![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I was looking forward to this film but it has been removed from the list. Does this mean it has been canceled or was it deleted for a different reason? I'm a big fan of these characters and I need some piece of mind! Please give me an answer! Captain la rose ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This is only for Marvel Universe-related properties, right?
The following are not based on Marvel Universe properties, but were done by publishers that were later acquired by Marvel (such as Malibu Comics). I feel this makes them ineligible for this article.
Also, Darkman and sequels are not Marvel properties, though Marvel did publish a licensed 3-part movie adaptation and 6-part limited series.
KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park is not a Marvel Comics-based movie, despite the fact that KISS did appear in the Howard the Duck series. DS 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This film is listed as "The Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased)" in the 1944-1988 category at the beginning of the entry. This film should be listed in the Unreleased category instead.
Avi Arad's said in interviews that there will NOT be a DD2, that marvel learned from it's mistakes. I'll try to find some cites, but any idea that there will be a DD2 is fan hopes, not Avi's words. ThuranX 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that a TV section has been created, there is no point in having old/new era. Therefore, do not add those headings. -- Jamdav86 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Quality is irrelevant. List length is the only reason it should be split up, and all that you split off are five articles, which seems silly to me. -- Jamdav86 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the beginnings of a list of fan films:
== List of Marvel Fan Films == * Spider-man: The Peril of Doc Ock (Lego, 2004)
I do not believe it fits the scope of this page - definitely listcruft turf... Ah having now searched for it and found the production details here. I would say the cited production is not a fan film but promotional video. Cool certainly, but I'm still not sure it fits the scope of this page. Perhaps the film could be cited in the Spiderman 2 article. Journeyman 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem a little contradictory to list Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased) under the Released heading? I'm not saying that the film shouldn't be listed, I'm saying maybe we should rename the heading, although I'm not sure to what? Completed was about the only thing I could think of. Joltman 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Should the 1989 Punisher film be added to the list of marvel feature films? - RVDDP2501 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I revamped the list. First of all, every movie under Released movies belongs there. If there is some reason you don't think they do, discuss it here. But there were Marvel films before Blade, I don't understand why they keep getting deleted. As for upcoming films, if the film already has an article, leave it as a link, but if it doesn't have an article, it needs a source. - Joltman 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of any Marvel properties in possible crossover films? I.E. Spiderman and Hulk or Wolverine and Punisher? There were quite a few match ups in the comics that I can rememeber(too many to remember), but with this whole Civil War series being so popular, I thought we'd be seeing cameos or short roles for different properties in the films so they can start bringing forth the notion that these individual heroes are not the only ones on the planet. Perhaps Spiderman making mention of the Fantastic Four or Hulk, since there characters created news worthy stories within their own individual movies. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.68.241.2 ( talk) 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
The Marvel Comics antihero Deadpool was licensed to New Line Cinema years ago.
Why is Dr. Strange in the template below? it was a movie for TV, shouldn't we then add Nick Fury's Movie with David Hasselhof and that Generation X movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.23.91.9 ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Someone removed them as they were Tv-Movies, but Man Thing was made for a theatrical release, and even an unreleased movie made it on to the list! Surely we can include them or man-thing at least, even if with a note saying they were TV only movies? Or are they definatley to stay on the programmes list (which in all essence they are not, unlike the hulk films for example which were longer versions of the series) Cactusrob 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Me and another user have conflicting opinions about whether the production companies should be listed here. My thought is that they should not be, because that information is not necessary as the purpose of this list is just to show you what films have been/will be made based on Marvel Comics. The company that makes the film is irrelevant. Also, you can find out which company produced the film on its' own article. Anyone else can feel free to express their opinion - Joltman 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in the Marvel movies that contradicts the interpretation that they exist in the same universe? Have any of the various director's commentaries or production documentaries mentioned a "marvel universe" when referring to the movies? Is there any evidence either way? 218.215.146.184 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the comics but don't they have similar problems? People hating mutants for their powers but liking Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. Mutants tend to hide from the public to avoid persecution. It's not everyday that someone uses their special powers to save people's lives in a spectacular way. I think that's what really amazes people. I used to watch the various Marvel animated series in the 90s and there wasn't a single mention of mutants in Spider-Man until one episode where he teamed up with the X-Men and one character wondered whether Spider-Man was also a mutant. The "not too distant future" is unlikely to be more than 10 years considering the age of Magneto. 218.215.138.243 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Shang-Chi wasnt mentioned in the list of planned movies is there a reason for this that im not aware of?
I'm not sure why Red Sonja is listed here. While there was a Red Sonja Marvel comic, the character is owned by the Robert E. Howard estate as part of the Conan property. I've taken the liberty of removing it. Ttenchantr 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So someone added an uncited thing about this film and I've not heard nothing about the development of it (as far as I know, they intend to concentrate on the Silver Surfer films now), even though Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer states on its page that the actors are signed up for three films. Just wondering if it's OK for us common folk to happily delete, or does it need to be discussed. Asking for future reference really. => Harish101 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just picked up the new issue of Wizard and it says the movie to be released in 2009, so I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.4.107 ( talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, just thought about the idea of making the released section sortable, so it'll appear like this:
Film | Year | Production studio | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Captain America | 1944 | Republic Pictures | serial; Marvel was then known as Timely Comics |
Dr. Strange | 1978 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Captain America | 1979 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Captain America II: Death Too Soon | 1979 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Howard the Duck | 1986 | Universal Studios | |
The Punisher | 1989 | New World Pictures | direct-to-video |
Power Pack | 1991 | New World Entertainment | TV movie; unreleased |
Captain America | 1991 | 21st Century Film | direct-to-video |
Fantastic Four | 1994 | New Horizons | unreleased |
Generation X | 1996 | New World Entertainment | TV movie |
Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. | 1998 | 20th Century Fox Television | TV movie |
Blade | 1998 | New Line Cinema | |
X-Men | 2000 | 20th Century Fox | |
Blade II | 2002 | New Line Cinema | |
Spider-Man | 2002 | Columbia Pictures | |
Daredevil | 2003 | 20th Century Fox | |
X2 | 2003 | 20th Century Fox | |
Hulk | 2003 | Universal Studios | |
The Punisher | 2004 | Lions Gate Films / Artisan Entertainment | |
Spider-Man 2 | 2004 | Columbia Pictures | |
Blade: Trinity | 2004 | New Line Cinema | |
Man-Thing | 2005 | Artisan Entertainment | Planned as direct-to-video, but premiered on TV |
Elektra | 2005 | 20th Century Fox | |
Fantastic Four | 2005 | 20th Century Fox | |
Ultimate Avengers | 2006 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
X-Men: The Last Stand | 2006 | 20th Century Fox | |
Ultimate Avengers 2 | 2006 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
The Invincible Iron Man | 2007 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
Ghost Rider | 2007 | Columbia Pictures | |
Spider-Man 3 | 2007 | Columbia Pictures | |
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer | 2007 | 20th Century Fox | |
Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme | 2007 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
Benefits for this would allow being able to find a superhero easier (by name), to put back in order (by year) and, (should someone want) to be able to search studio. Just an idea. -- Harish - 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome little film, not for those who can't handle blood.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24033837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.65.218 ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Would renaming the following articles to the recommended title cause too much of an uproar? - LA @ 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic Four film series | to | Fantastic Four (film series) |
Spider-Man film series | to | Spider-Man (film series) |
X-Men film series | to | X-Men (film series) |
Do we want to have some kind of rule-of-thumb in regards to movies announced that haven't had any activity in a while? Like, if there's no new activity in the last three years, then take it off the list? - Joltman ( talk) 11:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
These should be listed in with the made for tv movies, as the first was the pilot for the show, and the other three continuations of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.95.157 ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there's a reasonable argument for including these two films; in fact, the opening credits of both state "Based on the Marvel comic". Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think you should add them on the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.87.107 ( talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Eminem's movie doesn't belong here. It's not based on comics, it's just having a tie-in promotional miniseries released at time of film release - if it gets made. ThuranX ( talk) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Red Sonja (1985), a spin-off of the Conan movies. She first appeared in Conan the Barbarian #23 (Marvel Comics). Although the Conan character is a Marvel comic, the movies are based closer to the source material by writer Robert E. Howard. The character of Sonja however is a Marvel creation. The is a new Red Sonja movie to be released in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.226.184 ( talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I never heard of this movie until literally 30 minutes ago. It's a supposedly really bad Turkish B-Movie from 1973. Basically, the plot is this: Spider-Man and his gang are terrorizing Istanbul, so the authorities call in Captain America and (El) Santo, the famous Mexican wrestler. The characters in the movie vary greatly from those in the comics, but the official movie poster leaves no doubt that the characters in the movie are intended to be the Marvel characters. Since this was most likely made without the consent (or knowledge) of Marvel, should this be included in the list? Brendanmccabe ( talk) 01:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, because it is an unauthorized movie using Marvel characters. It is equivalent to a fan film, and those aren't listed on here either. -5- ( talk) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This page lists films based on Marvel comics that have received a theatrical release. Three films in the late 70s that we made from footage from the Spider-man television show received a limited release outside the U.S. These films were produced and distributed by a different company than the television show. Editing together material from another source changes the media into something different that stands alone. To fail to include films just because they did not receive a theatrical release in the US is to have a western-centric bias with regard to content inclusions. WP editors are encouraged to take a neutral a point of view, which means writing without a local bias. Each of these films has their own IMDB entry because they are, in fact, separate from the television show from a historical perspective, even though the content is shared. If you grew up in one of the countries where these movies were released in the theater, you would expect to see them appear on this page. It is helpful if editors who wish to express an opinion on this matter weigh in on the talk page before deleting other people's good-faith edits. Osubuckeyeguy ( talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
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 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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If no one is going to update this page, then someone should unlock it. Upcoming movies have been announced for Ant-man and Avengers 2.
96.3.114.160 (
talk)
22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.3.114.160 ( talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a while and I can't help but feel like the Box Office section shouldn't stay in its current state. It's hard to maintain and it's hard to know if it's completely off or not. Couldn't we simply write about what's interesting about Marvel movies at the box office and then link to Box Office Mojo for the data? That would be much more appropriate in my opinion. BoomWav ( talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In live-action films, where is ANT-MAN? Sure the release date hasn't been given, but we can just say TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 ( talk) 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, the pilot episode of the 1977 Spider Man TV series was essentially a 92-minute TV movie.
Okay, whoever keeps on putting in the additional films in the live-action section better stop FOR THE MOMENT. I am pretty sure that some of the films you place in there are really happening, but you need sources first. I will go ahead and give you some: for The Incredible Hulk 2: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Marvel-President-Kevin-Feige-Talks-Iron-Man-3-Future-30706.html. For Deadpool: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fox-sets-tim-miller-direct-176603. For Big Hero Six: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/29/disney-animation-confirms-plans-for-marvels-big-hero-6-breaking/. For Heroes for Hire: none. For Black Panther: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/black-panther-development-marvel-74005. For a Punisher reboot: http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/26/sdcc-marvel-regains-film-rights-for-the-punisher/. For Doctor Strange: http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/will-dr-strange-be-marvels-first-superhero-to-fly-under-the-disney-banner/. And for the only one you didn't add, The Amazing Spider-Man 3: http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/171409-exclusive-talking-with-the-producers-of-the-amazing-spider-man. Put these in there, and it will be much more reliable. -Mumbai0618 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai0618 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Man Thing movie must be moved to Television films section. This is actually a direct to video release or telefilm, upgraded to feature only in some countries (but, where?), NOT in the US, the principal market. Greetings. OscarFercho ( talk) 03:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The above holds no weight. Man-Thing was intended for theatrical release in 2004, but the budget was slashed, and the film was relegated to a direct to video release the following year. This was the exact same situation faced by Captain America (1990) and very similar to what The Punisher(1989) faced. All three were PRODUCED as theatrical features, and all three were shelved for some years. The Punisher premiered on cable television in 1990, and home video within weeks. Captain America premiered on cable television in 1992, and home video months later. Man-thing premiered on home video and cable television simultaneously, and believe it or not, I saw a (however disappointing) THEATRICAL screening beforehand. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hand-full of theatrical films that have not been broadcast on television at some point in history; are we to brand ALL of them as television films as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.118.165 ( talk) 12:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just wondering if the larger franchises/film series of various Marvel properties could be color-coded in the table or otherwise mentioned in the opening section, which is a bit short on text, quite understandable since this is a list but the point remains. After all, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a rather notable, having grossed in excess of $3.8 billion worldwide with just the first six films, and an additional five announced. Other film series could include Blade (3 films, $415M), X-Men (5 films, $1.89B, 2 announced), and Spider-Man (4 films, $3.25B, 1 announced). Similar to the Cinematic Universe, both the X-Men films and obviously the Blade trilogy have continuity. While Spider-Man was rebooted, both series are Sony entities and produced by Columbia. In the List of highest-grossing films they are included as one franchise even though they are not one series. Just some food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halophile ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you insist on including this in live-action films? It is not a film, it is a serial. It was a series of shorts episodes each screened BEFORE films. And more offensive, it is NOT based on the Marvel comics character as you claim. He is called Captain America, and his wears a similar costume, but EVERYTHING else that the serial and it's characters consist of are original. It is believed that Republic actually hastily refitted (shoehorned) Cap into an existing serial script to compete with the other superhero based serials of the time. But that is not the point. The point in fact is, it is not a film, period.
The character of Red Sonja in the film was based on a character created solely for the pages of Marvel comics. Yes, she first appeared in their licensed Conan comics, and yes, Conan is a pre-existing literary character; but so is Dracula. Would you remove Blade Trinity or Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, because they are based on Marvel comics INTERPRETATION of the character. Would you remove The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen from films based on DC comics because of it's use of pre-existing literary characters? Never. This is logic alone to include the Conan films in fact, as they were made because of the popularity spurred by the Marvel comics, and are based on the Marvel interpretation and stories, and arguably not Robert E. Howard's original fiction. But that isn't even what I'm arguing. All I'm really saying is that it makes no sense not to include Red Sonja as a film based on Marvel comics characters when the reality of the situation is inescapable. I understand that there are those of you who spend an allotted time each day watch-dogging this page, and protect your opinions and edits with your computer's very life, and I'm not hear to ruffle your feathers and I mean no disrespect; I just ask that you let go of your personal beliefs and submit to logic. By not doing so, you're robbing any prospective future viewers of this page, and also silencing the truth of other wikipedians.
As a matter of fact, it would make the most sense for everyone to include the films on the Marvel page, but under another sub-heading, like Robert E. Howard films, or Hyborian Age films; Just spit-balling on the title of the section.
Why isn't "Blade: The Series" in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.76.184 ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice @Oscar. Anyway, I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.131.30 ( talk) 04:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The films of X-Force and Deadpool are in early development the first (as we know) and never announced the second; but actually they were not officially announced. Therefore, they can't be included. OscarFercho ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't that listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.3.191 ( talk) 04:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Somebody can tell Me what´s the source of the title The Fantastic Four of the announced reboot, or The Amazing Spider-Man 3 & 4 of the planned sequels of Spidey? With much emphasis put those names, especially the first. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to split out movies that were released direct to video in the US. They are live-action Marvel films, they were all intended to be released theatrically and they all were released theatrically abroad. It's an arbitrary split, and obviously causes an issue since multiple people have tried to add in Punisher and Captain America. - Joltman ( talk) 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. I understand the inclusion of the box office grosses. OscarFercho ( talk) 13:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I posted over at the comic book films task force, but we have not gotten anymore opinions. I see that once again, Oscar had to revert an edit where someone put The Punisher in the main list because they didn't see it below. I really don't see what purpose the separate 'direct-to-video' list serves, all it does is confuse people. So unless someone can give good reason to keep them separate, it makes more sense to merge them back into the main list. - Joltman ( talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No more opinions, most existing reviews, I make the change. Tanks to everybody. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Announced Films" section is getting out of hand. Didn't the precedent used to be that a film's inclusion on this list required a release date? I would also argue that a reserved release date for an unannounced film does not count as an announced film. It's not really a film, it's just a date and dates are subject to change. I propose the removal of all films after Ant-Man except X-Men: Apocalypse. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a "major" change as OscarFercho is claiming. Using "In production" over "Forthcoming" is more accurate, as it complies with MOS:FILM distinction of what "production" means. "In production" includes any film that is in pre-production, filming, or in post. As it is now, having the Fantastic Four reboot and Ant-Man below the "Announced" heading does not fit because they have both started production. So regardless of if the "Forthcoming" heading changes, Fantastic Four and Ant-Man have to move up. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've undestand more the reasons for the change. Thanks for your opinions. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to voice my opposition to this trend of having years span multiple sub-sections (i.e. 2014's spread from released films to In production films). It makes it appear as if the sub-headings are included in the year. Back in the good old days years would be duplicated for each section creating a clear disconnection between the sections. I'd like to see this format reintroduced. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The third Marvel Studios Captain America film is refered as "Third Captain America film", but this is inexactly on the list 'cause there is another 1990 Captain America film and the 1940's serial, that is, there are five titles of Captain on this list, the announced sequel it's not the third on the list. It's more appropriate a reference as "Untitled new Captain America film", "Next Captain America film" or "Untitled Captain America sequel". OscarFercho ( talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The movie The Amazing Spider-Man 2 it's not in post-production stage, it's to be released only in some days. It's not in any stage indicated on MOS:FILM. Their inclusion on the label In Production is confusing and it's not true about that film. OscarFercho ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The animated film Stan Lee's that came out on February, 2014 is not on the list of animated movies. I tried to added but it didn't work. Now I think I shouldn't have added it because I don't have the accurate information about the studio, but someone should add it. It came out before Avengers Confidential: Black Widow and Punisher.
In this section there is mention to Malibu Comics that is not an imprint. Malibu was a publisher bought by Marvel Comics and it had its own imprints (Genesis, Ultraverse, Bravura and Rock-It Comix). So I put the imprints in the box emphasising the imprint next to the publisher name. It is similar to Jim Lee's Aegis Entertainment that was a publisher with various imprints (Wildstorm, Homage, Cliffhanger and ABC) bought by DC. HÊÚL. ( talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of films based on Marvel Comics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With The Second Fantastic Four Movie (Rise of The Silver Surfer(2007)), it is spelled wrong and that led to a lot of confusion. It is actually spelled "Fantastic 4: Rise of The Silver Surfer" not "Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer". The difference is that instead of "four" they put "4". Bobkevin12 ( talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@ OscarFercho: The source on the page, this one right here, is a reliable source stating the film is in pre-production. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I changed to the source that cites Screenrant, the original report of Total Film, which don't claims any state of pre-production. It's not my point of view, it's a concrete fact. Greetings. OscarFercho ( talk) 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of films based on Marvel Comics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 'Men In Black' films need to be added to the 'Live-action films' list. Technically they are based on Marvel comics as Marvel bought Malibu Comics 146.200.27.109 ( talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Man-thing is tetnicly a tele-film. So why is it the live action film section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do you guys keep undoing my change of just adding reboot to "a reboot" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey you guys, when ever i add any of the names listed in this sections name to this article, WITH A RELIABLE SOURCE, you idiots keep removing it. Why? And if you say "they have not been given any official release dates" then why the hell is "The Amazing Spider-man 3 on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Every time I try to add the Silver Surfer short film to the list of films based on Marvel Comics, where it belongs, someone removes it. This is a legitimate (sp) short film produced with the consent of Marvel. I understand that it doesn't fit into the MCU Short Films section, however it does belong somewhere on the page as a short film.
Here is sourced information from the Silver Surfer Wikipedia page.
In 1991, Erik Fleming and Steven Robiner, two film students from the USC School of Cinematic Arts, approached Marvel Studios and producer Bernd Eichinger to ask permission to make a short film featuring the Silver Surfer as a proof of concept for the use of CGI in creating a realistic silver coloured human figure.[98] This short film, completed in 1992, not long after the release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day that featured a similarly rendered character, led to significant interest from major studios in a feature length Silver Surfer project.[98] Andrew Kevin Walker wrote a script for 20th Century Fox in 2000, but nothing ever came of it.[99]
You can view this short film online on youtube or dailymotion or any number of websites. It does exist and needs to be added to this page. My hope is that someone reading this has the ability to add it to the page in a way that prevents it from being removed immediately like everytime I have tried. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
@ TriiipleThreat:, @ Favre1fan93:, @ DilatoryRevolution:, you are invited to this talk. OscarFercho ( talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ TriiipleThreat:, @ Favre1fan93:, @ DilatoryRevolution:, @ Osubuckeyeguy:, @ OscarFercho:, you are invited to this talk. LSWSjr ( talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
I was just looking at the critical and public reception table, and sorted it by Rotten Tomatoes rating. The problem is, then it isn't known which movies with the same titles are which (ie Fantastic Four, The Punisher). So I think it would make sense to add the years in this table. The question is, what makes more sense, adding it to the end of the title, ie 'Fantastic Four (2005)' or having a separate release year column? I'm thinking the latter, that way once you do sort it, you can resort it by year. - Joltman ( talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The 1944 serial film /info/en/?search=Captain_America_(serial) is missing from this list. Gafter ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I was looking forward to this film but it has been removed from the list. Does this mean it has been canceled or was it deleted for a different reason? I'm a big fan of these characters and I need some piece of mind! Please give me an answer! Captain la rose ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This is only for Marvel Universe-related properties, right?
