Disney/Marvel & ABC working on Avengers spin-off tv show?

[Whiskey Tango]

wow good thing that guy isn't in charge.

[SuperSAINT]

Nothing to stop Frank Castle or Matt Murdock showing up I suppose

[grout]

Originally Posted by Lord

We're talking about a tv show that is basically Comic to tv show but is also conected to the movies and that has Joss Whedon on the front, there's absolutelly nothing here to point that it will go wrong

IMO thats exactly what will go wrong, they cant even hardly do comic to movies most the time. Last you would have way too many variables to make it go right. It just a different beast alltogether and then to connect everything..On top of all that time, effort, writing, coordinating, timelines, marketing etc. there is no guarantee a tv series will do well ratings wise. Im not knocking the ideas or anything, just from my viewpoint it sounds a little cheesy. Just my 2 cents

Dont get me wrong I like Whedon and there are the die hard fans including myself of firefly series..But it didnt make it either. It would be cool though if they could get it right, i just cant see how. I hope to be wrong,, trust me.

[JB-the-Hunter]

How does it sound cheesy when there's nothing to go by? No plot, no cast, nothing. All we know is that Whedon and his crew will be involved and it will center around SHIELD. "Ooooh that sounds soo cheesy."

[grout]

Just the cable TV series in of itself sounds a little cheesy.. I hope to be wrong but yes it sounds cheesy IMO

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by SuperSAINT

Nothing to stop Frank Castle or Matt Murdock showing up I suppose

Punisher will definitely show up, though toned down from the movies, which I don't mind, as long as he's treated better as a character.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by grout

IMO thats exactly what will go wrong, they cant even hardly do comic to movies most the time. Last you would have way too many variables to make it go right. It just a different beast alltogether and then to connect everything..On top of all that time, effort, writing, coordinating, timelines, marketing etc. there is no guarantee a tv series will do well ratings wise. Im not knocking the ideas or anything, just from my viewpoint it sounds a little cheesy. Just my 2 cents

Dont get me wrong I like Whedon and there are the die hard fans including myself of firefly series..But it didnt make it either. It would be cool though if they could get it right, i just cant see how. I hope to be wrong,, trust me.

I didn't have the oportunity to watch Firefly yet but i loved Buffy and Angel, both lasted for a good period of time and had similarities to comic books and seemed like they were a little inspired by comic characters. Any tv show adaptation is a gamble, but comics to tv don't have a bad track record, all Superman tv shows were very successful, the Batman tv show is legendary, and The Incredible Hulk had a good run.

[Joeyjojo72]

Lord that whole post was a non sequitur. No need to respond. the unfortunate result of lead paint and cough syrup.

[grout]

Originally Posted by Lord

I didn't have the oportunity to watch Firefly yet but i loved Buffy and Angel, both lasted for a good period of time and had similarities to comic books and seemed like they were a little inspired by comic characters. Any tv show adaptation is a gamble, but comics to tv don't have a bad track record, all Superman tv shows were very successful, the Batman tv show is legendary, and The Incredible Hulk had a good run.

Yeah maybe your right,, i dont know why it just strikes me as a little cheesy.. As i said before I hope im wrong and certianly was going for some laughs regarding Mario and Mickey in the previous post.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Have a show about shield without any of its two leaders???

Sure, why not. The show isn't "Nick Fury", its "SHIELD." SHIELD is larger than any one person in it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hulk is more of a household name, but the audience factor is diffrent than you think. TIH had maybe 10 million viewers, about the same as a successfu TV show. A mega-successful TV show has 15+ million viewers. A barely successful TV show has 7-8 million viewers. There's not large divide between a successful TV show and Hulk or Captain America's viewership, and it may not necessarily be in the movie's favor. Thor and IM's movies on the other hand, totally different story.

that's assuming this show is widely successful... now, i coudln't find how many tickets were sold for TIH, but at the time i'd say movie tickets averaged about $12-$13. The film grossed $134,806,913 that divided by 12 = 11,233,909 so you're close with 10 million viewers. (of course not figuring in DVD sales either), and while your right, a good show typically has 10million viewers... the genre that this show is in... does not. The only big ones that did... have been Star Trek the Next Generation (which only hit 10million in 3 seasons (1991-1993), X-files (which did so throught majority of the series), Lost (which was always over 10million)

and one of the most acclaimed sci-fi shows... never even broke 4million (Battle Star Galactica) so... while it's possible, it doesn't mean this show will

Regardless, going with the Hawkeye example, I think it's a coincidence, because we have characters will absolutely no introduction, like Maria Hill, who weren't complained about. So logically there must be something else about Hawkeye other than not having an introduction that prompted whatever the complaints were.

she wasn't complained about because 1) she's no where near hawkeyes fanbase and ranking, she's a supporting character (and i've clearly stated supporting character will probably be able to make the jump) 2) hill's role in the film is self explanatory.. she needs no back story.

