Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Avengers have assembled! (pretty much just the Marvel movie thread now with some comics)

2456797

Posts

  • MazzyxMazzyx Changing the World Order. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I can see what MM is saying. I would like to point to X-Men 3 as an example of someone having there way with a group of established characters and not even being kind enough to leave the money on the table. Spiderman 3 is also a good example of this. For the stinkers that Marvel Studios has put out, it has put out some absolutely wonderful movies. Iron Man is one of my favorite superhero movies of all time, Incredible Hulk with Ed Norton was wonderful and much much better emotionally and had great action than I expected. I am looking forward to Captain America who is one of my least favorite characters but so far the Avengers movies have been good. Thor could also be good as well. In general since Marvel took over their movies, the movies writing have gotten a lot better.

    Now out of the DC universe the only decent movies have been some of the Batman movies and the original Superman movies, mainly Superman 2. And even in the Superman and Batman movies there were some horrible horrible horrible stinkers. But also the DC universe interests me less and the one Vertigo comic they did, Constantine, was so bad and so far from the source I think it gave me a stroke.

    falasig.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Now out of the DC universe the only decent movies have been some of the Batman movies and the original Superman movies, mainly Superman 2. And even in the Superman and Batman movies there were some horrible horrible horrible stinkers. But also the DC universe interests me less and the one Vertigo comic they did, Constantine, was so bad and so far from the source I think it gave me a stroke.
    Constantine and Catwoman are two good examples of what a third party can do to screw up a character. Neither one of those movies had much to do with the actual characters, other than the name. But, for whatever reason, DC let them be made. If DC had an in-house movie studio, I really can't imagine those two movies coming out the way they did.

    Hell, Batman almost got ruined as a franchise because Joel Schumacher had a "vision" of what Batman should be.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You guys do realize that Spider-Man 3 grossed nearly a billion dollars, right? And X-3 grossed $460 million? They may have been critical flops, but they certainly did what Marvel wanted them to budget-wise.

    Also, I think relying on movies for their primary form of revenue might be good for Marvel Comics in the long run. Like I said, comics are a low-margin industry; you're not making much more than you're putting into it. If that's your sole source of income, you have to be very careful about the risks you're taking.

    However, if you're primarily using it for branding and market research, you can stop worrying so much about that, and become more willing to take on riskier projects, or develop more new products.

  • NostregarNostregar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    Comics are fun but they're a pain in the ass to obtain and keep up with.

    I wonder how much profit Marvel the Comic Book People would have made off those movies if Marvel the Movie Studio had to buy the rights to make a movie using the CBP's intellectual property?

    I quite enjoy keeping up with them and collecting them. I don't think print necessarily has to be the only distribution method, but I think it should stick around.
    edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it will be a long time before we see any recent marvel characters in a movie.

    How recent are you talking about? A Deadpool movie is being made.

    Spoiler:
  • MazzyxMazzyx Changing the World Order. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The problem I see with using comics as market research is that the part of the population that reads comics isn't the majority demographic you go for with blockbuster movies. The majority of 18-30 year olds do not buy or read comics on a regular enough basis that it can be considered marketing research. Comic nerds like most types of nerds is a small sub group that tend to keep their little area of the market going but not exactly being the group you want to use for your business plan.

    falasig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Marvel isn't really a comic book company, anymore; they're a movie studio.

    The comic books are their market research plus a bit of their marketing.
    I don't know if I agree with that.

    I mean, they made a HUGE move starting Marvel Studios, but it's an entirely different entity from Marvel Inc.

    Disney owns the whole thing, but comics are still big. I mean every month Marvel ships roughly 4 to 7 hundred thousand comics. You can't really call that just "market research"
    In a quarter where they didn't release a movie, they made $37 million from comic books, and $79 million from movies. You're talking about 25%ish of their annual revenue coming from comic books, which are a much lower-margin business than movies (i.e. the costs associated with them are much higher relative to the money they bring in). The vast, vast majority of their profits are coming from movies and movie tie-ins.

    I 100% agree. Comics are a relatively cheap way of experimenting with IP franchises. Got a new character but not sure how the fans are going to react? Throw him in a one-shot.

