Future TV shows from Marvel?

Didn't it make twice it's budget back? And which other projects for TV do they have under the table by the way? :)

It cost $78 million. They pulled in $179 WW. You factor in marketing costs and the studios actual take, no ..... it's not likely they took home twice the budget. Then again, these kinds of movies also rely on merchandising and TV rights for profit.

Critically though as someone mentioned before, it most definitely was a bomb. As far as other projects, couldn't tell you.
 
I'm being serious. I'm not really known for having access to info like this, but you know I'm not into BS'ing and wasting people's time on here either. Nothing is a guarantee in life, but the project is on the table. I was hoping my connection was going to land a movie gig because I am dying to go on a set visit. Ah well. LOL

When I sat and thought about it, the DD franchise does seem well-suited for a TV series though. It's also a safe route to build up some good faith in the character given how badly the original film bombed.

An on set visit to that could be very, very cool.

Another thing about DD is, he's also very connected to other characters. It would be easy for him to have a guest appearance/team up with other characters like Jessica Jones, Power man and Iron Fist, White Tiger and even Moon Knight.

Plus, lots and lots of Ninjas.
 
Law enforcement agencies us advanced facial recognition software routinely to identify criminals. A few good videos of Batman in action would be enough material to blow his identity very quickly since his entire lower face is exposed. He's not Superman so he doesn't move fast enough to blur his image on camera.

Several things to take into account:
1) In a more realistic world, Batman would cover his entire face. The reason Bruce doesn't cover his whole face in the DC universe is the same reason as to why Robin doesn't do it - it is enough of a disguise in that particular universe.
2) Batman is barely ever seen in public and whenever he is seen, the most people see is his shadows or silhouette before he disappears into the night. Superman constantly makes public appearances in broad daylight on the other hand.
3) What you are talking about is not the same thing Loki882 is talking about. There are mountains of difference between using advanced tech to deduct Batman's identity and "his secret identity is clearly obvious and can be deduced in 2 seconds".

Perhaps I spent too much of my youth reading Superman comics in which the character uses super-ventriloquism and/or super-hypnotism in order to, yet again, put one over on ace reporter Lois Lane.

That was back in the Silver Age. Today's explanation for why people buy the Clark Kent disguise is that nobody would believe a godlike being such as Superman is actually human at heart and would want to live among "inferior beings". Is that idea executed in the best way possible? Maybe not. They probably do need an update of some sort on how Clark physically disguises himself (maybe a fake wig and fake facial hair on top of just the glasses (whatever)), but the idea of people not expecting Superman to live among them as a human still works IMO, and is a lot more of a believable idea than the pseudo-hypnotism of the 1960's.

But given the various technologies commonly available to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public, the idea that someone could keep their identity secret from someone who had the means and the motivation to find it is nonsensical.

Here is the problem though: Where exactly do you start looking? Most of the superheroes with secret identities are random nobodies on the street. How do you trace, for example, Spider-Man back to Peter Parker?

Sure that we have the tech, but the only way to find your average superhero's secret identity is to completely go against the law & Constitution and to violate everyone's privacy by having everybody personally monitored 24/7. Sure that government has been doing just that for the past few years, but they have yet to take it to that huge degree. And assuming that the Marvel universe has at least a decent democracy, they're probably not doing any of that at all.

At the very least it is important to update the old secret identity trope. The Avengers addressed this to a certain degree by having SHIELD responsible for keeping prying eyes away from Banner, and perhaps the Man of Steel sequel will use government intervention as a way to explain why no one who can profit from the information notices that the burly reporter and the flying alien share a remarkable number of facial similarities. For DD, I like the idea that his identity is an open secret of sorts, but higher ups in law enforcement welcome his help and don't expend much energy trying to catch Matt Murdock putting on his devil horns.

You're right that they do need to update the secret identity thing. And in my opinion, they already have. As others have said, the secret identity is no longer the default status given to every superhero. We now give secret identities based on whether or not there is a good reason to give a character a secret identity and most of the characters that still have SI's today have them for a good reason IMO.

Also, I'm not fond of Daredevil not having a secret identity. Street-level superheroes are the ones that need an SI the most. Matt Murdock's career as a lawyer would not survive a day if people found out he is a vigilante that beats the crap out of thugs at night. In Born Again, Kingpin found out Daredevil is Matt Murdock and Matt got all his bank accounts frozen.

I actually agree with this. However, I do think the secret identity *as default* has outlived its usefulness, as has the idea of "secret identity as absolutely sacrosanct." Characters should have secret identities only if there is actually a good reason, and it should only be as strong as it actually needs to be. Note that Daredevil's secret ID has, of late, become somewhat of an open secret. . . which actually still kind of works for the guy.

Well said. :up:
 
About Superman's identity i think they should give him the power to change the muscles in his face back, as well as being able to change his voice a little, otherwise it doesn't make sence for many to not realise they're the same person.
 
I'd personally like to see Daredevil and the Punisher.
Heroes For Hire would be a good fit for TV too.
 
I still have to read some Heroes for Hire stories, but Daredevil and the Punisher would work perfectly on TV. Some Punisher comics even seem like episodes from a tv show.
 
I'm being serious. I'm not really known for having access to info like this, but you know I'm not into BS'ing and wasting people's time on here either. Nothing is a guarantee in life, but the project is on the table. I was hoping my connection was going to land a movie gig because I am dying to go on a set visit. Ah well. LOL

When I sat and thought about it, the DD franchise does seem well-suited for a TV series though. It's also a safe route to build up some good faith in the character given how badly the original film bombed.
I hope it happens. Daredevil is the perfect vehicle to introduce street-level Marvel, especially on TV.
 
I want a Heroes for Hire show.

I want it to be kind of like an industry. Like the newest series with Misty Knight as Control (except without puppet master in there). I think it should start small like Iron Fist and Luke Cage but eventually grow. You would only need 2-5 heroes per episode. I think this show could be epic
 
You could get, like, ten seasons out of a Daredevil show. ugh marvel just make it happen
 
I hope that Marvel quickly embraces the Netflix platform like Arrested Development, and tries out some mini-series and one-shots.
 
Now that you mention it, Daredevil could work on Netflix
 
It cost $78 million. They pulled in $179 WW. You factor in marketing costs and the studios actual take, no ..... it's not likely they took home twice the budget. Then again, these kinds of movies also rely on merchandising and TV rights for profit.

Critically though as someone mentioned before, it most definitely was a bomb. As far as other projects, couldn't tell you.
Yeah i used the wrong words, i should have said grossed. Nowadays a film usually has to make two times it's budget back in order to make some money back, and since it did it wasn't really a financial flop.
 
Does Disney own any cable channels? I always thought the Punisher would make a great premium cable tv show akin to Strike Back on cinemax. Bring back Thomas jane and make it happen Marvel
 
T"Challa;26922343 said:
Does Disney own any cable channels? I always thought the Punisher would make a great premium cable tv show akin to Strike Back on cinemax. Bring back Thomas jane and make it happen Marvel

None that are adult oriented.
 
After watching the fabulous Agent Carter One Shot, I would like to see an Agent Carter show or at least a tv movie.
 
After watching the fabulous Agent Carter One Shot, I would like to see an Agent Carter show or at least a tv movie.

I'm for that but I must confess that I would also watch Hayley Atwell sit in a rocking hair reading a freaking phone book with curlers in her hair. My bias to her is humongous.
 
That's kind of my deal with Emma Stone, that woman is a goddess.
 
They'd probably go for someone older, but Jesse Plemons (that bastard Todd on Breaking Bad) would make a good Matt Murdock IMO
 
Disney owns half of A&E, which is the network that features Bates Motel and Longmire, two shows that are not family friendly.
 
I think The Punisher, Daredevil or Luke Cage could make a great TV series, basically any of the heroes with little to no super-powers could make a TV series as then you wouldnt need an extensive CGI budget.

Similar to Arrow which doesnt cost a lot I believe.
 
When I was watching the Shield pilot, I thought: "Ooooh, is this guy Luke Cage." But I did a quick Google search and found nearly as soon as I asked the question that he wasn't.

And while I have no idea where they intend to take the show, I have a bad feeling that - as we've seen historically - ABC will be afraid to show us real superheroes and stick to kind of, sort of superheroes that don't really match what we get in the comics.

Sure, the TV budgets are lower, but I can't see why they can't give us something close to the comic characters. I watched Smallville for several years expecting that we'd actually see Superman at some point, but after a while it became clear that they just wanted to show us Clark.

I'm afraid ABC's intention (and maybe I'm being premature and unfair) will be to follow that model and never really give us what we want. I guess time will tell.
 
The reason Smallville never showed much of Superman was because they didn't have the budget for it. Note the awful JSA costumes in the one episode.
 
Once the hype of AOS being part of the MCU wears off it'll be interesting to see how it maintains interest and quality.

People seem gung-ho about getting as many heroes with their own series as soon as possible. Imo, it's best to wait and see how Marvel actually fares at a TV show first.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"