Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics publications

Announced and in-development movies

This list is getting pretty long and new things are being added to it ridiculously often. Some are genuine, others not so much. My suggestion is that for each movie on the list there should be at least one cite to say where the information comes from. Planewalker Dave (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it substantially to include stuff for which there is actually significant evidence in reliable sources that the films are actually being made, as the fan speculation was getting ridiculous. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include X-Men Origins: Magneto and X-Men First Class in the list of upcoming movies and Ant-Man as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.87.107 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We should add Ghost Rider 2

No, we shouldn't. There's no proof at all that anything will actually be made, just a few people talking so far. That's not sufficient for inclusion. We have far more evidence that Marvel will be making Thor and Avengers, and those aren't listed yet. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the upcoming deadpool film scheduled for 2011 15:12 10 may 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.116.63 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This would warrant inclusion if a reputable source announced that the movie would be released then. At this point, I don't think that there has even been confirmation of a script yet. Once the movie is actively in development and references can be provided, it will be added to the list.Eshaeffer (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We should add "Deathlok" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2" in the ANNOUNCED segment for the year 2011. Heres a link to the IMDB of Deathlok and X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2. And we should also add "Deadpool" and "Venom" to the ANNOUNCED segment, aswell. Just not certain of the year. It seems more probable that the year may be 2012. Heres some information on Deadpool and Venom. Also Ghost Rider 2 SHOULD be added and listed as in-development for a 2011 release. Heres a few sites that acknowledge the development of Ghost Rider 2, the IMDB and a confirmed source from a scifi website scifimoviepage.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.13.56 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having an IMDb page does not make it worthy of having it listed. The Luke Cage film had an IMDb page for about 5 years and we haven't heard anything about that since the original announcement. The general rule that seems to be followed is that once it gets a release date, then it gets added. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Green Lantern" should be added to the list. It is currently being filmed and will be released in 2011. here is the IMDB information about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.7.139 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's DC not Marvel. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the issue of movies that could be classified as "in development" since my edits made in good-faith were recently reverted by OscarFercho. I agree with Planewalker Dave that an IMDB page is not a satisfactory reference for rumored films that may never get made. In my recent edit (as 24.160.174.245), I added a series of rows for planned films and provided references for each film that I included (I also made it clear that these films had not yet been announced by the studios). Additionally, I edited or included references for films currently listed as "announced." References were not simply links to rumor sites - they were trade publications and sites that included interviews with the films' likely directors. By entirely reverting the edits, not only were planned films with references removed (which I suspect were the one's taken issue with), but also a number of additional references, which added value to the page. Since rumored films are added to this page all the time without references, I suspect that this revert was made reflexively, without much regard for the specific nature of my contribution. If so, this seems problematic since the referenced films met the criteria for inclusion discussed on this talk page. I included films for which a director has been hired and/or a script has been written, which would be consistent with a film in development. I did not add any of the other rumored films based on Marvel characters that are unable to meet this criteria (e.g., Magneto, Luke Cage, Deadpool, Spiderman 4, Venom). The justification given by OscarFercho for the revert was "That makes confussion" (sic) and "Please, don't introduced speculative films, its brings confussion" (sic). I do not feel like these comments were an appropriate response to my contribution, so I wish to hear from those who can offer a constructive point of view. Eshaeffer (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See similar comments to this effect and suggestions about consistency across pages here: Talk:Marvel Studios.Eshaeffer (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Films without director or release date, actually have a status of unconfirmed. This is not a list of unconfirmed films.OscarFercho (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear what your criteria is for determining whether films are "unconfirmed" or "confirmed". I provided references for the films that I added, which discussed directors and script writers. In several cases, the script for the movie has been written, which would seem to meet the criteria for films in development. You seem to have no problem with listing films in development that have been announced. I am simply suggesting that we include a separate section for planned films that have not yet been announced by the studios, but can be confirmed by references to original sources. Kevin Fiege, the president of Marvel Studios (as recently as April 26th, 2010) has said that yes, Ant Man is in development (see reference #3). I indicated that the release date for this film is TBA, so this should not be confusing at all. Films like Wolverine 2 and X-Men: First Class appear on pages for Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios, so my reasoning is that this list page should be using the same rule of thumb that editors of those pages seem to be using. It would also be helpful if I could better understand why my edits were entirely reverted, when some of the changes included providing references for movies in development that have been announced. Entirely reverting someone's edits seems to suggest that you did not think the contribution was made in good faith, which mine was. Rigid gatekeepers who revert edits without thoughtful consideration of the contribution would seem to discourage the collaborative spirit this website requires.Eshaeffer (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have yet again removed the WP:CRYSTAL violating 'list of planned to maybe someday or not at all happen' list. None of the films on there are in pre-production, the actual stage that has long been the standard for this page. 'Announced' or 'In Discussion' aren't sufficient. Ant Man, Power Man/Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi, all have been 'rumored to be starting REALLLLLY soon' for about a decade. None of them are moving. Now that there's word Pym will be in Avengers, it's highly unlikely that all the previous rumors and off-hand comments about Ant-Man are holding any water now, and most didn't hold a drop before, either. Until we're hearing about signed contracts for directors and actors, we shouldn't even be discussing their inclusions on this page. Oscar was right to remove the list, and I support his action by repeating it now. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the action, for the reasons set.OscarFercho (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If the president of Marvel Studios has said that a film is in development, and a director and screenwriters have been hired (see Ant-Man), I am having trouble seeing how a film does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Signed contracts for actors are not necessary for a film to be classified as film in development. This doesn't mean that any rumored film belongs on the list - that is why the films you cite (Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi) were not included. I see that this might be a losing battle, however, so I will respect the more conservative and less speculative approach to editing being advocated here. There should at least be consistency, though, across multiple Marvel pages. I hope ThuranX will agree that planned films should be removed from the pages for Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios just as they were here. Also, if being in pre-production is the criteria for this page, then X-Men: First Class, The Avengers, and the Untitled Spider-Man Reboot should be removed from this list as well until reliable sources confirm that pre-production has begun.Eshaeffer (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tiny note: I think First Class qualifies as being in pre-production given that casting as begun (i.e., James McAvoy) Planewalker Dave (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to get this straight, also might be good for clarification, the threshold for adding films to this is pre-production? If not, as already stated Wolverine 2, Deadpool and Ant-Man are in active development (Ant-Man could be considered in pre, since it has a director). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have picked up on the same inconsistency that I did as well. Even though this talk page seems to suggest that films that are actively being developed are appropriate for this list, some editors do not agree. That would, of course, make you assume then that films must be in pre-production for them to qualify, but that doesn't seem to be true either. I have heard nothing about scripts being written for The Avengers or the Spider-Man Reboot, and have heard of a script for Ant-Man, but these two make the list and Ant-Man does not. Basically, what I've learned is that to avoid getting in an edit war with self-appointed page guardians OscarFercho and ThuranX, a film has to have been officially announced by a major studio. Even if the head of Marvel comics says a film is in development, it won't make the list until the film is officially announced. All of the references in the world won't please this crowd unless this "official announcement" criteria is met. The stage of the film in the production process is apparently irrelevant as far as others are concerned.Eshaeffer (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers does have a script. The first draft has been completed by Zak Penn and is currently being rewritten by Joss Whedon. I dont know about the Spidey reboot as I havent been following it but yea I think we must establish a concensus for a clear threshold.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that Runaways is in pre also.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance? It is supposed to start filming in the next three months. Surely it can be assumed that it has entered pre-production,--121.212.133.48 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it have a confirmed release date? If not, then it shouldn't be added.-5- (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous: Venom, Ant-Man, Dr Strange, X-Men Origins: Magneto, Deadpool, Wolverine 2, Deathlok, Runaways, Luke Cage, etc seem to all be unconfirmed. Can they really be making these on top of all those others coming out in the next 2-3 years?(Thor, Avengers, Iron Man 3, new Spider-Man, Ghost Rider 2, X-Men: First Class, Cap. America...) I've found lots of those unconfirmed ones mentioned in various wiki character articles and lists. Does anybody actually know? Maybe we should do a unconfirmed/rumoured section, sounds stupid I know but I think it makes sense, and I've seem similar around wikia before. 86.144.135.89 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia policy to deal with unconfirmed rumors.-5- (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should add the Daredevil reboot because it's already confirmed and there righting it so i dont see why we shouldn't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.102.137 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe Rise of Cobra

Shouldn't GI Joe be on this list. I know the film is not affiliated with Marvel Studios (Hasbro, if anything), but it is based on a Marvel comic. Does that count for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhale9382 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. See G.I. Joe (comics). All Marvel comics featuring these characters were based on the Hasbro toy line of the same name. Therefore, all GI Joe movies should be considered to be based on the toy line as well. The characters in the Hasbro line were based on characters appearing in comic strips as early as the 1940s, long before the Marvel series began. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise we would be putting the Transformers and Star Wars movies on, as they are quite similar situations. Perhaps we should consider doing another section and including them in it along with GI Joe, Films Based on Franchises/Characters that Marvel has Published Comics About, hmm maybe not that title 86.144.135.89 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk movies

Should the first two Incredible Hulk movies be listed here? It did air as a two-hour movies event, but it aired as part of the regular TV series season. I think that it does not qualify to be listed on Television films section of the page because it is a part of the regular TV series season, and not were played together (back-to-back) in reruns. The Incredible Hulk Returns, The Trial of the Incredible Hulk and The Death of the Incredible Hulk It's a television movies since of release, but the "first two" not.OscarFercho (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tough call. My initial impulse is to say they should follow whatever we did about the 2 Captain America movies, and the early Spidermans. .. Let me think on it a bit.ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Documentaries and featurettes?

Is there any interest including a list of documentaries that discuss Marvel properties (e.g., With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story)? Or what about featurettes that have appeared on Marvel film DVD releases (these often have their own IMDB pages; e.g., X-Men: The Excitement Continues, The Secret Origin of X-Men)?

