The Avengers: News and Speculation

[FaT_tONle]

FaT... was not Marvel plan was to introduce the MoleMen as the villain in the FF3, introducing and acquiring assistance from Namor. While spinning off Silver Surfer and much late Namor.

:huh:... never heard about this. I heard about Mole Man for part 2... but forget Namor... he has been at Universal for the past four years and I don't think he reverts back until 2009/2010... maybe in time for FF3... maybe not. I doubt he was a serious candidate ever since they sold off the rights to him. Besides, the NZ and the Inhumans would be better for part 3, or maybe some Black Panther... although I like Namor.... but Namor would be another SS concept. Too many similar parallels.

[Rich Santoro]

Save Namor for an Avengers sequel... same with BP...

As for the FF thing. I will repsond below, and invite everyone to follow my post over to a FF forum, so that the discussion here can get back to the Avengers (I will repeat the post below, over there): http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=316078&page=3

... If Marvel gets FF back and wants to do more with them, that would be a different. I say move to the next "episode" but definitely rework some of the past events... namely DOOM's entire persona. Leave him out of a movie or two, but then reintroduce him with dialogue where Reed gets wind that DOOM acquired a small citi-state in Eastern Europe by making a deal with several countries that granted him some borderlands in return for technology... this kind of thing concerns him, because DOOM is very dangerous, and the idea of him ruling an entire region is of great concern. This does not contradict what has come before, and allows us to move forward in a new direction with the character. He will keep the mask on, have the proper attire, voice and persona... use powerful technology and mystical energies (with some explanation that he studied mysteries that are even beyond Reed's understanding). We can ignore the original DOOM completely and get the character that we are supposed to have.

So we essentially re-invent the franchise without tripping over past events. Details that worked can be honored with dialogue and/or flashbacks where appropriate and necessary... and the rest can be forgotten. So I say re-invent FF ala TIH... (I don't even know what reboot means anymore, it gets used so much... redo like BB, re-invent like TIH, rehash like P:WZ, re-vitalize after hiatus like SR).

[TheVileOne]

Thing is, if FF went back to Marvel, and Marvel did it better that would make 20th Century Fox look bad (wouldn't be hard). Studios don't like being upstaged like that.

[Docker2.0]

:huh:... never heard about this. I heard about Mole Man for part 2... but forget Namor... he has been at Universal for the past four years and I don't think he reverts back until 2009/2010... maybe in time for FF3... maybe not. I doubt he was a serious candidate ever since they sold off the rights to him. Besides, the NZ and the Inhumans would be better for part 3, or maybe some Black Panther... although I like Namor.... but Namor would be another SS concept. Too many similar parallels.

I heard Moleman was going to be in part 3 though that is looking really bad right now. Namor was never in the plans becuase he is owned by Universal but who knows. Universal may release him back to Marvel like they did with the Hulk.

[FaT_tONle]

I also wouldn't mind introducing BP or Namor through Avengers. Those are characters who I don't think can hold their own in an origin movie introducing them to the public for the first time. But since they seem to be gearing Avengers more toward the Ultimates... Namor would be totally out of place. That's the problem I have with that. Would anyone disagree? I'd introduce Namor in a FF movie before doing so in Avengers. I could see them introducing BP easily through Avengers... much like Hawkeye/BW. My only wish is that all these films are made under the same creative studio... namely Marvel... or otherwise not made at all. That will give you the option of cross pollinating all your franchises of course. That way if one movie does bad... the other successful franchises can pick up the slack and not all is completely lost with the unsuccessful film and its characters.

Thing is, if FF went back to Marvel, and Marvel did it better that would make 20th Century Fox look bad (wouldn't be hard). Studios don't like being upstaged like that.

Universal did not seem too upset by it, and they still made money from TIH anyhow.

[TheVileOne]

I imagine they got money out of the distribution deal, but they basically had no plans to make a sequel anyway.

Fox did get a second movie out of the FF property. That sort of changes things I imagine.

[[A]]

I heard Moleman was going to be in part 3 though that is looking really bad right now. Namor was never in the plans becuase he is owned by Universal but who knows. Universal may release him back to Marvel like they did with the Hulk.
How was that deal..? I'd like to know the details *smirks*

[Docker2.0]

How was that deal..? I'd like to know the details *smirks*

:dry: I don't even know why I'm even replying. :huh:

[SuperKoala]

ha you dont even have an answer you snake in the grass

[[A]]

but I really wanted to know :o

[Docker2.0]

ha you dont even have an answer you snake in the grass

Me? :huh:

[Docker2.0]

dang double post! :cmad: On another note, just read about "the wrestler" being IM's villians! Wow! Marvel is going all out when it comes to actors in their movies! :wow: I was just hoping they didn't have a villian like Iron Mongor. If its Whiplash, I don't mind but Crimson Dynamo.......not so sure. And I thought Favre said there won't be a IM3, so why isn't the Mandarin in part 2?! :cmad: Now that the casting in IM2 is almost set, you'd think Marvel would get on the ball with Thor which is set to be released immediately after IM2.

[jab1118]

dang double post! :cmad: On another note, just read about "the wrestler" being IM's villians! Wow! Marvel is going all out when it comes to actors in their movies! :wow: I was just hoping they didn't have a villian like Iron Mongor. If its Whiplash, I don't mind but Crimson Dynamo.......not so sure. And I thought Favre said there won't be a IM3, so why isn't the Mandarin in part 2?! :cmad: Now that the casting in IM2 is almost set, you'd think Marvel would get on the ball with Thor which is set to be released immediately after IM2.

Like the casting news, but Favre should just retire first he comes back to the jets and now he is saying there will be no Ironman 3 how does he know :woot:

[Docker2.0]

Like the casting news, but Favre should just retire first he comes back to the jets and now he is saying there will be no Ironman 3 how does he know :woot:

Hahaha! :dry: Jon Favreau said that he wanted it to end at 2 becuase trilogies rarely turn out good and wanted it to end on a high note.....so where's the Mandarin?! :cmad:

[Chewy]

Jon Favreau has said multiple times that Mandarin will be Iron Man 3.

[Rich Santoro]

Jon Favreau has said multiple times that Mandarin will be Iron Man 3.

That is what I remember reading. And on the SHH report... it says a character with coils on his arms or Crimson Dynamo... is that Constrictor??? That is quite a jump from Crymsan Dynamo to Constrictor.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't know why you guys can't be a little more patient... Mandarin will definitely be in IM3. IM2 will probably be the highest grossing film next year (domestic). IM3 will definitely be made. Plus RDJ is signed to a four picture deal.

[Iron_Stark]

Hahaha! :dry: Jon Favreau said that he wanted it to end at 2 becuase trilogies rarely turn out good and wanted it to end on a high note.....so where's the Mandarin?! :cmad:

What? When did he say this? He said the 3rd one is always the trickiest and rarely better than the other two. He also said Mandarin was being saved for the third one as well that he was going to be in the background like Palpatine was in SW or or Sauron from LOTR.

But never said no to a 3rd. It's going to be

Iron Man
IM2
Avengers
IM3

[aka Kal el]

New idea for Cap:

http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/verticallimit/vl_c133-18a.jpghttp://www.consoleinformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/chris_odonnell.jpg

I could see this he deserves another shot! Remember scent of a woman,school ties. James Marsden would also be interesting though he would need to but the lifts back in his shoes like Xmen. I finally watched the notebook with my girl and he had a lot of Caplike qualities.

[Brian Braddock]

O'Donnell was exactly the same in every role he was in; not exactly the rangiest of actors.

James Marsden, as good an actor that he is, is about 2 foot tall and weighs about as much as a can of pepsi.

Neither guys are Cap material imo.

[The IronMan]

That is what I remember reading. And on the SHH report... it says a character with coils on his arms or Crimson Dynamo... is that Constrictor??? That is quite a jump from Crymsan Dynamo to Constrictor.
Isn't the guy with coils on his arms Omega Red?

[Docker2.0]

What? When did he say this? He said the 3rd one is always the trickiest and rarely better than the other two. He also said Mandarin was being saved for the third one as well that he was going to be in the background like Palpatine was in SW or or Sauron from LOTR.

But never said no to a 3rd. It's going to be

Iron Man
IM2
Avengers
IM3

He said it! :cmad: It was actually on this site. Just look on the front page under IM news.

[Hypestyle]

hopefully the action won't just take place in new york.. have the team in different global locations..

[redlion2]

http://www.comicscontinuum.com

EVA LONGORIA PARKER TALKS THE AVENGERS

Eva Longoria Parker, star of ABC's Desperate Housewives, addressed rumors of her being in The Avengers movie during E!'s Red Carpet telecast from the Golden Globes on Sunday night.

Parker, 33, was photographed coming out of Marvel's offices, leading to speculation that she might play the Wasp in the 2011 film.

Parker told E!'s Ryan Seacrest that she hasn't been cast -- yet.

"I would love to do something like that," Parker said during an on-air interview. "If you can get me the job, that would be great."

Parker has been a cast regular since the inception of Desperate Housewives. Her film credits include Over Her Dead Body, The Heartbreak Kid and The Sentinel.



Don't know if this has already been posted.
Hmmmm......don't know what to make of this if she's actually in the running. Could be a rumor worth keeping tabs on.

[Spider-Vader]

She would no doubt be Wasp. If there's any truth that'd be cool. Then the roster will probably be this:
Iron Man
Hulk
Thor
Captain America
Hawkeye
Hank Pym
Janet Pym

Seems good enough.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah I could use me some Eva... we do remember her with the Avengers comics walking outside Marvel studios no? How can we forget? It's not a terrible pick. I'd prefer a better actress in there though...

[Venom'sDad]

http://www.comicscontinuum.com


Interesting

[redlion2]

Yeah I could use me some Eva... we do remember her with the Avengers comics walking outside Marvel studios no? How can we forget? It's not a terrible pick. I'd prefer a better actress in there though...

I'd like a better actress as well but if Eva is cast, I guess I could live with it.

[WillardNation]

I'd be very happy with Eva as Wasp.

[Venom'sDad]

She does kinda look like her a bit

[marcvader]

I wouldn't lose any sleep if they gave her the role.

[Docker2.0]

Marvel needs to speed up with the Thor news. The movie is set to come out next summer and yet we have no word on who's playing the guy! :cmad: They need to get that Skarsgard kid becuase I don't want Nick Fury looking down on my Thor becuase he's so short.

[Brian Braddock]

Marvel needs to speed up with the Thor news. The movie is set to come out next summer and yet we have no word on who's playing the guy! :cmad: They need to get that Skarsgard kid becuase I don't want Nick Fury looking down on my Thor becuase he's so short.


We can only hope.

[Venom'sDad]

I imagine we will hearing some info on Thor pretty soon Docker

[Changeling]

Yeah 'cuz GL news is supposed to be this month. Marvel should be quick after GL news.

[Aztec]

Yeah 'cuz GL news is supposed to be this month. Marvel should be quick after GL news.

First off what does GL have to do with Thor? Second off, Goyer confirmed that all of the DCU films are on hold over at the WB. They are seeking a "new strategy" for their films.

[Docker2.0]

First off what does GL have to do with Thor? Second off, Goyer confirmed that all of the DCU films are on hold over at the WB. They are seeking a "new strategy" for their films.

There "new" strategy is basically their old strategy: everything depends on Batman. They have stated they will wait on whatever Nolan decides before they go forward with anything, even Superman which is dumb if you ask me.

[Aztec]

Not to be too off-topic here but:

Let's be honest, with the exception of Batman, DC sucks. I mean I'm not telling tales out of school here am I? Wonder Woman? The Flash? I mean come on!

Marvel has a very healthy stable of characters that could keep them making films for a while (even if they don't have access to all of them presently).

[Jake Cassidy]

I think DC and Marvel are pretty even with their characters. Although, I prefer DC.

[Venom'sDad]

I wouldn't say that DC sucks other than Batman... but your point is definitely recieved.

[Docker2.0]

Not to be too off-topic here but:

Let's be honest, with the exception of Batman, DC sucks. I mean I'm not telling tales out of school here am I? Wonder Woman? The Flash? I mean come on!

Marvel has a very healthy stable of characters that could keep them making films for a while (even if they don't have access to all of them presently).

First off...............Green Lantern is a great character! :cmad:

2nd.........Batman is ok to.

But yeah...........DC does indeed sux. I mean, all their characters are perfect with no weaknesses except crazy colors, fire, and a green rock. How gay is that? :ninja:

[LostSon88]

http://www.comicscontinuum.com




Don't know if this has already been posted.
Hmmmm......don't know what to make of this if she's actually in the running. Could be a rumor worth keeping tabs on.

I'd say its more than a rumor.

I take it you don't remember this report from September when she was spotted leaving Marvel Headquarters...with a stack full of Avengers comics in her hand?

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j98/JaYd_88/evalongoriamarvelcomics-3-copy1.jpg

http://flawedhollywood.com/2008/09/13/eva-longoria-for-the-avengers/

[Docker2.0]

My only fear about this is the actors themselves! Not only will they have to pay these guys a lot of money to play in these movies, but you have to worry about the diva attitude some of these guys bring. It's one thing to pay Downey, Norton, Langoria, and whoever something but if they bring someone in who's idea conflicts with Norton's or anyone.................it's just to much to think about.

[cerealkiller182]

She was leaving Marvel Headquarters? I didnt remember that part.

[WillardNation]

the more I look at her the more I see Wasp. I'm very happy with that casting.

[Savage]

I think DC and Marvel are pretty even with their characters. Although, I prefer DC.

Same. I tend to flip flop between but these days DC is just so much easier to follow...Plus DC has Morrison, Johns and Winick while Marvel only has Brubaker so...yeah. >_0

Anyway, I'd be surprised if they're already casting for Avengers (besides the obvious roles).

[WillardNation]

why would any actress or actor be walking out of Marvels headquarters holding a stack of Avengers comics if they weren't casting?

[Chewy]

Voice-work for some DTV? She actually wants to read the comics? Who knows.

The problem with Eva Longoria isn't that she doesn't look the part. It's that she can't act worth ****.

[cerealkiller182]

Because they want to cast her and sent her home with some issues to convince her.

[Savage]

I'd love to see Eva Longoria in the role really but we don't even have a Thor or Cap yet and already the Wasp is being cast? Maybe she has a cameo in Iron Man 2. Or maybe she read some comics, wanted a role and immediately marched into Marvel Studios demanding a part in a movie that hasn't even been written yet. :oldrazz:

[LostSon88]

True, but i'm willing to bet they've got an idea of the characters they want in the movie.

With Ant-man, obviously the Wasp is a legitmate possibility. Plus they did also sign Don Cheadle to reprise his role of Rhodey/War Machine for The Avengers as well.

So they may not have all the details set, but they seem to have a general idea of where they're going and who they want in the film...

[FaT_tONle]

Prepare to swallow your own lungs... :csad:

Samuel L. Jackson likely out of Marvel films...

Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) money may have been part of the issue as Marvel execs have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports teams who want marquee players but have to fit them into a salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a publicly stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line.

Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.

Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html

[batman44]

Wow.

[Docker2.0]

Thanks for ruining my night FT! :csad:

[aka Kal el]

:word:Prepare to swallow your own lungs... :csad:

Samuel L. Jackson likely out of Marvel films...

Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) money may have been part of the issue as Marvel execs have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports teams who want marquee players but have to fit them into a salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a publicly stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line.

Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.

Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html

I knew this was coming! He is trying to renegotiate his original deal and using the public to do it! This is not the time!!! It may come back to bite him in the @#$! I told you entourage is really a reality show!! All I can say is "Hug it out *****es".:word:

[Docker2.0]

There does seem to be something going on at Marvel though. Their movies are movies are moving way to slowly than what was originally planned. Not talking about IM but freakin Thor and Antman arent going as planned.

[FaT_tONle]

I knew this was coming! He is trying to renegotiate his original deal and using the public to do it! This is not the time!!! It may come back to bite him in the @#$! I told you entourage is really a reality show!! All I can say is "Hug it out *****es".

Original deal??? It was a freaking cameo... Marvel wasn't thinking ahead that's all there is too it... they are being anal sons of *****es. First it was Jon Favreau's fault for going to the fans to drive up his pay check... we give Marvel a pass... then it is Howard having to take a pay cut and ultimately given the boot because he was being a drama queen on the set... we give Marvel a pass... now it's SLJ and the same BULL ****... WE GIVE MARVEL A PASS???? Cmon guys... fool me once... fool me twice... but thrice??? Let's go make the "Blame the Economy" thread next. The most lucrative freaking genre of all time and this is what it comes to... unacceptable... UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

[Compi716]

Prepare to swallow your own lungs... :csad:

Samuel L. Jackson likely out of Marvel films...

Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) money may have been part of the issue as Marvel execs have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports teams who want marquee players but have to fit them into a salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a publicly stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line.

Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.


Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html
Oh God...

PLEASE don't start being greedy and screwing up, Marvel.

[Docker2.0]

Original deal??? It was a freaking cameo... Marvel wasn't thinking ahead that's all there is too it... they are being anal sons of *****es. First it was Jon Favreau's fault for going to the fans to drive up his pay check... we give Marvel a pass... then it is Howard having to take a pay cut and ultimately given the boot because he was being a drama queen on the set... we give Marvel a pass... now it's SLJ and the same BULL ****... WE GIVE MARVEL A PASS???? Cmon guys... fool me once... fool me twice... but thrice??? Let's go make the "Blame the Economy" thread next. The most lucrative freaking genre of all time and this is what it comes to... unacceptable... UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

Dude the economy is kinda bad now so that really is a viable excuse.

[aka Kal el]

Original deal??? It was a freaking cameo... Marvel wasn't thinking ahead... they are being anal sons of *****es. First it was Jon Favreau's fault for going to the fans to drive up his check... we give Marvel a pass... then it is Howard having to take a pay cut because he was being a drama queen on the set... we give Marvel a pass... now it's SLJ and the same BULL ****... WE GIVE MARVEL A PASS???? Cmon guys... fool me once... fool me twice... but thrice??? Let's go make the "Blame the Economy" thread next. The most lucrative freaking genre of all time and this is what it comes too... unacceptable... UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

Okay first Howard was the highest paid in the cast even over RJD and GP. Second he wanted even more for the second film so he has no one to blame but himself. I have a lot of respect for SLJ and yes the economy is playing a Huge part of what is going on! It is no joke!:word:

[FaT_tONle]

Dude the economy is kinda bad now so that really is a viable excuse.

Have people stopped going to the movies or am I missing something here? Are those stock figures not telling one bit? I am not an economist or anything... but SOMEONE out there has to be making a profit. Unless money is just disappearing. To me this is nothing more than greed. I honestly think they are locked down to their 800 million dollar budget. That's what they were leant to begin with. Maybe they don't want to exceed that. Considering IM was about 180... TIH was 150... there is less than 500 million left... that can't possibly pay for IM2/Thor/Cap/Avengers. Maybe that's all speculation... but if that's the case then don't even expect to get a Thor movie.

[Docker2.0]

SLJ will be in the Avengers movie. I'm not even entertaining the thought that he won't. I do believe also that this is a power play for more money. And if the economy does get to bad, people WILL stop going to the movies.

[WillardNation]

Prepare to swallow your own lungs... :csad:

Samuel L. Jackson likely out of Marvel films...

Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) money may have been part of the issue as Marvel execs have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports teams who want marquee players but have to fit them into a salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a publicly stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line.

Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.

Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html


HAHA YES! That makes me extremely happy. I was against Jackson being Fury from the beginning. Now get a 616 Fury and get an actor who doesn't just play himself in every flippin movie!

[broblacksteel]

hey docker 2.0 why would u say THOR is not going as planned? just curious...

[spideyboy_1111]

SLJ will be in the Avengers movie. I'm not even entertaining the thought that he won't. I do believe also that this is a power play for more money. And if the economy does get to bad, people WILL stop going to the movies.

actually statistically speaking, movies actually tend to do well during economic crisis's. People like to escape depression by going to movies.

[Brian Braddock]

SLJ will be in the Avengers movie. I'm not even entertaining the thought that he won't. I do believe also that this is a power play for more money. And if the economy does get to bad, people WILL stop going to the movies.

Undoubtedly;

One has to wonder whether Jackson will look at what happenned to Terrence Howard and scale down his demands.

I suppose it boils down to how much he wants to play the character.

[WillardNation]

I'm hoping and praying that isn't true. I so very badly don't want Jackson to be Fury anymore.

[LostSon88]

Huh? So you're hoping its not true that talks haven't broken down so Jackson does NOT return?

:huh:

[LostSon88]

Original deal??? It was a freaking cameo... Marvel wasn't thinking ahead that's all there is too it... they are being anal sons of *****es. First it was Jon Favreau's fault for going to the fans to drive up his pay check... we give Marvel a pass... then it is Howard having to take a pay cut and ultimately given the boot because he was being a drama queen on the set... we give Marvel a pass... now it's SLJ and the same BULL ****... WE GIVE MARVEL A PASS???? Cmon guys... fool me once... fool me twice... but thrice??? Let's go make the "Blame the Economy" thread next. The most lucrative freaking genre of all time and this is what it comes to... unacceptable... UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

Seriously. When are some people on these boards gonna wake up and consider that maybe, just maybe...it's MARVEL screwing everything up.

Jon Faverau, Ed Norton, Terrance Howard and now Sam Jackson all have had issues with this studio.

I'm done giving them a free pass and stand by my original opinion that after the success of Iron Man, they've gotten full of themselves.

[WillardNation]

no, I was referring to what Superbenitez was saying.

[WeaponXProject]

Clooney for Fury now if you ask me!

[Obi-Ron]

One has to wonder whether Jackson will look at what happenned to Terrence Howard and scale down his demands.

Maybe SLJ should think about how well his last comic book role was received. :whatever:

[cerealkiller182]

Seriously. When are some people on these boards gonna wake up and consider that maybe, just maybe...it's MARVEL screwing everything up

There is no doubt in my mind that it is them. They have been off the ball for awhile now.

[smooth3006]

im having a sick feeling avengers won't happen !

[[A]]

That's nice: changing to a white Fury. That's neat. :hehe:

[Symbiotic]

im having a sick feeling avengers won't happen !

What kind of attitude is that, man?!

[Philly Phanboy]

That's nice: changing to a white Fury. That's neat. :hehe:

Hey don't forget the last generation Batman movies that turned Harvey Dent from Billy Dee Williams to Tommy Lee Jones. :oldrazz:

[zz33ac]

Ok this is how the movies should go....in Ironman2, they're gonna have their own villans for ironman to face, however, i think you'll see him work on a side project of Ultron to help fury and the colonal deal with the hulk problem. And at the end of the movie, the company crimson was working for will steal the plans or the model of Ultron while crimson dynamo was getting his ass beat.

Then in the Avengers, everyone will be brought together by fury to bring down the menace known as the hulk (who he considers a national threat). The first half of the movie is them fighting the hulk, and then they have to come together with him to face Ultron in the end...which was originally designed in the beginning, to be powerful enough to bring down the hulk as u'll remember. Ultron will also have a few other baddies with him but he'll be the main bad guy.

My hopes and dreams: Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hank and Janet Pym, Ironman, and HAWKEYE...i honestly dont think the team will be complete without hawkeye...he's such an important supporting character

[Obi-Ron]

Not bad, but I would prefer Ultron to be set up in an Ant-MAn movie, since Hank Pym was its creator.

[FaT_tONle]

Picked a bad time for plot premises considering Fury may not even be in the film. Not a fan of Ultron either since there would be virtually no setup. IM2 can't afford to devote time to Ultron.

[[A]]

Hey don't forget the last generation Batman movies that turned Harvey Dent from Billy Dee Williams to Tommy Lee Jones. :oldrazz:
haha :funny: true

[Rich Santoro]

Ultron is an A2 character at the earliest... there would have to be some Hank Pym character devopment, with a sub-plot of him developing Ultron as a side project based on his AI concepts... Pehaps using the Pym particles as the materials to build a synthetic neural system... In any event, we need some devlopment of Pym, then subsequently Ultron for anyone to give a damn...

[[A]]

I say, there's no way we're getting an Avengers movie in 2011 [/obvious]

[smooth3006]

What kind of attitude is that, man?!


the kind that tells me there may be issues we do not yet know !

[Evil Twin]

I say, there's no way we're getting an Avengers movie in 2011 [/obvious]

I agree. I think they'll at least want to have an idea of how Thor (and probably Captain America) is going to be received before they push on with a teamup movie.

[FaT_tONle]

Watch them delay Thor yet another year... then they will ultimately cancel that project because Nolan or Raimi will step in with another sequel that same year. I will say... if Marvel does not stick to this slate... they lose all credibility. You can only delay a project so many times. The more these movies get delayed... the more unlikely Avengers will ever be made with Norton/RDJ or whomever else. Marvel came in there and greenlit Avengers for 2011 a mere three days after IM... I really don't want to hear their excuses if there are more delays. This is the slate... now stick with it.

[[A]]

yeah, summer 2011 could be tight. But, they can always premiere the Avengers movie in early may, like they did with Iron Man.. though I don't know what's the proposed release date for Spidey 4

[FaT_tONle]

Well I don't want to get into the specific slates again... shouldn't have brought that up. But it does concern me. Bringing in a new director for Avengers... doing all these movies back to back... not locking down your principle cast... its crazy.

[Evil Twin]

Watch them delay Thor yet another year... then they will ultimately cancel that project because Nolan or Raimi will step in with another sequel that same year. I will say... if Marvel does not stick to this slate... they lose all credibility. You can only delay a project so many times. The more these movies get delayed... the more unlikely Avengers will ever be made with Norton/RDJ or whomever else. Marvel came in there and greenlit Avengers for 2011 a mere three days after IM... I really don't want to hear their excuses if there are more delays. This is the slate... now stick with it.

Every studio in the world shifts release dates. Or delays projects. That's called reality, and it's not a credibility issue.

I've said it before, but it was always silly that Marvel announced release dates for films that didn't even have finished scripts, let alone a director or casts. You know who did that? Cut rate, exploitation studios of the 50s, who worried more about the poster and when there was an opening than the quality of the film they were making.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't mind if Avengers moves a year back... I think they have to do that as a matter of fact. But if Marvel sits on 2010 thinking IM2 alone will be enough... I just hope that isn't the case. I just don't want them stalling and watching WB put GL in July, leading to Thor getting a crappier release date or not being released at all in 2010. No reason why that should happen, but you never know.

[Spider-Vader]

Not to be too off-topic here but:

Let's be honest, with the exception of Batman, DC sucks. I mean I'm not telling tales out of school here am I? Wonder Woman? The Flash? I mean come on!

Marvel has a very healthy stable of characters that could keep them making films for a while (even if they don't have access to all of them presently).
Green Lantern, Flash & Deathstroke are all cool.
There does seem to be something going on at Marvel though. Their movies are movies are moving way to slowly than what was originally planned. Not talking about IM but freakin Thor and Antman arent going as planned.

Thor has a director & is about to go into production. Antman will probably be introduced in 'The Avengers' as Giantman then maybe he'll get a spin-off.

My plan would be to hire unknowns for Thor & Cap, then hire a well known actor for Loki, Odin & Red Skull.

[FaT_tONle]

My plan would be to hire unknowns for Thor & Cap, then hire a well known actor for Loki, Odin & Red Skull.

The problem I have is that supporting actors... despite the calibur... doesn't necessarily mean big box office numbers. I am not saying its not a viable option. Frankly it is probably the only option since I don't think they will bring in a name for either role... but I don't think Marvel will go for an unknown for both films.

[Venom'sDad]

Watch them delay Thor yet another year...

You know... this could very well happen

[Spider-Vader]

I think the Marvel name could bring people itself. I don't think people would've seen 'Iron Man' on opening day the numbers it got if it wasn't a Marvel or DC property.

[Chewy]

People saw Iron Man opening weekend because it had a ****ing amazing trailer and a lot of buzz around RDJ's comeback. The Marvel name isn't as powerful as some people make it out to be - see War Zone's BO for proof.

[WillardNation]

^^^Very true.

[Venom'sDad]

Love your Avatar S-V

[Spider-Vader]

People saw Iron Man opening weekend because it had a ****ing amazing trailer and a lot of buzz around RDJ's comeback. The Marvel name isn't as powerful as some people make it out to be - see War Zone's BO for proof.

True, I guess.
Then, Marvel just needs to make great movies for Thor & Cap then make equally awesome trailers.

Not that hard seeing as how IM & TIH were both great.

[Spider-Fan]

Thor seems to be going as planned guys. It has a director and is moving along now. I wouldn't worry. Also, how would GL bump Thor out of July? GL is no more popular than Thor is, so Marvel having to back out of that date due a second tier character is ludicrous. I bet IM2 and Thor come as planned.

Now, the Fury thing is a bit worrisome, but let's wait til negotiations are dead. Marvel obvisouly is still working on getting him, as noted by the fact the Marvel exec said they were still active. People freaked when Favs was in negotiations, and it got resolved. Let's wait til there is something to talk about before we say MArvel is doomed.

[Spider-Vader]

I think Thor & GL are about as popular as each other.

If they re-cast it better be another black guy. It would seem really stupid to anyone who's seen the Jackson scene in IM 1.

[Changeling]

Yeah but they could easily just say that that was just a minion or something for the real Fury. Thats a crappy idea, but they can think of someting better. If Sam isnt returning, I say no black actor should replace him.

[Rich Santoro]

The only black actor that I would accept as a replacement would be Lawrence Fishburne.

[Rich Santoro]

Came across this guy... He has some qualities for Captain America: tall (6'3"), young (30), fit, moderate acting background (but mostly TV and not very deep though, so it is a big question as to whether he could pull it off)...

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00GJ2RV8neaLS/340x.jpg

Justin Bruening... playing in the new Knight Rider series.

[Changeling]

Yeah he'd be good, but they wont pick him

[Rage]

jackson will end up in the movie. Its a tactic to get more money for the role, since he probably did the cameo in IM for scale or less. He just wants to get paid.

Rage

[BoredGuy]

good lord no! keep anything knight rider related away from avengers!!

[BoredGuy]

^and that includes the Hoff as Fury

[Bubastis]

How awesome would it be if they played the "Merry Marvel Marching Society" song during the credits?

[Rage]

Oh God No!!

[TheVileOne]

Bruening's OK, but I don't think he's got it for Cap.

Plus it's the new Knight Rider. I'd rather the new Michael Knight from Knight Rider 2008 not play Cap.

Again, I just hope they keep their usual process of getting strong performers for the role. Rather than someone who is a huge star or someone who just has the physical attributes.

Look how the big star route killed fantastic four with Alba as Sue Storm.

[ANTOINE X]

The only black actor that I would accept as a replacement would be Lawrence Fishburne.

Fisburne is indeed a good choice but might be too expensive. I would say Idris Elba.

[WillardNation]

I say 616 Fury, preferably an unknown or Bruce Willis are my choices. I just don't like seeing the Ultimate versions in the movies.

[ANTOINE X]

Bruce willice is too expensive

[Savage]

Besides, how would they explain the sudden race change?

[WillardNation]

Jackson wasn't even in the actual movie, they don't even need to acknowledge it. but if they did they could easily say it was an LMD or somebody saying he was Fury for security reasons or whatever. They could think up something.

[spideyboy_1111]

Besides, how would they explain the sudden race change?

well to be honest, this is an easy way out imo for marvel... most of the general public doesnt know who nick fury is, nor did they stay for after the credits. So marvel could easily add in a "new" nick fury with out any problems (only us fans would complain to be honest). "after credit" scenes typically, i believe, arn't really looked at as part of the movie, just a little easter egg bonus for fans.


So since fury was introduced after the movie was over, i believe they could get a way with a race change easily... its not really a big loss imo.

[Savage]

...hmmm...*crosses fingers that Sam Jackson returns*

[WillardNation]

well to be honest, this is an easy way out imo for marvel... most of the general public doesnt know who nick fury is, nor did they stay for after the credits. So marvel could easily add in a "new" nick fury with out any problems (only us fans would complain to be honest). "after credit" scenes typically, i believe, arn't really looked at as part of the movie, just a little easter egg bonus for fans.


So since fury was introduced after the movie was over, i believe they could get a way with a race change easily... its not really a big loss imo.

^^^Enthusiastically agree.

[[A]]

well to be honest, this is an easy way out imo for marvel... most of the general public doesnt know who nick fury is, nor did they stay for after the credits. So marvel could easily add in a "new" nick fury with out any problems (only us fans would complain to be honest). "after credit" scenes typically, i believe, arn't really looked at as part of the movie, just a little easter egg bonus for fans.
lol yeah--people are stupid

[spideyboy_1111]

lol yeah--people are stupid

the general public also arn't fanboys.

[Spider-Vader]

I'm pretty sure that Marvel will move 'The Avengers' back a year, if Batman 3 comes out in 2011. The year will be too cramped with Spidey, Batman & Avengers will sure to be mega-hits. I think Cap will suffer.

[FaT_tONle]

As I have said all along... oversaturation is my biggest fear. Hopefully this shapes up as I have laid it out before. SM4 opens first week of May... Cap on July 4th... BB3 July 15th. I don't think Sony will be lowballed by Marvel on settling for a late May or mid June release... and having Spidey/Cap in the same month is retarded anyway.

[Spider-Vader]

Cap on July 4th, is a must. People are patriotic during that time & what see a super hero kick nazi azz.

[FaT_tONle]

^^^ Well not everyone seems to think so... I got hammered when I suggested Cap should move out of the first week of May... and I only think it will because of SM4 looming... production starting as early as next year...

Anyhow... some fan made Avenger trailers... pretty decent although they need some work... also available in HD on Youtube... have fun with it:

rjdvj-JIFjw

zXstRBVEnqs&feature=related

yscB0g3wXDY&feature=related

[Chewy]

Films generally have a lot more breathing room opening in the first week of May than they do opening July 4th. It's a nice gimmick, but it doesn't help the film from a business standpoint.

[FaT_tONle]

I thought Hancock did well there... had it been a decent film it would have made a ton... you open Cap on like Wednesday or Thursday... and it should have a massive 4-5 day opening weekend. I do think you need a big star for Cap if you go July 4th.

[broblacksteel]

cap should have a JULY 4th opening... the marketing blitz will speak for itself!! Patriotism at it's highest during that time.... guaranteed $100 mill plus opening... I think avengers should move to summer of 2012.. that way marvel still has a guaranteed hit in 2012 if none of their other movies are ready (Luke cage, Iron Fist are the only 2 i can see being done quick enough in 2011 for 2012)

But if Marvel wants to show how strong they are MAYBE they should do cap in may and avengers in july/august.... There's enough $$ for everyone in the summer... all of them (spidey 4, cap, avengers, bat3 will make at least $2-300mill over 2mths easily)

[Chewy]

It all depends. If SM4 tries to take its spot and/or Avengers is pushed back, then by all means move Cap to July 4th. But if they can get the first weekend in May, I don't see any reason to move the film beyond the gimmick of "a patriotic film on a patriotic weekend".

And Hancock did okay, but a lot of other movies that have been released on or around July 4th haven't. The first weekend in May is usually a wide open marketplace, with moviegoers flocking to the first "summer" movie.

[Chewy]

(Luke cage, Iron Fist are the only 2 i can see being done quick enough in 2011 for 2012)
Hulk 2, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Nick Fury/SHIELD (assuming the SLJ negotiations work out)... these are all potential 2012 movies that I could see happening.

[FaT_tONle]

I think instead of using Cap as an appetizer to Avengers, setting up a lame WW2 villain like B. Zemo, or maybe the return of the Red Skull, though I doubt they'd use him twice in the same summer... release TIH2 in May to setup Avengers. That way you could setup a more contemporary villain in Avengers... maybe the Leader or Stark and the Hulkbusters... the SHIELD could be heavily involved. Or use the Ant-Man movie to setup Ultron if you want a big time villain in film one (which I don't think you need)... either TIH2 or Ant-Man could open up the summer 2012 movie season. If you get Norton back I definitely think Hulk can hold his own on the first week of May. Fox will probably cook up another X-Men spinoff... but unless Wolverine is a major player in it I doubt it will be enough to outmuscle a TIH sequel the first week of May. I just think Marvel is better off holding their chips for one more year instead of putting them all into 2011.

[broblacksteel]

the avengers will be shot next year for 2011, i say push it to 2012, i mentioned luke cage and iron fist because both are movies than can be done quickly for under $40 mill so if u release them in early may for 2012 with a 2min sneak peek at the avengers.... footage NOT seen in any of the other trailers.... i guarantee you luke cage or iron fist will rake in $100 mill minimum... (not a bad profit huh?) IH2, Black Panter, Ant man are ALL cgi heavy movies (over $100mill) which makes them risky.... Luke and Iron Fist can follow the blade trend, small lesser characters that made a KILLING due to proper timing and a small budget thus making them A-list characters now (well at least at the movies)... damn, maybe i should work for marvel studios....lol..:cwink:

[Chewy]

I think Sony may have the Luke Cage rights. I know they were developing it at some point

[FaT_tONle]

You'd need to attach a teaser for Avengers in one of those 2011 tentpoles... preferably SM4 or BB3... so that is footage right there. Or Thanksgiving/December 2011 latest... then you need an official trailer in February or March LATEST. So that's even more footage. You aren't going to make an Avengers film and then wait the last two months to market it. And Marvel can not release Cage/Dr. Strange in the Holiday/Spring seasons unless they lobby for a new deal... have to be summer releases.... so broblack... you wouldn't be a good employee for Marvel with those ideas...

[jab1118]

Release Cap in the last week of may otherwise known as memorial day weekend what could be more perfect than releasing a movie about the ultimate ww2 soldier who as far as everyone knew died fighting for his country then releasing it on the holiday dedicated to fallen soldiers

[Chewy]

You'd need to attach a teaser for Avengers in one of those 2011 tentpoles... preferably SM4 or BB3... so that is footage right there. Or Thanksgiving/December 2011 latest... then you need an official trailer in February or March LATEST. So that's even more footage. You aren't making an Avengers film and then wait the last two months to market it. And Marvel can not release Cage/Dr. Strange in the Holiday/Spring seasons unless they lobby for a new deal... have to be summer releases.... so broblack... you wouldn't be a good employee for Marvel with those ideas...
They've already bargained at least one new deal... Iron Man/Hulk/Thor films were not included in that original deal. And under the original deal, the films' budgets could only be up to (I believe) $165 million. There's no way Avengers is getting made for anything less than $250 million.

[Rich Santoro]

It seems that by planning to release Cap and Avengers so close together (although not so it will happen that way)... they want to make Cap the feature of Avengers. Also, it would enable them to re-use Red Skull (or whoever is the Cap film villain) due being able to develop the villain with his origin in "Cap", allowing people to get to know this guy. Then they can fully unleash his badassness in Avengers with an army at his disposal, AIM technology, etc...

I personally would like to see the Red Skull rip-off Count Nafaria's plot of holding Washington DC hostage.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah I guess they'll find a way to work around the contract in place as of now... but still... you can't hide Avengers footage for a Luke Cage/Dr. Strange film. Even if they are Holiday/Spring. You need to attach a trailer to stuff people will see... like HP or Spidey or Batman. I think we definitely need SOME sort of teaser a year in advance anyhow. Something like TDK... a voice over... and have a maybe a shot of the team together... except just make the shapes of their shadows distinguishable or something.... just an idea for a teaser that is discrete but obvious nonetheless... nothing like the SM3 teaser.

[Chewy]

IF the schedule stays the same as it currently is for Cap/Avengers, I expect a Cap teaser attached to Thor and an Avengers teaser attached to Harry Potter, possibly with the full Cap trailer attached to HP as well.

[FaT_tONle]

When do the official trailers typically come out... any time between Thanskgiving and late winter I assume? When did the SM3 theatrical trailer come?

[Chewy]

Depends on the movie. We had the Iron Man trailer at comic-con and it was released officially a month or two later.

I believe Spidey 3's first full trailer came out shortly before comic-con '06.

[broblacksteel]

hey fat, i said release a 2min trailer of footage NOT seen in any of the other trailers with iron fist (since luke is at sony?)...meaning of course marvel will not WAIT to market the avengers close to its release.... so i still would make a good employee (not that i would want that pressure or responsibility)

BTW dont be surprised if we see deadpool in 2011 followed up with Wolvie 2 in 2012... Gambit might slide in 2011 or 12 also... remember fox has timelines on these characters and I think the first one will be deadpool...(thus the major additional scenes with him making him a more upfront character)

2011 cap, spiderman 4, batman 3, deadpool, or daredevil... sweet...
2012 dr.strange, iron fist and the avengers done!! oh yeah wolvie 2... :cwink:

[Chewy]

I still think that, for better or worse, Marvel is going to push Avengers for that 2011 release date.

So it'd be:
2009: Watchmen, Wolverine
2010: IM2, GL(?), Thor
2011: Cap, SM4(?), BB3(?), Avengers

[FaT_tONle]

Well sure you can always attach that new never before seen Avengers trailer the first week of May... but the thing is... you have to get that trailer attached to the first big film of the summer... generally the one opening the first week of May. I don't think Strange or Cage can hold that date. That's why... if Avengers gets pushed back... try to lobby the Hulk sequel for that weekend... which has a much better chance of holding ground... OR at the very least lobby for an Ant-Man film. Another thing I should throw out is that Sony may be doing SM4-5 concurrently... meaning SM5 could take the first week of May again in 2012 which would pretty much outmuscle a TIH sequel... or another X-Men spinoff could threaten as well (especially Wolverine 2), one which could easily be more anticipated than any Luke Cage, Dr. Strange, or Ant-Man film. All in all... let's at least see how Wolverine does... that will foreshadow a lot of things to come. SM4/5 back to back could be another pain in Marvel's rear end.


2011: Cap, SM4(?), BB3(?), Avengers

Nah man... I can't see that. Just because Marvel announces some release dates doesn't mean they can stand toe to toe with those other projects.

[broblacksteel]

good thinking... i forgot about spidey 5... especially with a cliffhanger at the end of 4, only a hulk sequel could muscle in some dough on it's on... with a cameo or two of other major players... wouldn't it be cool if the end of the hulk 2 is the the setup/intro for the avengers?

[Chewy]

Nah man... I can't see that. Just because Marvel announces some release dates doesn't mean they can stand toe to toe with those other projects.
It all depends. I could easily see WB putting Batman in a winter/Thanksgiving spot. They've already got HP8 for summer 2011... I can't see them putting both HP8 and BB3 in the summer.

[FaT_tONle]

good thinking... i forgot about spidey 5... especially with a cliffhanger at the end of 4, only a hulk sequel could muscle in some dough on it's on... with a cameo or two of other major players... wouldn't it be cool if the end of the hulk 2 is the the setup/intro for the avengers?

That's what I am thinking... let Norton get captured by one or several of the villains set to return in Avengers... then have Fury assemble the "team" at the very end of TIH2 itself to retrieve Banner/Hulk. Very POTC: DMCesque... something like that would be amazing... :wow:

It all depends. I could easily see WB putting Batman in a winter/Thanksgiving spot. They've already got HP8 for summer 2011... I can't see them putting both HP8 and BB3 in the summer.

True... I just think that everyone is wrapped up in "Oh Marvel has all these deadlines and they announced it first and bla blah blah..." I just don't get how Marvel is entitled to open and essentially close the summer season two years straight like that. I personally think Spidey will be more of a thorn in Marvel's back than Batman though... as will X-Men spinoffs. Because you don't want Marvel films to be competing with each other.

[Chewy]

True... I just think that everyone is wrapped up in "Oh Marvel has all these deadlines and they announced it first and bla blah blah..." I just don't get how Marvel is entitled to open and essentially close the summer season two years straight like that. I personally think Spidey will be more of a thorn in Marvel's back then Batman though... as will X-Men spinoffs. Because you don't want Marvel films to be competing with each other.
Yeah, but it's not Marvel who set these dates. Marvel set some dates, made a deal with Paramount, and Paramount changed the dates to their liking. Paramount is a VERY major player, and I don't think Fox would have the balls to try and push a Paramount blockbuster's date around with an X-Men spin-off. WB with Batman and/or Sony with Spider-Man - that's a different story.

[broblacksteel]

all i can say is from 2010-2012 we all win as fanboys/comic book movie fans, we are talking at least 8 major hits over the next 3yrs? (IM2, THOR, CAP, AVENGERS, SPIDEY 4/5, BATMAN 3, Possibly, IH2, DEADPOOL, WOLVIE2, GAMBIT, DAREDEVIL) etc... yep WE win...

[FaT_tONle]

Don't get cocky... ^^^ that's all I can say... if recent history tells us anything... we got burned with X-3 and SM3... both were expected to be two of the biggest films of the genre to date... they turned into suck fests... I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[jab1118]

I wish Spiderman would go away its going to crowd thes summers up and mess up marvels plans. Stay away for another five years or so then do a full reboot

[spideyboy_1111]

It all depends. If SM4 tries to take its spot and/or Avengers is pushed back, then by all means move Cap to July 4th. But if they can get the first weekend in May, I don't see any reason to move the film beyond the gimmick of "a patriotic film on a patriotic weekend".

And Hancock did okay, but a lot of other movies that have been released on or around July 4th haven't. The first weekend in May is usually a wide open marketplace, with moviegoers flocking to the first "summer" movie.

I still think spider-man is the least of a threat out of all the movies that year... I don't see spider-man affecting Cap or Avengers sales at all. If anything, cap, bats, avengers, will rape spider-man. The public's opinions seems to have swayed with spidey to that of almost a "fantastic four" ranking... So unless the trailer looks amazing and the acting/stories go in a diff direction, i dont have much hope for the films anymore.

[spideyboy_1111]

I wish Spiderman would go away its going to crowd thes summers up and mess up marvels plans. Stay away for another five years or so then do a full reboot

meh like i said, spidey has lost his flame, unless it gets rekindled.

[Spider-Fan]

Don't get cocky... ^^^ that's all I can say... if recent history tells us anything... we got burned with X-3 and SM3... both were expected to be two of the biggest films of the genre to date... they turned into suck fests... I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Both made money, so they are far from failures.

[Evil Twin]

I still think spider-man is the least of a threat out of all the movies that year... I don't see spider-man affecting Cap or Avengers sales at all. If anything, cap, bats, avengers, will rape spider-man. The public's opinions seems to have swayed with spidey to that of almost a "fantastic four" ranking... So unless the trailer looks amazing and the acting/stories go in a diff direction, i dont have much hope for the films anymore.

You should stay away from message boards. Message boards are not representative of the general public. The general public that loved Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 is fine with Spider-Man and it will open big again.

[Brian Braddock]

FT wasnt talking financially, Spider-Fan.

Critically, XM3 and SM3 left a lot to be desired.

[spideyboy_1111]

You should stay away from message boards. Message boards are not representative of the general public. The general public that loved Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 is fine with Spider-Man and it will open big again.

I know alot of people who arn't fanboys or comic fans who thought spider-man 3 was trash :o

[FaT_tONle]

A disproportionate amount of people disliked SM3... I have no idea how they will continue to keep it interesting... it doesn't even seem like they are leaning towards the best story... I think it is obvious to go Lizard/Kraven... and they are talking about Morbius (who you just know Raimi will cheesify), Black Cat, all kinds of crap (topic for another thread anyway). I think that franchise has one more above average film in it at best... although I am not very impressed in Joe Johnston directing Cap... he tends to make very mundane, very mediocre, formulaic films.

[spideyboy_1111]

ive heard nothing about morbius (so not sure what your pulling that out of) but theres been alot of talk about lizard and black cat since the first movie. Black cat will be in there eventually and she deserves to be, but i think after already having gwen in the 3rd, another love interest might not be the best thing....

[spideyboy_1111]

but then again, lizard was in the first comic morbius appeared in so who knows... six arm spidey was in that mix too lol

[Evil Twin]

It all depends. I could easily see WB putting Batman in a winter/Thanksgiving spot. They've already got HP8 for summer 2011... I can't see them putting both HP8 and BB3 in the summer.

I believe WB has The Hobbit set up for that Winter slot.

WB has no reason to move Batman. Summer has proven to be a successful time for Batman films since 1989. Why change now? Especially since BB3 will be one of the most anticipated movies of the year.

Personally, I believe that Captain America is likely to be modestly budgeted, with The Avengers being Marvel's big tentpole. That is, if plans don't change. A movie where if it makes $150 million domestic, a sequel is justified.

[ANTOINE X]

all i can say is from 2010-2012 we all win as fanboys/comic book movie fans, we are talking at least 8 major hits over the next 3yrs? (IM2, THOR, CAP, AVENGERS, SPIDEY 4/5, BATMAN 3, Possibly, IH2, DEADPOOL, WOLVIE2, GAMBIT, DAREDEVIL) etc... yep WE win...

Actually 2008 is the year to beat, a record of 5 superheroes movies: IRON-MAN,The incredible HULK, BATMAN TDK, The PUNISHER War Zone....and HANCOCK. :cwink:

[spideyboy_1111]

Actually 2008 is the year to beat, a record of 5 superheroes movies: IRON-MAN,The incredible HULK, BATMAN TDK, The PUNISHER War Zone....and HANCOCK. :cwink:

Hellboy 2 makes 6... but...

meh... that criteria doesnt work imo... Punisher is not a superhero... I'd rather say "comic book films" it works better because you can include movies like Watchmen, 300, 30 days of night, stardust, LXG and hellboy for instance.

and just take hancock off the list :-P

[spideyboy_1111]

I believe WB has The Hobbit set up for that Winter slot.

WB has no reason to move Batman. Summer has proven to be a successful time for Batman films since 1989. Why change now? Especially since BB3 will be one of the most anticipated movies of the year.

Personally, I believe that Captain America is likely to be modestly budgeted, with The Avengers being Marvel's big tentpole. That is, if plans don't change. A movie where if it makes $150 million domestic, a sequel is justified.

it will be interesting to see where harry is put, they wont release 3 epic movies in the same month, and harry usually gets summer or winter... so with hobbit in the winter, harry will get summer, and him and bats will probably have a month or 2 between them.

[FaT_tONle]

Hobbit and Potter will not conflict... WB can definitely release HP8, BB3 in the summer... Hobbit in the winter. But I definitely either Avengers or BB3 will move to 2012.

[spideyboy_1111]

depends on when, ideally i'd like cap in may, avengers in june, and batman in july. it could work like that

[FaT_tONle]

That's way too close... Cap would still be in most theatres while Avengers is released. I think at minimum you need two months separation. And if Batman goes to June then it would be too close to SM4.

[spideyboy_1111]

avengers i think would also do fine in august...

[Spidey-Quad]

As Luke Cage would say, "Christmas!"

[FaT_tONle]

Do you guys personally want all those films in one summer? I personally don't... I know us fanboys aren't getting any younger but damn... you would have no time to soak all those films in in such a short span. You would be missing out on all the developments and details with each project. I personally avoided TDK forums completely but STILL had my hands full following Hulk, IM, and the other summer films to a lesser degree. Having four big films like that is overkill. One of those films alone by itself would have enough hype to carry the entire summer IMO... if done right.

[Chewy]

avengers i think would also do fine in august...
August is a terrible time to release big movies.

[spideyboy_1111]

August is a terrible time to release big movies.

i understand that... i just dont really get why lol i just go see movies when there big, ive never understood why months are better then others to be honest.

[spideyboy_1111]

Do you guys personally want all those films in one summer? I personally don't... I know us fanboys aren't getting any younger but damn... you would have no time to soak all those films in in such a short span. You would be missing out on all the developments and details with each project. I personally avoided TDK forums completely but STILL had my hands full following Hulk, IM, and the other summer films to a lesser degree. Having four big films like that is overkill. One of those films alone by itself would have enough hype to carry the entire summer IMO... if done right.

i dont really care, we had a large saturation this year, and i'd say only one film was affected by it (hellboy2) everything else had a pretty decent turn out, some would say hellboy did as well... Punisher had the worst, but it had nothing to do with the other films. I dont have a problem getting bats, cap and avengers the same year, its something old, something new, and a pseudo sequel

[jab1118]

If I had my way they would all come out next week with sequels the following week

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah short 5 minute animated features style...

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah short 5 minute animated features style...

how bout no? hey if you think everything is "over saturated" then just remember, YOU control when you see the film

[Rich Santoro]

how bout no? hey if you think everything is "over saturated" then just remember, YOU control when you see the film

I doubt that he is worried about oversaturation for himself...

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah now it's about me.... seriously what are you talking about spidey? Hell no I ain't waiting six months for a DVD... I plan to see most of these films in theatres (might hold off on SM4). That means I'll see them pretty much when they come out. I'd just prefer to spread it out so it doesn't wear thin on the public. Of course fanboys could care less... but we aren't providing the majority of box office tickets.

[ANTOINE X]

Hellboy 2 makes 6... but...

meh... that criteria doesnt work imo... Punisher is not a superhero... I'd rather say "comic book films" it works better because you can include movies like Watchmen, 300, 30 days of night, stardust, LXG and hellboy for instance.

and just take hancock off the list :-P


Oh yeah Hell Boy so 6 comics movies in 2008 alone! I m not so sure we re gonna be that lucky again!:csad:

What s wrong with Hancock? Seriouly it was better then SR big time! Not that i'M in a hurry but if they do a H2 Ill be there.

[FaT_tONle]

Well apparently... the Nolan bros are working on the Batman 3 script as we speak. IESB has them quoted on that... you figure as long as the scipt gets done by next Fall... they can cast it all up in the Holiday/spring next year... it will be good to go for 2011. Does anyone realistically think Avengers is staying in 2011? Just saying...

[spideyboy_1111]

I do... theres no reason so far it shouldn't. It's a highly anticipated film, and 2011 will be far less saturated with comic book films then this year. I don't see what the problem is

[Chewy]

Yes. WB isn't going to try to push around Avengers' release date - Avengers would hurt BB3 just as much as BB3 would hurt Avengers. It isn't like Avengers is an unknown superhero property like Cap or Thor - it's a sequel to Iron Man.

BB3 can open in June or the winter season - it'll be a success whenever it opens, and December films generally have massive legs.

[FaT_tONle]

All I am saying is... WB has done everything by the book just as they did between BB-TDK. Nolan started working on TDK script around this time as well... 6 months after BB. Everything is following the same pattern, no reason why they are going to pull a switcharoo in the middle of everything barring a setback or unforseen circumstance. If that falls through... and since everyone but Sony themselves have confirmed 2010 production for SM4... it's time for Marvel to start packing the bags...

[spideyboy_1111]

All I am saying is... WB has done everything by the book just as they did between BB-TDK. Nolan started working on TDK script around this time as well... 6 months after BB. Everything is following the same pattern, no reason why they are going to pull a switcharoo in the middle of everything barring a setback or unforseen circumstance. If that falls through... and since everyone but Sony themselves have confirmed 2010 production for SM4... it's time for Marvel to start packing the bags...

dude your logic is rediculous. you act like there can only be one block buster a year. TDK will effect the Avengers just as much as Avengers will affect TDK. nothing is wrong at all with them coming out the same year. And i've told you time and time again, Ironman 2 will be unaffected by spider-man

[FaT_tONle]

dude your logic is rediculous. you act like there can only be one block buster a year. TDK will effect the Avengers just as much as Avengers will affect TDK. nothing is wrong at all with them coming out the same year. And i've told you time and time again, Ironman 2 will be unaffected by spider-man

Yeah I get that... but if the logic for Marvel is... "yeah let's compete with SM4 (which is also 2011 in case you got confused) and BB3 the same year"... then God help them... look I called this back in the summer... everyone told me I was overreacting. I knew the dominoes would fall EXACTLY like this. Again I won't lose sleep over it... the only thing I worry about is if Avengers moves back... the longer they hold off negotiations with Norton... and the more likely he walks. That's my only worry.... plus the fact of Marvel thinking it would actually be a good idea competing with these franchises... :wow:

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah I get that... but if the logic for Marvel is... "yeah let's compete with SM4 (which is also 2011 in case you got confused) and BB3 the same year"... then God help them... look I called this back in the summer... everyone told me I was overreacting. I knew the dominoes would fall EXACTLY like this. Again I won't lose sleep over it... the only thing I worry about is if Avengers moves back... the longer they hold off negotiations with Norton... and the more likely he walks. That's my only worry.... plus the fact of Marvel thinking it would actually be a good idea competing with these franchises... :wow:

marvel isn't going to TRY to compete with themselves.. after all they do get money from the leased properties. I'd be surprised if sony is the one that doesn't budge with spider-man to be honest. And I don't think TDK and Avengers will come out the same month, and as long as there at least 2 weeks apart, they will be fine... a month would be better, but 2 weeks apart and they'd be fine.

[FaT_tONle]

marvel isn't going to TRY to compete with themselves.. after all they do get money from the leased properties. I'd be surprised if sony is the one that doesn't budge with spider-man to be honest. And I don't think TDK and Avengers will come out the same month, and as long as there at least 2 weeks apart, they will be fine... a month would be better, but 2 weeks apart and they'd be fine.

You don't release the two biggest films of the summer two weeks apart. C'mon man... I know you could care less about the economics... but look at it from a studio perspective for a change. IM/TDK... two months apart... SM3/Transformers (two months)... X-3/POTC: DMC (even SR was released a month after X-3). You can go back to any year you want. That's just common sense. Even BEST case scenario... Cap opens up May... SM4 is three weeks later... BB3 is three weeks after that... and Avengers in 3-4 weeks. There is no way your trailers/TV spots/marketing would not overlap. No studio is going to give themselves a headache. Avengers is Marvel's ONLY potential BILLION dollar film. You have to give it EVERY opportunity to meet that potential. There is no logic throwing it in there with BB3. I know it's not official yet... but there has been nothing to say that these films won't happen in these projected slots.

And boy do I have a sick feeling... that if Marvel doesn't the get the ball rolling on Thor NOW... they will move it to June 2011 thinking they can just focus on one film in 2011 hence have a better chance of success, and it will flop just like TIH did as the sandwich film in June. Alarms are going to start getting closer to going off until the Thor news picks up.

[broblacksteel]

dont worry thor will keep his slot... this way marvel can reap profits from IM2 and THOR b 4 avengers comes out... that way no matter what cap and avengers make in 2011 marvel will have a billion dollar year off of IM2 ($5-700mill worldwide) and Thor (Hopefully $300mill plus worldwide) in 2010... so no need to run from Batman or Budge from Spidey although i do think there should be a 3-4wk gap between Summer tent pole movies... we GOT to get some thor news before March... IM2 starts filming in April so no more casting news or MAJOR surprises should happen on IM2 all that is left is THOR!!

[FaT_tONle]

That's true... but I will stand by my opinion until everything becomes official... whatever the schedule turns out to be. And that is... Marvel has zero leverage here... SM3 nearly outgrossed IM/TIH by itself. TDK did outgross both films. And these studios... all of them... would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars competing with each other in that tight a gap. If I am Sony I am announcing SM4 May 6th 2011 as soon as I get everyone in line... and if I'm WB... I announce BB3 for July 15th 2011 once Nolan commits.

[spideyboy_1111]

You don't release the two biggest films of the summer two weeks apart. C'mon man... I know you could care less about the economics... but look at it from a studio perspective for a change. IM/TDK... two months apart... SM3/Transformers (two months)... X-3/POTC: DMC (even SR was released a month after X-3). You can go back to any year you want. That's just common sense. Even BEST case scenario... Cap opens up May... SM4 is three weeks later... BB3 is three weeks after that... and Avengers in 3-4 weeks. There is no way your trailers/TV spots/marketing would not overlap. No studio is going to give themselves a headache. Avengers is Marvel's ONLY potential BILLION dollar film. You have to give it EVERY opportunity to meet that potential. There is no logic throwing it in there with BB3. I know it's not official yet... but there has been nothing to say that these films won't happen in these projected slots.

And boy do I have a sick feeling... that if Marvel doesn't the get the ball rolling on Thor NOW... they will move it to June 2011 thinking they can just focus on one film in 2011 hence have a better chance of success, and it will flop just like TIH did as the sandwich film in June. Alarms are going to start getting closer to going off until the Thor news picks up.

i said AT LEAST 2 weeks apart... dude you keep saying ur not losing sleep but all your posts speak otherwise

[spideyboy_1111]

That's true... but I will stand by my opinion until everything becomes official... whatever the schedule turns out to be. And that is... Marvel has zero leverage here... SM3 nearly outgrossed IM/TIH by itself. TDK did outgross both films. And these studios... all of them... would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars competing with each other in that tight a gap. If I am Sony I am announcing SM4 May 6th 2011 as soon as I get everyone in line... and if I'm WB... I announce BB3 for July 15th 2011 once Nolan commits.

see that's your flaw in the logic imo... marvel has had there release dates lined up for a while ago and set in stone. BB3 and S4 are still floating around and just "hoping" to release it in certain months. Those movies have more negotiations to work out too... thus possibly delaying the films.

[FaT_tONle]

i said AT LEAST 2 weeks apart... dude you keep saying ur not losing sleep but all your posts speak otherwise

This is just a difference of opinion... anything less than a four week gap is an atrocious move IMO. I can live with 3 weeks if just want to be stubborn about a particular release date... but a 3-4 week gap back to back to back??? We agree to disagree...

[Faded To Deaf]

I'm officially becoming a part of this thread.

[spideyboy_1111]

This is just a difference of opinion... anything less than a four week gap is an atrocious move IMO. I can live with 3 weeks if just want to be stubborn about a particular release date... but a 3-4 week gap back to back to back??? We agree to disagree...

and its not a big deal.. i said AT LEAST... i would prefer 3-4 weeks as well.. but anything less then 2 is a death sentence to one of the movies.

[FaT_tONle]

see that's your flaw in the logic imo... marvel has had there release dates lined up for a while ago and set in stone. BB3 and S4 are still floating around and just "hoping" to release it in certain months. Those movies have more negotiations to work out too... thus possibly delaying the films.

No... the flaw in logic is thinking that by announcing release dates three years in advance means it is set in stone... which is what you and a lot of other people seem to think around here... when clearly... SM4 has a cast/director in place and a script... and BB3 could potentially be months from getting their director to return... not to mention a cast that is in place as well. Marvel is not miles ahead of the game like people seem to assume.

And quickly... let me elaborate on what I said earlier... you release those films in that 3 week gap like that... and basically you will have no repeat viewers coming back. You telling me fanboys on THIS VERY SITE won't take/go with a different set of people to see a superhero film they have already seen OW maybe two if not three more times? They wouldn't come back because they will have moved on to the next film. You would KILL your legs... not to mention who gets dibs on the last film of that grouping released in the summer... because that film would obviously have the best legs. And what about the casual fans/non-fans who don't make it opening weekend? They put it off one week... maybe another week, then ask their friends if they already saw film X... their friends say they saw it opening weekend... and everyone moves on to film Y... this is just common sense. So yeah these studios will be banking 150 OW... but after that... look for those 80-90% drops the third and fourth weeks...

[spideyboy_1111]

No... the flaw in logic is thinking that by announcing release dates three years in advance means it is set in stone... which is what you and a lot of other people seem to think around here... when clearly... SM4 has a cast/director in place and a script... and BB3 could potentially be months from getting their director to return... not to mention a cast that is in place as well. Marvel is not miles ahead of the game like people seem to assume.

your still making a HUGE deal out of nothing. Marvel is alot more ahead of the game imo then Sony is with spider-man 4.. not to mention more people seem to be way more excited for that then spider-man 4. I've asked many a friend about spidey 4 and most go "o seriously? why? why are they making another one?" and none of those people are comic fans. No one infact that i know is excited about spider-man 4.. people are excited for ironman 2, avengers, and cap though.

And quickly... let me elaborate on what I said earlier... you release those films in that 3 week gap like that... and basically you will have no repeat viewers coming back. You telling me fanboys on THIS VERY SITE won't take/go with a different set of people to see a superhero film they have already seen OW maybe two if not three times? They wouldn't come back because they would have moved on to the next film. You would KILL your legs... not to mention who gets dibs on the last film of that grouping released in the summer... because that would obviously have the best legs. And what about the casual fans/non-fans who don't make it opening weekend? They put it off one week... maybe another week, then ask their friends if they already saw film X... their friends say they saw it opening weekend... and everyone moves on to film Y... this is just common sense. So yeah these studios will be banking 150 OW... but after that... look for those 80-90% drops the third and fourth weeks...

again your making a HUGE ass deal about something i didn't say was going to be happening. 2 weeks is not something I WANT to happen.. nor am i OK with. But at the very least 2 weeks apart isn't bad in the grand scheme of things. imo. But No way in hell are batman and avengers doing that.

[TheVileOne]

I think people need to stop worrying about release dates right now because no matter what happens, chances are that Marvel, Paramount, and Sony won't want anything to affect the other.

[Spider-Vader]

I think 'Avengers' will move to 2012. It will do way better that year, there's not Spidey or Batman. Plus it'll give people time to get used to Captain America.

[TheVileOne]

I don't think it will move right now. I think Marvel needs to get out two of their studio movies in each summer.

I'm sure if they feel it needs to move though it will move. I doubt though they picked the release date lightly last summer.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't think it will move right now. I think Marvel needs to get out two of their studio movies in each summer.

I'm sure if they feel it needs to move though it will move. I doubt though they picked the release date lightly last summer.

No they don't... 2009 they released nothing. Yeah I know about the strike... but if an issue arises... they won't release the second film in a given year. Believe me... SM4 and BB3 are issues...

[TheVileOne]

Fat Tonie. How do you know? How do you know what they will or will not do?

There are no official release dates for Spider-man 3 or Batman 3 yet. Also Dark Knight did not negatively affect Iron Man or Hulk at all. A lot of people thought Iron Man would have trouble because of Speed Racer and Prince Caspian. Eh-eh.

You don't get these things. They released nothing in 2009 because of the writer's strike. That delayed a lot of things. They probably wanted to do Ant-Man and Thor in 2009, but what happened? Thor had a director and a screenwriter. But because of the strike Matthew Vaughn's directing deal expired. Edgar Wright was the writer/director for Ant-Man, but things were delayed again because of the strike and Wright took up Scott Pilgrim which he is doing now. So those were going to be their two release in 2009 originally.

They are releasing nothing in 2009 because they literally couldn't.

Hence 2010 they have two set for the summer. 2011 they have two set for the summer. That's not a coincidence after they released two in 2008. Marvel wants to release two per summer. It's been reported from their financial credit deal and also on these forums.

[spideyboy_1111]

Fat Tonie. How do you know? How do you know what they will or will not due?

There are no official release dates for Spider-man 3 or Batman 3 yet. Also Dark Knight did not negatively affect Iron Man or Hulk at all. A lot of people thought Iron Man would have trouble because of Speed Racer and Prince Caspian. Eh-eh.

You don't get these things. They released nothing in 2009 because of the writer's strike. That delayed a lot of things. They probably wanted to do Ant-Man and Thor in 2009, but what happened? Thor had a director and a screenwriter. But because of the strike Matthew Vaughn's directing deal expired. Edgar Wright was the writer/director for Ant-Man, but things were delayed again because of the strike and Wright took up Scott Pilgrim which he is doing now. So those were going to be their two release in 2009 originally.

They are releasing nothing in 2009 because they literally couldn't.

Hence 2010 they have two set for the summer. 2011 they have two set for the summer. That's not a coincidence after they released two in 2008. Marvel wants to release two per summer. It's been reported from their financial credit deal and also on these forums.

exactly. Marvel probably can't financially go another summer without 2 movies. They really have no choice.

[FaT_tONle]

Fat Tonie. How do you know? How do you know what they will or will not due?

I don't know what they will do... but how can you say "because it's in the contract they have to release two films"... when the writers strike already created an exception. You telling me they would not put off a film it it wasn't ready? And I don't want to hear about writers strikes when these scripts should have been completed in 2007. They were stalling on Thor and Cap from the getgo.

There are no official release dates for Spider-man 3 or Batman 3 yet. Also Dark Knight did not negatively affect Iron Man or Hulk at all. A lot of people thought Iron Man would have trouble because of Speed Racer and Prince Caspian. Eh-eh.

You don't think TIH was overlooked? Not everything does bad in June... it was clearly outmarketed by the likes of IM/TDK... but of course let's put all the blame on Universal... :huh:.

You don't get these things. They released nothing in 2009 because of the writer's strike. That delayed a lot of things. They probably wanted to do Ant-Man and Thor in 2009, but what happened? Thor had a director and a screenwriter. But because of the strike Matthew Vaughn's directing deal expired. Edgar Wright was the writer/director for Ant-Man, but things were delayed again because of the strike and Wright took up Scott Pilgrim which he is doing now. So those were going to be their two release in 2009 originally.

And back to my original point... what's to say these issues won't arise again. What's to say Marvel doesn't think for a minute... "Oh Sony has a film due out in May... we might as well sit another year". You guys honestly think Marvel is releasing an Avengers type film in one of their two pictures a year for the next 10-12 years? They need EVERY opportunity for Avengers to be a success... taking on BB3 and SM4 would be an EPIC mistake. Look at it from a business standpoint and logically make an argument for Marvel. Instead... why not fast track a Luke Cage or Runaways for June/August 2011.

They are releasing nothing in 2009 because they literally couldn't.

They released nothing because they sat... that's all there is too it. They waited out for IM/TIH to perform. Can't say I blame them. But that doesn't mean... "Damn... IM made 600 million... Now we got to cash everything in a three year span!!!". That is the stupidest thing you can do IMO.

Hence 2010 they have two set for the summer. 2011 they have two set for the summer. That's not a coincidence after they released two in 2008. Marvel wants to release two per summer. It's been reported from their financial credit deal and also on these forums.

You honestly think both TIH/IM would have been released in the same year as a major X-Men/Spidey film? Those previous franchises were on haitus at that point. I find it laughable that you guys think Marvel will continue this pattern for another decade with TWO 150 million dollar plus productions every year... what I am saying... is that there will be a window to release two films of that calibur every three years or so. That window is 2012 or 2013... NOT 2011.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't know what they will do... but how can you say "because it's in the contract they have to release two films"... when the writers strike already created an exception. You telling me they would not put off a film it it wasn't ready? And I don't want to hear about writers strikes when these scripts should have been completed in 2007. They were stalling on Thor and Cap from the getgo.



You don't think TIH was overlooked? Not everything does bad in June... it was clearly outmarketed by the likes of IM/TDK... but of course let's put all the blame on Universal... :huh:.



And back to my original point... what's to say these issues won't arise again. What's to say Marvel doesn't think for a minute... "Oh Sony has a film due out in May... we might as well sit another year". You guys honestly think Marvel is releasing an Avengers type film in one of their two pictures a year for the next 10-12 years? They need EVERY opportunity for Avengers to be a success... taking on BB3 and SM4 would be an EPIC mistake. Look at it from a business standpoint and logically make an argument for Marvel. Instead... why not fast track a Luke Cage or Runaways for June/August 2011.



They released nothing because they sat... that's all there is too it. They waited out for IM/TIH to perform. Can't say I blame them. But that doesn't mean... "Damn... IM made 600 million... Now we got to cash everything in a three year span!!!". That is the stupidest thing you can do IMO.



You honestly think both TIH/IM would have been released in the same year as a major X-Men/Spidey film? Those previous franchises were on haitus at that point. I find it laughable that you guys think Marvel will continue this pattern for another decade with TWO 150 million dollar plus productions every year... what I am saying... is that there will be a window to release two films of that calibur every three years or so. That window is 2012 or 2013... NOT 2011.

i still think you over react like none other..... :o

[TheVileOne]

I don't know what they will do... but how can you say "because it's in the contract they have to release two films"... when the writers strike already created an exception. You telling me they would not put off a film it it wasn't ready? And I don't want to hear about writers strikes when these scripts should have been completed in 2007. They were stalling on Thor and Cap from the getgo.

We have no reason to believe this or that isn't ready yet. So none of these things are yet to come up. I'm not sure about stalling on Cap or Thor.

But however, I think it should tell you something that they didn't rush a Thor movie to force it into being released during the strike period for 2009. Not like other movies rushed to production like Dragon Ball and GI JOE.


You don't think TIH was overlooked? Not everything does bad in June... it was clearly outmarketed by the likes of IM/TDK... but of course let's put all the blame on Universal... :huh:.

I'm saying that The Dark Knight had no actual affect on ultimately what happend to The Incredible Hulk. Of course they out marketed the Hulk. They were much bigger deals. Much bigger movies. Hulk was still dealing with the baggage of a disappointing 2003 movie. People were just way more excited about those movies. Hulk did pretty much exactly how I expected it would do. But I don't think that Dark Knight just killed Incredible Hulk. Of course in that summer Hulk paled in comparison. But the movie was spaced well inbetween Iron Man and Dark Knight so it's an illegitimate connection.

And back to my original point... what's to say these issues won't arise again. What's to say Marvel doesn't think for a minute... "Oh Sony has a film due out in May... we might as well sit another year". You guys honestly think Marvel is releasing an Avengers type film in one of their two pictures a year for the next 10-12 years? They need EVERY opportunity for Avengers to be a success... taking on BB3 and SM4 would be an EPIC mistake. Look at it from a business standpoint and logically make an argument for Marvel. Instead... why not fast track a Luke Cage or Runaways for June/August 2011.

I bet Marvel has planned this out and are thinking this out more than you are. I'm not worried until there's actual reason to worry. You are getting worked up over things that haven't happened yet. There is no taking on batman 3 or spider-man 4.

Also In the month of last May you had Indiana Jones 4 just three weekends after Iron Man. That hardly killed Iron man. Iron Man made more money in the US BO than Indy. Once again you need to calm down.

Once again INDIANA JONES. Not long ago, people were saying Iron Man was going to get crushed by the likes of Caspian and Indy 4 and taking them on was an epic mistake.

That's exactly why you need to calm down.


They released nothing because they sat... that's all there is too it. They waited out for IM/TIH to perform. Can't say I blame them. But that doesn't mean... "Damn... IM made 600 million... Now we got to cash everything in a three year span!!!". That is the stupidest thing you can do IMO.

Once again you need to calm down. In 2006 is when all of this started. That's when Hulk and Iron Man were announced. That's when they announced the intent to make movies for Thor, Captain America, and Avengers that could co-habitate as well. So they started developing all this three years ago, and that would make it a 5-6 year span, not a three year one.

Take some prozac.

You honestly think both TIH/IM would have been released in the same year as a major X-Men/Spidey film? Those previous franchises were on haitus at that point. I find it laughable that you guys think Marvel will continue this pattern for another decade with TWO 150 million dollar plus productions every year... what I am saying... is that there will be a window to release two films of that calibur every three years or so. That window is 2012 or 2013... NOT 2011.

Think about this. They were released the same summer as The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones 4, Prince Caspian, and Hancock plus numerous other big deal movies. Iron Man totally outdid every X-men movie ever. So the answer to your question is yes.

[FaT_tONle]

We have no reason to believe this or that isn't ready yet. So none of these things are yet to come up. I'm not sure about stalling on Cap or Thor.

But however, I think it should tell you something that they didn't rush a Thor movie to force it into being released during the strike period for 2009. Not like other movies rushed to production like Dragon Ball and GI JOE.

First it was Marvel saying we'll do one in house in 2009... that was because of the strike... but to tell me you can't get a single working script down for either Ant-Man or Thor... and icing on the cake, to stall long enough to let the deals expire on the people you had attached to direct these projects... c'mon... these scripts should have been completed... both of them... by the START of 2008 LATEST. There was more than enough time to get a project in there. They waited... they waited... "might as well wait it out and see how IM/TIH perform". That's what happened.

I'm saying that The Dark Knight had no actual affect on ultimately what happend to The Incredible Hulk. Of course they out marketed the Hulk. They were much bigger deals. Much bigger movies. Hulk was still dealing with the baggage of a disappointing 2003 movie. People were just way more excited about those movies. Hulk did pretty much exactly how I expected it would do. But I don't think that Dark Knight just killed Incredible Hulk. Of course in that summer Hulk paled in comparison. But the movie was spaced well inbetween Iron Man and Dark Knight so it's an illegitimate connection.

How many times are people gonna play that card? But whatever the reason... no way in hell it did EXACTLY how you saw it... I remember your projections... we can go back and find those projections... with the exception of several people... every poster who was optimistic about that film had 160 million minimum... more like 180-200. By that regards the film flopped... and it had A LOT to do with the competition.

I bet Marvel has planned this out and are thinking this out more than you are. I'm not worried until there's actual reason to worry. You are getting worked up over things that haven't happened yet. There is no taking on batman 3 or spider-man 3.

Oh for God's sakes... what happens if it becomes official? You will change your opinion then? Simmons has come out and said it... Raimi has come out and said it... production set for spring 2010... we even have a thread reporting "Sony thinking May 2011"... supposedly the director and star are set to return. As for BB3... I have NO CLUE what will happen. But WB will do everything in their powers to have that ready by 2011. Don't think that because they extended Potter they can take it easy. That was probably a fallback to secure themselves if disaster strikes.

Also In the month of last May you had Indiana Jones 4 just three weekends after Iron Man. That hardly killed Iron man. Iron Man made more money in the US BO than Indy. Once again you need to calm down.

Let's forward back to May 2007... all of those films... ALL of them... could have made a potential 400 million. Don't tell me it was not possible for Shrek and POTC. Look at how much the previous films of those franchises banked. And what happened? SM3 clearly grosses its lowest domestically... and it only made that much because of reputation. Shrek 3 does not even come close to Shrek 2... POTC 3 barely outgrosses POTC 1. They HURT each other. Now is 300 million a good number? Yes... but for proven franchises like those ones? It could have been better... WAY better... and don't tell me it's because those films sucked... Caspian was not reviewed as well as the first... but I can't explain the drop there... maybe the summer release... you got me. But Indy 4 was awful... no way that was affecting IM legs... and Sex and the City or Speed Racer??? Please... completely different animals.


Once again INDIANA JONES. Not long ago, people were saying Iron Man was going to get crushed by the likes of Caspian and Indy 4 and taking them on was an epic mistake.

That's exactly why you need to calm down.


Different genres... different movies... different scenarios... move on.


Once again you need to calm down. In 2006 is when all of this started. That's when Hulk and Iron Man were announced. That's when they announced the intent to make movies for Thor, Captain America, and Avengers that could co-habitate as well. So they started developing all this three years ago, and that would make it a 5-6 year span, not a three year one.

Take some prozac.

And that's why Thor and Ant-Man were in production like they were supposed to be in 2007-8... or wait... nah you got me... :cwink:

Think about this. They were released the same summer as The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones 4, Prince Caspian, and Hancock plus numerous other big deal movies. Iron Man totally outdid every X-men movie ever. So the answer to your question is yes.

Don't compare Indy and Narnia and Hancock to the potential slate in 2011... and in case you forgot... IM will be a supporting player in one of those films... not the lead. We don't know if he will even carry the film expecially if the other solos flop or underperform.

[spideyboy_1111]

First it was Marvel saying we'll do one in house in 2009... that was because of the strike... but to tell me you can't get a single working script down for either Ant-Man or Thor... and icing on the cake, to stall long enough to let the deals expire on the people you had attached to direct these projects... c'mon... these scripts should have been completed... both of them... by the START of 2008 LATEST. There was more than enough time to get a project in there. They waited... they waited... "might as well wait it out and see how IM/TIH perform". That's what happened. Last i checked thor has had a script for quite a while... and BY 2008 ? dude you really don't know how movies work, some movies are still tweaking scripts during filming.

and for the final time dude, please take a chill pill

[TheVileOne]

First it was Marvel saying we'll do one in house in 2009... that was because of the strike... but to tell me you can't get a single working script down for either Ant-Man or Thor... and icing on the cake, to stall long enough to let the deals expire on the people you had attached to direct these projects... c'mon... these scripts should have been completed... both of them... by the START of 2008 LATEST. There was more than enough time to get a project in there. They waited... they waited... "might as well wait it out and see how IM/TIH perform". That's what happened.

I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about up there. Good to know you read all the scripts and knew they were ready to shoot.

Thor was just sort of gearing up when the strike hit and Vaughn had just been announced, but his deal expired during the strike and he had to leave the project. Obviously they weren't ready to start the project and rush a huge budgeted movie into production during the strike period.

And that was for the best so far. Strike period movies tend to suck.


How many times are people gonna play that card? But whatever the reason... no way in hell it did EXACTLY how you saw it... I remember your projections... we can go back and find those projections... with the exception of several people... every poster who was optimistic about that film had 160 million minimum... more like 180-200. By that regards the film flopped... and it had A LOT to do with the competition.

My predictions from the original Incredible Hulk BO thread:

100-150 Million 67 20.55%

That was my original projection, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I was hoped just maybe the movie would do more than $150 million, but it didn't. And it was not marketed strongly or well enough. They released a trailer way too late. And it was coming off a massively disappointing first Hulk movie.

Summer movie season is ALWAYS going to be competitive. So 2011, 2012, 2015, there will always be some big honking release around the corner.

Oh for God's sakes... what happens if it becomes official? You will change your opinion then? Simmons has come out and said it... Raimi has come out and said it... production set for spring 2010... we even have a thread reporting "Sony thinking May 2011"... supposedly the director and star are set to return. As for BB3... I have NO CLUE what will happen. But WB will do everything in their powers to have that ready by 2011. Don't think that because they extended Potter they can take it easy. That was probably a fallback to secure themselves if disaster strikes.

There's still nothing official. Marvel has made their release dates official, so boohoo.

I'm still not sure what you are getting worked up over. If the movies are good, I think they will be fine against other movies just like Iron Man.

Let's forward back to May 2007... all of those films... ALL of them... could have made a potential 400 million. Don't tell me it was not possible for Shrek and POTC. Look at how much the previous films of those franchises banked. And what happened? SM3 clearly grosses its lowest domestically... and it only made that much because of reputation. Shrek 3 does not even come close to Shrek 2... POTC 3 barely outgrosses POTC 1. They HURT each other. Now is 300 million a good number? Yes... but for proven franchises like those ones? It could have been better... WAY better... and don't tell me it's because those films sucked... Caspian was not reviewed as well as the first... but I can't explain the drop there... maybe the summer release... you got me. But Indy 4 was awful... no way that was affecting IM legs... and Sex and the City or Speed Racer??? Please... completely different animals.

I'm not sure what you are so upset about. Spider-man 3 was the largest worldwide BO take ever for Spider-man. Spider-man and Spider-man 2 didn't come close to $890 million worldwide. Spider-man 3 was also a big disappointment for a lot of audiences and critics. So it had that going against it.

I think you are being melodramatic because in 2002, Spider-man's BO surpassed a Star Wars film in the same summer, and it made $400 million then. There wasn't that much time inbetween Spider-man and Star Wars.

Also, Caspian and Indy 4 before they came out were big competition. But Iron Man surpassed them, so I think you are still taking this way too seriously.

Also Pirates of The Carribbean 3, not as well received as the other movies. But it will made $960 million worldwide which is over $300 million more than the worldwide take of the first movie so I doubt Disney was too disappointed if they still want to continue with the Jack Sparrow character in more movies and are paying him top dollar to do so.

Your scoffing at Sex And The City is funny because the movie was a pretty huge hit. It drew a larger opening weekend take than TIH did.

Sure I bet the movies could've done better if this or that happened, but I also think they could've done better if they were more satisfying third movie trilogy conclusions like say THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

In any summer movie season, the first weekend of May is an ideal release date. That's pretty much proven. I think Spider-man 3 was more hurt by the negative reception it received than because of Shrek 3 and Pirates 3. Shrek 3 still outperformed Shrek. Sequels also don't always surpass previous movies BO takes.

Different genres... different movies... different scenarios... move on.

You are hilarious with your illegitimate and flimsy arguments. You will throw around Shrek 3, Pirates 3, and Spider-man 3 all being released in the same months but you toss aside Indiana Jones coming out just 3 weeks after Iron Man. I triangle choke your pathetic argument.


And that's why Thor and Ant-Man were in production like they were supposed to be in 2007-8... or wait... nah you got me... :cwink:

I don't know where this supposed to be thing comes from. It's really amazing how you refuse to acknowledge how much the strike set things back and how many projects fell apart because of the strike.

Don't compare Indy and Narnia and Hancock to the potential slate in 2011... and in case you forgot... IM will be a supporting player in one of those films... not the lead. We don't know if he will even carry the film expecially if the other solos flop or underperform.

Uh why not? The anticipation and buildup for those movies were huge. Especially Indiana Jones 4. Glad to know you've read the Avengers shooting script and you know exactly what type of role Iron Man will have.

Those concerns can be asked for just about any film they aren't exclusive to Marvel Studios comic movies.

You need to let go of your paranoia.

[FaT_tONle]

I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about up there. Good to know you read all the scripts and knew they were ready to shoot.

Thor was just sort of gearing up when the strike hit and Vaughn had just been announced, but his deal expired during the strike and he had to leave the project. Obviously they weren't ready to start the project and rush a huge budgeted movie into production during the strike period.

And that was for the best so far. Strike period movies tend to suck.


There was a report out there from Marvel execs that reported they would release and I quote, "one in-house film for 2009"... and this was when the strike started taking its toll. Now please stop using these thin arguments that I have read the script and know exactly what the status was on these projects... because we both know that is and obviously never was the case. What I SAID was... why wasn't one of these projects ready for 2009? If you are going to be so adamant that Marvel has to release two films year since TECHNICALLY, it's in the contract... and when they reported they'd have at least ONE film ready in 2009 DESPITE the strike... they AGAIN had to retract. And you come up with the same excuses for Marvel after they could not get it done. But you know what, I don't think it is that big a deal anyway, so let's keep this about 2011 because I thought Ant-Man would flop all along and Thor will be by itself in 2010 (if it happens on schedule of course). But you can respond if you wish. That was the report that was out there.



My predictions from the original Incredible Hulk BO thread:

That was my original projection, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I was hoped just maybe the movie would do more than $150 million, but it didn't. And it was not marketed strongly or well enough. They released a trailer way too late. And it was coming off a massively disappointing first Hulk movie.

Maybe... maybe not. I apologize if it may have been someone else. Regardless... TIH suffered... and you have to agree in large part due to it being the third most anticipated comic book movie that season behind IM/TDK... if you don't agree with that... then we agree to disagree... I am NOT saying that was the overriding factor... but it suffered nonetheless.

Summer movie season is ALWAYS going to be competitive. So 2011, 2012, 2015, there will always be some big honking release around the corner.

For comic book films? That remains to be seen. We have no clue what 2015 will look like.

There's still nothing official. Marvel has made their release dates official, so boohoo.

The thinnest argument you guys continue to make. Let a studio announce a movie right now for 2012 in a prime release date... and let's see if that project has any legs to stand on... again... announcing a release date 3 years in advance means diddly squat. But "Oh... there it is on paper... they can not move it from now on. Release dates are permanent once they are set." Keep trying to convince people of that... don't bother convincing me. Again, this is just a fundamental difference of opinion. I am not going to argue again that Marvel can be flexible with those current dates (considering they just moved Thor to July recently btw).

I'm still not sure what you are getting worked up over. If the movies are good, I think they will be fine against other movies just like Iron Man.

And every movie of the genre has been good? We had some luck this past year. But some films have been flat out bad. I am worried that Marvel will continue the same generic crap that we have grown accustomed too.

I'm not sure what you are so upset about. Spider-man 3 was the largest worldwide BO take ever for Spider-man. Spider-man and Spider-man 2 didn't come close to $890 million worldwide. Spider-man 3 was also a big disappointment for a lot of audiences and critics. So it had that going against it.

Ooohh... so the May 4th release was a WW date? Again... you don't know when those other films were released with respect to one another in every WW market, or what the feel is for a lot of these films/franchises in other countries. So that argument has no merit.

I think you are being melodramatic because in 2002, Spider-man's BO surpassed a Star Wars film in the same summer, and it made $400 million then. There wasn't that much time inbetween Spider-man and Star Wars.

Spiderman was also the first film that really exposed the genre. SH films weren't what they are now. No one could have predicted that kind of output back then.

Also, Caspian and Indy 4 before they came out were big competition. But Iron Man surpassed them, so I think you are still taking this way too seriously.

I don't know why you continue to use IM in every argument other than probably b/c it is your only fall back to say "Marvel knows what they are doing." Avengers is not an IM movie. IM is a supporting player. But why you compare Spidey and Batman... two of the highest grossing franchises of the past years... to a franchise on the decline (Narnia) and a franchise that had not released a movie in almost twenty years... is a weak comparison to say the least.

Also Pirates of The Carribbean 3, not as well received as the other movies. But it will made $960 million worldwide which is over $300 million more than the worldwide take of the first movie so I doubt Disney was too disappointed if they still want to continue with the Jack Sparrow character in more movies and are paying him top dollar to do so.

Again... you are using WW number not knowing when those films were released with respect to one another in the global markets. And you want WW... compare IM's WW box office to Spidey and TDK. What makes you think Avengers can Cap major success overseas when Marvel's poster boy Iron Man failed to reach 600 million... pretty much 300 million short of both TDK and SM3.

Your scoffing at Sex And The City is funny because the movie was a pretty huge hit. It drew a larger opening weekend take than TIH did.

So a significant amount of viewers of Sex and the City chose that film as opposed to Incredible Hulk? Who knew?

Sure I bet the movies could've done better if this or that happened, but I also think they could've done better if they were more satisfying third movie trilogy conclusions like say THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

Well we can't assume that all these films will be hits... that's my point. That's why you want to minimize competition because of the fact that you have overlapping viewers.

In any summer movie season, the first weekend of May is an ideal release date. That's pretty much proven. I think Spider-man 3 was more hurt by the negative reception it received than because of Shrek 3 and Pirates 3. Shrek 3 still outperformed Shrek. Sequels also don't always surpass previous movies BO takes.

Which is exactly why I think Sony is going to make a BIG play at May 6th 2011... and if they don't get that date... I can assure you they will bargain for first week of May 2012 when SM5 comes around should it be filmed back to back. That's why I don't like Cap's chances.

You are hilarious with your illegitimate and flimsy arguments. You will throw around Shrek 3, Pirates 3, and Spider-man 3 all being released in the same months but you toss aside Indiana Jones coming out just 3 weeks after Iron Man. I triangle choke your pathetic argument.

At the end of the day... they are separate genres... both examples... but when you start releasing SH movies 3 weeks apart??? That will be obvious overlap... conflicted fans... no doubt about it. And I am not talking about die hard fan boys who will see the films regardless... I am talking about the millions of viewers of the fence that were never big on the whole comic book films. That's the group is the difference between an IM and a TIH.

I don't know where this supposed to be thing comes from. It's really amazing how you refuse to acknowledge how much the strike set things back and how many projects fell apart because of the strike.

Maybe... but I think it's safe to say Marvel had some doubts about those projects. Again... I am not killing Marvel for the lack of 2009 films. I am saying there was a window to release a film there, and maybe save yourself headaches in the future. That is all.



Uh why not? The anticipation and buildup for those movies were huge. Especially Indiana Jones 4. Glad to know you've read the Avengers shooting script and you know exactly what type of role Iron Man will have.

Those concerns can be asked for just about any film they aren't exclusive to Marvel Studios comic movies.

You need to let go of your paranoia.

How many times are you going to mention Indy my God??? It was like any other fourth installment to a big franchise in the past. And how many times are you going to keep bringing up Iron Man when there is not even an Iron Man movie being released in 2011? Come up with a new argument instead of using your apparent bermuda triangle, Samoa Joe choke slam of IM, Narnia, Indy 4 being the biggest slate of blockbuster films the world has ever seen in the month of May... :hehe:

[TheVileOne]

There was a report out there from Marvel execs that reported they would release and I quote, "one in-house film" for 2009... and this was when the strike started taking its toll. Now please stop using these thin arguments that I have read the script and know exactly what the status was on these projects... because we both know that is and obviously never was the case. What I SAID was... why wasn't one of these projects ready for 2009? If you were are going to be so adamant that Marvel has to release two films year... and when they reported they'd release a film in 2009 DESPITE the strike... they AGAIN had to retract. And you come up with the same excuses for Marvel after they could not get it done. But you know what, I don't think it is that big a deal anyway, so let's keep this about 2011 because I thought Ant-Man would flop all along and Thor will be by itself in 2010 (if it happens on schedule of course). But you can respond if you wish. That was the report that was out there.

Obviously the strike slowed things down more than expected. Things don't always go according to plan. If something really needs to change they will change it.

Thor's not by itself if Iron Man 2 is set for 2010.

Ant-Man, there doesn't appear to be anything happening with Ant-Man or at least we don't really know.

So there's no Ant-Man flop to consider like you claim.

Maybe... maybe not. I apologize if it may have been someone else. Regardless... TIH suffered... and you have to agree in large part due to it being the third most anticipated comic book movie that season behind IM/TDK... if you don't agree with that... then we agree to disagree... I am NOT saying that was the overriding factor... but it suffered nonetheless.

Wasn't the only factor.


For comic book films? That remains to be seen. We have no clue what 2015 will look like.

For blockbusters period.


The thinnest argument you guys continue to make. Let a studio announce a movie right now for 2012 in a prime release date... and let's see if that project would have any leg to stand on... again... announcing a release date 3 years in advance means diddly squat. But "Oh... there it is on paper... they can not move it from now on. Release dates are permanent once they are set." Keep trying to convince people of that... don't bother convincing me. Again, this is just a a fundamental difference of opinion. I am not going to argue again that Marvel can be flexible with those current dates.

What are you so angry and upset about? That Marvel picked release dates in the same summer that Batman 3 and Spider-man 4 might be in?


Any every movie of the genre has been good? We had some luck this past year. But some films have been flat out bad. I am worried that Marvel will continue the same generic crap that we have grown accustomed too.

Like what? Iron Man was very good.


Ooohh... so the May 4th release was a WW date? Again... you don't know when those other films were released with respect to one another in every WW market, or what the feel is for a lot of these films/franchises in other countries. So that argument has no merit.

Spider-man 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/releaseinfo

Pirates 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/releaseinfo

Shrek 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413267/releaseinfo

Spiderman was also the first film that really exposed the genre. It wasn't what it is now. No one could have predicted that kind of output back then.



I don't know why you continue to use IM in every argument other than it is your only fall back to say "Marvel knows what they are doing." Avengers is not an IM movie. IM is a supporting player. But why you compare Spidey and Batman... two of the highest grossing franchises of the past years... to a franchise on the decline (Narnia) and a franchise that had not released a movie in almost twenty years... is a weak comparison to say the least.

Before Prince Caspian, Narnia was not a franchise in decline. Iron man is not a supporting player. He's the founding member of the Avengers. A supporting player is Jarvis in the comics.

Again... you are using WW number not knowing when those films were released with respect to one another in the global markets. And you want WW... compare IM's WW box office to Spidey and TDK. What makes you think Avengers can Cap major success overseas when Marvel's poster boy Iron Man failed to reach 600 million... pretty much 300 million short of both TDK and SM4.

Because what Iron Man did was pretty excellent for that movie. What movies like Spider-man 3 and The Dark Knight did for their worldwide takes is pretty rare.

So Iron Man was a big success overseas as well. It just didn't make a billion dollars.


So a significant amount of viewers of Sex and the City chose that film as opposed to Incredible Hulk? Who knew?

Sex And The City was a long running and much beloved TV series and a highly anticipated movie. Plus it drew a huge untapped audience that Hulk did not. An audience that Hollywood generally likes to avoid WOMEN.



Well we can't assume that all these films will be hits... that's my point. That's why you want to minimize competetition because of the fact that you have overlapping viewers.

You can't minimize competition in a summer movie season. IT IS NEVER MINIMAL.


Which is exactly why I think Sony is going to make a BIG play at May 6th 2011... and if they don't get that date... I can assure you they will bargain for first week of May 2012 when SM5 comes around should it be filmed back to back. That's why I don't like Cap's chances.

That would be between Marvel and Sony. At the end of the day, Sony and Marvel are still business partners. Marvel has just as much stake in the success of a Spider-man sequel too.


At the end of the day... they are separate genres... both examples... but when you start releasing SH movies 3 weeks apart??? That will be obvious overlap... conflicted fans... no doubt about it. And I am not talking about die hard fan boys who will see the films regardless... I am talking about the millions of viewers of the fence that were never big on the whole comic book films. That's the group is makes the difference between an IM and a TIH.

These movies are generally about the first weekend are too. Most of them usually have made over half their money after the first or second weekend.

You are overreacting.


Maybe... but I think it's safe to say Marvel had some doubts about those projects. Again... I am not killing Marvel for the lack of 2009 films. I am saying there was a window to release a film there, and maybe save yourself headaches in the future. That is all.

Let's say Marvel pushes something back to 2012. Do you think 2012 is suddenly going to be bare of tough competition and other movies scrambling for a weekend that could also be like a super hero film as well?

How many times are you going to mention Indy my God??? It was like any other fourth installment to a big franchise in the past. And how many times are you going to keep bringing up Iron Man when there is not even an Iron Man movie being released in 2011? Come up with a new argument instead of using your apparent bermuda triangle, Samoa Joe choke slam of IM, Narnia, Indy 4 being the biggest slate of block buster films the world has ever seen in the month of May... :hehe:

If you mention Pirates 3 and Shrek 3 talking about Spider-man 3, then I will mention Indy 4.

[FaT_tONle]

Spider-man 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/releaseinfo

Pirates 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/releaseinfo

Shrek 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413267/releaseinfo


Good research.... but Shrek 3 is all over the place from May to June... so that really leaves two films competing with each other at the same time. Again... I don't know why you bring up WW numbers when SM3 and TDK were nearly billion dollar films... while IM never came close. So no... IM did not do that well compared to those other films overseas. But that has nothing to do with anything IMO. You made it an issue. I think it hurts your argument even more. SH films usually underpeform globally.

[Lock]

This just in!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000375/news#ni0668282

[Chewy]

This just in!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000375/news#ni0668282
That's basically the same article that's on every geek site. And it's just baseless speculation - low-balling or no low-balling, Rourke has never come close to indicating that he wouldn't appear in IM2.

And you know there's an IM2 board, right :huh:

[phoenixflight]

I haven't been on this thread in...forever but a friend sent me this and I wanted to share it. Most likely its been posted, but it looks so good!!

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5883/avengers1yz4.gif

[Faded To Deaf]

That GIF is awesome.

[Brian Braddock]

WormyT is awesome.

[rickprague]

Got bored...

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/rickprague-Marvels.jpg

[[A]]

^ Nice :up: --but give the Punisher more room, dammit :hehe:

[SuperKoala]

the punisher is fine just where he is

[Victor Von Doom]

I haven't been on this thread in...forever but a friend sent me this and I wanted to share it. Most likely its been posted, but it looks so good!!

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5883/avengers1yz4.gif

Amazing gif. Hopefully a reality sooner rather than later.

[TheVileOne]

Well now we aren't so sure about Batman for 2011 now that Nolan's doing some big sci-fi flick.

So maybe some guys can stop complaining about Avengers coming out then as well.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah I'll eat some crow if BB3 gets moved to 2012... but you can't get completely on me. This Inception project sort of came out of nowhere. He was supposed to do The Prisoner... but they kept stalling and stalling and we assumed Nolan would NOT be doing a major film in between. Or maybe he just needed a long break before directing another film. But this new development does not even come CLOSE to ruling out BB3 for 2011... maybe Nolan is a workaholic and appreciates a nice pay check. We have to wait and see. And I still think Marvel needs to convince Sony to take a June slot for SM4 to give Cap breathing room. If those things happen you won't hear another peep out of me.

[TheVileOne]

The Prisoner. Even Michael Bay has been attached to that.

It's not surprising. Nolan wanted to do something before The Dark Knight as well.

[FaT_tONle]

The Prisoner. Even Michael Bay has been attached to that.

It's not surprising. Nolan wanted to do something before The Dark Knight as well.

He did do something before TDK??? :huh:

[Evil Twin]

Just because there's been no public announcement, it doesn't mean that INCEPTION hasn't been under discussion and planning for a long time. Nolan hasn't been actively filming on a set for well over a year. And the writer's strike has been over for the better part of a year, after all. And we hardly know the scope of INCEPTION. Not every science fiction film is a mammoth undertaking and it could very well be something more psychological and idea driven than special effects driven.

Until we know more, there's no reason to suspect that Nolan won't start filming the next Batman movie in the Spring of 2010. He's basically on the exact same schedule that he was after Batman Begins. Have Jonah Nolan and David Goyer work on a script while he shoots another film, in this case INCEPTION instead of THE PRESTIGE, and then turn around and shoot the next Batman film.

[FaT_tONle]

Exactly... maybe its been "all.... part of the plan..."

[TheVileOne]

He did do something before TDK??? :huh:
The Prestige.

[Chewy]

Just because there's been no public announcement, it doesn't mean that INCEPTION hasn't been under discussion and planning for a long time. Nolan hasn't been actively filming on a set for well over a year. And the writer's strike has been over for the better part of a year, after all. And we hardly know the scope of INCEPTION. Not every science fiction film is a mammoth undertaking and it could very well be something more psychological and idea driven than special effects driven.

Until we know more, there's no reason to suspect that Nolan won't start filming the next Batman movie in the Spring of 2010. He's basically on the exact same schedule that he was after Batman Begins. Have Jonah Nolan and David Goyer work on a script while he shoots another film, in this case INCEPTION instead of THE PRESTIGE, and then turn around and shoot the next Batman film.
But The Prestige was released before Nolan started shooting TDK. There's no reason to think he would start filming the next Batman while still in post on Inception. Writing? Absolutely.

Not to mention that one of the trades described Inception as large scaled.

[FaT_tONle]

I could see Inception being a summer release... if it isn't released spring 2010 then I agree Nolan will fall short of the 2011 deadline. Again, we don't know the details. But who's to say he can't multitask again? He started pre-production on TDK while filming Prestige... what's to say he can't do the post-production while prepping to film BB3 at the same time? If the script is complete by next year there is no reason to think why it wouldn't be ready.

[Chewy]

He can prep to film BB3 while in post on Inception - but the trades claimed WB was shooting for a summer 2010 release for Inception.

[Keyser Soze]

I'd rather have Batman 3 come out in 2012, and be worth the wait, than have it getting rushed just for the sake of getting it out in 2011.

As for The Avengers, who are wanting for the lineup? I'd say:

Nick Fury (leader, not sure if he'd count as a full-blown member)
Iron Man
Captain America
Thor
Antman/Giant Man/Whatever Hank Pym is called this week
The Wasp
Black Widow
The Hulk (maaaaaybe, don't know how he'd work out, or if Norton will return)

[marcvader]

I like your line up minus Black Widow. ^^^^

[Keyser Soze]

I like your line up minus Black Widow. ^^^^

I just figured that, since she will likely be in Iron Man 2, she would be a prime Avengers candidate. But I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if she wasn't on the lineup.

[Doctor Jones]

Ugh, no Ant Man please. I couldn't take that seriously.

[Chewy]

Ant-Man/Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Whatever is one of the best characters Marvel has

[marcvader]

Agree ^^^

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah. There's really no doubt that Hank Pym is a great character. It's just in effectively branding an alter ego for him that Marvel has fallen short.

[marcvader]

With all the great backstory he has you'd think he'd be bigger. No pun intended.

[Hellrider]

To be honest... i truly cant wait to see them use Kang... I really hope they use him, it'd be a mistake if they didn't he's friggin EPIC.

[Chewy]

Yeah. There's really no doubt that Hank Pym is a great character. It's just in effectively branding an alter ego for him that Marvel has fallen short.
I had thought (or rather, hoped) that Yellowjacket would stick... but they went and made him the new Wasp.

[marcvader]

Kang, Ultron, and to a lesser extent Loki are my favorite Avenger foes.

[mclay18]

Well now Paramount and Marvel will either have to ramp up production on The Avengers or move it to safer ground since HP 7.2 is now officially going against it.

[Chewy]

One of them will move. It's nothing to really worry about.

[mclay18]

HP 7.2 is much farther along than TA has -- it's already started shooting, and with a packed summer 2011, I think Marvel will move TA back.

[Chewy]

A winter release for Avengers, perhaps? :D

[louiebling$]

A winter release for Avengers, perhaps? :D
Doesnt the contract that marvel made for thier loan require for them to release thier films as summer tentpoles?

[Chewy]

The contract that Marvel signed for their loan also did not include films based on Iron Man, Hulk, or Thor. They can amend their contract if needed.

[Excel]

Well now Paramount and Marvel will either have to ramp up production on The Avengers or move it to safer ground since HP 7.2 is now officially going against it.

The Avengers has no choice but to move, the last harry potter movie be a huge event ala the last star wars movie.

[TheVileOne]

How do you know that ChewySpider? Have you read the contract?

[Chewy]

Know what? That it didn't include Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor films? They put out a press release that clearly stated only 10 characters/groups were involved in the film deal and listed them (CA & Avengers were amongst them), and Kevin Feige later spoke in several interviews about how they changed the deal to include Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor films.

[mclay18]

A winter release for Avengers, perhaps? :D

Couldn't they try an August release? Or better yet, they can push it back two weeks and open it July 1, 2011 -- garner enough revenue before the final HP film swoops it away.