Comics Creators

Marvel Movies & TV General Discussion


An issue I have with the Marvel tv series (Agents of SHIELD, everything on Netflix) is that the A-Team properties get movies, while the B-Team properties get tv series.

Iron Man and Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy each get three two hour movies over a five or six year span, while Agents of SHIELD gets five seasons and some one hundred hours of material over the same span.

So if you’re looking at the MCU as this big universe including the films and the tv series, the marginal B-Team material overwhelms the A-Team material. Just as of right now, we’re looking at about forty hours of movies and 200+ hours of television programming, and as the years go by, that gap will only increase as you get six to eight hours of film per year and dozens hours of tv content.

Looking at the ratios, I can’t really blame the film division for not acknowledging the tv division.


Yeah, but that’s simply an issue of budget and cost. 200 plus hours of Iron Man is not something anyone afford, not at any decent standard. Whereas 200 hours of characters who have basic powers and enemies are very affordable for television companies. And why would you dilute time with a-list heroes on tv, taking away from 500 mil to 1 billion profit on just a couple of hours in the cinema?

It’s all purely business.


In the long term TV will be more profitable. Disney generates more than twice as much money from it’s TV operations as it does from it’s movie studios.

Movies are higher profile, they keep the Disney brands at a premium level, help sell t-shirts, toys, theme park tickets, cruise ship holidays etc. and reinforce the corporation as a whole.

A global corporation like Disney makes decisions for a whole range of reason, the autonomy of each division is limited, and always subject to the larger corporate concerns. If cross-pollinating the film and TV operations was something they thought they’d benefit from then they’d do it.

Right now, they don’t.


Daredevil shouldn’t be B-list. I don’t know why Marvel decided that was the case.


Blame Ben Affleck.


I agree. But I also think the best types of stories with the character are more suited to the longer form of TV than to a single movie - partly due to the strong supporting cast and soap-opera elements.

(That’s not an A-list/B-list thing or a budget issue, though. I feel the same about Spider-Man.)


Yes, but surely there’s a drop of quality in the output as you need so much more of it? If you don’t get a b-team in terms of characters you still get one in terms of well known actors, production talent and sfx as the money is being stretched further. It makes sense for an Iron Man or Spider-Man cartoon, but not so much a live action version with 10-22 hours of content.

I think actors and their cost is the biggest factor here, though. Any of the Netflix characters would seem a-list with big names attached to them. For many MCU characters the opposite is true. Imagine Luke Cage played by The Rock onscreen or Captain America played by James Van Der Beek on Netflix.


I do agree with you here though, if they really wanted to make it work I’m sure they could find ways to do that.


They probably wanted to give Netflix at least one high profile superhero to anchor their Marvel content. And the baggage of the Affleck movie probably helped with the choice.


I still don’t get the hate for the Affleck movie. I loved it especially the Director’s Cut.


All TV shows are competing all the time, not just the Marvel shows. The next Marvel show is no more (or less) likely to get good people than the next cop show or medical drama.

The most important person is the showrunner; they’ll dictate the quality of everything else, choosing other writers, casting actors and setting the tone of the show.

As for the cost of actors; great casting isn’t only about the money. ‘Breaking Bad’ was a hit even though Brian Cranston was not a movie star, he was a very talented actor who’d played a lot of roles, but he wasn’t particularly famous. Casting him was a wonderful choice though.

TV shows don’t need movie stars, they need the right actor, and they may (or may not) be famous (and expensive) already.


Agents of SHIELD will find ways to tie into the movies. With Coulson appearing in Captain Marvel, they may be coming around a bit.


Maybe they find Carol and bring her back to Earth.


Maybe, but I think they just like the character and it makes sense for him to be in the film.


I thought a big issue for the lack of cross pollination was that Fiege didn’t have any control over the TV properties so had no interest in involving them. It’s why the tv shows are the only ones making any kind of attempt.


I think this is the real reason.



It’s Ike vs Feige. Both are incredibly powerful within Disney, both don’t like each other and don’t play together. So there’s little motivation to collaborate together and Disney heads can’t force them to change.

I don’t think it really matters though. Keeping them separate is the right strategy.


Is it just me or should there not be a “Homecoming 2”? It should be “Spiderman: Prom King”! :wink:


My MCU watch is up to Ironman 2, not a great flick, still fun for 2 hours but I wouldn’t bother owning it. The writing is pretty bad and the end was just a rehash of IM fighting another knock off suit. Tonight we’re watching the recap of Thor then The Avengers. I’m keeping my daughter interested because the marathon ends with Black Panther. :slight_smile: