2016 films

[Heliflyer]

Well I just think that not every good movie or successful movie should have a sequel or should be turned into a series. Marvel has a lot of properties, if they continuously make a sequel for every movie that they released, they wouldn't have a lot of room for their other properties that haven't had a film yet.

Not how Hollywood works; it may be how you wish it works, but it is not.

Hollywood's prime formula is find something that works and makes money and then repeat.....repeat......repeat.....After Strange makes money, it will get sequels - and I guarantee they are looking at Strange as being the hub for Phase 3 films, and going into Phase 4. They are hoping Strange becomes a sort of "new glue" to hold the different direction the studio will go, much like Tony Stark/IM has been for Phase 1 and 2.

 

[Heliflyer]

I see lots of wish lists, but as much as it is going to pain the dreamers, a solo Black Panther film simply is not in the works. Don't plan on seeing it anytime soon.

2016 for Marvel will be:

Doctor Strange
New solo Hulk Film

 

[Spider-Vader]

I think 2016 will be the year Marvel finally tries 3 movies a year.

Thor 3
Dr Strange
Black Panther or Captain (Ms) Marvel

 

[blalex620]

I see lots of wish lists, but as much as it is going to pain the dreamers, a solo Black Panther film simply is not in the works. Don't plan on seeing it anytime soon.

2016 for Marvel will be:

Doctor Strange
New solo Hulk Film

And what gave you this assumption? There's been more evidence to say that Marvel is actually looking at the character than that Marvel isn't. I mean they have a script written for it......

 

[psylockolussus]

A new solo Hulk film looks unlikely at this point.

 

[Mr.M]

March 2016: Thor 3
May 2016: ASM 3
June: 2016: MoS 2
July 2016: The Wolverine 2
November 2016: Dr. Strange

 

[Heliflyer]

And what gave you this assumption? There's been more evidence to say that Marvel is actually looking at the character than that Marvel isn't. I mean they have a script written for it......

Really? Your source please?

Not trying to pee in your cornflakes, but that just is not true. There are rumors of it; there is talk of it; but if you look where that talk is, it is not coming out of Marvel Studios, it is coming from a very small but vocal fan-boy sect.

Don't expect a solo BP movie anytime soon.

As for what gave me this "assumption" - do yourself a favor (again, HTML is a hard medium to detect tone, and I am not being snarky or mean here) and put down the Internet websites - get a subscription to "Variety" or any of the trades. There are many reliable sources in those pages, inside-sources, that all say this. And, give one example of a confirmed higher up at Marvel saying a BP movie is coming to fruition and has a script - Stan Lee's speculation, while cool, is not a Marvel Studios source - there is no confirmed source for the script.

WHat I am saying is, do not base your hopes and opinions on website speculations and rumors. If you want the inside skinny, go to the trades, move to Hollywood, go to some lunches and listen in on the conversations (yes, I live in LA and yes, I "sorta" work in entertainment - I am a helicopter pilot that works for an avaiation company that specializes in heli-work for movies/tv etc....I am around the actual sources ALL the time - often in the chopper where we talk and joke around).

I applaud your dedication as a fan, but there is no plan as yet to develop BP into a full solo movie.

 

[Heliflyer]

I think 2016 will be the year Marvel finally tries 3 movies a year.

Thor 3
Dr Strange
Black Panther or Captain (Ms) Marvel

Not in Phase 3. MAYBE they might try for three during Phase 4, but the Phase 3 schedule is established with a six-month lag between films - with the DVD/Download releases of the films falling in between the six-month schedule to keep fan interest up and going.

 

[Lord]

They should really do Captain Marvel while Thanos is still around.

 

[psylockolussus]

Hope
May 2016 = Dr. Strange
May 2017 = Black Panther

Think
May 2016 = Iron Man 4 or Thor 3
May 2017 = The Avengers 3 or Iron Man 4

 

[Hypestyle]

i hope both films are something cool and that I am involved with them in some capacity.

 

[spideymouse]

Welp, looks like [everyone] was right about TASM3.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'm glad they aren't breaking the 2 year gap.

They probably learned something from the original Spider-Man series. I wasn't happy when we had to wait 3 years for SM3 then 4 years for SM4 then the cancellation for SM4 happened.

Hopefully, they can release at least 7 films with Andrew Garfield as the Amazing Spider-Man.

 

[Mr.M]

I think you do 4 films. After that, people will be pretty sick of solo Spidey movies IMO. Maybe re-do the Venom saga for 5-6, but I'd try to work out some crossover deals by then.

 

[Zarex]

Actually, I think that the Sony's aggressive Spider-man release schedule bodes well for future collaboration between Sony and Disney/Marvel on future Spidey films. After the 7th solo adventure in 17 years, the GA will likely be tapped out on Spider-man films and Sony will be looking for a way to reinvigorate the franchise. Within a month of the fourth Garfield (presumably) film, Marvel will (likely) be wrapping up their third Avengers film with the original cast. At virtually the same time both Sony and Disney/Marvel will be looking to keep the money flowing from their biggest franchises, and what better way to do that than to have Spider-man (Mike Morales?) integrated into the MCU for the next series of Avengers films (Marvel) and solo outings (Sony)?

 

[Spider-Vader]

By that time it's be too late to tie ASM into the MCU. They either do it in the sequel or they don't do it at all

 

[spideymouse]

By that time it's be too late to tie ASM into the MCU. They either do it in the sequel or they don't do it at all

That's a bit short-sighted. The MCU is going to continue far past Phase Two.

That said, until Disney buys Sony or pays a handsome fee for the Spidey rights (which is basically the same as buying Sony at this point), I don't see Spider-Man joining the MCU at all. Sony will keep rebooting him, like Batman. He has a big enough rogues gallery and supporting cast, and he's a popular enough character to sustain multiple full film series from reboots and recasts and refreshes over and over.

 

[Mr.M]

I think Sony's returns will start to level off by ASM 3-4. They will look for some co-finance support. That's when you work Spidey into the next set of Avenger movies. New Avengers or whatever.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I actually think they'll continue on an on for as long as possible and just simply recast. The previous films will be part of the continuity (Bond-style). If these upcoming sequels continue to grow in popularity leading into a Sinister Six film, then why reboot if you have created this type of momentum? That's what Sony is planning on I'm sure. Talent change is inevitable, but you keep the established universe. A director can even bring his own aesthetic to the table, again, similar to the Bond franchise.

 

[spideymouse]

I actually think they'll continue on an on for as long as possible and just simply recast. The previous films will be part of the continuity (Bond-style). If these upcoming sequels continue to grow in popularity leading into a Sinister Six film, then why reboot if you have created this type of momentum? That's what Sony is planning on I'm sure. Talent change is inevitable, but you keep the established universe. A director can even bring his own aesthetic to the table, again, similar to the Bond franchise.

Absolutely agree with you as long as they don't screw up continuity like the first trilogy did and the way the X-Men franchise did. They're definitely building to a Sinister Six film or films, for sure. That sort of momentum-building makes sequels more and more successful (see Avengers and Iron Man 3), not less and less.

 

[Zarex]

I think Sony's returns will start to level off by ASM 3-4. They will look for some co-finance support. That's when you work Spidey into the next set of Avenger movies. New Avengers or whatever.

That's what I'm thinking. Bond is constantly used as an example of a character that can be rebooted time and time again successfully over the decades. But a large part of Bond's appeal is that he travels to exotic locations, kills without remorse and sleeps around - not a great template for a family friendly superhero.

By May of 2018, Sony and Marvel will likely be saying goodbye to Garfield and the big three of Downey, Evans and Hemsworth, respectively. If both studios are looking to reboot their key franchises successfully, Sony and Marvel are going to have to give their audiences something new, and they can do that by working together.

 

[psylockolussus]

I think you do 4 films. After that, people will be pretty sick of solo Spidey movies IMO. Maybe re-do the Venom saga for 5-6, but I'd try to work out some crossover deals by then.

As long as they earn 450 million (worldwide) per movie. I think its all good.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

That's what I'm thinking. Bond is constantly used as an example of a character that can be rebooted time and time again successfully over the decades. But a large part of Bond's appeal is that he travels to exotic locations, kills without remorse and sleeps around - not a great template for a family friendly superhero.

Bonds appeal has often waned. Other then the first few Connery films and the recent Skyfall, Bond is hardly a box office juggernaut every time out. Solid/decent sized hits for the most part, and often mediocre in terms of the films and reviews. But Broccoli, Saltzman and MGM stayed the course. Both are escapist in nature, but beyond that the comparison should end. The real point is that a continued universe is possible for an extended period of time. Nobody is expecting 50 years of film continuity from Spidey at Sony, but 6, 7, 8 films with this series continuity is possible if the films are good and Sony decides to go this route. By that time (or after that time) I wouldn't be surprised if Spidey is already integrated into the MCU in some capacity.

 

[Mr.M]

As long as they earn 450 million (worldwide) per movie. I think its all good.

That's a joke right? Or you are just misinformed. Studios have to put in 150-300 million for tentpoles these days with marketing and the works. They take in 15-20% from foreign box office, just over 50% for domestic box office. Then chop off taxes from whatever that amount is. Basically, ASM broke even at the box office, and they made their profit off blue ray and cable fees.

 

[psylockolussus]

So are you saying 450 million (worldwide) per movie is not good?