It could be done similarly to how the section is on the List of films based on DC Comics article, which is to just list officially produced documentaries that have been released individually. That would rule out any DVD featurettes.-5- (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Sonja and Men in Black

Should Red Sonja (1985 film) be listed here? Its not a Marvel property. While Marvel was publishing the characters comic book at the time, she was licenced from the Robert E. Howard estate (just like Conan and Kull). And while Marvel's version was completely reinvented and bared little in resemblance to the original Howard character (who was a gun slinging heroine) it was still licenced. Today the character is essentially creator owned by the writer (Roy Thomas) and artist (Barry Windsor Smith) of the Marvel series. The character appears in comics published by Dynamite Entertainment which is another comic book company. So the film really isn't a Marvel movie per say since it doesn't feature a Marvel character.

Furthermore shouldn't The Men in Black (comics) films be listed? Those characters are owned by Marvel (they acquired Malibu Comics who acquired Aircel Comics, the originator of these characters). Marvel published various Men in Black comics around the time the film was made and still own the rights to those characters. Even though they don't use them anymore, they have owned the characters since 1994 (when they bought Malibu). This was before the first film came out in 1997.Giantdevilfish (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm totally agree. Agree , This movie must be removed of the list.OscarFercho (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Red Sonja and Men in Black films have been discussed a few times before. Check out the archive for the multiple threads for each film. I've argued for including Red Sonja in the past, but you have raised what I think is the best rebuttal so far. This film clearly falls in a gray area. If the consensus was to de-list the Red Sonja film, I would be fine with supporting that position. While Aircel Comics wasn't a Marvel imprint at the time the first MIB film came out, it is held as a Marvel property now. So, even though the imprint is now defunct, I am inclined to list the MIB films under "From other Marvel imprints" along with Icon Comic's Kick Ass. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesh. With Red Sonja, while Marvel's version is different than the Howard original (including the tweaking of her name from SonYa to SonJa), it was still licenced. Howard was credited in the fine print at the bottom of page one of every issue of the comic book series (http://www.comics.org/series/2404/covers/) that Marvel published, (Marvel did this with all their licenced properties. The rights holder was credited in the fine print whether it was Conan the Barbarian, Kull of Atlantis, Godzilla, Transformers, GI Joe, Star Wars etc). Heck, Howard was even credited in the film.

Then, this altered version of the character became copyrighted as a separate entity. Not by Marvel Comics, but by the two creators which made her a creator owned property. These were the two gentlemen that wrote and drew the comic for Marvel and reimagned Howards character for the comic book. They even created a company called Red Sonja LLC. This is why the character is being used by another company. (Dynamite Entertainment)http://www.comics.org/series/14205/covers/

So as you can see, back then the character was licenced by Marvel and now its owned by a company that isn't Marvel. In other words she was never a Marvel property. If the film is to be included on the list then the Conan films should be included too.

As for The Men in Black, Marvel has owned them since 1994. Its irrelevant that the characters weren't originated by Marvel. Marvel owns them now. This is like how DC Comics owns Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Blue Beetle and Plastic Man. These characters originated in Fawcett Comics, Charlton Comics and Quality Comics respectively. Its just that DC obtained the rights to these old defunct comic book companies properties and as such owns these characters. Its no different with Marvel in regards to Malibu Comics/Aircel Comics. So the Men in Black films (as well as the cartoon series) is just as much a Marvel movie as a Plastic Man or Captain Marvel movie would be a DC Comics movie. Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. You clearly know your stuff. It's great to have your participation in editing this page. I support making the proposed changes (though I still think MIB should appear under "From other Marvel imprints" as an imprint of Aircel Comics; it wasn't clear whether that was your recommendation as well). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I support whatever the consensus is about this. However, whatever changes are done to this article I would like done to Template:Marvel Comics films as well for consistency's sake, meaning removing Red Sonja and adding the Men in Black films if that proves to be the case.-5- (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

On an another note, this would also mean Men in Black: The Series gets added to List of television series based on Marvel Comics, and its respective template, right?-5- (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Following this logic, I have also added Night Manand Ultraforce to the List of television series based on Marvel Comics given that they are both based on Malibu Comics. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I did it. Could you change the templates -5-? I'm not much of a template kind of guy. Also maybe we should take Osubuckeyeguy's advice and make a note that they are "From other Marvel imprints" or whatever, since Marvel doesn't really use these characters in their comic books. They just own them but do nothing with them (like the entire Ultraverse they obtained from Malibu comics). This will avoid any confusion to readers who might not understand that technically the MIB are Marvel properties.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) wheres the 2 conan movies and red sonja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.218.225 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers distributor

Hey all, so I'm curious to know if the Distributor should be written in as Disney? Seeing the release in the UK showed Paramount to be the distributor, with no mention of Disney. Then again it's because I don't understand the deal, I may be missing something? Perhaps we should even change the distribution column to United States distributors, if it's too fiddly starting to explain the different territories? Just some thoughts... -- Harish (Talk) - 12:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it just occurred to me it's a 'notes' column haha. -- Harish (Talk) - 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)