Phase 3 Release Schedule Finalized

[Raiden]

Wouldn't it require a contract negotiation to split Avengers 3 into two releases?

I think Disney will probably be willing to give Marvel a blank check for Avengers 3 to split it into two movies if AOU breaks all kinds of box office records. If Lionsgate did it with Mockingjay, then I don't see why Disney would not.

 

[KangConquers]

Avengers 3 never had an announced date, so there's no reason to believe it got bumped forward a year. I think the implication is that Marvel wants to keep each movie Phase with roughly the same number of movies (so six or seven, not ten) and wants to get an Avengers movie out every three years since they're the big event film. The theory is they were going to settle for the July date but, as soon as the May date opened up (which is a traditional time slot for Avengers) they bumped it up two months. That makes a ton of sense really. Certainly more than "no sense."

I don't think they want to introduce as many characters as possible before Avengers 3 because that could make the movie unwieldy. To me, it makes more sense to introduce them after A3 so they can have more room to breathe in A4.

Feige said the goal is an Avengers film every 3 years.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Yep. I had that in mind. It's why the 2018 date fits perfectly.

 

[Shoppy]

Yep. I had that in mind. It's why the 2018 date fits perfectly.

In which case either...

... the May 2019 date is a Hulk sequel (or maybe Iron Man 4?)

OR

... Avengers 3 and "the film where everyone takes on Thanos" are two separate movies and one from Black Panther/Inhumans/CaptainMarvel/The Incredible Hulk 2 won't happen until 2020...


Thoughts?

 

[BatsDC]

If Avengers hits on May 4th 2018 I'd be real disappointed. They have an opportunity to really expand their universe before the big face off with Thanos, and to not take it would be a mistake in my eyes

Plus it gives Joss a break he probably needs

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think Disney will probably be willing to give Marvel a blank check for Avengers 3 to split it into two movies if AOU breaks all kinds of box office records. If Lionsgate did it with Mockingjay, then I don't see why Disney would not.

I have no doubt of that. But if it's true Evans and Hemsworth want to move on as soon as their contracts expire, then it may be a moot point.

Then again, they may be able to wrangle them in under the loophole of it being a single production.

 

[Marvelocity]

There is nothing worse than this two-movie crap they have been doing lately. It's just an excuse to get people back into a theater. I'd rather Avengers 3 be 4 hours than go see 2 two-hour parts.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

You do understand the absurdity of what you said right?

 

[fixxxer]

EDIT: wrong thread.

 

[Spiderine]

There's no reason that the conflict in Avengers 3 should be broken into two parts. They would have spent numerous films building up to it. An entire phase 3 slate of films. Thanos as well as his plan and extent of cosmic powers will be well established by the time he makes his dramatic appearance on earth at the beginning of Avengers 3. Not to mention the aftermath that will likely continue into phase 4.

 

[BatsDC]

They won't start Avengers 3 with Thanos having all the stones, and the gauntlet, ready to go. It'll have to be a very fast paced and large movie

Plus, I'm pretty sure Gunn doesn't want Thanos to become the focus of Guardians 2, so where will his story be established? In Thor 3 I doubt he'll have much of a prescence either.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

There is nothing worse than this two-movie crap they have been doing lately. It's just an excuse to get people back into a theater. I'd rather Avengers 3 be 4 hours than go see 2 two-hour parts.

Yes, but what Marvel knows is that, even though you HATE the movie-splitting trend, the decision to split Avengers 3 into two-parts will not impact whether or not you pay money to see it. You will see both parts, regardless. We all will. Marvel knows this.

I don't know for certain if they will split it into two parts. There might be some long-term business reason why they won't. But in the short-term? Splitting Avengers 3 into two parts is a license to print money. With the culmination of 10 years of MCU films and finally bringing Thanos front-and-center, each INDIVIDUAL part would almost certainly make at least as much as the first Avengers film did by itself. You're likely looking at at least $3 billion worldwide between the two, and that's before home video release.

I guarantee this discussion has come up in Marvel offices, and I can't think of any real reason they would decide not to do this.

 

[CaptainWagner]

If Avengers hits on May 4th 2018 I'd be real disappointed. They have an opportunity to really expand their universe before the big face off with Thanos, and to not take it would be a mistake in my eyes

Plus it gives Joss a break he probably needs

-Yeah, I'm also hoping that they push it back to 2019. I wouldn't be opposed to them splitting it into 2 parts, though a Hobbit/LOTR length film would be my prference.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

They won't start Avengers 3 with Thanos having all the stones, and the gauntlet, ready to go. It'll have to be a very fast paced and large movie

Plus, I'm pretty sure Gunn doesn't want Thanos to become the focus of Guardians 2, so where will his story be established? In Thor 3 I doubt he'll have much of a prescence either.

He could be a strong presence in a Ms. Marvel film, if it happens to be the only other cosmic film.

 

[Marvelocity]

Yes, but what Marvel knows is that, even though you HATE the movie-splitting trend, the decision to split Avengers 3 into two-parts will not impact whether or not you pay money to see it. You will see both parts, regardless. We all will. Marvel knows this.

I don't know for certain if they will split it into two parts. There might be some long-term business reason why they won't. But in the short-term? Splitting Avengers 3 into two parts is a license to print money. With the culmination of 10 years of MCU films and finally bringing Thanos front-and-center, each INDIVIDUAL part would almost certainly make at least as much as the first Avengers film did by itself. You're likely looking at at least $3 billion worldwide between the two, and that's before home video release.

I guarantee this discussion has come up in Marvel offices, and I can't think of any real reason they would decide not to do this.

I actually wouldn't go see it in theaters. I haven't seen anything labeled part I and don't plan on it. Why would I knowingly go see a film that isn't going to conclude? What is the climax supposed to be? A fight where the villain wins? Yes, we ALL want that in a superhero movie. If you can't wrap it up in 2-3 hours, then you have failed to tell a quality story.

It's like this Hobbit crap. That book did not warrant 2 movies let alone 3, and I don't plan on seeing any of them mainly for that reason. It's been 20 years since I read them, but I feel like each Lord of the Rings book was longer than the Hobbit, so breaking that into 3 movies means they either suck at story telling or they're adding tons of crap that isn't in the book OR they're simply milking it for more money. For any of those reasons, I have no interest in seeing it and especially paying to see it.

I mean, is there any movie aside from the Empire Strikes Back that ended on a cliffhanger and ended up being a great movie? And of course no one knew that was going to end on a cliffhanger when they went to see it despite it being specifically labeled Part V in the beginning scroll.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

I actually wouldn't go see it in theaters. I haven't seen anything labeled part I and don't plan on it. Why would I knowingly go see a film that isn't going to conclude? What is the climax supposed to be? A fight where the villain wins? Yes, we ALL want that in a superhero movie. If you can't wrap it up in 2-3 hours, then you have failed to tell a quality story.

It's like this Hobbit crap. That book did not warrant 2 movies let alone 3, and I don't plan on seeing any of them mainly for that reason. It's been 20 years since I read them, but I feel like each Lord of the Rings book was longer than the Hobbit, so breaking that into 3 movies means they either suck at story telling or they're adding tons of crap that isn't in the book OR they're simply milking it for more money. For any of those reasons, I have no interest in seeing it and especially paying to see it.

I mean, is there any movie aside from the Empire Strikes Back that ended on a cliffhanger and ended up being a great movie? And of course no one knew that was going to end on a cliffhanger when they went to see it despite it being specifically labeled Part V in the beginning scroll.

The Hobbit movies are terrible for all the reasons you said, but they're adapting a specific story that cannot justify three separate three-hour movies. Hence adding all the extraneous crap. Whether an Avengers 3: Parts I and II would be good is not something we know, but we do know that they have the ability to write a story that authentically takes up that much time, if they have that structure in mind. I don't know if the Hobbit comparison is as immediately useful here as, say, Kill Bill (both of which were great) or Lord of the Rings (all three of which were very good).

