Marvel Studios - How Will They Get Things Done?!?

[Bubonic]

While replying to another thread, I got to wondering how Marvel will go about releasing movies once the ball starts rolling.

They're first big project, a brilliant one, is to establish all the characters of the Avengers which naturally leads too the Avengers movie.

So we got Iron Man and Hulk coming out this summer, and we've still got Captain America, Thor and Ant-Man on the horizon... Possibly a Nick Fury movie...

What happens after the Avenger movie comes out, will 2012-2015 go, Iron Man 2, Hulk 2, Captain America 2, Thor 2, then Avengers 2(doubt ant-man gets a sequel), then they'll start over again the close the trilogies?

Unless they do more then 2 movies a year I can't see them introducing new characters, except within these mentioned titles, I think Downey Jr. and Favreau are written down for a trilogy, and they'll want to get them done before too late, as by the way I see it Jr. will be well over 60 by the time Avengers 3 comes around!

 

[Leto]

I think they'll go Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, maybe Ant-Man, and then double up Nick Fury and Captain America's stories and origins with Avengers. Similar to the Ultimates, but probably with Ultron as the villain.

Then honestly, I don't know. Iron Man II seems set up for the Mandarin, but I can't help but notice that might seem weird after Avengers. I could definitely see Terrance Howard taking up the Warmachine mantle. Rather than a half-assed spinoff, Warmachine could take Tony's place in the Avengers.

Maybe thye'll resign contracts or something.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I think my sig will be pretty accurate about how Marvel dishes these films out the next few years.... obviously each character will get his film... but I am just not sold on a Nick Fury movie just yet... they should do one though... the only movies that should get sequels (if the first ones are successful) before Avengers are IM and Hulk since they came out first... frankly if they wait till after Thor 2 and Captain America 2 Avengers will never get done with the same cast... Captain America and Nick Fury should be the lead ins to Avengers... I wouldn't use Ultron as the main villain... I would definitely explain its origin though to setup the sequel... but I'd prefer HYDRA and some realistic incarnation of the Masters of Evil led by Baron Helmut Zemo... and don't bank on Downey Jr doing more than three movies as well as anyone else doing more than three movies with a fourth being the absolute max... any Avengers sequels will be feature on the new characters Marvel establishes in future solo projects (ie: BP, Hawkeye, Widow, etc).

 

[Bubonic]

I don't see A-list stars wanting to be tied down by intersecting franchises either.

I wasn't disagreeing with your signature, you've basically got it right, some of the dates seem off, the only thing slated for 2011 is the Avengers movie.
So IM 2 and TIH 2 won't be coming out until after.

All they want to do is give all the main Avengers characters their own origin movies, then jump into it without having to explain who everyone is.

What I'm scratching my head about is what happens next.

Either they'll just release more Avengers movies after, or they'll continue with the individual movies until each has the typical trilogy.

I can't see Norton and Downey Jr. wanting to be involved in minimum 6 movies, unless it is that fun and economically worthwhile to be involved in these things.
The way I understand actors is most of them want to explore as many different realities as possible.

I think it was roughly chalked up like this.
But I don't see how that is possible since from start to finish these movies take about 2 years to make, and none but the two slated to come out were started!

2008: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk
2009: Ant-Man, Captain America
2010: Thor
2011: Avengers

then possibly...

2012: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk 2
2013: Captain America 2, Thor 2
2014: Namor, Avengers 2
2015: Iron Man 3, The Incredible Hulk 3
2016: Captain America 3, Thor 3
2017: Namor 2, Avengers 3

So on and so forth?

 

[FaT_tONle]

That is a pretty insane schedule though ^^^... here's what I don't like about some things with that... if you go Avengers in the middle of everything... say 2011... it will break the continuity of the solo franchises... I think supporting actors like Paltrow or Tyler will be less likely to return after the four year gap rather than the three year gap... I just get the funny vibe that people pass on sequels the more amount of time the studio waits before making the sequel. I am not saying that that everyone should get a trilogy before Avengers... I think its unlikely everyone gets a trilogy... Hulk might not even do well that they might ditch the sequel. We'd even be lucky if Norton was in Avengers if that's the case... I probably see two characters max getting the entire trilogy... IM is the most likely bet... lord knows if anyone else has a real chance. But here's the forumula... if Thor is a MEGA blockbuster... lets hypothetically say 300-600 type film (unlikely but who knows)... then you give him a sequel BEFORE Avengers in 2012... if Captain America is a MEGA block buster (250-500 type movie)... give him a sequel in 2013... then do Avengers in 2014. It won't matter when Avengers happens as long as its in the six year span so that the actors won't outgrow their roles... I wouldn't want Avengers breaking continuity of franchises that are successful by themselves already... for IM 3 maybe you can do Avengers and IM3 for 2014/2015 back to back. But personally I'd rather keep Captain America in the Avengers franchise along with Ant-Man... Thor, Hulk, IM in their own franchises. But again not all three of those characters will get trilogies. If the first efforts are successful show them respect and make the sequel before potentially ****ing it up in Avengers... afterall, it might not be as perfect like we'd all like to think it will be.

