-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Captain America: Civil War | Production Thread
- Thread starter GAMEPROFF
- Start date
- Status
Predictions straight from 2005.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BpGjnivMVc&index=125&list=WL
Being the 5th highest grossing film in history (AoU will be #3 or #2) will be seen as a disappointment?
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
"Winter Soldier" made $714 million, why would "Civil War", featuring Cap, Iron Man, and now Spiderman, somehow make less? It's more likely to hit a billion than make less than Winter Soldier.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
MovieBob kinda sounds like Bruce Campbell. Kinda.
Marvel already announced they were pushed back...Panther moved from Nov '17 to July '18, and Captain Marvel moved from July to Nov '18.
Don't know why that's prefaced with "word on the street is..." since Marvel put out a press release about it themselves. :lol
Especially because Robert Downey and Spider-Man are going to be in it...
Father_Brain
Banned
I continue to think that Spidey having more than a cameo in Civil War is a very questionable assumption given the (pre- and actual) production timetable, but I guess it can't be that much longer before we get some clarification.
ha. I thought he was referring to future unannounced properties but if it is those two...
loooool
badcrumble
Member
It's probably gonna be a better movie than Age of Ultron, at least. And much more focused, I'm guessing. I could see this one doing pretty gangbusters (and I think it may be a mistake for people to assume that AoU is automatically going to do better than the first Avengers film).
What makes you say that?
Father_Brain
Banned
Yeah, my biggest concern about AoU is the risk of so much Phase 3 setup that it loses sight of its own main storyline. Less so the Civil War setup, which sounds like it follows pretty organically out of the main plotline, more so the possible Inhumans and all-but-confirmed Ragnarok and Black Panther stuff.
(Also, to a slightly lesser degree, that Whedon is increasing the size of the team by 50% when he couldn't even do justice to all six members in the first film.)
To me, it seems like Age of Ultron will be very focused and not lose sight of its own plot.
I can understand those thinking it won't do more than the original Avengers though, as that was the first ensemble movie, and some might not have come out liking it as much. I surely didn't think The Avengers were a strong movie, but I can also see Age of Ultron doing better numbers honestly. Only time will tell.
I can understand those thinking it won't do more than the original Avengers though, as that was the first ensemble movie, and some might not have come out liking it as much. I surely didn't think The Avengers were a strong movie, but I can also see Age of Ultron doing better numbers honestly. Only time will tell.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I'm sure Age of Ultron will be fine in itself. I feel like it's a paving stone for better things mind, as Avengers 1 was for Winter Soldier & Guardians.
badcrumble
Member
Outside of the fact that the Russo brothers are better at this than Joss Whedon -
They're both taking on a lot of story material, but in AoU you've got Hydra, Ultron, the introduction of the twins, Wakanda, Ulysses Klaw, Vision, and apparently some Asgard material too. That's a LOT of very disparate things to cram into a film compared to the first Avengers, and it's got a shorter running time too apparently.
Civil War seems likely to be much more about the consequences of things we've already seen and restricted solely to Earthly characters. It's still expansive, but it's much less likely to buckle under its own weight than AoU is, if only because AoU is doing so very much.
badcrumble
Member
I must have misread that when I read about it, as I thought it was precisely the other way around.
That's honestly a huge relief. It'll need it.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Yeah, Age of Ultron is probably going to be as long as TDKR, if not a TAD longer.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
The leaked description of that scene over in the production thread (if true) has me more than hyped for Ultron.
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
I think they confirmed(?) the running time earlier this month and it was about 5 minutes shorter than TDKR, 160 minutes. That's still crazy long. Hope it's not going to drag in parts.
SuperEpicMan
Banned
I posted this in the Spidey thread, I hope they do something similar.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
lol at Joss Whedon being a bar-raiser.
When your film has people wanting a new take on Batman you have indeed raised the bar.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
So Joel Schumacher?
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I'll never understand the brand fatigue comments, personally.
I used to watch Batman, Spider-Man and X-Men cartoons every Saturday as a kid. When they were over, I was fiending for more. And I got more.. the next week. and the week after. and the week after.
What I'm trying to say is, give me monthly Marvel/comic book movies. I'm in there. If anything, there's not enough Marvel movies ever year, damn it.
As for the general public, I don't think they'll get sick of them any time soon. The genre has been going strong since X-Men 1 in 2000. Stinkers have hurt the genre (Batman and Robin, X-Men 3/Wolverine Origins, Fantastic Four 2, Ghostrider and other D-tier heroes), but release a good followup and it's all forgotten and back to making billions again (Dark Knight, Days of Future Past).
Excitement for comic book films seems higher than ever at the moment. I would have said the only exception is with Sony's Spider-Man films, but obviously that problem has been fixed
I used to watch Batman, Spider-Man and X-Men cartoons every Saturday as a kid. When they were over, I was fiending for more. And I got more.. the next week. and the week after. and the week after.
