Aug.11 2009

Avengers Movie Actually To Be A Four-Part Series Over One Summer?

The Avengers

This is not a confirmed Marvel strategy, nor has there been any sort of announcements made to aide its credibility, but there is one director who has a vision where it could happen. Louis Letterier, director of last summer’s The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton (and currently directing the Clash of the Titans remake w/ Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes) recently told the LA Times (via SlashFilm) about his dream of releasing the long-awaited Avengers adaptation, through an epic four-part series, releasing one film per month over one summer; with collaborations from all the directors who worked on singular Marvel character movies. Now if that isn’t ambition, I don’t know what is.

Marvel announced back in May their full schedule of announced Marvel films over the next three years, and at this point, The Avengers is set to be released in the summer of 2012. Check out the full schedule:

Iron Man 2: May 7th, 2010
Spider-Man 4: May 6th, 2011
Thor: June 17th, 2011
The First Avenger – Captain America: July 22nd, 2011
The Avengers: May 4th, 2012

So could Letterier’s vision actually work? Well, when you listen to his rationale, it doesn’t sound all that far fetched:

“To work with Joe Johnston and [“Thor” director] Kenneth Branagh and Jon Favreau and make like a triptych. We do four movies. We release them one a month for the summer. Or even every two weeks or three weeks. And the whole summer would be Avengers summer. So we do it the way they make television shows. One story arc but told in installments by different directors. So all of the directors that touch part of the Avengers world would do a part; we could make the movies shorter, maybe less than an hour and a half, and we use the same sets and save Marvel money.”

Sounds amazingly awesome to me, but a few MAJOR questions need to raised when addressing this proposal:

1) How are they going to coordinate the schedules of all these busy actors, producers, directors and crew members to re-focus their careers for this massive project?
2) Marvel has already announced the release date for The Avengers, so would they completely re-strategize their plans for all their films to accommodate the supposed “biggest and most epic superhero film of all time?”
3) How much money would they have to re-allocate to accomplish this? $1 billion?
4) Would the general population be willing to dedicate paying $10 a ticket per month to see the story of this Avengers tale unfold from May to August?
5) With Favreau working on IM2 and Branagh working on Thor for a 2010 and 2011 release respectively, could they really film 4-5 hours of superhero madness; edit it and market it over one year in time for 2012? Or would they have to reschedule the release for 2013 to accommodate the ambition? And if so, they would then probably (hopefully) have to compete with Batman 3. Do they really want to do that?

A lot of major questions indeed. And while I seriously doubt this would ever happen, it’s really fun to speculate about because something this strategic, massive and organized has never happened before, and could prove to be unbelievably successful for the studio.

So I guess, for now, we’ll just have to wait and see.

What Do You Think? Discuss.

Categories : News

http://intensedebate.com/people/doubledamn doubledamn

A couple thoughts…
This does not make sense financially for Marvel. They have a stable of comic heroes from which they can continually draw from and make money. Your billion dollar mark is probably a bit high, but 600-700 million is still extremely steep for what would amount to 6 hours of screen time. Where as the Lord of the Rings is 9+ hours and was made for 285 million dollars. Ultimately Marvel would have to determine whether or not the would be able to make a profit. Consider that Lord of the Rings earned about 10 times as much as it cost to make. Spiderman 3 earned 3 times as much as its cost. and the Dark Knight earned about 5 times as much as it cost to make.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doubledamn doubledamn

Of course the Iron Man and Spiderman portions would be successful. But the Hulk? (failed twice already). Thor? Captain America? The only other Avengers that I could see successfully impacting the profit margins are Wolverine and Blade (I am aware that Blade is not an Avenger but is one of Marvels more successful characters on film). The problem now lies in the fact that XMen is its own franchise and has plans to continue the Origins plots and Blade hasn't seen the big screen in 5 years. If I'm working for Marvel, I don't like the prospect of spending 700 million dollars and earning just over a billion.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doubledamn doubledamn

If the plan were a monumental failure it would cripple Marvel for some time preventing them from making more films with their army of characters. The idea of a Justice League film makes much more sense. DC has a much smaller cast of heroes that can be more focused on thoroughly. A Justice League film would also help launch potential series for Wonder Woman, Flash, and the Martian Manhunter; as well as reboot Superman better than Superman Returns was able to. Furthermore, DC has a super-villain in Darkseid that would require the unification of the heroes. Something Marvel is seemingly lacking.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doubledamn doubledamn

My final thought is that I am seriously upset that Kenneth Branagh is directing Thor, of all movies. Branagh is the most accomplished Shakespearean actor of the later 20th and early 21st centuries. I gave him a free pass when he played Guilderoy Lockhart in the second Potter movie because he’s British and it is a British story. But Branagh directing Thor truly signals his complete sell out from the realm of respected cinema and theater.
http://intensedebate.com/people/matthewdeery matthewdeery

I have to disagree either Hulk movie was a failure. Despite the first one sucking, it still made a decent profit for Universal Studios. And the second pulled about the same profit, and I thought was pretty damn good. Edward Norton is a baller, and I thought it did a good job focusing on the character Bruce Banner. While the idea does sound promising, I will have to agree with both of you that the task seems daunting and too much a financial risk. Would I pay 10 dollars for the second installment if the first one was bad? If the second is bad would I buy tickets for the third? This is something that has never been undertaken before, so maybe it would be cutting edge. I guess we will have to see….
doubledamn

If the plan were a monumental failure it would cripple Marvel for some time preventing them from making more films with their army of characters. The idea of a Justice League film makes much more sense. DC has a much smaller cast of heroes that can be more focused on thoroughly. A Justice League film would also help launch potential series for Wonder Woman, Flash, and the Martian Manhunter; as well as reboot Superman better than Superman Returns was able to. Furthermore, DC has a super-villain in Darkseid that would require the unification of the heroes. Something Marvel is seemingly lacking.