Saturday
09Aug2008
Marvel Talks Future Projects, Mum on 'Spider-Man 4'
Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 1:32AM
When you get to be Marvel big, you get to talk about how
much money you're making and somehow it's legitimate news. Yahoo! Business
covered Marvel's second quarter earnings conference call, and during the
meeting, studio chief
David Maisel talked not just about the second
quarter of this year (which, of course, included both
Iron Man and
The Incredible Hulk as theatrical releases),
but also about the future. 
He touched on the sequel to Iron Man,
plus the company's plans to make
Thor in 2010, as well as
The First Avenger: Captain America and the
ensemble
Avengers flick, both of which are scheduled for
2011. We know, for example, that
Iron Man 2 is the only movie on the books right
now through which Marvel is using the services of Paramount, and it will kick
off the blockbuster 2010 summer.
We also know that Maisel didn't become a chairman of a big
company because he answers every question directly. Dig his response to whether
or not
Spider-Man 4 would conflict with the studio's
summer '11 slate. Sony wants the movie to kick off summer in early May, right
around the time Captain America is scheduled to be released, which itself
will set up The Avengers later about six weeks later.
"(W)e always have a lot of options now that we control
green light and our destiny with these films. Obviously we can't respond to
hypotheticals and what we would do with various either competitive moves or
partner moves, like Sony with Spider-Man," argued Maisel. "So at this
point, I'd just have to say once a move like that happens, we'll obviously let
our response be made publicly but it wouldn't be constructive to respond to a
hypothetical."
Huh?
I think what he's saying is "We have no comment, and
when we do have a comment, we'll comment at the appropriate time. But until
then, I can't really say, because we have no comment."
Obviously, this would send that summer into a tizzy.
Marvel may be kind of backed itself into a corner with their Sony deal, and they
have a lot more flexibility with many of their newer projects, which Marvel likes to
finance itself and rely on studios for distribution. Sony/Columbia bankrolls
some of the Spidey Empire, so it's tougher to finagle.
But Spider-Man is still Marvel's crown
jewel, as it is for Sony, so we may see a late April release for
Spidey or a slight shift for the other Marvel movies that summer.
Obviously, nobody's prepared to push Spider-Man up a year, and if you do
it in 2012,
Tobey Maguire will be almost 37. Does anybody
really want to see that, especially since he didn't even bother getting in shape
for the third one?
But is that too much Marvel in one summer? Will comic
book movies still be the trend three years from now? And if Marvel has three
movies in two months, which ones will do well? We saw what happened this year
with just two movies. I doubt they want a repeat of The Incredible Hulk's
performance.
(Thanks to
IGN for their coverage of this story).
In related news, the Iron Man DVD will be
released on September 30th in the convenient "Ultimate Edition," which frankly,
is pretty ultimate. A seven-part documentary on the making of the film, six
featurettes on the origins of the character, quizzes, deleted scenes,
Robert Downey Jr.'s screen test, the
entertaining Onion article, "Wildly Popular Iron Man Trailer to be
Adapted into Full Length Film," and more.












Reader Comments (8)
Hulk did very nicely thank you very , and as a journalist, you know nothing.
You're wrong on both counts. The expectations for Hulk were pretty high. And when a movie fails to double its budget in worldwide gross, that's a misfire on this level. It's not enough to simply make its money back, like it would be for an independently-produced feature that never sees a wide release. There are marketing costs to account for, the price of thousands of prints, the amount of money spent on theater rentals, junkets, premieres, etc.
So for a $150 million with that kind of profile to only draw $228 million internationally (which is less than almost any summer blockbuster save Speed Racer), it's not performing "very nicely."
Hey, I liked the movie a lot. Preferred it to Iron Man, which did much better business. But the fact is neither Hulk movie is terribly successful by Marvel's standards. If you think Marvel will spend another $150 million on a Hulk standalone film when neither one of them made that much in the U.S., you're wrong. He'll pop up in The Avengers, but the profit margin simply hasn't been there either time.
as a journalist, you know everything
Hulk sucks, the first one have a lot of story, the second one have no story at all, i think it was a waste of time, and iron man, come on he only appears 3 times during the movie, the fact that robert downey jr. is speaking ill of the dark knight only tells me one thing, marvel is digging their own grave, you'll se avengers will suck, ant man? come on, i only hope they take dark knight as an example and begin make things right.
Your all talking complete poo.
Look at what Marvel has created! Spiderman, XMEN, Punisher, etc. Iron Man was brilliant and so was the second Hulk. Super Hero movies work they attract all audiences with the querky humour and the amazing special effects. Personally Spidey 4 cannot come soon enough! And this colaboration with the Avengers will be ace!!!! All our faves battling together against probably all of the villians! Imagine how great the future of cinema will be!!! Forget Dark Knight, over hyped trash because of a dead actor! Well played but ruined by the likes of a extremely wooden Christian Bale! Signing Out!
What the crap!!! The Dark Knight is not a movie that is "over hyped trash because of a dead actor"!!! The Dark Knight was a work of art and it is the best superhero movie ever. The movie would have still done well at the box office if Heath Ledger was still alive. His performance deserves at least an oscar nod, Can you say that about any other superhero movie? no. thats what I thought. Ledger was just amazing as the Joker. I love the Spiderman movies and all but they are just fun entertainment nothing more. They don't have any substances. The Dark Knight was funny and serious. It didn't feel like your normal superhero movie, it was a good quality movie.
Oh and the Hulk movies are terrible. Maybe, I just don't have enough imagination to take a huge green man running around fighting another hulk on steriods. The Incredible Hulk was good when the Hulk wasn't around but when he was I couldn't help from laughing.
The Dark Knight was a movie you could take seriously and it had a message. Also, The Dark Knight was the first movie to break tie the record set by LOTR:ROTK of being number 1 at the box office for 4 weeks, Spidey couldn't even do that
if u ask me i reckon that the release of all spidey 4, capain america, and avengers, being in the same year i sgood, so what, i have no doubt that they will all be excellent, super hero movies are always, good, especially lately, they're doing nothing but getting better with time, and i think that 2011 will one hell of a year for cinema.
I think they should make another Daredevil movie. That first one was the best super hero movie ever.