Marvel Studios may be planning more MCU for the small screen

I'd love to see a presentation about Daredevil at least and maybe an official rundown of what to expect from the MCU Television PHASE 1.

 

I'm hoping for some casting announcements for the other three shows. Daredevil's racking up an impressive cast, so I can't wait to see who they get for the others.

 

Agreed. I'd love to know also about how long between series we have to expect. 6 months-1 year between shows or what?

 

Last year, they had a trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy, which had only been in production for a couple of days at the time.

 

Is there any truth to the rumour that they're pulling the plug on anymore Spidey movies due to dwindling box office ?

Theoretically, if Marvel gets the rights back, rather than try yet another movie reboot, a street level TV show like Daredevil could work...

 

I'm pretty sure there isn't. It's been reported that they may be reassessing some of the spinoff plans, but any extrapolation of that to a cancellation of the whole franchise is just the rumor mill overreacting.

I doubt very much that Sony would give up the rights. And I don't think a live-action Spider-Man would work well in television, due to the complexity of the visual effects and action required.

 

I think there's a possibility that they're postponing some of those planned movies, but 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3' - at the very least - is still gonna happen. The box office numbers may be declining, but those movies still make a ton of money. Sony's not giving up the rights anytime soon.

Some of the recent Spider-Man-related developments: http://badassdigest.com/2014/07/13/spider-man-no-more/

 

If TASM3 continues to see declining returns then I think there might be a possibility of Disney striking some kind of deal with Sony to get the rights back, but other than that I don't see Sony giving them up any time soon.

 

I think it's more likely that Sony would just reboot again. It's too valuable a property for them to want to give it up.

The thing is, ASM2 was halfway a good movie. It's the best that Spider-Man himself, as a character, has ever been portrayed on film. They got that part absolutely right. And they handled Gwen Stacy superbly as well, and Aunt May pretty effectively. It's just the rest of the story and the villains that didn't work so well. So I'd rather see Sony salvage this franchise -- continue the great character work in a better story for the third film -- than abandon it or start all over again.

 

I totally agree with you about TASM2. I think Sony got a little over-ambitious with their future plans and TASM2 suffered a bit because of it, but the character work was probably the best of all the Spidey films so far. Personally I do prefer Spider-Man being off in his own film universe, so I'm not in much of a rush for Disney to reacquire the film rights.

 

You know, until TWS, I didn't think The Fantastic Four would be a good fit for the MCU, but now in a post-S.H.I.E.L.D. world it actually makes a lot of sense.

 

Before I would never have said this, but after seeing ASM2, I would be ecstatic to see Disney get Spider-Man as the last film was a huge disappointment, plus they'd probably use Spider-Man in the next Avengers film which would actually be great and it would mean a bigger box office success as Spider-Man (usually) brings in the big bucks! I really liked ASM1 and thought they were going in the perfect direction, but ASM2 went the opposite direction than they should have. ASM1 was a bit darker but not too dark, the costume was great, good cast, good everything, more modern! ASM2 to me just felt like they regretted rebooting the original trilogy and used a suit almost identical save for the eyes a few minor details to that of the Rani series suit. Electro was an utterly pointless villain who looked like Mr Freeze and was killed off way to easy, but there was great potential for the character to be more tragic. He shouldn't have been as powerful as he was in the film, but he shouldn't have been killed so easily either. A wasted character. Green Goblin was actually really great, they should have just straight up added Osborn to the first film and had him as the main villain for ASM2, like The Dark Knight had joker in the trilogy's second instalment. The new goblin actually reminded me a bit of Ledgers Joker, so it would have been perfect and he was the only good thing about the film. The Rhino was criminally underused, why have him in all the posters if they were just going to use him at the end f the film to lead into the next? But the five seconds he was in it were utterly awesome, if he had the whole film instead of the pointless Electro then it may have turned out awesome. A shame too, I went to the pictures with my father and he was looking forward to Rhino the most. The film was too much about Gwen and Peter, the first film had the right balance between Peter and Gwen and the rest of the action, the original trilogy got it spot on too, but this film was far too slow. Imagine what the young kids thought, they must have been very disappointed. So to be honest, the franchise could do with a lot of change, I felt ASM2 was just a long trailer for the third film, all they cared about was setting up a franchise instead of making decent movies. At least with Disney they might actually make a faster film with better villains, god I never thought I'd say that! Maybe Sony could reform the franchise by making a better third film but if not then I feel it's the end of Sony's Spider-Man. A shame too, Garfield played it really well, unless Marvel don't reboot it of course and just change the direction of the franchise (think 90s Batman but without the nipples).