I would much rather one three-hour movie with an economically told story, but there are ways of doing this well.

And if you sincerely mean what you say about not going to see Avengers 3: Part I in theaters on principle, then you are a stronger person than I am.

 

[Shoppy]

I don't think it will be in two parts, more likely...

The May 2019 release will be the movie where Thanos is the big bad, which may or may not be Avengers 3, it may come after Avengers 3 and have a title like Marvel's "Infinity War" or something considering that it most likely won't be just the Avengers who feature...

So then the May 2018 release would most likely be a sequel, and with Cap and Thor having just completed their trilogies, that would leave either an IncredibleHulk sequel or a third Avengers film (If the 2019 film isn;t getting an Avengers title) giving the newer additions to the MCU an opportunity to bond as a team so we get more than one Avengers team when they take on Thanos, as well as the Guardians Of The Galaxy and hopefully the Inhumans too

 

[Mike Murdock]

If Avengers hits on May 4th 2018 I'd be real disappointed. They have an opportunity to really expand their universe before the big face off with Thanos, and to not take it would be a mistake in my eyes

Why would they need to expand the universe before they face off with Thanos as opposed to after? They'll obviously do more after either way.

 

[Marvelocity]

Why would they need to expand the universe before they face off with Thanos as opposed to after? They'll obviously do more after either way.

Well, the Thanos story line encompasses practically the entire Marvel universe considering he kills half of it.

 

[Dasher10]

Kevin Feige said that Black Panther and Captain Marvel are more requested than Avengers 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fp-EqpEedY

That plus reports that Carol Danvers gets a cameo in Age of Ultron kind of confirms that these two are in Phase 3.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, the Thanos story line encompasses practically the entire Marvel universe considering he kills half of it.

Then they come back to life.

 

[Sexy Magician]

I'm pretty sure they'll go with Captain Marvel over Ms. Marvel. The latter (IMO) contains a mildly sexist overtone wherein she's somewhat defined by her gender. I'm sure that wasn't necessarily the intention when they introduced the character, but it does come from a time time when female characters were often prefixed with a "Miss" and black characters with "Black".

Gender-centric overtones aside, in any case, Marvel seems to be going with the "Captain Marvel" moniker for Carol Danvers across all platforms. I'm reasonably sure that they'll go with Captain Marvel for consistent branding purposes, if nothing else.
)

That's not what the Invisible WOMAN said, or MR Fantastic, or IronMAN, Carol Danvers is Ms. Marvel and always will be IMO.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Then they come back to life.

Exactly. There's no point in doing the story at all though if there's nobody the audience is invested in killed in the first place though.

With a 2hr 45 film they could easily have Thanos acquire the completed Infinity Gauntlet, whatever the Avengers are doing.

Then Thanos wipes out half the universe- the Defenders, Guardians, Inhumans, Agents of SHIELD, Asgard, Nova Corps etc all die with little cameoes. Then we've got a world that feels expansive amd sprawling suddenly killed, all those hours poured in down the drain.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I think killing off half the Avengers would do a decent job with that as well, but to each his own. I just think the evidence suggests a 2018 release date for A3 and I think that's sufficient to tell the story effectively.

 

[Dasher10]

I think killing off half the Avengers would do a decent job with that as well, but to each his own. I just think the evidence suggests a 2018 release date for A3 and I think that's sufficient to tell the story effectively.

I feel like the evidence says otherwise. Avengers won't release in any other month than May or June. Marvel's 2018 date was announced only because Sony canceled Spider-Man. Otherwise, there would be no May Marvel release.

Plus with Feige talking about Inhumans, Black Panther and Captain Marvel and possibly even lining up a shortlist of people to handle the former and Thor 3 confirmed, I can't see Phase 3 happening in 2018 unless it's the holiday date which Marvel would never use for Avengers since summer movies get the highest returns. And the new 2018 date was probably a Hulk sequel or a Black Widow movie.