just that.. How real do you want this for crying out loud?? All this nonsense about the CGI not being ready is a load.. The CGI was just fine for what it did on such a low budget for a low budget character to begin with..
I hope that all they rush everyone of these into production. I hope they're all fucking awful and bomb. Horrible financial losses are the only way Marvel is getting their characters back without protracted legal battles. So here's to 5 years of godawful X-Men and Spidey flicks.
Also, FIX THE VERIFICATION SYSTEM!!!
No one cares about Ghost Rider. No one read the comic when it originally came out because its a stupid fucking character. Whats next a Dazzler movie? Not everything Marvel did (especially in the 70s) is gold.
While I thought that Ghost Rider LOOKED fine (the CG for the character itself was pretty decent), the script was the real problem. Oddly enough, I thought that the film itself ended up being the most family-friendly Marvel film outside of the Fantastic Four flicks, which is really, really where we DON'T want to see Ghost Rider. Comment #7—The same could have been said about Blade, and Blade is what got the whole Marvel movie machine rolling. The characters that are either forgotten or neglected in the comics should be the easiest ones to adapt, or at least the easiest to mess around with, as they don't carry the same kind of baggage as Spider-Man or X-Men, at least in terms of bitchy fanbases that are overly critical of how the characters are being handled even before a single frame of film is shot. I'm a big fan of Marvel's MAX imprint, where creators go wild with forgotten z-listers all the time, and when it comes to those types of characters, I think that Foolkiller (read the first mini series from a couple years back) and Destroyer would make pretty decent flicks.
#8, If you're speaking of modern successful Marvel films, Men in Black predates Blade by a year.
GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL!
#9- I think Blade is clearly a more recognizable Marvel character than Men in Black was… that and I dont think MIB was a marvel comic at the time …. So blade is truly the first successful Marvel comic movie
For Marvel, it is probably less about making their own Ghost Rider, and more about having the characters involved in the property. So, if they want to make a supernatural movie, they could throw Ghost Rider in there.
I really think Ghostrider is one of Marvel's most "movie ready" characters. The origin concept is one that non-comic fans can easily recognize – mankind has been writing about "deals with the devil" for centuries. The issue is the tone. Now, I am not one who thinks all super-hero flicks need to be "dark" (I personally think "Batman Brave and Bold" is some of the most entertaining programming to watch either in the theater or at home), but Ghost Rider is one character that SHOULD BE WRITTEN VERY DARK. The budget is not the issue; as always, the script is. You don't need a huge budget to show the pain and conflict in the characters. Keep enough $ around for one or two "ahh" CGI moments, and it will be fine.
use the guy from Supernatural. the shorter haired one. he would be a decent replacement.
if you think Ghost Rider is a good character for a talking movie film you are a fucking idiot.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.