What I'm trying to say is, give me monthly Marvel/comic book movies. I'm in there. If anything, there's not enough Marvel movies ever year, damn it.
As for the general public, I don't think they'll get sick of them any time soon. The genre has been going strong since X-Men 1 in 2000. Stinkers have hurt the genre (Batman and Robin, X-Men 3/Wolverine Origins, Fantastic Four 2, Ghostrider and other D-tier heroes), but release a good followup and it's all forgotten and back to making billions again (Dark Knight, Days of Future Past).
Excitement for comic book films seems higher than ever at the moment. I would have said the only exception is with Sony's Spider-Man films, but obviously that problem has been fixed
Goddamn. lol
Suit us up, Uncle Alfred.
Weapxn
Mikkelsexual
Movies stay profitable for longer than four weeks though, typically, especially if you have some sort of juggernaut like Iron Man 3 or The Avengers. If Marvel started releasing one each month, they would only be hurting themselves.
Going the various medium route like they are with shows on ABC and Netflix in addition to films is for the best. If anything, they could try to ramp up their Netflix output once Daredevil and Jessica Jones prove to be hits.
Well it's not just those two. Excluding Avengers, every Phase 3 movie from Thor and on got pushed back to accommodate Spider-Man.
Well, of course it's not actually a viable strategy. 3 MCU films a year seems to be the plan going forward, and I don't think you can realistically squeeze another into the schedule.
I just want more!
I definitely like the various medium route. Hopefully the Netflix shows are a big success.
SketchTheArtist
Member
Yeah, it's gonna be about balancing it all with the movie and tv releases. You don't want the audience to be too hungry, but you also don't want them completely filled, just enough to always make them wanting a bit more.
4-5 months between every big Marvel movie is a nice balance.
EDIT: What also really helps is the story and universe it takes place in is also moving forward and evolving.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Nah, they can do a trillion if they turn RDJ into an Asian using CG and he beats down Cap many times.
China will call it Chinese movie of the century.
RDJ knows how to commit to a role.
Weapxn
Mikkelsexual
I'm fine with that. I actually think it would be sort of great to just do some more one offs like The Incredible Hulk. Build the universe, introduce more characters, and maybe down the line if opportunity comes for a great sequel, then you can finally do one. While The Incredible Hulk 2 might be fun, what could be even more fun is letting the cosmic side of the MCU continue to build and eventually get Ruffalo to do a World War Hulk film.
Keep thinking that until it does $800 million and then they'll find a way.
Father_Brain
Banned
There's literally no room for a sequel until late 2019. They're not going to shuffle around release dates again.
Quite honestly, I think Marvel has already written it off, as a one-off if not necessarily at the box office. Its near-complete absence from the October fan event, and the odd decision to "move" it from the beginning of Phase 3 to the end of Phase 2, seems telling.
I assume you mean NY comic con? The schedule was tight and they were busy filming, don't know why you were expecting much. I also don't see why having it end phase 2 instead of beginning phase 3 would lead you to believe that, especially when it comes out a couple months after AoU and with how massive Civil War has become.
Also you are starting to see the toy line for Ant-man emerge.
They were still filming, they didn't have enough to show for it. Unless you count the SDCC teaser.
Eh, basicly there has nothing changed? Its still the movie After Avenger 2, like always.
obin_gam
Member
I'm a bit worried for the lesser known heroes now that Spidey is in Marvels hands again.
I am more looking forward to the new heroe-films than yet another Spider-Man flick.
I had no problem with the MCU not including Spidey simply for the fact that I find new and original characters and stories more engaging than to rehash the same heroes again and again.
Spidey should have to wait until after Infinity War 2 imo. Stop cuttnig in line you douchebag!
I am more looking forward to the new heroe-films than yet another Spider-Man flick.
I had no problem with the MCU not including Spidey simply for the fact that I find new and original characters and stories more engaging than to rehash the same heroes again and again.
Spidey should have to wait until after Infinity War 2 imo. Stop cuttnig in line you douchebag!
What should change? Its one movie more for each phase and since Marvel makes no money from the Spider-Man movies directly, why should they not push the movies with franchises they actually own.
You should all relax...
obin_gam
Member
They just moved every movie except the Avengers ones 6 months forward. Whats stopping them from keep moving movies that arent Spider-Man centric forward into infinity (no pun intended).
Arent they though? Why wouldn't they make money from him?
Yup, Marvel doesn't see a dime from any of the Spider-Man movies, but they get money from any non-solo-Spidey movies they make (I.E. Civil War). But Marvel's still the designated driver for the Spider-Man car Sony owns seeing as Sony's too drunk to do it themselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked