Jump to content

The Punisher: WarZone


Tim Bradstreet
 Share

Recommended Posts

"…today, it would be very hard for us to partner with another studio, unless it was an R-rated film, and then I think that's pretty self-obvious because we are not interested in making R-rated films [at Marvel Studios]."

 

Cuneo is basically saying "Not gonna happen."

 

Specially with the success of Marvel's first two properties IRON MAN and The Incredible Hulk.

 

That interview was done long before IRON MAN premiered.

 

Wih the money they have now, they'll cut out all the lose ends until getting back their characters.

 

SONY owns SPIDER MAN for another 10 years and FOX owns Wolverine and The X-MEN for who knows how long.

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike - LGF lost The Punisher in January.

 

If Warzone were to become successful, there's no way of knowing whether or not Marvel will continue to allow LGF to make money off a character they now FULLY own.

 

I think LGF knew this was gonna be the end for them and that character and put in a little money to try and turn it around. I seriously doubt ANYBODY at Valhalla or LGF is expecting to make another Punisher film or remake.

 

Marvel is just sitting quietly, waiting for Warzone to fail (or not since it doesn't really matter) to come in and re-invision the franchise the way they did with The Hulk. And the first thing they will do to Castle, is make him "kid friendly" aka money friendly.

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna climb out on a limb here and say so what if it's PG-13 instead of R. You can get away with an awful lot in a PG-13 and still leave something to the viewer's imagination. Now if you want to do The Punisher:Torture/Porn Version, then yeah, you would need an R rating. But you've limited the audience at that point. Why not broaden the audience? If The Dark Knight can be PG-13, then I don't understand the big problem.

 

I'm willing to hear why an R rated Punisher flick is so much more preferable.

 

K-skye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Mr. Hollywood or anything, but how exactly did LGF lose the character rights in January when they finished shooting the film in December? They shot the film, so they should retain the rights, that's how it usually goes if I'm not mistaken. My understanding to why this movie is Jane-less, is they had to start production on a certain date to retain the rights and no script overhauls, blah, blah, blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kiawt skye

 

I'm gonna climb out on a limb here and say so what if it's PG-13 instead of R.

 

 

Its a psychological thing. The mass won't take it seriously whatsoever. Though even Thomas Jane has said in an interview that one could b just as intense in a PG- 13 as in R- which is totally true cause the effect or 'intensity' truly comes from the storyline and set-ups of scenes and things.

 

I have freaked out harder from a blade slitting a wrist than watching bloody as hell massacres in movies.

 

But the fact is, if you rate it PG-13- you may get more young adolescents but they aren't gonna understand shit anyway plus you'll lose mature fanbase cause uh...it's FUCKING PG-13!

 

 

sveinx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdminGuyX

Well, they aren't interested in making R-rated films until James Cameron calls them and says he wants to make an R-rated spider-man film, or Tony Scott calls and says "Hey, I want to do The Punisher as a hard R with Tom Jane in the lead again". Plans change as time changes. There was a time that Marvel had no intention of producing their own films as they saw no need for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, the rights reverted back to Marvel in January because Marvel wanted it that way (now that they're flying solo).

 

Warzone getting made didn't mean LGF could retain the rights to the character.

 

Marvel is gonna rally up all it's lose ends (properties previously worked on with other studios) and make them successful.

 

The Incredible Hulk was the beginning of this revolution and The Punisher is next.

 

I wonder if they've gotten DAREDEVIL back yet, cause I really wanna see them fix that. The last one [Theatrically] was PG-13 anyway.

 

I think The Punisher: War Journal comic is the clue to Marvel's intentions with the franchise. They're central plan revolves around THE AVENGERS films, so its inevitable for them to bring in Castle to that circle.

 

It might be kinda cool.

 

Let's see who plays him next,

 

-TL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, the rights reverted back to Marvel in January because Marvel wanted it that way (now that they're flying solo).

 

Warzone getting made didn't mean LGF could retain the rights to the character.

 

Marvel is gonna rally up all it's lose ends (properties previously worked on with other studios) and make them successful.

 

The Incredible Hulk was the beginning of this revolution and The Punisher is next.

 

I wonder if they've gotten DAREDEVIL back yet, cause I really wanna see them fix that. The last one [Theatrically] was PG-13 anyway.

 

I think The Punisher: War Journal comic is the clue to Marvel's intentions with the franchise. They're central plan revolves around THE AVENGERS films, so its inevitable for them to bring in Castle to that circle.

 

It might be kinda cool.

 

Let's see who plays him next,

 

-TL

 

If they even TRY to make a Punisher film based on the current PWJ comic, I will kill every single person who works at Marvel. PWJ is shitty beyond shitty. It started out decent then went downhill. Fraction can't write the Punisher worth shit, and Chaykin's art on the title is shit.

 

As for TIH... I haven't seen the film, but I heard it didn't meet expectations (unlike Iron Man which exceeded them), so it will be a while before Marvel tries their hand at a sequel.

 

The Punisher is inherently not a kid-friendly/pg-13 character. He is an utterly nonredeemable character. Whereas Batman can get away with a PG-13 rating despite the subject matter that is rumoured to be in The Dark Knight, the same thing cannot be granted to The Punisher. Just the nature of the character alone and the fact that he is the protagonist will make Marvel not want to create a film based on him. He's a mass murderer who considers a laundry list of war crimes as acceptable tactics against fighting crime. Attempting to sanitize a character like that will backfire on Marvel, and I think they know it.

 

Even if Marvel does have the rights to The Punisher back (you might be right on this), they will definitely not create a solo film based on the character. They stated that they are only making PG-13 films, and they are smart enough to know not to make a Punisher film. You can't market that character to teens and kids.

 

I think if PWZ is successful, Marvel will allow LGF to make sequels to it, otherwise, Marvel won't ever make a Punisher film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arsh, 2003's HULK made $132 Million in its 10 week Domestic run.

 

In only 4 weeks, The Incredible Hulk has already made $116 Million.

 

The first film had a $150 Million budget, while the second film had $120.

 

The above intel is the reason MARVEL is greenlighting a second Hulk film before the big guy teams up with THE AVENGERS in 2011.

 

I don't know where you heard that it didn't meet Marvel's expectations, specially since you're a member of the SHH forums.

 

As for Marvel allowing LGF to make sequels if Warzone is successful... I don't think so.

 

They obviously wanted the character back for a reason (CIVIL WAR movie) and LGF couldn't do anything to keep him.

 

Marvel MUST have considered the possibility of Warzone succeeding. They didn't seem to give three shits.

 

They want Castle back and they got him back.

 

-TL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arsh, 2003's HULK made $132 Million in its 10 week Domestic run.

 

In only 4 weeks, The Incredible Hulk has already made $116 Million.

 

The first film had a $150 Million budget, while the second film had $120.

 

The above intel is the reason MARVEL is greenlighting a second Hulk film before the big guy teams up with THE AVENGERS in 2011.

 

I don't know where you heard that it didn't meet Marvel's expectations, specially since you're a member of the SHH forums.

 

As for Marvel allowing LGF to make sequels if Warzone is successful... I don't think so.

 

They obviously wanted the character back for a reason (CIVIL WAR movie) and LGF couldn't do anything to keep him.

 

Marvel MUST have considered the possibility of Warzone succeeding. They didn't seem to give three shits.

 

They want Castle back and they got him back.

 

-TL

 

You are probably right on TIH. I tried to dig up the news story where I'd read it, but I couldn't find it.

 

Where'd you hear they're making a Civil War film? That I doubt.

 

Even if Marvel does have The Punisher back, and they won't let LGF make any sequels despite its potential success, I don't want to see a PG-13 Frank Castle.

 

Making a PG-13 Frank Castle is just... stupid. He'll lose his edge. He'll have to be censored for the younger audiences.

 

I don't see why Marvel can't continue to team up with LGF to make more Punisher films. Marvel has stated it has no interest in making R films on its own, but LGF has no qualms about it.

 

Sure, Marvel has the rights back, but what's to say they won't team up with another production company to make another Punisher film?

 

TL, how can you even make a PG-13 Punisher film? Forget Civil War or Avengers for a second. Explain how Marvel could make a stand-alone Punisher film rated PG-13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zak Penn told Wizard Magazine about how the success of The Civil War comic has Marvel already developing a script for it.

 

If you think about it, the first AVENGERS film will be good - but after that all that's really left is watching Stark and Capi declare war on one another.

