Marvel Film & TV Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Updates Options

[Mister R]

Disney have officially confirmed that Joss Whedon will return to both write and direct The Avengers 2.

In addition to this Disney have announced that Whedon will develop a new TV series set in the Avengers universe for ABC. Its possible that the Marvel short Item 47 (which will be included in The Avengers home release) will provide an insight into what form the series is likely to take.

This post has been edited by Mister R: Nov 29 2012, 00:42

[Mister R]

In addition Marvel have confirmed that Whedon has signed an exclusive deal with them that will keep him at the company through to the end of June 2015 by default confirming a late-May/June 2015 release for The Avengers sequel.

In addition to writing and directing The Avengers 2 and developing a Marvel television show for ABC Whedon will also play a role in the second phase of Marvel's cinematic offerings. Essentially it looks as if he's been set up in the 'Godfather' role that Chris Nolan has been offered at Warner Bros. for the DC properties.

And in one final piece of news it is looking increasingly likely that Fox are going to let Dare Devil revert back to Marvel sparking rumours that he'll show up during phase two or during the second Avengers outing in some form. Hopefully though Marvel will opt to wait for 'phase three'.

[Psychosyndrom]

I really dont want Daredevil. Street level stuff just doesnt appeal, and doesnt fit with the films as they are at the moment, going big and cosmic.

Granted, he could be used for the TV show, or even in a film seperate to the Avengers series, but I'm not really interested and was much more interested in the news earlier in the week in regards Marvel and Fox doing swaps over rights so Marvel could get Silver Surfer back.

Glad to see Whedon staying involved, but I'm surprised he hasnt also taken an active role in GotG, being that the recent iteration is essentially just Firefly

[Mister R]

The rumours of Marvel offering to extend Fox's Dare Devil license in exchange for Galactus and the Silver Surfer appear to be absolute nonsense. Deadline is reporting that the talks between Marvel and Fox are actually about Fox trying to strike a co-financing deal for a Dare Devil film going into production sometime next year. I don't actually expect anything to come from that though. I'd imagine Marvel will be happy to just wait it out since Fox seem to have given up on getting Dare Devil into development before October when their license expires. That's a shame though since the Dare Devil reboot Fox has been trying to put together actually sounds pretty good.

It should also be noted that with Fox gearing up to go into production on a high profile Fantastic Four reboot there's about 0% chance they'd agree to let Galactus and Silver Surfer go. It would just rob potential sequels which are likely to be much bigger than a Dare Devil film is ever going to manage.

On the subject of Dare Devil itself I really like the character and I think he represents an important part of Marvel's universe that they're lacking. That 'street level' stuff is pretty important and fairly distinctive to everything else Marvel is offering up at the moment. I'd agree that I'm not sure he really fits into the Avengers universe as an active player though but Marvel desperately need to start diversifying their movie platform especially if they're going to stick with releasing at two films a year. All Avengers all the time is going to screw them over in the end I suspect.

And it does sound as if Whedon will be involved in Guardians on some level. Although the guy they've got rewriting the script for Guardians is pretty brilliant and a little Whedonesque so I think that's in relatively safe hands.

Of course its also fun to see that Whedon's new Marvel deal has led half the internet thinking Nathan Fillion is going to star in both Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man for Marvel (or at least more so than they already did). I'm currently betting he'll end up in neither.

[Astron]

I really like Dare Devil and the Dare Devil film for that matters.
I think he would fit in best with Spiderman though. Not only because they are both set in New York (what Marvel character doesn't live there?) but because they are very human despite their superpowers.

[Psychosyndrom]

The rumours of Marvel offering to extend Fox's Dare Devil license in exchange for Galactus and the Silver Surfer appear to be absolute nonsense. Deadline is reporting that the talks between Marvel and Fox are actually about Fox trying to strike a co-financing deal for a Dare Devil film going into production sometime next year. I don't actually expect anything to come from that though. I'd imagine Marvel will be happy to just wait it out since Fox seem to have given up on getting Dare Devil into development before October when their license expires. That's a shame though since the Dare Devil reboot Fox has been trying to put together actually sounds pretty good.

It should also be noted that with Fox gearing up to go into production on a high profile Fantastic Four reboot there's about 0% chance they'd agree to let Galactus and Silver Surfer go. It would just rob potential sequels which are likely to be much bigger than a Dare Devil film is ever going to manage.

On the subject of Dare Devil itself I really like the character and I think he represents an important part of Marvel's universe that they're lacking. That 'street level' stuff is pretty important and fairly distinctive to everything else Marvel is offering up at the moment. I'd agree that I'm not sure he really fits into the Avengers universe as an active player though but Marvel desperately need to start diversifying their movie platform especially if they're going to stick with releasing at two films a year. All Avengers all the time is going to screw them over in the end I suspect.

And it does sound as if Whedon will be involved in Guardians on some level. Although the guy they've got rewriting the script for Guardians is pretty brilliant and a little Whedonesque so I think that's in relatively safe hands.

Of course its also fun to see that Whedon's new Marvel deal has led half the internet thinking Nathan Fillion is going to star in both Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man for Marvel (or at least more so than they already did). I'm currently betting he'll end up in neither.

Surfer and Galactus have been done by Fox, and they screwed it all up. Trank would be best off sticking to Doom, maybe Wizard and the Frightful Four and just trying to rub away all the stink of those previous films.

That's why that news was somewhere believable, as Surfer and Galactus are tainted by how awful that film was, and so you could imagine them willing to trade that back for a much more usable character.

Still, if I was Marvel, I would only do co-financing in exchange for getting some of these characters back, else I'd just sit back and wait for the rights to revert back 100%

[Mister R]

Surfer and Galactus have been done by Fox, and they screwed it all up. Trank would be best off sticking to Doom, maybe Wizard and the Frightful Four and just trying to rub away all the stink of those previous films.

That's questionable logic.

Surely the Fantastic Four themselves were more tainted by Rise of the Silver Surfer (it was after all their sequel)? And frankly I don't think FF2 was that bad. I think people are a little unfair on the Fantastic Four films in general really. They aren't particularly good by any means but when you approach them as the big bold fun comic book they were intended to be they're enjoyable enough. The biggest misstep was how poorly they were cast. With the possible exception of Chiklis and maybe Evans everyone in that film was wrong. Just wrong.

The bigger point I'd make is that Bane was tainted by Batman & Robin but Warner Bros. have still managed to sell him as the villain of the latest Batman movie. As long as the reboot of Fantastic Four is viewed as being good people will be fine with Galactus and Surfer popping up in sequels. And lets not forget Doom was in both Fantastic Four films its not like he's not tainted by those.

Still, if I was Marvel, I would only do co-financing in exchange for getting some of these characters back, else I'd just sit back and wait for the rights to revert back 100%

The joy for Marvel in this situation is that they don't have to commit to co-financing now. It seems massively unlikely that if in 12-18 months time they go to Fox (or anyone else) and say do you want to co-finance (and share in the profits of) Dare Devil they're going to say no. And frankly I'd prefer they didn't have Galactus and Surfer back. I'd be happy never seeing either appear in a film ever.

In other news I'm hearing unconfirmed whispers (read wishful thinking I suspect) that Whedon is being drafted in to rework the AKA Jessica Jones series that was in development at ABC last year. In fairness I think that's a good show for Whedon and I think its a good property for network television so it wouldn't be a bad call. Cloak & Dagger, Heroes for Hire and Runaways are also being thrown around as well.

Someone also pointed out to me today that Dare Devil will revert back to Marvel slap bang in the middle of development season. Depending on how confident Marvel are that's coming back to them they might opt to use Dare Devil as a TV property rather than a film one. Lawyer by day, hero by night has potential for network television.

[Psychosyndrom]

Daredevil, one word.

The news mainly filtering through about the ABC show is that it will be SHIELD based, with lots of 'heroes of the week' showing up, but at this stage I think most things are wishful thinking on fans parts and no one actually knows what is going on.

The Fantastic Four is tainted though, it's just that it hasnt been in active development and so people haven't said much about it. Once it's actively moving along, people will make that comparison all over the place, and much like Amazing Spider-Man, while the reboot may be a good film, the probability of another origin story and the remembrance of the poor last outings may stop it being the big hit the studio would likely want from it.

Surfer and Galactus are two of my favourite characters in the whole of comics, so I'm always going to be bias in that regard.

[Mister R]

I can't see them doing a SHIELD based show just because who are you going to get to headline it?

I can't envision a situation where Samuel L Jackson is going to do a weekly TV series so Fury is out. They killed off Agent Coulson so Clark Gregg is out (and if they didn't kill him off they'll want that reveal and story for the films) and Maria Hill is out because Cobie Smulders has How I Met Your Mother. So that basically leaves them with a bunch of SHIELD nobodies and who's going to care about that show? Not to mention the problems you run into given that they're going to base Captain America out of SHIELD (so you're robbing those films of content plus explaining why he isn't there) and looking at the casting news for Iron Man 3 Iron Man will have SHIELD links maintained as well which throws up more problems. And presumably Ant-Man is going to have some kind of SHIELD connection...(?)

Plus despite the fact that originally I didn't think a SHIELD show was a bad idea the more I think about it the more it just becomes a Powers rip-off. No one wants that especially not if FX does press forward with Powers again (and I think/hope after this summer they will give it another look).

Continuing with the more I think about it theme AKA Jessica Jones begins to strike me as the best fit for what Marvel and perhaps more importantly ABC will want. Its a female led case of the week procedural with super heroes and potential for a love interest (and family if it runs long enough) if they bring in Luke Cage. That ticks so many boxes its crazy. Also early prediction I suspect Marvel are developing Runaways or Cloak & Dagger for ABC Family.

This post has been edited by Mister R: Aug 9 2012, 01:29

[Astron]

The could make a SHIELD show based on another Hero they introduce within it.

[atticus]

Young Avengers is a possibility too. I'd happily see those characters on screen. Avengers academy might work too.
Jessica Jones does seem like a good match though, plus the budget wouldn't be crazy.
Dan Slott's 'She Hulk' run might work well too. A superhero lawyer, quirky, funny and Jennifer Walters spends a lot of it not hulked out

[Psychosyndrom]

Academy would be good, and you could easily use Pym from Ant Man.

YA would need Wanda introduced, and there isnt really time to do that, even though they do have the rights to her.

I can't see it being Alias/Jones because the studio has passed on that several times, and even with Whedon involved, neither the book nor the character are all that popular.

Well, who knows what it'll be, but I still think a SHIELD series is likely most likely.

[Mister R]

The could make a SHIELD show based on another Hero they introduce within it.

But you'd still have to explain where the rest of SHIELD are. You'd need to have some crossover characters between the film and the series because that's what people will expect.

Young Avengers is a possibility too. I'd happily see those characters on screen. Avengers academy might work too.
Jessica Jones does seem like a good match though, plus the budget wouldn't be crazy.
Dan Slott's 'She Hulk' run might work well too. A superhero lawyer, quirky, funny and Jennifer Walters spends a lot of it not hulked out

Young Avengers (or something similar) is certainly possible for ABC Family. I can't imagine it working on ABC though. The problem with She Hulk is that ABC is still weirdly pushing ahead with a Hulk project.

Academy would be good, and you could easily use Pym from Ant Man... I can't see it being Alias/Jones because the studio has passed on that several times, and even with Whedon involved, neither the book nor the character are all that popular.

With an Ant-Man film going ahead I'm not sure you could easily use Pym. It depends on who they ultimately cast as Ant-Man.

ABC is still very high on the concept of AKA Jessica Jones. They've struggled to find a script they like but they keep pushing it back into development so that's always a good sign they want to do it. And I'd point out that Marvel is doing a film of Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man neither of which is particularly a well known property. And part of the push into television (and apparently more animated series and games) is to give more exposure to lesser known properties in relatively lower risk ways. Jones is one of the few properties they have that lets them introduce a whole host of characters from the entire Marvel universe as well so that's another plus. Just from the perspective of making a network television series I think AKA Jessica Jones is the best property they have unless Whedon and co. are planning a completely new series.

Item 47 has been well received by those that have seen it so as I said in the original post that might be a good road map for them in terms of how to make a series in the Avengers universe.

[Psychosyndrom]

Heroes for Hire would be better than a show based on AKA.

You could have a number of heroes popping in to that, have SHIELD operatives appearing, including Maria Hill as HIMYM wouldnt take up all her time, and with rumours of Jason Segal wanting out, the show wouldnt last long if he left anyway. Beyond that they have several films to introduce a new Coulson character, Sitwell for example, or even have Coulson back as an LMD/The Vision.

Plus, Heroes for Hire means Cage, which will shut up the people bitching about Marvel being racist.

As for the major film cast, Samuel L Fury would do 'Opening of a paper bag - the movie' so him cameoing in first episodes, and finales, is certainly likely, not to mention some of the others doing the odd episode, look at shows like Glee, they attract film stars for one offs (Pepper Potts was in a few), and Disney has deep pockets

This post has been edited by Psychosyndrom: Aug 9 2012, 20:20

[Mister R]

The issue isn't really about whether Cobie Smulders will have time to do a guest spot on a Marvel television show but whether or not she'd be allowed to do it. I'm not convinced that Fox (who own Mother) and CBS would be particularly overjoyed at the prospect of her popping up on a Marvel show for ABC. I also don't think they can kick start a show in the hope that How I Met Your Mother wraps soon. I'm fairly sure, for example, that those Jason Segal rumours are more to do with him wanting a pay rise. That certainly tends to be the pattern for these shows.

On the subject of Samuel L Jackson for all the talk of him doing anything he's asked to he doesn't. And there's nothing to suggest he's even remotely interested in doing television (and he will have been offered guest spots and roles on television). He likes making films. Sticking with the guest star theme Glee's power to attract stars is actually overstated quite a bit but it does have the trump card of being able offer actors the chance to do something different and showcase more of their talents.

The problem I foresee with Heroes for Hire is that its potentially a very expensive concept. Whereas you can make something like Jessica Jones relatively cheaply without it really showing. Jones would also give them the chance to introduce Luke Cage.

Its all pretty moot at the moment though.

I will however add that the other issue I see with a SHIELD set series is that it sets up a situation where you're introducing characters you almost have to put into future Avengers outings or other Marvel films because its so overtly connected to that world. Whereas a series set outside of that has enough distance that you can keep them almost completely separate.

[Psychosyndrom]

The only issue I see with having something only slightly connected is that the series would so heavily be advertised as being linked to the mover-verse that if they then didnt follow through with a decent power set from the main cast and some decent cameos here and there, people would turn on it so fast for being disappointing and not really connected at all.

Plus, I don't want to watch Jessica Jones PI. I enjoyed the series, but Bendis has pushed her so hard since then, and her relationship with Luke, that I'd happily never see them, nor baby Cage, for a good long while.

[Mister R]

In an update Daredevil looks as if it is officially dead at Fox and will revert back to Marvel in October.

Joe Carnahan, who helmed The Grey and The A-Team, had been attempting to step into the breach and get Daredevil back up and running when David Slade dropped out of the project but he's now said that it won't be going ahead. From all reports Fox actually liked his pitch but felt that it was too violent and too dark. It seems Carnahan was shooting for a hard R version of Daredevil drawing primary inspiration from Frank Miller's run and Fox weren't overly enamoured with that idea. Partly because they felt they wouldn't make their investment back at the box office and partly because you can't market toys, merchandise and games of a a hard R action film. There's also a suggestion that he wanted to set it in the 80's which wouldn't have helped.

The question will now be what, if anything, Marvel intend to do with the character.

Also Spiderman (played by Andrew Garfield) appearing in Avengers 2 appears to be the rumour that won't die despite the fact that the only thing powering it on seems to be that Andrew Garfield was photographed holding an Avengers comic and that the Oscorp building was almost part of The Avengers skyline.

One rumour I do like though is that Guardians of the Galaxy will take place before or possibly at the same time as the first Avengers movie and that the post-credit Thanos scene will be the final scene (or close to it) of Guardians and serve as direct set up for Avengers 2 which would see Guardians teaming with The Avengers to defeat Thanos.

[Astron]

Seriously? Avengers will feature like 15 super heroes?
Talk about overkill.

[Mister R]

Technically 11. Assuming they don't add anyone else.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if not all the Guardians make the cut for The Avengers. That has the potential to be incredibly expensive and time consuming from an effects point of view particularly when you consider they've already got a pretty heavy effects load.

In other news Avengers 2 now officially dated for May 1 2015.

[Jonnycondom]

Jesus christ, when this film comes out I'll officially be in my thirties


WTF

go away time, stop aging me