The following are not based on Marvel Universe properties, but were done by publishers that were later acquired by Marvel (such as Malibu Comics). I feel this makes them ineligible for this article.
Also, Darkman and sequels are not Marvel properties, though Marvel did publish a licensed 3-part movie adaptation and 6-part limited series.
KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park is not a Marvel Comics-based movie, despite the fact that KISS did appear in the Howard the Duck series. DS 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This film is listed as "The Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased)" in the 1944-1988 category at the beginning of the entry. This film should be listed in the Unreleased category instead.
Avi Arad's said in interviews that there will NOT be a DD2, that marvel learned from it's mistakes. I'll try to find some cites, but any idea that there will be a DD2 is fan hopes, not Avi's words. ThuranX 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that a TV section has been created, there is no point in having old/new era. Therefore, do not add those headings. -- Jamdav86 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Quality is irrelevant. List length is the only reason it should be split up, and all that you split off are five articles, which seems silly to me. -- Jamdav86 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the beginnings of a list of fan films:
== List of Marvel Fan Films == * Spider-man: The Peril of Doc Ock (Lego, 2004)
I do not believe it fits the scope of this page - definitely listcruft turf... Ah having now searched for it and found the production details here. I would say the cited production is not a fan film but promotional video. Cool certainly, but I'm still not sure it fits the scope of this page. Perhaps the film could be cited in the Spiderman 2 article. Journeyman 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem a little contradictory to list Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased) under the Released heading? I'm not saying that the film shouldn't be listed, I'm saying maybe we should rename the heading, although I'm not sure to what? Completed was about the only thing I could think of. Joltman 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Should the 1989 Punisher film be added to the list of marvel feature films? - RVDDP2501 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I revamped the list. First of all, every movie under Released movies belongs there. If there is some reason you don't think they do, discuss it here. But there were Marvel films before Blade, I don't understand why they keep getting deleted. As for upcoming films, if the film already has an article, leave it as a link, but if it doesn't have an article, it needs a source. - Joltman 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of any Marvel properties in possible crossover films? I.E. Spiderman and Hulk or Wolverine and Punisher? There were quite a few match ups in the comics that I can rememeber(too many to remember), but with this whole Civil War series being so popular, I thought we'd be seeing cameos or short roles for different properties in the films so they can start bringing forth the notion that these individual heroes are not the only ones on the planet. Perhaps Spiderman making mention of the Fantastic Four or Hulk, since there characters created news worthy stories within their own individual movies. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.68.241.2 ( talk) 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
The Marvel Comics antihero Deadpool was licensed to New Line Cinema years ago.
Why is Dr. Strange in the template below? it was a movie for TV, shouldn't we then add Nick Fury's Movie with David Hasselhof and that Generation X movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.23.91.9 ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Someone removed them as they were Tv-Movies, but Man Thing was made for a theatrical release, and even an unreleased movie made it on to the list! Surely we can include them or man-thing at least, even if with a note saying they were TV only movies? Or are they definatley to stay on the programmes list (which in all essence they are not, unlike the hulk films for example which were longer versions of the series) Cactusrob 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Me and another user have conflicting opinions about whether the production companies should be listed here. My thought is that they should not be, because that information is not necessary as the purpose of this list is just to show you what films have been/will be made based on Marvel Comics. The company that makes the film is irrelevant. Also, you can find out which company produced the film on its' own article. Anyone else can feel free to express their opinion - Joltman 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in the Marvel movies that contradicts the interpretation that they exist in the same universe? Have any of the various director's commentaries or production documentaries mentioned a "marvel universe" when referring to the movies? Is there any evidence either way? 218.215.146.184 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the comics but don't they have similar problems? People hating mutants for their powers but liking Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. Mutants tend to hide from the public to avoid persecution. It's not everyday that someone uses their special powers to save people's lives in a spectacular way. I think that's what really amazes people. I used to watch the various Marvel animated series in the 90s and there wasn't a single mention of mutants in Spider-Man until one episode where he teamed up with the X-Men and one character wondered whether Spider-Man was also a mutant. The "not too distant future" is unlikely to be more than 10 years considering the age of Magneto. 218.215.138.243 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Shang-Chi wasnt mentioned in the list of planned movies is there a reason for this that im not aware of?
