Avengers 2: Age of Ultron

[Bastard of Boston]

Whedon probably had no say in the title. Seems like a Marvel ploy for that very reason of selling that storyline. He's probably as thrilled with the title as anyone who isn't named Bendis.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

That title sounds like something a studio exec or producer who's never seen a comic book his entire life needs to veto. Are they seriously going to jeopardize* a movie with the potential to gross more than a billion worldwide for a comic book line?

*obviously the movie will make a shitton no matter how much they fuck it up, but still.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Nah, Marvel Studios doesn't give a damn about the sales of Marvel Comics. Heck, Marvel Comics doesn't care all that much for the sales of Marvel Comics these days. They just liked the title.

[Bastard of Boston]

Nah, Marvel Studios doesn't give a damn about the sales of Marvel Comics. Heck, Marvel Comics doesn't care all that much for the sales of Marvel Comics these days. They just liked the title.

Well, Disney owns both Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios. Rest assured they care about sales -- any sales. I've never met a business disinterested in how much money they're bringing in. And, considering the comics have tried to cater to the people who have seen the movies more and more, it's definitely a safe to say the title is a cross-promotional tool...just like how there's a Black Nick Fury in 616 now.

[Ramsay B.]

I just can't wait until Thanos gets his due...then fucks it up because of arrogance.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Well, Disney owns both Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios. Rest assured they care about sales -- any sales. I've never met a business disinterested in how much money they're bringing in. And, considering the comics have tried to cater to the people who have seen the movies more and more, it's definitely a safe to say the title is a cross-promotional tool...just like how there's a Black Nick Fury in 616 now.

The Black Nick Fury was the other way around- the comics adapting themselves to the movies, because they (stupidly) think that if they copy anything the movies do, readers will come (they don't). Marvel Studios doesn't give a damn about the comic sales, and the comics division is there to provide ideas for movies, nothing more.

[Sci-2]

That title sounds like something a studio exec or producer who's never seen a comic book his entire life needs to veto. Are they seriously going to jeopardize* a movie with the potential to gross more than a billion worldwide for a comic book line?

*obviously the movie will make a shitton no matter how much they fuck it up, but still.

I suspect the title will undergo a change before the movie opens. Though at this point I think the Avengers 2 part of the title will carry the movie unless it really, really sucks.

I mean Avengers at best was mediocre and it made 1 billion.

[Bastard of Boston]

The Black Nick Fury was the other way around- the comics adapting themselves to the movies, because they (stupidly) think that if they copy anything the movies do, readers will come (they don't). Marvel Studios doesn't give a damn about the comic sales, and the comics division is there to provide ideas for movies, nothing more.

I'm not sure if you literally feel that way, or if you're just making a statement on the quality of the comics. You made my point for me by pointing out Black Nick Fury was a ploy to bring in more readers, generating more sales. It costs money to produce and distribute comics. If Disney/Marvel didn't care about comic book sales, they wouldn't be producing comics.

[Bastard of Boston]

I've been YouTubing panels. Really weird that Alan Taylor was at the Con, taking pics and signing autographs with Tom Hiddleston, yet he wasn't included in any capacity during the Marvel Studios panel. I guess the rumors of his creative differences and estrangement with Marvel is true. Kind of a buzz kill. Was really excited to see a GoT director get the job...I hope the movie turns out great, despite his apparent problem with the finished product.

[RedEyedGhost]

The Black Nick Fury was the other way around- the comics adapting themselves to the movies, because they (stupidly) think that if they copy anything the movies do, readers will come (they don't). Marvel Studios doesn't give a damn about the comic sales, and the comics division is there to provide ideas for movies, nothing more.

You should stop. The first appearance of this version of Nick Fury in the comics was 2001, in the movies... wait for it... 2008.

[Shryke]

Yeah, Black Nick Fury, afaik, comes from the Marvel Ultimates line, where they specifically modelled him after SLJ because the artists thought he was awesome.

When they started making the movies, they thought let's use the real SLJ, and SLJ said "Sure, I like money".

[Francis Buck]

Ultron sounds like a pretty cool villain. I know nothing about him beyond what I've read on the internet, but I definitely think that Avengers 2 really needs to nail the villain. Hard. I mean Loki was acceptable, due to the acting of Hiddleston, and having been established earlier in the Thor movie, but he really wasn't especially menacing, and the aliens were basically just cannon fodder. So yeah, I think pulling off Ultron will pretty much make or break the next movie to some extent.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I'm not sure if you literally feel that way, or if you're just making a statement on the quality of the comics. You made my point for me by pointing out Black Nick Fury was a ploy to bring in more readers, generating more sales. It costs money to produce and distribute comics. If Disney/Marvel didn't care about comic book sales, they wouldn't be producing comics.

