Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics publications/Archive 1

Cloak and Dagger

I was looking forward to this film but it has been removed from the list. Does this mean it has been canceled or was it deleted for a different reason? I'm a big fan of these characters and I need some piece of mind! Please give me an answer! Captain la rose (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in the List

This is only for Marvel Universe-related properties, right?

The following are not based on Marvel Universe properties, but were done by publishers that were later acquired by Marvel (such as Malibu Comics). I feel this makes them ineligible for this article.

• Men in Black (1997) (by Aircel Comics, which was acquired by Malibu Comics, which was later acquired by Marvel Comics)
• Men in Black II (2002) (same as above)
• NightMan (1997, TV movie) (by Malibu Comics, which was later acquired by Marvel Comics)
• NightMan (1997, TV series) (by Malibu Comics, which was later acquired by Marvel Comics)

Also, Darkman and sequels are not Marvel properties, though Marvel did publish a licensed 3-part movie adaptation and 6-part limited series.

KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park is not a Marvel Comics-based movie, despite the fact that KISS did appear in the Howard the Duck series. DS 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Malibu was acquired by Marvel prior to initial development of the television series; shouldn't that qualify it as a Marvel property for the purposes of this article? --Mhking 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorising films

This film is listed as "The Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased)" in the 1944-1988 category at the beginning of the entry. This film should be listed in the Unreleased category instead.

I've added released/unreleased to the pre-1998 category and moved the unreleased F4 movie into the pre-1998 unreleased category. By the way, what is the reason for spliting the list at 1998? Does it have something to do with the launch of Marvel Entertainment? Journeyman 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Daredevil 2

Avi Arad's said in interviews that there will NOT be a DD2, that marvel learned from it's mistakes. I'll try to find some cites, but any idea that there will be a DD2 is fan hopes, not Avi's words.ThuranX 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That quote you mentioned was in reference to "Elektra 2," not Daredevil 2. --Bishop2 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Old/New Era

Now that a TV section has been created, there is no point in having old/new era. Therefore, do not add those headings. --Jamdav86 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet there is a real difference in the quality of movies prior to the release of Blade (cf. Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.). Journeyman 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Quality is irrelevant. List length is the only reason it should be split up, and all that you split off are five articles, which seems silly to me. --Jamdav86 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't split the list. I have no citations but have a feeling it's probably linked to Marvel's recovery from financial difficulties in the 90's; and can be seen in Marvel's current aggresive development of live action movies from it's character roster. Journeyman 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan films

I have removed the beginnings of a list of fan films:

== List of Marvel Fan Films == 
*Spider-man: The Peril of Doc Ock (Lego, 2004) 

I do not believe it fits the scope of this page - definitely listcruft turf... Ah having now searched for it and found the production details here. I would say the cited production is not a fan film but promotional video. Cool certainly, but I'm still not sure it fits the scope of this page. Perhaps the film could be cited in the Spiderman 2 article. Journeyman 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreleased film under Released heading?

Doesn't it seem a little contradictory to list Fantastic Four (1994, unreleased) under the Released heading? I'm not saying that the film shouldn't be listed, I'm saying maybe we should rename the heading, although I'm not sure to what? Completed was about the only thing I could think of. Joltman 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Punisher (1989)

Should the 1989 Punisher film be added to the list of marvel feature films? - RVDDP2501 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The list is incomplete. 惑乱 分からん 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Revamped list

I revamped the list. First of all, every movie under Released movies belongs there. If there is some reason you don't think they do, discuss it here. But there were Marvel films before Blade, I don't understand why they keep getting deleted. As for upcoming films, if the film already has an article, leave it as a link, but if it doesn't have an article, it needs a source. -Joltman 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Crossover Films

Has anyone heard of any Marvel properties in possible crossover films? I.E. Spiderman and Hulk or Wolverine and Punisher? There were quite a few match ups in the comics that I can rememeber(too many to remember), but with this whole Civil War series being so popular, I thought we'd be seeing cameos or short roles for different properties in the films so they can start bringing forth the notion that these individual heroes are not the only ones on the planet. Perhaps Spiderman making mention of the Fantastic Four or Hulk, since there characters created news worthy stories within their own individual movies. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.68.241.2 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Deadpool

The Marvel Comics antihero Deadpool was licensed to New Line Cinema years ago.

Dr. Strange on template

Why is Dr. Strange in the template below? it was a movie for TV, shouldn't we then add Nick Fury's Movie with David Hasselhof and that Generation X movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.23.91.9 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Man Thing and Nick Fury

Someone removed them as they were Tv-Movies, but Man Thing was made for a theatrical release, and even an unreleased movie made it on to the list! Surely we can include them or man-thing at least, even if with a note saying they were TV only movies? Or are they definatley to stay on the programmes list (which in all essence they are not, unlike the hulk films for example which were longer versions of the series) Cactusrob 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The way it is setup, List of television programs based on Marvel Comics includes any movie that debuted on TV. There should not be any duplication of movies, so if it belongs on that list, it can't be on this list. If you think we should sort them differently, feel free to let us know how. -Joltman 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well possibly move the stand alone movies (i.e Man-Thing) to this list, and leave the "movies" (extended tv episodes) on the other. So that would mean bring Man-Thing, Generation X, Power Pack and Nick Fury over to this list possibly. Cactusrob 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I was thinking along the same lines as you. The only thing stopping me was how to describe the difference. I guess the qualification would be if they were directly related to a TV series. Of course, then there's the issue of the 'pilot' movies that weren't picked up as a series. I would be fine with bringing over Dr. Strange, Captain America, Captain America II: Death Too Soon, Power Pack, Generation X, Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Man-Thing (2005) and then just leaving the Spider-Man and Hulk movies over there. Sound good? -Joltman 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great Cactusrob 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Strange, Captain America, Power Pack, Generation X, Nick Fury and Spider-Man and the Hulk were all created FOR television. That's probably the most obvious difference. Man-Thing was created as a direct-to-DVD release, just like the animated films; if we're going to include the animated films in this template, there's no question that Man-Thing should be as well. --Bishop2 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Production companies

Me and another user have conflicting opinions about whether the production companies should be listed here. My thought is that they should not be, because that information is not necessary as the purpose of this list is just to show you what films have been/will be made based on Marvel Comics. The company that makes the film is irrelevant. Also, you can find out which company produced the film on its' own article. Anyone else can feel free to express their opinion -Joltman 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you made this, friend. I was wondering what your thoughts were exactly. Personally, I feel that the distributors are an interesting additional bit of info, which is something I thought was good to have, as the page previously did. Also, when I first saw the distributors (when they were previously added) I found it interesting to see how Marvel has tried to become more involved for future cross-promotional movies (i.e. The Avengers). It's just a tiny extra bit of interesting info in my opinion, is all. -Harish101 00:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone just reverted my edit to list Lions Gate under Man-Thing because they "only distributed" the movie. While that's true, the same is also true of The Punisher; it was produced by Artisan and distributed by Lions Gate later. In both cases, this was because Artisan was already underway with filming on these projects when they were bought out by Lions Gate. So the question becomes - should Lions Gate be mentioned on EITHER of these projects? Or Artisan, for that matter, since they no longer existed by the time the films came out? I'm in favor of listing both companies for both films. But it cetainly makes no sense to only have ONE company for one film and BOTH for the other... --Bishop2 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

According to IMDB, both Artisan and Lions Gate were producers on Punisher but only Artisan was a producer on Man-Thing. Do you have a source that claims otherwise? -Joltman 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean just for Lions Gate's connection to Man-Thing? Well, the film has their logo on the front of it before the opening titles, with no sign of Artisan's logo. As I said, this is probably just because it came out after the buyout, but it still connects them to the film. The Amazon page for Man-Thing also has the "Studio" listed solely as "Lions Gate," if you want a hard web citation. And since our header simply says "Studio," that leaves a lot of room for interpretation on what kind of studio we're talking about here. I think filming was still going on during the buyout, but I'm not sure - if the filming was finished by the time Lions Gate bought Artisan, does that mean we view it solely as an Artisan film? If that's the case, I still think we should consider renaming the heading if nothing else. Changing "studio" to "production company" or something more specific that labels them as more than a distributor. --Bishop2 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

the question of a Marvel Movie Universe

Is there anything in the Marvel movies that contradicts the interpretation that they exist in the same universe? Have any of the various director's commentaries or production documentaries mentioned a "marvel universe" when referring to the movies? Is there any evidence either way? 218.215.146.184 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people are amazed by the powers and abilities evidence by Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four obviously implies that such a thing is not normal in those universes. I.e., mutants most likely do not exist in the worlds of those films, so they're in the same continuity as the X-Men films. Or at least not the same time frame - remember, X-Men takes place in the "not too distant future," after all. Aside from that fact, I don't think there's any evidence for or against this. No one ever talks about the possibility in any commentaries on the DVDs or in the documentaries. Although I suppose it's interesting that J. Jonah Jameson mentions the existence of Dr. Strange in Spider-Man 2. --Bishop2 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the comics but don't they have similar problems? People hating mutants for their powers but liking Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. Mutants tend to hide from the public to avoid persecution. It's not everyday that someone uses their special powers to save people's lives in a spectacular way. I think that's what really amazes people. I used to watch the various Marvel animated series in the 90s and there wasn't a single mention of mutants in Spider-Man until one episode where he teamed up with the X-Men and one character wondered whether Spider-Man was also a mutant. The "not too distant future" is unlikely to be more than 10 years considering the age of Magneto. 218.215.138.243 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Shang-Chi

I noticed Shang-Chi wasnt mentioned in the list of planned movies is there a reason for this that im not aware of?

Red Sonja

I'm not sure why Red Sonja is listed here. While there was a Red Sonja Marvel comic, the character is owned by the Robert E. Howard estate as part of the Conan property. I've taken the liberty of removing it. Ttenchantr 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed this out, I was wondering what ties Red Sonja actually had to Marvel. => Harish101 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But if you go to the Red Sonja article, you'll see that it says Red Sonja is based on the character Red Sonya created by Howard. I admit it's kind of a grey area, but I figure if the character has a different spelling and is 'based on' the original, that means it is a Marvel character. -Joltman 12:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic Four 3

So someone added an uncited thing about this film and I've not heard nothing about the development of it (as far as I know, they intend to concentrate on the Silver Surfer films now), even though Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer states on its page that the actors are signed up for three films. Just wondering if it's OK for us common folk to happily delete, or does it need to be discussed. Asking for future reference really. => Harish101 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thor release date

I just picked up the new issue of Wizard and it says the movie to be released in 2009, so I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.4.107 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Released films in sortable format

Hey guys, just thought about the idea of making the released section sortable, so it'll appear like this:

Film	Year	Production studio	Notes
Captain America	1944	Republic Pictures	serial; Marvel was then known as Timely Comics
Dr. Strange	1978	Universal TV	TV movie
Captain America	1979	Universal TV	TV movie
Captain America II: Death Too Soon	1979	Universal TV	TV movie
Howard the Duck	1986	Universal Studios
The Punisher	1989	New World Pictures	direct-to-video
Power Pack	1991	New World Entertainment	TV movie; unreleased
Captain America	1991	21st Century Film	direct-to-video
Fantastic Four	1994	New Horizons	unreleased
Generation X	1996	New World Entertainment	TV movie
Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.	1998	20th Century Fox Television	TV movie
Blade	1998	New Line Cinema
X-Men	2000	20th Century Fox
Blade II	2002	New Line Cinema
Spider-Man	2002	Columbia Pictures
Daredevil	2003	20th Century Fox
X2	2003	20th Century Fox
Hulk	2003	Universal Studios
The Punisher	2004	Lions Gate Films / Artisan Entertainment
Spider-Man 2	2004	Columbia Pictures
Blade: Trinity	2004	New Line Cinema
Man-Thing	2005	Artisan Entertainment	Planned as direct-to-video, but premiered on TV
Elektra	2005	20th Century Fox
Fantastic Four	2005	20th Century Fox
Ultimate Avengers	2006	Lions Gate Entertainment	animated, direct-to-video
X-Men: The Last Stand	2006	20th Century Fox
Ultimate Avengers 2	2006	Lions Gate Entertainment	animated, direct-to-video
The Invincible Iron Man	2007	Lions Gate Entertainment	animated, direct-to-video
Ghost Rider	2007	Columbia Pictures
Spider-Man 3	2007	Columbia Pictures
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer	2007	20th Century Fox
Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme	2007	Lions Gate Entertainment	animated, direct-to-video

Benefits for this would allow being able to find a superhero easier (by name), to put back in order (by year) and, (should someone want) to be able to search studio. Just an idea. -- Harish - 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The only thing is, and maybe I'm just a bit anal, but if you sort by name and then by Year, the movies are alphabetical by year rather than the actual order. For example, 2007 should go Iron Man, Ghost Rider, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Dr Strange, but if you click on Name and then Year, it goes DS, FF, GR, SM, IM. -Joltman (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. How about the most recent ones, from Blade (which we'd know by release date) we put a full date in for? it can work in DD-MM-YYYY format, side by side with the films that have just the years. The different date stylings are here: Help:Sorting#Dates... what do you think? -- Harish - 01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies

Awesome little film, not for those who can't handle blood.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24033837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.65.218 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A few little renames for articles.

Would renaming the following articles to the recommended title cause too much of an uproar? - LA @ 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Four film series	to	Fantastic Four (film series)
Spider-Man film series	to	Spider-Man (film series)
X-Men film series	to	X-Men (film series)

I don't see why it would be a problem. -Joltman (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea - would make the film series' feel more uniform with many others I've seen. -- Harish - 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dormant films

Do we want to have some kind of rule-of-thumb in regards to movies announced that haven't had any activity in a while? Like, if there's no new activity in the last three years, then take it off the list? -Joltman (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea to have some sort of decision on this. As it stands we have an edit war over whether Luke Cage and similar films will magically be made before Iron Man 2 etc Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The incredible hulk movies,

These should be listed in with the made for tv movies, as the first was the pilot for the show, and the other three continuations of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.95.157 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Men In Black

Actually, there's a reasonable argument for including these two films; in fact, the opening credits of both state "Based on the Marvel comic". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I think you should add them on the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.87.107 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be on the list. Marvel wasnt the birth mother of the Men in Black comics. Men in Black was created by Lowell Cunningham and was originally published in Aircel Comics. This entry states that "Aircel would later be bought out by Malibu Comics, which itself was bought out by Marvel Comics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.13.56 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Shady Talez

Eminem's movie doesn't belong here. It's not based on comics, it's just having a tie-in promotional miniseries released at time of film release - if it gets made. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Sonja?

Red Sonja (1985), a spin-off of the Conan movies. She first appeared in Conan the Barbarian #23 (Marvel Comics). Although the Conan character is a Marvel comic, the movies are based closer to the source material by writer Robert E. Howard. The character of Sonja however is a Marvel creation. The is a new Red Sonja movie to be released in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.226.184 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The film is called Red Sonja, not Red Sonya (the characer in the Marvel comic), therefore it is logical to assume it is based on the Red Sonja comics by Dynamite_Entertainment so, in my opinion, it does not belong here. Planewalker Dave (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. The character in the Marvel comic is named Red Sonja. Red Sonya refers to Red Sonya of Rogatino in Robert E. Howard's short story "The Shadow of the Vulture" (The Magic Carpet, January 1934). Roy Thomas used the Red Sonya character for inspiration in creating Red Sonja stories for Marvel Comics, but they are not the same character. Besides tweaking the spelling of her name, Thomas transformed her from a sword- and pistol-wielding supporting character of the late Renaissance into a sword-wielding heroine of Conan's prehistoric Hyborian Age. Red Sonja currently appears in her own series by Dynamite Entertainment, but when the Red Sonja film was released, it was based on Marvel's Conan the Barbarian series in which Red Sonja appeared - therefore, the film meets the requirements for inclusion here.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why in the article of this movie does not mention that is based on a Marvel comic?OscarFercho (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The page has been updated to reflect this information. For a more detailed history of the character, see http://www.comicvine.com/red-sonja/29-2439/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osubuckeyeguy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

3 Dev Adam

I never heard of this movie until literally 30 minutes ago. It's a supposedly really bad Turkish B-Movie from 1973. Basically, the plot is this: Spider-Man and his gang are terrorizing Istanbul, so the authorities call in Captain America and (El) Santo, the famous Mexican wrestler. The characters in the movie vary greatly from those in the comics, but the official movie poster leaves no doubt that the characters in the movie are intended to be the Marvel characters. Since this was most likely made without the consent (or knowledge) of Marvel, should this be included in the list? Brendanmccabe (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is an unauthorized movie using Marvel characters. It is equivalent to a fan film, and those aren't listed on here either.-5- (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1970s Spiderman films released abroad

This page lists films based on Marvel comics that have received a theatrical release. Three films in the late 70s that we made from footage from the Spider-man television show received a limited release outside the U.S. These films were produced and distributed by a different company than the television show. Editing together material from another source changes the media into something different that stands alone. To fail to include films just because they did not receive a theatrical release in the US is to have a western-centric bias with regard to content inclusions. WP editors are encouraged to take a neutral a point of view, which means writing without a local bias. Each of these films has their own IMDB entry because they are, in fact, separate from the television show from a historical perspective, even though the content is shared. If you grew up in one of the countries where these movies were released in the theater, you would expect to see them appear on this page. It is helpful if editors who wish to express an opinion on this matter weigh in on the talk page before deleting other people's good-faith edits. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not qualify for inclusion. Display outside the U.S. as movies were purely circumstantial, but are not really movies.OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A feature-length film production released to theaters anywhere in the world is a movie. The fact that the content initially appeared on television in the US warrants a note, but does not disqualify it from the list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That movies it's an episodes from a TV series, and nothing change that. Or yes?OscarFercho (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Announced and in-development movies

This list is getting pretty long and new things are being added to it ridiculously often. Some are genuine, others not so much. My suggestion is that for each movie on the list there should be at least one cite to say where the information comes from. Planewalker Dave (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it substantially to include stuff for which there is actually significant evidence in reliable sources that the films are actually being made, as the fan speculation was getting ridiculous. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include X-Men Origins: Magneto and X-Men First Class in the list of upcoming movies and Ant-Man as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.87.107 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We should add Ghost Rider 2

No, we shouldn't. There's no proof at all that anything will actually be made, just a few people talking so far. That's not sufficient for inclusion. We have far more evidence that Marvel will be making Thor and Avengers, and those aren't listed yet. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the upcoming deadpool film scheduled for 2011 15:12 10 may 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.116.63 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This would warrant inclusion if a reputable source announced that the movie would be released then. At this point, I don't think that there has even been confirmation of a script yet. Once the movie is actively in development and references can be provided, it will be added to the list.Eshaeffer (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We should add "Deathlok" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2" in the ANNOUNCED segment for the year 2011. Heres a link to the IMDB of Deathlok and X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2. And we should also add "Deadpool" and "Venom" to the ANNOUNCED segment, aswell. Just not certain of the year. It seems more probable that the year may be 2012. Heres some information on Deadpool and Venom. Also Ghost Rider 2 SHOULD be added and listed as in-development for a 2011 release. Heres a few sites that acknowledge the development of Ghost Rider 2, the IMDB and a confirmed source from a scifi website scifimoviepage.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.13.56 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having an IMDb page does not make it worthy of having it listed. The Luke Cage film had an IMDb page for about 5 years and we haven't heard anything about that since the original announcement. The general rule that seems to be followed is that once it gets a release date, then it gets added. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Green Lantern" should be added to the list. It is currently being filmed and will be released in 2011. here is the IMDB information about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.7.139 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's DC not Marvel. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the issue of movies that could be classified as "in development" since my edits made in good-faith were recently reverted by OscarFercho. I agree with Planewalker Dave that an IMDB page is not a satisfactory reference for rumored films that may never get made. In my recent edit (as 24.160.174.245), I added a series of rows for planned films and provided references for each film that I included (I also made it clear that these films had not yet been announced by the studios). Additionally, I edited or included references for films currently listed as "announced." References were not simply links to rumor sites - they were trade publications and sites that included interviews with the films' likely directors. By entirely reverting the edits, not only were planned films with references removed (which I suspect were the one's taken issue with), but also a number of additional references, which added value to the page. Since rumored films are added to this page all the time without references, I suspect that this revert was made reflexively, without much regard for the specific nature of my contribution. If so, this seems problematic since the referenced films met the criteria for inclusion discussed on this talk page. I included films for which a director has been hired and/or a script has been written, which would be consistent with a film in development. I did not add any of the other rumored films based on Marvel characters that are unable to meet this criteria (e.g., Magneto, Luke Cage, Deadpool, Spiderman 4, Venom). The justification given by OscarFercho for the revert was "That makes confussion" (sic) and "Please, don't introduced speculative films, its brings confussion" (sic). I do not feel like these comments were an appropriate response to my contribution, so I wish to hear from those who can offer a constructive point of view. Eshaeffer (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See similar comments to this effect and suggestions about consistency across pages here: Talk:Marvel Studios.Eshaeffer (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Films without director or release date, actually have a status of unconfirmed. This is not a list of unconfirmed films.OscarFercho (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear what your criteria is for determining whether films are "unconfirmed" or "confirmed". I provided references for the films that I added, which discussed directors and script writers. In several cases, the script for the movie has been written, which would seem to meet the criteria for films in development. You seem to have no problem with listing films in development that have been announced. I am simply suggesting that we include a separate section for planned films that have not yet been announced by the studios, but can be confirmed by references to original sources. Kevin Fiege, the president of Marvel Studios (as recently as April 26th, 2010) has said that yes, Ant Man is in development (see reference #3). I indicated that the release date for this film is TBA, so this should not be confusing at all. Films like Wolverine 2 and X-Men: First Class appear on pages for Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios, so my reasoning is that this list page should be using the same rule of thumb that editors of those pages seem to be using. It would also be helpful if I could better understand why my edits were entirely reverted, when some of the changes included providing references for movies in development that have been announced. Entirely reverting someone's edits seems to suggest that you did not think the contribution was made in good faith, which mine was. Rigid gatekeepers who revert edits without thoughtful consideration of the contribution would seem to discourage the collaborative spirit this website requires.Eshaeffer (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have yet again removed the WP:CRYSTAL violating 'list of planned to maybe someday or not at all happen' list. None of the films on there are in pre-production, the actual stage that has long been the standard for this page. 'Announced' or 'In Discussion' aren't sufficient. Ant Man, Power Man/Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi, all have been 'rumored to be starting REALLLLLY soon' for about a decade. None of them are moving. Now that there's word Pym will be in Avengers, it's highly unlikely that all the previous rumors and off-hand comments about Ant-Man are holding any water now, and most didn't hold a drop before, either. Until we're hearing about signed contracts for directors and actors, we shouldn't even be discussing their inclusions on this page. Oscar was right to remove the list, and I support his action by repeating it now. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the action, for the reasons set.OscarFercho (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If the president of Marvel Studios has said that a film is in development, and a director and screenwriters have been hired (see Ant-Man), I am having trouble seeing how a film does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Signed contracts for actors are not necessary for a film to be classified as film in development. This doesn't mean that any rumored film belongs on the list - that is why the films you cite (Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi) were not included. I see that this might be a losing battle, however, so I will respect the more conservative and less speculative approach to editing being advocated here. There should at least be consistency, though, across multiple Marvel pages. I hope ThuranX will agree that planned films should be removed from the pages for Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios just as they were here. Also, if being in pre-production is the criteria for this page, then X-Men: First Class, The Avengers, and the Untitled Spider-Man Reboot should be removed from this list as well until reliable sources confirm that pre-production has begun.Eshaeffer (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tiny note: I think First Class qualifies as being in pre-production given that casting as begun (i.e., James McAvoy) Planewalker Dave (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to get this straight, also might be good for clarification, the threshold for adding films to this is pre-production? If not, as already stated Wolverine 2, Deadpool and Ant-Man are in active development (Ant-Man could be considered in pre, since it has a director). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have picked up on the same inconsistency that I did as well. Even though this talk page seems to suggest that films that are actively being developed are appropriate for this list, some editors do not agree. That would, of course, make you assume then that films must be in pre-production for them to qualify, but that doesn't seem to be true either. I have heard nothing about scripts being written for The Avengers or the Spider-Man Reboot, and have heard of a script for Ant-Man, but these two make the list and Ant-Man does not. Basically, what I've learned is that to avoid getting in an edit war with self-appointed page guardians OscarFercho and ThuranX, a film has to have been officially announced by a major studio. Even if the head of Marvel comics says a film is in development, it won't make the list until the film is officially announced. All of the references in the world won't please this crowd unless this "official announcement" criteria is met. The stage of the film in the production process is apparently irrelevant as far as others are concerned.Eshaeffer (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers does have a script. The first draft has been completed by Zak Penn and is currently being rewritten by Joss Whedon. I dont know about the Spidey reboot as I havent been following it but yea I think we must establish a concensus for a clear threshold.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that Runaways is in pre also.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance? It is supposed to start filming in the next three months. Surely it can be assumed that it has entered pre-production,--121.212.133.48 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it have a confirmed release date? If not, then it shouldn't be added.-5- (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous: Venom, Ant-Man, Dr Strange, X-Men Origins: Magneto, Deadpool, Wolverine 2, Deathlok, Runaways, Luke Cage, etc seem to all be unconfirmed. Can they really be making these on top of all those others coming out in the next 2-3 years?(Thor, Avengers, Iron Man 3, new Spider-Man, Ghost Rider 2, X-Men: First Class, Cap. America...) I've found lots of those unconfirmed ones mentioned in various wiki character articles and lists. Does anybody actually know? Maybe we should do a unconfirmed/rumoured section, sounds stupid I know but I think it makes sense, and I've seem similar around wikia before. 86.144.135.89 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia policy to deal with unconfirmed rumors.-5- (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should add the Daredevil reboot because it's already confirmed and there righting it so i dont see why we shouldn't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.102.137 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe Rise of Cobra

Shouldn't GI Joe be on this list. I know the film is not affiliated with Marvel Studios (Hasbro, if anything), but it is based on a Marvel comic. Does that count for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhale9382 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. See G.I. Joe (comics). All Marvel comics featuring these characters were based on the Hasbro toy line of the same name. Therefore, all GI Joe movies should be considered to be based on the toy line as well. The characters in the Hasbro line were based on characters appearing in comic strips as early as the 1940s, long before the Marvel series began. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise we would be putting the Transformers and Star Wars movies on, as they are quite similar situations. Perhaps we should consider doing another section and including them in it along with GI Joe, Films Based on Franchises/Characters that Marvel has Published Comics About, hmm maybe not that title 86.144.135.89 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk movies

Should the first two Incredible Hulk movies be listed here? It did air as a two-hour movies event, but it aired as part of the regular TV series season. I think that it does not qualify to be listed on Television films section of the page because it is a part of the regular TV series season, and not were played together (back-to-back) in reruns. The Incredible Hulk Returns, The Trial of the Incredible Hulk and The Death of the Incredible Hulk It's a television movies since of release, but the "first two" not.OscarFercho (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tough call. My initial impulse is to say they should follow whatever we did about the 2 Captain America movies, and the early Spidermans. .. Let me think on it a bit.ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Documentaries and featurettes?

Is there any interest including a list of documentaries that discuss Marvel properties (e.g., With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story)? Or what about featurettes that have appeared on Marvel film DVD releases (these often have their own IMDB pages; e.g., X-Men: The Excitement Continues, The Secret Origin of X-Men)?

It could be done similarly to how the section is on the List of films based on DC Comics article, which is to just list officially produced documentaries that have been released individually. That would rule out any DVD featurettes.-5- (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Sonja and Men in Black

Should Red Sonja (1985 film) be listed here? Its not a Marvel property. While Marvel was publishing the characters comic book at the time, she was licenced from the Robert E. Howard estate (just like Conan and Kull). And while Marvel's version was completely reinvented and bared little in resemblance to the original Howard character (who was a gun slinging heroine) it was still licenced. Today the character is essentially creator owned by the writer (Roy Thomas) and artist (Barry Windsor Smith) of the Marvel series. The character appears in comics published by Dynamite Entertainment which is another comic book company. So the film really isn't a Marvel movie per say since it doesn't feature a Marvel character.

Furthermore shouldn't The Men in Black (comics) films be listed? Those characters are owned by Marvel (they acquired Malibu Comics who acquired Aircel Comics, the originator of these characters). Marvel published various Men in Black comics around the time the film was made and still own the rights to those characters. Even though they don't use them anymore, they have owned the characters since 1994 (when they bought Malibu). This was before the first film came out in 1997.Giantdevilfish (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm totally agree. Pro , This movie must be removed of the list.OscarFercho (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Red Sonja and Men in Black films have been discussed a few times before. Check out the archive for the multiple threads for each film. I've argued for including Red Sonja in the past, but you have raised what I think is the best rebuttal so far. This film clearly falls in a gray area. If the consensus was to de-list the Red Sonja film, I would be fine with supporting that position. While Aircel Comics wasn't a Marvel imprint at the time the first MIB film came out, it is held as a Marvel property now. So, even though the imprint is now defunct, I am inclined to list the MIB films under "From other Marvel imprints" along with Icon Comic's Kick Ass. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesh. With Red Sonja, while Marvel's version is different than the Howard original (including the tweaking of her name from SonYa to SonJa), it was still licenced. Howard was credited in the fine print at the bottom of page one of every issue of the comic book series (http://www.comics.org/series/2404/covers/) that Marvel published, (Marvel did this with all their licenced properties. The rights holder was credited in the fine print whether it was Conan the Barbarian, Kull of Atlantis, Godzilla, Transformers, GI Joe, Star Wars etc). Heck, Howard was even credited in the film.

Then, this altered version of the character became copyrighted as a separate entity. Not by Marvel Comics, but by the two creators which made her a creator owned property. These were the two gentlemen that wrote and drew the comic for Marvel and reimagned Howards character for the comic book. They even created a company called Red Sonja LLC. This is why the character is being used by another company. (Dynamite Entertainment)http://www.comics.org/series/14205/covers/

So as you can see, back then the character was licenced by Marvel and now its owned by a company that isn't Marvel. In other words she was never a Marvel property. If the film is to be included on the list then the Conan films should be included too.

As for The Men in Black, Marvel has owned them since 1994. Its irrelevant that the characters weren't originated by Marvel. Marvel owns them now. This is like how DC Comics owns Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Blue Beetle and Plastic Man. These characters originated in Fawcett Comics, Charlton Comics and Quality Comics respectively. Its just that DC obtained the rights to these old defunct comic book companies properties and as such owns these characters. Its no different with Marvel in regards to Malibu Comics/Aircel Comics. So the Men in Black films (as well as the cartoon series) is just as much a Marvel movie as a Plastic Man or Captain Marvel movie would be a DC Comics movie. Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. You clearly know your stuff. It's great to have your participation in editing this page. I support making the proposed changes (though I still think MIB should appear under "From other Marvel imprints" as an imprint of Aircel Comics; it wasn't clear whether that was your recommendation as well). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I support whatever the consensus is about this. However, whatever changes are done to this article I would like done to Template:Marvel Comics films as well for consistency's sake, meaning removing Red Sonja and adding the Men in Black films if that proves to be the case.-5- (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

On an another note, this would also mean Men in Black: The Series gets added to List of television series based on Marvel Comics, and its respective template, right?-5- (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Following this logic, I have also added Night Manand Ultraforce to the List of television series based on Marvel Comics given that they are both based on Malibu Comics. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I did it. Could you change the templates -5-? I'm not much of a template kind of guy. Also maybe we should take Osubuckeyeguy's advice and make a note that they are "From other Marvel imprints" or whatever, since Marvel doesn't really use these characters in their comic books. They just own them but do nothing with them (like the entire Ultraverse they obtained from Malibu comics). This will avoid any confusion to readers who might not understand that technically the MIB are Marvel properties.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) wheres the 2 conan movies and red sonja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.218.225 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers distributor

Hey all, so I'm curious to know if the Distributor should be written in as Disney? Seeing the release in the UK showed Paramount to be the distributor, with no mention of Disney. Then again it's because I don't understand the deal, I may be missing something? Perhaps we should even change the distribution column to United States distributors, if it's too fiddly starting to explain the different territories? Just some thoughts... -- Harish (Talk) - 12:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it just occurred to me it's a 'notes' column haha. -- Harish (Talk) - 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

If no one is going to update this page, then someone should unlock it. Upcoming movies have been announced for Ant-man and Avengers 2.

96.3.114.160 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

96.3.114.160 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This request is empty RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove the Box Office section?

I've been watching this page for a while and I can't help but feel like the Box Office section shouldn't stay in its current state. It's hard to maintain and it's hard to know if it's completely off or not. Couldn't we simply write about what's interesting about Marvel movies at the box office and then link to Box Office Mojo for the data? That would be much more appropriate in my opinion. BoomWav (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree Remove Box Office section.OscarFercho (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing Film

In live-action films, where is ANT-MAN? Sure the release date hasn't been given, but we can just say TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the pilot episode of the 1977 Spider Man TV series was essentially a 92-minute TV movie.

Additional Films

Okay, whoever keeps on putting in the additional films in the live-action section better stop FOR THE MOMENT. I am pretty sure that some of the films you place in there are really happening, but you need sources first. I will go ahead and give you some: for The Incredible Hulk 2: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Marvel-President-Kevin-Feige-Talks-Iron-Man-3-Future-30706.html. For Deadpool: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fox-sets-tim-miller-direct-176603. For Big Hero Six: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/29/disney-animation-confirms-plans-for-marvels-big-hero-6-breaking/. For Heroes for Hire: none. For Black Panther: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/black-panther-development-marvel-74005. For a Punisher reboot: http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/26/sdcc-marvel-regains-film-rights-for-the-punisher/. For Doctor Strange: http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/will-dr-strange-be-marvels-first-superhero-to-fly-under-the-disney-banner/. And for the only one you didn't add, The Amazing Spider-Man 3: http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/171409-exclusive-talking-with-the-producers-of-the-amazing-spider-man. Put these in there, and it will be much more reliable. -Mumbai0618 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai0618 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Need official announcements, not only isolated declarations, that's speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

PD. Big Hero Six was adding (not for Me) in the Animated films section.OscarFercho (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Man Thing movie

I think that the Man Thing movie must be moved to Television films section. This is actually a direct to video release or telefilm, upgraded to feature only in some countries (but, where?), NOT in the US, the principal market. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The above holds no weight. Man-Thing was intended for theatrical release in 2004, but the budget was slashed, and the film was relegated to a direct to video release the following year. This was the exact same situation faced by Captain America (1990) and very similar to what The Punisher(1989) faced. All three were PRODUCED as theatrical features, and all three were shelved for some years. The Punisher premiered on cable television in 1990, and home video within weeks. Captain America premiered on cable television in 1992, and home video months later. Man-thing premiered on home video and cable television simultaneously, and believe it or not, I saw a (however disappointing) THEATRICAL screening beforehand. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hand-full of theatrical films that have not been broadcast on television at some point in history; are we to brand ALL of them as television films as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.118.165 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Franchise Acknowledgement

I was just wondering if the larger franchises/film series of various Marvel properties could be color-coded in the table or otherwise mentioned in the opening section, which is a bit short on text, quite understandable since this is a list but the point remains. After all, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a rather notable, having grossed in excess of $3.8 billion worldwide with just the first six films, and an additional five announced. Other film series could include Blade (3 films, $415M), X-Men (5 films, $1.89B, 2 announced), and Spider-Man (4 films, $3.25B, 1 announced). Similar to the Cinematic Universe, both the X-Men films and obviously the Blade trilogy have continuity. While Spider-Man was rebooted, both series are Sony entities and produced by Columbia. In the List of highest-grossing films they are included as one franchise even though they are not one series. Just some food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halophile (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Captain America serial

Why do you insist on including this in live-action films? It is not a film, it is a serial. It was a series of shorts episodes each screened BEFORE films. And more offensive, it is NOT based on the Marvel comics character as you claim. He is called Captain America, and his wears a similar costume, but EVERYTHING else that the serial and it's characters consist of are original. It is believed that Republic actually hastily refitted (shoehorned) Cap into an existing serial script to compete with the other superhero based serials of the time. But that is not the point. The point in fact is, it is not a film, period.

Please, submit to a vote. And register as user.OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)01:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Red Sonja

The character of Red Sonja in the film was based on a character created solely for the pages of Marvel comics. Yes, she first appeared in their licensed Conan comics, and yes, Conan is a pre-existing literary character; but so is Dracula. Would you remove Blade Trinity or Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, because they are based on Marvel comics INTERPRETATION of the character. Would you remove The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen from films based on DC comics because of it's use of pre-existing literary characters? Never. This is logic alone to include the Conan films in fact, as they were made because of the popularity spurred by the Marvel comics, and are based on the Marvel interpretation and stories, and arguably not Robert E. Howard's original fiction. But that isn't even what I'm arguing. All I'm really saying is that it makes no sense not to include Red Sonja as a film based on Marvel comics characters when the reality of the situation is inescapable. I understand that there are those of you who spend an allotted time each day watch-dogging this page, and protect your opinions and edits with your computer's very life, and I'm not hear to ruffle your feathers and I mean no disrespect; I just ask that you let go of your personal beliefs and submit to logic. By not doing so, you're robbing any prospective future viewers of this page, and also silencing the truth of other wikipedians.

As a matter of fact, it would make the most sense for everyone to include the films on the Marvel page, but under another sub-heading, like Robert E. Howard films, or Hyborian Age films; Just spit-balling on the title of the section.

Please, submit to a vote before adding, this was already discussed previously . And register as user.OscarFercho (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics/Archive_1#Red_Sonja_and_Men_in_Black.) Red Sonja was never owned by Marvel. It was a creator owned (Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor Smith) version of the Robert E. Howard character. Those two men created an actual company called Red Sonja LLC for the rights and can bring the character to any comic company they choose. This is why you don't see Red Sonja at Marvel anymore and why Dynamite Entertainment currently publishes the character. So this is no different then any other licensed character (like Conan) that Marvel has featured through the years. As far as Frankenstein and Dracula goes, Marvel created their own versions of these public domain characters and have been using them in their comics ever since. They basically own these versions of the characters.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Blade

Why isn't "Blade: The Series" in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.76.184 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because its not a film but a TV series. See List of television series based on Marvel Comics.

TV Series (DC's Human Target 2010).

Thanks for the advice @Oscar. Anyway, I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.131.30 (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unnanounced films

The films of X-Force and Deadpool are in early development the first (as we know) and never announced the second; but actually they were not officially announced. Therefore, they can't be included.OscarFercho (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

1990 Captain America

Why isn't that listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.3.191 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That movie is in the Direct to video films section.OscarFercho (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What´s the source of titles?

Somebody can tell Me what´s the source of the title The Fantastic Four of the announced reboot, or The Amazing Spider-Man 3 & 4 of the planned sequels of Spidey? With much emphasis put those names, especially the first.OscarFercho (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like something I can help out on. If it hasn't been fixed on. I just need you to clarify better. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Direct to video should not be split

There is no reason to split out movies that were released direct to video in the US. They are live-action Marvel films, they were all intended to be released theatrically and they all were released theatrically abroad. It's an arbitrary split, and obviously causes an issue since multiple people have tried to add in Punisher and Captain America. -Joltman (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see your point..and also we got the box office grosses section that shows us the theatrical versions. Outside of the Captain America serial and the unreleased Fantastic Four movie. It ain't much different than the original list with the straight to video parts being removed. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The separation is not arbitrary, are placed in a different section, such as television movies and animated, due to diffusion limitations and had revenue that this brought.

I'm not agree with the box office grosses list.OscarFercho (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your English language grammar isn't that good. You could have a more primary language perhaps. Anyways I am going to assume when you said. "I'm not agree with the box office grosses list." you mean you don't agree with it being on there? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm disagree with the box office grosses in this list.OscarFercho (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's "I disagree with the box office grosses in this list" or "I'm disagreeing with the box office grosses in this list". I personally don't mind it IMO. It cites Box Office Mojo. I at least would think this list need to state what is the highest-grossing Marvel movie is (The Avengers). In retrospect it should be in the order of what is higher-grossing than release date though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I understand the inclusion of the box office grosses.OscarFercho (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So does anyone besides Oscar believe the direct-to-video in US movies should be separated into their own list? -Joltman (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't care. Either ways sounds fair to me mostly. I think you need to invite more people here such as the editors from the comic book films task force. I think if straight to video is divided then probably unreleased films (The Fantastic Four) and the Captain America serial may need to be divided from the big screen movies too somehow. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with it, needed more opinions.OscarFercho (talk)

I posted over at the comic book films task force, but we have not gotten anymore opinions. I see that once again, Oscar had to revert an edit where someone put The Punisher in the main list because they didn't see it below. I really don't see what purpose the separate 'direct-to-video' list serves, all it does is confuse people. So unless someone can give good reason to keep them separate, it makes more sense to merge them back into the main list. -Joltman (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, Tenebrae, Erik, Favre1fan93, Robsinden, Fandraltastic and Spshu. You are invited in this discussion if that's ok to you. This should help with more opinions, Joltman. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why they can't be in the main "Live action" table, with a note saying that it was DtoV in the US, and had sparse theatrical releases. Also, pinging Richiekim for this too, if he would like to be a part of it, per his work on Marvel film pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No more opinions, most existing reviews, I make the change. Tanks to everybody.OscarFercho (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Unannounced films

The "Announced Films" section is getting out of hand. Didn't the precedent used to be that a film's inclusion on this list required a release date? I would also argue that a reserved release date for an unannounced film does not count as an announced film. It's not really a film, it's just a date and dates are subject to change. I propose the removal of all films after Ant-Man except X-Men: Apocalypse. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea for update this list, but some users make confussion and eventually added more and more films. I'm agree with the no inclusion of projects only with release date revealed.OscarFercho (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In table headings

This isn't a "major" change as OscarFercho is claiming. Using "In production" over "Forthcoming" is more accurate, as it complies with MOS:FILM distinction of what "production" means. "In production" includes any film that is in pre-production, filming, or in post. As it is now, having the Fantastic Four reboot and Ant-Man below the "Announced" heading does not fit because they have both started production. So regardless of if the "Forthcoming" heading changes, Fantastic Four and Ant-Man have to move up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"In Production" it's a wide heading, there are movies in production, in post-production, not released yet but complete (as Captain America 2 today) and in pre-production. Movies in pre-production even don't have article, except Ant-Man for insistence of users. We need only movies released, that forthcoming and movies announced. No more. Greetings. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