 

Well, it's too early to tell about the reboot. The choice to go with a young cast a la the Ultimate FF is unexpected, but we don't know yet what they'll do with the characters or the story. Trank did a good job with Chronicle, so it's worth giving him the benefit of the doubt. Lots of movies that seemed sketchy when we first heard about them turned out to be surprisingly good once they hit the screen. So we should at least wait to taste the meal before we talk about firing the caterers.

Wait, you're basing this entirely on the costume? Has it occurred to you that the reason the Raimi and ASM2 costumes looked so similar is that they were both based closely on the comics' costume? And they do have differences in the details, particularly the shape of the eyes and the spider logo. The ASM2 mask went with really big, rounded eye shields, evocative of the Todd McFarlane redesign from the '90s.

Character-wise, ASM2's Spidey is very, very different from the Raimi Spidey. The Raimi Spidey was just Tobey Maguire being his usual sad-sack self with occasional near-wordless acrobatics and heroics, maybe one or two feeble quips per movie, and a great deal of mask removal. ASM2's lead was actually Spider-Man in every respect -- full of attitude, constantly wisecracking, filled with compassion for the little guy and a determination to save every life he could, and keeping his mask on. I loved the way the film let him keep the mask on even in dramatic scenes, the way it really let Spider-Man emerge as a dramatic protagonist in his own right rather than just a garment worn by Peter Parker. That made it feel so much closer to the comics, where Spidey's mask is so iconic.

I can never have too much of Emma Stone's Gwen. She was possibly an even more impressive hero than Spidey, because she didn't have superpowers but put herself on the line for other people anyway. And she was every bit as smart and full of attitude as Peter. Frankly I wish they'd rewritten history and let her live.

 

I can't see how Sony OR Marvel could hope to reboot Spidey again this soon, or even if it would make any difference. If the box office is steadily decreasing, it's probably due to franchise fatigue. Spidey might just not have as much cinematic appeal thesedays.

As for spin-offs, are they kidding ? The Sinister Six has zero recognition outside hardcore comic readers and a movie needs the majority of box office to be made up of casual moviegoers.

 

I'd heard Chronicle was good.
I watched it a few days ago.
Couldn't disagree more.
Chronicle is a bad film and highly overrated.

 

I hear people talking about "franchise fatigue" all the time, but I've never seen any proof that it's a real thing. Seven or eight years ago, everyone was assuming that Star Trek was a victim of franchise fatigue and it would have to "rest" for a decade or two before audiences would be ready for it again. But then the 2009 film came along and was just about the most financially successful Trek film in the history of the franchise.

So if you ask me, franchise fatigue is a myth. People don't get tired of a specific series or character -- they just don't respond well to weak movies. Make a good movie again and any "fatigue" will evaporate.

Which is why they tried to set them up in ASM2.

But I'll never understand the assumption that only characters with prior audience recognition can anchor successful movies. If that were so, how could a new movie series get started in the first place? Not to mention standalone movies like Frozen or Edge of Tomorrow. Lots of movies succeed despite featuring new characters.

So this is just like "franchise fatigue" -- another excuse Hollywood uses to avoid admitting that it's simply about whether a film is good enough.

 

I think the fatigue isn't so much the fans as the producers...if it's the same thing all the time, or amped in ridiculous ways, then the fans get sick of it.

The fatigue also comes in if they don't change HOW things are done. So 24 feels fresh to a lot of people, because they made it more like "12",so a lot fo junk was cut out.

ANd the new movies have a new production team, so fresh eyes and fresh vision, and people notice. (Also, new markets... China & India and others are far more receptive to showing Star Trek than back in the day)