Marvel's NEW upcoming slate (Release date changes thread)

[GL's Light]

What about Sam L. Jackson in Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD?
When is that scheduled to be released?

It's not scheduled to be released yet. If it's made it'll follow on at some point after The Avengers.

 

[Iceburgeruk]

I think one of the films will get shifted again. Most likely captain america becuase his first avenger sub-title makes it most likely to be the last film before the avengers film itself.

Then again marvel might stick with this line-up, Thor is technically a fantasy epic and so there really isn`t any competition for that in 2011. While cap is WW2 actioner so it won`t be stepping on thor`s toes. Also marvel knows they are going to use both the characters in the avengers so maybe they will just say "maybe one of them might end up worse off like TIH coz of the schedule but the dvds sales for it will go through the roof in the months leading up tot the avengers team-up movie!" They might be playing the long game knowing that avengers hype will infect the spin-off franchise once avengers movie release looms.

 

[TheVileOne]

... so first the summer is large enough that we can accomodate all these heroes... to now Marvel wouldn't even bother releasing their movies if the competition was tight.... the contradictions are amusing.

What contradictions? They are your contradictions. Maybe they felt Thor needed more time? And Avengers needed more time as well.

You were wrong about the tight schedule... they did not have to stick to it. I was saying all along that Marvel will be flexible with these release dates... you were adamant that they were going forward with it as soon as it was set in stone from day one. We have already had three changes to the slate.

I'm adamant about Marvel doing business the way they feel they need to do it which is what they are doing.

And most of the changes to the slate can be attributed to the writer's strike as well as putting things on hold in 2008 to see how Iron Man and Hulk would do.

... the Iron Man argument in all your posts even when it doesn't even apply to what we are talking about. No HP or SM films lined up for summer 2010 last time I checked.

Umm . . . so what? There was a Batman film in 2008 and that hardly killed the interest in Iron Man. Batman is the second biggest movie of all time.

You're on the hater hit list fat tonie.

 

[topdog1]

I mean ideally you would want July 4th for Cap

I like the fact that they're taking time to do it right even though Cap won't lead directly in to Avengers any more. My only question is why not July 4 instead of July 22??? Are they afraid Cap can't hold the spot versus a Will Smith type film?

 

[TheVileOne]

I dunno, maybe they are still worried about Cap being too patriotic and America not wanting to be patriotic right now.

Paramount already removed all the patriotism from GI JOE really because everyone hates the American military now I guess.

 

[topdog1]

I dunno, maybe they are still worried about Cap being too patriotic and America not wanting to be patriotic right now.

Paramount already removed all the patriotism from GI JOE really because everyone hates the American military now I guess.

Not everyone.

The guy is literally dressed in the flag, there's no hiding from it. Plus, two years out I'm thinking patriotism will be back in fashion. Cap based in WWII will be a great reminder what the world owns the USA and a great reminder of our roots.

I'm thinking it's more a box office thing. If a really heavy-weight movie moves in on July 4 and Cap moves, that would show weakness. Better to avoid the appearance right now I guess.

 

[TheVileOne]

I would probably put Cap in July 4th and move Thor a little later . . . or maybe that wouldn't work.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Cap better take July 4th before Will SMith, Terminator, Transformers steps in there... that's all I can say. July 22nd is the biggest WTF release date I have seen in a while.

What contradictions? They are your contradictions. Maybe they felt Thor needed more time? And Avengers needed more time as well.

I'm adamant about Marvel doing business the way they feel they need to do it which is what they are doing.

And most of the changes to the slate can be attributed to the writer's strike as well as putting things on hold in 2008 to see how Iron Man and Hulk would do.

Umm . . . so what? There was a Batman film in 2008 and that hardly killed the interest in Iron Man. Batman is the second biggest movie of all time.

You're on the hater hit list fat tonie.

Oh I probably top line that list I am sure... I am not saying those aren't valid points though. All I am saying is I did not think Marvel had to stick with the two films a year slate... and I was right. You kept giving me the contract stipulation and how Marvel could not move/be flexible if a summer was already overcrowded with other big franchises. I just would have tried to get Thor out in 2010 to balance it out evenly... but apparently Marvel never had such a deadline in the first place.

 

[TheVileOne]

And yet you talk about Batman coming out in 2011 which it probably isn't a this point, and they are still planning Thor and Cap in the same summer as Spider-man.

 

[GL's Light]

I've never read about any contract stipulation that Marvel has to put out two films a year. When the contract was initially reported on it was said to contain provisions that all of the films had to be released in the summer and that they all had to be PG-13, but I don't think there was any mention of a stipulation about a minimum number of films per year.

 

[FaT_tONle]

And yet you talk about Batman coming out in 2011 which it probably isn't a this point, and they are still planning Thor and Cap in the same summer as Spider-man.

...... that was before Nolan/WB announced Inception... just like how everyone else penciled in BB3 for 2011. Again I can live with three superhero films spaced out over three months. Did I ever complain about 2008? I think TIH got overlooked and it clearly did. Would not suprise me if the same thing happens to Thor, but it is what it is. If they were prepared Thor would have done fine in 2010.

 

[Chewy]

I've never read about any contract stipulation that Marvel has to put out two films a year. When the contract was initially reported on it was said to contain provisions that all of the films had to be released in the summer and that they all had to be PG-13, but I don't think there was any mention of a stipulation about a minimum number of films per year.

Yeah, and based on the fact that they are putting out no films this year, I'm gonna go ahead and say that there is no such "two films per year" stipulation in their contract

 

[TheVileOne]

There are no films this year because of the writer's strike.

If not for the strike, the story might be very different right now.

This was also posted on AICN about the Marvel projects. The "spy" says things like WE almost like the person works at Marvel. Remember folks, grain of salt you can't take everything you read at face value:

-Avengers is delayed a year because of financing issues but also because the plan is for Favreau to helm it. Everybody here loves the guy and he wants to do it, but it would have been impossible for him to do before the date change given his Iron Man 2 commitments. Also partly the reason why he agreed to do the Stark sequel on such an accelerated schedule was so he could get given first dibs on this. It would still be a punishing schedule for him, so hes not firmly confirmed yet, but he is certainly the presumptive director at this point.

- Iron Man starts rehearsals in a few days, which is why the casting is finally coming together so quickly.

-Alexander Skargard is indeed Branagh’s favorite to play Thor as some sites are reporting. If all goes well and it happens then we hope to get Stellan Skarsgard for Odin (though at present Odin is only a very small cameo part in this movie).

-Loki will probably be played by Hartnett, if his pay negotiations work out. All the commentary about him wanting to do a Ledger and play a villain is B.S. though – WE APPROACHED HARTNETT because Branagh’s a big fan of the Othello adaptation O where Hartnett played Iago who is very similar character wise to how he sees Loki.

- Fox is serious about doing remakes of Daredvil and FF. They have to make new movies with these characters every few years because otherwise the options will revert to us. This point is kinda obvious but Im not sure people realise it –I havent seen anybody pointing it out anywhere. The mood around here is pretty negative about Rothman’s potential to execute these properties properly, (Im sure you know why it might be particularly negative at the moment) but we are all hoping his recent promotion will mean hes kept away from direct control of these movies.

Call me Fuzzy Dunlop

Provided Iron Man 2 does well, I hope Favreau gets to direct Avengers. However, I also hope he doesn't get burned out from doing these movies. They can take a lot out of you.

 

[Chewy]

There are no films this year because of the writer's strike.

If not for the strike, the story might be very different right now.

Uh, thanks?

I know that, I'm just saying that there obviously isn't a strict "two movies per year" clause in their contract if they can go a year with no movies

 

[ClarkLuther55]

EDIT: I didn't see that Avengers had been pushed back as well. Gives more time to appreciate Cap and Thor's solo movies.

I really admire Marvel's ambition to build an Avengers movie-verse.

 

[zeptron]

One reason I can think of about the Cap date is that if it came out on Fourth of July it'll only come out a couple weeks after Thor, which comes out June 17, and they didn't want them to clash. There's an easy solution to that, though: move THOR up to early June and have Cap debut Independence Day weekend.

 

[FaT_tONle]

One reason I can think of about the Cap date is that if it came out on Fourth of July it'll only come out a couple weeks after Thor, which comes out June 17, and they didn't want them to clash. There's an easy solution to that, though: move THOR up to early June and have Cap debut Independence Day weekend.

I am thinking maybe go four weeks between each worst case scenario? Will that be enough separation though? Only Marvel can answer that question.

And on a side note, the article Vile posted... Rothman got a promotion??? Yet that means he will have LESS control? Is that a typo or something?

 

[Eggyman]

And on a side note, the article Vile posted... Rothman got a promotion??? Yet that means he will have LESS control? Is that a typo or something?

Maybe it means he'll be counting the money instead of saving it.

 

[GL's Light]

And on a side note, the article Vile posted... Rothman got a promotion??? Yet that means he will have LESS control? Is that a typo or something?

He's going to be overseeing all television and film production at Fox (before it was just films). The thinking is that with much more on his plate he may have less time to directly meddle in any particular film. I'm not sure that's actually going to turn out to be the case, though. He'll likely still have a very strong influence on the film division.

 

[BlackLantern]

I said about 3 weeks ago that movies were going to get pushed and people thought I was being pessimistic

 

[Hiruu]

In looking over the latest release sked for Marvel Studios, I’m VERY disappointing in how the film roll-out is panning out. I could certainly understand the lack of a film in 2009, even though I still believe a smaller film could have been launched for Fall/Winter, and maybe even this summer in waning days of August. The original deal called for smaller films, as well as larger ones, and I certainly didn’t expect Marvel to shoot for all blockbuster films, which is exactly what they have done…each and every film on the current slate is a summer tentpole…wtf…what about the rest of the year?
The current slate:
IRON MAN 2 May 7, 2010
THOR June 17, 2011
THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA July 22, 2011
THE AVENGERS May 4, 2012
I know they love the ancillary revenue streams that provides some security, but they tout the 5000 characters, but if you only use 50…errr….how are you using? No news on Submariner, no news on Black Panther, no news on Dr. Strange, zippo on any of the other smaller films…very disappointing indeed.

 

[FaT_tONle]

You have to strike the iron while it is hot. There is not a whole lot of money to be found in the plethera of C-list characters... not to say they can not be profitable if done properly. But now is the time for tentpoles with SH movies as hot as they are right now. Marvel supposedly can't release films any other time of year with the current contract so they might as well be tentpole films. After Avengers I expect them to scale it down though. I'd expect an Avengers movie once every 3-4 years for the next decade or so, and probably IM3. But other than that I don't expect many other tentpoles. I expect to see Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Heroes for Hire, and S.H.I.E.L.D movies.

 

[Rac]

The original deal called for smaller films, as well as larger ones, and I certainly didn’t expect Marvel to shoot for all blockbuster films, which is exactly what they have done…each and every film on the current slate is a summer tentpole…wtf…

I think Ant-Man and Runaways will fall into that category.

 

[Captainhulk]

I don't think Dr. Strange will be a small film.

 

[Hiruu]

I'm disappointed in the lack of non-blockbuster movies. I know that those movies are less risky, since they have tons of tie-ins, but Iron Man should have provided Marvel enough buffer to try a "300" type film...