May 17, 2013


The good news is that a number of Marvel comics properties are back in the hands of Marvel Studios and may once again be seen on screen.  The bad news is that the feature treatment ain’t happening for all of them.  Marvel’s Kevin Feige talked about a number of planned and possible superhero films coming up in the next few years, including an adaptation of the lesser-known property Inhumans.  More recognizable names – like Blade, Punisher, Ghost Rider and Daredevil – are also under Marvel’s control once again, but will have to find the right time, place and treatment to fit into the studio’s current plans.  Hit the jump for updates on the above-mentioned properties and more, including the chances of a Marvel Zombies one-off.

EW recently black-panther-movie-imageheld an extensive interview with Feige, who spoke candidly on a number of Marvel’s properties.  One particular hero Feige stayed quiet on was Black Panther, who has been rumored to be getting the big screen treatment (or even small screen with Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. now ordered to a full series).  While there’s no update on T’Challa, Feige did have plenty of other things to talk about:


When it comes to branching out from the ordinary, Marvel could have gone with Inhumans or Guardians of the Galaxy for their big test feature.  GotG is all set, but Inhumans might not be off the table just yet:

Inhumans is cool, they’re really great characters. The most powerful guy is the king who doesn’t say a word and if he does — lookout. That’s awesome. And the notion of the Terrigen Mists, this notion that you go through and don’t know what you’re going to be on the other side, is incredibly compelling dramatically. In other words, all the craziness that comes with Inhumans, we’ve done in the other movies already, but this would have some of the social drama that we haven’t really done yet. [Fox’s] X-Men, obviously, has been touching on that stuff for a while.”

ghost-rider-spirit-of-vengeance-imageGhost Rider / Blade / Punisher

Don’t get your hopes up here.  While the properties may have reverted back to Marvel, there’s a reason for it: they just didn’t seem to resonate well with audiences.  As Feige says:

“So PunisherGhost Rider, … Blade, all those characters are back. They all have potential, but I think we need to find the right time.”


It seems that Daredevil is in a similar spot as the above-mentioned heroes, as Feige appears to be in no rush, saying:

“We’re not going to say, we got it back — make it.”


An interesting property that’s less well-known but had creator Brian K. Vaughn working on a script and Drew Pearce (Iron Man 3) doing a re-write.  So what’s the status now?

“It’s a matter of where it fits. The way the business is working now, you either have really inexpensive, sort of surprise movies that can come out and be hits, but don’t cost much. Or you have the big giant summer blockbusters that really swing for the fences. Right now, we’re just swinging for the fences every time. Runaways sort of falls in between those, in a way. We just haven’t found where or how to do it… right now.”

Whedon is reportedly a fan of the series and has even written a story arc for it, so perhaps he’ll be able to take this on as a passion project after The Avengers 2 if it suits him.

Marvel Zombies

This is a fun idea but about as far-fetched as they come.  Put aside the logistical issues with the fact that not all of Marvel’s characters – ie Wolverine, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man – have returned to the fold and think about the business side of things: Marvel isn’t about to scare the bejesus out of kids and potentially ruining the world they’ve built for an R-rated undead one-off … though I’d certainly pay to see it.  Here’s Feige’s two cents:

“I know… Zombies is such a funny thing because its such a cool comic and it’s such a cool idea, but the bigger profile becomes what starts to happen [with fans].  Are you going to draw figures in chalk with your 3-year-old with Hulk eating someone? Or Captain America with his brains coming out of the top of his head? Probably not.”

For more on Marvel, check out the following links:

marvel zombies

  • jbug

    I’m not suprised Feige has his head on straight.

  • izikavazo

    I would kill for a Runaways movie or TV show.

  • Javan Clark

    No update on Black Panther? Crazy. Didn’t see that one coming.

  • Javan Clark

    No update on Black Panther? Crazy. Didn’t see that one coming.

  • RiddleThemThis

    Upsetting, Ghost Rider, Blade and Punisher are some of my favorite Marvel Characters. Throw Moon Knight and Daredevil into the mix and you have the makings of a teamup better than the avengers.

  • unsean

    “Don’t get your hopes up here. While the properties may have reverted back to Marvel, there’s a reason for it: they just didn’t seem to resonate well with audiences.”

    Really? Is that why the three Blade films combined made almost $500 million dollars? Why each film was more profitable that the one that proceeded it (with the exclusion of the execrable “Blade: Trinity”)?

    Even the Ghost Rider films, neither of which I particularly liked, were financially successful.

    So was Daredevil, for that matter.

    That being the case, can’t quite see how you come to the conclusion that they don’t resonate with audiences.

    By way of analogy, that’s like saying that the more successful something is, the less people are interested in it, which is a bit arse-backward.

    • Nick

      Money isn’t his only concern… It’s a quality film the fans deserve.. You suck to not realize that..

      • The Real Bruce LeeRoy

        So did anybody read this shit? They have the full list of all the damn
        movies coming out already! They don’t have the time to fit them in!
        Leave them alone or make them The Marvel Knights! Now you can debate off of that. Your Welcome.

      • unsean

        Mainly because everyone has the right to their own opinion. Besides, if you believed what you write you should have first started with yourself.

      • unsean

        And you suck because you have no idea what you are talking about. The original Blade was directed by Stephen Norrington, the second film by Guillermo Del Toro.

        Neither of them do shite films, so you’re argument is already defeated.

        And I include the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen in that as well. Sure it wasn’t that great, but from what I have read that was due to studio interference more than anything else.

        It’s also still a surprisingly engaging movie nonetheless.

    • Lex Walker

      Actually, in the world of big budget superhero flicks, financially successful means making about three times the budget of the film. It seems like a tall order, but that’s because it is. In the case of the Ghost Rider and Daredevil films you also have to take into account the marketing and advertising budgets which aren’t included in the stated budgets, but which typically cost at least $40-60 million for the typical national and international blitz you’re used to seeing (all the trailers, posters, etc.). So when a $78 million budgeted film like Daredevil spends another $50 million on ads and then only rakes in $180 million of the $128 million spent, that’s seen as a disappointment. It made money, but not at the margin they wanted it to. The same goes for Ghost Rider, though the second Ghost Rider had the right idea by limiting the budget to only $57 million (plus marketing) – that makes financial success easier to achieve, but it barely managed to do so

      • unsean

        That makes no sense mainly because there were three ‘Blade’ films, and a there was going to be another Daredevil’ film before Fox lost the rights.

        By your logic those things shouldn’t have happened, which is obviously not the case.

      • Lex Walker

        Actually it makes perfect sense. The first two Blades performed almost exactly to the model I outlined above, and it wasn’t until the 3rd Blade film barely made double it’s budget that they stopped. In the case of Daredevil, the only reason they were making another is because Fox didn’t want to lose the rights – they still believed it was a viable franchise they just couldn’t figure out the right angle to make it a franchise. There’s a reason they waited so long, and it’s because the film wasn’t a huge moneymaker (only making $180 million off of an $80 million budget with likely another $30-40 million in advertising). So no, those franchises follow my logic perfectly.

      • unsean

        You can’t have it both ways. For instance you admit that Daredevil didn’t fit your model, yet they (eventually) were planning a sequel.

        Your model doesn’t allow that. If you were being accurate you have written that it was the case in some instances, though clearly not all.

        One plus one doesn’t occasionally equal two; because there are many instances where your three times the box office take doesn’t apply means that how such things are decided are just a bit more fluid than what you’re making them out to be.

      • Lex Walker

        No, Daredevil wouldn’t have fit if Fox had actually done it. But they didn’t. After a decade of trying to find a way to make it work, Fox didn’t make a new Daredevil and the rights reverted to Marvel. So yes, in this case the rule remains true and 1+1=2. The only reason they even talked of making another Daredevil movie is not because the first one was a success, but because they recognized that comic book properties have huge box office potential. Fox just wasn’t able to find a way to capitalize on Daredevil in a way that fit this rule and made it a viable franchise.

        How about instead of just saying my rule is wrong, you serve up some counter examples? So far I’ve pointed out to you in every case that my rule has fit. It’s even true for the X-Men films. It’s true for Thor, Transformers, Men in Black, and many more. Find me a big-budget franchise where my rule doesn’t apply but where sequels were made.

      • unsean

        I never said your rule is wrong. What I did say is that there are too many exceptions for it to be called a rule.

