More Lessons To Be Taught

… and more instances of me sounding like a broken mp3. Anyways...

Walking with Dinosaurs opened in theaters this past weekend.

*crickets*

When the trailers for this film first came out, I was not too keen on the animation itself but I did like what I was seeing. The international trailer promised a silent adventure story, though the American trailer added some cheesy narration. But still, it seemed like this film - based on the highly acclaimed BBC miniseries of the same name - would be something special. A big epic adventure about dinosaurs with no dialogue, no script. Something for everyone really, adults could enjoy the adventure and spectacle (well again, the animation was questionable in the trailers - not sure if it looks better in the film itself)

As the film was on its way to theaters, something happened…

Some higher-up bozo decided that the film must have dialogue in it, and not just dialogue… Terrible dialogue that's on the level of something you'd see in a cartoon aimed at little kids. Because… Animation is for little kids first, right? Right?

Gee, doesn't that horror story sound familiar?

Yes indeed, this is the same thing that happened with Disney's Dinosaur. It was Disney Animation's first predominantly computer animated film (technically, a lot of sequences were live action with CG dinos), and the company set up a computer animation unit to make it happen: The ill-fated Secret Lab. That's a good $300 million+ they invested into this big project! It had "ambitious" written all over it, and it was planned to be a silent film.

But Disney at the time was ran by executives who didn't see animation as an art form, but rather a kids' medium meant to sell merchandise. Their ignorance essentially murdered what the filmmakers had in mind, Michael Eisner demanded that there would be talking in the film because he felt a silent dino film would be unmarketable.

Okay, the dinosaurs can talk. Fair enough. The Land Before Time was first conceived as a silent film until it was decided that there would be talking in it. But whereas Bluth and co. came up with okay dialogue and acting for the film's prehistoric protagonists, Disney killed Dinosaur with awful, embarrassing "hip" dialogue and slang. The film is bar none one of Disney Animation's worst and insulting films, minus the completely silent opening sequence. The opening shows how awesome the film could've been.

The film was lucky, however. It was released in 2000, when CGI was getting eaten up like candy by audiences. It was Disney, it was about dinosaurs, it was aggressively marketed, it made $137 million at the domestic box office and over $300 million worldwide.

Walking with Dinosaurs probably would've done okay in 2000, when audiences were able to look past terrible juvenile dialogue and just enjoy films for the spectacle. Today, however, they aren't so forgiving. What was the studio rewarded with?

A terrible $7 million opening. This is one of the worst openings for an animated feature. It's deserved, sadly… The animators don't deserve it, they worked hard on this. The idiot executives who had voice-overs added deserve the punishment. At least in Dinosaur, the talking decision was made before production really took off, so the dinosaurs at least act and the lines match their mouth movements. Here, the voice-overs flimsily sync up with the dinos' mouth movements.

When your scripts aims at the under 10 crowd, you get a flop like this.

When will people learn that the most successful animated films do well because of adult audiences? When will people learn that if you just target a movie to little kids, it'll fail? It's important, people. You need adults in the audience, too. Frozen is not crossing $250 million just because of kids, it's because their parents wanted to see it and so did adults who don't have children. Scott Mendelson of Forbes praised Frozen's kid-centric marketing, saying "kids dragging their parents to the cinema" is what made the film successful. WRONG.

Kids may want to see what's playing at the local cinema, but the parents are the ones making the ticket buying decisions. They work, drive and have money to get movie tickets. Kids don't. A parent can say what his/her kid will see in the theaters or not. If little Johnny says "Mommy, I wanna see Smurfs 2!", maybe mom will say, "No sweetie. We'll wait till the DVD comes out." A lot parents don't like subjecting themselves to something that'll bore them to sleep or make them cringe. They wait till the DVD or whenever it hits On Demand, so they can put it on in the other room and not have to watch it.

My aunt always tells me the humorous story of when she was doing childcare in the 1980s, and she whoever she was taking care of at the time to see The Care Bears Movie. She always joking tells me how awful that experience was…

Parents took their kids to see Frozen because it did not look like torture. Parents probably liked what they saw in the trailers, and so did many non-parents. It is not 1983 anymore, many teenagers and adults are beginning to go see animated films by themselves. Because guess what? Being "cool" is a joke, people will see what they want to see! Plus, animation is also no longer the bubonic plague of the film and pop culture world. Has been since the Second Golden Age.

Look at something like Alpha and Omega. It was for kids only, really. It only grossed $25 million at the box office in 2010, a huge contrast from How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3 and Tangled, which all grossed over $200 million domestically. You mean to tell me that Frozen did well mostly because of kids? You mean to tell me that kids are an animated family film's target audience?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Proceeds to lightly boop your head with a newspaper.)

When will everyone learn? Probably never, unless a revolutionary change takes place sometime in the future…

Sorry Fox, but kids, parents and childless adults are going to get their animated fix this holiday season with a far superior film, Frozen. To the people who pushed for unnecessary dialogue in this film, I hope you're happy…

Let this be a lesson to all of you…

Treat animation like it's just for kids, you lose.
Pander heavily to kids, you lose.
Shut out adults, you lose.
Take the young audience for granted, you lose.
Assume that just because kids will like it, it'll do well, you lose.



Mhm.

Storming In

Blue Sky has officially announced that a fifth Ice Age is happening, and just in time for the holidays, too! (I bet you are all cringing right now…)

When does the fifth installment come out? July 15, 2016…

Makes sense, since Ice Age movies are now July releases. It's been that way since the third one, which raked in the most money out of the four. But wait a minute!

Blue Sky was supposed to have Anubis - a co-production with Fox Animation Studios based on Bruce Zick's ancient Egyptian-themed The Anubis Tapestry: Between Twilights - ready for summer 2016… Well, it's been moved to March 23, 2018. That was one of the dates Fox secured for a future animated release... Remember? Fox unveiled that massive animation slate where each release was simply called "Untitled Fox/DWA/Blue Sky" back in May? One of the dates on that big ol' slate was 3/23/2018.

Now that slot has been filled! Which slot will be filled next?

Anubis' will also be the first Blue Sky film to be a March release since 2008's Horton Hears a Who!

What do you think of this recent rescheduling? I for one am a bit disappointed, but hey… It's freakin' Ice Age, the last one grossed over $800 million at the worldwide box office much like its predecessor. These films really smash the overseas box office, make no mistake. Of course Blue Sky was going to make another one, and soon… I just wish we didn't have to wait so long for Anubis. Out of all the films on Blue Sky's upcoming slate, that one intrigued me the most. Rio 2 looks like the usual, I'm very much on the fence with Peanuts and 2017's Ferdinand could go either way.

Anyways, what's your take on all this? Sound off below!

Take Off

The poster for How To Train Your Dragon 2 is finally here!

To be honest, I thought those teasers that were unveiled yesterday were for individual posters. Maybe one with just Hiccup, and one with just Toothless, but no - both are on here. It's a nice poster, one that implies that the sequel will be much more action-packed and perhaps a little more serious. After all, Kung Fu Panda 2 was just that in comparison to the original. The plot synopsis hints at something epic, now that the dragon has been… Ahem… Trained. It should do what a good sequel does: Go all out now that you've established everything in the first one.

Now let's hope that a new trailer is coming soon…

Tease, Tease, Tease…

DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox are going about marketing How To Train Your Dragon 2 in some pretty interesting ways. First off, they unleashed a teaser that was a full sequence rather than a selection of parts from the film, doing what Disney used to do for trailers (think The Lion King and Pocahontas); though it's possible that the sequence won't be in the movie itself and that it's just a custom-made bit for the teaser, much like what's used in Pixar's teasers.

Still, it was a nice change of pace and the teaser did its job right, it made the movie look good. I have a feeling that this film's marketing will be the antithesis of the first film's shoddy marketing (the very marketing that brought in a $43 million gross as opposed to $60 million), coupled with the fact that many people saw the original and are anticipating the sequel.

Now, DreamWorks continues to go the mysterious route… Today they have released three teasers…

Of posters…

Yep, much like Marvel's "teaser of a teaser" strategy, DreamWorks is doing this with posters.

I assume the full posters will be unveiled tomorrow or sometime this week, and maybe a trailer is right around the corner! That would be awesome…

(via fellow Rotoscoper comrade Max de Hartog)

Move Panda, Move...

Now that Disney has announced the official release date for Star Wars: Episode VII, I think it's high time that 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks move a certain production out of the holiday season…

Kung Fu Panda 3 was initially announced as a March 2016 release, only to trade places with the tentatively-titled Mumbai Musical. Since last autumn, Kung Fu Panda 3 has been a Christmas 2015 release. The December 23rd date was locked many weeks before Disney announced the Lucasfilm acquisition.

But a year has passed and things have changed, as always in the ever-changing film world - especially in the animation world!

DreamWorks is adamant that they'll release three films every calendar year; next year we're getting Mr. Peabody & Sherman (March 7th), How To Train Your Dragon 2 (June 13th) and Home (November 26th)...

The other two films slated for release in 2015 are The Penguins of Madagascar (March 27th) and B.O.O.: Bureau of Otherworldly Operations (June 5th). The first one is good where it is, the second is crammed between Paramount Animation's Monster Trucks and Pixar's Inside Out, the latter of the two competitors could possibly hurt it. However, if Fox markets the ghostly film right and it turns out to be good, it should have no problem making a profit. Ghosts are an easier sell than done-to-death underdog stories about racer snails, anyway.

But Kung Fu Panda 3 opens five days after Episode VII. Episode VII will obviously appeal to everyone: Families, children, adults, teen moviegoers and everyone else in-between. Kung Fu Panda 3, like any good animated film, is aimed at the whole family as well along with mass audiences in general (no, not just children - contrary to stupid popular belief)… Having it open so close to such a hugely, no scratch that… Enormously anticipated film that's going to appeal to everyone is not a smart move.

DreamWorks needs to move it… But to where, is the question.

November 2015 is already loaded. Blue Sky's Peanuts, also distributed by Fox, is staying where it is (November 6th) since it may be a holiday-themed film and it is celebrating the 50th anniversary of A Charlie Brown Christmas. Pixar's The Good Dinosaur? Forget it, that's not moving, and that was delayed from a summer 2014 release!

September? Nahhh, Hotel Transylvania 2 is opening in the late spot that Sony Animation made successful for themselves.

DreamWorks also won't open a movie so close to another one of their own films, when it almost happened, it never did. Summer's too crowded as it is, and February is also taken by Paramount Animation's SpongeBob sequel… Unless they opt for another weekend, but for something like this?

If another, DreamWorks ought to be brave and try October. That's right, October.

I don't buy the whole "everything outside of May-July and November-December is the dumping ground" theory. If you release a damn good movie anytime, with the right marketing behind it, it'll do well. Just look at Gravity… The little October release that's on its way to gross $250 million domestically and possibly over $600 million worldwide.

Maybe it's time that the studios start looking into the other months. I also don't buy the "kids are in school" excuse, because Sony's animated films did well in the late September spots. Kung Fu Panda 3 can be a good-sized hit in October, because it'll have a lot of room to breathe and it'll continue to do well when Peanuts and The Good Dinosaur open, Star Wars: Episode VII on the other hand… Just… Not a good idea. Then Mission: Impossible 5 opens two days later. It's in trouble...

While the film will no doubt do well overseas, it needs to do well here. Kung Fu Panda 2 unfortunately lost a chunk of potential moviegoers because Paramount released it the same day as The Hangover Part II, which stole most of the teen and adult audience. Don't forget the lazy marketing campaign and general lack of hype. I'm hoping Fox corrects those errors for this third film; but the thing is, it's great that it is happening. Kung Fu Panda 2 managed to get sturdy legs and climbed to $165 million domestically, though logically it should've greatly increased from the original - perhaps even crack $300 million domestically.

Anyways, if DreamWorks wants the best possible success, then they should shoot for mid-October. April isn't wise, because The Avengers: Age of Ultron will annihilate it a few weeks later. May is off-limits, ditto July.

October 2015 it should be. What do you think? Do you think it's fine where it is? Or should it move? If not October, then where? Sound off below!

Figuring Fox's Animation Slate Out

In an attempt to fire back at a very confident Disney, who announced a giant upcoming animation slate that ended in fall 2018, 20th Century Fox grabbed dates for animated films from DreamWorks, Blue Sky and Fox Animation. Their slate capped off a month after Disney's...

Disney's slate consisted of four (wisely) untitled Walt Disney Animation Studios project. Two of which will hit theaters in spring and autumn 2016 respectively, the next two will be released in spring and autumn 2018 respectively. The other four films on Disney's animation slate were untitled Pixar films; one slated for summer 2016, another for summer 2017, one for fall 2017 and the last one for summer 2018. All of the projects were "untitled".

DreamWorks' animation slate, at the time, concluded in November 2016 with Trolls. Nothing was set in stone for 2017 or 2018 just yet, though Blue Sky Studios shocked some by announcing a spring 2017 release date for their upcoming Ferdinand. At the same time, they unveiled that their 2016 release would be Fox Animation's long-gestating Anubis. The film is now a co-production between Blue Sky and Fox Animation. Fox Animation is basically the revived animation wing that 20th Century Fox shut down in 2000 after Don Bluth's Titan A.E. bombed at the box office, now they're doing various projects. Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox was one of them...

Shortly after Disney announced their full upcoming animation slate, Fox then announced theirs... The following dates were...

March 10, 2017

June 16, 2017

July 21, 2017

November 3, 2017

December 20, 2017

March 23, 2018

June 29, 2018

July 20, 2018

November 2, 2018

December 21, 2018

Next to each was "Untitled Fox/DWA/Blue Sky"...

Also notice that there's 5 releases set for 2017 and 2018...

DreamWorks releases three films a year maximum, and they'll begin doing that regularly starting next year. Their plan is to lower the budgets on their films, especially after how badly Rise and the Guardians and Turbo both did at the box office. I honestly can't see DreamWorks releasing four films in a calendar year; too much workload, it could affect quality and also... It almost happened, but didn't.

So that leaves Blue Sky and Fox Animation, assuming that "Untitled Fox" means " Untitled Fox Animation Studios Film", and they've got a few projects on the docket.

Fox Animation is currently working on The Book of Life with Reel FX Creative Studios, that'll be released next October. After that, they'll collaborate with Blue Sky to bring Anubis to the screen in 2016. Three other animated films are in the works there: Welcome to the Jungle, Mr. Men and King Kong...

It's possible that one of these three untitled projects will be co-productions with either Blue Sky or Reel FX. If things go well with The Book of Life, then Reel FX and Fox Animation may collaborate again.

Also, we have no idea whether Fox is including films like Alvin and the Chipmunks sequels on this slate or not, the day the slate was unveiled, they did announce that the fourth film in that series (ugh) was slated for a December 2015 release. Do they consider those films animated films? Or hybrids at least? Or not? If they do, then the December 2017 or December 2018 release could be another Chipmunks film, as much as we don't want it to be.

That being said, since there's 5 slots, Blue Sky may have to ramp up their schedule a bit. Two films a year could very well be their game plan. I will admit, I do give them props for taking their time on films, as they release one film almost every calendar year. (Averted in 2010.) But that may change...

But as I learned over the last couple of months, nothing really is seemingly set in stone. Dates constantly change, and sometimes unthinkable release dates are picked for animated films. Who would've thought that Disney would pick the now-lucrative March spot for a Walt Disney Animation Studios film after years of usually picking summer or pre-Thanksgiving November? They haven't touched the spring spots since 2004! DreamWorks shuffles films on their slate constantly, so we may see a big change with the 2015-2016 section in the coming months.

Who knows... But one thing's for certain, Blue Sky might have to get two films out a year. Either that, or Fox Animation will have to really step up and make more films than they usually do...

Either way, it's big doins' for Fox, animation and all of the studios that make the films for them to distribute...

Peanut Positivity

A new film based on Peanuts is something to celebrate, right?

For a while, it seemed like this new film - simply titled Peanuts for now - would be a disaster in the making. Not because it's supposed to be computer animated, but because we all think that Blue Sky Studios (Ice Age, Rio, Epic) will go the cynical route make it resemble the kiddie Alvin and the Chipmunks and The Smurfs. A lot of us assume that they are just going to modernize it and make it hip, in order to get the quick buck.

However, Charles Schulz's son and grandson are penning the screenplay with short film director Cornelius Uliano. Horton Hears a Who! and Ice Age: Continental Drift director Steve Martino is set to direct, and now a producer has been named: Paul Feig of Bridesmaids and The Heat fame, who is a huge Peanuts fan...

Now that seems alright. The film may turn out to be respectful to Schulz's iconic strip, if not great. However, will all of these talented folks have to obey the rules? Will these people have to go by to the notes that the execs give them? Or not? Blue Sky's track record, in my opinion, isn't so hot. That being said, I think they're capable of making a masterpiece on the level of the greats (any studio is, really), this very film could be it because honestly, I don't see Rio 2 being their greatest feature.

Also... Peanuts is something that you simply can't mess up for a movie adaptation. Alvin and the Chipmunks and The Smurfs, if you ask me, aren't great to begin with. That all being said, they didn't deserve to be "hipped up" they way they were in their respective recent movie adaptations. Nostalgic takes on those characters would've fine, not stuff with toilet humor and pop culture references that'll make them look dated in 5 years. As far as I'm concerned, the Chipmunks were a fun novelty and an okay cartoon show (both the 1960s cartoon and the 1980s one), The Smurfs television show (emphasis on "television show", I'm not talking about the original comic strip) was nothing more than just another Hanna-Barbera cartoon... One that just happened to be big. But Peanuts... That's a whole different ballpark, you simply can't screw any movie adaptation of it up.

Plus, even though I see all mediums as equal, Peanuts should be a hand-drawn film. I just can't see it working in computer animation...

What do you think of the upcoming Peanuts film? Do you think it could be good? Great? Or do you think it'll just be an insult? Sound off below!

Marvel's Pieces

Months ago, two Disney/Marvel fanatics and I speculated about Marvel's future. Marvel's much-touted Marvel Cinematic Universe is truly firing on all cylinders, as it took off like a rocket with Iron Man over five years ago. With The Avengers behind them, the second phase is already bursting: More films, a television series, more one-shots and other media that's making this franchise grow rapidly. More and more people are getting enthralled with all of this.

Our Marvelite contributors in question, PJ Campbell (Twitter / Blog) and Tyler Kelson (Twitter / Blog), provided theories on the future of this shared universe. We talked about Sony's Amazing Spider-Man franchise possibly finding itself embedded in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where Fox's Marvel properties (mainly X-Men and Fantastic Four) lie and why Kevin Feige won't mention much about post-Age of Ultron films until next year...

Now, we'll focus on what'll make up Phase 3, how long it'll be, what could be happening with Fox's troubled Fantastic Four reboot, and several other things...

Fantastic Fumbles

Fox announced a reboot of the Fantastic Four series a while back, with Chronicle director Josh Trank at the helm and a spring 2015 release. It's still slated for March 6, 2015 at this very moment... But...

It's gone through multiple writers - a new one has taken over yesterday. No cast and crew have been announced yet, which PJ did point out. Right now, Fox seems focused on X-Men alone, as we have no idea what X-Men film will hit theaters in 2015. All we know is details about next summer's X-Men film, X-Men: Days of Future Past. We also heard rumblings about X-Force and Deadpool movies, but that's pretty much it. If anything, this is not going to make the early 2015 release date. Where will it go? If Fox is dead-set on keeping Fantastic Four, what could happen?

PJ says...

"They have to get it off the ground by next October. So 2016 at the latest. I’m thinking it’s going to revert back..."

He's most likely right, because Fox can't get this off the ground at all and it's better off that they just focus on milking X-Men till it gets stale. Unfortunately though, that doesn't like it'll be the case anymore now that actors are auditioning for the film. It's possible that Fantastic Four doesn't go back to Disney at this rate. But production has not begun, so chances are a little slim right now - it could revert.

If Fox ended up giving all of Fantastic Four back to Disney, what could happen?

PJ has a good idea of what will become of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the first Marvel family involved...

"The first thing I can almost guarantee, if the rights revert back to Marvel, is that Galactus and the Silver Surfer will be fully utilized as soon as Marvel can. Remember last year, before Daredevil reverted back, Marvel tried to convince Fox to let go of those two characters in exchange for getting another year to try and get the Daredevil film off the ground. Clearly, this wasn't something Fox was interested in, so they said no. But Marvel wouldn't be asking for the characters for no reason, and I think they're hoping to get them back, for their Phase 4...

Definitely a possibility. He adds...

"With Thanos all but confirmed to be the big bad in Avengers 3, Marvel needs to make sure the next team up film is even bigger. Well, they've said they've outlined to 2021, and I can't think of a more epic story than one that could possibly bring the entire MCU together to fight off the Destroyer of Worlds, Galactus, can you? It would be the magnum opus for them as a studio, and for their entire MCU. It would actually be a great way to end that side of the series, and maybe use it as a time to lapse and relax, creating a transition into wherever the studio decides to go next...

"As for Marvel's first family, I would like to think they'd be used in Phase 3, but I would be more inclined to believe that they'd be used in Phase 4 instead. That way Marvel has time to develop the characters, and figure out their place in this growing universe. But having them does make sense, considering the Fantastic Four are very cosmic-side beings, something that Marvel Studios really, really wants to explore. With Guardians [of the Galaxy] barreling down towards us, Inhumans seemingly being planned, and the obvious inclusion of Thanos, Marvel sees this as a chance to really dig into a side of the comic universe we don't normally see, especially on film."

If anything, Fox ought to give Fantastic Four back to Disney/Marvel. Perhaps Josh Trank could go through with the reboot there, and perhaps get Kevin Feige and other writers to help him move it forward.

Tyler says...

"I believe that Fox should have to give Fantastic Four back to Disney/Marvel since Kevin Feige will want to utilize not only the team, but also the Silver Surfer and Galactus. I could see them putting Fantastic Four in Phase 3 as one of the later movies in that group. Using Silver Surfer in the first would be a good thing because then you could have a post-credits stinger in Avengers 3 having him warn Earth of Galactus' arrival and the impending doomsday."

PJ also mentioned a post-credits scene of Silver Surfer warning Earth of Galactus' impending arrival on his Twitter, he also put...

"Thanos would look like a teddy bear in Avengers 3 if we could get Galactus in Avengers 4."

Having this villain be a part of the MCU would only make things even bigger, and if anything, Disney really does need those two characters. As far I'm concerned, Fox is not going to do the comic book movie world any favors by making their Fantastic Four and possibly tying it to their X-Men film series, and perhaps trying to build their own little MCU. I really don't want Fox to do this because there really isn't much of a point, because Disney/Marvel's MCU is only going to top it over the decade. Audiences might even catch up with Fox, knowing that they are attempting to create their own shared universe just to cash in on the MCU.

Fox, of course, will hold onto X-Men. The franchise isn't stopping any time soon, it's only going to get bigger with X-Men: Days of Future Past. It is possible that the film may even outgross the last string of X-Men films at the domestic box office. PJ likens the upcoming film to Fast and Furious, and how that film opened big and outgrossed its three predecessors, and also propelled the series to an even more successful future. Who would've thought back in 2006 - when The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift hit theaters and bombed - that the fourth film would be the series' biggest at the box office, with the fifth and six outgrossing that? X-Men: Days of Future Past may be the series' box office comeback, it could really shock us in that department as well as being a good quality film.

But if anything, Fox should just stick with that and just let the Fantastic Four go. A post-credits scene with Silver Surfer warning Earth would be a brilliant idea, and one that would get audiences really geared up for the fourth round of The Avengers. Marvel knows this, because fatigue can very well kick in, especially if quality is low. Just keep giving audiences a reason to come back! It's astonishing to see that none of their seven films were critical duds, and have all done well enough. A third Iron Man could've very well lost money because people could've gotten worn out, but it did extremely well. Thor: The Dark World looks to continue that success, though of course it won't score Iron Man 3's massive box office gross.

What's In The Phase?

What will make up Phase 3? (Other than Ant-Man of course, which has been confirmed.) Well, I've been thinking...

Inhumans

Doctor Strange

Black Panther

Thor 3

Captain America 3

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (big maybe)

Here are PJ's theories...

"Many are expecting - as rumors have begun to leak - that Phase 3 will tie all the titles up to that point together in whatever the cap of Phase 3 is. I'm a big believer that it'll be an Avengers/Guardians of the Galaxy crossover, seeing an epic battle between them and Thanos. It'll tie into all the characters we have in the MCU as well, and be something truly cool and fun. I've heard quite a few rumors that encapsulate what I'm talking about, and honestly, it makes the most sense...

Definitely a very ambitious move, and that would make for a great third Avengers film. That's something that would give audiences an incentive to be back the third time around, since the titular Guardians won't be part of the team in The Avengers: Age of Ultron. It'll only raise the stakes and bring even more excitement, which is probably what Marvel Studios would want for the third film. With their streak of films, they don't strike me as a lazy studio that just wants to cash in on their own success... And their films are huge!

Phase 2 is shaping up to be better than Phase 1, with Iron Man 3 kicking things off with a bang. It's definitely the most different of the trilogy and the MCU as a whole that even went as far as taking some pretty daring risks. Risks that yielded mixed reactions, very very mixed reactions. It's even arguable that it's not only the best Iron Man film, but also the best Marvel film. Thor: The Dark World looks to continue this with its bigger story and bigger scope; Alan Taylor's film looks like it's dead-set on besting Kenneth Branagh's Thor in the action and size departments on top of upping the stakes, going a bit darker and expanding the story like a good sequel should, plus - exploration of the other Nine Realms!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is said to be Avengers-sized, based on reactions to the Comic-Con footage and like the other films, it's going to up the stakes and explore new things. (i.e. Cap living in the modern world, political conspiracies.) Guardians of the Galaxy needs no explanation, the whole entire film is a massive risk... One that I think no one would've touched with a 39 1/2-foot pole a decade ago.

If anything, by the time Phase 3 arrives, risk-taking will be the name of the game. An Avengers threequel featuring the Guardians of the Galaxy is definitely something that can happen...

"So what do I expect to see in Phase 3 then? I want to believe that we'll see Guardians 2, but we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure that'll depend on the success of the first film. I think it's safe to assume we'll see a third Captain America and Thor as well, bringing the characters to the cap of their respective trilogies...

As I've been saying in my predictions charts, Thor 3 and Captain America 3 are definitely happening. Without a fourth Iron Man film coming anytime soon, Thor 3 and Captain America 3 are what Marvel should turn to because a string of all-original films would be a little strange, plus like PJ said, their stories need to be expanded and completed in some ways. Both of these sequels will be easy moneymakers to keep things going strong. Guardians 2 is currently up in the air, and an Incredible Hulk sequel does not seem to be in the cards. I firmly believe that we will see a sequel to that 2008 film sometime in the future, maybe for Phase 4...

PJ then discussed Doctor Strange and how he'll fit into the third phase...

"I want to believe we'll see a Doctor Strange film as well, but I'm honestly not sure where, or how, it would fit into what Marvel is doing right now. I know Feige wants to do it, but his character doesn't necessarily fit the grand scheme of things right now, at least from the outside looking in. I won't be surprised if, or when, they announce the film though, because it's been on the studio's mind for quite some time...

The whole Doctor Strange situation is... Well... Strange. They've been talking about it, but at the same time they've been kind of hush-hush about it. It should be a Phase 3 release as far as I'm concerned, but PJ is right... Where will that character and setting fit into the bigger scheme of things? Feige wants the character to appear in some form during Phase 3, but how? Maybe in Thor's threequel, given the more magical and mystical side of that character and his world. Does this mean that a Doctor Strange film won't happen until Phase 4?

PJ went on to discuss the mystery character that Vin Diesel will be portraying, in addition to Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy...

"One thing we do know, one of these films will have Vin Diesel in a leading role. That leads me to believe that Inhumans could be the next in the pipeline, and that Diesel could be playing Blackbolt. But if not that, then he could become Vision for Marvel, which I could also see happening. Though, many fans are speculating that the role of Vision will actually be filled by Agent Coulson further down the road, with many believing the character's return in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is as a LMD, or Life Model Decoy, which would eventually evolve into the robotic man. Clark Gregg even hinted as much by retweeting someone who suggested it during the second episode of S.H.I.E.L.D. this past weekend...

"This leads me to my last theory about Diesel's role in the MCU as none other than the Mad Titan himself, Thanos. He has the voice and gravitas for the character, and with the character clearly being CGI, and Diesel already doing mo-cap work for Guardians of the Galaxy as Groot, it wouldn't be too surprising to find out he's really been tapped to be Thanos. Diesel has said that whatever he is involved in is 'A merging of the brands,' and that, 'Marvel wants to show a different sort of love story.' Certainly, the idea of having Thanos in Phase 3 throughout constitutes the idea of merging the brands, and Thanos is in a very different love story with his insatiable love for Death, which he sees as a woman, not as a thing. This really seems like the most solid theory, at least for now, but I wouldn't be too upset or surprised if it turned out to be wrong either."

All very valid theories, especially the Thanos one... It's very likely that he could be Blackbolt, though personally, I think Vision seems a little out of the question given the theories surrounding Coulson. Which of PJ's three theories do you think will be the correct one? Do you have a different theory on the Vin Diesel mystery Marvel character?

Now onto Tyler's theories...

Definitely in Phase 3:
- Ant-Man: We know he is in and he kicks it off.
- Avengers 3

High probability:
- Doctor Strange: Kevin Feige has been hinting at him for a LONG time, I won't be surprised at all if he is in Phase 3.
- Black Panther: This is another character that has been hinted at for a very long time.

Again, I think Doctor Strange and Black Panther will end up making it into Phase 3... Doctor Strange especially...

Strong potential:
- Ms. Marvel: There have been many whispers and rumors about her getting a film and I could see it happening, but if DC gets Wonder Woman off the ground first and it tanks it could kill the possibility of Ms. Marvel.
- Captain America 3: will possibly depend on performance of Winter Soldier and if they want to give him a 3rd solo movie, and Disney may force it in to the roster.
- Thor 3, will depend on performance of The Dark World, whether or not Disney forces it in to the slate, and if they have a 3rd story for him.
- Guardians of the Galaxy 2: will largely depend on how the first movie performs next summer. Guardians is the first MCU film based on characters that are largely unknown to the general populace. That said, the books are wonderful and the test footage from SDCC looks amazing.

Talk of a Ms. Marvel film has happened, but I personally believe that it'll be part of Phase 4 since Phase 3 is kind of packed, but you never know... More on this later.

A Ms. Marvel film is definitely happening sometime though, because of Marvel Studios' willingness to take some major risks, and it's odd that no one has really made a big comic book film with a female lead (let's forget about Catwoman and Elektra, shall we?) yet. Warner Bros. can't seem to get Wonder Woman a suitable film, let alone form their DC cinematic universe, so maybe Marvel can make a real feat here and show that you can make a film like this. Joss Whedon would really love to see a female superhero film, and he's vocally unhappy about the scarcity of such films, so it may as well happen sometime soon. I also don't think that DC's Wonder Woman film coming out first would hurt the planned Ms. Marvel film. If anything, it would show the film world that you can make superhero films that have female leads.

Since PJ mentioned both Thor 3 and Captain America 3, I think they're inevitabilities at this point. Marvel could surprise us though, and only give us one sequel during Phase 3...

A Bigger Phase 3?

Ant-Man

Now Phase 3 is a bit confusing at the moment because of The Avengers 3... Why's that? Well, when will that film come out? Will they basically release it three years after The Avengers: Age of Ultron? Or will they release it whenever it's ready?

Scenario #1: Avengers 3 is a summer 2018 release.

What could we see in this 3-year phase? Ant-Man is the only film that's got a release date set in stone (July 31, 2015) - and there's talk of Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Inhumans being likely candidates. Also, Thor and Captain America's third installments are imminent.

But... There's a dilemma here...

For example...

Ant-Man - July 31, 2015
Doctor Strange - 2016
Black Panther - 2016
Inhumans - 2017
Thor 3 - 2017
Avengers 3 - Summer 2018

One of the aforementioned films won't make it, and I think Phase 3 is going to have to be bigger than both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Now...

Scenario #2: Phase 3 is longer, and The Avengers 3 won't hit cinemas in the summer of 2018...

Here's PJ's idea of what will happen in a longer Phase 3...

"I fully believe Phase 3 will end with an Avengers/Guardians crossover. Whether it'll just be Avengers 3, or titled something else remains to be seen. But expect that third film. There is no way we won't see Thanos as the big bad by the end of Phase 3. In fact, don't be surprised if Thanos has his hand in quite a few of the films in Phase 3... Sort of as the puppet behind the scenes. The idea that he has been behind many of the events in the MCU wouldn't be surprising, especially seeing as he's already recruited Loki before for his purposes. So with all that, I have a feeling the final line up for Phase 3 will be something like this:

Ant-Man

Thor 3

Captain America 3

Inhumans/Guardians 2 (Either or could be interchangeable.)

Doctor Strange

Avengers 3 (Or whatever the capper film will be.)...

Going by Marvel's two-a-year pattern, the capper film will still debut in summer 2018 in PJ's predicted slate. He's left out the Black Panther film - here's why:

"I have a feeling Panther is going to continually be pushed back in favor of other things. We've seen hints that he's coming, like showing where Wakanda is in Iron Man 2, but overall, it doesn't seem like his character necessarily fits into the world building going on in the MCU right now. This isn't to say I'm right, but with Cosmic being what Marvel seems intent on exploring, going into the jungles of Wakanda may not be the way to go. Similar to Doctor Strange, but with Strange, he dabbles in cosmic, as well as the supernatural. I wouldn't be surprised to see Marvel go the supernatural way down the line, in a sub side of the universe, with the characters like Blade and Ghost Rider...

"I really do want to see a Black Panther film sooner rather than later. But it all just sort of depends on where, and how, it'll fall in the MCU. Marvel doesn't just choose random things on a whim, because they're literally building a puzzle, and they have all the pieces and know where they go. Unfortunately, we don't, because we're not standing next to them watching. All we can do is sit back as they hand us pieces one by one, and fit them together ourselves."

Despite some signs pointing to a Black Panther film for Phase 3 (I keep thinking it's going to happen), PJ points out a legitimate problem. There would need to be room for more Guardians and expansion on the cosmic side of things, and a Black Panther film could possibly halt that and slow things down. It is possible, however, that he may get some form of introduction during Phase 3. We may see him make a Hawkeye or Black Widow-like appearance in one of the films. In my opinion, Marvel didn't throw those two characters into Thor and Iron Man 2 respectively just to get them in there - they wanted fans and audiences to know these characters from the get-go. It would've been easy to just have them be introduced in The Avengers, but Marvel did go the extra mile.

As for an Inhumans film and the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel being interchangeable, PJ added...

"I think one may take the other's spot. Just a gut feeling. Or, maybe we'll see both in Phase 2. But I really think that for either to happen, it'll depend on the success of Guardians. This is Marvel's biggest test since Iron Man, and now we have to see if it'll work for casual moviegoers. Everyone knows that I'm a diehard Guardians fan, I have been since the mid 2000s, but my concern is that people are going to be turned off by the sheer bizarreness of the film, which I really hope I'm wrong about. I want people to embrace Star-Lord, Groot, Rocket, Gamora, and Drax. This is a comic that is so cinematic already, I can't wait to see how it turns out as a film. The Guardians footage was some of the most buzzed about after both Comic-Con and D23. As someone who was at both those places to see the footage, it was some of the most beautifully put together footage I'd ever seen. It almost brought a tear to my eye, because James Gunn has nailed the comic so well...

"As I said though, the buzz train seems to have already started, and I think even the most causal of filmgoers may have heard the inklings of what Marvel showed at Comic-Con. The Marvel Studios brand has given moviegoers a reason to trust them. So hopefully, that means they're trusting enough to give this ragtag band of misfits a chance. I think the fate of cosmic Marvel really hinges on this film working. It's the lynchpin, if you will. So things like 'Inhumans' won't get announced probably until we've seen how 'Guardians' fares with audiences."

If they don't make a Black Panther film and/or an Inhumans film for a Phase 3 release, then I at least expect these characters to make appearances. Maybe even in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. or a One Shot. Can they start putting the One Shots in theaters? The theatrical short film is something Disney should specialize in, and Honor Hunter of Blue Sky Disney did point this out recently.

Tyler hopes that the third Avengers ends up coming out in 2019 or 2020, rather than 2018 (following the one every three years pattern), allowing Marvel to make Phase 3 bigger than both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

"I love how much they are making, but I crave more with each one that comes out. Interestingly enough, I love that since Phase 1 started with Iron Man in 2008, Marvel has already made 7 movies, launched a TV series with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and they are in final post-production mode on Thor: The Dark World, in post-production on Captain America: The Winter Soldier, filming Guardians of the Galaxy, and in pre-production of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man... And in the 8 years that will have passed by the time Ant-Man kicks off Phase 3, all DC will have made is 4 movies, thats only 1/3 of what Marvel has delivered."

Tyler also suggests that Marvel should go big and release three films in a calendar year. Now that would be great if they can maintain a high level of quality for each film, but at the same time it's incredibly risky. Perhaps a little too risky, unless this is a once in a while thing. (i.e. 3 films in 2017, 3 films in 2020.)

For instance, Marvel can put out two originals in a year like 2017 and a sequel sometime during that year as well. I just hope that audiences don't think that's too much, or that they're just cranking them out for the bucks. Would it kill the momentum? Or will it only drum up more excitement?

Maybe the 3-a-year thing can avert any problems they have with getting a Black Panther film off the ground, or the Ms. Marvel film or whatever property they are eying for a movie adaptation. You can also add more cameos or early-bird appearances, whether it's in the films themselves or the post-credits sequences.

With that, they can definitely get more films in there before the third Avengers... And maybe even try things that they haven't considered before...

On a closing note, here's what PJ thinks of the MCU in its current and future state...

"It's a great time to be a Marvel fan, and there is a ton to look forward to over the next few years. I really can't wait to see how Marvel ties these first three Phases together, and it really makes me wonder if WB/DC will ever get their game together. They're already so many steps behind. Here's hoping they can fully get their act together as well, because right now, 'Batman vs. Superman' is already on shaky ground at best."

~

What are your theories on Marvel's future? Do you think that Fantastic Four will ultimately revert back to Disney/Marvel and that Fox won't make their planned reboot? Or do you think Fox will hold onto the series? Do you think Doctor Strange and Black Panther will part of Phase 3? Inhumans? Do you think Phase 3 will be longer than usual? Or not?

Sound off below!

Rising Again?

DreamWorks might want their ill-fated, ambitious animated feature Rise of the Guardians to make its money back somehow...

A new Blu-ray edition is hitting shelves on November 5th, with cover artwork that plays up the Christmas angle of the film.

Fortunately for DreamWorks, they were able to release this film on Blu-ray earlier in the year because it's not truly a Christmas film (unlike something like The Polar Express, which they waited a year after its theatrical release to put out on DVD for obvious reasons) and it actually takes place around Easter. But since Santa Claus and Jack Frost are in it, this release was inevitable. I had actually thought way back when that DreamWorks could re-release this film on Blu-ray with different packaging for a Christmas release, and perhaps a Halloween release focusing on Pitch. (Probably a no-go since Pitch was the villain and he supposedly scared many kids.)

Like the original Blu-ray cover, this doesn't present our childhood heroes as badasses. The more they promote it as cutesy fluff, the more people will scoop it up. Unfortunately, in America, you have to market animation as cutesy or comedic. Just look at Frozen's new trailer...

Anyways, this might help the film get more fans and hopefully those who didn't see it get to check it out. Will it put the film in the black? Probably not... That'll probably take a while, though I heard that the DVD and Blu-ray sales have been good for this one. Long live Rise of the Guardians!

Not Quite...

I happened to catch this little animated film that came out at the end of the spring. It came and went, and it seemed like it would either be great or mediocre from the trailers. Yes... Epic...

First things first, the animation, the art direction and the visuals in the film are very pretty. At times it's even stunning, with some very lovely shots (that sadly don't really last too long, given the pacing of this film) and great character design. This is a William Joyce-based story after all, and the animators came up with neat designs for the Leaf Men and all the various creatures. The scale? Yes, it's pretty big, even if the story doesn't match it. It's just pretty to look at, and the way the little creatures see the humans is pulled off well, one of the film's more unique elements.

But the story is pretty rote, with the typical good-vs.-evil plot with a romance between the teen leads shoehorned in. I didn't really connect with the characters that much, even though the writers try hard enough to get some emotional content in there, mostly with M.K.'s relationship with her father or Nod not living up to Ronin's expectations. I felt that the characters were just forgettable and they just lacked depth. I felt that a lot of the elements in this film were basically pulled from other films - especially animated films - and thrown into a blender. I'm okay with ideas reheated from other films, but only when it's done with finesse. For instance, there were many elements in Wreck-It Ralph that were reminiscent of other animated films, even a lot of the classic Disney films... But the characters are well-defined, the writing immerses you into the various video game worlds and it tries other things alongside the tried-and-true things.

It was just bland and kind of hollow. Oddly enough, the comic relief characters didn't annoy me as much as I thought they would. In fact, they can be funny from time to time though Aziz Ansari's slug's voice does tend to get annoying, and it does clash with the fantasy setting. It didn't bother me though, since everything else around them isn't colorful or compelling. But in all, they are in the wrong film and the overall picture has tonal issues. They don't really explore M.K.'s relationship with her father, even though there is stuff in there that's ripe for some good drama, and it ultimately feels out of place in this film.

I'm also surprised that Christoph Waltz delivered the flamboyant evil villain performance in such a by-the-books way. Seriously, he was just another power hungry villain that's all bark and no bite. I liked his design enough, and all the Boggans looked pretty menacing... But again, despite the great design work, the characters themselves didn't seem to have real personalities beyond their looks. It's a shame, because it's a Chris Wedge film and the design is where the effort really went. This could've been a world that you could immerse yourself into, but it's too bad that the story didn't really support it nor did it flesh out much.

Now that's not to say it's bad, it's just on the mediocre side. It's good for a rental, but a film of this scale and the source material they used should've made for something more than a quick watch. It's interesting to note that Fox initially allowed Wedge to shop the adaptation to someone else, and Wedge went to none other than Pixar to make it. Now imagine if Pixar made it: You'd have the lovely look and the character designs, but a compelling story and some good humor, tearjerker moments and everything you'd come to expect from a Pixar film. It also would've been their first adaptation, something they could look into one day.

As a whole, epic this is not. Leaf Men should've been the title for obvious reasons, but the film just smacks of the typical style-over-substance problems. With a sharper script and more-defined characters, this could've been a magical yet compelling animated fantasy for the whole family. Alas, it's just a quick watch...

'Book of Life'... The Next 'Rango'?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Book of Life, an upcoming computer animated film from the Dallas-based Reel FX Creative Studios, will be the next Rango...

As you all know, I have nothing but high praise for that Gore Verbinski-directed western that came out over two years ago. It was a much-needed kick in the pants to the industry, showing audiences that you don't have to make a cutesy derivative adventure with the animated medium. It did what most of Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks' competitors don't do and it even tries a few things that those greats haven't tried yet. It was a pretty hard PG film, as it toyed with humor and violence that caused controversy. The character designs were the antithesis of what you see in the marketplace, from Disney to Illumination. Nothing cute, marketable or ready-made for toys. The story is complex but it locks together quite well by the time the third act rolls in, with fun twists and turns. On top of that, the quirkiness is right on the surface and its just a beautiful film to look at. It's an animated masterpiece in my eyes...

Now, why do I think that this Book of Life will be the next Rango? How will it be the next Rango?

Reel FX, as many of you may know, is entering the theatrical feature animation business with Jimmy Hayward's Free Birds this autumn. This film, directed by Jorge Guiterrez and produced by Guillermo del Toro, is set to follow it. The picture is currently slated for an October 3, 2014 release and is described as an "action-packed" take on Romeo and Juliet, but with a "Day of the Dead backdrop". Aron Warner, producer of Free Birds, says it's unlike any computer animated film out there.

Well, Rango was just that if you ask me. Design-wise, it was far removed from a lot of the big studio offerings. It certainly didn't feel like something you'd see from Blue Sky and Illumination, and even the likes of Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks. It was a rare breed, its own animal... Since it came out, I've been saying, "We need more films like that!" Its success should've been something of a wake-up call to studios and newcomers... It looks like Reel FX gets the message.

Today, animation directors are pointing out the problems with the animation industry and the sameness of many releases. People who don't know anything about animation go backwards and ask "Are there too many animated films?" The answer is simple: Diversify. Create a market for different kinds of animated films, rather than the family-friendly adventure or silly comedy. Animation is such a limitless medium, yet many of our studios don't really experiment with it. There's a reason people turn to the likes of Disney and Pixar, because they offer creative films that are also smart; films that don't talk down to the audience. Films that everyone can enjoy, no matter what age.

Look at anime, look at what they get to cover! In Japan, they don't have this ridiculous "animation is for children" prejudice going on. That's almost exclusive to North America since it was born there. They also don't spend over $100 million USD on a lot of their works, so with the budgets they have, they can explore and try many things that American animation hasn't touched yet. The same also applies to many studios in Europe, who prove that huge budgets don't make for great animated films, or successful ones.

Reel FX plans on making their films for reasonable costs, unlike a studio like DreamWorks who will pour over $130 million into every film they make. (Though to be fair, the production values and extra sparkle in their films kind of show that they go an extra mile.) Free Birds has good-looking animation, so Book of Life should look just fine. People will still see an animated film that isn't entirely dazzling in its look. Illumination's films cost under $75 million to make, and people go to see them. Audiences will show up for something good or something that looks good.

Here's where the risk lies... How do you make Book of Life appeal to mass audiences? Its subject matter may not appeal to audiences, regardless of whether the film is hand-drawn or CG or stop-motion. LAIKA's films, for instance, have a hard time catching on. Coraline and ParaNorman's spooky themes just didn't appeal, and their opening weekends were poor. Stop-motion could be popular if marketed right, and so can the subject matter. Now this is not definite. It's possible that Book of Life will look great to fickle audiences that don't gravitate towards weirder or more eccentric animation, but what if it doesn't?

Rango, however, was arguably just as hard of a sell. Again, it had pretty grotesque character designs, no flashy colors (given the Western setting and tone) or anything familiar. The trailers made use of the film's various jokes, and somehow the marketing successfully sold it. Paramount put their all into it though, you got to give them credit there. (At the same time, they slacked off on Kung Fu Panda 2.) Adults who are normally sick of the same ol' same ol' were thrilled to see something different, and the marketing did try to reach out to them. Attaching Nickelodeon's name also helped the film, as they could sell it to family audiences (they did the same with The Adventures of Tintin, but with much less success) as well as promoting it on a channel that tons of children watch. It was a smart strategy, and the film opened well enough and had good enough legs. It may not have doubled its budget, but Paramount was more than happy with its success. To put it in perspective, Rango sold 15 million tickets while the supposedly more popular Rio sold 17 million. The gross of that Blue Sky film was only higher because of 3D screenings.

But on the other hand, Rango did have the first week of March to its advantage. October really isn't blockbuster month yet, but if last year taught us anything, it can be. Fox is distributing this film, so they're going to have to put their all into it if they want it to be a hit, but there's a big dilemma here: Fox has four other animation releases that year - Blue Sky's Rio 2 and DreamWorks' Mr. Peabody & Sherman, How To Train Your Dragon 2 and Home. Will they put a good amount of effort into Book of Life's marketing? Or will they pull a Fantastic Mr. Fox on it, throw it out there with barely any marketing and let it just sit there?

This one is going to need some very good marketing behind it, and on top of that, Fox can try to make it appeal to mainstream audiences without pandering: ParaNorman's trailer and ads, if you ask me, committed that sin. That film's trailer made it seem like a kiddie flick to adults (I remember watching the trailer and couldn't help but be a bit skeptical, despite how great Coraline was) yet it featured scary images that may have been frightening to kiddies. You can't have it both ways, because by pandering to kids with something that wasn't entirely for the younger set and losing adults in the process is what stopped ParaNorman from being the hit it should have been. Rango did well enough because the marketing tried to appeal to both age groups.

Which brings me back to why I brought up Rango. Book of Life is essentially a Rango or ParaNorman-esque film. It's different and it knows it, yet it's still going to be a family film, but probably a pretty edgy one. But why the "next Rango" rather than the "next ParaNorman"? Well, Rango was successful and it was also a computer animated film. If Rango can prove that not all non-Pixar/Disney/DreamWorks computer animated films should be the same, this could make that argument as well. Only time will tell...

Beasts of Burden on the other hand will probably not be a family film given the source material, but nothing is set in stone for that film just yet. You know I'm rooting for that one as well, and I hope Reel FX announces something about it (casting, directors, possible release dates) soon. In the mean time, their second feature looks to be a game changer and one that may make a real impact like Verbinski's quirky critter western did.

Focusing On The Now

Kevin Feige, President of Production of Marvel Studios, recently said that any more announcements concerning the third phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe won't be made until next year at the earliest...

To me, I think Feige is simply saying, "Let's focus on what's going on now. Phase 3? We'll save all of that for later." So far, all we know about Phase 3 is that Ant-Man (from the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy director Edgar Wright) is penciled in for a November 6, 2015 release. We also know that three more projects are scheduled for May 6, 2016, July 8, 2016 and May 5, 2017. Doctor Strange is certainly in the cards, Black Panther may be as well. Everything else is up in the air at the moment, though Marvel has expressed interest in characters like Vision, Cable, Iron Fist, Nighthawk and a few others for solo films.

I have my theories as well, but nothing for Phase 3 is really set in stone yet. In fact, Ant-Man is probably going to be moved to the May 2016 date that Marvel secured over a month ago because Sony is planning to open Bond 24 the same day. There's nowhere else for Ant-Man to move, really. I can't see Disney moving it a week back, because more competition such as the final Hunger Games film stands in its way. I'd say 90% chance it moves, which would also make sense since Phase 2 kicked off nearly a year after The Avengers opened. It gives audiences a little time to breathe.

Phase 2's ambitions, I believe, are part of the reason why Marvel won't make any more big Phase 3 announcements. Feige probably feels that people should focus on the 2nd Phase, so no one really plans ahead. We may make predictions for what will come after The Avengers 3, but I think they don't even have an idea of what's coming after Ant-Man... Yet... Either that, or they do know and they just won't tell us, which could very well be the case. In the meantime, Marvel probably wants us to just focus on the Phase 2 films. But I like to predict the future, and many others do too, so...

My other theory is that Marvel and Feige might be planning (or at least thinking about) bigger things... Bigger things as in Sony collaborating with Disney/Marvel to fully bring Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe!

At Comic-Con, Andrew Garfield (who plays Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man) said that he'd love to see Spider-Man with the Avengers. A lot of us do, since he was an Avenger... But for the longest time, Sony seemed to want no part in any of the MCU, hoping to keep making billions off of future Spider-Man films. After all, they announced that a third and a fourth installment in this series are already planned for release in 2016 and 2018 respectively.

After discussing the studio's future with a fellow Marvel and Disney fan, PJ Campell (Twitter / Blog), it now seems likely to me that the web-slinger might be fighting alongside Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk and the like. He said...

"I fully believe that Marvel and Sony have already taken meetings to try and cross their universes. Attempting to add Oscorp Tower in The Avengers proves that there is a solid working relationship between the two, and that they’re at least open to the idea of them wanting it to happen. I think it's more a matter of when, not if."

It's very possible that Marvel and Sony are already discussing this, despite the fact that they have two more Spider-Man films planned after The Amazing Spider-Man 2. He also thinks that director Marc Webb's recent comments about the fourth film being more than a Spider-Man film definitely has something to do with the MCU... Perhaps it'll feature MCU characters in it? Or it'll be what some others are predicting, perhaps the Sinister Six? PJ also adds...

"... If Marvel and Sony strike a deal, Phase 3 will see Spider-Man’s full reveal in that universe. Either that, or a dimension crossing Spider-Man, like in Spider-Men, the Marvel comics crossover. Either way, I see him finding his way into Phase 3 of the MCU, maybe before his encounter with the Sinister Six."

Another fellow Disney and Marvel enthusiast, Tyler Kelso (Twitter / Podcast / Blog), thinks the fourth film will deal with the Sinister Six. He also had this say about Feige's recent comments and Marvel's plans...

"He's working on something BIG, many have said (I disagree) that DC knocked out Marvel with Batman/Superman at SDCC. But I think Feige won the whole of SDCC film-wise. For a year everyone thought the main baddy in Avengers 2 would be Thanos, then Joss announced Ultron, 

which proved to me that they've been planning out 5 steps ahead of where they are all along, making Thanos be like a puppet master sending pawns to Earth (first Loki w/ Chitauri, now Ultron)..."

"I think he might be waiting to confirm anything for Phase 3 beyond Ant-Man to see how the Fantastic 4 reboot goes because being a little over a month from shooting and NO confirmed casting. I think that the rights should go back to Marvel so that he'll [Feige] want to put Fantastic 4 in Phase 3. As far as the potential to add in Wolverine/X-Men & Spidey... Those are trickier to call. If you believe John Campea the odds of it are slim to none... I think if any characters currently owned by Fox and Sony were to make it in to the film it would be Wolverine and Spidey. As long as it's Hugh Jackman and Andrew Garfield, I'm happy. But I think what is more likely to happen in regard to that potential is seeing nods to those characters like having the Daily Bugle in a city scene, same with Mr. Fantastic's home in a city scape... (Like how the one for S.H.I.E.L.D. has Stark Tower in it.)

"Plus it's possible that Feige wants to wait to make Phase 3 announcements until he can potentially iron out some rights agreements with Fox... Plus to be fair, we didn't know what Phase 2 would look like until the year before Avengers, yeah we knew about Iron Man 3 (we know about Ant-Man) but we didn't know it would have Thor and Cap sequels until those movies came out and I don't remember hearing about Guardians until SDCC '12, so it seems right that we'd hear more next summer. I definitely like where they are going..."

Tyler brings up a very good point. Fox surprised some at this year's Comic-Con with no hints on The Fantastic Four, which is shooting soon with no cast (Jurassic Park IV's most recent delay, anyone?) and it's set for a March 6, 2015 release.

Perhaps Feige is waiting to see how things will turn out with this somewhat-promising reboot (Chronicle director Josh Trank is at the helm, for starters), but Tyler thinks that the rights should revert back to Marvel, so that the team will be part of Phase 3. Maybe that's what Feige might be planning, since The Fantastic Four doesn't seem to show any big box office potential just yet... Plus, what if it's a rush-job? If a delay happens, we may have a new set of theories concerning this one film.

As for X-Men, PJ had this to add...

"I want to believe that Fox would want the crossover, but honestly, after this whole Quicksilver incident, I think they made their stance very clear: They want nothing to do with Marvel. They think they can exist without them. No matter how badly fans, or even Hugh Jackman want it to happen, the events of the last month scream Fox has thrown down the gauntlet, severing chances of a crossover.

Unless, somehow at the last minute, they come to terms and use the same Quicksilver from Days of Future Past in Avengers 2, but I honestly won’t hold my breath. Down the line, maybe? But for the foreseeable future, I don’t think there’s a chance of it happening."

I'd have to agree with him on Fox's current X-Men franchise not crossing over with Marvel's because the continuity of that series will contradict the MCU since the first X-Men film debuted eight years before Iron Man. That franchise and its established universe was already set in stone, with two sequels and a prequel in development before 2008. It's simply in another cinematic universe, so I can't see Fox merging that one with the MCU... Though it would be cool to see Hugh Jackman as Wolverine with the Avengers... But that would only mix things up if you ask me.

Since Fox having their X-Men film series cross over with the MCU is out of the question, what will happen if the X-Men rights eventually revert back to Marvel? PJ had this to say...

"If Marvel ever gets the rights back, the universe will be rebooted, I can almost guarantee it. I think Fox’s franchise may be waining once Jackman leaves. Without him as the face, I’m not sure their series will last."

To add to that, a full reboot would probably not occur until 2020 at the least. Fox is gung-ho with their X-Men plans, especially since X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine have gotten better reception. They're gearing up for X-Men: Days of Future Past, big time. An X-Force film and a Deadpool film are also in the cards, so they'll be making X-Men films until the franchise fatigue kicks in. The question is... When will that be? When will Hugh Jackman finally call it quits? Also, will Marvel reboot it for the MCU 5-10 years after the original Fox series wraps up? Or will it be seen as unnecessary since the X-Men film series was already big?

For the sake of comparison, the original Spider-Man film series was just a trilogy, the planned fourth film became the reboot. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is its own special entity, but audiences probably won't mind a new Batman in the Man of Steel sequel (or is it really a sequel to that film?), because Batman has been rebooted several times with different actors. X-Men on the other hand is one big franchise that's been firing on all cylinders for nearly 13 years with one trilogy, a potential second one and two spin-offs about Wolverine... And perhaps more! So far (counting Days), we have 7 films! I'm not sure how a reboot would work out for this series since it's already so big! What do you think?

What are your theories on Marvel's plans? Do you think Sony will bring Spider-Man into the MCU? Or not? Do you think the Fantastic Four will eventually become part of the MCU? Sound off below!