Marvel Studios and Marvel Comics are separate entities, and the former doesn't give a damn about the latter, while the reverse isn't true. What's so hard to get?

You should stop. The first appearance of this version of Nick Fury in the comics was 2001, in the movies... wait for it... 2008.

This is the Nick Fury from the Ultimate Line. I'm talking about the other one.

[Maltaran]

Yeah, Black Nick Fury, afaik, comes from the Marvel Ultimates line, where they specifically modelled him after SLJ because the artists thought he was awesome.

When they started making the movies, they thought let's use the real SLJ, and SLJ said "Sure, I like money".

That was part of the deal for using his likeness - he said they could do it provided he got to play Fury in any film he was in.

[red snow]

One Marvel movie made a billion dollars. I can't find yearly sales figures but in March 2013 they sold 7,203,694 comics in the US (that's every comic distributor not just MArvel). Multiply that by 12 and then multiply by $4 (cost of a Marvel comic) and you get around $350 million. That's ALL comics. Marvel usually has a 45-50% market share and is usually top heavy in sales charts so let's give them 60% of that total estimate. That's around $210 million. God knows how much of that is profit but the same can be said of the film. It's not an insignificant amount but when you take into consideration there's 2-3 Marvel films out every year then the film division makes 5-10 x the amount of a year of comics.

It's pretty clear Disney knows where the money comes from.

In that sense Disney is happy for Marvel comics to make money but it's not essential - they'd probably close shop if it was losing. They bought the IP and I think they know there's little in the way of new IP being created there (you buy individual Image titles for that). Disney execs are right in thinking "the film made a billion dollars so if the comic is more like the film the comic will make more money" even if it neglects the fans of comics.

What they definitely won't allow is Marvel to do stories that may jeopardise their films. So you wont see characters doing drugs, beating wives, and sort of raping people (not a bad thing but all of those things have happened in the comics.

Going a step further it appears that the comics are doing a storyline that will replace mutants with Inhumans as the primary source of super powers. This essential guts the core concept of MArvel's mutants. Why would you do that to your best selling franchise (on average over the last 3 decades)? Because Disney doesn't own the film rights to the X-men anymore. It does own the rights to the Inhumans though. So just make the inhumans the new version of mutants and Disney can have films with "mutants" in. To marginalise your major franchise for the benefit of the films highlights which medium is the most important.

It bugs me but then again Disney paid $4 billion to own Disney. They can do what they want and if the Inhumans film makes $500 million it would take the x-men franchise 20 years to make that in comic sales. Plus Marvel will promote the fuck out of the Inhumans comic so it will sell loads anyhow.

[polishgenius]

When they started making the movies, they thought let's use the real SLJ, and SLJ said "Sure, I like money".

To be fair, I don't think SLJ does this sort of shit for the money, I think he does it because he loves geeky pop culture - by which I'm not saying that he doesn't take a fair wage for it, of course.

Also what Winterfell is referring to is the fact that the main-universe Nick Fury is now also modeled on Samuel L. Jackson. He's the old one's long lost son who's stepped into the role. Stupid fucking idea but eh.

[Shryke]

Honestly, I'm kinda shocked they just didn't have original Nick Fury get hit by a blast of ebonic radiation and now he's black. And has super healing, cause why the fuck not.

[red snow]

Honestly, I'm kinda shocked they just didn't have original Nick Fury get hit by a blast of ebonic radiation and now he's black. And has super healing, cause why the fuck not.

LOL @ "ebonic radiation". That sounds like the kind of tastless "event" Marvel would have tried a decade or so ago.

[Bastard of Boston]

Marvel Studios and Marvel Comics are separate entities, and the former doesn't give a damn about the latter, while the reverse isn't true. What's so hard to get?

They're separate entities owned by the same entity -- Disney. If you think Disney-owned Marvel Studios named this film "Age of Ultron" because they simply "liked the title," without there being any concern given to the fact that the Disney-owned comic company's most recent event had the same name, I don't know what to tell you. All of these things exist to promote the other.

[Winterfell is Burning]

In that sense Disney is happy for Marvel comics to make money but it's not essential - they'd probably close shop if it was losing. They bought the IP and I think they know there's little in the way of new IP being created there (you buy individual Image titles for that). Disney execs are right in thinking "the film made a billion dollars so if the comic is more like the film the comic will make more money" even if it neglects the fans of comics.

Except for the fact that the movies NEVER caused a sales bump in the comics, and that has been known for well over a decade now at least. X-men movies, Spider-Man, Batman, Avengers themselves- nada in comic sales.

They're separate entities owned by the same entity -- Disney. If you think Disney-owned Marvel Studios named this film "Age of Ultron" because they simply "liked the title," without there being any concern given to the fact that the Disney-owned comic company's most recent event had the same name, I don't know what to tell you. All of these things exist to promote the other.

Read Red Snow's explanation.