The Winter Soldier If this is most Avengers-related, why is it coming second?

[Gr0oT]

Like others mentioned it just made sense to capitalize off of the Avengers success by following up with Marvel Studios most popular character, and I suppose it was also appropriate to start off the 2nd Phase of the MCU with the one that help make it possible.

TFA was the 2nd least successful MCU movie, and it preceded the Avengers, it would have been a bit much for the general public to have another Captain America follow it.

Since we son't know where CATWS fits in with IM3 chronologically we still have no idea whether or not SHIELD's absence "makes sense." It could very well be that the turmoil and treachery that will happen inside SHIELD in the film was what prevented the spy agency from intervening in Tony Stark's woes.

I'm pretty curious about the chronology as well, IM3 takes place 6 months after the Avengers, and I think T:TDW is 1 year after the Avengers, AoS concurrent to it.

Unlike Thor there needs to be an explanation as why the biggest intelligence organization was absent and uninvolved when a terrorist organization had the country under siege and the President gets abducted and somehow Captain America is unavailable!

Did the AoS show even address this, they sure incorporate Extremis into their storyline but I suppose side stepping that whole situation would be another of the shows shortcomings.

i'm just saying, they broke the pattern is all. i figured they didn't do another hulk since the first wasn't so popular nor the boot before it.

or preboot, if you will.

Although TIH was originally scripted as a direct sequel to Ang's Hulk it was later decided that it wouldn't be and it irks me that people still think of it as connected. If Ang's Hulk never existed I bet TIH would have had more fruitful profits...

Anyways I don't think it was ever the intention of Marvel Studios to stick to a steady pattern, apart from ending each Phase with an Avenger's movie. Patterns don't work when you have limited slots per phase and need to introduce new properties.

 

[cherokeesam]

Like others mentioned it just made sense to capitalize off of the Avengers success by following up with Marvel Studios most popular character, and I suppose it was also appropriate to start off the 2nd Phase of the MCU with the one that help make it possible.

TFA was the 2nd least successful MCU movie, and it preceded the Avengers, it would have been a bit much for the general public to have another Captain America follow it.



I'm pretty curious about the chronology as well, IM3 takes place 6 months after the Avengers, and I think T:TDW is 1 year after the Avengers, AoS concurrent to it.

Unlike Thor there needs to be an explanation as why the biggest intelligence organization was absent and uninvolved when a terrorist organization had the country under siege and the President gets abducted and somehow Captain America is unavailable!

Did the AoS show even address this, they sure incorporate Extremis into their storyline but I suppose side stepping that whole situation would be another of the shows shortcomings.



Although TIH was originally scripted as a direct sequel to Ang's Hulk it was later decided that it wouldn't be and it irks me that people still think of it as connected. If Ang's Hulk never existed I bet TIH would have had more fruitful profits...

Anyways I don't think it was ever the intention of Marvel Studios to stick to a steady pattern, apart from ending each Phase with an Avenger's movie. Patterns don't work when you have limited slots per phase and need to introduce new properties.

A common mistake people make is in thinking that SHIELD is an American agency. They're not....they're a globalist agency, under the auspices of the World Security Council (Marvel's version of the UN). SHIELD doesn't automatically get involved in American affairs, in theory; only in international ones.

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

Personally I think Thor TDW had closer ties to the Avengers story while CATWS will go hand-in-hand with AOU. Avengers closed out nicely, so the most important ties IMO were Loki and Thanos, which leads to TDW and GOTG. So if anything, I'd think CATWS would be last, to set up the SHIELD issues of AOU.

Again, just my opinion.

Money (Iron Man 3)
Loose ends (Thor TDW)
Preview of future (CATWS)
High risk, high reward (GOTG)

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Like others mentioned it just made sense to capitalize off of the Avengers success by following up with Marvel Studios most popular character, and I suppose it was also appropriate to start off the 2nd Phase of the MCU with the one that help make it possible.

TFA was the 2nd least successful MCU movie, and it preceded the Avengers, it would have been a bit much for the general public to have another Captain America follow it.



I'm pretty curious about the chronology as well, IM3 takes place 6 months after the Avengers, and I think T:TDW is 1 year after the Avengers, AoS concurrent to it.

Unlike Thor there needs to be an explanation as why the biggest intelligence organization was absent and uninvolved when a terrorist organization had the country under siege and the President gets abducted and somehow Captain America is unavailable!

Did the AoS show even address this, they sure incorporate Extremis into their storyline but I suppose side stepping that whole situation would be another of the shows shortcomings.



