Showing posts with label Trending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trending. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2015

Orcs are commonplace villains in the fantasy world and in Tolkein's Mythology the race of sentient beings are associated with the forces of dark and evil. InThe Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings writings, these monstrous humanoids are cruel, blood-thirsty and destructive and are always the primary obstacle to progress in Middle Earth.
Yet as repulsive as they are in the movies, have you ever wondered what the people who portray them look like behind the mask?
For your viewing pleasure, I have exposed some of the men who bring the Orcs of Middle Earth to life:

Lawrence Makoare as Lurtz



Who? Lurtz was the first leader of the Uruk-hai Scouts. In The Fellowship of the Ring, he kills Boromir and is then slain by Aragorn as revenge.
Fun Fact: Considering Lawrence Makoare's size, he did not have to wear the same amount of bulky padding and clothing as the other Uruk-hai actors.

Jed Brophy as Snaga



Who? Snaga is an Orc scout that meets UglĂșk's group in The Two Towers.
Fun Fact: Jed Brophy's children, Sadwyn and Riley, also appeared in the films. His son appeared as Eldarion, whose parents were Arwen and Elessar.

Stephen Ure as GrishnĂĄkh



Who? GrishnĂĄkh was the orc captain of a group of Mordor Orcs that joined Saruman's Urak-hai troops, who had captured Merry and Pippin, on the plains of Rohan.
Fun Fact: Stephen Ure is an Australian actor who also played Gorbag in The Return of the King. Interestingly, both Orcs that he played were attempting to kill a hobbit before being struck down.

Nathaniel Lees as UglĂșk



Who? UglĂșk was the leader of the Uruk-hai scouts after Lurtz's death. His group were the ones who captured Merry and Pippin at Amon Hen and were on their way to Isengard.
Fun Fact: The New Zealand actor is of Samoan descent and is best known for his roles in The Matrix and The Two Towers.

Manu Bennett as Azog



Who? Azog the Defiler is more prominent in The Hobbit installments. He was an Orc chieftain who lived in Moria during the late Third Age, becoming the leader of the Goblins of Moria and initiating the War of the Dwarves and Orcs by beheading King ThrĂłr.
Fun Fact: When asked how he approached his character after being cast, he said:
"The night I was cast, I went out and bought The Empire Strikes Back and Jaws. My goals were to get a voice as sinister as Darth Vader and the menacing physicality of the shark. It's so easy to take these big beasts - these ferocious characters - and cook them at ten the whole time. But I wanted to have this circling, steady presence that would suddenly attack randomly."


And now... no Orc story would be complete without the epic fan made Orc Dance (featuring Legolas of course!)

Absolutely bizarre but strangely brilliant..?

'The Lord of the Rings' Orcs Unmasked: The Actors Behind The Terrifying Exterior

Friday, February 13, 2015

Sony
With the recent news that Spider-Man will partially be returning to the hands of Marvel, but whose rights are still owned by Sony, also came word that the young actor, Andrew Garfield, will be taking off the mask, shedding his suit, ditching his gadgets, and will not be reprising the role of Spidey, much to the dismay of his dedicated fans.
Early reports on the recasting were making it sound like Garfield, who played the wise-cracking, sarcastic Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had be ousted by the studios largely because they wanted to go with someone younger than the 31-year-old actor. Apparently, that wasn't always the situation.
Sony
Sony
According to The Daily Beast, Andrew Garfield was in talks with Marvel-Sony to continue his work as the fan-favorite wall-crawler, but in the end things simply didn't pan out between them. Ultimately, "it didn’t make sense" for Garfield to move onto the next chapter of Spidey's tale.
Sony
Sony
It's still unsure whether it was officially his decision or the studios, and where the discussions ended, but some are beginning to speculate that it was actually Garfield who cut his time short. I know, it seems ridiculous that Garfield, who has made it abundantly clear how passionate he is about the role, would turn down playing Spider-Man, but that doesn't make it impossible.
It was likely pretty unsettling for Garfield to have his fate in the Spider-Manfranchise so up in the air due to the messy custody battle between Marvel and Sony. Or, perhaps it was due to the changes Sony made to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, followed by the unfavorable views of the sequel that wore him down. At the Toronto International Film Festival in September, Garfield was quoted byThe Daily Beast saying:
It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related.
Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.
No one can deny that Garfield is a talented, passionate actor with, I'm sure, plenty of potential roles on his plate. With this new shift in Spider-Manownership, it might be a better move career-wise for Garfield to take this opportunity to end his role as Peter Parker and move onto other projects where he's not tied down to a multi-movie superhero franchise.
Sony
Sony
In lieu of Garfield's absence, the Marvel-Sony teams have opted to reboot Spider-Man (again!) and give him an entirely new look, with a fresh face for the role, minus the origin story. Because, honestly, who doesn't know that whole narrative already? In the wise words of head of the Fosun-backed Studio 8, Jeff Robinov:
In the next Spider-Man movies, we can’t go back to his origin story. Think of the 25 films in the James Bond franchise; just because a new creative team comes aboard, and breathes new life into a classic property, doesn’t mean the origin story has to be retold.
While Marvel’s Kevin Feige is working alongside Amy Pascal from Sony, Sony still holds majority share over Spider-Man's rights. Earlier today, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter announced that it's still true that the studio (Sony) is aiming to cast someone younger (high school age) than Garfield to next don the red and blue suit. Sorry, Tobey.
Sony
Sony
That being said, nothing it set in stone and the role is still up for grabs, so we can't be entirely sure what to expect.
When push comes to shove, I get it. Sometimes, even with all the wishing and hoping of fans like me, casting just doesn't work out. And that doesn't mean those of us who feel like Garfield's run was too short will have to feign agreement with the studios' decisions. Still, now that Marvel was able to regain some control over Spider-Man's fate, I'm sure whoever they pick to fill Garfield's suit will be the right choice for the role.
Who do you think should play the next Spider-Man? Let me know in the comments section, or check out our Spider-Man fan casting HERE.

Was it Actually Andrew Garfield Who Wanted Out of 'Spider-Man'?

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

This guy
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is rapidly expanding. New films, TV shows and characters are joining all the time. Two upcoming films are Captain America: Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok. And whilst these movies seem awesome so far, there are some who think that they would be better with the addition of a character called Ragnarok. This article will aim to prove why Ragnarok would not be a good addition to the MCU.

Who is Ragnarok?

Who is this Ragnarok character. Well, from his Wikepedia page,
When the real Thor was missing in action, presumed dead, Tony Stark took one of his hairs, which he had retained from the first meeting of the Avengers, and helped Reed Richards and Hank Pym clone the Asgardian DNA within, fusing him with Stark technology. This resulted in the creation of a new, cyborg Thor.
I'll give you a moment to take all of that in.
Loki needs a moment for that to sink in
Loki needs a moment for that to sink in
And if that paragraph full of ridiculousness isn't enough to make you hope this character stays away, I do have other points.

The Logic Doesn't Work in the MCU

In case you've been living under a rock (or indeed The Rock), you'll know that the next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Avengers: Age of Ultron. This film will see Tony Stark creating a powerful robot which he hopes will aid the world. Unfortunately, the robot goes bonkers and causes mass destruction and, potentially, the death of one of his closest friends. The film will aim to break Tony down and put the quilt of the situation all on him.
Given that he has just created a robot that went bad, does it seem at all likely that he would immediately make another one? One that is even more powerful than the previous one? No. After Ultron, Tony's robot building days will be well and truly over.
He's just created a robot which caused mass destruction, he will not be making and other attempts. If he does not feel immensely guilty and morally distraught after creating Ultron, well then, frankly, the film isn't being realistic. Imagine if you built a little drone. It's quite nice, but one day you lose control of it and it explodes, killing several people including one of your best friends. Now, would you then immediately start working on a bigger, more advanced drone or would you never ever build anything ever again? I'd wager it would be the later.
In summary, unless Marvel wants to present Tony Stark as an unfeeling man of no guilt or sorrow, then Ragnarok should never appear.

He's not needed

Mr T is spot on here.
Mr T is spot on here.
Ragnarok is a side plot in Civil War. He is activated in battle, kills a hero and this further puts the blame on Iron Man's side.But then he is simply "fixed" and returns to fight. However, in the film version the story will be vastly different. The Civil War movie will have to incorporate much of the seven key issues, plus the hundreds of tie-ins, into a cohesive and compelling film. This is very hard to do. The film needs to fully demonstrate the key relationship between Captain America and Iron Man, how their ideals and values clash. It also needs to tell a story which involves lots characters and sub-plots. Overall, there will be enough content in Civil War without rushing Ragnarok into things, he would be an unnecessary and confusing addition. 
But what about Thor: Ragnarok I year you say? Well, what if I told you that Ragnarok, the storyline, is very different to Ragnarok, the character? In fact, the character has never appeared in a Ragnarok storyline. Ragnarok is the Norse apocalypse, Thor battles giant fire demons, summoned by Loki and Asgard is pulverised in what should be some wonderful destruction porn. There is no time for any clone plot in a Ragnarok movie.
Would you like to have Thor face off against a clone of himself which did not work out as planned, the exact plot of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace?
... or this?
Clone Story or this, I know what I'd prefer.
Clone Story or this, I know what I'd prefer.

Hemsworth

Chris Hemsworth is a big star, and he doesn't come cheap. Marvel will want to use his contract correctly, they wouldn't want to waste precious Hemsworth movies on him playing Ragnarok instead of Thor.
Also, just imagine it, Chris Hemsworth is not just playing an alien demigod based off Norse mythology, he's now playing a robot clone of said alien demigod who believes that he is actually the real demigod. Hemsworth will be wandering around scowling, saying things like, "I am the real Thor". It's too bad to even conceive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are lots of reasons as to why Ragnarok should never appear in the MCU. His character is extremely goofy, undermines the events of Age of Ultron and the effect they have on Tony Stark, is completely unnecessary, could deny us seeing Thor fighting some awesome fire giants and would pretty much be impossible for anyone to play with even a hint of believability.

Why Ragnarok (the character) should not be in the MCU

Sorry, but the reported inclusion of Spider-Man in "Captain America: Civil War" is, in the long run, a huge mistake for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
First, it diminishes Captain America! The name of the film is "Captain America: Civil War", NOT "Avengers: Civil War". Chris Evans' Captain America has seen an upward trajectory in popularity with the masses from his first film, through "Avengers" to the surprisingly robust box-office for "Captain America: Winter Soldier".
In the past six months, Cap's third solo outing has morphed from what looked to be an interesting and exciting showdown with his friend Bucky to having to basically share top-billing with Robert Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man in his own film to now also sharing screen time with ScarJo's Black Widow, Cap-centric character Falcon..NOW you want to add Spider-Man?
Second, the people who think adding Spidey to this already overstuffed film - aren't these the same people who complain films like "Spider-man 3" failed because they have too many characters? Seriously, how is SOMEONE not going to get short shrift here? Captain America risks being an afterthought in his own movie. After moving to have a greater role in "Captain America: Civil War", even Robery Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man, one of the two main antagonists, risks having his role diminished as well. 
What about Bucky Barnes? Or the Falcon? Or a certain other character..
Third, Marvel risks making Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther less important - which would give less of a bounce to his upcoming solo film.Seriously, it was Chadwick Boseman who electrified fans by walking in between Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. four short months ago. He was supposedly going to fill the Spider-man role. Now that Spider-Man is available, Marvel risks making the character far less important, which can only hurt him in future films.
Fourth, Kevin Feige has explained that superhero do not exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what is the point of having Spider-Man in the film in the first place? The film will be more about world governments demanding accountability and oversight of superheroes instead of them forcibly revealing their true identity to the authorities.
So, without the "big unmasking" from the comics, what is the purpose of having Spider-Man in this film again? Without his friendship with Stark? Without anyone in the MCU knowing who he is?
This has the potential to be a humongous mistake.
Jerome Maida-Writer

Why It Would Be A Mistake To Include Spider-Man In "Captain America: Civil War"

Kim Kardashian did not break the internet. I repeat: Kim Kardashian did not break the internet! IT IS SPIDERMAN WHO BROKE THE INTERNET.
The prodigal son is back to Marvel, partially. In a ripple sending deal, Marvel Studios have decided to partner with Sony to share Spiderman's film rights. This means that Spiderman will be in Marvel's Phase 3.
I am a supreme Spiderman fan. And I cannot begin to express my excitement over this news. I am going crazy like a cuckoo.
But, the consequent news of Thor, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and The Inhumans being pushed back hit me too hard.
Thor's date has been changed from July 28th, 2017 to November 3rd, 2017. The Nov 3 spot was reserved for Black Panther which has now moved into Captain Marvel's slot of July 6th. Captain Marvel has taken the November 2nd, 2018 spot and in turn pushed Inhumans beyond the Infinity War Part 2 spot to July 12th, 2019.
I am a massive Inhumans fan, as evident by my gigantic post on the Inhumansbefore. I wanted to see the Inhumans featured in their own film before the events of Avengers Infinity War.
But I think the way things are right now, we are likely to have the Inhumans directly introduced in the Avengers without a solo film. Their plotline is being followed in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So, it is likely that Marvel will introduce them directly in the Infinity War, forcing them to come out of hiding to deal with Thanos and his minions.
And after the events of the Infinity War, they will get a solo film of their own in July with Maximus the Mad taking the throne while they were away.
As for Captain Marvel, she will still have a solo film before the events of Infinity War, but she has been pushed to November. She is in my top 5 favourite superheroes. Sigh.
Black Panther, another of my favourites, is now getting a solo film after the events of Avengers Infinity War Part 1.
I have been trying to figure this out since the announcements last year. How will Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Inhumans' solo films fit between the two Infinity War films?
Is it that Infinity War Part 1 takes place entirely in the cosmos, far from earth? Is Infinity War Part 1 the film where we see Thanos collect all Infinity Stones? Will Loki's scepter leave Earth at the end of Avengers Age of Ultron and back to Asgard?
Or will Thanos make landfall on Earth at the end of Infinity War Part 1 to retrieve the final stone missing from his Gauntlet in the form of the Mind Gem?
It remains to be seen how things pan out.
My only complaint is the absence of an Inhumans film before the events of Infinity War.
I will riot if the Inhumans aren't featured in the Infinity War at all. That will be the cruellest joke from Marvel and I will not laugh at it.

What Does Spiderman's Inclusion in the MCU mean for the Pushed Back Films?

Guys! I am trying to write this without freaking out so allow me to write one line of random drabble. Ready?
ANDJFNSNSKGNSKNF!!
Spider-Man is coming to the MCU! Spider-Man will appear in an upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe film! Which film that is has yet to be announced, but I'd put my money on Captain America: Civil War!
Afterwards, Sony Pictures will release the next installment of the Amazing Spider-Man franchise on July 28th, 2017 with Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal co-producing!
FREAKING OUT MAN!!!!
FREAKING OUT MAN!!!!
Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films. Basically, this means that Marvel will be able to have Spider-Man in their films, but almost ALL of the credit goes to Sony; something I am completely okay with!
Not only will Spidey be able to show up in Captain America's films if he wants, the heroes of the MCU might also be able to show up in Amazing Spider-Manfilms! Yes! JUST YES!
According to the Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, Bob Iger:
"Spider-Man is one of Marvel's great characters, beloved around the world. We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which opens up fantastic new opportunities for storytelling and franchise building."
Finally! Two huge companies working together, instead of trying to bring each other down! If you think about it, this is some huge Civil War foreshadowing. Think of Sony and Marvel as the two sides. Spidey brought them together and ended the war, making a much better ending than the actual Civil War storyline's!
The news comes from an article on Marvel.com. Unfortunately, going to the link directly does not work; at least not for me. So instead, go to the tweet below and click on the link from there. If it still doesn't work, very sorry.
No word on who will play Spidey, but I'm hoping they keep Andrew Garfield. If not, I have faith in both Sony and Marvel to cast the best person for the job!

Spider-Man Coming to MCU! Fans Rejoice!

Spider-Man is coming to Marvel!
The Internet is collectively losing its mind right now thanks to Sony's announcement that they've struck a deal with Marvel over the destiny of our favorite webhead.
But what's really going on here? What, when, and how is this movie coming about? And what's coming after?
Please?
Please?
Surprisingly, Marvel has already clued us in on a lot of the details. Here are some of the biggest:

1. It's coming in 2017.

July 28, 2017 to be specific. This is important info because we still don't know how this announcement will affect Sony's plans for a Sinister Six movie, theirVenom movie, and of course, The Amazing Spider-Man 3.
Amazing Spider-Man 2
Amazing Spider-Man 2
We have no idea yet when Venom would be hitting theaters, but this pretty much rules out ASM3, which was scheduled for a 2018 release. Sinister Six is also up in the air due to its planned 2016 release.
My guess? Sony's going back to the drawing board. Here's why...

2. Sony is still in control of Spider-Man (mostly).

Ultimate Spider-Man (Disney XD)
Ultimate Spider-Man (Disney XD)
According to Marvel, the deal is that they get to have Spider-Man for one movie first (most sources say it will be Civil War), and then Sony will continue the franchise with their standalone movie in 2017 (see above). They'll control the financing and distribution of all future Spider-Man films from then on.
But this also means that Sony and Marvel are essentially collaborating on the same character within the same universe.
This is unprecedented, especially for a $4 billion franchise.

3. It's being produced by Amy Pascal (Sony) and Kevin Feige (Marvel).

Yup, they're co-producers. Again, this is unprecedented because you essentially have two separate teams coming together for a series of interconnected projects.
The Spectacular Spider-Man (R.I.P.)
The Spectacular Spider-Man (R.I.P.)
Sure, Marvel and Sony have worked together before, but never on this scale (or under this heavy a microscope).

4. It will feature a new "creative direction."

I used quotes because that's exactly how Marvel's PR team puts it. This could mean anything from rethinking the narrative of the Spider-Man universe to a full-on reboot.
It could mean all sorts of things, really. They could be going with a new tone, format, or even 10-year plan for the franchise. And these decisions could mean a brand new actor to play Spider-Man. Which means...

5. Andrew Garfield might still be in it.

This entire story summed up in one image.
This entire story summed up in one image.
A lot of people are trying to declare that he's 100% out, but I think that's unfounded. 
A new "direction" doesn't mean you have to gut your existing franchise, especially when it's made Sony plenty of money so far.
Besides, if Marvel can make a great movie out the Norse God of Thunder, they can work with what Sony's been churning out since 2012.

6. Marvel and Sony totally want to keep working together with other characters.

Ultimate Spider-Man (Disney XD)
Ultimate Spider-Man (Disney XD)
Again, this is according to Marvel, but the message right now is that this is a long-term deal. And Marvel is saying they want to include other MCU characters with Sony's Spider-Man, and even vice-versa (hopefully). 

7. Disney has been working on this for quite some time.

This is evidenced by Disney CEO Bob Iger's quick response to the leaking of the news. He said,
"Spider-Man is one of Marvel's great characters, beloved around the world. We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which opens up fantastic new opportunities for storytelling and franchise building."

[UPDATE] 8. Or have they?

Shortly after I published this article, it was announced that Marvel has reshuffled the release dates for four of their films. 
That pretty much means this deal hasn't really been set in stone for very long (at least not long enough to make a difference).
The movies they've changed include:
  • Thor: Ragnarok (November 3, 2017)
  • Black Panther (July 6, 2018)
  • Captain Marvel (November 2, 2018)
  • Inhumans (July 12, 2019
And that's about all we know (for sure) so far...
So tell me, Spidey fans,

EVERYTHING We Know About Marvel's Spider-Man!

Monday, February 9, 2015

Black Panther hints in Avengers 2
January
5/5 stars
Avengers:Age of Ultron trailer SPOILERS
Thanks to Marvel Studios’ massive announcement last year, quite a few facts are currently known about the planned Black Panther movie that will release in 2017. Get On Up star Chadwick Boseman will play the lead role, and will make his first appearance as the character in next year’s sequel Captain America: Civil War. Boseman has a five-picture deal, which means that there’s a strong chance that he’ll assemble alongside the Avengers in the two-part Avengers: Infinity War movies.
The groundwork for Black Panther will be laid much sooner than that, however, as the latest trailer for Avengers: Age of Ultron has dropped further hints about Black Panther-related plot elements that will be featured in the film.
WARNING – POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD.

Ulysses Klaw and Vibranium

First things first: as though any further confirmation was needed that Andy Serkis is playing Black Panther’s nemesis Ulysses Klaw (aside from the fact that he is sporting the character’s distinctive beard- and hair-style), a new shot of Serkis in the trailer shows that he sports a claw necklace and generally looks every bit the part of a dirty smuggler of rare metals.



The particular rare metal that attracts Klaw’s interest, vibranium, is also what ties the Avengers, Ultron and Black Panther together. Ultron will take on many forms and evolve throughout the film, including a form with a shell made out of vibranium. Vibranium is also the material that Captain America’s shield is made out of, and one of the few places where it can be found is Wakanda, the African country that Black Panther rules over.



What do the filming locations suggest we'll see?

One of the first international filming locations used for Avengers: Age of Ultronwas Johannesburg in South Africa, but if any question remained that Johannesburg might be used as a stand-in for another city, the new trailer showed officers wearing South African Police Service uniforms and a South African restaurant chain called Nyama & Chips. This is the location of a major showdown between Hulk and Iron Man, as Bruce Banner apparently loses control of “the other guy.”



The second Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer goes further than showing new shots of Johannesburg, however; it also seems to confirm that Wakanda itself will appear in the movie. A new shot of the mysterious cave pool where Thor was shown bursting shirtless out of the water in the first trailer shows an unidentified African woman standing on the edge of the pool and dropping her cloak to the ground. Popular speculation points to this woman being a member of Black Panther’s personal security detail, the Dora Milaje.



CBM also noted that the shot of an apparently random city that the Quinjet is shown flying through could very well be a look at Wakanda, since the architecture looks similar to that of the city in the comics. We couldn’t find any locations in Johannesburg or Seoul (the two major cities where location shoots for Avengers: Age of Ultron took place) that match this shot, and it appears to be CGI. Of course, if any readers recognize the buildings as belonging to a real world city then please let us know in the comments.
[UPDATE: Thanks to Screen Rant reader 4play for identifying this location. It's actually not Wakanda, but the Digital Media City area of Seoul. Here's an image showing the location from another angle.]



The trailer doesn’t seem to offer any reason to believe that Boseman himself will appear in Avengers: Age of Ultron, so it’s still safe to assume that Kevin Feige was being honest when he said that Captain America: Civil War would mark the character’s first on-screen appearance. Nonetheless, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of Black Panther being alluded to in Marvel’s next movie, to help build hype for his eventual debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Still thinking about that mystery woman...




The woman by the pool isn’t the only mystery woman in the trailer. A shot of Thor channelling lightning through his body in some kind of candlelit hall also briefly reveals another woman, possibly also wearing Dora Milaje garb, standing behind him. This could mean that Thor will end up having a showdown with the Dora Milaje or (like many things in the trailers) it could be part of an illusion conjured by Scarlet Witch. Whatever it is, the clip is too short to make out much detail.
After peering far too closely at the trailer for Avengers: Age of Ultron, it’s worth sitting back and watching it from start to finish without any pauses. This is definitely one summer movie that’s worth getting excited for, are you?
Avengers: Age of Ultron is in theaters on May 1, 2015, and Black Panther releases on November 3, 2017.

Black Panther hints in Avengers:Age of Ultron trailer

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Comic-Con International 2014 is officially over and we escaped with an underwhelming number of surprise announcements when compared to expectations leading up to this year’s event. Coming into the San Diego event, Marvel Studios had scheduled new six unannounced films in addition to a few the studio still hadn’t titled from previously.
When we spoke to Marvel Studios president of production Kevin Feige on Saturday morning, there were nine unannounced projects with release dates in 2016-19. We knew (and still know) one of those is for the untitled Captain America 3 coming May 2016. With so many other dates set, we expected to learn about a bunch of them during the Marvel Studios panel at last week’s San Diego Comic-Con and theorized on the possibility that Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe may have quite a few more films than Phase 2 – assuming that their May 2019 date could be for The Avengers 3.
Hours before that panel though, I asked Feige for some background on why Marvel added a third date to 2018 (giving them three in a year for two years in a row) a few days after announcing five other new ones. He wouldn’t offer any hints on how many of the releases we could see unveiled later that day (only one as it turns out - Guardians of the Galaxy 2) but did explain the push to three in 2018.
“The last one was just a scheduling thing. There were other studios that were moving their chess pieces around on their chessboard, which is why that had been in the works, which is why that other 2018 date came up a few days after the initial release.”
The scheduling “thing” is of course the release dates for Sinister Six and The Amazing Spider-Man 3 that Sony announced during Comic-Con. They had pulled their Spider-Man release that year from May which left it open for Marvel Studios to immediately take, and so they did. May 2018 is exactly three years after The Avengers: Age of Ultron will release, which is three years after the first Avengers so we wondered how that may affect when they were planning to release the third team-up.
“We haven’t really talked about when we’ll see Avengers 3. I presume we’d like to stick to three years between Avengers movies like we did…Oh, No, it was two years, wasn’t it? What was it? Yeah, yeah. So it’d probably be three years about Avengers 2 and 3.”
If that’s the case, Phase 3 of the MCU is going to be three releases shorter assuming it takes the most obvious date of May 4, 2018 and so the three films scheduled after that are probably the beginning of Phase 4. A few contracts for the core Avengers reportedly end with The Avengers 3, so that’s going to be a major transition point for The Avengers roster.

What movie do you think Marvel is planning for May 2019? Is there a chance it could be for Iron Man 4?

Expect ‘The Avengers 3′ in May 2018; Third Date Explained

 
Review Pirates © 2015 - Designed by