WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Marvel Wants to Release Twice As Many Films Per Year

Posted: March 19th, 2014 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Marvel Wants to Release Twice As Many Films Per YearSubmit Comment
Every time Marvel introduces a new character in one of its movies, there's potential to turn create a franchise around that character. Unfortunately, the studio releases only two movies each year, which is not enough to expand the cinematic universe.

During a new interview with Marvel head Kevin Feige, he explained that "Agents of SHIELD" and other TV shows will hopefully be able to get more characters out to the fans, but the ultimate goal is to make more movies.

"If the next group of movies work and people want to see additional stories Ė we'll have too many franchises and you can't do one of each franchise every two or three years," he explained. "We'd have to move to three a year, but that would have to be a natural move if it were to occur. We'd have a [script] draft, we'd have a filmmaker, we'd have a character the audience wants to see Ė let's slot in a place for a third one. Or a fourth one."

Source: Badass Digest


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 33 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Sleuth1989 writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:10:54 AM

I guess this could work. Allow them to have other story lines and allow for a massive build-up film with an ensemble cast. perhaps a prelude to the Civil War series? That would be an amazing film by building up the popularity of the characters so when they all come together they create a truly immerse experience.
Deaft0ne writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:21:10 AM

Since Marvel now has the rights to Blade, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and The Punisher, they should do 4 reboot films with the characters and then a team-up film.

I know that they are already doing a Daredevil Netflix series along with Luke Cage and Iron Fist and that other female character that will lead into a The Defenders series so maybe whoever plays Daredevil can just show up in a theatrical team-up film.
telur writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:30:02 AM

we already 4 marvel movies

cap america 2,x-men, spider-man, and guardian of galaxy

well we can do 8 more

sedibus writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 3:14:57 AM

And almost 50 years ago, Hollywood said NO to Jodorowsky's attempt at making a 14 hour DUNE movie.

Who gives a sh*t whether it was faithful or not, none of this superheroe bullsh#$%it are truly faithful to the source material anyway.

Well, f*ck this sh*t. Ja! Ja! Ja!
PORN-FLY writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 3:34:19 AM

Putman Wants to Release In Twice As Many Felines Per Year
!JB! writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 3:48:03 AM

Excellent make ALL movies marvel
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 4:12:04 AM


Look, it ain't rocket science: spend less money.

If you really wanna build your franchise beyond a two-film-per-year average, get thrifty. Not every one of the Marvel characters needs a $150 to $200 million-plus budget. In fact, most of them donít. You donít need planetary invasions and/or entire cities blowing up in every single movie.

Tell smaller scale stories; economize your action and FX set-pieces. If they can make Dredd and Ridd*ck under $50 million, so can you guys with characters like Ant-Man, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Punisher, Doctor Strange, Black Widow spin-offs etc.

Now, in order to avoid underwhelming attempts at entertainment, this also means having to crackdown on better scripting -- say, emphasizing character and more intriguing plotlines -- and more concentrated, suspenseful filmmaking that doesnít require massive spectacle every 15 minutes; a simple shootout or fight scene (even those involving superpowers) can be done without being overdone.

In short, get better.

python6 writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 5:25:57 AM

Ghost Rider,Blade,Dr.Strange,Morbius,Hellstorm, Werewolf By Night and Jennifer Kale. Have them team up in Midnight sons movie.

The Ghost Rider movie could have Hellstorm in it
The Blade movie could have Morbius in it.
The Dr.Strange movie could have Jennifer Kale in it.
Werewolf By Night will the the thing that runs thru all three movies and connect them all together for rise of the midnight sons.
an MAybe hAVE MAN-THING and the movie to redeem him from that god awful movie that they made years back.
boogiel writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 6:57:02 AM

My my...Marvel are getting greedy. Marvel is slowly begin to adapt Disney's behaviour.
DarthMaul writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 7:41:53 AM

Mink your a retarded child molestor
BadChadB33 writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 8:32:27 AM

Greedy f*cks!!
Patrick Bateman writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 9:14:52 AM

worstpreviews is getting pretty slow with movie news again so slack alex
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 11:15:07 AM

Marvel Studios disturbs me. For one they were birthed into making enormous budget films. Unlike other Studios that develop projects with smaller budgets and smaller expectations, Marvel Studios can NEVER do that. They could never go backwards and produce smaller budgets. That's not how capitalism works. It needs growth or at least to stay where they are (which ultimately isn't a good thing).
Secondly, they can only really produce comic book movies. So, they can only do the same thing ad infinium.
The real question is how long will this superhero crap last? Seriously. It's really been about 14 years of an authentic universally acknowledged Superhero reign. 10 more years? 20 more years? 50 more years. Do people want to see every possible toy or cartoon franchise given their chance on screen? Every comic book arch presented as a trilogy?
The odd thing about all this Superhero stuff is that it is the product of men in their 40's and 50's who run Hollywood right now. People who grew up with dramatically inferior science fiction and superhero representation in media. Naturally, they thought it could be better and have dedicated their lives to making the Hulk as believable as a real actor, which they achieved.
There is this unspoken assumption on the net that if you're under 50 years of age that you, no matter what you might say, must love and worship comic book properties and cartoon properties.
Perhaps its part of a cultural-land-grab. It seems that every generation has to snatch up things they grew up with and, regardless of quality, they are defined by whatever it is. The Smurfs, The Real Ghostbusters, The Fresh Prince, etc.

Anyway those are my observations. Thought?
BlackDynamite writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 11:19:49 AM

If they could manage to succesfully bridge Agents of SHIELD, The Netflix series, and the movies, I would be astounded.
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 11:36:48 AM


@BigRedCat: "Marvel Studios can NEVER do that. They could never go backwards and produce smaller budgets. That's not how capitalism works."

lolwut?



BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 1:03:10 PM

@Canon

"Essentially, in capitalism the production of output depends on the acc*mulation of capital. The propensity to invest in production therefore depends a lot on expectations of profitability and sales volume, and on perceptions of market risk. If production stops being profitable, or if sales drop sharply, or if there is social instability, capital will exit more and more from the sphere of production. Or if it cannot or does not, rationalization investments will be undertaken, to amalgamate unprofitable enterprises into profitable units".

It's very simple economics. Marvel Studios must have large budgets because of what it pays for as a studio. It's not as simple as lets make a cheap indie movie. It was built to be a Super-Studio, if it doesn't produce it will be reabsorbed and moved around, but if that happens what we call Marvel Studios is essentially a failed venture and survives only in name.

"Capital can acc*mulate by shifting the ownership of assets from one place to another, but ultimately the total stock of assets must increase. Other things being equal, if production fails to grow sufficiently, the level of debt will increase, ultimately causing a breakdown of the acc*mulation process when debtors cannot pay creditors"
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 1:11:40 PM

Dredd and Chronicles of Ridd*ck were not produced by Marvel Studios. Ridd*ck was supported by Universal and Dredd is a co-production with IM Global, Lionsgate, Reliance BIG Pictures, IMAX and Entertainment Film Distributors.
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 1:50:44 PM


That's a bit of an oversimplification concerning the film franchise possibilities in question. To keep its studio foundation strong, I agree that Marvel should continue with big budget blowouts such as Avengers and Iron Man sequels, or other potential team-ups and crossovers.

Yet it was ultimately built not to be a Super-Studio, but a Lasting-Studio. That means making long-term investments where the $200 million budget "event films" can remain intermittent peaks partly, if not largely, built upon smaller scale outings without some automatic total net loss or damaging instability for the franchise whole.

And by smaller scale, I'm not talking indie low-budget filmmaking. Anything under $100 million, at the very least, can better manage Marvels expenditures in the long run. I'm not saying it would be easy or surefire; again, they need to start making more compelling films in the process to keep audiences engaged.

But if they want to increase their annual output, attempting to "go big" and/or bigger and bigger every single time is not capitalism by default. Rather, it would just be shortsighted business strategy begging for an inevitable burnout.

minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:14:50 PM

If Marvel can afford to make x movies per year at y cost and still sit in the black, cost wise, while enjoying healthy profits, why not?

Now THAT is capitalism, and that's all there is to it.
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:19:24 PM

@ Canon

This article seems to indicate that Marvel Studios is not going to do what you think they should. They want to make more $200 million dollar films per year. The money that makes up a budget is not pure profit from the last successful film. It is primarily money from creditors. Having smaller expectations is a wonderful thing, and works for many companies. Not Marvel. In order for smaller films to make up for the ridiculous amount of money they owe to creditors they would have to make a sh*t ton if them per year. Which is a greater waste of man power like writers, directors, and actors. I think it would cause a degredation of quality versus what you seem to think will be better films.

in 2013 Disney claimed $5 billion in profit. They have to grow. It is part of capitalism. As I said they were born to do this, make big budget movies.
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:26:56 PM

It takes the same amount of time to make a 50 million dollar film as it does 200 million. Only one if these film will.produce profit to their debt to.income ratio. You have to keep.in mind that they already owe a sh*t ton of money! Don't forget the $200 million flops they have to pay off plus any overhead for their expensive ass equipment, employees, facilities. There's a lot to it than just deciding to make less expensive movies.
minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:29:01 PM

I have no idea what Cannon is talking about here, but Disney has done everything they can to make as many truly big movies as possible to make as much cash as possible.

Sure, if they can make a sub-100mil film and have it bank 600mil, they will, but those are exceptions, not the rules, and Disney knows this, which is they they're rolling all the money they make into more "bigger" films.

All this talk of "quality" and "engaging" probably has the CEO and shareholders of Disney laughing all the way to the bank as yet another Marvel/Pixar film blows past the 500mil mark.
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:31:35 PM

Mink gets it.
minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:32:51 PM

"It takes the same amount of time to make a 50 million dollar film as it does 200 million."

That's not true. Some times it takes less, some times more, some times the same. No production schedule works out the way you think it should. Reshoots, rewrites, sub-par vfx.

A 200mil movie, as a rule though, usually takes more time than a 50mil movie because there's more involved. Bigger sets with longer setups, more complex VFX which takes longer to render and composite, et cetera.
minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:35:09 PM

@Bigredcat: I have no idea what cannon is saying, really, because he's so busy throwing out gobbledegook to look more informed and intelligent, his words make little sense, at least to me.

I had to read what he wrote three times just to translate his words into meaningful ideas, and I'm still confused as to what he thinks with respect to the given article.
minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM

Yeah, I don't get it. Cannon thinks Disney can spend ten million on a film and then make 500million. They can't. It's called profit ration or return on investment. The more money they put into film, including marketing, the more it makes. They can't hit the slot machine each time and draw sevens. That works here and there, but very rarely. You have to throw a ton of money into your project to get them to puke a ton more. Basic capitalism, outside SnapChat, because films and most commercial ventures aren't as easy as writing some dumb app that appeals to narcissists.
BigRedCat writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:43:15 PM

Precisely. Disney/Marvel are condemned to making expensive movies. Hell they fired their VP after John Carter failed. That may have been for different reasons, but it still represents a regime change that stock holders probably encourage all the time.
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:46:04 PM

"I have no idea what Cannon is talking about here, but Disney has done everything they can to make as many truly big movies as possible to make as much cash as possible."

Making "big" movies is not necessarily synonymous with making popular, profitable movies. In a sense, Marvel is already doing this with budget differences between the franchise films as they currently stand. All I'm saying is that they could push that gap farther without losing out.

If they make a good Daredevil movie with a healthy marketing and strong word of mouth, but movie for half the budget or less, audiences will still flock. They can-and-should still sell big, yes, but it doesn't always mean they have to produce big.


minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:48:03 PM

"Making "big" movies is not necessarily synonymous with making popular, profitable movies"


Uh, Disney's track record, with a few notable exceptions/outliers, tells a very different story, and with their triple gun solution, they're on the way to make a cool ten, fifteen billion is pure profit over the next ten years. Notice I said profit, which means what they get to keep after they pay off their bills.
minkowski writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:53:26 PM

"If they make a good Daredevil movie with a healthy marketing and strong word of mouth, but movie for half the budget or less, audiences will still flock. They can-and-should still sell big, yes, but it doesn't always mean they have to produce big."


So you're saying they're doing it wrong? Okay. Perhaps you should call up Iger and Fiege and tell them your plan. I'm sure they, and all the other studios, would love to know how they can consistently churn out billion dollar movies with only a few dozen million in investments, especially on relatively no-name properties.

Basically what you're saying is that you don't understand how capitalism and economics work, and instead you're advocating the cinematic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine, in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics, which believe it or not, actually control how much a commercial endeavor makes (taken over the spectrum of all business ventures, statistically speaking, because of those pesky outliers like Blair Witch and Snap Chat)
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 2:58:14 PM


That's true, but up until now, they haven't been cranking out multiple franchise films -- Pixar, Pirates, Marvel -- up to four or more per year. When they do, it is in fact something smaller budgeted, like the Planes spinoffs, that nonetheless have proven relatively profitable. So, when Marvel is proposing something similar, I don't think a similar approach in spending is unreasonable.

Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 3:01:58 PM

"So you're saying they're doing it wrong?"

No, Mink, they haven't done anything yet in regards to what they're proposing in this article. That's what I'm referring to, not their past approach.
Cannon writes:
on March 19th, 2014 at 4:08:24 PM

"I'm sure they, and all the other studios, would love to know how they can consistently churn out billion dollar movies with only a few dozen million in investments, especially on relatively no-name properties."

And pumping $170 to $200 million into those no-name properties is gonna somehow change the fact that they're no-name properties? ...John Carter.

Granted, they succeeded in spending relatively big on first-time Thor and Iron Man films (who were comparatively not Superman or Batman) but, again, that was when they doing fewer films per year.

All I'm really proposing here, concerning their new plan, is to reduce cost while increasing, or at least maintaining, profits. Which is only the ideal goal for every single business on the planet. No CEO anywhere is saying, "Let's spend more, or as much here as we did there, when we don't really have to."

Ticket prices don't change if the movie is made cheaper (assuming it's still made in 3D). If they can sell a cheaper superhero film (in part by making it a quality film with strong reviews) as well as they can an Avengers sequel, they'll turn a profit. But jacking up the actual budget for, say, a Daredevil or Luke Cage film with the same mega money (especially when unnecessary content-wise) does what exactly? ...other than just, well, cost more. Again, John Carter.

Maybe $50 million is unreasonable. I personally don't think so, but for the sake of argument, okay. At least bring it down to $90 or $100 million. I hardly think it improbable to make a satisfying Ghost Rider or Doctor Strange movie on said budget.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved