Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, I was convinced a week ago that they were going to move all the shows to the streaming service.  Now I believe they're dead.

I think your idea for a Marvel Netflix finale would be great, but I agree that none of it's going to happen.  I just wish they'd given the shows more advanced knowledge, to either wrap it up with the individual shows or with a second/final season of the Defenders.  I know several of the seasons have underperformed, but I really enjoy the universe and wish it can have a resolution.

That being said, I think I agree that Luke Cage's finale works.  I think Iron Fist's finale is open ended but not necessarily a cliffhanger.  I think it could work.  So if we never get resolution, I wouldn't be devastated.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's funny. A few days ago, I was like "I might stop watching Arrow. It's just not worth it when there are shows like Daredevil and the other Netflix shows that are just much better quality."

Then they started killing the Netflix shows. So we'll be stuck with the Arrowverse and Agents of SHIELD. Sigh.


I was trying to figure out if they could merge the Netflix shows with the Legion universe, but I'm not sure that would work. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, I finally finished season 3 of Daredevil. I have to say, I was impressed with this show. If it is cancelled (which is probably likely, just because of the Disney situation), I will be disappointed. The show is so well written, produced, acted and even scored. It's the best of the superhero shows on TV, and the best of the Marvel universe as a whole.

While watching the show, I couldn't help but compare it to the Arrowverse in my head. The way Daredevil handled situations throughout the situation showed that they put story above politics. They cared about characters more than they cared about the writers. I hate selfish writing, and Daredevil avoided that, while Arrow seems to hit every rock on their way down the hill. (I don't think that metaphor worked as well in writing as it did in my head)


Some examples:

This season dealt with storylines that featured FBI corruption, media manipulation/fake news, political campaigns and even their normal religious themes. Throughout the season, they put their story above trying to comment on real world issues. In doing so, they could explore real world issues without the "uncanny valley" effect that so many shows struggle with today, because they're so concerned with making real-world points.

Yes, I hijacked the uncanny valley thing and used it wrong. I don't care. The point is still valid.

By *not* trying to comment on our real world issues withing their fantastical superhero universe, they were actually able to produce a story that felt more true and real, and explored themes in a way that didn't alienate the audience.


In the episode which flashed back to Karen's past, we saw Karen when she was a deeply troubled, scarred, broken young woman. They didn't do this by changing the color of her hair or making her goth (Felicity). They did this through... character. That's it. And while the story could have easily been about three men in her life who were trying to control her and make decisions for her, they didn't choose that path. They chose a path where yeah, those guys wanted different things for her, but she was also messed up and she was also responsible for her own mistakes. By not trying to make her a feminist icon, they made her a stronger character. She holds her own on the show, without it being about wokeness points.

With Arrow, look at how they handled Felicity's flashback, or her time in witness protection. It's about the hair and clothes. It's a very shallow way to build that story or sell that character. Why was Felicity's hair pink? It wasn't a disguise, but it also doesn't look to be a fashion choice, because she abandoned it ASAP. So really, it was just about the writer (or whoever) sitting there, trying to think of what Felicity would be wearing or how her hair would look, and they didn't really try to sell the situation or the character.

Karen was different in the past, but she wasn't just different for the sake of being different. She was a point along the way for *our* Karen.

Some of Daredevil's quality can be chalked up to more money. More extras. Better scoring. More locations. All of that is true, but even the scenes where two characters were talking on a regular set, the whole thing just felt more grounded and "real", even with the crazy superhero stuff happening.


It just makes so much difference when the people making a show actually care about the story. On Arrow, I feel like the writers are writing a superhero show in spite of what they actually want to be writing about. On Daredevil, I feel like the writers are exploring humanity through this comic book lens.


Anyway... I liked it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

RIP Stan Lee sad

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So... Agents of Shield was renewed for another season, despite the current season not airing until this summer. That's weird. I know the season is probably mostly filmed at this point, but the show isn't a huge hit, and the summer slot might kill it.

The renewal cames at the same time that ABC's entertainment president announced that she is stepping down. Coincidence?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

DAREDEVIL has been cancelled.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/29/181 … -iron-fist

Sad, but not surprised.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It has to be a plan to bring those properties back to a Disney-owned service. The thing is, I think Daredevil benefited from not being too "Disney". This is a company that is releasing a newly animated version of their classic animated movie, The Lion King, for absolutely no reason except that it will trick people into spending more money. They don't even have the "live action" angle to play with this one.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

From everything I've read, this is a closing down of these properties.  The Disney Streaming Service is being run by Marvel Films, not Marvel TV (that's why they're suddenly doing properties related to the films, not using the limited roster that TV was able to use).  As ireactions has documented at length, those two sides hate each other.  Since the Netflix series' are Marvel TV, I'm guessing they're just axing them with no regard for them at all.

It sucks.  Some of them were terrible, but I think it'd be nice to get a resolution.  At this rate, we're either going to get a "finale" for this universe with Jessica Jones or Punisher...easily the two shows that are most on the outside of this sect of the universe.  And it's probably too late to turn either of them into any sort of wrap up.

Even if there was just a Defenders 2-hour movie on Netflix, that'd allow for a proper wrap-up.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

True, but the Hulu element is still a thing. Especially with Daredevil, I think it would be a mistake to just pretend that they never happened. I don't see these shows showing up on the Disney streaming service, but I could see them on the same service as that Handmaid thingy show.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I mean wouldn't they just leave them on Netflix?  I haven't read that they'd move it - it's still Netflix's stuff, even if it's cancelled.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The seasons that they already have will probably stay on Netflix, but that doesn't stop Marvel from putting new shows/seasons on Hulu. Unless the Netflix deal gave them ownership of some part of these specific adaptations, but that's not likely.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

As of this writing, Informant is flat out wrong about the Netflix shows moving to Disney's streaming service. DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES, LUKE CAGE, PUNISHER, IRON FIST and DEFENDERS were all projects from Marvel TV made in a co-production deal with Netflix. The Disney streaming service is being driven by Marvel Film which, despite branding, has little to no professional collaboration with Marvel TV right now.

We need to understand that Marvel Film and Marvel TV are currently two separate entities due to an extremely acrimonious divorce. One side got the movies and the other side got the TV shows.

Marvel Film's billion dollar earnings allow it to dictate the course of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel TV is a lower-tier branch run by a former Marvel Film executive who was ousted from the movie division but retained control of the TV properties. Essentially, Marvel TV is like Pocket Books for STAR TREK, doing media tie-ins that just happen to be TV shows rather than novels.

However, despite the internal division, Netflix views a Disney streaming service as direct competition and is understandably disinclined to produce their competitions TV shows. Marvel Film has no involvement in the Netflix shows or the ABC shows (well, just one now) or the Hulu shows; they have about as much interest in these properties as J.J. Abrams would have in STAR WARS novels when directing the next movie except in this case, the Marvel Film/Marvel TV relationship is coldly indifferent on a good day and hostile on most days.

For this reason, it is currently not in the cards for the Disney streaming service to feature Peggy Carter, any Netflix shows or any Marvel TV content.

Could that change? Right now, I'm mildly astonished that Marvel Film hasn't simply ordered the ABC, Netflix and Hulu content to be stricken from the record, but the Marvel TV head seems to own too much Disney stock to be entirely dismissed at this point, so Marvel Film has settled for icily ignoring the TV shows.

Marvel TV content isn't going to be moving from Netflix to any platform led by Marvel Film. If Marvel TV wants a fourth season of DAREDEVIL or a second season of DEFENDERS, it's going to have to find a network or streaming service that will tolerate working for their own competition or come up with a Marvel TV streaming service of its own.

Any analysis that treats Marvel Film and Marvel TV as the same entity is simply misinformed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

From everything I've read, this is a closing down of these properties.  The Disney Streaming Service is being run by Marvel Films, not Marvel TV (that's why they're suddenly doing properties related to the films, not using the limited roster that TV was able to use).  As ireactions has documented at length, those two sides hate each other.  Since the Netflix series' are Marvel TV, I'm guessing they're just axing them with no regard for them at all.

It sucks.  Some of them were terrible, but I think it'd be nice to get a resolution.  At this rate, we're either going to get a "finale" for this universe with Jessica Jones or Punisher...easily the two shows that are most on the outside of this sect of the universe.  And it's probably too late to turn either of them into any sort of wrap up.

Even if there was just a Defenders 2-hour movie on Netflix, that'd allow for a proper wrap-up.

I'm in the minority, but I feel like DAREDEVIL and LUKE CAGE had pretty clear resolutions. Matt Murdock went back to his roots and ultimately regained his life and his friends. Luke Cage built peace in Harlem by becoming his own enemy. These were conclusions, albeit with some room for future stories. It was only IRON FIST that ended on an unfortunate cliffhanger.

Marvel TV released a statement saying that the Daredevil character would continue in some form; they said the same thing when IRON FIST got cancelled. It's technically true in that the characters continue to appear in monthly comic books (I think? I'm a bit behind and don't know if Danny's appeared lately).

Currently, Marvel TV has no platform or network to buy and air any new seasons of the show, so we'll have to see if they have any way of moving forward with these properties or if it's the equivalent of Jeph Loeb perpetually saying he'd love to see another season of AGENT CARTER if some network or streaming service would care to produce it with the TV studio or Jerry O'Connell saying he's been thinking about a SLIDERS reboot.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ike Perlmutter is the problem at Marvel.  He’s a notorious penny pincher who believes everything should be as low budget as possible (last year’s failed Inhumans theatrical roll-out being an example of his philosophy).  He’s also rather petty (an example being the death of the Fantastic Four comic because Fox wouldn’t do what he wanted on the film side).

That said, Perlmutter is still part of Marvel / Disney; so there’s not necessarily a reason to shop the shows around to other services.  Similar to Universal’s Brooklyn 99 going to Universal owned NBC after the Fox cancellation, the Marvel tv properties could “come home” to Hulu (which Disney now has a 60% stake in and likely about to be a 70% stake if they buy out Universal as has been reported).  It just depends on if there is the will for it inside Disney; and I’m betting that comes down to a numbers game.  Were the Netflix shows popular enough to justify continuing with a 60% to 70% stake in the profits - likely more than they were getting with Netflix).

But moreso, things are complicated by Netflix retaining some stake and keeping the existing episodes on their service.  Is this a Firefly / Serenity situation?  For an unspecified time, is Netflix the only service with the right to make an episodic television format of these characters while Marvel retained the right to make feature films?  Universal could have kept making Serenity movies; but Fox denied them the right to restart the tv show on Sci-Fi Channel.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well one thing we're not considering....

Agents of SHIELD has already been renewed for Season 7.  If Marvel TV wanted the Defenders to continue, they could hypothetically add them (even just as guest stars) to that show with some time to possibly introduce the characters at the end of the upcoming season 6.

That being said, that might be a HARD change.  Those two universes don't seem to mesh at all.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Has anyone seen the Runaways series on Hulu? I haven't tried it yet, so I'm wondering what the style of Hulu's one current Marvel show is.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Today they announced that Shang-Chi -Master of King-Fu is going to be one of the phase four movies.

Comic characters tend to run in families - characters like Nick Fury, Falcon and Black Widow are all known in their own right, but ultimately they are part of the Captain America family.  What’s interesting with Shang-Chi is that he is part of the Heroes for Hire family - he runs with Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Daredevil (both sharing a villain in The Hand).  Marvel is obviously visiting Shang-Chi to replicate the success of Black Panther, but it’s also a nice back door to a cinematic version of the Netflix shows.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

Ike Perlmutter is the problem at Marvel.  He’s a notorious penny pincher who believes everything should be as low budget as possible (last year’s failed Inhumans theatrical roll-out being an example of his philosophy).  He’s also rather petty (an example being the death of the Fantastic Four comic because Fox wouldn’t do what he wanted on the film side).

That said, Perlmutter is still part of Marvel / Disney; so there’s not necessarily a reason to shop the shows around to other services.  Similar to Universal’s Brooklyn 99 going to Universal owned NBC after the Fox cancellation, the Marvel tv properties could “come home” to Hulu (which Disney now has a 60% stake in and likely about to be a 70% stake if they buy out Universal as has been reported).  It just depends on if there is the will for it inside Disney; and I’m betting that comes down to a numbers game.  Were the Netflix shows popular enough to justify continuing with a 60% to 70% stake in the profits - likely more than they were getting with Netflix).

But moreso, things are complicated by Netflix retaining some stake and keeping the existing episodes on their service.  Is this a Firefly / Serenity situation?  For an unspecified time, is Netflix the only service with the right to make an episodic television format of these characters while Marvel retained the right to make feature films?  Universal could have kept making Serenity movies; but Fox denied them the right to restart the tv show on Sci-Fi Channel.

I don't think Perlmutter is necessarily a problem in that he's been isolated to the TV department which is doing pretty well? He has no influence on the film division anymore.

There are things about Perlmutter that I think are admirable and things that aren't. His penny pinching was, during the first phase of standalone movies, a pragmatic process to the successes of IRON MAN, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA and AVENGERS.

He set a budget that forced producers and directors to work out a clear filming schedule, effective reshoots, extensive use of sets and locations to get as much money onscreen as possible -- and he refused to engage in the massive amounts of waste of other blockbuster films. This didn't work for me personally in that AVENGERS seems to be set almost entirely on the Helicarrier, but the world at large seemed fine with it.

In contrast, movies like JUSTICE LEAGUE overpay their actors with far more money than anyone could spend and unnecessary luxuries. Perlmutter mandated hiring newcomers like Evans and Hemsworth or diminished stars like Downey Jr. for their lower rates. He also refused to pay entourage travel expenses, allowing only one free travel companion per star. WB hired Ben Affleck and the Ben Affleck machine. Perlmutter demanded advance planning to minimize reshoots and cut down on unnecessary set days and location filming. JUSTICE LEAGUE blew hundreds of millions on sequences that aren't in the film. Perlmutter had premieres catered by Subway. The bulk of Marvel's money went to what's actually on the screen.

However, after the success of AVENGERS, Perlmutter continued to treat Marvel Film like a startup company, refusing to expand budgets even though the return on investment was now a certainty. This led to a massive fight over CIVIL WAR which originally had Downey Jr. booked for a few weeks of filming in a very small role for Tony Stark and a sizable role for Iron Man (in the armour, performed mostly through voiceover). Downey Jr. expressed the wish to play a larger role and receive a larger salary, feeling that Marvel Film's success could now afford it. Producer Kevin Feige felt the same way.

Perlmutter ordered Feige to fire Downey Jr. for asking for more money (even though he was offering to do more work). Perlmutter ordered that Tony Stark be written out of the script. Feige protested as CIVIL WAR was the story of Captain America vs. Iron Man.

Disney, observing Feige's success and uncomfortable with Perlmutter's bizarre behaviour, demoted Perlmutter to managing Marvel's comic book and television properties and promoted Feige to run the film division.

There's a lot to admire about Perlmutter when Marvel was struggling through a bankruptcy, when Marvel was trying to launch films after they'd sold Spider-Man to Sony and X-Men and Fantastic Four to FOX. But once Marvel Film was a success, Perlmutter's philosophy didn't make any sense. I haven't seen the IMAX INHUMANS (or any INHUMANS), but IMAX publically apologized for the cheapness of the production.

Perlmutter's attitude makes sense for a startup situation and I think his money management is the right approach for TV (but definitely not IMAX). TV is a factory of limited budgets and tight schedules; Perlmutter's obsessive planning and pennywise tactics are a good fit. You wouldn't see Perlmutter blowing the bulk of AGENTS OF SHIELD's season budget on, say, hiring Roger Daltrey and his band to perform a rock concert with filming to be done between binge drinking sessions. You'd never see lax safety standards leading to an actor dying while filming a car chase -- not because Perlmutter cares about safety, but he certainly cares about not wasting money on getting sued and fined. (That last one's conjecture, but work with me.)

I can also appreciate how Perlmutter, despite being an ardent Trump supporter and friend, permitted AGENTS OF SHIELD to actively mock the Trump administration in various lines of dialogue. Without Perlmutter, Marvel Film and Marvel TV wouldn't have ever gotten off the ground, but Marvel Film needed to fly free without him and maybe Marvel TV would benefit from the same -- if only to get its content onto the Marvel Film streaming platform.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's possible that Marvel TV isn't a success, however -- Matthew Ball, the former head of strategy at Amazon Studios offered some (speculative?) commentary on why Netflix is cancelling their corner of the Marvel Universe. Ball thinks that it is extremely unlikely that the Netflix shows can be revived on another platform.

Matthew Ball wrote:

https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/ … 8513902593
On Netflix’s Marvel cancellations, there seems to be some nuance that’s missing which tells you a lot about the future of over-the-top media services video in 2019. I’m sure both sides wanted a renewal, but the *absolute* value -- not just relative value for both sides -- continued to decline. And thus no more. Netflix reportedly holds the right to keep renewing these shows, irrespective of Disney's preferences. Disney may be entering Netflix's territory with Disney+, but that didn’t drive the cancellations. Netflix was making a rationale decision based on quality, cost, viewership.

To point, the shows will remain NETFLIX ORIGINALS for years. Disney would have to buy them back (and says they don’t fit with Disney+’s positioning and won't be rebought) and there’s likely a hold on re-using the IP in TV (i.e. Disney can’t just launch a new Luke Cage in 2019). The reality is these shows were unprecedentedly expensive (Netflix reportedly paying 60% markup), but they weren’t very good, audiences have undoubtedly declined precipitously (you can see this in the marketing spend) and it’s hard to grow audience in late seasons. With old, mediocre shows it's just about viewer retention each year.

To point, Disney never put much effort in their Netflix shows. Daredevil had 3 showrunners in 3 seasons, Luke Cage was 2 in 2, Jessica Jones 2 in 3, etc. And the teased MCU integration never happened!! It's telling that the signature achievements and performers of the MCU are the 'Avengers' films, but the 'Defenders' was one of the least buzzy, least viewed titles (in part because the preceding two series, the back half of Luke Cage and all of Iron Fist, were very poor). Poor quality always catches up to you with content.

The Netflix-Marvel deal was set at a time (Nov 2013) when Netflix needed big, buzzy IP that stood out and didn't need to be managed internally. Willing to pay whatever it took for it. And note, the deal was meant to be single seasons. Despite its end, Marvel/Netflix was a success. In 2019, Netflix has a huge internal pipeline fueled by mega-deal with Shonda Rhymes, Ryan Murphy etc. and there's no markup for their own stuff. And Netflix's audience and brand are much larger. This means Netflix's needs grew as the contribution of the Marvel shows waned,

And with Marvel now focused on their own streaming view on demand shows (e.g. the Loki series for Disney+), it’s hard to imagine Disney’s best foot forward was going to go towards aged Netflix series. Netflix reportedly wanted to shorten the seasons, thereby reducing total spend and improving retention and quality (Netflix’s shows, especially the Marvel ones, are famously bloated). Reportedly from 13 eps to 6-8.Which means Disney would have to effectively reduce their revenue from 2/3rds, while keeping valuable characters unavailable for all other live action applications, while focusing on their own D2C.

And while Netflix could force a renewal, they couldn’t do so at new terms. So Disney likely balked. The value wasn’t there for either party. It once was. And everyone is now tired of financing another party’s enterprise value growth – the economic incentives (cost minimization and upside maximization) drive vertical integration. In short, it just wasn’t working for anyone. Including most of the series’ original fans.

Also - To give an numbers example: Marvel shows need 60% more viewership than one made by Netflix, or 30% more made by another producer, just to be even. If we assume Marvel shows have lost 50% of their S1 averages, it's possible DD S4 is 3x+ more expensive than alternatives. Also important: the importance of capital letter "Quality" is only growing over time. Netflix is increasingly focused on quality/impact over tonnage. Marvel series were primarily about the latter.

To be super clear. The shows will not be revived on Disney+, Hulu, Amazon, etc. Netflix would have blocking rights. Netflix won't sell early seasons. No one would want to drive their customers to Netflix for S1-3. Characters are likely contractually hibernated for 1-2yrs. Disney has said they don't fit Disney+, even when the season rights revert after 5+ years. Talent has been released and is very hard to re-assemble (usually far costlier). There is more upside in starting fresh, with a different take (see Spider-Man Homecoming).

Is Marvel TV doing well? AGENT CARTER and INHUMANS crashed hard; AGENTS OF SHIELD limps on; the Netflix co-productions are going down for the count. I wonder if Perlmutter is a problem after all in that he's spearheaded a wide array of Netflix content that his parent company is rejecting as unwanted goods.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

When it comes to the movies, it's really impossible to try to discuss budgets and success based on box office results. For decades, Hollywood has literally built an internal industry out of twisting their accounting in order to benefit their overall company. It's impossible to tell how the budgets are being juggled, and to what end. Warner Bros could say that they spent X amount of money on the film, while paying the bulk of that money to their own internal companies (and thus to themselves). Reporting less net profits means that certain parties would be paid less, due to how their contracts were negotiated. You'd think that more money equals more profits and success, but that is not necessarily the case.

Meanwhile, Marvel is operating on a whole other system.

So to say "Justice League cost this, but made that" is really impossible. What we can judge is how the movies performed at the box office, compared to other movies released that year. We have to leave the budgets and profits to the studios, because they're the only ones who really know what the hell they're doing. Half of it is probably illegal.


Do I think that the shows will be picked up by Disney+? No. I think there's a chance that we see some version of these shows on Hulu... meaning group miniseries, etc. Possibly using characters who aren't the title characters of the Netflix shows. I'm not saying that I think this will definitely happen, but a large part of what Disney has been doing over the past decade or so has been driven by bringing their properties "home". The Fox deal makes no sense to Disney without Star Wars and the Marvel titles. Even then, I'm not sure that it was worth what they paid. The fact that they now own a controlling share of Hulu is not something that they will be ignoring. They will want to build that brand far more than where it's at now, and bringing known titles to that service is one way to do that.

Disney+, as well as the Marvel movies, are family-friendly cartoonish franchises. Honestly, I'm not sure that the plan for that platform is looking good, from what I've seen, but we'll see. I still don't get how the movies perform so well. Though my nephews love them, so I guess that explains it a bit.

Hulu is a different creature though. As is FX. We have a show like Legion, which is far more Daredevil than it is Spider-Man Homecoming. We also have a movie like Deadpool, which is clearly never going to be streaming on Disney+. There is an audience for these more "mature" or "darker" shows and movies, and Disney now has the ability to display those titles under different brands, but they need Hulu to survive in order for that to work. Moreso than they need FX, really.

I expect some sort of investment in Hulu, with big titles, geared toward more mature audiences (hopefully they will pursue this through quality and not just cheap "sex sells" tactics). The Netflix universe would be a template for that, if not the direct source.


It's fun to speculate, but I guess we don't really know. We don't know what Disney wants to invest in, what it's willing to let die, and how much they are willing to spend/lose on either of those desires.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have to say, Netflix needs to stop spending money the way they do. Some of the deals they've made are insane, and they're not deals with reliable producers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Given that in the aftermath of JUSTICE LEAGUE's box office, we have no JUSTICE LEAGUE II, no MAN OF STEEL II, no Ben Affleck BATMAN film, DC Films division producer Jon Berg dismissed, DC chief Geoff Johns demoted, it's safe to say JUSTICE LEAGUE didn't do well. It's a simple metric that a film must earn three times its production budget to turn a profit and JUSTICE LEAGUE having cost $300 million to earn $660 million, the film's short by $240 million.

If the first AVENGERS movie had earned $660 million on its $220 million budget, it would have been considered an adequate (but not spectacular) return. But it cracked 1.5 billion -- and yet, Perlmutter fought any budget increases for the subsequent films. Financially, DC has been spending too much before it had won its sought after billion dollar success and the Marvel film division was spending too little after it had proven to be a billion dollar earner.

And yet... when the Netflix shows were first announced, Informant noted the costly New York City location filming and how he doubted the project could justify its costs. He was dead wrong for the first season of DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES and PUNISHER but he has proven correct for LUKE CAGE, IRON FIST, DEFENDERS and the subsequent seasons of DAREDEVIL and JJ. The viewership fell drastically after the double bomb of IRON FIST and DEFENDERS and Netflix no longer wants to pay for any of it.

Anyway. Marvel Entertainment (TV, comics under Perlmutter) has the Marvel Unlimited service for digital comic books. They could conceivably reinvest in that and restructure it to give the TV division a new home, but currently, their business model has been to shop shows to networks and streaming services who then pay to produce and air it.

However, Perlmutter brought Marvel Studios (film) into existence with the view that they shouldn't be selling film rights (and profits) to other studios when they could make the films themselves and keep the earnings. Perhaps he might consider that Marvel Entertainment needs to start airing their own shows...

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Again, I hesitate to comment on what Justice League cost, or what sort of profit it ultimately earned. I just can't. All I can say with certainty is that whatever budget numbers we have are not the real story. Warner Bros was never all-in with the comic book movies, because they don't really understand them, so while I'm sure that there would be a Justice League 2 coming soon if the movie made billions, we also have to take into account the fact that Warner Bros snapped the backbone of Snyder's plan, and whatever comes next will take a while. They still have plenty of movies in the works, so they're not abandoning the DCEU that's been established.

Basically, when it comes to Warner, I haven't got a clue what to think. I like the movies, but I'm never sure what to expect when I go into one.

When it comes to Disney/Marvel, it seems like they want to take their toys and go home. On the one hand, it's a shame, because the Netflix shows were the best that Marvel has to offer right now. On the other hand, I'm fine with Daredevil ending on solid footing. More shows should do that.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I dunno. Whether I like it or not, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is oriented not around the very excellent DAREDEVIL series, not around AGENTS OF SHIELD and not around AGENT CARTER or the MARVEL ONE SHOTS or the tie-in comics. The core MCU content is the AVENGERS movies and I wonder what they'll do with AVENGERS ENDGAME. Here's the trailer.

https://www.newsarama.com/43019-avenger … ailer.html

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm fairly excited about Avengers: Endgame.  I know Informant doesn't love the character stuff in these movies, but I actually think they've done a decent job of building these characters into people I care about.  I really felt for Hawkeye when he showed up (knowing what happened to him), and I felt the emotions for guys like Captain America and Thor (who might be the living person most responsible for Thanos winning) who were obviously living with guilt.

I hope they pull a Star Wars and don't ruin the plot in the theaters.  I'm really interested in seeing the various ways they're going to go with this.  The Russos are hitting 1.000 as far as I'm concerned, and I'm confident they'll be able to do it again.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I am not a wholehearted admirer of the widescreen, massive battle aesthetic of AVENGERS INFINITY WAR and I'm expecting more of the same in ENDGAME. That said, just because a piece of art isn't for me doesn't mean it's not good. There are lots of things that aren't for me -- sex with men, alcohol, pornography, episodes of QUANTUM LEAP, horror films, Lays potato chips -- that doesn't mean they need to be replaced or removed from reality itself by way of a finger snap from Thanos.

The success of an AVENGERS movie can only be good for AGENTS OF SHIELD, a potential third season of AGENT CARTER, a new home for the Netflix shows, continued development of DC's superhero properties and if the Russos have another hit, maybe they would turn their star power to bringing about a COMMUNITY movie. If an AVENGERS film succeeds, then superheroes succeed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Looks like the Netflix deal states that their Marvel characters can’t appear in any non-Netflix production (movies or tv) for two years after cancellation:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/netflixs-marvel … 1831056170

Punisher might be exempt but doubtful.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It isn't really in the MCU, but it's a Marvel movie.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is legitimately great.  I absolutely loved it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That's fantastic! I probably won't see it in theatres. I have enough to keep me busy at home and I won't even be through my queue by the time that movie hits home video. Honestly, the only movies I've seen in theatres in recent years are AVENGERS movies.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I watched season 3 of Daredevil over Christmas break.  I'm really bummed that this show was cancelled.  It's been the one whose quality has remained fairly high throughout, and it might be the only one that can consistently support 13 episodes.  Not only that, I think Wilson Fisk is one of the best villains, not just from these series but from the MCU as a whole.  I don't know how much of the Netflix stuff is worth preserving if this world is truly dead, but I think Cox as Daredevil and D'onofrio as Fisk are definitely worth keeping around, even if they're watered down into an MCU-acceptable version.

I just really liked the whole season.  Matt is broken from his experience and sees no value in Matt Murdock.  His friends are both hoping he's alive and wanting to move on with their lives.  Fisk gives the appearance of being broken and desperate to save Vanessa.  And I thought all the moves and turns in the season were earned and made sense.  I really liked the addition of Ray Nadeem, although I wish that things had turned out better for him.

The Fisk stuff was legitimately terrifying and disturbing.  I loved how they used the imagery of the penthouse to really send home how much power he'd accumulated.  He goes from a barren room with nothing, wearing his prison jumpsuits to an elegantly decorated room wearing his trademark suits.  He goes from being watched to watching them.  He goes from being yelled at by guys like Poindexter and other agents to having them call him sir and take his orders.  Again, it was a bit disturbing and made me worry about the system in the same way that Matt does.  I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time....maybe not to this extent but to a large-enough extent.  Fisk felt so powerful, so untouchable, and even going into the last episode, it seemed like there was no hope.

I was a little disappointed that we never saw Matt back in the red suit, but I understand why they didn't.  And unlike the other Netflix shows, which feel dragged out - they actually only told half of Poindexter's story - as he now can truly become Bullseye.  I thought he was another 3-dimensional character who made a lot of sense.  I really loved the scene where Fisk is overlooking Dex's childhood memories.  That was effective.

All in all, I really liked the season.  I'd have loved to see where they were going for season 4, and I'm sad we won't get these characters again.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

The only issue I had with Season 3 – there were points where it didn't make sense for Karen to be facing danger alone when she should and would have called her heavily armed and deeply devoted friend Frank Castle for help. .

This is all I can think of since I read this.  Where the Hell was Frank?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

We might find ourselves watching THE PUNISHER and wondering where the hell Karen is when Frank needs her, as both the new season of PUNISHER and the last season of DAREDEVIL were filmed at the same time leading to actor unavailabilities.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

But I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed that Karen shows up in Punisher season 2.  So they coordinated somewhat.

They didn't even need Frank to show up.  I read an article about it (wondering if there might've been some explanation from the writers), and they made a good point.  All the attacks on Karen were very public - attacking her work or in the church or after her little press conference.  At the very least, Frank would've known about it.  Now maybe he was unavailable, but they have the sort of relationship that I would assume Frank would move mountains to help her.

I think a lot of these things (MCU, Arrowverse, etc) can be written off with a line of dialogue.  The article said that maybe Karen could've sent Frank an email and told him she could handle it.  And then maybe he would've stayed away out of respect for her wishes.  But when she's got nowhere to go and no one to turn to, the idea that she just doesn't consider Frank was just a little bizarre.  I know it would've been a bit of a Deus Ex Machina, but a Punisher fight scene could've been the icing on top of a great season 3.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Karen will be in PUNISHER's upcoming season, but I'm not sure how much she'll be in it as the actress was busy filming DAREDEVIL.

My guess -- and it is just a guess -- they simply couldn't get Frank's actor in Season 3 to the degree in which they would have needed him. He's a difficult character to bring in for a cameo and usher away if Karen's in danger and you'd spend the rest of the season wondering why he didn't come back. So rather they decided not to raise the issue at all. It reminds me of when Worf got married on DEEP SPACE NINE and production could only secure appearances for Riker and LaForge, which would leave the audience wondering if Picard, Data, Crusher and Troi didn't like Worf anymore, so rather than bring up a question that could not be satisfactorily addressed, it was set aside entirely.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, and I get that these shared universes can't always be guest starring and spinning off and crossing over.  But that's why I think they need to get creative with dialogue.  There are a hundred reasons why Frank wouldn't appear, and they just need one of them.  You could do 90% of those reasons without Jon Bernthal showing up.  Have a scene where Karen is on the phone with Frank and tells him to stay away.  Or, heck, have Frank be her escape plan...she just needs to take care of one more thing first (which leads her to the church and the rest of the season).  Have her try Frank and he can't answer (cliffhanger to Frank season 2 to some time when he's away or in danger).  Maybe the phone she tries for him doesn't work (he gets a new phone).

It doesn't have to be about securing the actor or coordinating production between two shows.  It should just be about the writers getting creative enough to come up with a reason why they wouldn't come help.  Because, yes, Daredevil could've used the rest of the Defenders' help to take on Fisk....but this was something personal to him.  He wouldn't want their help even if they were asking to help.  That can be left alone.

But if you have a character who is a) desperate b) helpless c) in imminent mortal danger and d) established to be very close friends with someone nearby who would absolutely have the means and the reason to help, I think they owe it to the audience to explain.  Even if the explanation is weak or flimsy, they needed something.

Of course, I didn't even think of it...you had to...so maybe they didn't need anything smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Yeah, and I get that these shared universes can't always be guest starring and spinning off and crossing over.  But that's why I think they need to get creative with dialogue.  There are a hundred reasons why Frank wouldn't appear, and they just need one of them.  You could do 90% of those reasons without Jon Bernthal showing up.  Have a scene where Karen is on the phone with Frank and tells him to stay away.  Or, heck, have Frank be her escape plan...she just needs to take care of one more thing first (which leads her to the church and the rest of the season).  Have her try Frank and he can't answer (cliffhanger to Frank season 2 to some time when he's away or in danger).  Maybe the phone she tries for him doesn't work (he gets a new phone).

I can't see this working at all. Frank loves Karen. I don't know that it's necessarily romantic, but there is a devotion. A caring that goes beyond pleasantries and deeply into respect, appreciation, longing, and there is nothing Karen could say that could keep him away if she were in danger nor would he keep his distance even if Bullseye's only trying to scare her. And if Frank doesn't answer Karen's phone call or isn't at her doorstep within an hour of a voicemail, then Frank is being written out of character.

There is no way to mention Frank briefly and have him be unavailable when a person he cherishes and treasures and to whom he has the utmost loyalty and respect is being hunted without having Bernthal onscreen to establish that he's physically unable to get to Karen for whatever reason and the only way to make that plausible would be to turn it into a PUNISHER story when it's a season of DAREDEVIL. I don't think Frank is in love with Karen -- I don't think he's over his wife and he may never recover from her loss, but (by process of elimination), Karen is the most important person in the world to him. Could YOUR wife convince you to stay away if she were in trouble?

What explanation would satisfy? Frank had food poisoning? Constipation? Flu? Silent retreat in the wilderness? Would any of these convincingly keep Frank away?

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Of course, I didn't even think of it...you had to...so maybe they didn't need anything smile

This is pretty much they were going for, I think. They couldn't come up with a convincing answer, so they decided not to raise the question. If Bernthal had been available, they probably could have done a few episodes where Frank is helping Karen but Frank is injured or arrested by the Fisk-corrupted FBI and taken out of the series until he escapes for the finale and helps Matt get through security to confront Fisk in his penthouse. You could even do a thing where Frank sizes Bullseye up, determines that he can't beat him and leaves it to Matt and Matt's supersenses, choosing to focus on helping Karen instead. But the actor was filming his own show.

If I HAD to explain it, I would probably say that there were many, many, many more attempts on Karen's life than we actually saw onscreen and Frank was dealing with them off camera so covertly, so quietly and in such a black-ops manner that nobody ever knew he was there. A similar joke was made in an AVENGERS comic (actually, it was an issue of THE ULTIMATES) where Hawkeye yells at Quicksilver for not helping out in a battle against Ultron and Quicksilver says that he saved Hawkeye's life 30 - 40 times at superspeed and he's annoyed that Hawkeye isn't grateful. Or that episode of COMMUNITY where Jack Black was edited into flashbacks or that episode of LOST that I can't remember, but I know you like LOST references.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah.  I mean I understand.  I think, obviously, the way you wrote it works.  Karen calls Frank - maybe he rescues them from the church in some big Punisher vs. FBI action sequence.  But then, instead of a nice Karen/Matt character moment, it's the Punisher saving the day on Matt's show.  You'd have to do something the way you wrote it, where Frank cedes the action to Matt, or it doesn't work for a one-off character.

If I didn't go that way, I'd use the two film crews and merge the scripts.  I'd say that the shows are taking place simultaneously, and I'd reference the events of the other on both.  Since I don't know what happens on Punisher season 2, I'll have to speculate.  Maybe Jigsaw has driven Frank to some sort of safe house.  In Daredevil, you have Karen call Frank.  She apologizes for calling him, but he's her last hope.  There's nowhere to turn and Kingpin is going to kill her.  She expects it to work, but Frank declines.  He comes off like a jerk.  Like, of course, he won't come.  What does she mean to him?  Why would he risk his life for her?  Click.

In the Punisher, around episode 10, Frank gets that call.  He's hidden away.  If he moves, he's dead.  And if he's dead, Karen's dead.  He can't leave.  So he pretends like he doesn't care.  Because pushing away people is what he's good at.

Episode 13, Frank shows up to the hotel, and he sees that Karen is okay.  That Matt is protecting her from the rooftop.  She handled herself.

You don't need Bernthal for Daredevil or Woll for the Punisher.  Have the individual crews shoot it, and have it be a sort of loose end on Daredevil that gets resolved on Punisher.  Because the only people who would care would be watching both.

But you're probably right.  Don't reference it and no one asks the question.  Because, realistically, Frank would risk anything to save her.  Since he doesn't show up, he's either saved her in the background or, for Daredevil season 3, he simply doesn't exist.

(Thanos!)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Since I don't know what happens on Punisher season 2, I'll have to speculate.  Maybe Jigsaw has driven Frank to some sort of safe house.  In Daredevil, you have Karen call Frank.  She apologizes for calling him, but he's her last hope.  There's nowhere to turn and Kingpin is going to kill her.  She expects it to work, but Frank declines.  He comes off like a jerk.  Like, of course, he won't come.  What does she mean to him?  Why would he risk his life for her?  Click.

In the Punisher, around episode 10, Frank gets that call.  He's hidden away.  If he moves, he's dead.  And if he's dead, Karen's dead.  He can't leave.  So he pretends like he doesn't care.  Because pushing away people is what he's good at. Episode 13, Frank shows up to the hotel, and he sees that Karen is okay.  That Matt is protecting her from the rooftop.  She handled herself.

This is a pretty good idea, but it's not without its problems. The audience loses focus on how Matt is clearly losing his mind as he abandons his identity and is increasingly suicidal, on how Fisk has gone from a jumpsuit and a half-eaten TV dinner to living in the lap of luxury, on how Karen is outgunned and Matt is concerned for her safety but distant from her situation -- and instead, the focus becomes entirely on Castle even if he's only heard in a voiceover. Why is Frank behaving out of character? Why has the show rendered him in a fashion completely against his love for Karen in his previous appearances?

It's (gleefully and cleverly) calling attention to a problem that serves only to distract the viewer when it's preferable to move this issue to the realm of what TV Tropes calls Fridge Logic, something you only wonder about after the credits have rolled and you're getting something to eat.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

But you're probably right.  Don't reference it and no one asks the question.  Because, realistically, Frank would risk anything to save her.  Since he doesn't show up, he's either saved her in the background or, for Daredevil season 3, he simply doesn't exist. (Thanos!)

If Netflix weren't urgently exciting the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I'd expect one of those ONE-SHOT type short films where Frank we either have the story you described above or we see Frank surveilling Karen throughout Season 3: he uses a sniper rifle to take down gunmen chasing her, is crouched behind a porch when streetpunks menace her on the street, he's impersonating one of the FBI agents searching the church and misdirecting them, he's listening quietly when Karen reveals how she got her brother killed, etc..

But this raises its own problems too: if Karen's danger is retroactively reduced because Castle was lurking slightly out of frame the entire time, it diminishes Season 3's sense of threat. Also, there's a certain comedic goofiness to this blatant retcon that might be awkward for a militaristic, serious series like THE PUNISHER.

This reminds me of an episode of SMALLVILLE where Oliver (please try to think of Justin Hartley) is looking to murder Lex Luthor and Clark is trying to prevent this passively by refusing to hand over a router that could lead to Lex's location. Oliver agrees to let Clark handle it, but then speaks with a subordinate who informs Oliver that he has copied the data from the router. This would be the unplugged, disconnected router that Clark was holding in his hand which this anonymous suit claims he could somehow read and clone without ever going near it. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason for this error: the subordinate was supposed to be Cyborg and his ability to interface with any technology remotely and power it regardless of its disconnection, but actor Lee Thompson Young backed out at the last second and with no time for a rewrite, Cyborg's dialogue was given to another performer.

Regardless, it reminds me of my old SLIDERS standby when asked how the cast could alternate between the same outfits and how the Professor always had a tailored suit -- all plot and production problems are just one missing story away from being explained.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That Cyborg story is interesting.  I wonder how many random plot holes on TV are the result of a last-second actor issue.

Oh well.  I guess I'll hope that, during season 3, Frank was hopelessly off-grid with no way of knowing how Karen was doing, and that her guest spot on Season 2 will go some way to filling in his absence.  I do agree that the season is stronger from a character perspective if he's gone.  But it doesn't make it make any more sense. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I wonder if they'll do something like JURASSIC PARK III (which I've never seen) where they highlighted an actor's absence from the previous installment (which I also never saw):

Symposium Leader: "Does anyone have a question?"

The entire audience raises their hands.

Dr. Grant: "Fine. Does anyone have a question that does not relate to Jurassic Park -- ?"

Several audience members lower their hands.

Dr. Grant: " -- or the incident in San Diego. Which I did not witness."

The entire audience except one person lowers their hands.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Let's just say that as soon as Fisk was released, Karen called Frank and tipped him off to a boatload of children being smuggled out of the country in some other state, because she knew that Frank couldn't do subtle and would probably get himself locked up (and also there was the boatload of innocent kids being smuggled, which she found herself incapable of handling at the moment)... however, this was a boring conversation, so it was kept off-screen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

By the way, I finally saw Ant-Man and The Wasp, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. The humor landed well, as well as the emotional arc of the movie. It's not exactly the biggest think-piece of our time, but it did what it was supposed to do, in a well considered and well executed fashion.

I just wanted to make the point that I'm not an all-around Marvel hater. When they do good, I applaud it. It just doesn't happen very often. smile