Marvel Studios may be planning more MCU for the small screen

[kirk55555]

Well, all I can figure is that they either hate TV or Netflix lets them make shows for peanuts. This is disney, they have a bunch of channels that could just be ordered to carry the shows, so its not a problem with finding a network that wants it. so, I can only assume the shows shows will be made on a fan film type budget, because if cheapness isn't the case then there really isn't a reason to go with a company like netflix for stuff like original programming. Either way, it still feels like a way to screw over tv/physical media people.

As for netflix being the next big thing, when it comes to original media I doubt it. They're obviously very popular for what they do with video/movie streaming, but they won't be cornering the original show market anytime soon.

 

[JD]

All of the stuff that Netflix has released so far has had a budget as least as big, if not bigger, than the average network show. These are shows that they chose to release this way, not shows that they couldn't show on TV. Netflix pretty much approaches they're stuff from an HBO/Showtime/Starz perspective. They're made exactly like they make every other TV show, it's just that Netflix is the network instead of one of the regular TV networks.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'm actually surprised that there is no mention of the Punisher included in these plans.

 

[kirk55555]

All of the stuff that Netflix has released so far has had a budget as least as big, if not bigger, than the average network show. These are shows that they chose to release this way, not shows that they couldn't show on TV. Netflix pretty much approaches they're stuff from an HBO/Showtime/Starz perspective. They're made exactly like they make every other TV show, it's just that Netflix is the network instead of one of the regular TV networks.

That's even more confusing. If they have a similar budget to TV shows, the only way it makes sense is for shows networks don't want. Like I said, Disney can put the shows on any channel it owns, so that's not a problem for them. Regardless, the reasons don't really matter. Maybe there is just an idiot in charge who thinks using netflix will be cheaper for them in some way. I'd love to see actual tv shows based off these characters, but if they want to screw over people without netflix, there isn't anything I can do. Maybe the planets will align and someone higher up than the moron who decided to use netflix will make them put the shows on DVD. I think its unlikely, but there's always hope, I guess. Assuming the shows are good. Maybe they're a pet project of some idiot with power/influence, and they're going to netflix because Disney doesn't want to waste TV time with them. It would explain the baffling decision to waste their properties by making them netflix shows. I guess people with netflix will see when these online exclusive shows air.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Netflix deal is being sorely mis-branded. Yes, I know it says there in the description it says

“reimagines a dream team of self-sacrificing, heroic characters.”

but why not just say what this is...Heroes for Hire, guest starring Daredevil.
It's not the Defenders, not in the myriad of permutations that team name has been applied do these 4 characters resemble Defenders. They are Heroes for Hire, with DD doing pro bono assistance.

True, they aren't the names that pop in my head when I think "Defenders":

My Defenders

1. Dr. Strange- Slated for a solo film, IIRC
2. Sub-Mariner-Ditto
3. Hulk-Tied to the Avengers feature
4. Silver Surfer-Part the FF licence
5. Nighthawk- C lister, but why not?
6. Valkyrie-Might be a good tie in to the Thor films

 

[Turtletrekker]

The Netflix deal is being sorely mis-branded. Yes, I know it says there in the description it says

“reimagines a dream team of self-sacrificing, heroic characters.”

but why not just say what this is...Heroes for Hire, guest starring Daredevil.
It's not the Defenders, not in the myriad of permutations that team name has been applied do these 4 characters resemble Defenders. They are Heroes for Hire, with DD doing pro bono assistance.

True, they aren't the names that pop in my head when I think "Defenders":


My Defenders

1. Dr. Strange- Slated for a solo film, IIRC
2. Sub-Mariner-Ditto
3. Hulk-Tied to the Avengers feature
4. Silver Surfer-Part the FF licence
5. Nighthawk- C lister, but why not?
6. Valkyrie-Might be a good tie in to the Thor films

Sub-Mariner is with Universal.

I think that Marvel is just sticking this with the name Defenders because it's a cool name that they have copyright over. I don't expect it to resemble the original team at all.

Besides, in the old comics, the Defenders were the "non-team" that always had fluid membership.

 

[dansigal]

Well, all I can figure is that they either hate TV or Netflix lets them make shows for peanuts. This is disney, they have a bunch of channels that could just be ordered to carry the shows

Yep. It couldn't be that Netflix will allow Marvel to take on this ambitious project in a creative way that can't be achieved on network or cable television. The only explanations are that those people running a multi billion dollar franchise are either stupid or looking to screw over people without Netflix. You must know better than them.

Netflix certainly isn't ubiquitous yet, but a lot of what they are doing is cutting edge and really cool. Why wouldnt' Marvel want to get into bed with them? And why wouldnt' Netflix want to put up the money to make it worth Marvel's while if they can attract the type of audience Marvel is bringing in these days? What Netflix did with Arrested Development didn't always work, but it was ambitious as hell, and very cool at times. And creatively House of Cards and Orange is the New Black have shown that Netlfix can play with the big boys.

 

[JD]

All of the stuff that Netflix has released so far has had a budget as least as big, if not bigger, than the average network show. These are shows that they chose to release this way, not shows that they couldn't show on TV. Netflix pretty much approaches they're stuff from an HBO/Showtime/Starz perspective. They're made exactly like they make every other TV show, it's just that Netflix is the network instead of one of the regular TV networks.

That's even more confusing. If they have a similar budget to TV shows, the only way it makes sense is for shows networks don't want. Like I said, Disney can put the shows on any channel it owns, so that's not a problem for them. Regardless, the reasons don't really matter. Maybe there is just an idiot in charge who thinks using netflix will be cheaper for them in some way. I'd love to see actual tv shows based off these characters, but if they want to screw over people without netflix, there isn't anything I can do. Maybe the planets will align and someone higher up than the moron who decided to use netflix will make them put the shows on DVD. I think its unlikely, but there's always hope, I guess. Assuming the shows are good. Maybe they're a pet project of some idiot with power/influence, and they're going to netflix because Disney doesn't want to waste TV time with them. It would explain the baffling decision to waste their properties by making them netflix shows. I guess people with netflix will see when these online exclusive shows air.

It has nothing to do with not being able to get them on TV, they're being made specifically for Netflix. Marvel is just trying to take part in the new streaming/on-demand craze. I think it might also be related to a deal that Disney made with Netflix either this or last year.
Netflix is really popular, and a lot of people really liked the other origninal programs, so it makes sense that companies like Marvel would want to get in on that.
Netflix isn't someplace where they are throwing stuff that people get on TV. It's making high quality programs on par with premium cable channels like HBO, Showtime, and Starz. House of Cards nominated for 9 Emmys, including Best Lead Actor (Kevin Spacey), Best Lead Actress (Robin Wright), Best Drama, and Best Directing (David Fincher).

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Netflix deal is being sorely mis-branded. Yes, I know it says there in the description it says but why not just say what this is...Heroes for Hire, guest starring Daredevil.
It's not the Defenders, not in the myriad of permutations that team name has been applied do these 4 characters resemble Defenders. They are Heroes for Hire, with DD doing pro bono assistance.

True, they aren't the names that pop in my head when I think "Defenders":


My Defenders

1. Dr. Strange- Slated for a solo film, IIRC
2. Sub-Mariner-Ditto
3. Hulk-Tied to the Avengers feature
4. Silver Surfer-Part the FF licence
5. Nighthawk- C lister, but why not?
6. Valkyrie-Might be a good tie in to the Thor films

Sub-Mariner is with Universal.

I think that Marvel is just sticking this with the name Defenders because it's a cool name that they have copyright over. I don't expect it to resemble the original team at all.

Besides, in the old comics, the Defenders were the "non-team" that always had fluid membership.

Any version after the Gerber-Buscema run ain't the real Defenders.

 

[cylkoth]

Like I said, Disney can put the shows on any channel it owns, so that's not a problem for them.

Yes, they could put any show they own on any network they own, but then, they'd be stuck footing the entire bill for the show, rather than have someone paying most of the cost.
Here's how television works-the network pays a license fee to the studio (even if that studio is a corporate sibling), that covers upwards of 60% of the show's budget. The studio then covers the rest. The network, pay tv channel, and now streaming service, (hopefully) gets it's money back selling advertisements for the ad supported networks, and monthly subscription fees for the pay tv services. The studio gets it's money back by selling the show beyond the originating network/pay tv distributor, such as foreign networks, VOD, and of course dvd/blu ray. If you recall, Stargate SG-1 seasons started on Showtime, and then MGM sold the episodes in syndication a year after they debuted on the pay channel.
There really is no reason for your concern that this project will be limited to Netflix subscribers only. I already pointed out how Sony is releasing House of Cards on disc this month. It will be exploited beyond their pay tv audience. As with SG-1, the pay tv subscribers will simply get it first exclusively.