Although TIH was originally scripted as a direct sequel to Ang's Hulk it was later decided that it wouldn't be and it irks me that people still think of it as connected. If Ang's Hulk never existed I bet TIH would have had more fruitful profits...

Anyways I don't think it was ever the intention of Marvel Studios to stick to a steady pattern, apart from ending each Phase with an Avenger's movie. Patterns don't work when you have limited slots per phase and need to introduce new properties.

it's quite clear to me that they released im3 because they knew it's the biggest moneymaker. that being said, since the avengers did 1.5 billion, I think it would have been a better idea to let some of those other superheroes shine first before im3 to see how they would have done. it would have made for an interesting turnout, the avengers affect.

look at the way they were marketing thor 2. i saw a tv spot saying something like, "witness...the return...of an AVENGER..."

 

[Gr0oT]

A common mistake people make is in thinking that SHIELD is an American agency. They're not....they're a globalist agency, under the auspices of the World Security Council (Marvel's version of the UN). SHIELD doesn't automatically get involved in American affairs, in theory; only in international ones.

Not to get overly political here but any such globalist agency based out of the U.S. will have American interest at it's forefront and in its policy making.

Especially being as they are a covert organization I can't see them sitting out, of course now that I think about it, they might actually have had an interest in letting these things happen... Especially when considering that one of the underlying plots of TWS seems to be shady practices.

it's quite clear to me that they released im3 because they knew it's the biggest moneymaker. that being said, since the avengers did 1.5 billion, I think it would have been a better idea to let some of those other superheroes shine first before im3 to see how they would have done. it would have made for an interesting turnout, the avengers affect.

look at the way they were marketing thor 2. i saw a tv spot saying something like, "witness...the return...of an AVENGER..."

Guess we will never know, I see where you're coming from though. Maybe Thor would have closed out around 800m instead of 630m. Then again maybe IM3 would have just gotten 1b or 900m if it had had a November release, which would constitute a bigger potential loss than release a less sure title in the summer season would have been a potential gain.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Guess we will never know, I see where you're coming from though. Maybe Thor would have closed out around 800m instead of 630m. Then again maybe IM3 would have just gotten 1b or 900m if it had had a November release, which would constitute a bigger potential loss than release a less sure title in the summer season would have been a potential gain.

you can't really call that a loss, it would (if that happened) have just been a lesser gain. in order for it to be a loss it'd have to make less than the budget

 

[Kalonthar]

Well, at the very least, IM3 coming out before the others lets people know why Iron Man didn't help Thor or Cap... t:

 

[fixxxer]

Not to get overly political here but any such globalist agency based out of the U.S. will have American interest at it's forefront and in its policy making.

Especially being as they are a covert organization I can't see them sitting out, of course now that I think about it, they might actually have had an interest in letting these things happen... Especially when considering that one of the underlying plots of TWS seems to be shady practices.

Yes, but I believe Rhodey stated that the US Government felt like they were left standing with their pants around their ankles during the whole alien invasion, while the Avengers and SHIELD went to battle.

They thus wanted to be seen publicly clearing up this Mandarin/Extremis themselves, and ordered SHIELD to stand down. Maybe a bad idea in retrospect. This was also the reason for the overkill re-branding of War Machine as Iron Patriot. I personally felt they could have used a little more exposition on this front, but I think they did just about enough to explain away SHIELD's absence during IM3.

 

[fixxxer]

you can't really call that a loss, it would (if that happened) have just been a lesser gain. in order for it to be a loss it'd have to make less than the budget

Technically, you're right. But, that would be a pretty textbook definition of "opportunity cost" in business terms.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Technically, you're right. But, that would be a pretty textbook definition of "opportunity cost" in business terms.

here's the thing though. let's say in 2013, cap 2 came out in im3's place. how exactly would we know if the film wouldn't do $500 million+? well it's entirely pointless to talk about it right now since the film isn't even out, BUT moreover to my point...

so yeah, cap 2 takes im3's slot, thor 2 stays in the same slot, and iron man 3 comes out this year, along with gotg and its competition asm2 and x men. how can we say it would still be an opportunity cost and it WOULDN'T still gross 1.2 billion? we don't know. arguably, the stakes would be the same; im3 competed with an x men movie last year and outdid it, and a superman movie and outdid it. asm came out the same year as avengers and avengers outdid it.

so if it still came out in may (or cap 2's slot) ) I think it's fair to assume it would still gross 1.2 bill, or perhaps even more since people would have had a 1 year+ break from iron man. huh, imagine im3 matched avengers and did 1.4-1.5 billion. WHAT?!?!

 

[Gr0oT]

you can't really call that a loss, it would (if that happened) have just been a lesser gain. in order for it to be a loss it'd have to make less than the budget

If a company knows a choice they made cost them 100m in profit they most definitely see it as a loss. If I sell shares on Monday and find out I'd have triple the profit had I sold on Wednesday, I'd see it as a loss.

Yes, but I believe Rhodey stated that the US Government felt like they were left standing with their pants around their ankles during the whole alien invasion, while the Avengers and SHIELD went to battle.

They thus wanted to be seen publicly clearing up this Mandarin/Extremis themselves, and ordered SHIELD to stand down. Maybe a bad idea in retrospect. This was also the reason for the overkill re-branding of War Machine as Iron Patriot. I personally felt they could have used a little more exposition on this front, but I think they did just about enough to explain away SHIELD's absence during IM3.

Didn't know SHIELD answered to anyone, they aren't rogue but when you've got sensitive information on everyone you can play by your own rules.

These films put in a personal dilemma. I'm heading toward my 30s and hence wish time would slow down but my anticipation for these movies makes me want time to speed up.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

If a company knows a choice they made cost them 100m in profit they most definitely see it as a loss. If I sell shares on Monday and find out I'd have triple the profit had I sold on Wednesday, I'd see it as a loss.

yeah but they would have absolutely no way of knowing at all.

 

[ctsketch]

yeah but they would have absolutely no way of knowing at all.

If they know IM3 had the most potential money wise they absolutely would put it in the prime spot to avoid a "loss"

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

If they know IM3 had the most potential money wise they absolutely would put it in the prime spot to avoid a "loss"

look at my post here about why it still may not have been a loss.

 

[Gr0oT]

I still contend that the date effects the gross and that they can predict BO #s.
Release TWS in the top summer spot following the Avengers and it would probably end up make 15-25% more than if it retained its original date.
And if you're patient enough to wait until next summer to release IM3 then I suppose it would do just as good...

But just put TWS in the May 3rd spot and release IM3 November 8th or April 4th and that would likely lower IM3 potential gain by 15-25% because those times of year aren't as conducive to huge numbers.

Movies are also released at certain times in relation to the competition they'll go up against. They were confident that IM3 could compete against Star Trek, Fast and Furious and all those other blockbusters but might not have thought Captain America would have been as big a sale.

If you look at April 2014 there really is nothing else coming out except for Transcendence 2 weeks later.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I still contend that the date effects the gross and that they can predict BO #s.
Release TWS in the top summer spot following the Avengers and it would probably end up make 15-25% more than if it retained its original date.
And if you're patient enough to wait until next summer to release IM3 then I suppose it would do just as good...

But just put TWS in the May 3rd spot and release IM3 November 8th or April 4th and that would likely lower IM3 potential gain by 15-25% because those times of year aren't as conducive to huge numbers.

Movies are also released at certain times in relation to the competition they'll go up against. They were confident that IM3 could compete against Star Trek, Fast and Furious and all those other blockbusters but might not have thought Captain America would have been as big a sale.

If you look at April 2014 there really is nothing else coming out except for Transcendence 2 weeks later.

chances are you're right, but I still think it would have made for an interesting experiment. and even when movies are opening up around huge competition, they can still make what they plan. didn't sm3 and potcdmc come out in close proximity?

 

[metaphysician]

Not to get overly political here but any such globalist agency based out of the U.S. will have American interest at it's forefront and in its policy making.

Especially being as they are a covert organization I can't see them sitting out, of course now that I think about it, they might actually have had an interest in letting these things happen... Especially when considering that one of the underlying plots of TWS seems to be shady practices.

Don't forget "evolved out of what was essentially a joint US/British agency dating back to WWII".

 

[metaphysician]

you can't really call that a loss, it would (if that happened) have just been a lesser gain. in order for it to be a loss it'd have to make less than the budget

Um, no, that would entirely have been a loss. Look up the words 'opportunity cost'.

 

[Bert]

The release dates picked have been very smart for phase 2.... Well, I'm predicting Cap 2 will do great numbers, around Thor 2. With GotG though, who knows, I hope for the best. AoU is going to tear the box office a new one, I'm sure that

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Um, no, that would entirely have been a loss. Look up the words 'opportunity cost'.

i know wat an opportunity cost is. essentially you're saying putting cap 2 in front would be a trade off of sorts but wat would they be gaining from it? nothing apparently except for a boost from wat would have been its 2014 release