Marvel Looking At Movies "More As Brands And Less As Films"!

Ror@ That would be to awesome. I doubt they would be that kind to us. :)

Gr8 find Josh@ Bring it on Marvel!! Hopefully we'll get another Hulk in there somewhere as well. I love me some Hulk Smash! lol.

Tea@ Well someone did say post Avengers they were going to bring in the Cosmics. Thanos baby! :P

I agree, Civil war would be awesome.....too bad no spiderman.....

This is one of those rare opportunities that I actually have a chance to get in on the start of posting and I have nothing to say. I guess really I'm less concerned about The Avengers than I am about the Spider-Man reboot. Honestly, I have complete faith that The Avengers movie and all others associated with it will be great, but the Spidey reboot lies in mystery; I don't want any more of the same there.

As for "more as brands," that's the kind of bull shit that ruined the Star Wars prequels. You don't make a movie to sell merchandise, you do it to tell your story and to impress the fans.

2017?! Are getting "Infinity War" or something?

((BTW! My mom used to work at a Brown Shoe factory in the 80's))

Oi vey. That brands vs films statements. What to make of that?

I hope what they mean is that they are not confining their properties to films, but thinking of a broader scope of product. That would mean that they just want to make sure all the products share the right common threads and hit the market at the right time. It would hope fully NOT mean that they are going to screw with the talent the hire to direct and write to get movies with more merchandising possibilities but possibly lower quality. FINGERS CROSSED!

Oh, and I want to see Secret Wars before Infinity Gauntlet and Civil War.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the "Avengers Assemble" stuff. Kids clothes and wallets or something more? When it comes to making Marvel a household name, I would have thought the success of their recent and upcoming movies will do that regardless of merchandise. (which will more than likely be aimed at kids anyway) Either way, "More As Brands And Less As Films" really makes no sense unless it's some PR mumbo jumbo I dont understand, lol!

DLM: Yeah, I completely forgot about the Hulk actually! He definitely needs another film regardless...it's a pity that the first one wasnt successdful enough to convince Marvel to release another one alongside Iron Man 2 this year. At least I assume that's why they didnt!

I: That's cool man - cant beat Alex Ross! It's just a pity you cant see more of the Vision in that picture.

I don't think they would do Civil War for one simple reason. Marvel isn't sinking all this time and energy into making the public familiar with their characters to turn them against each other.

If Joe Blow Mr. Public watches IM and then Captain America, he grows into a huge fan of both characters. Then place the two characters in The Avengers and he becomes a bigger fan. Now, if you turn them against each other for a Civil War movie, Joe Public has to side with one or the other, which is fine. That is, until the next individual movie comes out. Your next Cap and IM movies are going to suffer greatly because you turn half of the average consumer against the character by making him an enemy of the other one.

Hellz to the YEAH!!!

I'm really glad this guy laid out the truth for the Fans.

Comic books and character's are brands, they exist to make money. entertaining you is just a side effect.

That's the truth

deal with it.

Josh, I think you're shooting too low with just another Avengers movie in 2017. It seems as though it implies something more business-oriented, like maybe purchasing rights back from FOX or something along those lines? (He was discussing the Marvel brand and all, and that sure falls under those lines.) That's just a guess obviously but my point is that announcing another Avengers movie is hardly anything secretive. Perhaps we should be thinking of things more along the business/marketing end. And hey-- maybe I'm completely wrong and it is just that simple.

ThaMessenger07: Buying back the rights to their characters just so they can place them in the background of a movie crowded with heroes doesn't make much financial sense at all.

they could be rebooting spider man so they could eventualy line him up to do a project with the rest of the universe. i.e. Secret war or Civil war. the way the other spidy movies were they made it seem like he was the only superhero, there was no mention of the Fantastic 4 even though they were in the same city, the Avengers cross over every 5 min. so mabey they wont have Fury show up, but they might have a Bugle cover with iron man on it, just so the option was open to cross over.

prolly is the Infinity Gauntlet?
Well I would love CIVIL WAR, buttt, cant have it without spider-man, fantastic four and x-men :(
Nice find @Josh!

i can't see how a sequel to Avengers would be the BIG deal. Everyone already expects that to happen. and a sequel wouldn't be any bigger news than Avengers.

Knowing that all these cosmic artifacts are appearing in Thor, I'm thinking it'll be some kind of big crossover movie, like Infinity Gauntlet, or Civil War.

Although they'll have to introduce an assload of characters to do either of them justice.

@ Metalhead - exactly what I'm thinking. Marvel/Disney targeting getting all of their film rights back.

I'd be happy with Atlantis Attacks, Kree/Skrull War or Infinity Gauntlet. It all depends on what characters they begin to introduce....

Gauntlet could be tough w/o a more expansive universe to work off of, primarily involving the Silver Surfer and Adam Warlock. As long as Fox has the rights for SS then expect any movie involving sharing of him to be tied up in litigation.

Here's hoping, 80sFace. It's hard to stay objective on the subject because as fans we obviously want it to happen, but first and foremost this is still a business and if it doesn't make sense financially, it won't happen.

(a) FOX needs to do the math and decide that taking x amount is a better deal for them than continuing to make movies, which they may since movies are still a gamble and all it takes is a terrible one for the franchise to lose interest and a ton of value. They may agree that selling high is wise.

(b) Marvel needs to do the math and come to the conclusion that the price they pay for the rights can be more than made up for, and considering their link with Disney, this is entirely possible. Just think about the other factors such as X-Men Disney rides, etc., like DC has with Six Flags. It's way more to them than just wanting to be able to put Wolverine in a movie with the Hulk, for example.

It's definitely something that could possibly make sense for both sides from a business standpoint, assuming FOX doesn't want to be a douche about it, but this is business and a lot of money we're talking about here. Marvel can do way more with FOX's characters than FOX can. They'd need to come to common ground on a deal AND Marvel would need to determine that they can still turn the investment into a significant profit after the cost to acquire the rights.