More TV shows for Phase 3 was the right choice.

[Dasher10]

This leaves the street level properties as characters who won't be involved in films until Phase 4, if ever. That clears the slate for Phase 3 to not exclude fan favorites while giving fans most of Marvel's characters in a live action format. I really hope it works out so there can be Runaways and Punisher shows before the end of Phase 3.

I mean, with Phase 3, we're now getting Doctor Strange and Ant-Man with the possibility of Captain Marvel and Black Panther and talk of potential Hulk and Thor sequels. I mean, it's pretty complete. Let's assume that Phase 3 is meant to run until 2019. that allows for older properties to get sequels and new properties to have some room to breathe while allowing Marvel studios to grow to the point of (almost) 3 films a year by the end.

[Dr. Evil]

Originally Posted by Dasher10

This leaves the street level properties as characters who won't be involved in films until Phase 4, if ever. That clears the slate for Phase 3 to not exclude fan favorites while giving fans most of Marvel's characters in a live action format. I really hope it works out so there can be Runaways and Punisher shows before the end of Phase 3.

I mean, with Phase 3, we're now getting Doctor Strange and Ant-Man with the possibility of Captain Marvel and Black Panther and talk of potential Hulk and Thor sequels. I mean, it's pretty complete. Let's assume that Phase 3 is meant to run until 2019. that allows for older properties to get sequels and new properties to have some room to breathe while allowing Marvel studios to grow to the point of (almost) 3 films a year by the end.

I can see Runaways being animated instead of live action.

[CyclopsWasRight]

Am i the only one who feels that three films a year from Disney Marvel ontop of all the others from other studios will just lead to an oversaturation burnout?

[DrCosmic]

I think they can do two major films and a small off-season film. But three big films will be a problem if DC/WB ever increases their speed. It won't kill the genre, but it could make it much more competitive as suddenly the big summer superhero movie may not be a big deal anymore, which could very much skewer either Marvel or DC.

[Zarex]

Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight

Am i the only one who feels that three films a year from Disney Marvel ontop of all the others from other studios will just lead to an oversaturation burnout?

Marvel's doing a good job in diversifying their offerings. Their big budget cinema releases share certain sensibilities, but are unique offerings within different genres. And their network (AOS, presumably Agent Carter) and Netflix (street level) offerings are also quite diverse.

Saturation is a risk, but the backlash, if any is realized, will hit WB, Sony and FOX well before it impacts Marvel.

[DrCosmic]

The backlash could definitely hit Marvel if WB plays its cards right. For a smaller set up like Marvel Studios it's the equivalent of going 'all in.' If that kind of bet is not necessary or you're not truly sure that the opponent has nothing to fire back with, it's best to just play smart and build slowly.

[Dr. Evil]

Originally Posted by Zarex

Marvel's doing a good job in diversifying their offerings. Their big budget cinema releases share certain sensibilities, but are unique offerings within different genres. And their network (AOS, presumably Agent Carter) and Netflix (street level) offerings are also quite diverse.

Saturation is a risk, but the backlash, if any is realized, will hit WB, Sony and FOX well before it impacts Marvel.

Plus Disney is a massive company in that they can release a few live action family films, two Marvel films, multiple animated films (one Pixar and a few from Disney Animation), and several films from Touchstone and a few sports documentaries with ESPN a year.

[DrCosmic]

Disney will be fine. But if Marvel Studios shows that it is not the guarantee it is right now, it will affect their relationship with the parent company.

[Dr. Evil]

Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight

Am i the only one who feels that three films a year from Disney Marvel ontop of all the others from other studios will just lead to an oversaturation burnout?

there is always a risk of oversaturation with any major franchises. Same could be said if in several years we see a lot of Star Wars related media (TV and Movies) come out and they all interconnect with the new Star Wars sequels, spin-offs, prequel spin-offs, TV shows, etc.

Same could also be said if James Cameron becomes so obsessed with his Avatar franchise that he decides to make large numbers of spin off movies and even TV shows based of his Avatar Universe.

With the exception of the Muppets, Disney could have two oversaturated franchises in Star Wars and Marvel if they don't play their cards right.

[Zarex]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The backlash could definitely hit Marvel if WB plays its cards right. For a smaller set up like Marvel Studios it's the equivalent of going 'all in.' If that kind of bet is not necessary or you're not truly sure that the opponent has nothing to fire back with, it's best to just play smart and build slowly.