I'm not sure why Red Sonja is listed here. While there was a Red Sonja Marvel comic, the character is owned by the Robert E. Howard estate as part of the Conan property. I've taken the liberty of removing it. Ttenchantr 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So someone added an uncited thing about this film and I've not heard nothing about the development of it (as far as I know, they intend to concentrate on the Silver Surfer films now), even though Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer states on its page that the actors are signed up for three films. Just wondering if it's OK for us common folk to happily delete, or does it need to be discussed. Asking for future reference really. => Harish101 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just picked up the new issue of Wizard and it says the movie to be released in 2009, so I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.4.107 ( talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, just thought about the idea of making the released section sortable, so it'll appear like this:
Film | Year | Production studio | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Captain America | 1944 | Republic Pictures | serial; Marvel was then known as Timely Comics |
Dr. Strange | 1978 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Captain America | 1979 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Captain America II: Death Too Soon | 1979 | Universal TV | TV movie |
Howard the Duck | 1986 | Universal Studios | |
The Punisher | 1989 | New World Pictures | direct-to-video |
Power Pack | 1991 | New World Entertainment | TV movie; unreleased |
Captain America | 1991 | 21st Century Film | direct-to-video |
Fantastic Four | 1994 | New Horizons | unreleased |
Generation X | 1996 | New World Entertainment | TV movie |
Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. | 1998 | 20th Century Fox Television | TV movie |
Blade | 1998 | New Line Cinema | |
X-Men | 2000 | 20th Century Fox | |
Blade II | 2002 | New Line Cinema | |
Spider-Man | 2002 | Columbia Pictures | |
Daredevil | 2003 | 20th Century Fox | |
X2 | 2003 | 20th Century Fox | |
Hulk | 2003 | Universal Studios | |
The Punisher | 2004 | Lions Gate Films / Artisan Entertainment | |
Spider-Man 2 | 2004 | Columbia Pictures | |
Blade: Trinity | 2004 | New Line Cinema | |
Man-Thing | 2005 | Artisan Entertainment | Planned as direct-to-video, but premiered on TV |
Elektra | 2005 | 20th Century Fox | |
Fantastic Four | 2005 | 20th Century Fox | |
Ultimate Avengers | 2006 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
X-Men: The Last Stand | 2006 | 20th Century Fox | |
Ultimate Avengers 2 | 2006 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
The Invincible Iron Man | 2007 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
Ghost Rider | 2007 | Columbia Pictures | |
Spider-Man 3 | 2007 | Columbia Pictures | |
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer | 2007 | 20th Century Fox | |
Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme | 2007 | Lions Gate Entertainment | animated, direct-to-video |
Benefits for this would allow being able to find a superhero easier (by name), to put back in order (by year) and, (should someone want) to be able to search studio. Just an idea. -- Harish - 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome little film, not for those who can't handle blood.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24033837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.65.218 ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Would renaming the following articles to the recommended title cause too much of an uproar? - LA @ 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic Four film series | to | Fantastic Four (film series) |
Spider-Man film series | to | Spider-Man (film series) |
X-Men film series | to | X-Men (film series) |
Do we want to have some kind of rule-of-thumb in regards to movies announced that haven't had any activity in a while? Like, if there's no new activity in the last three years, then take it off the list? - Joltman ( talk) 11:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
These should be listed in with the made for tv movies, as the first was the pilot for the show, and the other three continuations of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.95.157 ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there's a reasonable argument for including these two films; in fact, the opening credits of both state "Based on the Marvel comic". Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think you should add them on the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.87.107 ( talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Eminem's movie doesn't belong here. It's not based on comics, it's just having a tie-in promotional miniseries released at time of film release - if it gets made. ThuranX ( talk) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Red Sonja (1985), a spin-off of the Conan movies. She first appeared in Conan the Barbarian #23 (Marvel Comics). Although the Conan character is a Marvel comic, the movies are based closer to the source material by writer Robert E. Howard. The character of Sonja however is a Marvel creation. The is a new Red Sonja movie to be released in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.226.184 ( talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I never heard of this movie until literally 30 minutes ago. It's a supposedly really bad Turkish B-Movie from 1973. Basically, the plot is this: Spider-Man and his gang are terrorizing Istanbul, so the authorities call in Captain America and (El) Santo, the famous Mexican wrestler. The characters in the movie vary greatly from those in the comics, but the official movie poster leaves no doubt that the characters in the movie are intended to be the Marvel characters. Since this was most likely made without the consent (or knowledge) of Marvel, should this be included in the list? Brendanmccabe ( talk) 01:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, because it is an unauthorized movie using Marvel characters. It is equivalent to a fan film, and those aren't listed on here either. -5- ( talk) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This page lists films based on Marvel comics that have received a theatrical release. Three films in the late 70s that we made from footage from the Spider-man television show received a limited release outside the U.S. These films were produced and distributed by a different company than the television show. Editing together material from another source changes the media into something different that stands alone. To fail to include films just because they did not receive a theatrical release in the US is to have a western-centric bias with regard to content inclusions. WP editors are encouraged to take a neutral a point of view, which means writing without a local bias. Each of these films has their own IMDB entry because they are, in fact, separate from the television show from a historical perspective, even though the content is shared. If you grew up in one of the countries where these movies were released in the theater, you would expect to see them appear on this page. It is helpful if editors who wish to express an opinion on this matter weigh in on the talk page before deleting other people's good-faith edits. Osubuckeyeguy ( talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
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 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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If no one is going to update this page, then someone should unlock it. Upcoming movies have been announced for Ant-man and Avengers 2.
96.3.114.160 (
talk)
22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.3.114.160 ( talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a while and I can't help but feel like the Box Office section shouldn't stay in its current state. It's hard to maintain and it's hard to know if it's completely off or not. Couldn't we simply write about what's interesting about Marvel movies at the box office and then link to Box Office Mojo for the data? That would be much more appropriate in my opinion. BoomWav ( talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In live-action films, where is ANT-MAN? Sure the release date hasn't been given, but we can just say TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 ( talk) 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, the pilot episode of the 1977 Spider Man TV series was essentially a 92-minute TV movie.
Okay, whoever keeps on putting in the additional films in the live-action section better stop FOR THE MOMENT. I am pretty sure that some of the films you place in there are really happening, but you need sources first. I will go ahead and give you some: for The Incredible Hulk 2: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Marvel-President-Kevin-Feige-Talks-Iron-Man-3-Future-30706.html. For Deadpool: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fox-sets-tim-miller-direct-176603. For Big Hero Six: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/29/disney-animation-confirms-plans-for-marvels-big-hero-6-breaking/. For Heroes for Hire: none. For Black Panther: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/black-panther-development-marvel-74005. For a Punisher reboot: http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/26/sdcc-marvel-regains-film-rights-for-the-punisher/. For Doctor Strange: http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/will-dr-strange-be-marvels-first-superhero-to-fly-under-the-disney-banner/. And for the only one you didn't add, The Amazing Spider-Man 3: http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/171409-exclusive-talking-with-the-producers-of-the-amazing-spider-man. Put these in there, and it will be much more reliable. -Mumbai0618 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai0618 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Man Thing movie must be moved to Television films section. This is actually a direct to video release or telefilm, upgraded to feature only in some countries (but, where?), NOT in the US, the principal market. Greetings. OscarFercho ( talk) 03:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The above holds no weight. Man-Thing was intended for theatrical release in 2004, but the budget was slashed, and the film was relegated to a direct to video release the following year. This was the exact same situation faced by Captain America (1990) and very similar to what The Punisher(1989) faced. All three were PRODUCED as theatrical features, and all three were shelved for some years. The Punisher premiered on cable television in 1990, and home video within weeks. Captain America premiered on cable television in 1992, and home video months later. Man-thing premiered on home video and cable television simultaneously, and believe it or not, I saw a (however disappointing) THEATRICAL screening beforehand. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hand-full of theatrical films that have not been broadcast on television at some point in history; are we to brand ALL of them as television films as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.118.165 ( talk) 12:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just wondering if the larger franchises/film series of various Marvel properties could be color-coded in the table or otherwise mentioned in the opening section, which is a bit short on text, quite understandable since this is a list but the point remains. After all, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a rather notable, having grossed in excess of $3.8 billion worldwide with just the first six films, and an additional five announced. Other film series could include Blade (3 films, $415M), X-Men (5 films, $1.89B, 2 announced), and Spider-Man (4 films, $3.25B, 1 announced). Similar to the Cinematic Universe, both the X-Men films and obviously the Blade trilogy have continuity. While Spider-Man was rebooted, both series are Sony entities and produced by Columbia. In the List of highest-grossing films they are included as one franchise even though they are not one series. Just some food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halophile ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you insist on including this in live-action films? It is not a film, it is a serial. It was a series of shorts episodes each screened BEFORE films. And more offensive, it is NOT based on the Marvel comics character as you claim. He is called Captain America, and his wears a similar costume, but EVERYTHING else that the serial and it's characters consist of are original. It is believed that Republic actually hastily refitted (shoehorned) Cap into an existing serial script to compete with the other superhero based serials of the time. But that is not the point. The point in fact is, it is not a film, period.
The character of Red Sonja in the film was based on a character created solely for the pages of Marvel comics. Yes, she first appeared in their licensed Conan comics, and yes, Conan is a pre-existing literary character; but so is Dracula. Would you remove Blade Trinity or Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, because they are based on Marvel comics INTERPRETATION of the character. Would you remove The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen from films based on DC comics because of it's use of pre-existing literary characters? Never. This is logic alone to include the Conan films in fact, as they were made because of the popularity spurred by the Marvel comics, and are based on the Marvel interpretation and stories, and arguably not Robert E. Howard's original fiction. But that isn't even what I'm arguing. All I'm really saying is that it makes no sense not to include Red Sonja as a film based on Marvel comics characters when the reality of the situation is inescapable. I understand that there are those of you who spend an allotted time each day watch-dogging this page, and protect your opinions and edits with your computer's very life, and I'm not hear to ruffle your feathers and I mean no disrespect; I just ask that you let go of your personal beliefs and submit to logic. By not doing so, you're robbing any prospective future viewers of this page, and also silencing the truth of other wikipedians.
As a matter of fact, it would make the most sense for everyone to include the films on the Marvel page, but under another sub-heading, like Robert E. Howard films, or Hyborian Age films; Just spit-balling on the title of the section.