        Rules, by their nature, are consistent (which is why I referred to the math example).

        If there are too many instances that fall outside your rule, can you call it a rule?

        It may happen often in the way you describe, but that doesn’t mean that that’s exactly the way things work.

      • Lex Walker

        Show me an example of where the rule was wrong or name an exception.

      • unsean

        How about you show some proof of its accuracy.

        For instance, Blade earned just over $131 million dollars, according to Box Office Mojo.

        Its production costs, aren’t listed. In fact, I can’t find a quote on those costs anywhere.

        Now, unless you have a source that I can’t find (which is possible), how do you know?

        And please don’t make up a figure, like it’s traditionally this, or traditionally that.

        Without the production costs of, in this instance, Blade, you have no idea how much it cost to market.

        As I said, the key to a rule is consistency. It doesn’t change. If it does, it isn’t a rule.

      • Lex Walker

        I was basing it off Wikipedia, but it doesn’t have a citation so I’m looking for one. Maybe instead of accusing someone of making something up you should check one of the most common sources of information on the web.

      • unsean

        You’re also projecting (as well as taking this a bit too personally). As I said, I never said you are wrong, but your three times the box office, combined with production cost, isn’t a rule.

        And it isn’t accurate in the case of Ghost Rider, either.

        I am using as evidence the source you turned me on to, Wikipedia, along with Box Office Mojo.

        For instance, Box Office Mojo (BOM) lists the first Ghost Rider film as earning almost $229 million dollars.

        Wikipedia and BOM agree with production costs of $110 million.

        Clearly, Ghost Rider did not earn enough, under your formula, to warrant a sequel.

        And yet it did, which tells me that perhaps things aren’t as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

      • Lex Walker

        How am I projecting, I’m using nothing but facts and figures and you’re accusing me of making stuff up?

        Things really are as cut and dry as I make them out to be, it’s Spirit of Vengeance that’s messed up. If anything, Spirit of Vengeance is simultaneously THE exception to the rule as well as proof of the rule. It’s such a strange animal. The writers/directors/producers talked themselves in circles explaining that it wasn’t a reboot but that it also wasn’t a sequel per se, Sony only greenlit the reboot-sequel based on the concept that they could slash the budget by half and at the same time renew the extension on their license to the character by another 7 years before having to cede it back to Marvel. It’s the reason that the only aspect of Spirit of Vengeance that feels like a sequel is Cage’s presence, while the rest is a reboot. Because it was a reboot, but also not. Cage, Goyer, Neveldine, Taylor, Cage, Avi Arad, and David Goyer have all said in interviews that the point of SoV was that you could see it without having to have seen the original which was to have no bearing on it at all. To try and use Spirit of Vengeance as proof of the rule’s faultiness is to not understand what Spirit of Vengeance is.

      • unsean

        So you’re saying that I have somehow stumbled upon the exception that proves the rule?!


      • Lex Walker

        Not that proves the rule, but that doesn’t fit any prior notion of how a superhero sequel (of any type) is made while also not being a sequel. Because going back to the original Reeve Superman franchise, to Batman, to X-Men, to Blade, to Spider-man, The Fantastic Four, and everything else. If it’s a big budget superhero movie with sequels, then it’s following the boxoffice three times the budget rule.

      • unsean

        Here’s another one of those mysterious “exceptions that prove the rule” that I keep stumbling upon.

        Blade 2 (Forgive me, but I dig Blade) had a production budget of either $54 million (BOM) or $55 million (Wikipedia). It earned just over $155 million dollars worldwide.

        Still not quite triple the production costs, though admittedly close.

        Though I suspect that the filmmakers realized that Blade 2 earned almost $20 million dollars that the original film.

        In other words, box office was on an upward trajectory, which could be seen as warranting a third go.

        But did it make 3X the production costs?


      • Lex Walker

        Quibbling over 10 million dollars is a weak argument especially since my *argument always said “about three times”. So Blade 2 fits. Next? *edit

      • unsean

        Wow! That you have so much money that $10 million dollars is considered “quibbling.”

        I admit, I am envious.

        Give me a minute. I am sure another “exception” I will find.

      • Lex Walker

        Yeah, it’s not me that’s rich, but rather studios. So yeah, $10 million is quibbling. Go for it.

