Kevin Feige Says Marvel Has Its Films Planned Through 2021

by     Posted 1 year, 109 days ago

kevin-feige-marvel-slice

When Iron Man 3 was presented at Comic-Con in the summer of 2012, it was Marvel’s first time appearing at the convention since the massive success of The Avengers.  The studio’s panel was kicked off by showing a video that highlighted Marvel’s previous appearances at the Con, going all the way back to the first Iron Man.  It acted as a nice reminder that The Avengers wasn’t some movie put together on a whim, but something that had been in the works for years and years.  To see it finally come to fruition was to see Marvel make good on its promise, and now fans are eager to see what the studio has up its sleeve in the years to come.

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige recently commented on the studio’s future plans, and while he didn’t get into specifics, he noted that they essentially have all of their movies planned out through the year 2021.  Obviously a lot can change in the meantime, but Feige was quick to remind that the studio’s plans for 2015 were hatched all the way back in 2006.  Hit the jump to read on.

the-avengers-team-imageSpeaking with Wired, Feige noted that Marvel’s plan going forward involves expanding its cinematic universe to include new characters:

“Five years ago, looking at our plan, we knew that if Avengers was going to work, the movies had to stand alone. Now we have to prove to the studio that we’re more than just these five characters, these five franchises.”

We already have Guardians of the Galaxy arriving in August 2014 and Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man kicking off Phase Three in November 2015, but Marvel has thus far been unwilling to confirm further titles, even though three “untitled” films are already scheduled for release in 2016 and 2017.  That’s not as far as Marvel’s purview goes, though, as Feige went on to say that the studio actually has its slate planned out much further:

“I could arguably say what we’re planning for the year 2021. Will that happen? I don’t know. But what we planned for 2015 in 2006 is happening.”

ant-man-test-footageFeige has already confirmed that Doctor Strange is one of the first films Marvel will be tackling in Phase Three, and there have also been rumors about a Black Panther movie for years.  Beyond that, though, it’s anyone’s guess.  The Avengers 3 is all but guaranteed to hit in 2017 or 2018 and we will likely see more sequels to Thor and Captain America, plus follow-ups for Guardians and Ant-Man if those movies take off.  Iron Man, however, remains a question mark since Robert Downey Jr. has yet to sign on for a further standalone film.  Feige recently told us that Marvel wouldn’t be announcing its 2016 and 2017 titles until next year, so it appears that we’ll have to wait quite a while for confirmation.

What do you think, dear readers?  If Marvel does indeed have an outline of films it will tackle through 2021, what properties do you hope made the cut?  Sound off in the comments below.

guardians-of-the-galaxy-concept-art-final




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Pingback: Marvel Movie Rights and Future Marvel Movies - Page 4

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    I love that Marvel Studios has their sh!t together…maybe one day DC and Warner Bros will learn (but probably not until DC creates their own studio and isn’t beholden to pleasing the Warner gods at all times. Impossible, I know). But back to the question at hand…

    I’m really excited about Ant-Man because of it’s potential both visually and story-wise. Of the unannounced ones, Dr. Strange will be awesome. I really want them to make a Daredevil now that they have the rights back. If you can’t have Spiderman, Daredevil is a very cool alternative. I never really found Black Panther to be super interesting…I like him as a character a lot, but not necessarily as the star of his own movie. I’d be all for a Namor the Submariner movie, though. They may have to make him less of an @sshole, though, or no one would connect with him.

    • name

      Just because DC don’t have a shared movie universe, that doesn’t mean they don’t have good movies. Most people seem to forget that V for Vendetta, Red, Watchmen, Constantine(which i know isn’t everyone’s cup of tea) are actually DC movies. When people hear DC they immediately think Dark Knight and Green lantern.

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        I remember all of those films, but all those properties used to fall under disparate factions of DC (Vertigo, etc). The average moviegoer doesn’t associate them with DC and DC has done nothing to help them make that connection. I agree that DC doesn’t have to go the shared universe route. But if they’re not going to have a unifying force behind their comic movies then they need SOMETHING to ensure that their films are consistently good. They already have the disadvantage because most of their most famous characters are so powerful that they can be hard to relate to (especially if the director/writer doesn’t do it well). I’m just thinking DC can learn a thing or two from Marvel since Marvel is WAY ahead of them in film, comic market share, and comic unit share. Marvel is even horning in on the animated side, which DC used to be better at. I like both sides…just saying.

      • Scullibundo

        Are you seriously suggesting that Marvel’s films are consistently good? The likes of Captain America and the HULK films are just as shitty as Man of Steel. If anything, I’m worried Antman is going to held back in creative terms due to Marvel leashing Edgar Wright’s style in order to keep it consistent with the generic universe that is operating in all of their films.

        I think the first Iron Man film and The Avengers are the only legitimately good films in their entire catalogue. It’s sad to think that Fox and Sony have put out better Marvel films than Marvel in the form of the first two Spider-Man films and Singer’s X-films.

      • Nerdgasm

        LOL what? Number one, Norton’s Hulk and Cap are miles greater than Man Of Steel. Are they better or stand up to Avengers or Iron Man? No. The only down right failure they have had was Iron Man 2. People still went and saw it but it wasn’t loved. Captain America is a special property cause it’s not really suppose to fit within the normal confines of the Avengers world but it’s a story that needed to be told. But it had a consistent voice, style and reason which I can’t say is the same for Man Of Steel. I’ll Give you X2 and First Class but Xmen One is a pretty blan Origin story that are either in the same line as CAP and HULK or is actually worse being as it’s not well balanced it’s all about Wolvie which the comics weren’t all about. But you hafta look at Fox’s Catalog if you are going to use all of Marvel’s… Xmen is below Average, X2 Great, X3 is bad bad bad, Origins is worse than X3, Wolverine was decent and First Class was fantastic. So Two films… same as how you put Iron Man adn Avengers so how is Fox better? [Not to mention Fox's show of Dare Devil and Fantastic Four]? And I have always been against Spiderman… They made him into a bumbling jokey satire of what the comics were. SpiderMan wasn’t gimicky there was weight behind his jokes and his mannerisms and how he treated people and none of that came through. He was a one note character in Raimi’s shit fest of the movies. You argument is weak specially the fact you think Fox makes better Marvel Movies.

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        PS – Constantine is a guilty pleasure of mine! Keanu was an interesting choice, but I find that interpretation entertaining.

      • Nerdgasm

        Yeah lets look at those track records. V For Vendetta is a good movie which allows for Multiple Viewings. Same goes for Batman Begins and Dark Knight. A lot of people weren’t ready for Watchmen and it wasn’t a consistent movie. The pacing of that movie was terrible – i did enjoy it but know many that didn’t and critically and box office wise it didn’t do well at all. RED was atrocious. Constantine wasn’t about being someones CUP O TEA it was a terrible movie and terrible rendition of the comics Box office gross and reviews also attest to that. Green Lantern and Man of Steel also pretty dismal. So i don’t get your argument. You look at all the Marvel movies before now they have all been pretty Average but after they took their stories back they have all been pretty damn good.

      • Lex Walker

        Saying RED was atrocious is very much your opinion, because by most other standards (critical reception, box office, general word of mouth) it was well regarded. I’m not sure where you’re getting “atrocious” from.

      • Nerdgasm

        Ummm it under performed. It was average very average. 72% by audience reviews of RT same with Critic. Slightly above Average… but just below Average for a fresh type movie. and it only made around 40 million after you take out what it cost to make the movie. That isn’t much considering that Bruce Willis probably had a back door contract on it and probably got about 10 million of that 40. an actual success of a movie on an Average scale is to make enough to cover a sequel. the 90 million wasn’t enough to afford to a sequel.it under performed so not sure wher eyour facts came from.

      • Lex Walker

        1) 72% is positive as far as movies go, and no, it’s pretty much exactly average for a positive film considering anything up to a 51% is considered “fresh”, and in fact very few “fresh” films score over an 80.
        2) It made about $200 million on a $58 million budget and it’s produced by Summit, which means it does n’t have the typical $30+ million advertising budget, it has at most $10-20 million. And you’re speculating on Bruce Willis’s take, don’t just assume that. So no, it made a good deal more than $40 million, about $120 million. Even if you want to credit 1/3 of that taken by theaters, that’s still $80 million. Nevermind the $34 million in DVD sales in the US alone. Quit talking out of your ass.

      • Nerdgasm

        DVD sales really have nothing to do with anything. All of that goes back to marketing unless it’s an insane intake. So they probably saw 10 million. You really need to look into what Studios actually receive and what they actually look at.

        And I was just talking Domestic. almost all of the time a studio will only look at Domestic for whether or not it was successful or whether or not it deserves a sequel. Now it got one… also not a jamming success. But by standards it under performed in domestic. Domestic stats really only count since it’s being made here… it’s not a foreign film. For example Pacific Rim probably won’t get a sequel since it has under performed here even though it was loved over seas. They need to bank off of Domestic first and look at Foreign later. Foreign intake cannot be the only stake they should accept to get.

        And I knew you were going to look past what I said about the 72%. If you were smarter and looked closer I said in the category of being a FRESH movie it is actually below average… but as movies in general it is above average. Fresh movies are from 51% -100% meaning Average would be 76%. so as Fresh movies go its below average. Thank you.

      • Nerdgasm

        And further… later on down the line here you claim that Man of Steel under performed in WB’s eyes. They have never statement that this was true. So you are assuming and since you brought WORLD WIDE gross into the mix 604K for a 222K movie isn’t exactly under performed. But just looking at domestic… you bet Man of Steel was a bust and I agree that Man of Steel was a bust but I am using it sake of argument in how can you say RED didn’t under perform or do well and say that Man Of Steel did?

      • Nerdgasm

        And further… later on down the line here you claim that Man of Steel under performed in WB’s eyes. They have never statement that this was true. So you are assuming and since you brought WORLD WIDE gross into the mix 604K for a 222K movie isn’t exactly under performed. But just looking at domestic… you bet Man of Steel was a bust and I agree that Man of Steel was a bust but I am using it sake of argument in how can you say RED didn’t under perform or do well and say that Man Of Steel did?

      • Lex Walker

        It’s based on studio expectations and expenditures. RED didn’t have to hit that $300 million domestic benchmark that many studios consider to be the standard of domestic blockbuster success because it 1) had a low budget 2) had a minimal marketing push (Summit spends about $14 million on average per film for P&A – while parent company Lionsgate does about $18-22 million with the occasional splurge of $40 on tentpoles like Hunger Games) and 3) was an unknown property. Expectations were low.

        By comparison, WB president Jeff Robinov forecast over $1 billion for Man of Steel’s box office. He outright stated it would be WB’s biggest film ever. Google it. Unrealistic? You bet, but you can’t say Warner Brothers never called $650 million underperforming if $1 billion was the expectation. The size of a studio, the marketability of the property (and the money spent to do so), and the box office take are the determinants of how a studio determines success. Summit spent about $80 million on Red and everything the film made abroad was profit. On top of the 225 million budget, WB likely spent at least 60-80 million on their marketing push considering it did a full worldwide push and the sheer amount of TV time it had. So it comes out to about $305 million spent on the film, and from its international box office it only saw (at most) 40% of the 65million it made in China (some estimates put it as low as only 20% due to China’s specific rules on foreign distributors needing domestic liaisons if they want their film shown at all and the additional cut those liaisons then take off WB’s share).

        What all that means is that for spending $300 million, WB is only looking at a final payday of maybe $100 million profit, a nice margin but a failure by Hollywood bookkeeping standards (which is probably why they’re adding Batman next time). By comparison, Red cost $80 million and made them back at least $60 million profit (aided by none of their foreign BO being in China or a country with a system similar to China’s). That’s a successful margin in Hollywood bookkeeping.

      • Lex Walker

        Except you’re assuming the “average is evenly weighted between 51% and 100% at 75% – and that’s not the case. The vast majority of “fresh” films fall under 80% and even under 70%. So the average doesn’t equal 75%. The math isn’t that simplistic.Most movies that keep a fresh rating fall in the mid 60s (at best). Go look at all the fresh films of this year and you’ll the average is about 8 percentage points less than 75%. If you were smarter, you wouldn’t assume the scale was so simple as to average at 75%. The median is 75%, the average is not.

        And no, a studio does NOT only look at domestic for a determination of success. There are certainly domestic benchmarks a studio wants their film to achieve, but any film with international distribution has its foreign profits calculated into earnings. Your claim is absurd. It’s the foreign box offices for movies like Thor and Avengers that qualified them as successes. By domestic readings alone, Thor was a failure. What you think you know about DVD sales is entirely wrong – in many cases its DVD sales that push a film from being dead in the water to sequel territory. DVD sales are a huge part of film financing as they can be the deciding factor between recouping losses and breaking even or suddenly becoming a viable sequel franchise.

      • Nerdgasm

        The amount of movies that are pushed in sequel territories cause of DVD sales is a very small, small percentage. And i know the specs on Man Of Steel they were destined to fail from the get go. Avengers was domestically a winner for Marvel, Foreign was just frosting for them to dive in. Thor is a different story yes, that is true though I don’t think looking at the numbers that it was a complete failure in Domestic markets. And DVD sales are used in a lot of the markets as a way of yes recouping losses but also to take care of debts on the back end.

