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.