AP: MARVEL SIGNS INTERIM DEAL WITH WGA

[MattBrady]

LOS ANGELES (AP) _ Lionsgate and Marvel studios have signed interim deals with the striking Writers Guild of America, the union said.

The deals announced Thursday followed separate guild pacts with other independent production companies such as United Artists, The Weinstein Co. and David Letterman's Worldwide Pants.

The guild said such agreements confirm it is possible for writers to be compensated fairly and for companies to operate profitably.

Lionsgate's new projects include Sylvester Stallone's ``Rambo'' sequel, ``Saw 5'' and the TV show ``Mad Men.''

Upcoming comic-book film projects from Marvel Studios, a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment Inc., include ``Iron Man'' and ``The Incredible Hulk.''

The writers guild, on strike since Nov. 5, is in informal talks with studio bosses to reach a contract agreement and end the costly 11-week walkout that has idled much of the entertainment industry.

The WGA press release on the same reads:

Marvel Studios, a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment, Inc., and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) announced today that they have reached an interim comprehensive agreement that will put writers immediately back to work on the Marvel Studios development slate. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

“We’re very excited about our summer releases, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and look forward to resuming work with writers on our future projects including Captain America, Thor, Ant-Man, and The Avengers,” said Marvel Studios Chairman David Maisel.

“Marvel Studios’ signing of an interim agreement with the Writers Guild is more good news for our membership,” said WGAE President Michael Winship and WGAW President Patric M. Verrone. “Marvel is committed to fairly compensating their writers and now they can move forward with their planned production schedule.”

Marvel Studios recently launched its independent live-action film studio to develop, produce, and fully finance Marvel movies, which will include two of this summer’s most anticipated releases – Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man will be released by Paramount Pictures on May 2, 2008, and stars Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow. The Incredible Hulk, which will be released by Universal Pictures on June 13, 2008, is directed by Louis Leterrier and stars Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, and William Hurt. In cooperation with other studios, Marvel previously produced a long succession of hits, including the Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four franchises, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil.

The WGA recently entered into interim agreements with The Weinstein Company, United Artists, Lionsgate, Worldwide Pants, Spyglass Entertainment, MRC, Jackson Bites, Mandate Films, and Sidney Kimmel Entertainment.

[Punchy]

Is this the first official mention of the rumoured Avengers movie?

[MattBrady]

Originally Posted by Punchy

Is this the first official mention of the rumoured Avengers movie?

they've been talking about it officially since...what, SDCC 06, I think - saying it would come after live action flicks of the founders. It's been on the books for a while now - not as a rumor.

MattB

[Wade Wilson]

My understaniding is Marvel will only make Avengers after the completion of Cap/Iron Man/Thor/Ant-Man and all the actors agree to return to their respective roles.

[McNasty]

Looks like Lionsgate's got sequelitis. I mean come on, Saw 5? How much further can they go? Jigsaw's children maybe, maybe not if you've seen the Saw 4.

[80Pork]

Originally Posted by Wade Wilson

My understaniding is Marvel will only make Avengers after the completion of Cap/Iron Man/Thor/Ant-Man and all the actors agree to return to their respective roles.

If that's the case, my thoughts are that is good in a way and bad in a way.

Good because it sounds like they want to launch an Avengers movie with the originals and Cap...a fairly faithful adaptation of how the comic started.

Bad because it will be several years away if they are waiting for all of the individual movies to be completed, and the actors may not agree to return. The only easy fix option for that is to put different, "lower tier" Avengers in the movie with just a few of these heavy hitters (maybe go with Cap, Iron Man, and Hulk with Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Falcon, etc.). Again, that option could be positive or negative.

[80Pork]

Originally Posted by McNasty

Looks like Lionsgate's got sequelitis. I mean come on, Saw 5? How much further can they go? Jigsaw's children maybe, maybe not if you've seen the Saw 4.

Last I heard, they are committed to a Saw 5 and a Saw 6...

[Batmite79]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

“Marvel is committed to fairly compensating their writers and now they can move forward with their planned production schedule.”

If only they were so committed to compensating their comic writers on the DCU side of things...

[jonmason1977]

Bravo for Marvel for compensating the writers fairly - this and other similar deals prove that their position isn't wildly unacceptable and the major studios are just being greedy in holding out.

[Skyrider]

Hm....looks like the Spideykicksbutt guy was right again...

[Skyrider]

Originally Posted by Batmite79

If only they were so committed to compensating their comic writers on the DCU side of things...

DC, unlike Marvel, are owned by Warner Brothers. You're talking big, longtime, old standing studio here.

Marvel is a small independently owned studio, which is yet to even release a film. Personally, I'm worried Marvel's wading in waters they aren't familiar with and are going to write checks that they may not be able to cash. Though, Lionsgate's support does bode well for the deal.

That's not to say I do not support the WGA getting properly compensated...but this reads to me as Marvel taking advantage of a PR opportunity before they're even sure of the success of their products.

[xdemon]

Originally Posted by Skyrider

DC, unlike Marvel, are owned by Warner Brothers. You're talking big, longtime, old standing studio here.

Marvel is a small independently owned studio, which is yet to even release a film. Personally, I'm worried Marvel's wading in waters they aren't familiar with and are going to write checks that they may not be able to cash. Though, Lionsgate's support does bode well for the deal.

That's not to say I do not support the WGA getting properly compensated...but this reads to me as Marvel taking advantage of a PR opportunity before they're even sure of the success of their products.

I think Batmite79 was talking about Marvel's Digital Comics Unlimited.

[Brent Sienna]

Originally Posted by Skyrider

DC, unlike Marvel, are owned by Warner Brothers. You're talking big, longtime, old standing studio here.

Marvel is a small independently owned studio, which is yet to even release a film. Personally, I'm worried Marvel's wading in waters they aren't familiar with and are going to write checks that they may not be able to cash. Though, Lionsgate's support does bode well for the deal..

No they've waded this way before sort of. Is this Heroes World part deux?

Being their own studio makes Marvel more cash from their own properties. Sounds good but so did buying Heroes World Distributing and being their own distributor. They tried to knock out the middleman and make more profit, except in the end it cost them. Hopefully history taught them a lesson there that won't be repeated. Having other studios attached helps lessen the risk but if the superhero formula movie dries up one day soon it could hurt. How many disaster flicks do you see now? The 70's were huge for them with Irwin Allen making movies of every type of disaster from earthquakes to fires to capsizing ships, nowadays not so many. Sometimes trying to maximize profit ends up costing you more.

[StrangeMark]

Originally Posted by xdemon

I think Batmite79 was talking about Marvel's Digital Comics Unlimited.

I always find that name really annoying, surely Marvel must have known how much fusion it would create, calling something DCU!

[MrToady12]

Originally Posted by Wade Wilson

My understanding is Marvel will only make Avengers after the completion of Cap/Iron Man/Thor/Ant-Man and all the actors agree to return to their respective roles.

I find this scenario highly unlikely - one reason being, while it's great that Robert Downey Jr is doing Iron Man, no one is going to see the movie specifically for him - they want to see the character of Iron Man. That will be the case with any well established and popular Marvel character (Tobey Maguire/ Jake Gylenhall/ - it didn't matter what actor played Spider-Man as long as they could act and resembled the character somewhat). No studio is going to base business decisions on whether or not a B or C-list actor (which Downey Jr is) is going to appear in a film. I think the only actor that a studio would perceive as so identifiable with a Marvel character to the point at which they could not make the film would have to be Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman.

I reckon a better business decision would be to establish Iron Man and Hulk in two films, then merge the two characters (irrespective of the actors involved) into an Avengers film that would introduce Captain America, Thor, and Ant-Man (Wasp). Then spin these characters off into seperate movies if the film was profitable. Captain America would be almost impossible to market internationally at this point unless the character was already presented in an ensemble piece anyway - similar to Silver Surfer/FF 2.

As much as I'd like to see an Avengers film in the future for some reason I just don't see it ever happening - well if Justice League gets off the ground and is not a commercial/ critical failure I'll change my mind.

Cheers

[Bullet_Train]

Originally Posted by Skyrider

DC, unlike Marvel, are owned by Warner Brothers. You're talking big, longtime, old standing studio here.

Marvel is a small independently owned studio, which is yet to even release a film. Personally, I'm worried Marvel's wading in waters they aren't familiar with and are going to write checks that they may not be able to cash. Though, Lionsgate's support does bode well for the deal.

That's not to say I do not support the WGA getting properly compensated...but this reads to me as Marvel taking advantage of a PR opportunity before they're even sure of the success of their products.

Think about it, Ironman has been getting great buzz recently and though the Hulk will have to fight through the stigma of it being a sequel to the original Ang Lee movie (though WE know it isnt, the general public doesnt. And for the record I LIKED Hulk. I thought it was well done), it is sure to be hit. These are recognizable icons that even if they falter theatrically will have a damned healthy life on DVD. Marvel Studios is doing fine as long as they don't try to release too many movies a year and retain the quality that these two seem to have. Two is fine since they work on a revolving door of money that recycles and grows-or at least that's my understanding.

[Scott King]

That's a slap in the face to all the non-union writers who write comics for Marvel.

[Skyrider]

Originally Posted by Bullet_Train

Think about it, Ironman has been getting great buzz recently and though the Hulk will have to fight through the stigma of it being a sequel to the original Ang Lee movie (though WE know it isnt, the general public doesnt. And for the record I LIKED Hulk. I thought it was well done), it is sure to be hit. These are recognizable icons that even if they falter theatrically will have a damned healthy life on DVD. Marvel Studios is doing fine as long as they don't try to release too many movies a year and retain the quality that these two seem to have. Two is fine since they work on a revolving door of money that recycles and grows-or at least that's my understanding.

Well it really ends up coming down to a few factors. Some of which we won't ever really know.

1) Will these movies see success more in line of Spider-man or Daredevil?

2) With the way Hollywood money math works, it's entirely possible that even if the movies appear to do well, that they won't make a profit in the end because of deals made at one point or another. It's a risk with any film, and a lot of weird deals get made behind the scenes.

[Lars]

An ANT-MAN movie?

ANT MAN?!!!!???

Why not Doctor Druid?
Charlie-27?
Nuklo?
Espirita?
The Shroud?
Or even Speedball?
Or Herbie the Robot?

Ant-man couldn't sell, isn't known to the general public etc etc. I smell a tanker along the lines of Catwoman...

[kamikazi]

Originally Posted by Lars

An ANT-MAN movie?

ANT MAN?!!!!???

Why not Doctor Druid?
Charlie-27?
Nuklo?
Espirita?
The Shroud?
Or even Speedball?
Or Herbie the Robot?

Ant-man couldn't sell, isn't known to the general public etc etc. I smell a tanker along the lines of Catwoman...

It's being directed by Edgar Wright. Don't worry.

[Mega Gear X]

Originally Posted by Lars

An ANT-MAN movie?

ANT MAN?!!!!???

Why not Doctor Druid?
Charlie-27?
Nuklo?
Espirita?
The Shroud?
Or even Speedball?
Or Herbie the Robot?

Ant-man couldn't sell, isn't known to the general public etc etc. I smell a tanker along the lines of Catwoman...

Or like Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, Antz or A Bug's Life??? People love movies where the character is super small. The general comic book public is very cynical about shrinking but to everyone else, it's a power that hasn't even been explored yet.

[Gladiator X]

Originally Posted by Punchy

Is this the first official mention of the rumoured Avengers movie?

Originally Posted by MattBrady

they've been talking about it officially since...what, SDCC 06, I think - saying it would come after live action flicks of the founders. It's been on the books for a while now - not as a rumor.

MattB

Yeah, ever since I heard these plans I've been quivering with hope that this will happen.
With the X-over stuff we've heard about Hulk and Iron Man, it looks like the seeds are being planted already.
Man! This will be THE coolest thing ever if it happens!

[Doombug]

Originally Posted by Lars

An ANT-MAN movie?

ANT MAN?!!!!???

Why not Doctor Druid?
Charlie-27?
Nuklo?
Espirita?
The Shroud?
Or even Speedball?
Or Herbie the Robot?

Ant-man couldn't sell, isn't known to the general public etc etc. I smell a tanker along the lines of Catwoman...

Ant-man wrote by edgar wright of shaun of the dead and hot fuzz fame. the movie will be fun and good.

[Comic-Reader]

Originally Posted by Lars

An ANT-MAN movie?

ANT MAN?!!!!???

Why not Doctor Druid?
Charlie-27?
Nuklo?
Espirita?
The Shroud?
Or even Speedball?
Or Herbie the Robot?

Ant-man couldn't sell, isn't known to the general public etc etc. I smell a tanker along the lines of Catwoman...

I think an Ant-Man movie can work well if done properly. Will it make $400 million? Probably not. But it's a cute high concept that can be played for some interesting scenarios. They'll probably have to leave out the actual talking to ants bit, but the shrinking can lead to some fun stuff.

I'd prefer to see DC's Ray Palmer Atom in a movie, but it's a smart move on Marvel's part to get their shrinker in theaters first. Once they do that, DC's Atom would be redundant as far as movie projects go.

[sweetmisery]

Good news for Marvel. Cant wait for the Avengers movie.