Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash
-
HellJacket — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:35 AM)
@ Wartle
There is no chance that all three entities would agree to do it and that they'd give full control to Raimi/Tapert/etc. in order to do it.
Which I don't understand. I can understand how New Line could be protective of Freddie, he has a trademark personality and the Freddy mythos is pretty interesting, so I could see why they wouldn't want to risk tarnishing the Freddy brand (even if the Nightmare on Elm Street remake sucked, so what exactly is there to tarnish). However, what's the deal with not wanting to give Jason up? The character has no lines, and merely an automaton that walks around wearing a hockey mask while hacking and slashing around Crystal Lake. What is there to tarnish in the Friday the 13th series that hasn't been done by the previous Jason movies?
Now, maybe a Jason vs. Ash movie wouldn't have enough pull to warrant getting made.
Please Note: The above post should be read in Roger Rabbit's voice. -
vincentkettle — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 11:40 AM)
Because lawyers. It's more complicated than you think but in short nobody wants to give up the control of their character for a film.
While you think it's as simple as jason just walks around they would want to control how he walks around how many he kills how he dies if they even allow him to die what weapp he could use down to how his costume looks. The hassle is not worth it for what would be a high risk movie. -
HellJacket — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 12:05 PM)
@ vincent
Because lawyers.
It's more complicated than you think but in short nobody wants to give up the control of their character for a film.
FYI, I do have a legal background specific to intellectual property. The real answer isn't that no body wants to give up the rights. Remember, we had a Jason vs. Freddie movie after all. The real truth is that since Army of Darkness was a box office disappointment, there wasn't enough money to be made by incorporating Ash into the franchise. That's the real answer.
Remember, Wreck-It Ralph showed that Sega, Nintendo, and Disney could all put aside their differences to get a movie made. And will likely do the same thing again for the Wreck-It Ralph sequel. With Ash vs. Jason vs Freddy, the problem is that Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi would want to be in full control, but their box office success does not warrant that kind of control for this kind of movie. If Army of Darkness had been a smash hit, New Line Cinema would have given them free reign to do anything they want since it likely would have made them lots of money.
Please Note: The above post should be read in Roger Rabbit's voice. -
vincentkettle — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 02:06 PM)
Well actually bruce has spoke about it in interviews and they always got into negotiate but nobody was willing to give up control of their characters. Even Sam and Bruce weren't willing to give up Ash it had nothing to do with their standing because Sam Raimi is a big enough name to have that control.
-
HellJacket — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 07:28 PM)
@ vincent
Well actually bruce has spoke about it in interviews and they always got into negotiate but nobody was willing to give up control of their characters.
I know that, but the reason why the studio wouldn't give Raimi control of the characters was because Army of Darkness bombed. Bruce and Sam would want creative freedom, but their movies didn't make enough money to warrant creative freedom. The studios are not going to give them creative freedom and a decent budget if that means another bomb.
Remember, Bruce's complaint about "nobody was willing to give up control of their characters" begs the question. I'm pretty sure New Line would have been fine with Bruce and Sam relinquished their control of Ash, and that would probably have gotten the movie made. But Bruce and Sam would rather no movie be made if they couldn't make the movie that they wanted. Whether that's a good position or not, I don't know.
Please Note: The above post should be read in Roger Rabbit's voice. -
HellJacket — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 07:34 PM)
@ vincent
And because I can't edit my post on mobile, Nintendo and Sega gave their characters up as references none were used for any form of plot or to act
in a way they wouldn't.
This is nitpicking and wrong. I'm pretty sure Kano at the bad guys meeting in Wreck-It Ralph is nothing like the Kano from Mortal Kombat. Same goes M. Bison, Zangief, Ryu, etc. Furthermore, the entire game is a derivative of Donkey Kong for the NES, which means Nintendo had to grant significant IP rights for more than just a few cameos.
The real difference, though, is that Disney has a proven track record of making successful animated movies. Sam and Bruce don't have a proven track record of making successful box office Evil Dead movies.
Please Note: The above post should be read in Roger Rabbit's voice. -
vincentkettle — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 03:52 AM)
So every character you listed there not 1 belongs to Nintendo or Sega they belong to the likes of cap com and whoever owns mortal kombat now. The game is a derivative but no actual assets from donkey Kong were used for the game so no rights were needed to parody the game.