Thor release date official: June 4th 2010!!!

[Skippy Roberts]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080505/20080505005656.html?.v=1

Marvel today updated its feature film slate strategy and plans for the next three years, locking in key release windows for its character franchises. In order to focus its attention on maximizing the success of an Iron Man sequel and the launch of Thor in the summer of 2010 and because Marvel believes that the summer is the optimal time to launch a new property, the Company will not release a self produced film in 2009. Marvel plans to launch its 2010 film slate with the release of the sequel, Iron Man 2, on April 30, 2010, followed by the launch of Thor on June 4, 2010. Additionally, Marvel is planting its feature film stakes for summer 2011 with an Avengers-themed summer – a two-picture project which will debut on May 6, 2011 with The First Avenger: Captain America (working title), followed by The Avengers in July 2011.

 

[Rust]

I can live with that, but 2010 is awfully far away and IM2 before THOR I don't get...

 

[chiefchirpa]

Thanks Skippy.

So 2009 is a lost year. Damn, am I the only guy who feel very sad for lost time?

Anyway, they better make a good Thor and Iron Man 2. And please start selling out those lesser characters to other studio with certain better supervisional clauses. That way I won't wait on Dr. Strange or Namor movies for 10 years.

 

[Skippy Roberts]

Selling out? You're crazy man Iron Man was a lesser known character. It's not how popular it is--it's how awesome of a film they make. Marvel won't sell anyrights for any films that can sell merchandise and make them a profit.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Iron Man is not a lesser known character from Marvel POV (in comics he's all over the place now) and that's the reason why it has precedence over Captain America even if Cap is more famous.

I speak for myself for not wanting to wait a comic movie realized 10 years from now. I don't like waiting.

 

[Skippy Roberts]

Iron Man is not a lesser known character from Marvel POV (in comics he's all over the place now) and that's the reason why it has precedence over Captain America even if Cap is more famous.

I speak for myself for not wanting to wait a comic movie realized 10 years from now. I don't like waiting.

10 years? Also Iron Man is a character never exposed to the masses like Hulk, Spidey, etc...There's a huge difference between the comics franchise and the awareness on the level of a movie franchise. They're not connected.

 

[chiefchirpa]

10 years is a possibility if Marvel keeps the 2 films per year policy and that film includes sequel of a succesful preceding movie (case in point: IM 2)

Iron Man is a character never exposed to the masses because the FX technology hasn't caught up yet. Since the 80's they've been aiming for an Iron Man movie but because there's no CGI good enough for it, we're just seeing it now.

 

[Skippy Roberts]

Doesn't matter why it wasn't exposed. Marvel's 2 film per year policy is to prevent a glut of films in the genre. Keep in mind that 2 film per year policy does not include Marvel films from other studios like Spidey. Iron Man 2 was greenlit immediately for obvious reasons. It's a proven money maker. It solidifies the 2010 earnings season--it's an anchor. The strike threw things off. Marvel isn't rushing anything for anyone which we should appreciate.

-The Skipster

 

[The Agent]

Skippy is right. Marvel have actually thought this through, (I wish they could apply the same energetic logic with their comics) but their plan makes perfect sense to me and its nice to actually see that they have a formulated plan as opposed to just winging it. Strategy is key and there's no way that Marvel want to screw things up for themselves.

 

[Skippy Roberts]

I'd rather wait 10 years and get a film like Iron Man, than wait 3 years and get a film like Elektra or Fantasic Four.

 

[chiefchirpa]

That's why I'm hoping Marvel to sell the lesser characters to external studio under more direct supervisional clause. These lesser characters are like Runaways, Ms. Marvel, Nova or Moon Knight. That way I don't have to wait too long for movies like them, because if Thor & Captain America turn out to be good, they too get sequels and the queue line will be even longer. More direct supervisional clause means there's more chance to get a quality films so it's not like we get Ghost Rider or Elektra.

 

[Dotten]

Heavy heaven, I can't wait for 2010.

Thank you Marvel, for proving me wrong.

 

[Skippy Roberts]

You don't need to worry. Marvel is going to make the films that have the most merchandising potential and income potential first. However they also need to intro new franchises as well and mine their properties. You won't be seeing a 100 million dollar Moon Knight film anytime soon. The areas of focus should be: Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, & Hulk. I also think Black Panther would be a good one as it's so different, and Ant-Man could be an amazing visual film that younger audiences would eat up. Don't judge a film on it's popularity in the comics but just think of--"Could they take this property and make it a killer property with the right director and talent and does it have merchandise potential."