 

I'm thinkin CIVIL WAR will be the third and best installment of the series if the first film makes money. If it doesn't, they'll either cancel it or make it Part II.

 

The reason I don't see Marvel teaming up with another studio for ANYTHING is that they had no need to announce their "recapture" of Frank Castle.

 

Feige wanted people to know (specially those unhappy with the cursed Punisher franchise) that Marvel can now clean up the mess.

 

They're really putting up a flag that is already challenging major studios that have been around for a century.

 

Now, do I agree with their inevitable decision to make THE PUNISHER a PG-13 character? NO.

 

But Arsh, that's exactly what they're gonna do.

 

What's funny is, Marvel's take on the character may prove to be the definitive one.

 

Its gonna bite everyone in the ass, the same way Ledger Joker haters are feeling right now.

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that doesn't make sense to me, Marvel wanted the rights back so they got them? Don't they also want the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men, and yet they can't because the studios are going to keep making the movies. So, I don't see how the Punisher has a loop hole to this.

 

Also, I'd like to see where this news that Marvel has regained the rights to the character came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdminGuyX

According to this article, well . . . LGF retains the rights to the Punisher, and Fox to X-men and Wolverine.

 

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=96389

 

This is honestly why I attempt to never apply absolutes to anything in the film world until after it's released.

 

Contracts, Licenses, and Completion Bonds are thought of as merely suggestions.

 

I have heard in other places, Mike, that LGF let the license on Punisher lapse. Maybe even from a post Tim made.

 

If it's anything like the license deals I've dealt with in garment marketing and music, they always have a deadline, and you have to pay a renewal fee to keep them past that deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, Marvel has said everything they needed to say about this issue.

 

They're not gonna have a fuckin press conference and say "FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE! WE'RE FUCKIN UNSTOPPABLE!".

 

Now, what's interesting to me is hearing Gale Anne Hurd refuse to comment on the future of The Warzone franchise.

 

Leterrier and Favreau are talking sequels left and right. Even Laura Sizkin (SPIDER MAN) commented on Spider Man 4 and 5.

 

Hurd just kept quiet.

 

-TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Outpost tonight just to see Ray Stevenson in something besides Rome. Really wasn't much of a characterization for him to work with there. Very stereotypic type stuff and a really stupid story. At least it was only 90 minutes.

 

K-skye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I haven't heard anything about Marvel getting the film rights back and doing a PG-13 movie in the future. The only place I've read that is here from you, until I see some concrete evidence to verify what you are saying, I'm calling bullshit.

 

Besides it's been said, if they want to do a R rated movie, they will do it outside Marvel Films with another studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike you're being hard-headed again.

 

Can't you connect the dots?

 

The last two pages of posts are basically a preliminary status report on where The Punisher is headed after Warzone, based on evidence provided by the people that own him (Feige, Cuneo) and that used to own him (Hurd).

 

To make things easier, here's the guy that broke the story on LGF losing Castle to Marvel in January...

 

Tim Bradstreet posted, a few weeks before January 2008:

 

"LGF's option on the character runs out at the end of this month, or extremely soon after."

 

The evidence:

 

-MARVEL will no longer be teaming up with other studios.

 

-MARVEL will only be making PG-13 films in order to bring in higher numbers.

 

-MARVEL's main project at the moment is the setting up of THE AVENGERS movie. CIVIL WAR (In development) is being groomed to be the big follow up to that movie.

 

-The Punisher: War Journal comic was released [ironically] as a tie-in to CIVIL WAR.

 

-If MARVEL is gonna use The Punisher, it's gonna be either in a film version of War Journal or as a supporting character in THE AVENGERS franchise - both options being PG-13.

 

What is it about the intel above, that you find questionable Mike?

 

- TL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike you're being hard-headed again.

 

Can't you connect the dots?

 

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black... or however the saying goes <_<:P

 

The last two pages of posts are basically a preliminary status report on where The Punisher is headed after Warzone, based on evidence provided by the people that own him (Feige, Cuneo) and that used to own him (Hurd).

 

To make things easier, here's the guy that broke the story on LGF losing Castle to Marvel in January...

 

Tim Bradstreet posted, a few weeks before January 2008:

 

"LGF's option on the character runs out at the end of this month, or extremely soon after."

 

The evidence:

 

-MARVEL will no longer be teaming up with other studios.

 

-MARVEL will only be making PG-13 films in order to bring in higher numbers.

 

For their superhero characters... I don't see them doing it for the fucked up antiheroes.

 

-MARVEL's main project at the moment is the setting up of THE AVENGERS movie. CIVIL WAR (In development) is being groomed to be the big follow up to that movie.

 

What proof do you have of Civil War? Avengers, yes, that I believe, but not Civil War. And Castle's part in Civil War was somewhat minimal.

 

-The Punisher: War Journal comic was released [ironically] as a tie-in to CIVIL WAR.

 

The Punisher War Journal comic is pure, unadulterated shit.

 

-If MARVEL is gonna use The Punisher, it's gonna be either in a film version of War Journal or as a supporting character in THE AVENGERS franchise - both options being PG-13.

There is a possibility that Marvel would team up with another studio to produce R films with its characters. But on its own it will stick with superheroes. They've done it in the past with Blade and Punisher. Nothing says they can't do it again.

 

What is it about the intel above, that you find questionable Mike?

 

- TL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my understanding of movie options going by The Fantastic Four, is as long the studio makes a movie before the option runs out, they retain the rights. Punisher: War Zone shot from October to early December, so they would have just made the deadline.

 

…today, it would be very hard for us to partner with another studio, unless it was an R-rated film, and then I think that's pretty self-obvious because we are not interested in making R-rated films [at Marvel Studios].

 

I figure this quote was pretty self-obvious, Marvel isn't interested in producing R-rated films, unless it was with another studio.

 

If you find some definitive proof on what you are saying, I'll believe, but like I said until then I'm calling bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arsh, you make it sound like MARVEL has a truck load of "Fucked up antiheroes."

 

POWER MAN is getting a PG-13 rating Arsh. John Singleton has to bend over for Marvel just to get that film made.

 

If you read up, you'll see my bringing up of Zak Penn's scoop on the CIVIL WAR script being in development.

 

Castle's part may have been minimal in CIVIL WAR - but above all it was controversial. It introduced the PG-13 Castle Marvel is beginning to feel comfortable with after 7 years of Garth Ennis.

 

It also re-introduced Castle back to the Marvel Universe after being absent since the beginning of MAX in 2004.

 

Now, you bring up the BLADE trilogy and the two previous "R" rated PUNISHER films.

 

That was the past Arsh.

 

After IRON MAN's insane success that put Marvel on the map as a production company, they will more than ever distance themselves from other studios.

 

Why?

 

Why share profits?

 

The only franchises that have made more than IRON MAN are the franchises that will be using MARVEL's characters for another decade (SPIDER MAN, WOLVERINE and X-MEN).

 

Any business MARVEL did before IRON MAN no longer applies.

 

ENTER MARVEL STUDIOS,

 

-TL

 

P.S. Mike, once again - Why share profits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arsh, you make it sound like MARVEL has a truck load of "Fucked up antiheroes."

 

POWER MAN is getting a PG-13 rating Arsh. John Singleton has to bend over for Marvel just to get that film made.

 

If you read up, you'll see my bringing up of Zak Penn's scoop on the CIVIL WAR script being in development.

 

Castle's part may have been minimal in CIVIL WAR - but above all it was controversial. It introduced the PG-13 Castle Marvel is beginning to feel comfortable with after 7 years of Garth Ennis.

 

It also re-introduced Castle back to the Marvel Universe after being absent since the beginning of MAX in 2004.

 

Now, you bring up the BLADE trilogy and the two previous "R" rated PUNISHER films.

 

That was the past Arsh.

 

After IRON MAN's insane success that put Marvel on the map as a production company, they will more than ever distance themselves from other studios.

 

Why?

 

Why share profits?

 

The only franchises that have made more than IRON MAN are the franchises that will be using MARVEL's characters for another decade (SPIDER MAN, WOLVERINE and X-MEN).

 

Any business MARVEL did before IRON MAN no longer applies.

 

ENTER MARVEL STUDIOS,

 

-TL

 

P.S. Mike, once again - Why share profits?

 

Explain 'Spider-Man' and 'X-Men' to me.

 

Because I sure as hell don't see Marvel making those, not for a long, long time. Sony and Fox respectively are working on sequels for those franchises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...