Talk:Marvel Studios

Marvel Productions and Marvel Studios

Marvel Studios did not arise from the ashes of Marvel Productions Ltd. in fact Marvel Productions Ltd. was defunct for about a decade when Marvel Studios was formed. Therefore the two articles should remain separate. Whoever was responsible for the merger of the two article was wrong for doing so. Misterrick, 17:40 12 December 2004 (UTC)

I'd go further and say that Marvel Productions Ltd. should be covered under DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, since MP during the 1980s practically was DFE, just under a different name. What do you think? -lee 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Again I have to emphasis that Marvel Productions and Marvel Studio are two totally unrelated companies even though they share the same parent. Again Marvel Productions Ltd. was defunct for a decade when Marvel Studios was formed. It wasn't until Ronald Perlman took over Marvel when Marvel Studios was formed so prior to that and following the closure of Marvel Productions there was no production studio. I have re-edited the Marvel Studios article and recreated the Marvel Productions article. Misterrick 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

true... instead exists a relationship with Marvel Films Animation and Marvel Production.. Marvel Films (1994-1997) basically was a mix between New World's animation division (based on ex-Marvel Production) and new people..--88.149.169.237 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the animated movies

the start of the ultimate avengers 2 movie says: "A MARVEL STUDIOS PRODUCTION"

so given that, why is that movie not listed in the marvel studios article??????????? !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.51.76 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because BEFORE THAT it says "Marvel Animation". It's in the Marvel Animation page. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rights to Spider-man, X-men, Fantastic Four

Does anybody if / when Marvel Studios will get back the rights to those franchises? Maxtro (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It works like this... If Sony or Fox (Along with New Line and Lionsgate) do not make a film for the characters in a matter of 7 years, they lose the rights. If they fail to make any attempt in the first place, and miss their dead line, then Marvel gets the rights back. This is why Universal doesn't own Hulk any more... Or ANY film that Marvel sold to them! This is also why New Line only has Blade and Lionsgate only has Punisher. Though, I do think they still own the Man-Thing rights, but I don't think many people care about that... Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvel as regained the rights to the Punisher. Though I don't think they are interested in making anymore films with that character. Fox has the rights to X-men but those movies make money regardless of qaulity so they will continue to milk it the same with Spider-Man. Marvel has also regained the Fantastic Four film rights but not sure if they plan anymore movies after their bad film outings.....Tra2525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.68.75 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In-Production

I could have sworn Luke Cage was in production (according to IMDB), but I'm not sure what section to put it under, since I can't find a release date, but it's been more than optioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.133.24 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, NOW, it has a director and it should be on the page. Just put TBA in the date. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Namor: The Sub-Mariner

[[1]] so should we put this in anywhere? any room for it? I just don't want to put it up then have someone take it off ten seconds later because its "original research" or somethingMadhatter9max (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Status Movie Projects and Cancelled Movie Projects from IP 220.126.70.178

As previously stated when I undid the original edit, a lot of this information is uncited and/or speculation (where are these dates coming from? Where has the X-Men 4 information come from?). As for the Cancelled Movie Projects (witch are all sequels), that information is included in the original film's articles and does not need to be repeated in this article. Do not simply revert again without explaining your reasoning. Thank you. Planewalker Dave (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Few things...

Okay, well, I think it's safe to say (After what I've read here and in other places, not IMDB) that Wolverine 2 is coming out in 2012 and Deadpool in 2011. Also, what happened to Runaways? I heard Marvel wanted that done for a 2012 release?

