Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Media franchises (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
WikiProject Comics / Marvel / Films (Rated List-class, Bottom-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Bottom  This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kingsman: The Secret Service[edit]

I'm not a regular contributor to this article, so maybe this has been covered before and I didn't see it. I see that Kingsman: The Secret Service is listed under 2015 but it was released in 2014. Most of the releases are in 2015 but the first was in 2014. So, maybe this should be fixed. Maybe it's right already. I just thought I'd point it out. Dismas|(talk) 08:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Transformers: The Movie" and "G.I. Joe: The Movie" are Marvel Animated Movies[edit]

Hasbro hired Marvel to design the original mythos of both series, including comics, tv shows, toy descriptions/fact files, and eventual films. Whilst we could argue over the creation/ownership of the toylines these resulted from, the fact remains that Marvel was responsible for the creation of the characters and 'Western' story of these brands.

The Transformers comic and TV series debuted in the same month and year, giving us a chicken and the egg argument as to whether the films are based on Marvel comics or merely their mythos; however concepts used in "The Transformers: The Movie", such as the Matrix, originated in the comics prior to their appearance in the film.

Marvel Studios is credited with the TV series and film elsewhere on Wikipedia; and it should be included here as well for the sake of consistency. Furthermore, this page's description notes that it is for films of Marvel comics characters or properties, and G.I. Joe and The Transformers feature characters created by Marvel.

