Marvel Reaches Interim Agreement with Writer's Guild

[FaT_tONle]

That's why I'm guessing...

2008: Iron Man / Incredible Hulk

2009: Thor / Ant-Man

2010: Captain America / Iron Man 2

2011: Hulk 2 / Avengers

You can't do movies using staple Avengers characters AND an Avengers movie in one summer b/c they will have scheduling conflicts and its too much work for the star actor... and all these movies are contractually obligated to be summer films... that's why Avengers will probably happen the following year... and they might do a Nick Fury movie or SHIELD movie in 2011 to serve as the so called "lead in" movie... so 2011 would probably have a Hulk sequel in 2011 and hopefully a Thor sequel before Avengers in 2013. I think Iron Man will most immediately demand for a sequel since I think it will be the most successful... so shove that in 2010... and Hulk should be a little more drawn out so go the Nolan route so give that the full three year gap as you have it... then to flesh out the full trilogies for IM and Thor:

Thor 2 2012
Avengers 2013
Iron Man 3 2014
Thor 3 2015
Avengers 2 2016 (New Roster)

Norton definitely won't do more than three films and he'd have a small role in Avengers if he is even in it at all... I don't think C.A gets a trilogy since it will have started too late... but maybe you could get him toplining an Avengers sequel with characters like Hawkeye and Black Panther... who hopefully would have had their own solo movies beforehand. They should do ONE major tentpole a year along with one minor character so they can draw this thing out for another 10 years and to avoid pitting stand alone heroes in the same summer again after this year.

 

[Jick]

And Ultimate Thor is a stupid character to begin with.

why, just because of his costume? that's prejudice already.
there's no major differences between Ultimate and 616 personalities.

 

[Ben Breeck]

616 Thor is not a pacifist or much of an environmentalist. (at least not as say, Simonson writes him.)

 

[Blader5489]

why, just because of his costume? that's prejudice already.
there's no major differences between Ultimate and 616 personalities.

What? There's a huge difference between the Ultimate and 616 personalities.

 

[Jick]

What? There's a huge difference between the Ultimate and 616 personalities.

616 Thor is not a pacifist or much of an environmentalist. (at least not as say, Simonson writes him.)

that's it?
still...I really don't think they'd use the 616 Thor cloths. they didn't in the Ultimate Avengers movie or in Marvel Ultimate Alliance...
unless the movie is set in the past.

 

[Tissues]

Ultimate Avengers is based off the Ultimates..

 

[Jick]

but Marvel Ultimate Alliance isn't.. has all the classics.
even the white Fury.

 

[Tissues]

Never played Ult. Alliance.

 

[Remy LeBeau X3]

I think they might either mix, change up the 616, or go w/ the ultimate look for Thor because the original looks a bit too hokey. Kinda the reason why the X-Men all had matching uniforms instead of their originals.

But to Blader5489, I never looked at a possible clause stating another movie using his character in depth might be considered a part of the three movie deal. Good thinking. Although I assume that he'll do a trilogy for Ironman as long as it does fairly well in the BO just for the sake of his character, as well Avengers film(s).

 

[He-Man]

Jon Favreau on directing the Ultimate Avengers:

"I’d love to if the experience is as good as this. They still have to make a few more movies because Avengers has The Hulk in it and Thor and Captain America and Iron Man. So I think they want to, according to Kevin Feige (producer), get a chapter in each of the heroes before they start playing with the idea of combining them. I think it’s very smart that they’re thinking of cross pollinating between different characters like they’ve always done in the comic books. And because they control all of these different characters, there can be that free-wheeling interplay between the movies and characters that gives it that spontaneous feel in the books."

I'm thinking

2008 Iron Man/Hulk
2009 Thor
2010 Captain America (Maybe they can get it in 2009 with Thor)
2011 Avengers (Introduce Ant Man here)

 

[Iron_Stark]

Ant-Man's already getting his solo movie.

 

[He-Man]

Ant-Man's already getting his solo movie.

I know. Just saying that he could be introduced in the Avengers movie and then have a solo after that.

 

[FaT_tONle]

If they are getting in another movie by 09... it will probably be Nick Fury since Sam Jackson is already in place... with no movement on Ant-Man whatsoever... I don't see how they get an Ant-Man movie in here in a year and a half. 2009 might just be Thor.

 

[Jick]

I think they might either mix, change up the 616, or go w/ the ultimate look for Thor because the original looks a bit too hokey. Kinda the reason why the X-Men all had matching uniforms instead of their originals.

that's what I'm saying.

also, you guys were talking about two Marvel movies per year.
well...I think this will be kinda hard. we have to consider the possible sequels...like Spider-Man 4, Ghost Rider 2, Fantastic Four 3 and minor characters.
in 2007 we got 3 marvel movies: Ghost Rider, Spider-Man 3 and FF2.
in 2008: Iron-Man, Hulk and Punisher
2009: Thor and Ant-Man
2010: Cap and Hulk 2 and SM4?
2011: Iron-Man 2, FF3 and another Marvel movie?
unless you're talking only the movies produced by Marvel...

 

[FaT_tONle]

that's what I'm saying.

also, you guys were talking about two Marvel movies per year.
well...I think this will be kinda hard. we have to consider the possible sequels...like Spider-Man 4, Ghost Rider 2, Fantastic Four 3 and minor characters.
in 2007 we got 3 marvel movies: Ghost Rider, Spider-Man 3 and FF2.
in 2008: Iron-Man and Hulk
2009: Thor and Ant-Man
2010: Cap and Hulk 2 and SM4?
2011: Iron-Man 2, FF3 and another Marvel movie?
unless you're talking only the movies produced by Marvel...