Also, we should put a whole "TBA" list on here for movies like Namor, Nick Fury, X4 (Has been conformed at the Blue-Ray celebration), First Class (Which may come out in 2012, from what I've read here and in other places...), Ghost Rider 2 (Being written by David Goyer), Magneto, New Mutants, Spider-Man 5 and 6, Iron Man 3, Silver Surfer, Cable (One of the several movies Marvel had gotten writers for earlier this year...), Black Panther, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Nighthawk, Vision, and Dr. Strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretboy3000 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that the full slate of movies that you are suggesting will ever be made. However, you are raising issues that are pertinent to multiple pages. I would like to suggest that there be a rule of thumb for which movies currently in development appear in entries for Marvel Comics, Marvel Studios, and the List of films based on Marvel Comics. There is currently no consistency between these pages even though they discuss the same content. I think movies without a director or a script should not appear anywhere. Movies announced by the studio that are currently in development are appropriate to include. Movies that meet the above criteria, but have not been announced, could be denoted as "planned". If there is reason to believe that a movie on this latter list will never get made (e.g., see Spiderman 4), it should be removed from the "planned list" with an explanation for the removal. Any film listed should have a reference that cites original source material discussing the film (an IMDB page would not meet this criteria as many films with IMDB pages will never be made). Eshaeffer (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's how this works, why has Luke Cage and Ant-Man, along with the Fantastic Four reboot and the Daredevil reboot, been taken off this. Along with Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance, X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2 and the Deadpool films. We can even add X-Men 4 since Laura Donner Schuller confirmed that Bryan Singer will direct the film when they're complete with X-Men: First Class. I think that the Savage Land/Ka-Zar film should be listed since Marvel Studios IS actually working on the film as we speak (Recent updates say that they are looking over 10,000 BC to see why it failed so they don't make the same mistakes). I'm just saying, Wikipedia is supposed to be informational, why not AT LEAST give info on films under TBA or just announced so that curious people can just come to this one page and see that, at least, Marvel, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, and New Line are acknowledging their film properties being there and that, in some way, they're being worked on. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC) There should also be a thing on here about Marvel Studios' 10 minute short-films, starting with Dr. Strange. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your confusion is understandable. This suggestion seemed to me like an entirely reasonable approach, but it didn't receive much support by the editors of the List of films based on Marvel Comics. I suggest that you check out out the associated talk page for how this debate seemed to settle out. I'm all for consistency across pages, so if it isn't going to appear on the list page, I'd argue that it probably shouldn't appear on the Marvel Comics or Marvel Studios pages either. Oddly, it doesn't seem to be the same editors that consistently work on these three pages, which I think adds to the confusion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is editing this page is REALLY bi-polar. They took down Ant-Man, Runaways, and Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance. All three have directors, scripts and, at least, two of them are casting (Runaways and Ghost Rider are both being filmed soon with GR:SOV in November and Runaways in January-April). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.212.223 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Feige

Why doesn't he have his own page? It would be nice to have a page to properly flame him on for dropping Edward Norton. Vandalizing this page just isn't the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.115.176 (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Marvel Studios

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Marvel Studios's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt":

• From Newsday: "Three New York Moguls in Talks to Buy Newsday", by Tim Arango and Richard Pérez-Peña, March 21, 2008
• From Disney Fairies: Buckleitner, Warren (2008-10-22). "A Charm to Take Little Pixies Off the Web and Home to Play". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-02.
• From Marvel Productions: Hicks, Jonathan P. (1988-11-08). "THE MEDIA BUSINESS; Marvel Comic Book Unit Being Sold for $82.5 Million". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-10-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Distributor for The Avengers

Please do not add Paramount Pictures as distributor for The Avengers (2012 film). Even though they are given screen credit, they are NOT handling distribution. Walt Disney Pictures is soley responsible for marketing and distribution.

Why Par, not Disney, gets 'Avengers' credit

Richiekim (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disney Distribution

On the Marvel Studios article you have reversed an edit regarding Paramount distributing Thor 2 and Captain America 2. The source that have Disney buying Avengers and Ironman 3 distribution indicates that those were the only movies distribution they purchased from Paramount.

On 18 October 2010, Disney bought the distribution rights for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 from Paramount Pictures. Kim Masters (18 October 2010). "Disney to Distribute Marvel's 'The Avengers,' 'Iron Man 3'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 18 October 2010.

“Five years ago, when Paramount and Marvel made our initial deal, both our businesses were in very different places,” Grey said. “Today, this new agreement is the right deal for Paramount, for Marvel and for Disney. We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America,’ and we wish Disney and Marvel the utmost success in what we know will be a very productive and wide-ranging partnership.”

"Paramount will retain distribution rights to Marvel properties 'Thor' and 'Captain America: The First Avenger,' which will open May 6 and July 22 next year, respectively."

So unless you have a new source that indicates otherwise, please refrain from removing Paramount as distributor for Thor 2 and Captain America 2.Spshu (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are references in the Marvel Studios article which CLEARLY state that Disney will be distributing Thor 2 & Captain America 2.

"Disney has set a July 26, 2013 release date for Thor 2."

"Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday."

I have edited the article accordingly, with proper references. Please do not change to Paramount. Thank you.Richiekim (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I ran across a source stating that "Second, Marvel will be able to determine their release dates, which will make it easier to sell action figures and other merchandise." So the announcement of the release date of Thor 2 is not enough of as source to show that Disney is distributing that movie. Spshu (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are references in the Marvel Studios article which CLEARLY state that Disney will be distributing Thor 2 & Captain America 2.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/marvel-and-disney-sets-thor-2-for-summer-2013-kenneth-branagh-wont-return/ "Disney has set a July 26, 2013 release date for Thor 2."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-first-avenger-sequel-release-date-308715 "Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday."
I have edited the article accordingly, with proper references. Please do not change to Paramount. Thank you.Richiekim (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I ran across a source stating that "Second, Marvel will be able to determine their release dates, which will make it easier to sell action figures and other merchandise." So the announcement of the release date of Thor 2 is not enough of as source to show that Disney is distributing that movie. Spshu (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That source that you cited is from 2007, before Disney bought Marvel. Multiple media outlets have reported that all future Marvel Cinematic Universe films will be produced, marketed and distributed by Disney.Richiekim (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the Paramount Distribution deal was made during that time period. The above supposedly source that all future Marvel Cinematic Universe films will be distributed by Disney only speaks of Avengers and Iron Man 3. Marvel Studio remains in charge of production. Marketing does seem to be in Disney's hands given the firing of the Marvel Studios' PR staff. Well, I have not changed it to give you time to come up with a source. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The two above sources I've provided spell it out very clearly: Disney will distribute Thor 2 and Cap 2 as well as all future MCU films. If that's not enough for you, here's some more sources:

http://collider.com/captain-america-2-sequel-release-date/157385/

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/24069/disney-shuffles-thor-2-lone-ranger-dates

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/08/thor-scoop-josh-dallas-wont-reprise-role-as-fandral-exclusive/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-06/entertainment/sns-201206061417reedbusivarietynvr1118055101-20120606_1_captain-america-pic-first-avenger

I would say that these multiple sources have more weight and credence than an out of date, 5 year old source that predates the Disney Marvel merger.Richiekim (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but merger source also indicated that the Paramount deal would be in place:

Both Marvel and Disney have stated that the merger would not affect any preexisting deals with other film studios for the time being, although Disney said they will consider distributing future Marvel projects with their own studios once the current deals expire.

And that only distribution of The Avengers and Iron Man 3 were purchased from Paramount:

On 18 October 2010, Disney bought the distribution rights for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 from Paramount Pictures.

So given that Disney has taken over PR for Marvel given:

On 22 August 2011 at Disney's behest, the Studio fired most of its marketing department: Dana Precious, EVP of Worldwide Marketing; Jeffrey Stewart, VP of Worldwide Marketing and Jodi Miller, Manager of Worldwide Marketing. Disney will now market Marvel's films.

And the above that Marvel will choose their dates. Combine all that and the announcements coming jointly from Marvel and Disney only indicates that Disney has taken over their PR. So it is incorrect that an announce of a release date that Disney is releasing Thor 2. While the Captain America 2 source indicates: "Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday." Could be a mistake based on the assumption in the buy out of the distribution contract of just the Avengers and Iron Man 3 that the whole contract was bought out. But given that source, I am willing to wait to find a source for the buyout of Thor & Captain America 2 or the whole contract and not remove Disney for the time being. Spshu (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact our source says:

“Five years ago, when Paramount and Marvel made our initial deal, both our businesses were in very different places,” Grey said. “Today, this new agreement is the right deal for Paramount, for Marvel and for Disney. We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America,’ and we wish Disney and Marvel the utmost success in what we know will be a very productive and wide-ranging partnership.”

Spshu (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There has been and will be no buyout on the future films. Paramount only had the rights to distribute a certain number of Marvel movies, and Disney bought out the last two (Avengers and Iron Man 3). The above block quote is referring to the first Thor and Captain America movies. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

←Paramount had 10 films (I.Hulk not included) in the distibution deal and the source only indicate that the Avengers & IM3 was bought out per the sources. And it says look "We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America'". You need sources to say other wise not just assume because they are picking a released date which the original Paramount distibution agreement allows. Do just assume what you want from a source. So the Paramount deal is not done with only five produced (with 1 buy out) that is only half the number of films of the agreement. Spshu (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not 10, Iron Man + the next 5 (Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, Iron Man 3). [2] Disney bought out the final two on the contract. The source is right in front of you. The quote you posted is directly referring to the first Thor and Cap movies, nothing else. Those were the last two movies Paramount distributed for Marvel, after the buyout was complete. Hence the quote. Assuming it has anything to do with anything else is your own original research. More on Disney's buyout of the final two films from the contract: [3] -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles source for the deal indicates 10 -- PLEASE READ THE SOURCE. JUST MAKING DEMAND LIKE Richiekim AS WHAT YOU CONSIDER RIGHT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE DONE HERE. the articles source for the deal: "Marvel Enterprises, Inc. announced today the completion of a $525 million non-recourse debt facility which will finance Marvel's production of up to ten films based on characters from its famous stable of comic book characters, including Captain America, Nick Fury and The Avengers. Paramount, a unit of Viacom, Inc., will distribute the film slate, with the first theatrical release expected for summer 2008."

Your first source is for an extention of the contract for FOREIGN distribution: "The deal includes theatrical distribution in foreign territoies previously serviced by Marvel through local distribution entities (Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia/New Zealand)." Yes the source says that Avengers and IM3 were bought out but Richiekim could not as requested turn up any thing except announcements of Disney issuing release dates for the movies which Marvel had the right to do to begin with. You and Richiekim are doing original research as you are just demanding what you think is the case but you have not shown a source to support it. Don't accuse some one else of original research when you in can not support your own position. I gave him time to turn up said sources and he has not.

another source - Where does this indicate that this ended the contract? The article contridicts its self: "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios amounts to the Mouse paying a premium to get cracking on its $4 billion investment in Marvel." "The difference here is that the films under the Paramount deal are the ones that Marvel Studios began funding under its $500 million credit line with Merrill Lynch, an accommodation made before the studio was bought by Bob Iger last year for $4 billion." "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers and Iron Man 3." Your previous source refers to a secondary deal in which Paramount purchased the foreign distribution business for 5 more films after Iron Man 1. This may refer to that, in that it ends Paramount's foreign rights which ended up being for six films but the full domestic rights are for 10 films and purchased Avengers and IM3's domestic rights.--Spshu (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Up to 10. Including foreign territories. They are all referring to the same deal, which is now null and void. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Richiekim and Fandraltastic, Disney is the sole distributor for all current and future Marvel films. This is explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on Fandraltastic, actually read and comprend the source instead of your twisting. "Up to" refers to the number of films to be financed. "...a $525 million non-recourse debt facility which will finance Marvel's production of up to ten films..." You got it right foreign distribution included five films past IM1. The source doesn't indicate any change in the original "slate" deal which was 10 films. No, Richiekim and Fandraltastic's position is not explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources. Picking the release date doesn't indicate that they are distribution those films as Richiekim claims. Sources are for purchase Avengers and IM3, not this was the remainer of the contract.

Quit, your edit warring, Fandraltastic, and trying to point to me for edit warring (18:02, 10 October 2012‎ Fandraltastic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,858 bytes) (+223)‎ . . (Undid revision 517042161 by Spshu (talk) (Take it to the talk page. You're veering on violating the WP:3RR...)). Richiekim and any one else interest has been on notice for month (since June) that they need a source to support his position. --Spshu (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I provided you with a source, stating explicitly that they were the final two films on a six-film contract. A prior press release containing a note that there were options for up to ten films is meaningless here. You demand source, I provide source. I don't have the time nor the energy to continue debating this as you seem to desire. Bolding part of a sentence to support an otherwise unverifiable position doesn't change the face that it's unverified. Please stop the edit warring unless you have a source explicitly stating that Paramount will distribute Thor 2 or Cap 2. Richiekim has provided you sources explicitly stating that Disney will distribute them, and I can hunt down more if you really and truly wish to continue this frivolity. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney

"Marvel Studios, a division of Marvel Entertainment, produces movies based on the world's most prominent and iconic comic book empire." .... "Marvel Entertainment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." Our Business - The Walt Disney Studios This indicates that Marvel Studio is not own under the Walt Disney Studios but Marvel Entertainment. Please refrain from adding Marvel Studios as a part of WD Studios, as a Disney subsidiary or anything similar, it is still a subsidary of Marvel Entertainment and an indirect subsidary of Disney Company. Disney Studios will just be taking over distribution of Marvel Studios movies after the Paramount deal is done (if they don't do a buy out like with Avengers). Spshu (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Paramount deal is already done. Disney purchased the rights to distribute Avengers and Iron Man 3, and intrinsically own the distribution rights of all future films. Please don't change it without a reference indicating otherwise. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with people changing the article to indicate that Marvel Studios is a subsidary of Disney Studios? Spshu (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This has something to do with it. As Fandraltastic said above, Disney purchased the rights to distribute Avengers and IM3 and they own the distribution rights of all the future films. Also, Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment are owned by Disney. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whats the problem here, Disney owns ME which owns MS so therefore Disney owns MS. It doesn't sound as if you guys are too far off. In cases like this it might be better to be as specific as possible to avoid contention. Also I tagged the article, the lead should be expanded to included more the company's general history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Other then the general nonsense that Fandraltastic is spewing, no. The original post had to do with IP editors changing the article and Disney Studios' article to read that the Parent company of Marvel Studios is Disney Studios/Pictures and some times Paramount as parent company do to them being listed as distributing Marvel's movies. Spshu (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the first post I saw when checking the talk page. I noticed the above convo and moved the conversation to the above portion. Yes, my point belonged in the section above. That's why I redirected my responses there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)