All the A list characters are already in the films, so I agree. The part you said I disagree with was that they can't bring characters with hero potential in. They most certainly can, as you suggest with Carol Danvers below.

I personally don't think B list characters can make the jump. unless, as i also said.. Carol could be a star of the show, but on film... a supporting character until she gets powered up, which shouldn't be on the show, but the film. you can't just simply add a flying woman with energy blasts coming out of her hand and not explain that kinda origin on film, because like i said.. more people are going to be watching the films than the television show.

It really depends on how popular the show is. If it's the new LOST/Heroes, then it'll have the same effect on the public consciousness as a moderately successful movie coming out. If it's just moderately or barely succesful, Whedon could still power her up in the films, assuming that's the way he's going.

agrees. but because of this reason. i would not stick a big, known avenger like (Ms Marvel, Vision, Wasp, Ant-Man, Scarlet Witch, Wonder-Man, Tigra, Quicksilver, Falcon, Spider-Woman or luke cage) as a main cast member of a television show (unless they currently have no foreseeable desire to bring them to film). IF the show flops.. so does the heroes chances on screen. Where they potentially could have done better.

which is why i suggest, if they were to go with Carol, keep her a shield agent, bring her in as a supporting shield agent in a film, have her powered up on film, and then bring her back on the show with such power. It's less risky

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

Sure, why not. The show isn't "Nick Fury", its "SHIELD." SHIELD is larger than any one person in it.

But if you're going to do a show about an organization, and not show the people who are in charge of that organization, not only is it disappointing to people who like those characters, but it also dramatically limits the stories you can tell. That's why I wonder if Sam isn't involved or something.

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

that's assuming this show is widely successful... now, i coudln't find how many tickets were sold for TIH, but at the time i'd say movie tickets averaged about $12-$13. The film grossed $134,806,913 that divided by 12 = 11,233,909 so you're close with 10 million viewers. (of course not figuring in DVD sales either), and while your right, a good show typically has 10million viewers... the genre that this show is in... does not. The only big ones that did... have been Star Trek the Next Generation (which only hit 10million in 3 seasons (1991-1993), X-files (which did so throught majority of the series), Lost (which was always over 10million)

and one of the most acclaimed sci-fi shows... never even broke 4million (Battle Star Galactica) so... while it's possible, it doesn't mean this show will

I agree. It's not guaranteed to be one of the most successful genre shows of all time. It's certainly positioned to be, which is why it was greenlit and ordered so quickly, but it's not guaranteed. Joss Whedon might lose all his skill at running shows or telling stories, or he just might not give it his best effort. But consider the alternative, that things will continue as they have been. It's one thing to be critically acclaimed on the Sci-fi channel, or even on Fox that pushes you around. It's another thing to be on ABC - a real Network TV station who is chomping at the bit to have you- who is the host of the last mega-successful show and be a show "From the director of the Avengers," and a (Very) successful movie director Whedon'll be able to pull known movie actors to TV and add more star power to the marquee... and then be critically acclaimed on top of that? Not a guarantee, I know, but... And then you just know ABC is going to market the frick out of the thing, because they know all this, and they would love to have another LOST. And don't let the pilot be as awesome as it probably will be - Joss Whedon is even better on TV, imho, than he is in film - ABC'll be all over that. "New York Times says 'The Best New Show on Television' the Boston Globe says "I thought I was watching a movie." "Did we mention if you liked Avengers you'll love this show?" Yadda yadda yadda. And it's not like they're selling dinosaurs or time travel. They're selling secret agents. Historically a pretty danged good bet on Television. Still not a guarantee, but I'd be flatly surprised if it wasn't successful. So much would have to go wrong for it to fail, it's not funny. I wouldn't be surprised if it were mega-successful. I can't think of a show in the history of television better positioned to be so. Has a beloved critically acclaimed TV director/showrunner turned Billion dollar movie director ever come back to do a TV show before? Was it for a spinoff from a billion dollar film?