 

[GNR]

To Bubonic:

it's already been said they're only going to have 1 2009 release

and chances are it's going to be Thor considering they are the furthest along with a director already attached

 

[Bubonic]

That is a pretty insane schedule though ^^^... here's what I don't like about some things with that... if you go Avengers in the middle of everything... say 2011... it will break the continuity of the solo franchises... I think supporting actors like Paltrow or Tyler will be less likely to return after the four year gap rather than the three year gap... I just get the funny vibe that people pass on sequels the more amount of time the studio waits before making the sequel. I am not saying that that everyone should get a trilogy before Avengers... I think its unlikely everyone gets a trilogy... Hulk might not even do well that they might ditch the sequel. We'd even be lucky if Norton was in Avengers if that's the case... I probably see two characters max getting the entire trilogy... IM is the most likely bet... lord knows if anyone else has a real chance. But here's the forumula... if Thor is a MEGA blockbuster... lets hypothetically say 300-600 type film (unlikely but who knows)... then you give him a sequel BEFORE Avengers in 2012... if Captain America is a MEGA block buster (250-500 type movie)... give him a sequel in 2013... then do Avengers in 2014. It won't matter when Avengers happens as long as its in the six year span so that the actors won't outgrow their roles... I wouldn't want Avengers breaking continuity of franchises that are successful by themselves already... for IM 3 maybe you can do Avengers and IM3 for 2014/2015 back to back. But personally I'd rather keep Captain America in the Avengers franchise along with Ant-Man... Thor, Hulk, IM in their own franchises. But again not all three of those characters will get trilogies. If the first efforts are successful show them respect and make the sequel before potentially ****ing it up in Avengers... afterall, it might not be as perfect like we'd all like to think it will be.

Well, even when the Avengers where together, they had their own solo titles running at the same time didn't they?

I see where this could fail though, if we have it in my order, then once we got back to IM2 they'd have to somehow make us believe he'd be separated from the Avengers, while fighting a villain worthy of screen time.

In this Marvel world they are establishing, it wouldn't make much sense that someone is destroying an American city and only IM shows up and rectifies it.

It'll be interesting to see how it is handled.

To Bubonic:

it's already been said they're only going to have 1 2009 release

and chances are it's going to be Thor considering they are the furthest along with a director already attached

Is there even enough time for a 2009 release if they started now?
Last thing I want Marvel to do is start rushing things like FOX has.
Thor needs some TLC to come out right!

 

[FaT_tONle]

Well, even when the Avengers where together, they had their own solo titles running at the same time didn't they?

I see where this could fail though, if we have it in my order, then once we got back to IM2 they'd have to somehow make us believe he'd be separated from the Avengers, while fighting a villain worthy of screen time.

In this Marvel world they are establishing, it wouldn't make much sense that someone is destroying an American city and only IM shows up and rectifies it.

It'll be interesting to see how it is handled.

These aren't comic issues though... these are films... Avengers complicates everything... no need to stuff the film in there just for the sake of stuffing it in there if the solos are successful. Everything should be capped off by Avengers. You don't mess up an already good thing you got going. That's all I'm saying. All the actors are signed to 3 picture deals anyway.

 

[Bubonic]

These aren't comic issues though... these are films... Avengers complicates everything... no need to stuff the film in there just for the sake of stuffing it in there if the solos are successful. Everything should be capped off by Avengers. You don't mess up an already good thing you got going. That's all I'm saying. All the actors are signed to 3 picture deals anyway.

Yet it seems set that the Avengers movie is slated for 2011, right after each of the main characters gets their debut movie, there is no notion of the franchise extending before this culminates.

Nothing is set in stone I suppose, yet it seems like they've mentioned a few times that this was how they were going to orchestrate things.

Question now is how the individual franchises will be dealt with after the Avengers movie...

I got my hopes up, but I worry what will happen after the initial stars fall out of the franchises... Replacing Thomas Jane as Punisher was no biggy in my books, but I have a feeling Norton and Downey Jr. will be spot on and almost impossible to top.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I dunno... as much as I want an Avengers... I don't want to see these solo franchises go one and done... if one actor is unhappy with the role he gets in Avengers and it ticks him off... what would happen to his solo franchise? Plus where would the directors/producers of the solo franchises fit into all of this? Would everyone really have a part in it? I mean how would they feel if Avengers took elements from their solo character/franchise if their input was deemed unnecessary for an Avengers film? Basically, it complicates everything... look I don't know when or how Marvel plans on doing this... it's all an educated guess on my part... I don't know what is even the best release date... maybe 2011, maybe later... the thing is... I know for a fact every solo movie is setting up or will be setting up storylines for potential sequels... and while Marvel is doing crossovers in these first two films... I doubt its directly related to an upcoming Avengers film... its just that... seeing that this will probably be a one time movie with the current cast... I just think its better to save it for later rather than sooner.

To me its like having Bale and Routh in a JLA in 2009... and then sending Bale back to Gotham for BB3 to take on Two-Face and Routh back to Metropolis to take care of his kid and face off with Lex Luthor again... I mean how exactly does A fit with B? I understand its apples and oranges since DC wasn't planning on connecting everything from the start... but again I'd rather wait till each character is firmly established (possibly meaning more than one movie) before joining the Avengers team. You can't tell their stories in just one movie... especially guys like Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America... and how do you decide this? Let the public decide... if IM is pulling in monstrous numbers the public obviously has an enthusiasm for the character and hence there is more INDIVIDUAL Iron Man stories to tell... same goes with the other franchises... keep making sequels if the profits are there for up to 2/3 films each...

Its just that when you get to the point where only Hulk and/or Iron Man movies are the only successful franchises while movies like Thor and Ant-Man aren't as successful... then you need to start thinking about an Avengers to bolster those other franchises... sort of like what JLA over at WB is doing NOW (I hate everything we have heard about JLA btw)... use characters like Iron Man and Hulk (after building up their reputations) to give a boost to the less successful characters in an Avengers film... that's how I see it... and that's how I would work in an Avengers movie personally. At the same time you don't want to build the egos of these actors up so high that they'd be too pricey and simply incompatible with each other when it is time for an Avengers movie... it's tricky... but 2011... 2013... what the hell is the difference? As long as the films make money we are set.

 

[hippie_hunter]

To Bubonic:

it's already been said they're only going to have 1 2009 release

and chances are it's going to be Thor considering they are the furthest along with a director already attached

Yeah my guess goes like this:

2008: Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk
2009: Thor
2010: Captain America, Nick Fury, and Ant-Man
2011: Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk sequel, Dr. Strange
2012: Captain America 2 and Thor 2
2013: Avengers

I think sequels will happen because it seems like Favreau, Leterrier, and Vaughn have plans for sequels to their movies that they'd like to do (Favreau would like to have Iron Man face the Mandarin or Fing Fang Foom and probably introduce War Machine, Norton stated that the Incredible Hulk is the first movie to a trilogy, and it looks like Vaughn is leaving Donald Blake and the human stuff for a sequel to Thor)

 

[YJ1]

The interesting factor will be sequels to Iron Man and Hulk. When they hit big, there will be financial pressure to zip those sequels through. Finishing off Downey's commitment with an Avengers film makes more sense. Two solo Iron Man films and then the Avengers. What's also a wild card is all the "Can Captain America sell over-seas" talk. Marvel execs may want to go an "Ultimate Avengers" (the animated DVD movie) route and make the Avengers movie pivot around Captain America and his origin. (I just hope for no alien invasion crap.) No Cap solo film but a big role in Avengers???

2008
Iron Man, Incredible Hulk

2009
Ant Man (Low budget, easier to film and slip in to winter slot)

2010
Thor, Captain America?

2011
Iron Man 2, Avengers

 

[The Man of Steel]

I don't see A-list stars wanting to be tied down by intersecting franchises either.

I wasn't disagreeing with your signature, you've basically got it right, some of the dates seem off, the only thing slated for 2011 is the Avengers movie.
So IM 2 and TIH 2 won't be coming out until after.

All they want to do is give all the main Avengers characters their own origin movies, then jump into it without having to explain who everyone is.

What I'm scratching my head about is what happens next.

