Marvel's Phase 3 films apparently locked

News Simon Brew 14 Feb 2014 - 07:01
The Disney-owned (nearly) Marvel logo

Doctor Strange is set to happen, Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 isn't, according to new reports about Marvel's phase three of movies...

Speculation has been rife as to just which movies Marvel will schedule into phase three of its cinematic universe. Whilst Ant-Man is known, and both Captain America 3 and Thor 3 are expected to slot in there, there's been chat of standalone Hulk, Doctor Strange and Black Widow movies as part of the build-up to The Avengers 3.

Now, the folks over at SchmoesKnow, a site with a good track record on its rumours, reckon they've got the concrete line-up for Marvel's phase three. And it says the films in question are, "for absolute certain", Ant-Man, Captain America 3, Thor 3, The Avengers 3 and Doctor Strange.

To be fair, that's pretty much the line-up everyone's expecting and it'd take the studio up to 2018. That would leave the rumoured sequel to Guardians Of The Galaxy at least four years away its seems (although the report says this is a film that Marvel has no plans to make right now), as well as other mooted projects such as Black Panther and The Inhumans.

Our guess is that Captain America 3 and Thor 3 would wrap up those particular lines of movies, and it might just be that phase four is where we get at least three new standalone lines of films. We wait and see.

Marvel's next film, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, arrives in cinemas next month.

SchmoesKnow.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Four years for a sequel to "Guardians..." seems a little excessive surely if at all. Though I've seen nothing of the film itself this comment - " although the report says this is a film that Marvel has no plans to make right now" - worries me. I love the comic book and wonder if it hasn't translated well to screen?

This sounds good to me. Then Phase 4 will have Ant-Man 2 and Doctor Strange 2 as well as Black Panther and Hulk. I think the Guardians will factor into Avengers 3.

As far as I remember they were only ever planning to have on Guardians film, it was only speculation that said there would be a sequel

Sounds awesomely meta to me. A trilogy of groups of films, each one a continuation of the other. A 3 act structure, applied not to one piece of entertainment, but to a whole swathe of them. Fantastic! They should really be applauded for their foresight and patience. The MCU has been absolute treat from day one, and I see no reason for it not to continue to be so. Excelsior!

Gotta say, it's starting to look bad for Marvel, on how they are going out of their way to make movies that do NOT star minorities or women. Are they STILL afraid to make a movie starring a black person, or a woman? What gives?

And nobody tell me that it's because "movies starring [women or minorities] don't sell." because the only examples thus far were all terrible movies on the backburners made for piss poor budgets, with cheap directors, and bad writers. Make a movie that's actually well written and well made, and someone will buy that.

...They're missing a couple of films, going by everything we know about how Marvel is planning on approaching Phase 3, and how they've done the previous phases.
Apart from anything this plan means having Avengers 3 two years after Avengers 2, which would be a far tighter schedule than they've had for the first two films and wouldn't really make sense for scheduling the actors in the other film that comes out in the same year.
On top of that we know from Kevin Fiege that their plan is too release in Phase 3 a known property and a new character each year (like what they are doing this year with Cap and Guardians and next year with Avengers and Ant-Man.)
What I think is a more likely schedule would be:
2015: Avengers 2 and Ant-Man (we know)
2016: Dr Strange (very likely) and Thor 3 (or Cap 3)
2017: Cap 3 (or Thor) and New Property (possibly Black Panther)
2018: Avengers 3 (Then Start of Phase 4.)
If Avengers 3 was to be released in the same year as Cap 3 or Thor 3 they would have to filming close too on top of one another (like how Guardians and Cap were filming around the same time last year) which would only really work if the films weren't sharing cast members. Thats one of the reasons why Phase 3 is starting with Ant-Man, which will start filming in the next month or two, rather than trying to do a Thor 3 for 2015.

I thought the GotG sequel was being fast tracked for 2016? That's what DoG were reporting a couple of days ago anyway

I wouldn't read too much into the lack of interest for a GOTG sequel. Simple rule of Hollywood, if it makes a load of money..... make some more! If GOTG is a hit then of course they will pencil in another. They obviously aren't gonna commit to anything yet because A) its one of their lesser known properties B) nobody has seen the film yet!

I hope they have six films in Phase 3 (along with various One-Shots, Agents of SHIELD, the Netflix shows) so they can really build up to the Thanos story and have it all come together in Avengers 3 = Thanos with Infinity Gauntlet versus Avengers & GotG & Defenders

I'm expecting GotG to set up other potential 'cosmic' films - Ms Marvel, Inhumans, Nova etc.

I see it going something like this;

Cap 2 (sets up Avengers 2)
GotG (fleshes out Thanos and at introduces at least one more Infinity Stone, most likely Time)
Avengers 2
Ant-Man
Thor 3 (Introduces another Infinity Stone and Thanos steals Gauntlet)
Dr Strange (Introduces another Infinity Stone)
Cap 3
Avengers 3 (Thanos with Infinity Gauntlet versus Avengers & GotG & Defenders)

I'm trying to post a link to an awesome GOTG gif that leaked out last night, but Disqus is doing its best to stop me. Apparently, I'm "awaiting moderation" (which is Disqus for "Bugger off, we are ignoring you")

Anyway, try this without spaces.....
i.imgur . com / nivpkG2.gif

It is looking seeeeeeriously awesome.

You can't really say they're going out of their way not to make those movies. I agree that they have enough good minority and female characters to be able to make films with them but I'm sure they have a plan. I think one possible problem about not going straight for a Black Widow film is because she's not super-powered and they may fear that it won't garner as much interest as the others. Personally, I don't think they should go out of their way to force anything, they should let it feed in naturally. That said, if the report is true then I'm a bit disappointed that we won't see Black Panther for at least five years.

Apologies for any incoherence, I'm typing this on a severe lack of sleep.

We are getting a Luke Cage show, a Jessica Jones show and a Iron Fist show though. I could see that leading to a Defenders film - or if not they will all feature in Avengers 3 at least.

Plus the importance of the roles for War Machine, Falcon, Black Widow seem to be increasing.

Keyword here is "Show" and on Netflix.

Sure, but at least they are bringing them into the MCU.

A Black Panther film would be cool or a Ms Marvel film. Hopefully they will have six films in Phase 3 which could be these two.

Add that number of years until a Black Panther film to the four years since this shared universe stuff got started, or at bare minimum, the two years since Avengers.

Right. Ms Marvel is definitely the most obvious choice for a female lead, in film. Her or She-Hulk, I think. Now THERE is a candidate for a series. An ongoing series about She-Hulk. (Edit: I would like to point out that I am not being facetious or sarcastic in the above statement.)

Still, it does feel like movie execs are dragging their ass on the whole thing. (Don't even get me started on WB/DC.)

Are GOTG in Avengers 2? I haven't seen anything mentioned about them? In that context, it makes sense there wouldn't be a GOTG2 in Phase 3 I suppose - although might they show up in Dr Strange perhaps?

How's THIS for a show?

Thor 3 ? groan.....

Aww son! Setting up civil war maybe?! I put a picture above of avengers academy, which would be a good show after A3 comes out (or whenever, I assume these people are smarter than me)

thank you. that is quality.

I've been dubious of GOTG due to Rocket Racoon... but that .gif has just swung me round.

Surely the existence and speed of a sequel may depend in part on where it fits into the overall MCU continuity, but more significantly, how well the first film goes down? We're talking about a film with a lot of characters who the majority of the audience won't know. It's difficult to get an ensemble cast to play well without setting them up individually first. And none of these characters are as well known as most of the Avengers to begin with.

They're probably hedging their bets just in case it flops. Let's face it - statistically, they're due one!

Whiny beeyatch. Groan...

I think they're missing at least one from there. Sure, there were only five films in Phase Two, but there were six in Phase One, and with Avengers 3 expected in 2018 that means there should be 4 in between Ant-Man and A3 (2 in 2016, 2 in 2017). Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is still a possibility (as is Iron Man 4 - over $1billion dollars last time, remember -, Black Panther, Ms Marvel, Black Widow, and juuuuust possibly another Hulk).

Of all the Marvel films, that's the sequel that's needed considering the ending of Dark World.