Optimism isn't unreasonable here. Excitement is really a reasonable response. I'm really doubtful that planning on it flopping is prudent here. I'll explain why in that second to last section.

she wasn't complained about because 1) she's no where near hawkeyes fanbase and ranking, she's a supporting character (and i've clearly stated supporting character will probably be able to make the jump) 2) hill's role in the film is self explanatory.. she needs no back story.

What were the complaints, exactly? All I heard was a few fans complaining about his screen time being so small, which is not something that would happen with, say, Ms. Marvel because A) Whedon is almost assuredly going to give her plenty of screen time B) She doesn't have a large a fanbase to be upset about it if not. Was there some other complaint that might apply to Ms. Marvel, or even Luke Cage or Spider-Woman, that I'm missing?

I personally don't think B list characters can make the jump. unless, as i also said.. Carol could be a star of the show, but on film... a supporting character until she gets powered up, which shouldn't be on the show, but the film. you can't just simply add a flying woman with energy blasts coming out of her hand and not explain that kinda origin on film, because like i said.. more people are going to be watching the films than the television show.

But the point we got to with the Hulk is that more people watch the Avengers films than watch the solo films, so historically, everyone not seeing the origin is okay, and still makes for a billion dollar team up film. I don't know what the magic number is, but, based on our analysis of Hulk, it's not more than 12 million people. A TV show can do that if it's very successful, because as many people will have seen the TV show as the lesser solo movies. So a TV show can have the same effect as a solo film, as far as explaining origins.

There's no magic law that says: If it's on TV, less people have seen it.

agrees. but because of this reason. i would not stick a big, known avenger like (Ms Marvel, Vision, Wasp, Ant-Man, Scarlet Witch, Wonder-Man, Tigra, Quicksilver, Falcon, Spider-Woman or luke cage) as a main cast member of a television show (unless they currently have no foreseeable desire to bring them to film). IF the show flops.. so does the heroes chances on screen. Where they potentially could have done better.

I definitely wouldn't take that route, because it's unlikely any of those other films will even be made, except for Ant-Man. Yes, there's a risk involved, but the payoff is potentially the greatest genre show ever, and an even better more hyped up deeper Avengers franchise.

The opposite take is what I was getting at earlier. When you hold back on an effort, when you save your best for some far flung low priority future project that may never come, you lose. Not only is your current effort less appealing because you're holding back the good stuff, but because of the failure of the current project, you may never get a chance to get to the future project and it's just lose lose. The $5 bin at the store is littered with would-be franchises that used such hold it back thinking. This is also why you'll repeatedly hear successful filmmakers say "we haven't planned out the sequel" yet, because they know you've got to go for broke every time to make it big. Or even if the current project works, you still may not ever get to the future project for any number of other reasons. If you use a more expendable cast, the show becomes more expendable to the audience. If there's no chance that these people will be in the Avengers, then much of the appeal of the MCU - that the main characters will become Avengers - is removed from the show, and it just becomes a show for avid Marvel fanboys instead of anyone who likes the Avengers.

So, in my understanding of marketing, "playing it safe" and "holding back" actually carries the greater risk than giving your best effort to make the TV show as awesome and appealing as it can possibly be, instead of hedging bets based on the idea that it will fail. You can bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

Now it's possible I may not want to waste the work done on these movie scripts, so I'd go with a character that Feige doesn't already have a script for, but other than that, definitely no holding back. It really doesn't matter to me if a movie that may never be made could potentially have done better.

which is why i suggest, if they were to go with Carol, keep her a shield agent, bring her in as a supporting shield agent in a film, have her powered up on film, and then bring her back on the show with such power. It's less risky

I agree if the show isn't wildly successful. Since that decision will be made after we know how successful the show is, we can give two answers. If the show is just your average TV show, do what you say. If it's wildly successful (12+ million viewers) then they can power her up on the show, and it will have the same effect as powering her up in an origin film, and it would be riskier not to do, because then you'd be wasting film time with something you could have accomplished better on television.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

But if you're going to do a show about an organization, and not show the people who are in charge of that organization, not only is it disappointing to people who like those characters, but it also dramatically limits the stories you can tell. That's why I wonder if Sam isn't involved or something.



I agree. It's not guaranteed to be one of the most successful genre shows of all time. It's certainly positioned to be, which is why it was greenlit and ordered so quickly, but it's not guaranteed. Joss Whedon might lose all his skill at running shows or telling stories, or he just might not give it his best effort. But consider the alternative, that things will continue as they have been. It's one thing to be critically acclaimed on the Sci-fi channel, or even on Fox that pushes you around. It's another thing to be on ABC - who is chomping at the bit to have you- who is the host of the last mega-successful show and be a show "From the director of the Avengers," and a (Very) successful movie director Whedon'll be able to pull known movie actors to TV and add more star power to the marquee... and then be critically acclaimed on top of that? Not a guarantee, I know, but... And then you just know ABC is going to market the frick out of the thing, because they know all this, and they would love to have another LOST. And don't let the pilot be as awesome as it probably will be - Joss Whedon is even better on TV, imho, than he is in film - ABC'll be all over that. "New York Times says 'The Best New Show on Television' the Boston Globe says "I thought I was watching a movie." "Did we mention if you liked Avengers you'll love this show?" Yadda yadda yadda. Not a guarantee, but I'd be flatly surprised if it wasn't successful. So much would have to go wrong for it to fail, it's not funny. I wouldn't be surprised if it were mega-successful. I can't think of a show in the history of television better positioned to be so. Has a beloved critically acclaimed TV director/showrunner turned Billion dollar movie director ever come back to do a TV show before? Was it for a spinoff from a billion dollar film?

Optimism isn't unreasonable here. Excitement is really a reasonable response.

And you know we can't compare DVD sales (or foreign markets or later TV showings), cuz we don't have those numbers for TV.



What were the complaints, exactly? All I heard was a few fans complaining about his screen time being so small, which is not something that would happen with, say, Ms. Marvel because A) Whedon is almost assuredly going to give her plenty of screen time B) She doesn't have a large a fanbase to be upset about it if not. Was there some other complaint that might apply to Ms. Marvel, or even Luke Cage or Spider-Woman, that I'm missing?



But the point we got to with the Hulk is that more people watch the Avengers films than watch the solo films, so historically, everyone not seeing the origin is okay, and still makes for a billion dollar team up film. I don't know what the magic number is, but, based on our analysis of Hulk, it's not more than 12 million people. A TV show can do that if it's very successful, because as many people will have seen the TV show as the lesser solo movies. So a TV show can have the same effect as a solo film, as far as explaining origins.

There's no magic law that says: If it's on TV, less people have seen it.



I definitely wouldn't take that route, because it's unlikely any of those other films will even be made, except for Ant-Man. Yes, there's a risk involved, but the payoff is potentially the greatest genre show ever, and an even better more hyped up deeper Avengers franchise.

The opposite take is what I was getting at earlier. When you hold back on an effort, when you save your best for some far flung low priority future project that may never come, you lose. Not only is your current effort less appealing because you're holding back the good stuff, but because of the failure of the current project, you may never get a chance to get to the future project and it's just lose lose. The $5 bin at the store is littered with would-be franchises that used such hold it back thinking. This is also why you'll repeatedly hear successful filmmakers say "we haven't planned out the sequel" yet, because they know you've got to go for broke every time to make it big. Or even if the current project works, you still may not ever get to the future project for any number of other reasons. If you use a more expendable cast, the show becomes more expendable to the audience. If there's no chance that these people will be in the Avengers, then much of the appeal of the MCU - that the main characters will become Avengers - is removed from the show, and it just becomes a show for avid Marvel fanboys instead of anyone who likes the Avengers.

So, in my understanding of marketing, "playing it safe" and "holding back" actually carries the greater risk than giving your best effort to make the TV show as awesome and appealing as it can possibly be, instead of hedging bets based on the idea that it will fail. You can bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

Now it's possible I may not want to waste the work done on these movie scripts, so I'd go with a character that Feige doesn't already have a script for, but other than that, definitely no holding back. It really doesn't matter to me if a movie that may never be made could potentially have done better.



I agree if the show isn't wildly successful. Since that decision will be made after we know how successful the show is, we can give two answers. If the show is just your average TV show, do what you say. If it's wildly successful (12+ million viewers) then they can power her up on the show, and it will have the same effect as powering her up in an origin film, and it would be riskier not to do, because then you'd be wasting film time with something you could have accomplished better on television.

i never said those characters would get solo films....... most wont. im talking about AVENGERS sequels.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

i never said those characters would get solo films....... most wont. im talking about AVENGERS sequels.

Oh, my bad. I misunderstood. I still have the same point though. They're low priority characters, you would most likely be saving them for nothing.

[TheHeatKitchen]

My recommendations/preferences with it are:

1) Keep it slightly lesser known characters (i.e. Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Mockingbird)

2) Keep away from a lot of special effects, as they often times end up being expensive (which can ruin a show if it doesn't get the ratings to support it) or cheesy... this is why I chose those three characters. you could throw in Punisher and/or Daredevil as well

3) Keep the team small... four heroes and one or two known background agents, maybe Sharon Carter.

4) Significantly limit cameos. Try to get Fury and Hill for the Pilot, but after that, make it focus around one key squad within SHIELD, like an amalgamation of "West Coast Avengers" or "Secret Avengers." However, you definitely make regular references to the "board," Fury and Hill, as well as some to the Avengers members and the threats they've had to fight i.e. Loki, Abomination, AIM, HYRDA, whatever.

5) Do NOT try to directly tie this into the movies. Have it exist in the same universe, but don't tie the plots in together. There would be character crossover, obviously. But don't try to have a crossover with the Thanos story or anything. That could get ugly.


With those stipulations, I'm thinking something like Fury gets a veteran agent (let's use Niles Nordstrom) to put together a team to fight local threats that the public doesn't need to know about. Nordstrom recruits current SHIELD agent Sharon Carter (possibly just a filler) and a team consisting of Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Mockingbird and Daredevil/Punisher). Their primary mission is to take down a worldwide criminal organization, maybe use a setup with AIM from IM3.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Oh, my bad. I misunderstood. I still have the same point though. They're low priority characters, you would most likely be saving them for nothing.

not really.. not when they're still top avengers...

it'd be like saying "lets make a tv show with Storm and Nightcrawler... they can't carry a solo film, so it really doesn't matter if they're in an X-men film.. because they're no Cyclops or Wolverine... "

we're not talking about Hellcat, BlackKnight, or Moondragon here...

[Dark Raven]

Neal McDonagh isn't doing much these days is he? If Dum Dum had existed in the present in the MCU he could've headed up the SHIELD tv series.

Even Coulson could have if he had still been around.

Maybe Clay Quartermain will be the main character. He seems like he would be charismatic enough to be the lead.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Neal McDonagh isn't doing much these days is he? If Dum Dum had existed in the present in the MCU he could've headed up the SHIELD tv series.

Even Coulson could have if he had still been around.

Maybe Clay Quartermain will be the main character. He seems like he would be charismatic enough to be the lead.

agrees, clay would be wise, and you could probably bring back dum dum, as long as they explain it...

and... i really wouldnt be shocked if coulson found a way to return

[Sawyer]

Neal McDonough is one of the stars of Frank Darabont's LA Noir pilot, which I'm praying gets picked up.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

and... i really wouldnt be shocked if coulson found a way to return

Agent Jill Colton, Coulson's cellist friend, is the newest agent of SHIELD. (played by Clark Gregg in drag)

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Agent Jill Colton, Coulson's cellist friend, is the newest agent of SHIELD. (played by Clark Gregg in drag)

You know what, I'd actually approve of this.

[TheHeatKitchen]

You guys don't think Dum Dum would be too old at this point?

[Majik1387]

It could all depend how they'd include him if at all.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

not really.. not when they're still top avengers...

it'd be like saying "lets make a tv show with Storm and Nightcrawler... they can't carry a solo film, so it really doesn't matter if they're in an X-men film.. because they're no Cyclops or Wolverine... "

we're not talking about Hellcat, BlackKnight, or Moondragon here...

They might be top Avengers to us, but in terms of the films, Cap, IM, Thor and Hulk are the top Avengers, everyone else is supporting cast, no matter how much screentime they get.

Storm was in the first X-Men film and Nightcrawler was the new addition to the second, so those would better analogize to, say, Thor and Falcon, respectively. Making a TV show for a teammate who is not in the films and not planned to be in the films, but simply might be in the films one day would be more like "Let's make a TV show about Gambit and Bishop." Big players in the comics. Virtual nobodies in terms of mass media. Now perhaps it flops and you can't use Gambit in Wolverine Origins one day... perhaps for the better. Though, you can't tell if Bishop will ever be used or not, or if using him will be a good or bad thing. There's no use in making a show about Marrow and Maggot, which is more likely to fail, to make way for something that may never happen and might not even be better for your provision. It's so much riskier because you can lose twice so easily.

I think I've made my point pretty clearly on this, I'm good. We can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by TheHeatKitchen

You guys don't think Dum Dum would be too old at this point?

Yeah, if he was in his 40s, he's in his 110s now. I hadn't made that calculation when I listed him. And with Cap frozen and likely Bucky too, it'd be too convenient for him to survive to the future, y'know? Now they could certainly go back and do a storyline where the find a way to bring him from the past, or explore how he survives to the present, but he can't start out as a series regular.

[spideyboy_1111]

I still wish he'd be vision