      • unsean

        Exorcist 2: The Heretic is for my money the most interesting of the Exorcist films, though the box office clearly didn’t agree. It earned $30 million on a budget of $14 million.

        Yet it still had a sequel five or six years later.

        Now there could be a lot of reasons for that besides box office. For instance, John Boorman’s film was radically different from the original film, and was a bit jarring.

        With a sequel the filmmakers may have thought that they could bring things more in line with the original film, though clearly profits were almost besides the point (though admittedly the original film earned beaucoup bucks).

      • Lex Walker

        That’s not a big budget superhero film. Read my original post.

      • unsean

        So let me see if I understand….your rule, which isn’t at all consistent, only applies to superhero films?

        Really? That’s interestingly specialized.

        I think we’re done here because I get the odd feeling that I can find exceptions to your rule – superhero or otherwise – all day and Sunday’s and they would still be exceptions for some reason or another.

      • Lex Walker

        It’s about big budget blockbusters, so it doesn’t have to apply to just superhero films, but a small horror film like Exorcist 2 is definitely not part of that same conversation. And if you feel like you can find exceptions, why haven’t you? Clearly you’re having a hard time disproving the original point, so if you need help go ahead and get rid of the superhero qualifier. Find a big budget blockbuster that didn’t make back about three times its budget and yet was still considered successful.

      • Lex Walker

        Also, and I’m not suggesting that the rule would apply here even with this next consideration in mind, but I can only find the domestic box office for Exorcist 2, if it did even moderately well internationally it might have earned an additional 15 million that would then make it fit the rule even if it isn’t a big budget blockbuster.

      • Lex Walker

        Also, please keep in mind the rule in question only relates to whether or not a film is considered financially successful. Whether or not a studio decides to sequel it anyways is another beast altogether, though often a correlating one. You’re the one who has twisted this into somehow meaning that a film that isn’t considered financially successful doesn’t get sequeled, though it’s interesting for me to see that this is also proving true.

      • Lex Walker

        As for marketing, the $30-40 million pricetag for international ad buys is a commonly accepted one for any major studio picture. Simply google “how much does a movie publicity campaign cost” and you’ll find analyses that all basically corroborate that window. It’s an industry standard. As someone who works in advertising I take numbers like that as a given, but I can understand how it can seem ridiculously high. The only explanation for it is that studies show spending that much on advertising and marketing is an effective way to inflate box office earnings by a substantial margin.

      • Guest

        And as for marketing, the $30-40 million pricetag for international ad buys is a commonly accepted one for any major studio picture. Simply google “how much does a movie publicity campaign cost” and you’ll find analyses that all basically corroborate that window. It’s an industry standard. As someone who works in advertising I take numbers like that as a given, but I can understand how it can seem ridiculously high. The only explanation for it is that studies show spending that much on advertising and marketing is an effective way to inflate box office earnings by a substantial margin.

  • Yurine

    No more Ghost Rider please.

    • unsean

      I disagree. If they make Ghost Rider the true ‘Spirit of Vengeance,’ with no cuteness then I suspect that he could be really interesting.

      Something under the Marvel Knights imprint.

  • Dawson

    Punisher, Blade, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil should all be in Avengers 3.

  • DoobieDave

    They could do an animated movie of marvel zombies easily, they would just have to make it very clear that it’s not for kids.

  • derpdrrp

    Maybe they will make an appearance in Agents of SHIELD in their cheap costume and bad cgi (especially Ghost Rider) glory.

  • Pingback: Anonymous()

  • Dan

    What no Luke Cage?

  • Pingback: Comic Mash-Up: ‘Ant-Man’, ‘Hulk’, ‘Avengers 2′, ‘Quicksilver’, ‘Dr. Strange’ & Más |

  • Farrell

    “Kevin Feige Provides Updates for BLACK PANTHER…”

    “One particular hero Feige stayed quiet on was Black Panther…While there’s no update on T’Challa, Feige did have plenty of other things to talk about”


  • The Real Bruce LeeRoy

    These movies don’t need to be remade MARVEL MOTHAFUCKIN KNIGHTS!!

  • Pingback: Will Marvel ever do another X-Men animated series? - Page 2()