Right, the numbers don't add up.
Personally, given that Dr Strange doesn't have anyone assigned to it yet, I think 2016 would be a massive undertaking. Here's how I see it working (going with the recently mooted idea of Guardians 2 in 2016):
2015 A2 then Ant-Man, of course
2016: Thor 3 then Guardians 2
2017: Cap 3 then Dr Strange
2018: A3
I know we'd all like to see more first films, but to be honest they'll go with what's bankable (and what has cast and crew already pretty much lined up). Hopefully then Phase Four will kick off with Ms Marvel. Thor and Cap, having completed trilogies, will probably sit out Phase Four, leaving room for Black Panther or Black Widow, maybe even a Hulk.

I hate to be the one to say it but... Black Panther looks like Batman.

I can't see a She-Hulk film happening (although maybe she could feature in Daredevil as a lawyer and be introduced that way?).

Ms Marvel could be set up in GotG?

What would the story be for Black Panther? I keep thinking it might be a bit too similar to the first Thor in some ways. But maybe have an Infinty Stone in Wakanda...

GotG are not in Avengers2 as far as we know. I would expect one or more of them to feature in Avengers3, and/or in a Phase3 film (Thor3?)

I heard Chris Pratt is in A2. It was probably a rumor because, well, because it probably is. But it would still be cool.

By the time Avengers4 happens (renamed as 'Marvel Civil War') there may be enough established supehero to make a version of the Civil War story.

That looks fricking ace now I'm slightly disappointed there'll be no sequel to gotg anytime soon.

I think that entirely depends on how much money the first one makes. If it's a massive hit, there is no way Marvel won't be making a sequel

Aww man that's (counts fingers) 4 phases we gotta wait! Oh well, I'm sure it'll be worth it!

Every film they have done has had strong female characters and strong characters that are not white. I don't think they are purposely going out of their way to make films without female or none white people main characters (Black Widow is actually a main character in Avengers and Capt2) plus if they were scared of making a film staring a black person then they wouldn't have changed the race of Fury.

I think we will get some female heroes soon, we have to remember female heroes don't tend to sell well or they didn't back in the 90s and 00s. Now superhero movies appeal to everyone and not just teenage boys so I wouldn't put it past them to make a Widow film soon enough. She's got a big bar in Avengers 2. =]

Introduce Jen in just about anything. Another Hulk movie, Daredevil, something; Don't care where, so long as it's good. Yeah Ms Marvel could be set up in Guardians, as well as a number of other places. At bare minimum the Kree or

Mahr Vehl, and put Carol somewhere else. I don't know.

Not sure.

#1: Widow and Fury are not starring characters, they're supporting characters. There's a difference. A big difference.

#2: They didn't change Fury's race for the movies, they re-imagined him for Marvel's "Ultimate Comics" line, which was mainly about re-imagining characters more streamlined to fit the time.

#3: Superhero films didn't sell well, because the majority of them sucked. Same goes for female superheroes. Hollywood made no effort to make a good product, and did little to nothing to promote it, after it was released (in part because they knew it sucked) and between a crappy film and no audience, there was no money to be made.

Any argument made that female starred films don't make money is flawed, because look at the pieces of crap they're using as "proof" that they don't make money. Elektra? Catwoman? Do you really think those TWO examples are fair? Can you really say those are particularly GOOD products, with complete honesty?

That looks ridiculously good. And Rocket Raccoon being a nutcase with a gun is all I need for several sequels, tbh.

For sure. But maybe with some 80's skeleton warriors

Well I'm a half Honduran half Cuban black guy born in New Orleans and raised in Mississippi (still here) and I'd much rather talk comic book movies without crying!

Anyway, the reason I bring up how it's a show and for netflix, is because that alone shows a lack of confidence.

Captain America 3?? Eurrrggghhhh.

Well the Hulk was a massive hit in Avengers... no sequel yet!

Yes there is, Avengers 2 is due out next year ;)

Touche sir! :)

What's up with Thor? Thor 2 was great fun

6 in phase 3 would be dependent on Phase 4. Marvel only intends on doing 2 movies a year. The list given only has one uncertainty in in and that's Doctor Strange. They may want to do it, but it's the one that has the hardest sell. We'll have 6 in Phase 3 if we have a late Summer Avengers 3. However, I think it will be early since the late in the year movie should be the intro to Phase 4. Like how Ant-Man is the Intro to Phase 3.

Thor2 fun? ahahahahahahah!

enjoy the 5 bucks they paid ya sucker!

not really.

y'see, you're having fun

Someone needs to go do some fact-checking! Since when have there been plans for only 5 movies in Phase 3?

If the rumours that Chris Pratt will make an appearance in Avengers 3 are indeed true, I'd guess GotG will end with Ronan and Nebula defeated, at least temporarily, and Thantos escaping, leading to Star Lord attempting to track him down and arriving on Earth soon after him in Avengers 3.

Really looking forward to these up coming goodies! I'm actually conducting a study on the Marvel Universe and I thought I'd ask you guys, do you see the Marvel trend, in terms of film, cosplay and events dying out in mainstream culture?

I guess I just didn't expect Marvel to not count a sequel into their plans "just in case" the film did well. It's almost like they're expecting it to fail. And you forget that not every filmgoer knew who Thor or Captain America was before they stepped through the theatre doors... Captain America may be an institution in the US but here in the UK he's not... yes, people read his comic books but the average person on the street wouldn't know who he was... so the same goes for Guardians of the Galaxy. I've loved them since I was a little boy in the seventies but I'm aware in some territories they will have an uphill climb just as Thor or Captain America did. I just want the film to succeed...

Black Widow anyone? From what we hear about Captain America 2 her role will be substantial.

oversaturation kills eventually especially if the product starts looking samey and formulaic

probably bec they cut off the character's balls and made him comic relief

fool!

I don't think that's right, Avengers 3 would only need to be the first film in 2018 to allow for 6 in Phase 3 (including Avengers 3):
2015: Ant-Man
2016: Two films
2017: Two films
2018: Avengers 3 (then a second 2018 film to kick off Phase 4)

Still not a starring role, which is what I was talking about.

How old are some these actors going to be? These actors are going to be showing their age by the latter phases. Gotta love makeup!

And cgi!

Digital makeup :-)

As much as I would enjoy seeing the Civil War portrayed on film, as some commenters here hope, I can't see this becoming a reality. The comics Civil War came about because of public unrest over the dozens, hundreds even, of superpowered heroes and villains running around unregistered and unlicensed and causing mayhem without accountability. So far in the MCU we have less than a dozen heroes, all of whom are already either working for SHIELD or are known by them. Maybe in the distant future when I have grandkids, and Marvel/Disney gets back the rights to all the heroes currently not under their direct authority...

like house of cards, or breaking bad? i know breaking bad was not a primarily netflix show, but it is where i watched it.

Troll

1- Black Widow is a staring character in Avengers...

2- They re-imagined him after Samuel L Jackson started playing him. He agreed to let them base the Ultimates Nick around him.

3- Again no effort was made to make a female superhero film because they are hard to sell. Any film with a female lead based around action is a hard sell. Sometimes it really pays off (Hunger Games, Alien etc) and mostly... it doesn't (Catwoman, SuperGirl ect) and that's because back then it was mainly a guy thing to watch action/superhero movies.

You have Tank Girl, Super Girl, Elektra, Catwoman and then you have the problem of say Batman introducing Batgirl which was done terribly, even Black Widow was done badly in Iron Man 2 and it took Avengers to really get a likeable strong character from her. So I think it is best the studios play this smart and take their time because yeah all attempts so far for female superhero leads have failed.

No one really wants black panther... I am so glad this film hasn't been announced. There are a about a billion Marvel Character that would be more interesting.

fool!

Interesting this decade is like the 30s when it come to movies, what I mean is we have multi movies set in the one universe, this is like hammer horror style of movie releasing, by having tons of sequels and crossovers. Dracula had 10 sequels. Interesting that holly wood is going back to that style of having loads of sequels to one movie .

The only actor that will age is Robert Downey jr, the rest of the cast are still young.

Movies starring blacks and women don't sell, there selling this stuff to teens that's why. Hot white guy saving earth sells millions, black dude making jokes wile saving world doesent, it's not the 90s anymore

It's still, for now at least, considered a lesser medium, and it's still not as mainstream as network television, or theatrical release feature length film. It still shows their hesitation. They're still dragging their ass.

1: She's a cast member in an ensemble, with limited screentime. Furthermore the film is not HER movie, it's the Avengers' movie. Which brings me back to what I just said. Ensemble. She's part of an ensemble.

2: Check your facts, sir. He agreed for Marvel to use his likeness for Ultimate Nick Fury, back in 2002, but he himself did not play the part until 2008, at the end of the first Iron Man film.

3: Again, it's a tough sell because they have made no effort to make a good product. Supergirl, Catwoman, Tank Girl, Elektra, all of which were ☠☠☠☠ terrible. Can you really say that ALL of that was strictly because they starred women? Can you really say that it had nothing to do with them being terribly written, terribly made, terribly acted films?

Everything about your statement shows you to be racist, uneducated, and ignorant. Your comments, spelling and grammar all show what kind of an idiot you truly are, and I will not reply to you again.

I thought Skeleton Warriors were early/mid 90s.

Good for you. Doesn't make the inequality any more right, just because you keep your mouth shut about it.

When he has the cape, yeah he really does.

Actually, Black Panther would be a challenging film to make, in more than one respect, however, I do think it has potential.

I don't know enough about him to have a storyline in mind, like say the winter soldier. I just know his origin... But do we really need another origin? Maybe in flashback, but throughout, like godfather 2.

And having superhero minorities will save my mixed son from getting beat up by black and white kids how? Movies are escapism. You want change, hand me the remote, and let me know how it works out for ya

Origins are tricky business. You're kinda damned if you do and if you don't. If you do it, a complaint is made like you just did, here. Saying things like "Do we really need another origin?". If you don't put in an origin, people complain about all the questions they have, and how they have no attachment to the character.

No not the cartoon, I mean skeleton warriors in general. Headbanger stuff.

Nothing will change that. Speaking as a guy who's been beat up and bullied, I'm pretty sure nothing would have changed that.

My mistake.

Don't I know it, but watching Godfather 2 last night, it's the only way I can think of right now, probably because it's the last one I watched, but that's neither here not there. Besides, this article may be wrong because A2 is filming in Johannesburg... Although Marvel denies it, that may be Wakanda. We may get an origin here.

You're right. I was too man. I like our other conversation better lol. Truce.

If only there was some other venue, like say a television show on a big network, that Marvel could use to introduce more and more super powered beings into their movie universe. But that's wishful thinking. ;-)

Have you seen Marvel comics? Just how many titles headline females and minorities? And how many of those last more than 24 issues?

Admittedly I had forgotten about those - but even so, there'd have to be scores of superhumans running around to make it work, and I doubt if that'd happen. Now, if they did get back the X-Men, Spider-man, the FF, etc :-)

For women, I'd say that Ms Marvel and She-Hulk immediately come to mind. For minorities, sadly, it's mostly Black Pather that comes to mind. Though there has been some success with others, but most the ones that come to mind would probably fall into Fox or Sony's territory.

I would also bring up Luke Cage, but they've already got him covered in a Netflix series (which was touched upon earlier in the conversation) and a lesser known, lesser successful hero, Deathlok, is also showing up in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Still, if measuring a character by the length of their series runs is how you pick them, how the hell did Blade get a series of movies? Just saying.

Lord knows I'd like to see Marvel get Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men and Namor back from their respective holders, because then we could have Spider-Man on Avengers. We could see Tony, Reed and Peter geek out together. More especially there'd be a lot less dancing around character details (looking at you, The Wolverine, and you too, Avengers 2) and they could just tell stories.

Blade? No clue how that happened, though I'm 2/3 glad it did (and 1/3 indifferent). And even with Shulk and Ms/Captain Marvel, neither has had great success carrying her own title despite numerous attempts (and in the case of She Hulk, Batgirl, etc I wouldn't really want the first big female comic book movie to be based on the female version of a popular male hero, but that's could just be me).

I do think that the comic book readership is different from the movie going audience, so if I were a running the studio I would be more willing to try things that didn't go over in the comics, but at the same time, I could understand someone being reticent to greenlight a $100+m movie of a character that couldn't make it past issue 24. Thor, Iron Man, as "second rate" as people think they were, they did essentially go 40 years with their own books (with an occasional interruption for marketing events). Can't say that for a black or female character at this point (except Wonder Woman, and DC is having trouble getting any non-Batman film to go well).