All the studios can cooperate so that only three Marvel movies are released in any given summer... the two from Marvel every year from here on out... and then the rest...

2008 Punisher: Warzone
2009 Wolverine, Magneto (since Thor might be all we get)
2010 Fantastic Four 3 (Fox) or Silver Surfer (Fox) or push back Magneto (Fox)
2011 Spiderman 4

The studios will cooperate with one another when it comes to sh:t like that.

 

[Blader5489]

The studios will cooperate with one another when it comes to sh:t like that.

I don't know what dream world you live in, but Fox and Sony would never cooperate with each other just so we can get three Marvel films per year.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Because its bad buisness for all parties... you honestly think Fox would try and stuff and FF3 movie in a summer with spiderman 4, IM/Hulk sequels, and possibly Captain America? It works for all parties in the long run ro space it out evenly... competing Marvel properties pitted against eash other is beyond stupidity.... heck its not like Marvel is shoving their movies close to TDK... if we have four or five major comic book films in the span of three months they are going to take money away from each other.

 

[Blader5489]

Because its bad buisness for all parties... you honestly think Fox would try and stuff and FF3 movie in a summer with spiderman 4, IM/Hulk sequels, and possibly Captain America?

You mean like how Fox released FF2 in a summer with Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, Transformers, Die Hard 4, Bourne, and Superbad? No, I can't possibly imagine them doing that.

 

[FaT_tONle]

You mean like how Fox released FF2 in a summer with Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, Transformers, Die Hard 4, Bourne, and Superbad? No, I can't possibly imagine them doing that.

Yeah and SPiderman 3 was released in 06 like it was supposed to be next to X-Men 3... or wait... nah you got me ...

 

[Remy LeBeau X3]

The whole issue with FF2 coming out in the same year as Spidey 3 is because well no other super hero films were coming out later in the year. Also I look at Spidey and the X-Men to be big milestones for Marvel films thus far. Yes I know they are different companies and such but still. It explains why Spidey 3 did not come out in 06 when X3 came out like Fat Tonle said. FF imo didn't seem like a milestone movie.

Do keep in mind that this is all from my perspective when I say "big/milestone" movie. It seems to me that Ironman and Cap are the next milestones Marvel is aiming for.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Hell I even doubt Sony would throw in SM4 in 2010 if it also included Iron Man/Hulk sequel and Captain America in there as well as a JLA or MOS in that summer as well... the studios aren't idiots... they actually think about these things.

 

[Blader5489]

Yeah and SPiderman 3 was released in 06 like it was supposed to be next to X-Men 3... or wait... nah you got me ...

Spider-Man 3 was given the 2007 release date before X3 even started filming. There was no collaboration between Fox and Sony in keeping their films from competing against each other.

And Sony WILL release SM4 in 2010, if only because they cannot afford to wait any later than that.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Spider-Man 3 was given the 2007 release date before X3 even started filming. There was no collaboration between Fox and Sony in keeping their films from competing against each other.

And Sony WILL release SM4 in 2010, if only because they cannot afford to wait any later than that.

I am not saying WB, Paramount, Sony, Marvel, Universal, and Fox all sit in a round table together and map it out... its common sense in that its stupidity to overload one year with four or five major superhero flicks in a summer that everyone movie will hurt each other no matter how you spin it (3 movies max is about all you can do). It depends on what Fox does... if they rush FF3 into production after the strike and sneak in a summer 2010 release somewhere in there before Sony gets on the ball then Spiderman will have to wait... (also pending on whether Marvel puts two big property characters in that slot as well)... Sony should be in NO rush... which is why they may even wait a year... they are likely going to have to recast in key spots anyway... a one year wait is not going to kill them... they can always do 5-6 back to back anyway to make up for lost time while finishing the saga with the supporting cast. If SM4 is the last then they should target 2010 but that's another story.

 

[Blader5489]

I am not saying WB, Paramount, Sony, Marvel, Universal, and Fox all sit in a round table together and map it out... its common sense in that its stupidity to overload one year with four or five major superhero flicks in a summer that everyone movie will hurt each other no matter how you spin it (3 movies max is about all you can do). It depends on what Fox does... if they rush FF3 into production after the strike and sneak in a summer 2010 release somewhere in there before Sony gets on the ball then Spiderman will have to wait... (also pending on whether Marvel puts two big property characters in that slot as well)... Sony should be in NO rush... which is why they may even wait a year... they are likely going to have to recast in key spots anyway... a one year wait is not going to kill them... they can always do 5-6 back to back anyway to make up for lost time while finishing the saga with the supporting cast. If SM4 is the last then they should target 2010 but that's another story.

Actually, a one year wait does hurt them. Advanced Dark can explain it better than I can, but having any more than a three year gap between Spider-Man films is too costly. And I'm sure Sony wouldn't give a **** if FF3 is released in the same year as SM4; it's not like it poses any serious competition.

 

[FaT_tONle]

FF3 poses no competition? Probably... but IM sequels and Hulk sequels do (unless Marvel goes with Ant-man or something lesser)... technically there is still space... maybe C.A or something big in May... IM2 in June... then... well... Sony can feel free to take on HP7 if they like... the only reason why people are pushing SM4 for 2010 is to get the cast back for one more... that's all... but if we assume everyone has already made up their minds for just for hypotheticals (and we assume the worst)... then Sony should be in no rush.