Here's an article I read tonight and thought it might be helpful to you.
http://io9.com/why-the-marvel-netflix-deal-is-the-best-decision-they-1461029147

 

[Captain Craig]

The Netflix deal is being sorely mis-branded. Yes, I know it says there in the description it says

“reimagines a dream team of self-sacrificing, heroic characters.”

but why not just say what this is...Heroes for Hire, guest starring Daredevil.
It's not the Defenders, not in the myriad of permutations that team name has been applied do these 4 characters resemble Defenders. They are Heroes for Hire, with DD doing pro bono assistance.

True, they aren't the names that pop in my head when I think "Defenders":

My Defenders

1. Dr. Strange- Slated for a solo film, IIRC
2. Sub-Mariner-Ditto
3. Hulk-Tied to the Avengers feature
4. Silver Surfer-Part the FF licence
5. Nighthawk- C lister, but why not?
6. Valkyrie-Might be a good tie in to the Thor films

I know right?
Look, as many variations of the name that have existed there are a lot characters that were honorary Defenders for an arc or what have you. Which is where DD falls, he's been an honorary Avenger as well. Heck Luke Cage has been more Avenger than anything the last decade but people who know comics(which is participants in this discussion) have to admit that "honorary" aside the Defenders association isn't even the first or second team group you think of.

Heroes for Hire
Avengers

Those two are.

 

[kirk55555]

Like I said, Disney can put the shows on any channel it owns, so that's not a problem for them.

Yes, they could put any show they own on any network they own, but then, they'd be stuck footing the entire bill for the show, rather than have someone paying most of the cost.
Here's how television works-the network pays a license fee to the studio (even if that studio is a corporate sibling), that covers upwards of 60% of the show's budget. The studio then covers the rest. The network, pay tv channel, and now streaming service, (hopefully) gets it's money back selling advertisements for the ad supported networks, and monthly subscription fees for the pay tv services. The studio gets it's money back by selling the show beyond the originating network/pay tv distributor, such as foreign networks, VOD, and of course dvd/blu ray. If you recall, Stargate SG-1 seasons started on Showtime, and then MGM sold the episodes in syndication a year after they debuted on the pay channel.
There really is no reason for your concern that this project will be limited to Netflix subscribers only. I already pointed out how Sony is releasing House of Cards on disc this month. It will be exploited beyond their pay tv audience. As with SG-1, the pay tv subscribers will simply get it first exclusively.

Here's an article I read tonight and thought it might be helpful to you.
http://io9.com/why-the-marvel-netflix-deal-is-the-best-decision-they-1461029147

I didn't know about SG-1 until earlier this year. I had always thought it debuted on SciFi Channel. It being on Showtime first definitely explained the idiotic nudity in the pilot, though

I read that article. It does outright say thats its a marketing scheme for netflix to try to get more people to use them, which is a way to screw over the people who can't, like me. As for the "freedom", who cares? I don't want shows that act like HBO shows. I don't want nudity or anything like it in my Marvel shows, and there is no need for super violence (well, maybe for Punisher, but thats different). Cursing I'm neutral about, but its not worth making the shows netflix exclusive to have Daredevil use the f-word. Dont get me wrong, I've always known what netflix will get out of this, and I figured Disney must be saving money somehow by not making real tv shows. If netflix is helping to finance them, I'm sure it has a big say in whether the show is ever released on DVD, and they would want to go out of their way to not allow that. If they never get a DVD release, I won't be surprised.

This is assuming they're any good and that a DVD release would be a good thing. I can't imagine a netflix tv show being anything than poorly done garbage. If its not on TV, it really doesn't matter. We'll probably get four neutered shows that just use the names. If Daredevil or Iron Fist are allowed to wear anything approaching costumes, I'll be shocked. Besides, if even Joss Whedon can't do anything more than a very average Marvel show, I doubt netflix can turn out anything worthwhile. I just hope this experiment fails quickly, so they can get back to more traditional stuff. I'd honestly rather have failure than good shows anyway, because I sure as hell don't want this to become popular, screwing over people by putting shows on netflix. Put out some episodes, fail miserably, then make a Daredevil movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that completely ignores the netflix experiment is probably the best case scenario. I'd also love a heroes for hire movie, with Cage, Iron Fist and Jones, but I doubt it will happen (although I'd take nothing over netflix).

 

[CaptainCanada]

If netflix is helping to finance them, I'm sure it has a big say in whether the show is ever released on DVD, and they would want to go out of their way to not allow that. If they never get a DVD release, I won't be surprised.

Ahem.

I can't imagine a netflix tv show being anything than poorly done garbage.

You're aware that House of Cards and Orange is the New Black were two of the more acclaimed new shows in the recent year?

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I read that article. It does outright say thats its a marketing scheme for netflix to try to get more people to use them, which is a way to screw over the people who can't, like me.

I'm curious. Why can't you use Netflix? Are you in an area that does not yet service broadband or does Netflix have coverage limitations that I am unaware of?

 

[kirk55555]

If netflix is helping to finance them, I'm sure it has a big say in whether the show is ever released on DVD, and they would want to go out of their way to not allow that. If they never get a DVD release, I won't be surprised.

Ahem.

I can't imagine a netflix tv show being anything than poorly done garbage.

You're aware that House of Cards and Orange is the New Black were two of the more acclaimed new shows in the recent year?

Since I'm generally unimpressed by what is "acclaimed" nowadays, that doesn't really mean anything. We live in a world were a billion CSI/NCIS/etc shows are some of the highest rated shows. Other "highly acclaimed" shows include a show about Hal from Malcolm in the Middle being a meth dealer, and a show with so much stupid human drama you almost forget it has zombies in it. Its all a matter of personal preference, but I can't think of many "critically acclaimed" shows that were particularly good off the top of my head.

I did just look up those two shows on wikipedia. House of Cards is a political drama (oh, boy, that sounds exciting ) and I can't even figure out what the second show is about (a prison show, maybe? Wikipedia isn't very clear, except that it sounds fairly stupid). I'm sure people like them, but they're not giving me any faith in netflix shows. Now I'm just hoping Daredevil doesn't become a superhero Law & Order, since it seems like Netflix's biggest shows are things that could easily be on right before CSI on TV and make huge numbers from people who like those kind of shows. They sound like things that would make me rather watch The Walking Soap Opera, and I can't say enough how stupid that show is. Of course, people's taste in tV shows is highly subjective, but using those two shows as examples of netflix programming is not exactly filling me with hope for Marvel's stuff.

Also, having the political drama on DVD doesn't really mean much. Even if netflix allows Marvel to do it, Disney/Marvel were still stupid enough to put shows on netflix, and people like that seem to hate physical media.

I read that article. It does outright say thats its a marketing scheme for netflix to try to get more people to use them, which is a way to screw over the people who can't, like me.

I'm curious. Why can't you use Netflix? Are you in an area that does not yet service broadband or does Netflix have coverage limitations that I am unaware of?

No one in my family has credit cards or paypal, so no paying for anything like netflix. Even if we had any way of paying for it, it wouldn't be worth getting netflix just for our computer, since all four of us share it and watching movies/TV would just be a hassle, and we have no way of seeing it on a tv, obviously (well, maybe the PS3, but thats not a family thing, its mine and my brothers and isn't in the main room). So, there is really no way my family will ever have netflix.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Other "highly acclaimed" shows include a show about Hal from Malcolm in the Middle being a meth dealer,

I have to stop and speak to this. You and I have been down this road before. Remember the Artist--you kept saying it was dumb, it was stupid, who would make a silent movie, a lot of us kept saying, see it. Watch it.

And then you finally did. And you liked it? Remember that? Because I do.

So, here you are again, calling something stupid, something not worth your time, something that you have NO IDEA what it's like. Just the fact that you call it a show about "Hal" being a meth dealer speaks volumes of your ignorance.

Maybe you should watch the show. Maybe you should watch the show that really is one of the best shows that has been on TV.

Because, right now, you sound completely uninformed. And it's hard to take any of your positions with a modicum of seriousness because you are so completely uninformed.

Try Breaking Bad. If you don't like it, fine. But, at least you are INFORMED.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Since I'm generally unimpressed by what is "acclaimed" nowadays, that doesn't really mean anything. We live in a world were a billion CSI/NCIS/etc shows are some of the highest rated shows. Other "highly acclaimed" shows include a show about Hal from Malcolm in the Middle being a meth dealer, and a show with so much stupid human drama you almost forget it has zombies in it. Its all a matter of personal preference, but I can't think of many "critically acclaimed" shows that were particularly good off the top of my head.

You seem to be conflating "widely watched" and "acclaimed". NCIS, CSI, and The Walking Dead are not critical favourites. They're popular. Breaking Bad (have you actually watched that?), Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards are critically acclaimed.

House of Cards is a political drama (oh, boy, that sounds exciting ) and I can't even figure out what the second show is about (a prison show, maybe? Wikipedia isn't very clear, except that it sounds fairly stupid). I'm sure people like them, but they're not giving me any faith in netflix shows. Now I'm just hoping Daredevil doesn't become a superhero Law & Order, since it seems like Netflix's biggest shows are things that could easily be on right before CSI on TV and make huge numbers from people who like those kind of shows. They sound like things that would make me rather watch The Walking Soap Opera, and I can't say enough how stupid that show is. Of course, people's taste in tV shows is highly subjective, but using those two shows as examples of netflix programming is not exactly filling me with hope for Marvel's stuff.

So...you don't like political dramas, crime thrillers, legal or police procedurals, or soap operas. What do you like, exactly?

Also, having the political drama on DVD doesn't really mean much. Even if netflix allows Marvel to do it, Disney/Marvel were still stupid enough to put shows on netflix, and people like that seem to hate physical media.

What? You've been complaining about how Netflix wouldn't want the shows on DVD. But they are releasing their original programming in that format. So what could possibly be the problem.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The Netflix deal is being sorely mis-branded. Yes, I know it says there in the description it says but why not just say what this is...Heroes for Hire, guest starring Daredevil.
It's not the Defenders, not in the myriad of permutations that team name has been applied do these 4 characters resemble Defenders. They are Heroes for Hire, with DD doing pro bono assistance.

True, they aren't the names that pop in my head when I think "Defenders":

My Defenders

1. Dr. Strange- Slated for a solo film, IIRC
2. Sub-Mariner-Ditto
3. Hulk-Tied to the Avengers feature
4. Silver Surfer-Part the FF licence
5. Nighthawk- C lister, but why not?
6. Valkyrie-Might be a good tie in to the Thor films

I know right?
Look, as many variations of the name that have existed there are a lot characters that were honorary Defenders for an arc or what have you. Which is where DD falls, he's been an honorary Avenger as well. Heck Luke Cage has been more Avenger than anything the last decade but people who know comics(which is participants in this discussion) have to admit that "honorary" aside the Defenders association isn't even the first or second team group you think of.

Heroes for Hire
Avengers

Those two are.

I will say that The Defenders is a more noble-sounding name than Heroes for Hire. Heroes for Hire, at best, sounds like Jim Rockford asking for his fee up front and, at worst, a strictly mercenary organization that won't save people without money. The Defenders sounds more like they're doing it out of a sense of obligation. The only problem I have with the name is that it sounds too much like the Avengers.

 

[kirk55555]

Since I'm generally unimpressed by what is "acclaimed" nowadays, that doesn't really mean anything. We live in a world were a billion CSI/NCIS/etc shows are some of the highest rated shows. Other "highly acclaimed" shows include a show about Hal from Malcolm in the Middle being a meth dealer, and a show with so much stupid human drama you almost forget it has zombies in it. Its all a matter of personal preference, but I can't think of many "critically acclaimed" shows that were particularly good off the top of my head.

You seem to be conflating "widely watched" and "acclaimed". NCIS, CSI, and The Walking Dead are not critical favourites. They're popular. Breaking Bad (have you actually watched that?), Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards are critically acclaimed.

House of Cards is a political drama (oh, boy, that sounds exciting ) and I can't even figure out what the second show is about (a prison show, maybe? Wikipedia isn't very clear, except that it sounds fairly stupid). I'm sure people like them, but they're not giving me any faith in netflix shows. Now I'm just hoping Daredevil doesn't become a superhero Law & Order, since it seems like Netflix's biggest shows are things that could easily be on right before CSI on TV and make huge numbers from people who like those kind of shows. They sound like things that would make me rather watch The Walking Soap Opera, and I can't say enough how stupid that show is. Of course, people's taste in tV shows is highly subjective, but using those two shows as examples of netflix programming is not exactly filling me with hope for Marvel's stuff.

So...you don't like political dramas, crime thrillers, legal or police procedurals, or soap operas. What do you like, exactly?

I can list a few of the shows I like (this will not be a full list, and will only include live action stuff, including cancelled shows and atleast one show that was gone before I was born): House, Arrow, Pawn Stars (its not a story type show obviously, but I watch so much of it it needs to be on the list), Smallville, Big Bang Theory, MASH, Scrubs, The Drew Carey Show, Frasier, Buffy/Angel/Firefly/Dollhouse, all of the Star Trek shows, Babylon 5/Crusade, and Stargate SG-1,

Also, having the political drama on DVD doesn't really mean much. Even if netflix allows Marvel to do it, Disney/Marvel were still stupid enough to put shows on netflix, and people like that seem to hate physical media.

What? You've been complaining about how Netflix wouldn't want the shows on DVD. But they are releasing their original programming in that format. So what could possibly be the problem.

I then went on to mention that, even if netflix allows it, whoever was stupid enough in Disney (or whatever branch of the company) who decided to make Netflix shows instead of real shows is probably someone obsessed with internet stuff, and those people tend to hate physical media like DVD's, so I can easily see these shows never coming to DVD.

Other "highly acclaimed" shows include a show about Hal from Malcolm in the Middle being a meth dealer,

I have to stop and speak to this. You and I have been down this road before. Remember the Artist--you kept saying it was dumb, it was stupid, who would make a silent movie, a lot of us kept saying, see it. Watch it.

And then you finally did. And you liked it? Remember that? Because I do.

So, here you are again, calling something stupid, something not worth your time, something that you have NO IDEA what it's like. Just the fact that you call it a show about "Hal" being a meth dealer speaks volumes of your ignorance.

Maybe you should watch the show. Maybe you should watch the show that really is one of the best shows that has been on TV.

Because, right now, you sound completely uninformed. And it's hard to take any of your positions with a modicum of seriousness because you are so completely uninformed.

Try Breaking Bad. If you don't like it, fine. But, at least you are INFORMED.

I didn't really mean to say it was stupid. For what it is it could be good, I really don't know. I won't watch a show about drugs. Just like I wouldn't watch a show with a focus on sex (I'm talking TV shows like Lost Girl when I say that just to be clear, shows with sex as a theme but are still around on normal tv). I can handle some shows if they happen to bring those topics up, but not shows based around stuff like that.

I was using Breaking Bad more as an example of a popular show that I have no desire to see. I can not like shows but admit they may not be objectively bad, and Breaking Bad could be one of those. Its different than The artist, because I just didn't want to watch a silent movie. Breaking Bad's whole premise is something I find unwatchable. I have thought about watching it a few times (the library has all of the released seasons, so it wouldn't cost anything) but I just can't watch a drug show. It just has a topic I hate and won't watch shows about, I wasn't really trying to beat up the show. That said, I do stand by my Walking Dead comments.

 

[Nick Ryder]

I think it's really a brilliant move - since a) as long as you can get Netflix you can watch the shows whenever - which means that you don't need to worry about waiting for Hulu or ABC.com - plus if they do it like they did their other Netflix shows, we're looking at like a season of TV coming at us all at once. b) They can be a bit more PG-13/R if they wanted to - I doubt they will - but like Luke Cage - honestly the man was originally Blaxploitation fodder. So even if they have him drop a rare motherfucker line - it won't be that shocking. Plus I'm sure SLJ would love to show up and drop a motherfucker line himself in character as Nick Fury. c) Its not dependent on ratings. You won't get a half season of say Jessica Jones just because the ratings weren't where the network wanted it because Dancing With the Stars or Football or something political interrupted its airings and they just look at the ratings being 'dismal'.

Daredevil, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones are plenty for a 'test the waters' plus if they get enough buzz then maybe they'll feel better green lighting an actual cinematic movie with them later on - or including them in Agents of SHIELD or another Marvel Studios movie.

I wouldn't mind a proper Ghost Rider series on the level of say something like Supernatural mixed with a bit of say Knight Rider. Loner going around trying to do good but fighting super natural baddies. Personally I'd totally back someone like Charlie Hunnam from Sons of Anarchy/Pacific Rim as a younger Johnny Blaze. Or just do the whole Spirits of Vengeance thing with Charlie as a 'retired' former Ghost Rider and someone as Dan Ketch's Ghost Rider and they basically adapt the old Spirits of Vengeance comics from the early 90s