      • Lex Walker

        Red was a perfect example of DVD sales taking a film from being a one-time installment to getting a sequel. Based on box office it was a success, but nothing that would entice a sequel. It was the DVD sales almost equaling half of the box office profit that made a sequel an enticing venture. Unfortunately, they kind of blundered and committed way too much money to a sequel and then completely under-advertised it. They couldn’t reproduce the success of Red. And in the case of Thor, it’s a “failure” domestically because it really didn’t even earn back its production and advertising budget. For almost any film that does that, it never gets a sequel, but luckily for Thor it’s foreign intake was impressive and easily balanced it out.

        Man of Steel is in a similar boat. It’s domestic haul likely didn’t even exceed its production and advertising costs. All the profit is coming from abroad, but considering how much they probably spent on marketing the film abroad and the sheer number of countries they sent it to, the numbers aren’t what WB wants them to be for a potential A-List franchise starter. Thor had the benefit of showing up in Avengers, and it’s likely some of that success will help make Thor 2 a bigger domestic success while keeping its foreign BO consistent (if not better).

      • Nerdgasm

        Honestly the Avengers is just a different monster. Cause they have so much wiggle room cause of the other movies and then the flag ship movies that they don’t really work in this argument. And RED was green lit before DVD sales. DVD sales just made them smile and think they were doing the right thing.

    • Jason Richards

      It’s not as easy as it looks to simply organize film after film like that, man. If Iron Man 1 bombed we’re not having a conversation about any of this today. If Thor or Cap bombed we don’t see the Avengers. There’s a lot of luck that goes into these things. Man of Steel made a lot of money, so if MOS 2 makes a ton of money and the Flash makes a ton of money, then we’ll see something similar.

      • http://www.gotham-news.com/ Pietro Filipponi

        What you call luck I call hard work. they didn’t just throw Thor and Cap into low budget, piecemeal shit and hoped they would stick to the wall.

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        I agree. All of those Marvel movies were very well done. True to the heart of the source material while making the necessary changes for film and director creativity. Marvel also has Feige as the unifying force to make everything run. DC has nobody and they run their comic movies just like regular, unrelated projects. Creating a movie “universe” like Marvel did is a great way to go. Not the only way, but look at the results. Marvel is super successful. DC is not.

      • Lex Walker

        Actually, based on WB’s projections for Man of Steel, it has underperformed in their eyes, but they’re still going to move ahead because they desperately want some of that Avengers-esque Justice League money. Whether or not they’re making the right decision by keeping Zack Snyder at the reins and rushing MOS2 just to make that happen is the real question.

  • Sean B

    I would think they’ve gotta do another Hulk movie, no?

    • Person

      I hope so too, just no idea when. Woulda thought they’d try to capitalize on the character’s popularity post-Avengers (Ruffalo did a great job), but I guess not. I have a feeling they might be too scared to trust the Hulk with anyone other than Whedon, so now Hulk’s just gonna show up in Avengers movies for limited chunks of time, get the biggest cheers, and leave. I honestly don’t have a huge problem with that.

      • Lex Walker

        Considering he does seem to work better as a supplementary character, or when he has another superhero to balance him out, it might mean there’s potential for some good, solid Hulk Vs. movies down the road. If Marvel and Fox ever get stuff worked out, it’d be cool to see a live-action version of Hulk Vs. Wolverine.

    • paul h

      I wouldn’t count on it. IIRC during/after the Avengers blew up there were a lot of quotes & things that boiled down to “no immediate plans”, which I guess is understandable, 2 previous (tho not Marvel controlled) films that didn’t exactly set the world alight… I enjoyed both tho, I really liked the editing in Ang Lee’s, kinda surprised no other comic book movies have borrowed that tbh.

      Maybe for Phase 4?

      • Nerdgasm

        The Norton Movie was Marvel Controlled. It was a split job between marvel and Universal so that Marvel could get the character back. They used the movie pay off the character since they wanted him for the Avengers. Norton was just a dick to Whedon and was fired from the roll which went to Ruffalo but Avengers is a direct sequel to Norton’s Hulk. And Ang Lee’s editing was pretty annoying and the story was bland.

      • paul h

        oh yeah, I knew it was Marvel controlled… brain fart a-hoy!

    • James

      Rumor is another Hulk movie will be in Phase 3.

  • Faptain America

    Standalone Hulk movie in 2016 or Hulk smash!!

  • name

    I guess the ultimate test will be when one of them will bomb or get very bad reviews, because it will happen, eventually(no movie series is perfect). It will be interesting to see how will they deal with it, will it be eliminated from the continuity?

    • Jason Richards

      But here’s the thing, though. Marvel has built up a brand that seems to be bomb proof. I mean they turned a C list comic book character like Iron Man into someone who some people see as popular as Batman today. The movies are not my cup of tea, but these guys are as bankable as it comes.

      • name

        If Iron Man was C list, then ant man and the guardians of the galaxy are Z list. Iron Man had a pretty big fan base before the movie, there were animated series that featured him. I agree that marvel is a big brand in movies right now, but nothing is bomb proof.

      • http://www.gotham-news.com/ Pietro Filipponi

        Iron Man was definitely a C-list character. The only A-lister Marvel Studios had the rights to was Hulk. The mainstream popularity of the rest were because of the films, not what came before.

      • Mandy

        What? Marvel’s version of the Big Three were/are Iron Man, Captain America, & Thor. A list does not mean most well know.

      • http://www.gotham-news.com/ Pietro Filipponi

        A-list absolutely means popularity. Are you talking about their ‘A-team’? That’s something different. Captain America and Thor were B-list until their films came out because they were relegated to comics fare only. Spider-Man and Hulk are the A-list Marvel characters comparable to DC’s Superman and Batman. Marvel Studios only owned the rights to Hulk.

      • Mandy

        So…in your opinion only comic characters who get (good/popular) movies are considered A list??

        Comics and movies are two completely different forms of media. They have difference forms of measuring sucess. A popular film does not equal a comic getting tons of sales. Nor does it equal a popular character. Esp if the character is changed or adapted differently for the movie. Then if a person goes to buy the comic and finds a character is not the one they loved on screen.

        (I forgot about Spiderman but yeah he was/is definitely on Marvel’s A-list)

      • http://www.gotham-news.com/ Pietro Filipponi

        This is an article about movies. Yes, I’m speaking in terms of movies. Yes, for a comic book character to get mainstream A-list popularity they need to have a well received movie or series of movies. Comic book sales are a paltry figure compared to almost every other commercial aspect of the entertainment world. I understand that hard core comics fans what to think otherwise but facts are facts.

      • Nerdgasm

        Yeah I have to Agree with Pietro. I have always been an Iron Man fan and i grew up with his comics. But even Feige has said on many occasions that Iron man is a C-Character. he is a hero who isn’t street level like Luke Cage or Iron Fist… but he also didn’t connect with audiences as a character in the books. he went from a title character to supplementary character very quickly in the Marvel World much like Mr. Fantastic did since that team didn’t really take off with audiences of comic readers. Tony was good to have around and they even used Avengers to try and furhter him making money for the but it never worked. Iron Man was most certainly C grade hero. Captain America I would put at a B cause people only knew him by symbolism. Marvel’s tentpole heroes are Spidey, Wolvie, Hulk and I would even go as far as Dare Devil specially for comic readers since Frank Miller was apart of that. But Iron Man and most of the Avengers have always be B and C Heroes. Sorry.

      • JBug

        Don’t forget Captain America in the A-list. Agree about IM and Thor.

      • Chace Boswell

        You have no clue what you are talking about, and are obviously oblivious to the fan base these characters had before the films….have you ever even read a comic book???

      • http://www.gotham-news.com/ Pietro Filipponi

        Lots. Practically my whole life. Doesn’t change the fact that comic book readers are a meager percentage of the mainstream (general) audience. Bottom line is if you don’t have movies, cartoons, toys, etc along with popular comic books you aren’t an A-list character. Not sure why that’s hard to understand.

      • Chace Boswell

        Bottom line is that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about . . . I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.

      • Jason Richards

        If I asked a hundred people who Thor and Iron Man was before their respective movies, then I would’ve heard crickets. Everyone and their mom knows who Batman, Hulk, Spiderman, and Superman is.

      • Lex Walker

        Well yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy are definitely Z list as far as 99% of the world is concerned. Ant Man too, really. This latest generation of kids will know him thanks to the Earth’s Mightiest Heroes cartoon, but otherwise no one will know who he is going in either. I think Guardians is the real test though. It’s so out there that it’ll either be so weird and obscure that no one will touch it, or its oddity factor will draw people in. It’s Marvel’s first big coin toss since launching Iron Man.