Either they'll just release more Avengers movies after, or they'll continue with the individual movies until each has the typical trilogy.

I can't see Norton and Downey Jr. wanting to be involved in minimum 6 movies, unless it is that fun and economically worthwhile to be involved in these things.
The way I understand actors is most of them want to explore as many different realities as possible.

I think it was roughly chalked up like this.
But I don't see how that is possible since from start to finish these movies take about 2 years to make, and none but the two slated to come out were started!

2008: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk
2009: Ant-Man, Captain America
2010: Thor
2011: Avengers

then possibly...

2012: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk 2
2013: Captain America 2, Thor 2
2014: Namor, Avengers 2
2015: Iron Man 3, The Incredible Hulk 3
2016: Captain America 3, Thor 3
2017: Namor 2, Avengers 3

So on and so forth?

that sounds about right to me

 

[FaT_tONle]

2011 Iron Man 2, Avengers

Yeah I don't know who has the schedule to fit the same character into TWO major summer releases in the same year... its not the same thing as having two movies coming out generally around the same time (ala Crowe in American Ganster and Yuma)... thats what worries me... I am not sure the actors will be willing to go back to back to do an Avengers movie. Who knows though... I mean maybe Favreau is directing both films and gives Downey a flexible schedule... pretty unlikely the guy is going to be able to direct two films like that in one year... nearly impossible... a different director incorporating the same character at the same time gives me an uneasy feeling personally...

 

[YJ1]

Yeah I don't know who has the schedule to fit the same character into TWO major summer releases in the same year... its not the same thing as having two movies coming out generally around the same time (ala Crowe in American Ganster and Yuma)... thats what worries me... I am not sure the actors will be willing to go back to back to do an Avengers movie. Who knows though... I mean maybe Favreau is directing both films and gives Downey a flexible schedule... pretty unlikely the guy is going to be able to direct two films like that in one year... nearly impossible... a different director incorporating the same character at the same time gives me an uneasy feeling personally...

Great point. I forgot Favs said he would like to direct the Avengers. From what I've seen of Iron Man, I'd give him whatever property he wants.

It gets confusing when you lay out a long term strategy. If Iron Man & Hulk hit like I think they will, it's a great "problem" for Marvel to have. I wonder if Avengers is a contingeny plan? Make the solo films and don't stop unless there's a stumble and then throw everything you have at one big box office?

All we know for sure...

2009: ONE MOVIE at best.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Instead of an Ant-Man sequel maybe they'll do a Wasp spinoff with Hank in it.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Great point. I forgot Favs said he would like to direct the Avengers. From what I've seen of Iron Man, I'd give him whatever property he wants.

It gets confusing when you lay out a long term strategy. If Iron Man & Hulk hit like I think they will, it's a great "problem" for Marvel to have. I wonder if Avengers is a contingeny plan? Make the solo films and don't stop unless there's a stumble and then throw everything you have at one big box office?

All we know for sure...

2009: ONE MOVIE at best.

Yeah but then again you can sign an entirely new director to begin prep work after the 2010 Holidays... after all the major characters have been established... he'd have a good three years to get it done... no need to overload a given director... and ofcourse keep guys like Letterrier and Favreau attached as producers but nothing too strenuous... that's how I'd do it... and I'd try to avoid making actors go back to back if it can be prevented... but I don't see how it can be if Marvel intends to get all these characters in over the next six years.

 

[Bubonic]

I dunno... as much as I want an Avengers... I don't want to see these solo franchises go one and done... if one actor is unhappy with the role he gets in Avengers and it ticks him off... what would happen to his solo franchise? Plus where would the directors/producers of the solo franchises fit into all of this? Would everyone really have a part in it? I mean how would they feel if Avengers took elements from their solo character/franchise if their input was deemed unnecessary for an Avengers film? Basically, it complicates everything... look I don't know when or how Marvel plans on doing this... it's all an educated guess on my part... I don't know what is even the best release date... maybe 2011, maybe later... the thing is... I know for a fact every solo movie is setting up or will be setting up storylines for potential sequels... and while Marvel is doing crossovers in these first two films... I doubt its directly related to an upcoming Avengers film... its just that... seeing that this will probably be a one time movie with the current cast... I just think its better to save it for later rather than sooner.

In any case I doubt any of the franchises would be one and done regardless of what came out when, but you've got a major point when pointing out that things would be endlessly complicated.

I just wonder if any of the actors/actresses, would be opposed to doing more then three films?
Seems like it is the standard cut off point, they don't want to be tied down artistically and all that... But maybe their fun projects to work on, and they get pressure from their kids .

To me its like having Bale and Routh in a JLA in 2009... and then sending Bale back to Gotham for BB3 to take on Two-Face and Routh back to Metropolis to take care of his kid and face off with Lex Luthor again... I mean how exactly does A fit with B? I understand its apples and oranges since DC wasn't planning on connecting everything from the start... but again I'd rather wait till each character is firmly established (possibly meaning more than one movie) before joining the Avengers team. You can't tell their stories in just one movie... especially guys like Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America... and how do you decide this? Let the public decide... if IM is pulling in monstrous numbers the public obviously has an enthusiasm for the character and hence there is more INDIVIDUAL Iron Man stories to tell... same goes with the other franchises... keep making sequels if the profits are there for up to 2/3 films each...

True, like IM has an important angle regarding his alcoholism which has been confirmed not be be touched upon as much in the first movie, and is being set up for a sequel.
I imagine it could be presented in the Avengers movie, but it seems like they're be too much already going on to do that story arc justice.

Its just that when you get to the point where only Hulk and/or Iron Man movies are the only successful franchises while movies like Thor and Ant-Man aren't as successful... then you need to start thinking about an Avengers to bolster those other franchises... sort of like what JLA over at WB is doing NOW (I hate everything we have heard about JLA btw)... use characters like Iron Man and Hulk (after building up their reputations) to give a boost to the less successful characters in an Avengers film... that's how I see it... and that's how I would work in an Avengers movie personally. At the same time you don't want to build the egos of these actors up so high that they'd be too pricey and simply incompatible with each other when it is time for an Avengers movie... it's tricky... but 2011... 2013... what the hell is the difference? As long as the films make money we are set.

I don't think the Avengers will be needed as a tool to counter the solo franchises lacking popularity, but my optimism is biased... I just think we are in for a lot of treats.
All in all, it really seems like Marvel has bitten off more then it can chew.
Especially considering the timescale it is working with, and the 3 movie deals it has with these great actors and directors.

Yeah my guess goes like this:

2008: Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk
2009: Thor
2010: Captain America, Nick Fury, and Ant-Man
2011: Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk sequel, Dr. Strange
2012: Captain America 2 and Thor 2
2013: Avengers

I think sequels will happen because it seems like Favreau, Leterrier, and Vaughn have plans for sequels to their movies that they'd like to do (Favreau would like to have Iron Man face the Mandarin or Fing Fang Foom and probably introduce War Machine, Norton stated that the Incredible Hulk is the first movie to a trilogy, and it looks like Vaughn is leaving Donald Blake and the human stuff for a sequel to Thor)

If the Hulk is the first in a trilogy, and it already seems to have been heavily hinted he'll be in the Avengers, then does this mean we will do without him for the last instalment of the franchise?

Not thinking they will have 3 movies in a year, pretty sure they said 2 a year.

The interesting factor will be sequels to Iron Man and Hulk. When they hit big, there will be financial pressure to zip those sequels through. Finishing off Downey's commitment with an Avengers film makes more sense. Two solo Iron Man films and then the Avengers. What's also a wild card is all the "Can Captain America sell over-seas" talk. Marvel execs may want to go an "Ultimate Avengers" (the animated DVD movie) route and make the Avengers movie pivot around Captain America and his origin. (I just hope for no alien invasion crap.) No Cap solo film but a big role in Avengers???

2008
Iron Man, Incredible Hulk

2009
Ant Man (Low budget, easier to film and slip in to winter slot)

2010
Thor, Captain America?

2011
Iron Man 2, Avengers

Captain America will definitely have to be used differently then he originally had been, he was becoming at odds with contemporary culture, and its basically why he was killed off.
Definitely needs some serious talent backing this project on all levels.
Please no nazi alien invasions for the Avengers!

Yeah but then again you can sign an entirely new director to begin prep work after the 2010 Holidays... after all the major characters have been established... he'd have a good three years to get it done... no need to overload a given director... and ofcourse keep guys like Letterrier and Favreau attached as producers but nothing too strenuous... that's how I'd do it... and I'd try to avoid making actors go back to back if it can be prevented... but I don't see how it can be if Marvel intends to get all these characters in over the next six years.

I suppose being flexible with the directors and actors is the best way to keep them from getting annoyed with the projects. I just wish they end up falling in love with these movies, not getting too greedy, and 10 years down the line my Marvel library will be to die for!