But "In production" is still a more inclusive heading than forthcoming, as stated, because it covers all films in some form of production, regardless of if they have an article or not. Article are made per WP:GNG, which shouldn't have any effect on their production status. The two should not be correlated together. And it is easier to classify a film based on its production status when using this heading, versus your suggestion where it is arbitrary when it becomes "Forthcoming". What changes its status? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The status change when a movie is filming, when principal photography has begun.OscarFercho (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's still leaving out a very key production stage, which should not be in the announced heading. I'm going to request additional outside input from the Film project on this matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I veto "Forthcoming". It is a vague and irregular phrase in this context. In any case "announced" films are also "forthcoming" too so it doesn't adequately isolate the phase. "Production" has a clearly defined starting point (when the film is greenlighted) and has a clearly defined ending point (when the film is locked) so we should try and stick with the regular industry terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with BettyLogan, the industry terms are clear and less vague than forthcoming and announced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've undestand more the reasons for the change. Thanks for your opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Years Rowspan

I'd like to voice my opposition to this trend of having years span multiple sub-sections (i.e. 2014's spread from released films to In production films). It makes it appear as if the sub-headings are included in the year. Back in the good old days years would be duplicated for each section creating a clear disconnection between the sections. I'd like to see this format reintroduced. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be opposed to this. It might be better actually. Give it a few days. If no one objects, go for the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be opposed to this too.OscarFercho (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled new Captain America sequel

The third Marvel Studios Captain America film is refered as "Third Captain America film", but this is inexactly on the list 'cause there is another 1990 Captain America film and the 1940's serial, that is, there are five titles of Captain on this list, the announced sequel it's not the third on the list. It's more appropriate a reference as "Untitled new Captain America film", "Next Captain America film" or "Untitled Captain America sequel".OscarFercho (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is actually fine as is, because we have the studio field. If we did not, then we would need that to further clarify. Both the 1940s serial and 1990 film are by other companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider Man 2

The movie The Amazing Spider-Man 2 it's not in post-production stage, it's to be released only in some days. It's not in any stage indicated on MOS:FILM. Their inclusion on the label In Production is confusing and it's not true about that film.OscarFercho (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Film stages are as follows: In development; Pre-production; Filming/Production; Post-production; Released. Thus, as ASM 2 has not been released, it is still in Post-production until it has been released. The production process occurs until it has been released; see The Avengers as an example. One of the post credit scenes was filmed after the premiere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stan Lee's Mighty 7

The animated film Stan Lee's that came out on February, 2014 is not on the list of animated movies. I tried to added but it didn't work. Now I think I shouldn't have added it because I don't have the accurate information about the studio, but someone should add it. It came out before Avengers Confidential: Black Widow and Punisher.

This is not a Marvel property (easy confusion as it is by Stan Lee). Also please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ so others know who is posting/commenting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Imprints

In this section there is mention to Malibu Comics that is not an imprint. Malibu was a publisher bought by Marvel Comics and it had its own imprints (Genesis, Ultraverse, Bravura and Rock-It Comix). So I put the imprints in the box emphasising the imprint next to the publisher name. It is similar to Jim Lee's Aegis Entertainment that was a publisher with various imprints (Wildstorm, Homage, Cliffhanger and ABC) bought by DC. HÊÚL. (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This list not make difference of imprints of the imprints, there´s no a section of Marvel Knights, or Marvel Max imprints. It's only a list of movies based on Marvel properties and its imprints.OscarFercho (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But Malibu is not a Marvel imprint. The imprints are Genesis and Ultraverse. HÊÚL. (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Genesis and Ultraverse were "lines", not properly imprints. And, actually, there's no publicatios of both.OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They were imprints. Malibu was a publisher not an imprint. HÊÚL. (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, Favre1fan93, Osubuckeyeguy. You are invited in this discussion if that's ok to you. This should help with more opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

ComplixGames, DilatoryRevolution, Betty Logan. You are invited too. HÊÚL. (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more relevant to change the name of the heading to "From Marvel imprints and properties". It is quite irrelevant which imprint of Malibu the comics were published under, as there was only one that has been adapted to film. It should also be noted that a similar topic was discussed several years ago when deciding on the inclusion of other properties. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"From Marvel imprints and properties" it's a very good heading of the section. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact there was two adapted: Men In Black (Genesis) and Nightman (Ultraverse). Two different imprints. HÊÚL. (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

But it's the same publisher.OscarFercho (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Icon is from the same publisher of the other films (Marvel Comics). The topic here is "imprints" and not "publishers". HÊÚL. (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

With The Second Fantastic Four Movie (Rise of The Silver Surfer(2007)), it is spelled wrong and that led to a lot of confusion. It is actually spelled "Fantastic 4: Rise of The Silver Surfer" not "Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer". The difference is that instead of "four" they put "4". Bobkevin12 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As is, is correct. How it may have been stylized in marketing material should not be noted here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange - Pre

@OscarFercho: The source on the page, this one right here, is a reliable source stating the film is in pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The source, of Total Film, cites : "Scott Derrickson has been announced as the director [...] So we're about to hire a writer to redo a draft, and we think we'll be casting probably in the next month or two, and announcing an actor, and then we get into production in the spring of next year."

Clearly, there's not in preproduction yet. I'am not intransigent. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Ok, was my mistake, it's a reliable source, but not indicate a preproduction status.OscarFercho (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Screen Rant source, which is reliable, and can be used as a source: "Marvel Studios is already in pre-production to gear up for another new potential Avengers team addition in Doctor Strange." The quotable material is right there. I don't really see the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is a totally reliable source, "Already in pre-production", but not clearly in pre-production.

Please, wait to a more announces about the film, like crew and cast, meanwhile that may cause a confussion about the status of the project. Tks. Grettings.OscarFercho (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I changed to the source that cites Screenrant, the original report of Total Film, which don't claims any state of pre-production. It's not my point of view, it's a concrete fact. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

The 'Men In Black' films need to be added to the 'Live-action films' list. Technically they are based on Marvel comics as Marvel bought Malibu Comics 146.200.27.109 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is in a table specifically for imprint films, in the List of films based on Marvel Comics#From Marvel imprints section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Move man-thing into the television film section

Man-thing is tetnicly a tele-film. So why is it the live action film section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Previously discussed. Submit on this page if you want a new poll about the theme.OscarFercho (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Add reboot

Why do you guys keep undoing my change of just adding reboot to "a reboot" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Venom Carnage, female centered Spider-man spin-off, and 2018 x-men project

Hey you guys, when ever i add any of the names listed in this sections name to this article, WITH A RELIABLE SOURCE, you idiots keep removing it. Why? And if you say "they have not been given any official release dates" then why the hell is "The Amazing Spider-man 3 on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There's not any official announcement from Columbia studios about other Marvel projects, only, to the moment, of The Sinister Six and third Amazing Spider Man film, and we don't know if the 2018 Fox project it's a X-Men comic adaptation.

Please see on WP:EQ before use a bad language.OscarFercho (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

fine I'll tell you what, I will put the 2018 fox marvel film as Untitled Fox Marvel film, and I think the amazing spider-man 3 should not be part of this article until it is given an official release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A third Amazing Spider Man was official moved to 2018; the 2018 Fox Marvel project isn't included for we don't know yet it really nature; this articles aren't for speculate.OscarFercho (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm agree with remove the third Amazing Spider Man film until an official specific date of the studio. @Favre1fan93:, what you think?.OscarFercho (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna say yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ASM 3 has a release year, fine for inclusion. Untitled unknown projects, not fine for inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

if that's the case then why aren't Venom: Carnage and the female lead Spider man film here when they have been announced for 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those projects of Columbia are only mentioned, not have any official release date or more information. Please, wait to the consensous before remove the future movies included. OscarFercho (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay here's what I say, let's not include films until they are given official release dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.92.173 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Silver Surfer short film

Every time I try to add the Silver Surfer short film to the list of films based on Marvel Comics, where it belongs, someone removes it. This is a legitimate (sp) short film produced with the consent of Marvel. I understand that it doesn't fit into the MCU Short Films section, however it does belong somewhere on the page as a short film.

Here is sourced information from the Silver Surfer Wikipedia page.

In 1991, Erik Fleming and Steven Robiner, two film students from the USC School of Cinematic Arts, approached Marvel Studios and producer Bernd Eichinger to ask permission to make a short film featuring the Silver Surfer as a proof of concept for the use of CGI in creating a realistic silver coloured human figure.[98] This short film, completed in 1992, not long after the release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day that featured a similarly rendered character, led to significant interest from major studios in a feature length Silver Surfer project.[98] Andrew Kevin Walker wrote a script for 20th Century Fox in 2000, but nothing ever came of it.[99]

You can view this short film online on youtube or dailymotion or any number of websites. It does exist and needs to be added to this page. My hope is that someone reading this has the ability to add it to the page in a way that prevents it from being removed immediately like everytime I have tried. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingsman: The Secret Service

I'm not a regular contributor to this article, so maybe this has been covered before and I didn't see it. I see that Kingsman: The Secret Service is listed under 2015 but it was released in 2014. Most of the releases are in 2015 but the first was in 2014. So, maybe this should be fixed. Maybe it's right already. I just thought I'd point it out. Dismas|^(talk) 08:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Should be sorted consistently

We currently have three main sections: live-action, animated and television films. The problem is, this doesn't make sense. Currently, there are two television movies in the animated section, and all of the television films are live-action. Additionally, live-action and animated have short film sub-sections. We should consolidate them and consistently sort them. There are four consistent ways to sort them:

1. Media (live-action or animated)
2. Length (feature-length or short)
3. Release type (theatrical, television or video)
4. Just one list.

I personally think it should be by length or just one list, I don't understand the need to segregate them in the other ways. -Joltman (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One list, no. This list reflects a different kind of movies, according to the performance that every reaches, the budget and even it target.OscarFercho (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it, and I just went ahead and made Television films a sub-section of live-action. That takes care of the issues with the sorting. -Joltman (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with the change.OscarFercho (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Waiting to the start of filming to upgrade films

The films of X-Men Apocalypse, Captain America Civil War and, specially, Doctor Strange, must wait to upgrade to the existence of its articles. We don't know the real state of this until the production not commence. It's only a few days, what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. That is completely wrong. Cap Civil War, Doctor Strange and X-Men Apocalypse are all in pre-production. Pre-production is (generally) the time frame from when a director may be announced, and/or general casting has begun (this mainly qualifies when a film has a set release date). Cap: Civil War pre-production started in October 2014, filming is beginning April 1. (Pre-production and production/filming are two completely separate processes). Doctor Strange began pre-production August-October-ish 2014, with filming beginning in May 2015. X-Men also started pre-production in August/September 2014, with filming in April 2015. So yes, all three are in pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also "We don't know the real state of this until the production... commences." What? Yes we do! Filmmaking#Parts: Announcement/Development stage; Pre-production (as I just outlined above and is done again at that article); Filming or production; Post-production; Released. All three are beyond the development stage, and haven't started filming, so that leave only one place for them to be: pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

But, what's the problem with waiting to a clearly stage of production?, the "in production" state it's very wide an easy to confusse. Those movies aren't in production yet, it's only a wait of a few weeks or days to upgrade.OscarFercho (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not easy to confuse: the headings (or non headings) we use here satisfy each of the 5 film production stages: "Announced" for announced/in development films; "In production" for films in pre-, filming, and post-; and no heading once it's been released. I don't believe you have an issue once films enter post production. The only difference between that and pre-production is one comes right before the film, the other right after. And we don't have to wait to upgrade them because they are there now. We can change the "Notes" field when they begin filming, but they already have production pieces in motion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The only issue we should have is if there is uncertainty if a film has actually entered pre-production or not. With these three, there isn't. Now with Gambit, say, that may be where the questioning or confusion comes in. We don't clearly know if it has entered pre-production. So it stays in the "Announced" group. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

But it's confuse, specially Doctor Strange, the shoot it's set to begin on May, yet more of a month to wait, without more details about involved crew or actors, that date of shooting may change in the actual state.OscarFercho (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-production is completely independent from the filming date. What's the issue with it filming in May? It's started casting and crew hirings - definition for pre-production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Preproduction it's not start of shooting, the term filmmaking it's wide and strictly reference to start of principal photography.OscarFercho (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

...right, but it falls under the heading of "In production". @Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim: Your opinions are welcome. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The terminology is a little confusing. Production can be either be referred to as the entire process of filmmaking (inclusive of all stages) or specifically the stage of principal photography. To avoid this confusion, we generally refer to the later definition as "filming" or "principal photography", although some minor filming can actually be done in other stages.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above, we currently use the headings "Announced", and "In production". Do you agree with my classification of "Announced" for the announced/in development films and "In production" for films in pre-, filming, and post-? We currently include post-production in the "In production" heading. And if we aren't going to include pre- in that heading, then we shouldn't include post. But I don't think the solution is to make 4 separate headings. That's what the notes section is for to specify which stage of production it's in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well if it was up to me, I would only have two headings "Released" and "Upcoming". Then I would further breakdown the upcoming films by the stage of filmmaking in the notes section. Because "Development" is a very much a part of "Production" if you are using the former definition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That actually works out better. But we would only need to condense the "In production" and "Announced" headings to "Upcoming" because anything above it is considered released. OscarFercho are you agreeable to this change, thus allowing us to properly tag the three films we had the issues with? And anything else would get "Announced" added to their notes field. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the current headings of "In production" and "Announced" it's the better, but my proposal it's only that the upgrade to "In production" will be when filming, principal photography, start, this is only a simple wait to the movies have its article, no more, the term "pre-production" it's very imprecise.OscarFercho (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't have both the current headings and not the use of "pre-production". The options that accurately reflect the status of the films, proposed here are: current headings with pre-, filming and post- in "In production" OR consolidating both headings just to "Upcoming" and using announced, pre-, filming, and post- in the notes section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So, as I see, create other heading for preproduction stage, but not another for posproduction, it's enough filming and posproduction on only one heading.OscarFercho (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What? That sentence did not make sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's better, create another heading for films on preproduction.OscarFercho (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to go ahead with Triiiple's suggestion then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Transformers: The Movie" and "G.I. Joe: The Movie" are Marvel Animated Movies

Hasbro hired Marvel to design the original mythos of both series, including comics, tv shows, toy descriptions/fact files, and eventual films. Whilst we could argue over the creation/ownership of the toylines these resulted from, the fact remains that Marvel was responsible for the creation of the characters and 'Western' story of these brands.

The Transformers comic and TV series debuted in the same month and year, giving us a chicken and the egg argument as to whether the films are based on Marvel comics or merely their mythos; however concepts used in "The Transformers: The Movie", such as the Matrix, originated in the comics prior to their appearance in the film.

Marvel Studios is credited with the TV series and film elsewhere on Wikipedia; and it should be included here as well for the sake of consistency. Furthermore, this page's description notes that it is for films of Marvel comics characters or properties, and G.I. Joe and The Transformers feature characters created by Marvel.

These was a licensed products, not a Marvel characters.OscarFercho (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Marvel created the characters, there was nothing to licence prior to that beyond the Japanese figures themselves, who lacked neither the names or characterizations that Marvel gave them.

Production background

The Transformers toyline and cartoon/animated series was inspired by the Japanese toyline, Microman (an Eastern descendant of the 12" G.I. Joe action figure series). In 1980, the Microman spin-off, Diaclone, was released, featuring inch-tall humanoid figures able to sit in the drivers' seats of scale model vehicles, which could transform into humanoid robot bodies the drivers piloted. Later still, in 1983, a Microman sub-line, MicroChange was introduced, featuring "actual size" items that transformed into robots, such as microcassettes, guns and toy cars. Diaclone and MicroChange toys were subsequently discovered at the 1983 Tokyo Toy Fair by Hasbro toy company product developer Henry Orenstein, who presented the concept to Hasbro's head of R&D, George Dunsay. Enthusiastic about the product, it was decided to release toys from both Diaclone and MicroChange as one toyline for their markets, although there were eventual changes to the color schemes from the original toys to match the new series.

By 1984, U.S. regulators had removed many of the restrictions regarding the placement of promotional content within children's television programming. The way was cleared for the new product-based television program. Hasbro had previously worked with Marvel Comics to develop G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero for a three-pronged marketing scheme - the toyline, a tie-in comic book by Marvel, and an animated mini-series co-produced by Marvel's media arm, Marvel Productions, and the Griffin-Bacal Advertising Agency's Sunbow Productions animation studio. Given the success of that strategy, the process was repeated in 1984 when Hasbro marketing vice president Bob Prupis approached Marvel to develop their new robot series, which Jay Bacal dubbed "Transformers."

Marvel's Editor-in-Chief at the time, Jim Shooter, produced a rough story concept for the series, creating the idea of the two warring factions of alien robots – the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. To flesh out his concept, Shooter called upon veteran editor Dennis O'Neil to create character names and profiles for the cast, but O'Neill's work – for whatever reason – did not meet with Hasbro's expectations, and they requested heavy revisions. O'Neill declined to make said revisions, and the project was turned down by several writers and editors approached by Shooter until editor Bob Budiansky accepted the task. Hastily performing the revisions over a weekend, Budiansky's new names and profiles were a hit with Hasbro, and production began on a bi-monthly four-issue comic book miniseries, and three-part television pilot.

Japanese designer Shōhei Kohara was responsible for creating the earliest character models for the Transformers cast, greatly humanising the toy designs to create more approachable robot characters for the comic and cartoon. His designs were subsequently simplified by Floro Dery, who went on to become the lead designer for the series, creating many more concepts and designs in the future.

LSWSjr (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For lists like this, you need to consider what ultimately came first. In the case of GI Joe and Transformers, the toys came first, then comics and TV series. Yes, these properties were further developed in these formats, including the creation of new characters and story lines, but it doesn't change the fact that the genesis for these properties was the toys. You also need to consider who owned the property - at no time, has Marvel owned either of these properties. Yes, Marvel Productions was the production company for these films, but they were the production company for many films and television shows based on Hasbro properties (such as My Little Pony). To the extent that Marvel was involved in the creation and development of these properties, this was on a for-hire basis and did not grant them any ownership rights. This list is reserved for films based on original Marvel characters that originated in the pages of Marvel Comics or its various imprints. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope to take, as the previous two entries on the Animated Films list, "Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned" and "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" are based on characters from the public domain, which means that Marvel has never owned them either, are we suggesting these films be removed as well? As I mentioned earlier, this list is for "films based on Marvel Comics characters and properties" and without Marvel Comics, Hasbro's Autobot Leader Optimus Prime and Decepticon Leader Megatron would still be Takara's Diaclone Battle Convoy and Microman MC-12 Gun Robo. The ownership of this franchise is a mess between Hasbro and Takara, but regardless the G1 characters and story are still attributed to Marvel, including comics, TV series and 'toy text' which makes them characters created by Marvel Comics. LSWSjr (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Osubuckeyeguy has right, these aren't Marvel characters, the genesis was in the toy line, not in the comics, was a work for-hire, not a original Marvel characters, or a Marvel propertie. Please, consider this discussion before adding material unacceptable for the criteria of this list.OscarFercho (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Characters featured in the Transformers film, including: Arcee, Blur, Daniel, Galvatron, Kup, Hot Rod, Springer and Wheelie, all appeared in Marvel books prior to the film and well before Takara made toys of them, that would make these Marvel characters first as their genesis was not in any pre-existing Takara figures, in fact some of these characters never received Takara figures. Thus The Transformers: The Movie features Marvel Comics characters. Furthermore, having done further research on my previous point, "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" has even less reason to be on this list as it features no Marvel created characters, is not Marvel owned and was merely co-produced by Marvel. LSWSjr (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Transformers and G.I. Joe aren't Marvel character or actually a Marvel propertie. That's the concrete fact. Please, wait to a consensous before adding movies.OscarFercho (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, you are invited to this talk.OscarFercho (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I am willing to concede the point on "G.I. Joe: The Movie" as more research is required, and if you had looked prior to your revision, I did not reinsert that film again in my most recent update.

Secondly, the source for my list of "The Transformers: The Movie" characters being originally created by Marvel, is "The Transformers: The Lost Treasure of Cybertron" ISBN 0-87135-103-X from Marvel; which was released prior to said film and featured the debut of the characters: Arcee, Blurr, Cyclonus/Scourge (as an incorrect mash-up), Daniel, Galvatron, Hot Rod, Kup and Springer.

None of these characters were based on any pre-existing Takara figures or designs and in the case of Arcee and the human Daniel have never even received one; attributing the genesis of the design to Marvel's Floro Dery and the characterizations to other Marvel writers such as Sonia Black Woods who often wrote books for Marvel, and Rod Friedman who worked on numerous Marvel Studios projects.

As these characters are central to the plot of "The Transformers: The Movie" and that Marvel was a co-producer of the film, responsible for the names and characterizations of most of the cast and for the inclusion of their own original characters (as per the above source), that would qualify the film as a "film based on Marvel Comics characters" as stated at the top of this article. LSWSjr (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion around what constitutes a Marvel film that is appropriate for this list. Movies like those based on GI Joe and Transformers are team-up movies based on multiple characters. Saying that Marvel created one or more characters that appeared in these movies is not sufficient for including them in this list because (1) Marvel has no ownership of any of those characters, else they would had to have been licensed from Marvel for them to appear in these movies, (2) Deciding the origin of a team-up movie is not done on a character by character basis. The Transformer Universe originated with the toy line, therefore all movies set within that universe would be inappropriate for this list. It doesn't matter if individual characters first appeared in a comic or not. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Dracula and Frankenstein anime movies is based on the fact that these movies present a take on a public domain figure from literature that first appeared in Marvel Comics. This is similar to the film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being credited as based on the comic by Alan Moore, and not the originators of the individual literary characters. However, past discussions have also determined that films based on characters such as Red Sonja, which is a character first created by Robert E. Howard, are inappropriate for this list, even though this was a character that appeared in Marvel Comics. An argument can be made for the removal of the two anime films, but I will let others weigh in on if that is appropriate. For reference, you can consult the following archived discussions: Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics/Archive_1#Red_Sonja.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics/Archive_1#Red Sonja

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics/Archive_1#Red_Sonja_and_Men_in_Black

I've come back from doing more research (though not on G.I. Joe yet) and I feel Red Sonja presents an interesting case. I personally would argue that Marvel was responsible for the Red Sonja character over Robert E. Howard's Red Sonya that she was inspired by. However I feel that the film is based on the later amalgamated version of the character, and the production did not include Marvel's involvement beyond the comic book adaption.

I've never had a problem including "Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned" on this list as it still includes characters that originated from the "The Tomb of Dracula" comics. "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" on the other hand bears no evident connection to the "The Monster of Frankenstein" comic, not in the designs, characters (excluding those originated by Mary Shelley) or plot points. I feel it's inclusion on the list comes from its connection to the Dracula production and it is not being assessed as its own entity.

The connections to Marvel with "The Transformers: The Movie" are more evident than with either the "Red Sonja" film or "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein": as it was co-produced by Marvel; the new/primary protagonists are Marvel originated (see reference above); and Marvel originated the characterizations, story and designs that were inspired by: the Japanese figures from Takara Tomy and Takatoku Toys; the Korean figures from ToyCo; figures from the 'ToyBox Corporation'; and other figures from companies lost to obscurity.

Beyond Marvel, the only other company to have so much influence over the franchise is Hasbro: who originally acquired the western licensing rights to a wealth of transforming robot figures from a variety of companies; and went on to employ Marvel to unify these figures into a single toyline that was supported by multiple Marvel comic series, a Marvel co-produced TV series and later the film in question.

Without Hasbro and Marvel's combined efforts, we would not have The Transformers as we know them. "The Transformers: The Movie" should be recognized on this list for Marvel's aforementioned involvement on the film (especially the work of Marvel's Floro Dery) and their development of the franchise. LSWSjr (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially my opinion (based on the current evidence) is:

• "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein" should be removed - due to lack of evidence to support it as a Marvel (inspired) product.
• "The Transformers: The Movie" should be added - as Marvel Studios were a Co-Producer; the primary characters were created/designed by Floro Dery; the film was written by Rod Friedman; and Marvel was responsible for character designs and characterizations of the non-Marvel originated entities. LSWSjr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, @Osubuckeyeguy:, @OscarFercho:, you are invited to this talk. LSWSjr (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not. The Transformers comics was a work for hire, not a property of Marvel Comics.OscarFercho (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OscarFercho, I am beginning to feel like you are simply reacting in the negative without reading or addressing my points:

• You have still not provided any opinion or opposing points regarding my suggested removal of "Kyoufu Densetsu Kaiki! Frankenstein".
• It is true that Marvel Comics do not own the rights to The Transformers franchise, however that would not stop them from owning a share in the original TV series and "The Transformers: The Movie" which as Co-Producers of both they may still do. Nor does it stop them from being recognized for originating characters and other elements of the franchise.
• As for there being a 'Work For Hire' agreement between Marvel and Hasbro regarding The Transformers, please provide the source for that claim as it relates to the United States Copyright Act of 1976. LSWSjr (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Format of the list

The currently format, distribution and inlcusions of this list has been working for several users since its creation, even for Me obviously. If need modified again, please submit and propose on this talk page before a major changes- @HÊÚL:.

@TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, @Osubuckeyeguy:, @Joltman:, @Mike210381:, you are invited to this talk.OscarFercho (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Add year to critical and public reception table?

I was just looking at the critical and public reception table, and sorted it by Rotten Tomatoes rating. The problem is, then it isn't known which movies with the same titles are which (ie Fantastic Four, The Punisher). So I think it would make sense to add the years in this table. The question is, what makes more sense, adding it to the end of the title, ie 'Fantastic Four (2005)' or having a separate release year column? I'm thinking the latter, that way once you do sort it, you can resort it by year. -Joltman (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Captain America (serial)" missing from the list

The 1944 serial film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_(serial) is missing from this list. Gafter (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Now is on its own subsection, please verified.OscarFercho (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)