Going back to Blade, that wasn't exactly a huge hit (three films combined grossed just over $200m. For female characters, the closest I can think of are the Underworld franchise ($220m over 4 films) and Resident Evil ($240m over 5 films). None of these really set the box office on fire - adjusted for inflation Blade 1 still came in behind The Incredible Hulk, Marvel's one disappointing film (BO wise). The key, I think, would be to limit budgets so that a $100-150 take would be profitable enough for a sequel, and, at least in Marvel's case, cross promote heavily. Black Widow has been established in Avengers, and we see how much better post-Avengers Thor 2 as compared to pre-Avengers Thor 1. With her getting another role in Winter Soldier (giving her 3 film appearances), I see no reason why they couldn't give her a solo outing.

As for minority characters, well, most of them suck. Or do you really want a Triathalon film? Of course, Blade wasn't that great before Wesley Snipes sunk his teeth into the character. Pickings for asian, latino, and other minorities are even slimmer.

Question: do we know who holds the rights to Cloak and Dagger? Are they under the X-Men umbrella, because that would kill two birds with one film.

If only the show would actually introduce more superheroes. Don't need to be featured - just a mention on the TV would be a start.

I still hate Avengers Spidey. For me, Spidey's the guy who could never catch a break - putting him on the Avengers is like letting him get drafted by the Yankees.

I have no idea who has the rights to Cloak & Dagger. I don't think they're mutants though, because I seem to recall their origins involved drug use. (Though correct me if I'm worng.) It's possible they fall under Sony's ties to Spider-Man, but if not, and assuming they're not mutant, I'm pretty sure Marvel is in the clear to use them any way they like. Which I could totally get behind.

I'll agree with you, there are not a hell of a lot of great minority characters, outside of X-Men or Spider-Man, which makes their pickings a tad slim. It's something that always bothered me. Actually a lot of Marvel's characters are usually team-based, so that's one of the bit hindrances apart from separate movie rights with Sony Fox and Universal.

I can agree with you on She-Hulk not being the first, but I think they need to do it pretty close after the first. Ms. Marvel is also a female Captain Marvel, but what can you do? Fortunately, most outsiders probably won't catch that. I also don't think that 50-60 issue runs are much to scoff at, and while they weir runs were not 40 years, their characters were almost always there, and they do have names made for themselves.

Previous attempts by Spidey to work with the Avengers have pointed out the obvious personality drawback: he's not a team player. It's not a flaw, it's just a fact of life that some folk work better alone. Same with Daredevil (though he's also hampered by the fact that his radar sense can cause confusing signals when in a crowd of friends and foes).

I find that him on the New Avengers for the longest time was kind of like him getting a dream, and finding out how unfulfilling it was for him. It got him a chance to do more good, but still at street level stuff, and considering most versions of the Avengers he ended up on were not considered legitimate Avengers rosters in the eyes of those who counted, and he was still treated like a menace. Ultimately it bought him a whole lot of nothing.

For both Spider-Man and Daredevil it depends on who's writing. For the most part though, you're half right about Spider-Man. I often read stories where he's extremely useful in a team, but not in any method that the rest of the team was hoping for. As for Daredevil, his heightened senses and how much of a blessing or hindrance they turn out to be also seems to vary from writer to writer.

That's fine though. Let's have them aging and work that into plots with heroes retiring or dying or passing the mantle to a sidekick etc...

Or maybe Marvel realise they can't introduce everyone they want in two films a year and so are looking at other avenues to do this.

If GotG includes time travel it could be start in the 1980's, mainly happen in the future and then end up around the time of Avengers3...

It's possible. However I'm skeptical.

So why did you find Thor2 lacking? Just curious.

forgettable villain, corny attempts at humor, mandatory topless shot for the girls, a love triangle that we know is going nowhere, the moment 2 comedy relief characters just drop a car on some god killing elves....only saving grace was Loki! this movie needed more Loki!

Not Hollywood just MARVEL lol

It may be that Avengers 3 is the first film of 2018, and the second film kicks of phase 4. The other option is that Marvel is waiting to see the reception to GOTG before deciding if they want a sequel or a new Hulk film.

DC is trying to get in on it as well. Sony seems to want to do it with Spiderman. with a Venom and Sinister Six movie in the works.

Bring on Nova

Sponsored Links