    • sh ola

      It’s happened before with HULK (2008), and they were able to recover with iron man 2.

  • Pingback: The Comic Books and Comic Book movies thread - Page 311

  • Jason Richards

    I’ve never seen organization like this from major movie studios. I don’t like the Marvel movies, but no one can deny that those dudes have a plan and they know how to execute their shit.

  • largehrdsports

    Comic book movie fatigue is bound to set in. The iconic characters will probably survive (Spiderman, X-Men, Capt. America, etc.) but these B and C list characters (Ant Man, Black Panther, Iron Fist, etc.) will eventually be ignored by moviegoers. Completely unrelated–could you imagine if the last Punisher film had been like the first “Taken?” Or more precisely if the movie Taken was The Punisher movie. Another thing–Tony Jaa style martial arts and stunt work must be in the next Daredevil movie. Kevin Feige should give me a holla.

    • The Driver

      I’d hate to be a negative nancy as well, I loved CBMs and I still generally enjoy them but I have to agree. I think all genre’s see peaks and valley’s and I just don’t see the interest keeping up for nearly another 10 years for this unless we start to see something REALLY big like studio cross over big.

      Even then the whole city leveling climax in movies is old hat after a single summer, seriously (G.I. Joe, Man of Steel, Star Trek, Pacific Rim, and even RIPD have some element of buildings coming down). I used to be the kind of person the defended those big cgi enhanced movies like the Matrix and now I find myself cherishing the movies that decide to go smaller scale like the Wolverine (at least 2/3rds of it) and less bombastic. More character based movies please.

      Eventually then these individual stories are going to get hampered by the fact that they need to set up sequels and hold off on major character development for the future sequels and team ups. I see a lot more Iron Man 2ish films than Iron Man 1s coming not just from Marvel, but DC and other studios like Sony and Fox as the try to overstuff their movies with more and more characters. People are getting so caught up in the spectacle arms race.

    • JBug

      It completely depends on quality. Audiences won’t tolerate crappy movies about no-name super heroes, but if they can produce quality, it changes the name of the game.

      Summer blockbusters are at an all time high (in both quality and box office) primarily due to comic book movies.

  • Bob

    Future movies probably include Doctor Strange, Cap3/Thor3, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Black Panther, Inhumans, Luke Cage/Iron Fist, and Namor the Submariner.

  • Littertray

    It would be nice to see a Ms/Captain Marvell film now that a space connection has been made in the MCU. Could do with a female character that actually has super powers and could go toe to toe with the men.
    As for a Hulk movie, it would be nice if they could do a storyline that introduces She Hulk. Or better still make Hulk the bad guy in Avengers 4 by doing the World War Hulk storyline.

    • Mandy

      Since DC doesn’t seem to have the guts to put forth a good Wonder Woman film I’m hoping Marvel jumps on the ball and puts out a Ms Marvel film first. I think Carol would be a great idea for her own origin movie. And while I love the MCU it is defiintely lacking in superhero women.

      I also have my fingers crossed someone will eventually pick up the AKA Jessia Jones show that was rumored. A C list hero turned private eye is such an interesting concept to me. I really got sucked into her books.

      • Nerdgasm

        The issue I think with marvel women is that their stories are very strange, twisted and need a lot of history. We can’t just jump into a Ms. Marvel or She Hulk Story. Pillars need to be set. It seems with GOG we are finally getting Kree so a Ms. Marvel movie can be in the works. It’ll be interesting cause I think this scarlet Witch idea will fail since we have no history on her and can’t since Fox has the rights to magneto. But the women have a lot of history that doesn’t won’t give the character justice if we can’t have all the build up to them. Specially with ms. Marvel.

  • Jamal Mills

    How about we connect to this generation of comic book movie fans, and finally do a Runaways movie.

    • largehrdsports

      The characters may change but the story remains the same!

      • Mills

        The way each character relates to the other make the story though, if you do a runaways movie and not put in Molly your an idiot.

  • Strong Enough

    its easy to make superhero films and spit them out in quantity when they are forgettable. Marvel approaches these films as connections and commercials for their big event which is Avengers. There has been nothing groundbreaking or amazing in their slot except for Avengers. They thrive on mediocrity.

    • largehrdsports

      What was so groundbreaking about the TDK trilogy? Other than they didn’t completely suck like their 4 predecessors, TDK trilogy is good but completely joyless. Spiderman 2 is the best comic book movie thus far.

      • Strong Enough

        spider man 2 isn’t a marvel studio’s movie but i agree its up there with TDK as the best CBM.

      • nerdgasm

        Was still the same team though buddy. Look up your facts. Kevin Feige and his all team was apart of all the Xmen Films and SpiderMan films.

      • paul h

        Are you sure about that? I mean I know they get a credit & etc but I think I’ve read statements from KF in the past about how they don’t really have any real input over the licensed properties.

      • Strong Enough

        We are talking about Marvel STUDIOS. they were never apart of the X-Men and Spider Man films. Iron man is their first real film with marvel studios

      • JBug

        Please don’t call it the TDK trilogy. I’m trying to forget TDKR ever happened.

  • largehrdsports

    I want to see Wolverine in an epic revenge tale ala Kill Bill–yes, an R rated tale. I think QT could do but Marvel Studios isn’t that daring. Ghost Rider, Punisher, and Wolverine movies would all benefit from being R rated.

    • Lex Walker

      The last Punisher movie didn’t really benefit from that. Then again, it didn’t really benefit from anything else either: it’s acting, writing, direction, etc. Horrible across the board. “Sometimes I’d like to get my hands on God…” smh

  • Robby Richmond

    Some valid & interesting opinions below but whats always interesting to me is the way Feige speaks and actually says nothing. What many people seem to have forgotten or perhaps not taken into account is the importance of the success of the Agents of Shield TV show and the potential offshoots available from there.

    As much as personally enjoy the Hulk movies I think it’s far more likely that you’ll see him return to the small screen before the big screen and the outlay for other ’2nd tier’ heroes might be best served there.

    I’d happily go and see another Daredevil film, or a Punisher flick or even a Ghost Rider flick, so long as theyre directly under control of Marvel Studios, the likely hood is they’d all be profitable. No where near Avengers or Iron Man 2 money but still enough to help build the studio’s gamete a little further.

    • Lex Walker

      I’ve been a big fan of the idea that’s been floating around the internet of Marvel making a much smaller line of genre movies with some of the more obscure characters and concepts, like Heroes for Hire, for $30-40 million budgets. Small enough to make up their costs easily by the 16-35 male demographic but made well enough and with the potential for crossover into bigger movies that they’ll still attract big audiences. Daredevil and Punisher would also fit within this scope. Ghost Rider’s a trickier animal since it requires special effects anytime the titular hero takes over, but it could still be doable for about $60-70 million (and by finally ditching Nic Cage)

      • JBug

        I disagree – Go big or go extinct

      • Lex Walker

        I’m not sure you could throw $150 million at a Heroes for Hire movie and not have it be overblown and way too much money. Or even $80 million. Those franchises are supposed to be simple, gritty, and street-level. The special effects work would be minimal (save for Ghost Rider), so why would you even need a budget bigger than $40 million for Punisher, Daredevil, or Heroes for Hire?

      • JBug

        The ceiling for those titles is cult classic ala chronicle and kick-ass. They prob won’t have mass appeal.

      • Lex Walker

        Kick-Ass made $96.2 million off a $30 million budget (and probably $10 million marketing), and that’s without being tied to a larger universe like the Marvel movies would be.Chronicle made $126.6 million on a $12 million budget. Why wouldn’t Marvel want to embrace this strategy for some of their films? It’s clearly lucrative and perfectly suited for a specific tier of its heroes. Your examples didn’t support your argument.

      • JBug

        I was specifically giving examples of movies that have succeeded in your proposed model because these movies are the ceiling for this sub-genre (they are two of my favorites). While they’re margins are impressive, the big studios are really aiming to dominate on a much larger scale.

        Also, if studios were aiming to make these types of movies (leaner) they would likely end up pumping out a lot of garbage before coming out with anything worth producing. Common movie goers would much rather pay for expensive garbage (Transformers) than cheap garbage (Super).

      • JBug

        I was specifically giving examples of movies that have succeeded in your proposed model because these movies are the ceiling for this sub-genre (they are two of my favorites). While they’re margins are impressive, the big studios are really aiming to dominate on a much larger scale.

        Also, if studios were aiming to make these types of movies (leaner) they would likely end up pumping out a lot of garbage before coming out with anything worth producing. Common movie goers would much rather pay for expensive garbage (Transformers) than cheap garbage (Super).

      • Lex Walker

        The studios ARE the ones making those movies. Chronicle was produced by Fox, not just distributed. Ironically, the one movie you mentioned as being trash (Super), is the only one in this conversation that wasn’t touched in any way by a major studio.