These was a licensed products, not a Marvel characters.OscarFercho (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Marvel created the characters, there was nothing to licence prior to that beyond the Japanese figures themselves, who lacked neither the names or characterizations that Marvel gave them.
Production background
The Transformers toyline and cartoon/animated series was inspired by the Japanese toyline, Microman (an Eastern descendant of the 12" G.I. Joe action figure series). In 1980, the Microman spin-off, Diaclone, was released, featuring inch-tall humanoid figures able to sit in the drivers' seats of scale model vehicles, which could transform into humanoid robot bodies the drivers piloted. Later still, in 1983, a Microman sub-line, MicroChange was introduced, featuring "actual size" items that transformed into robots, such as microcassettes, guns and toy cars. Diaclone and MicroChange toys were subsequently discovered at the 1983 Tokyo Toy Fair by Hasbro toy company product developer Henry Orenstein, who presented the concept to Hasbro's head of R&D, George Dunsay. Enthusiastic about the product, it was decided to release toys from both Diaclone and MicroChange as one toyline for their markets, although there were eventual changes to the color schemes from the original toys to match the new series.
By 1984, U.S. regulators had removed many of the restrictions regarding the placement of promotional content within children's television programming. The way was cleared for the new product-based television program. Hasbro had previously worked with Marvel Comics to develop G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero for a three-pronged marketing scheme - the toyline, a tie-in comic book by Marvel, and an animated mini-series co-produced by Marvel's media arm, Marvel Productions, and the Griffin-Bacal Advertising Agency's Sunbow Productions animation studio. Given the success of that strategy, the process was repeated in 1984 when Hasbro marketing vice president Bob Prupis approached Marvel to develop their new robot series, which Jay Bacal dubbed "Transformers."
Marvel's Editor-in-Chief at the time, Jim Shooter, produced a rough story concept for the series, creating the idea of the two warring factions of alien robots – the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. To flesh out his concept, Shooter called upon veteran editor Dennis O'Neil to create character names and profiles for the cast, but O'Neill's work – for whatever reason – did not meet with Hasbro's expectations, and they requested heavy revisions. O'Neill declined to make said revisions, and the project was turned down by several writers and editors approached by Shooter until editor Bob Budiansky accepted the task. Hastily performing the revisions over a weekend, Budiansky's new names and profiles were a hit with Hasbro, and production began on a bi-monthly four-issue comic book miniseries, and three-part television pilot.
Japanese designer Shōhei Kohara was responsible for creating the earliest character models for the Transformers cast, greatly humanising the toy designs to create more approachable robot characters for the comic and cartoon. His designs were subsequently simplified by Floro Dery, who went on to become the lead designer for the series, creating many more concepts and designs in the future.[1]
LSWSjr (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For lists like this, you need to consider what ultimately came first. In the case of GI Joe and Transformers, the toys came first, then comics and TV series. Yes, these properties were further developed in these formats, including the creation of new characters and story lines, but it doesn't change the fact that the genesis for these properties was the toys. You also need to consider who owned the property - at no time, has Marvel owned either of these properties. Yes, Marvel Productions was the production company for these films, but they were the production company for many films and television shows based on Hasbro properties (such as My Little Pony). To the extent that Marvel was involved in the creation and development of these properties, this was on a for-hire basis and did not grant them any ownership rights. This list is reserved for films based on original Marvel characters that originated in the pages of Marvel Comics or its various imprints. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope to take, as the previous two entries on the Animated Films list, "Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned" and "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" are based on characters from the public domain, which means that Marvel has never owned them either, are we suggesting these films be removed as well? As I mentioned earlier, this list is for "films based on Marvel Comics characters and properties" and without Marvel Comics, Hasbro's Autobot Leader Optimus Prime and Decepticon Leader Megatron would still be Takara's Diaclone Battle Convoy and Microman MC-12 Gun Robo. The ownership of this franchise is a mess between Hasbro and Takara, but regardless the G1 characters and story are still attributed to Marvel, including comics, TV series and 'toy text' which makes them characters created by Marvel Comics. LSWSjr (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Osubuckeyeguy has right, these aren't Marvel characters, the genesis was in the toy line, not in the comics, was a work for-hire, not a original Marvel characters, or a Marvel propertie. Please, consider this discussion before adding material unacceptable for the criteria of this list.OscarFercho (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Characters featured in the Transformers film, including: Arcee, Blur, Daniel, Galvatron, Kup, Hot Rod, Springer and Wheelie, all appeared in Marvel books prior to the film and well before Takara made toys of them, that would make these Marvel characters first as their genesis was not in any pre-existing Takara figures, in fact some of these characters never received Takara figures. Thus The Transformers: The Movie features Marvel Comics characters. Furthermore, having done further research on my previous point, "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" has even less reason to be on this list as it features no Marvel created characters, is not Marvel owned and was merely co-produced by Marvel. LSWSjr (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Transformers and G.I. Joe aren't Marvel character or actually a Marvel propertie. That's the concrete fact. Please, wait to a consensous before adding movies.OscarFercho (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, you are invited to this talk.OscarFercho (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I am willing to concede the point on "G.I. Joe: The Movie" as more research is required, and if you had looked prior to your revision, I did not reinsert that film again in my most recent update.
Secondly, the source for my list of "The Transformers: The Movie" characters being originally created by Marvel, is "The Transformers: The Lost Treasure of Cybertron" ISBN 0-87135-103-X from Marvel; which was released prior to said film and featured the debut of the characters: Arcee, Blurr, Cyclonus/Scourge (as an incorrect mash-up), Daniel, Galvatron, Hot Rod, Kup and Springer.
None of these characters were based on any pre-existing Takara figures or designs and in the case of Arcee and the human Daniel have never even received one; attributing the genesis of the design to Marvel's Floro Dery[2] and the characterizations to other Marvel writers such as Sonia Black Woods who often wrote books for Marvel, and Rod Friedman[3] who worked on numerous Marvel Studios projects.
As these characters are central to the plot of "The Transformers: The Movie" and that Marvel was a co-producer of the film, responsible for the names and characterizations of most of the cast and for the inclusion of their own original characters (as per the above source), that would qualify the film as a "film based on Marvel Comics characters" as stated at the top of this article. LSWSjr (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion around what constitutes a Marvel film that is appropriate for this list. Movies like those based on GI Joe and Transformers are team-up movies based on multiple characters. Saying that Marvel created one or more characters that appeared in these movies is not sufficient for including them in this list because (1) Marvel has no ownership of any of those characters, else they would had to have been licensed from Marvel for them to appear in these movies, (2) Deciding the origin of a team-up movie is not done on a character by character basis. The Transformer Universe originated with the toy line, therefore all movies set within that universe would be inappropriate for this list. It doesn't matter if individual characters first appeared in a comic or not. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of the Dracula and Frankenstein anime movies is based on the fact that these movies present a take on a public domain figure from literature that first appeared in Marvel Comics. This is similar to the film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being credited as based on the comic by Alan Moore, and not the originators of the individual literary characters. However, past discussions have also determined that films based on characters such as Red Sonja, which is a character first created by Robert E. Howard, are inappropriate for this list, even though this was a character that appeared in Marvel Comics. An argument can be made for the removal of the two anime films, but I will let others weigh in on if that is appropriate. For reference, you can consult the following archived discussions: Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Sonja
I've come back from doing more research (though not on G.I. Joe yet) and I feel Red Sonja presents an interesting case. I personally would argue that Marvel was responsible for the Red Sonja character over Robert E. Howard's Red Sonya that she was inspired by. However I feel that the film is based on the later amalgamated version of the character, and the production did not include Marvel's involvement beyond the comic book adaption.
I've never had a problem including "Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned" on this list as it still includes characters that originated from the "The Tomb of Dracula" comics. "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" on the other hand bears no evident connection to the "The Monster of Frankenstein" comic, not in the designs, characters (excluding those originated by Mary Shelley) or plot points. I feel it's inclusion on the list comes from its connection to the Dracula production and it is not being assessed as its own entity.
The connections to Marvel with "The Transformers: The Movie" are more evident than with either the "Red Sonja" film or "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein": as it was co-produced by Marvel; the new/primary protagonists are Marvel originated (see reference above); and Marvel originated the characterizations, story and designs that were inspired by: the Japanese figures from Takara Tomy and Takatoku Toys; the Korean figures from ToyCo; figures from the 'ToyBox Corporation'; and other figures from companies lost to obscurity.
Beyond Marvel, the only other company to have so much influence over the franchise is Hasbro: who originally acquired the western licensing rights to a wealth of transforming robot figures from a variety of companies; and went on to employ Marvel to unify these figures into a single toyline that was supported by multiple Marvel comic series, a Marvel co-produced TV series and later the film in question.
Without Hasbro and Marvel's combined efforts, we would not have The Transformers as we know them. "The Transformers: The Movie" should be recognized on this list for Marvel's aforementioned involvement on the film (especially the work of Marvel's Floro Dery) and their development of the franchise. LSWSjr (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Essentially my opinion (based on the current evidence) is:
  • "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" should be removed - due to lack of evidence to support it as a Marvel (inspired) product.
  • "The Transformers: The Movie" should be added - as Marvel Studios were a Co-Producer; the primary characters were created/designed by Floro Dery; the film was written by Rod Friedman; and Marvel was responsible for character designs and characterizations of the non-Marvel originated entities. LSWSjr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, @Osubuckeyeguy:, @OscarFercho:, you are invited to this talk. LSWSjr (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not. The Transformers comics was a work for hire, not a property of Marvel Comics.OscarFercho (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OscarFercho, I am beginning to feel like you are simply reacting in the negative without reading or addressing my points:
  • You have still not provided any opinion or opposing points regarding my suggested removal of "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein".
  • It is true that Marvel Comics do not own the rights to The Transformers franchise, however that would not stop them from owning a share in the original TV series and "The Transformers: The Movie" which as Co-Producers of both they may still do. Nor does it stop them from being recognized for originating characters and other elements of the franchise.
  • As for there being a 'Work For Hire' agreement between Marvel and Hasbro regarding The Transformers, please provide the source for that claim as it relates to the United States Copyright Act of 1976. LSWSjr (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Should be sorted consistently[edit]

We currently have three main sections: live-action, animated and television films. The problem is, this doesn't make sense. Currently, there are two television movies in the animated section, and all of the television films are live-action. Additionally, live-action and animated have short film sub-sections. We should consolidate them and consistently sort them. There are four consistent ways to sort them:

  1. Media (live-action or animated)
  2. Length (feature-length or short)
  3. Release type (theatrical, television or video)
  4. Just one list.

I personally think it should be by length or just one list, I don't understand the need to segregate them in the other ways. -Joltman (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One list, no. This list reflects a different kind of movies, according to the performance that every reaches, the budget and even it target.OscarFercho (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought about it, and I just went ahead and made Television films a sub-section of live-action. That takes care of the issues with the sorting. -Joltman (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with the change.OscarFercho (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Waiting to the start of filming to upgrade films[edit]

The films of X-Men Apocalypse, Captain America Civil War and, specially, Doctor Strange, must wait to upgrade to the existence of its articles. We don't know the real state of this until the production not commence. It's only a few days, what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. That is completely wrong. Cap Civil War, Doctor Strange and X-Men Apocalypse are all in pre-production. Pre-production is (generally) the time frame from when a director may be announced, and/or general casting has begun (this mainly qualifies when a film has a set release date). Cap: Civil War pre-production started in October 2014, filming is beginning April 1. (Pre-production and production/filming are two completely separate processes). Doctor Strange began pre-production August-October-ish 2014, with filming beginning in May 2015. X-Men also started pre-production in August/September 2014, with filming in April 2015. So yes, all three are in pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Also "We don't know the real state of this until the production... commences." What? Yes we do! Filmmaking#Parts: Announcement/Development stage; Pre-production (as I just outlined above and is done again at that article); Filming or production; Post-production; Released. All three are beyond the development stage, and haven't started filming, so that leave only one place for them to be: pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
But, what's the problem with waiting to a clearly stage of production?, the "in production" state it's very wide an easy to confusse. Those movies aren't in production yet, it's only a wait of a few weeks or days to upgrade.OscarFercho (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not easy to confuse: the headings (or non headings) we use here satisfy each of the 5 film production stages: "Announced" for announced/in development films; "In production" for films in pre-, filming, and post-; and no heading once it's been released. I don't believe you have an issue once films enter post production. The only difference between that and pre-production is one comes right before the film, the other right after. And we don't have to wait to upgrade them because they are there now. We can change the "Notes" field when they begin filming, but they already have production pieces in motion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The only issue we should have is if there is uncertainty if a film has actually entered pre-production or not. With these three, there isn't. Now with Gambit, say, that may be where the questioning or confusion comes in. We don't clearly know if it has entered pre-production. So it stays in the "Announced" group. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
But it's confuse, specially Doctor Strange, the shoot it's set to begin on May, yet more of a month to wait, without more details about involved crew or actors, that date of shooting may change in the actual state.OscarFercho (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Pre-production is completely independent from the filming date. What's the issue with it filming in May? It's started casting and crew hirings - definition for pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Preproduction it's not start of shooting, the term filmmaking it's wide and strictly reference to start of principal photography.OscarFercho (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
...right, but it falls under the heading of "In production". @Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim: Your opinions are welcome. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The terminology is a little confusing. Production can be either be referred to as the entire process of filmmaking (inclusive of all stages) or specifically the stage of principal photography. To avoid this confusion, we generally refer to the later definition as "filming" or "principal photography", although some minor filming can actually be done in other stages.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
As I stated above, we currently use the headings "Announced", and "In production". Do you agree with my classification of "Announced" for the announced/in development films and "In production" for films in pre-, filming, and post-? We currently include post-production in the "In production" heading. And if we aren't going to include pre- in that heading, then we shouldn't include post. But I don't think the solution is to make 4 separate headings. That's what the notes section is for to specify which stage of production it's in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well if it was up to me, I would only have two headings "Released" and "Upcoming". Then I would further breakdown the upcoming films by the stage of filmmaking in the notes section. Because "Development" is a very much a part of "Production" if you are using the former definition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
That actually works out better. But we would only need to condense the "In production" and "Announced" headings to "Upcoming" because anything above it is considered released. OscarFercho are you agreeable to this change, thus allowing us to properly tag the three films we had the issues with? And anything else would get "Announced" added to their notes field. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the current headings of "In production" and "Announced" it's the better, but my proposal it's only that the upgrade to "In production" will be when filming, principal photography, start, this is only a simple wait to the movies have its article, no more, the term "pre-production" it's very imprecise.OscarFercho (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't have both the current headings and not the use of "pre-production". The options that accurately reflect the status of the films, proposed here are: current headings with pre-, filming and post- in "In production" OR consolidating both headings just to "Upcoming" and using announced, pre-, filming, and post- in the notes section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So, as I see, create other heading for preproduction stage, but not another for posproduction, it's enough filming and posproduction on only one heading.OscarFercho (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What? That sentence did not make sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's better, create another heading for films on preproduction.OscarFercho (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I'm going to go ahead with Triiiple's suggestion then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Format of the list[edit]

The currently format, distribution and inlcusions of this list has been working for several users since its creation, even for Me obviously. If need modified again, please submit and propose on this talk page before a major changes- @HÊÚL:.

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, @Osubuckeyeguy:, @Joltman:, @Mike210381:, you are invited to this talk.OscarFercho (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)