    With digital distribution, they've reduced the sunk publishing costs of franchise experiments to as low as you can possibly get them, reducing the risk of launching new IPs. Given that this is the biggest hurdle facing Hollywood right now, I see this as ultimately a good thing for fans. Hopefully they won't screw over creators in the meantime; if you're an artist or writer and your new character fails, well you didn't risk much. But if your new character succeeds and becomes the next Wolverine or Blade, is Disney just going to pocket the mountains of cash or are they going to appropriately toss some back and the people who designed the character in the first place?

    Marvel learned their lesson well from the Image debacle in giving creators more credit (and royalties) but I don't know about Disney either way. Is Disney a good company for artists and writers to work for?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • HyperAquaBlastHyperAquaBlast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I was hoping X-Men and Spider-Man would fall back under Marvel so they can incorporate them into their movie universe.

    It sucks that a good majority of their major characters have to be seperated from the new universe.

    steam_sig.png
  • RanadielRanadiel Registered User
    edited April 2010
    They turned Frank Castle into Frankenstien.

    Fuck Marvel.

    That said the moves the company has made since being acquired by Disney do seem to make good business sense, and $1.99 is cheap enough for impulse buyers, but not enough to hurt the print industry, which is also good.

    I've also noticed an increase in the quality of movies since they opened Marvel Studios and hope that the quality continues after Disney is able to start affecting the film franchises. Right now they have no say over the current movies in production and pre-production, per the agreement they signed with Marvel.

  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You guys do realize that Spider-Man 3 grossed nearly a billion dollars, right? And X-3 grossed $460 million? They may have been critical flops, but they certainly did what Marvel wanted them to budget-wise.

    Also, I think relying on movies for their primary form of revenue might be good for Marvel Comics in the long run. Like I said, comics are a low-margin industry; you're not making much more than you're putting into it. If that's your sole source of income, you have to be very careful about the risks you're taking.

    However, if you're primarily using it for branding and market research, you can stop worrying so much about that, and become more willing to take on riskier projects, or develop more new products.

    I do want to point out one thing. It doesn't necesarrily relate to Spider Man 3, but it factors into X3 and Daredevil and Hulk

    Bruce Campbell talked about it in "If Chins Could Kill" I think. Either that or the one before. Basically though, you can take the production cost of a movie, what it costs to make from start to finish, and then double it. That's what a big budget movie costs with the fast food tie ins and commercials and advertising campaigns.

    So when X3 cost roughly 140 million to make, it actually costs closer to 300 million. Okay. So it made $450 at the box office, so we'll consider that a net profit of $150 million. Now Fox is going to take the largest chunk of that, as they were the primary investors. It was a leased property from Marvel, so most of there money was up front, with a percentage of the gross on the back end.

    I can't confirm the hard dollars on any of this, but my guess is that they don't start seeing real profit until the DVD sales hit, and these days most of that is set aside for the actors that don't have good enough agents to get first dollar gross percentages for their clients.

    Again, I'm not saying Marvel didn't make money off of Fox and Sony, I'm just saying they're making a hell of a lot more now that it's in house, obviously.

    But just because a movie does well at the box office, it doesn't mean that everyone gets rich.

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • MazzyxMazzyx Changing the World Order. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well with X-Men at least there are a whole host of characters they can still use. Mostly if they use X-Factor or X-Force instead of the straight up X-Men. Sadly these are rarely the big name players except maybe Cable and Bishop.

    falasig.png
  • NostregarNostregar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I was hoping X-Men and Spider-Man would fall back under Marvel so they can incorporate them into their movie universe.

    It sucks that a good majority of their major characters have to be seperated from the new universe.

    I don't know that I would call the X-Men and Spider-Man the majority of their major characters.

    Spoiler:
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nostregar wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Comics are fun but they're a pain in the ass to obtain and keep up with.

    I wonder how much profit Marvel the Comic Book People would have made off those movies if Marvel the Movie Studio had to buy the rights to make a movie using the CBP's intellectual property?

    I quite enjoy keeping up with them and collecting them. I don't think print necessarily has to be the only distribution method, but I think it should stick around.
    edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it will be a long time before we see any recent marvel characters in a movie.

    How recent are you talking about? A Deadpool movie is being made.
    Man, I would love to see an American Eagle movie. That's one of the best revisions of a minor character I've seen in a while. Probably not popular enough, though.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You guys do realize that Spider-Man 3 grossed nearly a billion dollars, right? And X-3 grossed $460 million? They may have been critical flops, but they certainly did what Marvel wanted them to budget-wise.

    Also, I think relying on movies for their primary form of revenue might be good for Marvel Comics in the long run. Like I said, comics are a low-margin industry; you're not making much more than you're putting into it. If that's your sole source of income, you have to be very careful about the risks you're taking.

    However, if you're primarily using it for branding and market research, you can stop worrying so much about that, and become more willing to take on riskier projects, or develop more new products.

    I do want to point out one thing. It doesn't necesarrily relate to Spider Man 3, but it factors into X3 and Daredevil and Hulk

    Bruce Campbell talked about it in "If Chins Could Kill" I think. Either that or the one before. Basically though, you can take the production cost of a movie, what it costs to make from start to finish, and then double it. That's what a big budget movie costs with the fast food tie ins and commercials and advertising campaigns.

    So when X3 cost roughly 140 million to make, it actually costs closer to 300 million. Okay. So it made $450 at the box office, so we'll consider that a net profit of $150 million. Now Fox is going to take the largest chunk of that, as they were the primary investors. It was a leased property from Marvel, so most of there money was up front, with a percentage of the gross on the back end.

    I can't confirm the hard dollars on any of this, but my guess is that they don't start seeing real profit until the DVD sales hit, and these days most of that is set aside for the actors that don't have good enough agents to get first dollar gross percentages for their clients.

    Again, I'm not saying Marvel didn't make money off of Fox and Sony, I'm just saying they're making a hell of a lot more now that it's in house, obviously.

    But just because a movie does well at the box office, it doesn't mean that everyone gets rich.
    Oh, I didn't realize that Marvel Studios didn't do X-3.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So basically, Comics and Movies are to Marvel what MP3s and Concerts are to the music industry? Interesting development. I wonder if books will go the same way to a larger degree...

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I would give my right eyetooth for a Nextwave movie.

    Yeah, you got me there.

    But otherwise, there's not much going on with Marvel's undeveloped properties that I'm dying to see on the silver screen.

    Remakes of already-ruined franchises? Maybe. I certainly could stand to see a competent Fantastic Four movie. And I certainly wouldn't hate quality expansions of the X-Men franchise.

    But I'm just about tapped out with Marvel, at no fault to them. I just have no interest in seeing a Namor, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Inhumans, X-Force, Vision, Cosmic Wars, or Clone Saga movie, or anything else from the silly past of Marvel's vaults.

    DC, however, is largely untapped, even regarding their key franchises. There still hasn't been a single decent Superman adaptation, and other than Batman, Green Lantern is the only thing in the works as far as JLA members go. Yes, I know about Jonah Hex and look forward to it, but Marvel even after streamlining their productions, is churning successful films out at an amazing pace compared to Warners.

  • Evil WeevilEvil Weevil Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Cherrn wrote: »
    For what it's worth, Marvel Animation Studios are kicking ass at the moment.

    Both Hulk Vs. and Planet Hulk are incredible. And Spectacular Spider-man/Wolverine and the X-Men are arguably the best animated adaptations of their respective series.

    Although things aren't looking great for Spectacular Spider-Man.

    Why? How? Spectactular Spider-Man is probably the best cartoon of Spider-Man I've seen yet!

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    A Nextwave movie would either be the best thing ever, or absolutely fucking terrible.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Why? How? Spectactular Spider-Man is probably the best cartoon of Spider-Man I've seen yet!

    While I agree, I'm pretty sure they got canceled.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    A Nextwave movie would either be the best thing ever, or absolutely fucking terrible.

    It would have to stay true to its nihilistic R-ratedness.

    I nominate David Gordon Green to direct.

  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited April 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Why? How? Spectactular Spider-Man is probably the best cartoon of Spider-Man I've seen yet!

    While I agree, I'm pretty sure they got canceled.

    If you missed it in the other thread, they announced yesterday that they're making an Ultimate Spiderman cartoon now to debut on SpecSpidey's old network so... yeah, it's pretty much 100% dead at this point.

  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nextwave (r rated version)

    Jason Segel (in shape) as the Captain
    Sarah Michelle Gellar as Tabby
    Gina Torres as Monica
    Keira Knightly as Bloodstone
    Demitri Martin as Aaron Stack

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think Sean William Scott would make a good Captain.

  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think Sean William Scott would make a good Captain.

    Jason Segel just feels a little more dirty

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nostregar wrote: »
    edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it will be a long time before we see any recent marvel characters in a movie.

    How recent are you talking about? A Deadpool movie is being made.

    Runaways, too.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HyperAquaBlastHyperAquaBlast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nostregar wrote: »
    I was hoping X-Men and Spider-Man would fall back under Marvel so they can incorporate them into their movie universe.

    It sucks that a good majority of their major characters have to be seperated from the new universe.

    I don't know that I would call the X-Men and Spider-Man the majority of their major characters.

    Well I mean there are a lot of Characters that fall under those properties that Marvel doesn't really own I think for movies. Such as rogue galleries and x-men 2nd string dudes.

    steam_sig.png
  • RanadielRanadiel Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Speaking of the Deadpool movie, I finally saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

    Would it be wrong to say that Ryan Reynold's 15 minute screentime as Wade Wilson during that 15 minute segment where they go on their one mission together was the best part of the movie? Because that's how I feel.

    Everything after that point is just...just...awful.

    I think for me the worst part of that movie is when Wolverine is fighting Gambit for pretty much no reason, when Gambit climbs up the wall with his broken stick, then jumps onto the fire escape. Wolverine goes to the base and begins to knock it down by slashing it with his claws, which COMPLETELY VAPORIZE the fire escape each time he hits it!

    Just...ARGH!

  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    yeah they've kinda built up the adamantium thing to crazy levels where its the sharpest hardest metal ever in the universe and anything that touches it is inevitably cut or vaporized
    hell if adamantium touches itself it explodes and repels (like when wolvie lightly touched his claws together and it exploded in a shower of sparks and repelled his hands back)
    they need to dial that shit back some
    especially if they're gonna want to have magneto rip the adamantium out of wolverine at some point

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • RanadielRanadiel Registered User
    edited April 2010
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    yeah they've kinda built up the adamantium thing to crazy levels where its the sharpest hardest metal ever in the universe and anything that touches it is inevitably cut or vaporized
    hell if adamantium touches itself it explodes and repels (like when wolvie lightly touched his claws together and it exploded in a shower of sparks and repelled his hands back)
    they need to dial that shit back some
    especially if they're gonna want to have magneto rip the adamantium out of wolverine at some point

    Haha yeah, I actually laughed out loud when I saw that bathroom scene. Fucking corny.

  • NostregarNostregar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Ranadiel wrote: »
    Speaking of the Deadpool movie, I finally saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

    Would it be wrong to say that Ryan Reynold's 15 minute screentime as Wade Wilson during that 15 minute segment where they go on their one mission together was the best part of the movie? Because that's how I feel.

    Everything after that point is just...just...awful.

    I think for me the worst part of that movie is when Wolverine is fighting Gambit for pretty much no reason, when Gambit climbs up the wall with his broken stick, then jumps onto the fire escape. Wolverine goes to the base and begins to knock it down by slashing it with his claws, which COMPLETELY VAPORIZE the fire escape each time he hits it!

    Just...ARGH!

    Yeah, that movie was crap.

    I really liked the scene you're talking about, and if that's how they're going to do Deadpool in his solo movie, I'd be happy with it.

    Spoiler:
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Fuck. I finally spring for a Kindle even though tech analysts think there'll be a color version in the near future because I couldn't think of any color applications, and then I find out that Marvel's going digital.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • RanadielRanadiel Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I'm cautiously optomistic regarding the Deadpool movie.

    If they pick up after where X-Men Origins left off, then I hope to god they figure out a way to get rid some of the dumber things they added to him - namely the laser eyes and sword arms. I can live with him keeping the teleportation, because it's a lot easier to for an audience that isn't familiar with Deadpool to accept that he's a mutant who can teleport, rather than a mutant who obtained a belt that allows him to teleport. Kinda like how the Spider-Man movies went with organic web-shooters rather than the wrist mounted web-shooters Parker builds in the comics.

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Nostregar wrote: »
    edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it will be a long time before we see any recent marvel characters in a movie.

    How recent are you talking about? A Deadpool movie is being made.

    Runaways, too.

    Wait really? Are there any details on this? That could be awesome.

    The thing about DC and movies is it doesn't make any sense. Warner owns them. They should have a major comic movie out every year.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The thing about DC and movies is it doesn't make any sense. Warner owns them. They should have a major comic movie out every year.

    The biggest problem until only very recently (the last year or so) is that Warners had no cohesive plan for their DC properties.

    Marvel has had the relative recent advantage of forming their own studio devoted to Marvel properties, but even when they were churning out movies twice a year under their licensing agreements, I wouldn't call the result much better than Warners' relative non-production. Those licensees made some utter shit.

    Marvel's branding success didn't come from making movies willy-nilly, it came from things like Sony actually hiring a competent director for their Spider-Man movies who respected the material.


    The real question to me is that when Marvel began making money hand-over-fist with their properties, why did it take Warners almost ten years to have a meeting about doing something similar?

  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Fox is still doing the Deadpool movie so I'm assuming it will suck, even though Reynolds did a good job in his tiny section as 'pool. Although I think Fabian Nicieza is consulting, so maybe they'll listen to him.

    For everyone who seems confused, Marvel Studios has only self-produced two movies so far:

    Iron Man
    Incredible Hulk

    I think they're technically involved as a company with all marvel related titles but the self produced stuff is the important part. The production companies for the other franchises will stay with them (spiderman to sony and x-men to fox, etc) until the licenses expire, which I have no idea when that will be for each franchise.

    The next self-produced Marvel Studios movies will be:

    Iron Man 2
    Thor

    And I heard they finally cast whatsisname as Cap, so they'll probably start filming that in 2011. I know they're talking about an avengers movie, but they won't even go into pre production until some of the title characters are introduced in the overall cinematic universe.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Just FYI

    Marvel Studios isn't going to be making X-Men or Spider Man movies any time soon. Sony and Fox still have contracts on those movies, as well as Deadpool, Wolverine, Magneto, (individual films) Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider.

    I think Marvel got away with X-Men: First Class, but I'm not sure if that's them or Fox.

    It'll be like seven to ten years before Marvel gets those back to do as their own.

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Just FYI

    Marvel Studios isn't going to be making X-Men or Spider Man movies any time soon. Sony and Fox still have contracts on those movies, as well as Deadpool, Wolverine, Magneto, (individual films) Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider.

    I think Marvel got away with X-Men: First Class, but I'm not sure if that's them or Fox.

    It'll be like seven to ten years before Marvel gets those back to do as their own.

    Hah, beat'd. Except you got totp. Bastard.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Nostregar wrote: »
    edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it will be a long time before we see any recent marvel characters in a movie.

    How recent are you talking about? A Deadpool movie is being made.

    Runaways, too.

    Wait really? Are there any details on this? That could be awesome.

    The thing about DC and movies is it doesn't make any sense. Warner owns them. They should have a major comic movie out every year.

    IMDB doesn't have any info (too early in production). Wikipedia's entry on the comic says the film is expected in 2011, Brian K. Vaughan as the writer. Recent rumor has Peter Sollett directing.

    I've always wondered why Warner Bros. snatched up DC but did not aggressively produce movies. Or royally screwed up many of the ones they did (I'm looking at you, Catwoman).

    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    And I heard they finally cast whatsisname as Cap, so they'll probably start filming that in 2011. I know they're talking about an avengers movie, but they won't even go into pre production until some of the title characters are introduced in the overall cinematic universe.

    Dude, what rock are you living under?

    Pre-production on The Avengers is well underway, with Zak Penn already having completed the script and Joss Whedon signed to direct.


    Done deal.

  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    And I heard they finally cast whatsisname as Cap, so they'll probably start filming that in 2011. I know they're talking about an avengers movie, but they won't even go into pre production until some of the title characters are introduced in the overall cinematic universe.

    Dude, what rock are you living under?

    Pre-production on The Avengers is well underway, with Zak Penn already having completed the script and Joss Whedon signed to direct.


    Done deal.

    Orly. Sounds not terrible.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It'll be like seven to ten years before Marvel gets those back to do as their own.

    From what I understand, as long as those studios have a movie in any stage of production, those licenses never expire. It's why Fox has new Daredevil and Fantastic Four movies in the works.

This discussion has been closed.