WB certainly has the characters to compete with Marvel, but given what I've heard about the MOS follow up I'm not certain the studio is playing its cards right.

[JJmelo]

Originally Posted by Zarex

WB certainly has the characters to compete with Marvel, but given what I've heard about the MOS follow up I'm not certain the studio is playing its cards right.

agreed, I liked the idea of Batman vs superman. Not Batman vs Superman with Wonderwoman and Nightwing nearby with the Flash running around. At this point make it justice league and be done with it.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'll be the first to say that "More TV shows is not inherently a good idea."

If they are anything like Agents of SHIELD I'd go so far as to say that more TV shows is a bad idea. But it is a good idea to try a new medium in Netflix. Hopefully they are more enjoyable and more mature.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight

Am i the only one who feels that three films a year from Disney Marvel ontop of all the others from other studios will just lead to an oversaturation burnout?

There's possibility for that.

But what I'm worried about is the quality. IMO Agents of Shield is not a good show at all, the worst thing that came from Marvel Studios so far. Thor 2 disappointed me and even though I didn't hate Iron Man 3, some people reacted to it like as if its the worst thing ever.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight

Am i the only one who feels that three films a year from Disney Marvel ontop of all the others from other studios will just lead to an oversaturation burnout?

Why is "too many" superhero flicks in one year considered any more "oversaturation burnout" than "too many" horror films? Or "too many" bromances or rom-coms? Or "too many" cop dramas?

There's huge differences between the genre and tone of, say, an Iron Man movie versus a Thor movie, versus a Captain America movie, versus a GOTG movie, versus a Batman movie, versus an X-Men movie, versus a Spidey movie. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind would even consider these vastly different takes on a genre in danger of leading to "oversaturation burnout."

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Zarex

WB certainly has the characters to compete with Marvel, but given what I've heard about the MOS follow up I'm not certain the studio is playing its cards right.

True, but I'm not certain of the opposite either, not certain enough to bet Marvel Studios' health on anyway, especially as continuing the path they're on if WB really doesn't have the cards, they'll fold on the Superhero game before we get to Avengers 4 anyway.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Why is "too many" superhero flicks in one year considered any more "oversaturation burnout" than "too many" horror films? Or "too many" bromances or rom-coms? Or "too many" cop dramas?

Because horror/romance/drama films don't have to make 300M to break even and be considered a success.

Also, while superhero films vary in tone and setting, horror films vary widely in terms of character types, story arcs and outcomes, as well as tone and setting. So, there are fewer rules, and even when those are broken, the film is lauded for being groundbreaking not sniped because "I didn't see enough horror tropes." So there's more variety in horror, same with romantic comedies, so much so that they have sub categories like bromances. This is in addition to if a film is "one film too many" the company loses something like 30M instead of 300M.

And there can be too many cop dramas, they too have limited character types and settings.

[Dr. Evil]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Because horror/romance/drama films don't have to make 300M to break even and be considered a success.

Also, while superhero films vary in tone and setting, horror films vary widely in terms of character types, story arcs and outcomes, as well as tone and setting. So, there are fewer rules, and even when those are broken, the film is lauded for being groundbreaking not sniped because "I didn't see enough horror tropes." So there's more variety in horror, same with romantic comedies, so much so that they have sub categories like bromances. This is in addition to if a film is "one film too many" the company loses something like 30M instead of 300M.

And there can be too many cop dramas, they too have limited character types and settings.

The CBS Network disagrees.

[K'Prime]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Because horror/romance/drama films don't have to make 300M to break even and be considered a success.

Also, while superhero films vary in tone and setting, horror films vary widely in terms of character types, story arcs and outcomes, as well as tone and setting. So, there are fewer rules, and even when those are broken, the film is lauded for being groundbreaking not sniped because "I didn't see enough horror tropes." So there's more variety in horror, same with romantic comedies, so much so that they have sub categories like bromances. This is in addition to if a film is "one film too many" the company loses something like 30M instead of 300M.

And there can be too many cop dramas, they too have limited character types and settings.

how?alot of charcters types are the same.you have the bland hero,the jock,the wild party girl,maybe the nerd/stoner,alot of the time they end up getting separated and killed,alot of times in the shock you thought you were gonna get the axe here moment,then the sigh of relief,then the death
Immediately after way.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Because horror/romance/drama films don't have to make 300M to break even and be considered a success.

Also, while superhero films vary in tone and setting, horror films vary widely in terms of character types, story arcs and outcomes, as well as tone and setting. So, there are fewer rules, and even when those are broken, the film is lauded for being groundbreaking not sniped because "I didn't see enough horror tropes." So there's more variety in horror, same with romantic comedies, so much so that they have sub categories like bromances. This is in addition to if a film is "one film too many" the company loses something like 30M instead of 300M.

And there can be too many cop dramas, they too have limited character types and settings.

So X-Men, Batman 89, Daredevil, Blade, Punisher, Ghost Rider (the first) and Chronicle weren't considered "successes," because they didn't "break even" at 300 mil....? Okay.

The superhero genre does not *require* a $150 million budget. The upcoming Netflix shows showcasing Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Jessica Jones will be proof of that. Not all superheroes fly, fling enemies through skyscrapers, or shoot lightning bolts out of their ass. Some are just pretty ordinary dudes in some extraordinary circumstances.

[Silvermoth]

I agree op, it's a very clever way to make use of various different media too

[Dasher10]

When I say "almost" I mean that as two films and TV plans, possibly with a street level hero in a film released in the winter if there's a spring and summer film in that year, possibly the winter after every couple of years. I'm not suggesting that there be three films every year, at that point, the quality will go down as the producers won't be as involved and they'll just be rushing things out the door. I'd rather see longer phases than what we got for Phase 2 as new film franchises are added than see too much per year.

Also, Black Widow and Punisher shows if the first four are hits.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Dr. Evil

The CBS Network disagrees.

LOL!

They actually have flooded the Market, so if you come up with a new Cop drama it has to have some spectacular 'hook.'

Originally Posted by K'Prime

how?alot of charcters types are the same.you have the bland hero,the jock,the wild party girl,maybe the nerd/stoner,alot of the time they end up getting separated and killed,alot of times in the shock you thought you were gonna get the axe here moment,then the sigh of relief,then the death
Immediately after way.

Carrie didn't. The Purge didn't. Saw Didn't. Aliens didn't. There's films so much different than the typical "horror" movie that are horror. Superhero films don't have that.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

So X-Men, Batman 89, Daredevil, Blade, Punisher, Ghost Rider (the first) and Chronicle weren't considered "successes," because they didn't "break even" at 300 mil....? Okay.

The superhero genre does not *require* a $150 million budget. The upcoming Netflix shows showcasing Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Jessica Jones will be proof of that. Not all superheroes fly, fling enemies through skyscrapers, or shoot lightning bolts out of their ass. Some are just pretty ordinary dudes in some extraordinary circumstances.

I mean, you could use Superman '79 as an example at that rate. Yes, low budget superhero films don't need to make $300M, but we don't have many of those anymore, and we don't really have any coming up. WB isn't planning any low budget superhero films, neither is Sony, neither is Marvel Studios, as evidenced by them taking their lower budget superheroes and putting them on Netflix. But you're right, as I said earlier, they can do another low budget superhero film off season.

But the fact that the vast majority of the industry and all the much sought after characters require $300M, shows why there can be too many, even if there's room for a few more low budget franchises.

[The_Manhunter]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The backlash could definitely hit Marvel if WB plays its cards right. For a smaller set up like Marvel Studios it's the equivalent of going 'all in.' If that kind of bet is not necessary or you're not truly sure that the opponent has nothing to fire back with, it's best to just play smart and build slowly.

Like that will happen any time in the next century lol

[CyclopsWasRight]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

There's possibility for that.

But what I'm worried about is the quality. IMO Agents of Shield is not a good show at all, the worst thing that came from Marvel Studios so far. Thor 2 disappointed me and even though I didn't hate Iron Man 3, some people reacted to it like as if its the worst thing ever.

As time has passed i'm looking back on Thor 2 more fondly and want to see it again. I was quite Meg to it during and after.

However in the TV dept i agree, with Agents of Shield and Ultimate Deadpoolman and friends being what they are i'm concerned for these new Netflix shows.

I'm mostly looking forward to Iron Fist and Daredevil, hopefully those who pull the strings of AOS and US don't pull the strings on these