        I’m not questioning that studios want big blockbusters, I’m saying some heroes don’t lend themselves to huge blockbusters and therefore smaller fare flicks on the scale of Kick-Ass and Chronicle might be more suitable for them. And as you’ve said, there’s clearly a demand for well-made films that fit this range, and if Feige can ensure the same level of quality continues on that level, what reason do we have to believe that this wouldn’t work and be a profitable way to expand the Marvel cinematic universe? The smaller a film’s budget, the less it has to make at the box office to be a success – and Marvel branding + Kick-Ass/Chronicle-caliber story/execution = new ceiling for that smaller scale film.

      • JBug

        I like what you’re saying, but I feel that Kick-Ass and Chronicle worked best because they were fresh. They stood out from the pack. If Marvel started focusing on pumping out smaller budget movies on a larger scale, it’ll be a lot harder for them to get noticed. The big budgeted films draw crowds because they are by nature the event of the season.

        If Marvel is producing 2-3 smaller budgeted films a year (smaller production/marketing budgets), what’s going to lure people out to see them? Maybe fans, but probably not many others.

      • Lex Walker

        Oh, I’m not suggesting 2-3 smaller ones a year (the market definitely can’t handle that), maybe just 1 each year, and debut it either in the first quarter of the year, or if it’s a non-Thor year, around the Holiday corridor. And I think if you make it clear with a wink and nudge in advertising that “Hey, you just might see this guy pop up in Avengers 3/4/etc.” You’d get plenty of interest, or at least enough to generate at least $90-100 million+. Heck, if it had a lead-in or tie-in to Agents of SHIELD that’d probably make their advertising job even easier.

      • Lex Walker

        Oh, I’m not suggesting 2-3 smaller ones a year (the market definitely can’t handle that), maybe just 1 each year, and debut it either in the first quarter of the year, or if it’s a non-Thor year, around the Holiday corridor. And I think if you make it clear with a wink and nudge in advertising that “Hey, you just might see this guy pop up in Avengers 3/4/etc.” You’d get plenty of interest, or at least enough to generate at least $90-100 million+. Heck, if it had a lead-in or tie-in to Agents of SHIELD that’d probably make their advertising job even easier.

      • JBug

        I like what you’re saying, but I feel that Kick-Ass and Chronicle worked best because they were fresh. They stood out from the pack. If Marvel started focusing on pumping out smaller budget movies on a larger scale, it’ll be a lot harder for them to get noticed. The big budgeted films draw crowds because they are by nature the event of the season.

        If Marvel is producing 2-3 smaller budgeted films a year (smaller production/marketing budgets), what’s going to lure people out to see them? Maybe fans, but probably not many others.

      • Lex Walker

        The studios ARE the ones making those movies. Chronicle was produced by Fox, not just distributed. Ironically, the one movie you mentioned as being trash (Super), is the only one in this conversation that wasn’t touched in any way by a major studio.

        I’m not questioning that studios want big blockbusters, I’m saying some heroes don’t lend themselves to huge blockbusters and therefore smaller fare flicks on the scale of Kick-Ass and Chronicle might be more suitable for them. And as you’ve said, there’s clearly a demand for well-made films that fit this range, and if Feige can ensure the same level of quality continues on that level, what reason do we have to believe that this wouldn’t work and be a profitable way to expand the Marvel cinematic universe? The smaller a film’s budget, the less it has to make at the box office to be a success – and Marvel branding + Kick-Ass/Chronicle-caliber story/execution = new ceiling for that smaller scale film.

  • Pingback: Comics, Cinema and The Age of Saturation | Luke Benjamen Kuhns

  • Keith James Miles

    i think it’s a good idea to plan ahead but they need to start getting better at writing scripts because except for Iron Man 1 and Captain America i found all the Avenger lead in films and Avengers itself rather forgettable. i still enjoyed them but there are better films out every year, like this year i enjoyed Iron Man 3, but i preferred Man Of Steel and adored The Wolverine, and i know Superman wasn’t great but still.

    • JBug

      What they lack in script, they make up for in competent directing, which is why they are still enjoyable. I felt MoS lacked both.

  • Pingback: Marvel Studios Has Films Planned Out Through 2021 (Movies) | Blacktooth Entertainment

  • Jaron Herren

    Deadpool movie

  • Pingback: Rumor: Marvel Wants Johnny Depp for DOCTOR STRANGE | Collider

  • Pingback: Rumor: GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Sequel Could Be One of Marvel’s 2016 Releases | Collider

Click Here