Why isn't "Blade: The Series" in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.76.184 ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice @Oscar. Anyway, I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.131.30 ( talk) 04:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The films of X-Force and Deadpool are in early development the first (as we know) and never announced the second; but actually they were not officially announced. Therefore, they can't be included. OscarFercho ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't that listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.3.191 ( talk) 04:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Somebody can tell Me what´s the source of the title The Fantastic Four of the announced reboot, or The Amazing Spider-Man 3 & 4 of the planned sequels of Spidey? With much emphasis put those names, especially the first. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to split out movies that were released direct to video in the US. They are live-action Marvel films, they were all intended to be released theatrically and they all were released theatrically abroad. It's an arbitrary split, and obviously causes an issue since multiple people have tried to add in Punisher and Captain America. - Joltman ( talk) 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. I understand the inclusion of the box office grosses. OscarFercho ( talk) 13:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I posted over at the comic book films task force, but we have not gotten anymore opinions. I see that once again, Oscar had to revert an edit where someone put The Punisher in the main list because they didn't see it below. I really don't see what purpose the separate 'direct-to-video' list serves, all it does is confuse people. So unless someone can give good reason to keep them separate, it makes more sense to merge them back into the main list. - Joltman ( talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No more opinions, most existing reviews, I make the change. Tanks to everybody. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Announced Films" section is getting out of hand. Didn't the precedent used to be that a film's inclusion on this list required a release date? I would also argue that a reserved release date for an unannounced film does not count as an announced film. It's not really a film, it's just a date and dates are subject to change. I propose the removal of all films after Ant-Man except X-Men: Apocalypse. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a "major" change as OscarFercho is claiming. Using "In production" over "Forthcoming" is more accurate, as it complies with MOS:FILM distinction of what "production" means. "In production" includes any film that is in pre-production, filming, or in post. As it is now, having the Fantastic Four reboot and Ant-Man below the "Announced" heading does not fit because they have both started production. So regardless of if the "Forthcoming" heading changes, Fantastic Four and Ant-Man have to move up. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've undestand more the reasons for the change. Thanks for your opinions. OscarFercho ( talk) 01:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to voice my opposition to this trend of having years span multiple sub-sections (i.e. 2014's spread from released films to In production films). It makes it appear as if the sub-headings are included in the year. Back in the good old days years would be duplicated for each section creating a clear disconnection between the sections. I'd like to see this format reintroduced. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The third Marvel Studios Captain America film is refered as "Third Captain America film", but this is inexactly on the list 'cause there is another 1990 Captain America film and the 1940's serial, that is, there are five titles of Captain on this list, the announced sequel it's not the third on the list. It's more appropriate a reference as "Untitled new Captain America film", "Next Captain America film" or "Untitled Captain America sequel". OscarFercho ( talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The movie The Amazing Spider-Man 2 it's not in post-production stage, it's to be released only in some days. It's not in any stage indicated on MOS:FILM. Their inclusion on the label In Production is confusing and it's not true about that film. OscarFercho ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The animated film Stan Lee's that came out on February, 2014 is not on the list of animated movies. I tried to added but it didn't work. Now I think I shouldn't have added it because I don't have the accurate information about the studio, but someone should add it. It came out before Avengers Confidential: Black Widow and Punisher.
In this section there is mention to Malibu Comics that is not an imprint. Malibu was a publisher bought by Marvel Comics and it had its own imprints (Genesis, Ultraverse, Bravura and Rock-It Comix). So I put the imprints in the box emphasising the imprint next to the publisher name. It is similar to Jim Lee's Aegis Entertainment that was a publisher with various imprints (Wildstorm, Homage, Cliffhanger and ABC) bought by DC. HÊÚL. ( talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of films based on Marvel Comics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With The Second Fantastic Four Movie (Rise of The Silver Surfer(2007)), it is spelled wrong and that led to a lot of confusion. It is actually spelled "Fantastic 4: Rise of The Silver Surfer" not "Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer". The difference is that instead of "four" they put "4". Bobkevin12 ( talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@ OscarFercho: The source on the page, this one right here, is a reliable source stating the film is in pre-production. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I changed to the source that cites Screenrant, the original report of Total Film, which don't claims any state of pre-production. It's not my point of view, it's a concrete fact. Greetings. OscarFercho ( talk) 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of films based on Marvel Comics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 'Men In Black' films need to be added to the 'Live-action films' list. Technically they are based on Marvel comics as Marvel bought Malibu Comics 146.200.27.109 ( talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Man-thing is tetnicly a tele-film. So why is it the live action film section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do you guys keep undoing my change of just adding reboot to "a reboot" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey you guys, when ever i add any of the names listed in this sections name to this article, WITH A RELIABLE SOURCE, you idiots keep removing it. Why? And if you say "they have not been given any official release dates" then why the hell is "The Amazing Spider-man 3 on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Every time I try to add the Silver Surfer short film to the list of films based on Marvel Comics, where it belongs, someone removes it. This is a legitimate (sp) short film produced with the consent of Marvel. I understand that it doesn't fit into the MCU Short Films section, however it does belong somewhere on the page as a short film.
Here is sourced information from the Silver Surfer Wikipedia page.
In 1991, Erik Fleming and Steven Robiner, two film students from the USC School of Cinematic Arts, approached Marvel Studios and producer Bernd Eichinger to ask permission to make a short film featuring the Silver Surfer as a proof of concept for the use of CGI in creating a realistic silver coloured human figure.[98] This short film, completed in 1992, not long after the release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day that featured a similarly rendered character, led to significant interest from major studios in a feature length Silver Surfer project.[98] Andrew Kevin Walker wrote a script for 20th Century Fox in 2000, but nothing ever came of it.[99]
You can view this short film online on youtube or dailymotion or any number of websites. It does exist and needs to be added to this page. My hope is that someone reading this has the ability to add it to the page in a way that prevents it from being removed immediately like everytime I have tried. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
@ TriiipleThreat:, @ Favre1fan93:, @ DilatoryRevolution:, you are invited to this talk. OscarFercho ( talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ TriiipleThreat:, @ Favre1fan93:, @ DilatoryRevolution:, @ Osubuckeyeguy:, @ OscarFercho:, you are invited to this talk. LSWSjr ( talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
I was just looking at the critical and public reception table, and sorted it by Rotten Tomatoes rating. The problem is, then it isn't known which movies with the same titles are which (ie Fantastic Four, The Punisher). So I think it would make sense to add the years in this table. The question is, what makes more sense, adding it to the end of the title, ie 'Fantastic Four (2005)' or having a separate release year column? I'm thinking the latter, that way once you do sort it, you can resort it by year. - Joltman ( talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The 1944 serial film /info/en/?search=Captain_America_(serial) is missing from this list. Gafter ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)