That's why Hawkeye isn't likely. Daredevil is.

-The Skipster

 

[chiefchirpa]

No, I have this optimistic feeling that all Marvel films are going to be good and will at least produce a trilogy. Ok bear with me

2010 - Iron Man 2, Thor
2011 - Captain America, Avengers
2012 - Iron Man 3 (RDJ wants another round), Ant Man (give a chance to Edgar Wright)
2013 - Thor 2 (intro for Enchantress, Surtur saga), Captain America 2 (Baron Zemo?)
2014 - Black Panther, Ant Man 2 (Yay people love Pym & Lang)
2015 - Hulk 2, Avenger 2
2016 - Iron Man 4, and so on.

So is there any room for lesser guys like Hawkeye, Daredevil, Moon Knight, Nova, She-Hulk, Black Widow, Namor, and so on knowing the spot would forever filled by the usual franchises? That's my point all along. Marvel by itself can't give spot to the lesser guys. The B-List, the C-List, and the D-List.

 

[Blader5489]

So 2009 is a lost year. Damn, am I the only guy who feel very sad for lost time?

I don't think it's that bad. With the latest string of superhero movies, I think the general public could use a break. It's looking like 2010 and '11 are going to be pretty full, given these four movies plus Spider-Man 4, the next Superman, and the third Batman from Nolan's trilogy.

Can't ****ing wait!! t:

 

[Skippy Roberts]

Love the list above but as long as this Hulk film makes money the sequel will have a priority and hit in 2012. You can thank the lost year in 2009 to the SAG and WGA strikes. Still I think it's obvious Marvel needed more time with Thor.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Love the list above but as long as this Hulk film makes money the sequel will have a priority and hit in 2012. You can thank the lost year in 2009 to the SAG and WGA strikes. Still I think it's obvious Marvel needed more time with Thor.

Hulk will probably be in the Avengers movie.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

I can live with that, but 2010 is awfully far away and IM2 before THOR I don't get...

I think its a good idea. Let these things have the time they need to develop rather than rushing them out the door ala Fox.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Love the list above but as long as this Hulk film makes money the sequel will have a priority and hit in 2012. You can thank the lost year in 2009 to the SAG and WGA strikes. Still I think it's obvious Marvel needed more time with Thor.

Personally, I rather see a Hulk sequel than Ant Man

But yeah, that's more problematic if all 4 Marvel Big Guns get sequels & that sequels are perpetuated as priorities (not that I have problems with it, I like the Big Guns prosper). Where's the time for Moon Knight? Where's the chance for Daredevil? Where's the turn for Luke Cage?

 

[ShaZam612]

So 2009 is a lost year. Damn, am I the only guy who feel very sad for lost time?

Wolverine is 2009

 

[FaT_tONle]

When is Toy Story 3 due out? June 18th right? How about Memorial Day weekend? I think its still unannounced... I think movies like SM4 and other NON-inhouse Marvel films should take a back seat until after Avengers.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Personally, I rather see a Hulk sequel than Ant Man

But yeah, that's more problematic if all 4 Marvel Big Guns get sequels & that sequels are perpetuated as priorities (not that I have problems with it, I like the Big Guns prosper). Where's the time for Moon Knight? Where's the chance for Daredevil? Where's the turn for Luke Cage?

THey should have been making Ant-Man next year. O well...

 

[Rac]

So 2009 is a lost year. Damn, am I the only guy who feel very sad for lost time?

I'd rather take a year without any Marvel movie than a year with three crappy Marvel movies. But as Shazam stated Wolverine's coming out next year. Though that will probably suck 'cause Fox is the studio.

Still I think it's obvious Marvel needed more time with Thor.

Haven't Vaughn been developing Thor since Stardust premiered? That's almost a year ago.

 

[NoirMan82]

I think its a good idea. Let these things have the time they need to develop rather than rushing them out the door ala Fox.

 

[Raiden]

I don't like the idea of introducing Thor in IM2. IM has a great thing going, and I don't want Stark having to talk to a Norse god in his movie that is set in more realistic background. Have both of them meet in Avengers, but not before.