Kevin Feige disbands Marvel's CREATIVE COMMITTEE

1 1

Another solid reason for what Feige did once given the power. This actually sounds like a much better villain than what Iron Man 3 delivered. Especially as Tony Stark's spurned love interest that was also a super-genius.

Rebecca Hall Confirms Her Role Was Reduced In Iron Man 3

Director Shane Black revealed that Dr. Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) was meant to be the film’s overarching baddie but that Marvel Studios executives vetoed the decisions. And, now, the actress has confirmed those rumors are true.

 

Rebecca spoke with Postmedia Network and talked about the controversial reveal. Saying the story is “100% true,” the actress revealed, saying she’s “been gagging to talk about it with someone, but I haven’t had the opportunity, weirdly.”

 

“I signed on to do something that was a substantial role. She wasn’t entirely the villain – there have been several phases of this – but I signed on to do something very different to what I ended up doing,” she continued.

 

The actress’ words match those which Black shared earlier this year. Talking with Uproxx, the director confessed that Rebecca’s character “was bigger at one point and we reduced it.”

 

Rebecca nodded to the intense fan reaction, saying, “Look, (Marvel) is paying for their mistakes right now and I applaud them for casting Brie Larson in Captain Marvel. Hallelujah. It’s about time women started being the heroes of things.”

Instead we got things like...

It would had been interesting to see, that's for sure. I've grown to like IM3 a little more on repeat viewings but I still have to turn it off before the Mandarin reveal near the end. So much potential and they wasted a great villain and a great actor in Sir Ben Kingsley.

What does this have to do with the Marvel Creative Committee? I'd have to know which "Marvel executives" the article is alluding to before having any opinion at all, but since the article includes Shane Black saying they reduced her role on the basis of toy sales, that tells me it was probably Perlmutter and/or marketing executives and not anyone on the creative committee.

On a separate note, why would Rebecca Hall as the villain have affected toy sales? I ask this out of curiosity and know very little about the demographics of toy sales. I'm guessing the implication is that little boys want to play with male villain action figures but not female ones?

What does this have to do with the Marvel Creative Committee? I'd have to know which "Marvel executives" the article is alluding to before having any opinion at all, but since the article includes Shane Black saying they reduced her role on the basis of toy sales, that tells me it was probably Perlmutter and/or marketing executives and not anyone on the creative committee.

 

On a separate note, why would Rebecca Hall as the villain have affected toy sales? I ask this out of curiosity and know very little about the demographics of toy sales. I'm guessing the implication is that little boys want to play with male villain action figures but not female ones?

Ike Perlmutter, who was convinced female action figures do not sell. So he supposedly made them change the main villain. Hinted at by multiple sources. Confirmed by Shane Black. Further confirmed by the actress involved who signed on to be a main character. Then was surprised to find out her character would be minor.

Perlmutter doesn't sit on the MCC. But at least two members (including his toy business partner) most probably convey his expectations.

Ike has always had a belief that toys of female characters don't sell unless they're Barbie-like things. And as a result, limits the production since he was a toy guy before buying Marvel back in the day. And maybe 20-30 years ago, that may have been true. Not so sure it is today with the slight influx of girl comic fans.

Ike has always had a belief that toys of female characters don't sell unless they're Barbie-like things. And as a result, limits the production since he was a toy guy before buying Marvel back in the day. And maybe 20-30 years ago, that may have been true. Not so sure it is today with the slight influx of girl comic fans.

Ike Pelmutter's views on female characters have been called out a few times by various industry reporting sites. Including when the Sony hacked emails led to a few of his exchanges with the Sony CEO to stay clear of female-led superhero movies were revealed. He used Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman as examples to prove his point why not to make an Aunt May 'secret agent' movie.

Does it mean he looks down on women? Maybe not. He is most probably focused on the easiest path to quick money, without taking into consideration the quality of the actress or -script.

I don't think Ike has much in the line of taste or understanding of what equals "quality" in a movie or even in media. He's focused entirely on the bottom line & learns a lot of the same lessons that Hollywood has always learned from movies because they're too close to the product to look at it objectively.

Hollywood execs see it very simply like this: If it was made, it was because it was a quality piece of work. Any other explanation would mean that we made a mistake. And since this city is so cut-throat, any admission of mistakes might mean being out of a job. So we can't make them & can't admit to them even if we think we might have made them.

So, if the quality of the product wasn't going to get the blame, it must be because certain things just don't sell no matter how great they are. In this case, it's female led superhero movies.

And as there is a legit argument that popularity of the product is reflected in the sales of the accompanying merchandise that has much larger margins, then an unpopular movie = unpopular toys = no sales.

Therefore, Ike see the situation as: girl-led superhero movies are unpopular (misconception that disregards quality) --> girl-led superhero merchandise doesn't sell (bad spin on a misconception) --> girl-superhero toys don't sell even if they're not associated with an unpopular girl-led superhero movie (poor lesson learned on an improperly equated situation. Apples/oranges argument where the apples are rotten & the oranges are actually grapes)

I don't think Ike has much in the line of taste or understanding of what equals "quality" in a movie or even in media. He's focused entirely on the bottom line & learns a lot of the same lessons that Hollywood has always learned from movies because they're too close to the product to look at it objectively.

 

Hollywood execs see it very simply like this: If it was made, it was because it was a quality piece of work. Any other explanation would mean that we made a mistake. And since this city is so cut-throat, any admission of mistakes might mean being out of a job. So we can't make them & can't admit to them even if we think we might have made them.

 

So, if the quality of the product wasn't going to get the blame, it must be because certain things just don't sell no matter how great they are. In this case, it's female led superhero movies.

 

And as there is a legit argument that popularity of the product is reflected in the sales of the accompanying merchandise that has much larger margins, then an unpopular movie = unpopular toys = no sales.

 

Therefore, Ike see the situation as: girl-led superhero movies are unpopular (misconception that disregards quality) --> girl-led superhero merchandise doesn't sell (bad spin on a misconception) --> girl-superhero toys don't sell even if they're not associated with an unpopular girl-led superhero movie (poor lesson learned on an improperly equated situation. Apples/oranges argument where the apples are rotten & the oranges are actually grapes)

I like what you said here. I guess we'll see with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel how the various theories hold up.

I don't think Ike has much in the line of taste or understanding of what equals "quality" in a movie or even in media. He's focused entirely on the bottom line & learns a lot of the same lessons that Hollywood has always learned from movies because they're too close to the product to look at it objectively.

 

Hollywood execs see it very simply like this: If it was made, it was because it was a quality piece of work. Any other explanation would mean that we made a mistake. And since this city is so cut-throat, any admission of mistakes might mean being out of a job. So we can't make them & can't admit to them even if we think we might have made them.

 

So, if the quality of the product wasn't going to get the blame, it must be because certain things just don't sell no matter how great they are. In this case, it's female led superhero movies.

 

And as there is a legit argument that popularity of the product is reflected in the sales of the accompanying merchandise that has much larger margins, then an unpopular movie = unpopular toys = no sales.

 

Therefore, Ike see the situation as: girl-led superhero movies are unpopular (misconception that disregards quality) --> girl-led superhero merchandise doesn't sell (bad spin on a misconception) --> girl-superhero toys don't sell even if they're not associated with an unpopular girl-led superhero movie (poor lesson learned on an improperly equated situation. Apples/oranges argument where the apples are rotten & the oranges are actually grapes)

 

 

I like what you said here. I guess we'll see with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel how the various theories hold up.

Go to any Target and ask how the DC Super Hero Girls sells. They go quite well.

Also the 6" and 19" Wonder Woman figures sell very well. Especially after years of it being so tough to track them down.

They're also often produced and distributed in smaller quantities than the male-counterpart figures, which is why they're often sold-out while there's a dozen Superman and Batman figures on the shelf. But the minute that the distribution ratio would be upped compared to Superman and Batman and they DIDN'T sell out, the old argument of "girl figures don't sell" gets trotted out as an excuse for why there's not the same sell-out frequency. It's a double-standard placed on the female character figures by an industry that doesn't know how to find the balance yet & never has really tried.

They're also often produced and distributed in smaller quantities than the male-counterpart figures, which is why they're often sold-out while there's a dozen Superman and Batman figures on the shelf. But the minute that the distribution ratio would be upped compared to Superman and Batman and they DIDN'T sell out, the old argument of "girl figures don't sell" gets trotted out as an excuse for why there's not the same sell-out frequency. It's a double-standard placed on the female character figures by an industry that doesn't know how to find the balance yet & never has really tried.

This does make a lot of sense. Even when I purchased a box of the Justice League mini figures that came in blind bags, there was 1 X Wonder Woman for every 3 X Batman/Superman set. Although to be honest, that was the case with Green Arrow and Green Lantern as well in a 1:3 ratio with Batman/Superman.

The man at the center of all that uproar finally caught on camera.

Reclusive Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter Photographed in Public at Trump Event

Ike Perlmutter, the CEO of Marvel Entertainment, has been photographed in public — a rare instance for the reclusive mogul.

 

Perlmutter met with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Wednesday and was photographed by Jonathan Ernst for Reuters news agency. The image shows a sunglasses-wearing Perlmutter and Trump peering out of a window. Perlmutter was helping organize a health summit with the president-elect at Trump's Florida retreat.

 

Unlike executives at other major studios and networks, the 74-year-old Marvel CEO has been photographed very few times over the years. Perlmutter was said to have showed up at 2008's Iron Man premiere in disguise, Hollywood Reporter editor-at-large Kim Masters reported in a definitive 2014 profile of the mogul. Getty Images and Associated Press photo databases currently show zero results for Perlmutter.

 

So, why should you care about this guy? Well, as you may recall, he's proved to be a very divisive figure over the years due to the way he runs Marvel. In the past, we've heard that he's the one responsible for the way the Fantastic Four and X-Men have been treated in the comic books, while Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige reportedly got so fed up with his cost-cutting measures that he went directly to Disney and requested that he now report to them, thereby making the studio a separate entity.

Now where are the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. when you need them?

Wow, interesting.

Talk about putting a bow on this package. Although you do have to give it to Perlmutter helping Marvel become a financial powerhouse over time.

Ike Perlmutter No Longer Marvel CEO! Hallelujah!

Quote

In an article that was actually published at the end of May, THR (h/t reddit) reports the eccentric billionaire, Ike Perlmutter, is no longer the Marvel CEO.

The article points out:

 

"His aversion to the limelight runs so deep that he's no longer CEO of Marvel, and yet, news outlets continue to confer that title upon him because there has never been any press release announcing he had relinquished that role."

 

A quick check of Ike Perlmutter's Wiki also references the article and notes Ike Perlmutter's end date is unknown, which may mean Perlmutter had stopped being Marvel CEO prior to May.

 

Ike Perlmutter has been CEO of Marvel since 2005 and has been blamed for a host of problems within the company including issues with Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios. 

 

Kevin Feige actually had to go above Ike Perlmutter to Disney CEO Bob Iger to remove Perlmutter and his Marvel Comics Creative Committee (Alan Fine, Dan Buckley, Joe Quesada, Brian Bendis) from being involved with the movies.

 

Ike Perlmutter is also said to be responsible for there not being a female Marvel Studios movie, which obviously blew up in his face when Wonder Woman was released earlier this year as it's currently WB's #3 movie of all time in North America and the #9 comic book movie adaptation.

 

Interestingly enough, while we all missed the news of Ike Perlmutter no longer being Marvel CEO, the past couple of months have seen the X-Men and Wolverine return to comics, gaming and merchandise. It's also speculated that the Fantastic Four may be returning to Marvel comics. In addition, Marvel TV is also working with Fox on their X-Men TV series.

Not a political post, but more shocked this news didn't get more attention when he was caught on film earlier this year with his friend, Donald Trump.

21 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

It's also speculated that the Fantastic Four may be returning to Marvel comics.

That was all total speculation that turned out to be clearly untrue that Feige also explicitly denied.

11 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That was all total speculation that turned out to be clearly untrue that Feige also explicitly denied.

Comic books. Not the film rights.

That's part of what they were pointing out in the article as spiteful corporate leadership. He killed titles assuming it would detract from movies not made by Marvel Studios - like the X-Men.

Looks like James Gunn opened up on how the Marvel Creative Committee tampered with the first movie storyline, which if he had his way he would have changed.

James Gunn Reveals What He Would Change About The First Film

Quote

The captain of the Marvel cosmos recently revealed what he would have changed about the first Guardians Of The Galaxy while answering fan questions on his Facebook page, and surprisingly it has to do with the movie’s baddies.

“There is some messy villain plot stuff in the first movie I'd like to deal with again,” Gunn said. “There was a committee working for Marvel at the time (now defunct) who had a lot of input, and that was primarily where it ended up. It just got a little messy.”

Gunn is referring to the Marvel Creative Committee that was dissolved on the Marvel Studios side after Kevin Feige wrested control of the movie productions from Isaac Perlmutter. The committee included Marvel Entertainment Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada, Marvel Comics publisher Dan Buckley, and writer Brian Michael Bendis. After the Marvel Studios/Marvel Entertainment split, rumors began circulating about reasons behind the divide including the input from the committee. One rumor even noted that the committee’s notes are part of what drove Edgar Wright off of the Ant-Man movie right before production began.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy itself does have a bit of a villain problem with the cabal of Ronan the Accuser, Thanos, and Gamora. Thanos’ inclusion does give Gamora and Nebula clear reason to be there, but coupled with Ronan’s drive to destroy the Nova Corps and Xanadar those motivations get muddled. It all becomes a bit complicated as the movie heads into the climax.

 

Sounds like Gunn is another person who didn’t enjoy the creative committee’s influence on the film, though he wouldn’t outright say it.

James Gunn finally opens up about the MCC.

Marvel's Creative Committee Wanted James Gunn To Ditch GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY's Soundtrack

Quote

For a long time, directors and writers working on Marvel Studios movies received unwanted input from Marvel's Creative Committee, a group put together by Marvel Entertainment boss Ike Perlmutter. However, once Kevin Feige had reached the end of his tether with that, he managed to convince Disney and Bob Iger to make Marvel Studios a separate entity which would report to Disney and no one else. 

In a new piece over at Vanity Fair, Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn has described the group as "a group of comic-book writers and toy people" who gave him "haphazard" notes about what he should be doing with Star-Lord and company in the movie. Chief among them was the removal of the 60s and 70s music which would ultimately become the Platinum-selling "Awesome Mix, Vol. 1."

Marvel's creative committee was made up of names like Marvel Comics Publisher Dan Buckley, Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada, Marvel Entertainment President Alan Fine and writer Brian Michael Bendis. All but the latter seemingly still contribute to Marvel's small screen offerings and that could explain why those have failed to reach the lofty heights of the company's superior big screen efforts.

I can't even picture Guardians without its beloved soundtrack. That would be weird.

26 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Marvel's creative committee was made up of names like Marvel Comics Publisher Dan Buckley, Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada, Marvel Entertainment President Alan Fine and writer Brian Michael Bendis. All but the latter seemingly still contribute to Marvel's small screen offerings and that could explain why those have failed to reach the lofty heights of the company's superior big screen efforts.

Wonder how much this contributed to The Inhumans fiasco and the seeming drop in quality in the Netflix series from Daredevil S1 to The Defenders (haven't seen Punisher yet).

8 minutes ago, Antpark said:

Wonder how much this contributed to The Inhumans fiasco and the seeming drop in quality in the Netflix series from Daredevil S1 to The Defenders (haven't seen Punisher yet).

The MCC still controls the direction of the TV division.