Talk:Marvel Studios/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Marvel Productions and Marvel Studios

Marvel Studios did not arise from the ashes of Marvel Productions Ltd. in fact Marvel Productions Ltd. was defunct for about a decade when Marvel Studios was formed. Therefore the two articles should remain separate. Whoever was responsible for the merger of the two article was wrong for doing so. Misterrick, 17:40 12 December 2004 (UTC)

I'd go further and say that Marvel Productions Ltd. should be covered under DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, since MP during the 1980s practically was DFE, just under a different name. What do you think? -lee 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Again I have to emphasis that Marvel Productions and Marvel Studio are two totally unrelated companies even though they share the same parent. Again Marvel Productions Ltd. was defunct for a decade when Marvel Studios was formed. It wasn't until Ronald Perlman took over Marvel when Marvel Studios was formed so prior to that and following the closure of Marvel Productions there was no production studio. I have re-edited the Marvel Studios article and recreated the Marvel Productions article. Misterrick 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

true... instead exists a relationship with Marvel Films Animation and Marvel Production.. Marvel Films (1994-1997) basically was a mix between New World's animation division (based on ex-Marvel Production) and new people..--88.149.169.237 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Namor: The Sub-Mariner

[[1]] so should we put this in anywhere? any room for it? I just don't want to put it up then have someone take it off ten seconds later because its "original research" or somethingMadhatter9max (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Status Movie Projects and Cancelled Movie Projects from IP 220.126.70.178

As previously stated when I undid the original edit, a lot of this information is uncited and/or speculation (where are these dates coming from? Where has the X-Men 4 information come from?). As for the Cancelled Movie Projects (witch are all sequels), that information is included in the original film's articles and does not need to be repeated in this article. Do not simply revert again without explaining your reasoning. Thank you. Planewalker Dave (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

the animated movies

the start of the ultimate avengers 2 movie says: "A MARVEL STUDIOS PRODUCTION"

so given that, why is that movie not listed in the marvel studios article??????????? !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.51.76 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because BEFORE THAT it says "Marvel Animation". It's in the Marvel Animation page. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In-Production

I could have sworn Luke Cage was in production (according to IMDB), but I'm not sure what section to put it under, since I can't find a release date, but it's been more than optioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.133.24 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, NOW, it has a director and it should be on the page. Just put TBA in the date. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Feige

Why doesn't he have his own page? It would be nice to have a page to properly flame him on for dropping Edward Norton. Vandalizing this page just isn't the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.115.176 (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Few things...

Okay, well, I think it's safe to say (After what I've read here and in other places, not IMDB) that Wolverine 2 is coming out in 2012 and Deadpool in 2011. Also, what happened to Runaways? I heard Marvel wanted that done for a 2012 release?

Also, we should put a whole "TBA" list on here for movies like Namor, Nick Fury, X4 (Has been conformed at the Blue-Ray celebration), First Class (Which may come out in 2012, from what I've read here and in other places...), Ghost Rider 2 (Being written by David Goyer), Magneto, New Mutants, Spider-Man 5 and 6, Iron Man 3, Silver Surfer, Cable (One of the several movies Marvel had gotten writers for earlier this year...), Black Panther, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Nighthawk, Vision, and Dr. Strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretboy3000 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that the full slate of movies that you are suggesting will ever be made. However, you are raising issues that are pertinent to multiple pages. I would like to suggest that there be a rule of thumb for which movies currently in development appear in entries for Marvel Comics, Marvel Studios, and the List of films based on Marvel Comics. There is currently no consistency between these pages even though they discuss the same content. I think movies without a director or a script should not appear anywhere. Movies announced by the studio that are currently in development are appropriate to include. Movies that meet the above criteria, but have not been announced, could be denoted as "planned". If there is reason to believe that a movie on this latter list will never get made (e.g., see Spiderman 4), it should be removed from the "planned list" with an explanation for the removal. Any film listed should have a reference that cites original source material discussing the film (an IMDB page would not meet this criteria as many films with IMDB pages will never be made). Eshaeffer (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's how this works, why has Luke Cage and Ant-Man, along with the Fantastic Four reboot and the Daredevil reboot, been taken off this. Along with Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance, X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2 and the Deadpool films. We can even add X-Men 4 since Laura Donner Schuller confirmed that Bryan Singer will direct the film when they're complete with X-Men: First Class. I think that the Savage Land/Ka-Zar film should be listed since Marvel Studios IS actually working on the film as we speak (Recent updates say that they are looking over 10,000 BC to see why it failed so they don't make the same mistakes). I'm just saying, Wikipedia is supposed to be informational, why not AT LEAST give info on films under TBA or just announced so that curious people can just come to this one page and see that, at least, Marvel, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, and New Line are acknowledging their film properties being there and that, in some way, they're being worked on. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC) There should also be a thing on here about Marvel Studios' 10 minute short-films, starting with Dr. Strange. Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your confusion is understandable. This suggestion seemed to me like an entirely reasonable approach, but it didn't receive much support by the editors of the List of films based on Marvel Comics. I suggest that you check out out the associated talk page for how this debate seemed to settle out. I'm all for consistency across pages, so if it isn't going to appear on the list page, I'd argue that it probably shouldn't appear on the Marvel Comics or Marvel Studios pages either. Oddly, it doesn't seem to be the same editors that consistently work on these three pages, which I think adds to the confusion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is editing this page is REALLY bi-polar. They took down Ant-Man, Runaways, and Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance. All three have directors, scripts and, at least, two of them are casting (Runaways and Ghost Rider are both being filmed soon with GR:SOV in November and Runaways in January-April). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.212.223 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Marvel Studios

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Marvel Studios's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt":

• From Newsday: "Three New York Moguls in Talks to Buy Newsday", by Tim Arango and Richard Pérez-Peña, March 21, 2008
• From Disney Fairies: Buckleitner, Warren (2008-10-22). "A Charm to Take Little Pixies Off the Web and Home to Play". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-02.
• From Marvel Productions: Hicks, Jonathan P. (1988-11-08). "THE MEDIA BUSINESS; Marvel Comic Book Unit Being Sold for $82.5 Million". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-10-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rights to Spider-man, X-men, Fantastic Four

Does anybody if / when Marvel Studios will get back the rights to those franchises? Maxtro (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It works like this... If Sony or Fox (Along with New Line and Lionsgate) do not make a film for the characters in a matter of 7 years, they lose the rights. If they fail to make any attempt in the first place, and miss their dead line, then Marvel gets the rights back. This is why Universal doesn't own Hulk any more... Or ANY film that Marvel sold to them! This is also why New Line only has Blade and Lionsgate only has Punisher. Though, I do think they still own the Man-Thing rights, but I don't think many people care about that... Foretboy3000 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvel as regained the rights to the Punisher. Though I don't think they are interested in making anymore films with that character. Fox has the rights to X-men but those movies make money regardless of qaulity so they will continue to milk it the same with Spider-Man. Marvel has also regained the Fantastic Four film rights but not sure if they plan anymore movies after their bad film outings.....Tra2525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.68.75 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney

"Marvel Studios, a division of Marvel Entertainment, produces movies based on the world's most prominent and iconic comic book empire." .... "Marvel Entertainment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." Our Business - The Walt Disney Studios This indicates that Marvel Studio is not own under the Walt Disney Studios but Marvel Entertainment. Please refrain from adding Marvel Studios as a part of WD Studios, as a Disney subsidiary or anything similar, it is still a subsidary of Marvel Entertainment and an indirect subsidary of Disney Company. Disney Studios will just be taking over distribution of Marvel Studios movies after the Paramount deal is done (if they don't do a buy out like with Avengers). Spshu (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Paramount deal is already done. Disney purchased the rights to distribute Avengers and Iron Man 3, and intrinsically own the distribution rights of all future films. Please don't change it without a reference indicating otherwise. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with people changing the article to indicate that Marvel Studios is a subsidary of Disney Studios? Spshu (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This has something to do with it. As Fandraltastic said above, Disney purchased the rights to distribute Avengers and IM3 and they own the distribution rights of all the future films. Also, Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment are owned by Disney. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whats the problem here, Disney owns ME which owns MS so therefore Disney owns MS. It doesn't sound as if you guys are too far off. In cases like this it might be better to be as specific as possible to avoid contention. Also I tagged the article, the lead should be expanded to included more the company's general history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Other then the general nonsense that Fandraltastic is spewing, no. The original post had to do with IP editors changing the article and Disney Studios' article to read that the Parent company of Marvel Studios is Disney Studios/Pictures and some times Paramount as parent company do to them being listed as distributing Marvel's movies. Spshu (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the first post I saw when checking the talk page. I noticed the above convo and moved the conversation to the above portion. Yes, my point belonged in the section above. That's why I redirected my responses there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in adding their own input, I have started a discussion at Talk:Walt Disney Studios (production)#Studio Structure clarifying the various film imprints, labels, and studio divisions of the Walt Disney Studios. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Distributor for The Avengers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not add Paramount Pictures as distributor for The Avengers (2012 film). Even though they are given screen credit, they are NOT handling distribution. Walt Disney Pictures is soley responsible for marketing and distribution.

Why Par, not Disney, gets 'Avengers' credit

Richiekim (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disney Distribution

On the Marvel Studios article you have reversed an edit regarding Paramount distributing Thor 2 and Captain America 2. The source that have Disney buying Avengers and Ironman 3 distribution indicates that those were the only movies distribution they purchased from Paramount.

On 18 October 2010, Disney bought the distribution rights for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 from Paramount Pictures. Kim Masters (18 October 2010). "Disney to Distribute Marvel's 'The Avengers,' 'Iron Man 3'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 18 October 2010.

“Five years ago, when Paramount and Marvel made our initial deal, both our businesses were in very different places,” Grey said. “Today, this new agreement is the right deal for Paramount, for Marvel and for Disney. We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America,’ and we wish Disney and Marvel the utmost success in what we know will be a very productive and wide-ranging partnership.”

"Paramount will retain distribution rights to Marvel properties 'Thor' and 'Captain America: The First Avenger,' which will open May 6 and July 22 next year, respectively."

So unless you have a new source that indicates otherwise, please refrain from removing Paramount as distributor for Thor 2 and Captain America 2.Spshu (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are references in the Marvel Studios article which CLEARLY state that Disney will be distributing Thor 2 & Captain America 2.

"Disney has set a July 26, 2013 release date for Thor 2."

"Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday."

I have edited the article accordingly, with proper references. Please do not change to Paramount. Thank you.Richiekim (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I ran across a source stating that "Second, Marvel will be able to determine their release dates, which will make it easier to sell action figures and other merchandise." So the announcement of the release date of Thor 2 is not enough of as source to show that Disney is distributing that movie. Spshu (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are references in the Marvel Studios article which CLEARLY state that Disney will be distributing Thor 2 & Captain America 2.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/marvel-and-disney-sets-thor-2-for-summer-2013-kenneth-branagh-wont-return/ "Disney has set a July 26, 2013 release date for Thor 2."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-america-first-avenger-sequel-release-date-308715 "Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday."
I have edited the article accordingly, with proper references. Please do not change to Paramount. Thank you.Richiekim (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I ran across a source stating that "Second, Marvel will be able to determine their release dates, which will make it easier to sell action figures and other merchandise." So the announcement of the release date of Thor 2 is not enough of as source to show that Disney is distributing that movie. Spshu (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That source that you cited is from 2007, before Disney bought Marvel. Multiple media outlets have reported that all future Marvel Cinematic Universe films will be produced, marketed and distributed by Disney.Richiekim (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the Paramount Distribution deal was made during that time period. The above supposedly source that all future Marvel Cinematic Universe films will be distributed by Disney only speaks of Avengers and Iron Man 3. Marvel Studio remains in charge of production. Marketing does seem to be in Disney's hands given the firing of the Marvel Studios' PR staff. Well, I have not changed it to give you time to come up with a source. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The two above sources I've provided spell it out very clearly: Disney will distribute Thor 2 and Cap 2 as well as all future MCU films. If that's not enough for you, here's some more sources:

http://collider.com/captain-america-2-sequel-release-date/157385/

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/24069/disney-shuffles-thor-2-lone-ranger-dates

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/08/thor-scoop-josh-dallas-wont-reprise-role-as-fandral-exclusive/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-06/entertainment/sns-201206061417reedbusivarietynvr1118055101-20120606_1_captain-america-pic-first-avenger

I would say that these multiple sources have more weight and credence than an out of date, 5 year old source that predates the Disney Marvel merger.Richiekim (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but merger source also indicated that the Paramount deal would be in place:

Both Marvel and Disney have stated that the merger would not affect any preexisting deals with other film studios for the time being, although Disney said they will consider distributing future Marvel projects with their own studios once the current deals expire.

And that only distribution of The Avengers and Iron Man 3 were purchased from Paramount:

On 18 October 2010, Disney bought the distribution rights for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 from Paramount Pictures.

So given that Disney has taken over PR for Marvel given:

On 22 August 2011 at Disney's behest, the Studio fired most of its marketing department: Dana Precious, EVP of Worldwide Marketing; Jeffrey Stewart, VP of Worldwide Marketing and Jodi Miller, Manager of Worldwide Marketing. Disney will now market Marvel's films.

And the above that Marvel will choose their dates. Combine all that and the announcements coming jointly from Marvel and Disney only indicates that Disney has taken over their PR. So it is incorrect that an announce of a release date that Disney is releasing Thor 2. While the Captain America 2 source indicates: "Walt Disney Studios, which will release the movie for Marvel Studios, announced the date Thursday." Could be a mistake based on the assumption in the buy out of the distribution contract of just the Avengers and Iron Man 3 that the whole contract was bought out. But given that source, I am willing to wait to find a source for the buyout of Thor & Captain America 2 or the whole contract and not remove Disney for the time being. Spshu (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact our source says:

“Five years ago, when Paramount and Marvel made our initial deal, both our businesses were in very different places,” Grey said. “Today, this new agreement is the right deal for Paramount, for Marvel and for Disney. We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America,’ and we wish Disney and Marvel the utmost success in what we know will be a very productive and wide-ranging partnership.”

Spshu (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There has been and will be no buyout on the future films. Paramount only had the rights to distribute a certain number of Marvel movies, and Disney bought out the last two (Avengers and Iron Man 3). The above block quote is referring to the first Thor and Captain America movies. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

←Paramount had 10 films (I.Hulk not included) in the distibution deal and the source only indicate that the Avengers & IM3 was bought out per the sources. And it says look "We look forward to working together on ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America'". You need sources to say other wise not just assume because they are picking a released date which the original Paramount distibution agreement allows. Do just assume what you want from a source. So the Paramount deal is not done with only five produced (with 1 buy out) that is only half the number of films of the agreement. Spshu (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not 10, Iron Man + the next 5 (Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, Iron Man 3). [2] Disney bought out the final two on the contract. The source is right in front of you. The quote you posted is directly referring to the first Thor and Cap movies, nothing else. Those were the last two movies Paramount distributed for Marvel, after the buyout was complete. Hence the quote. Assuming it has anything to do with anything else is your own original research. More on Disney's buyout of the final two films from the contract: [3] -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles source for the deal indicates 10 -- PLEASE READ THE SOURCE. JUST MAKING DEMAND LIKE Richiekim AS WHAT YOU CONSIDER RIGHT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE DONE HERE. the articles source for the deal: "Marvel Enterprises, Inc. announced today the completion of a $525 million non-recourse debt facility which will finance Marvel's production of up to ten films based on characters from its famous stable of comic book characters, including Captain America, Nick Fury and The Avengers. Paramount, a unit of Viacom, Inc., will distribute the film slate, with the first theatrical release expected for summer 2008."

Your first source is for an extention of the contract for FOREIGN distribution: "The deal includes theatrical distribution in foreign territoies previously serviced by Marvel through local distribution entities (Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia/New Zealand)." Yes the source says that Avengers and IM3 were bought out but Richiekim could not as requested turn up any thing except announcements of Disney issuing release dates for the movies which Marvel had the right to do to begin with. You and Richiekim are doing original research as you are just demanding what you think is the case but you have not shown a source to support it. Don't accuse some one else of original research when you in can not support your own position. I gave him time to turn up said sources and he has not.

another source - Where does this indicate that this ended the contract? The article contridicts its self: "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios amounts to the Mouse paying a premium to get cracking on its $4 billion investment in Marvel." "The difference here is that the films under the Paramount deal are the ones that Marvel Studios began funding under its $500 million credit line with Merrill Lynch, an accommodation made before the studio was bought by Bob Iger last year for $4 billion." "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers and Iron Man 3." Your previous source refers to a secondary deal in which Paramount purchased the foreign distribution business for 5 more films after Iron Man 1. This may refer to that, in that it ends Paramount's foreign rights which ended up being for six films but the full domestic rights are for 10 films and purchased Avengers and IM3's domestic rights.--Spshu (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Up to 10. Including foreign territories. They are all referring to the same deal, which is now null and void. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Richiekim and Fandraltastic, Disney is the sole distributor for all current and future Marvel films. This is explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on Fandraltastic, actually read and comprend the source instead of your twisting. "Up to" refers to the number of films to be financed. "...a $525 million non-recourse debt facility which will finance Marvel's production of up to ten films..." You got it right foreign distribution included five films past IM1. The source doesn't indicate any change in the original "slate" deal which was 10 films. No, Richiekim and Fandraltastic's position is not explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources. Picking the release date doesn't indicate that they are distribution those films as Richiekim claims. Sources are for purchase Avengers and IM3, not this was the remainer of the contract.

Quit, your edit warring, Fandraltastic, and trying to point to me for edit warring (18:02, 10 October 2012‎ Fandraltastic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,858 bytes) (+223)‎ . . (Undid revision 517042161 by Spshu (talk) (Take it to the talk page. You're veering on violating the WP:3RR...)). Richiekim and any one else interest has been on notice for month (since June) that they need a source to support his position. --Spshu (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I provided you with a source, stating explicitly that they were the final two films on a six-film contract. A prior press release containing a note that there were options for up to ten films is meaningless here. You demand source, I provide source. I don't have the time nor the energy to continue debating this as you seem to desire. Bolding part of a sentence to support an otherwise unverifiable position doesn't change the face that it's unverified. Please stop the edit warring unless you have a source explicitly stating that Paramount will distribute Thor 2 or Cap 2. Richiekim has provided you sources explicitly stating that Disney will distribute them, and I can hunt down more if you really and truly wish to continue this frivolity. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This deadline source goes into a detailed analysis of the Marvel/Disney/Paramount distribution deal. I will try to summarise the key facts (all direct quotes):

1. The Avengers is the first Marvel Studios film owned, marketed and distributed by The Walt Disney Studios which took over those duties from Paramount this year.
2. CEO/President Bob Iger in 2009 bought the comics entertainment company for $4 billion and then in 2010 bought Paramount out of the final two films of its 6-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios — The Avengers and Iron Man 3.
3. Paramount still distributed Thor and Captain America in 2011.
4. For Avengers, the studio gets onscreen production credit which reads “Marvel Studios in association with Paramount Pictures”.
5. When Disney bought the worldwide distribution rights to Avengers and Iron Man 3, it paid Paramount a minimum of $115M as an advance. (The $115 million was to be paid in two installments – half when The Avengers was released, and the other half when Iron Man 3 screens on May 3, 2013.) But I’ve learned that Paramount actually gets the higher of either that $115M or the combination of its 8% distribution fee on Avengers plus 9% on next year’s Iron Man 3.
6. Paramount also kept the pay rights as part of the existing pay TV arrangement so Avengers will debut on Epix that joint venture among parent company Viacom, MGM and Lionsgate.

So it seems that Thor and Captaine America were the last two films to be distributed by Paramount. Disney bought them out of The Avengers and Iron Man 3, but still gets paid a distribution fee even though it is not distributing them. Paramount also retain the Pay-TV distribution rights which they had already purchased. In short though, aside from the TV distribution which they effectively purchased for their parent company, they are out of Marvel distribution. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fandraltastic, you provide a source, I show that it supports my position. You again claim other wise, I point out in quotes that you are WRONG then you give some glib counter argument that I imdediately show that you are miss interpreting. Then you reclaim that you are right. SO NO YOU HAVE NOT GIVE ANY SOURCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION, YOU ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT THEY DO. NO FRIGGIN CHEERS. As I point out to Richiekim -- AS I REPEAT THIS FOR THE MULTIPLE TIME -- he provide that they were indicating the released date and not directly stating that Disney Studios would be distributing the films as Marvel had that in the deal with Paramount. That is why I gave him time to find a source but he and you failed to do so. Thank you for the source, Betty Logan, that ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THAT POSITION instead of just claiming such. Spshu (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reported the user for edit warring here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I also support Fandraltastic, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim and Betty Logan's positions on this matter. This source indicates that the film's finance is "up to 10 films" in the franchise. Thor and Captain America was still distributed in 2011 by Paramount. In 2009, Bob Iger bought the comics entertainment company for $4 billion and in 2010, Disney bought Paramount out of the final two films of its 6-picture distribution deal. Disney is the sole distributor for all current and future Marvel films. This is explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources. Also, anyone engaged in an edit war is automatically wrong as it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Because of the recent disputed edits regarding the distribution deals between Paramount and Disney, I am requesting for a comment. I would encourage anyone who intends to comment on this matter, before they do, to read the Disney Distribution section so that they know exactly what has happened. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world are you doing this. When Betty Logan actually presented a source that properly supported your position, I edit the article to support that position. This is meaningly. A source was found, just you continued to edit war even against your position. Why after it was resolved do you intent to flog the issue? --75.151.7.189 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Spshu (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is pretty impenetrable, so here is a diff between the most recent disputed versions: [4]. It is probably best to go through each claim. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat there is no need for this RFC. The article was edit by me to support that Paramount doesn't have any more movies to distribution under the agreement per Betty Logan's source. How, Betty Logan, are we going to each claim of a NON-disputed diff? The big difference is that I used your source!!! Good Grief!!!! This is atleast the forth time that I have pointed out that your side won and you continue this war. WHY, Lord Sjones23, WHY? Spshu (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to help get the situation under control. Please remain civil in discussion, and remember that Wikipedia is not about winning, nor it is a battleground. Okay? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

SEE YOU ARE SHOWING WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. YOU HAVE NO IDEAL WHAT HAPPEN. YOU DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONPRENDED WHAT YOU ARE READING. ARE YOU DEMAND I BE CIVIL WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO CREATE A BATTLEGROUND BUY CONTINUING THIS ARGUMENT. THE WINNING WAS WHAT User:Fandraltastic indicated was his intent not in show a proper source and flogging the implying sources. I have filed a request for closure since you continue to flog this argument for no reason. Spshu (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We still need to gain a consensus from other uninvolved users about this matter and this discussion is impenetrable. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion is necessary per the rules and common sense. Writing in all-caps tends to be shouting and yelling, and no one likes to be shouted or yelled at. I am going to take a step back from this matter and let the community voice their opinions on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to barge in this, but, this old source should settle this and the above discussion. King Shadeed 13:53, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Good work, King Shadeed. According to the source, the Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios reached an agreement under which Paramount transferred its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 after Disney bought out the last two films of its distribution deal (Avengers and Iron Man 3). So, a 2007 press release containing a note that there were options for up to ten films is meaningless in this matter, as later sources confirming that it is six films should not be ignored for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That is the same source I keep posting, haha. Spshu will tell you it only pertains to foreign distribution, even though it doesn't. He'll then tell you you're failing to comprehend it, even though you aren't. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

←Quit with the insults/personal attacks, Fandraltastic. How about something true, your ability to comprend. Post to the Walt Disney topic about the Marvel Studios relationship with Disney Studios about the Disney Distribution issue which is this topic and admits he miscomprended what the topic was about. --Spshu (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the no personal attacks policy states that "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack," so please do not attack users or make ad hominem remarks towards other users without providing sufficient evidence. Following a consensus on the Disney/Paramount distribution deal, I am taking other people's opinions into account, as 5 other users (including myself) agreed with Richiekim's concerns that Disney is the sole distributor for all of Marvel's films and the 2007 source was before the company was sold to Disney, so that makes it 6:1. The sources provided by Richiekim, Fandraltastic and King Shadeed ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9] [10]) provide essential information that Disney is the current and sole distributor of the Marvel films, starting with Iron Man 3. The Deadline sources stated that "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios" (Captain America and The Avengers are the final two films in question). However, this has not explicitly stated about the foreign distributions. I think we should just try to reach a compromise so we can end this dispute and move forward. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that Paramount has no foreign distribution after Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. The press release published with the Deadline article linked to above states: "...Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers and Iron Man 3," the last two pictures on the six-picture deal. "Worldwide" indicates foreign distribution. Paramount no longer has any distribution rights at all to Marvel Studios films, according to that press release. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign distribution was not in the original 10 film domestic deal with Paramount as Marvel left the various international rights as another source of income for the film and bid them out seperately. Based on the source for the secondary deal, Paramount had previously had some international rights for IM1 and added additional foreign nations to have world wide distribution for the next five films. I haven't seen anything additional on how the foreign distribution was handle after the 2nd Paramount deal. They might have wanted to wait on new distribution deals hoping for more then Disney purchased Marvel.Spshu (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, reading up on the Disney/Lucasfilm deal regarding Indiana Jones franchise I found that Paramount's role isn't so cut and dried done with Marvel: "EW has confirmed that Paramount Pictures, heretofore the franchise’s sole Hollywood home, retains the rights to distribute any future Indiana Jones movies, as well as all the rights (from distribution to DVD/Blu-ray) for the previous four Indy films. That alone wouldn’t prevent a fifth Indiana Jones from happening — Paramount holds similar distribution rights for several Marvel Studios franchises, and that train is happily chugging along." --Spshu (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. So based on the EW source regarding the Disney/Lucasfilm buyout, even though Lucasfilm was bought by Disney, Paramount basically holds the distribution rights for several Marvel Studios franchises, but the company actually retains the rights to distribute any future films in the Indiana Jones series and retains all rights to the first four films. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up - This dispute seems to have resolved itself, and furthermore I think that this issue is just not worthy of this much time and effort here. I think now, we should simply just move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World

The official synopsis for Thor: The Dark World has been revealed, and it specifically states that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is releasing the film. There is no mention of Paramount whatsoever.Richiekim (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Stitch Kingdom is not a reliable source. Powergate92Talk 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it only takes 30 seconds to find another Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Is Disney's ownership relevant?

As Marvel Studios is a division of Marvel Entertainment ([11]), which is in turn a subsidiary of Disney, should we mention Disney as the owner of Marvel Studios or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure were this is coming from as the article properly states: "Founded in 1993, the studio is a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." --Spshu (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Their official website lists Marvel Studios as part of Walt Disney Studios.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The link in the original post shows "Marvel Entertainment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." My best bet is Marvel Entertainment is a part of Disney Company, and Marvel Studios as Disney Studios. It can be a part of both.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Status is right concerning Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Studios. To use a rough transitive relation; If A owns B and C is part of B then C is a part of A. (A being Disney, B being Marvel Ent. and C being Marvel Studios) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

←But Status, you failed to read said page in regards to Marvel Studios (by clicking on its image): "Marvel Studios, a division of Marvel Entertainment, ..." "Marvel Entertainment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." A division (yes, they incorrectly indentify Marvel Studios as a division of ME) is truely a part of a corporation, but a LLC (Marvel Entertainment) and corporation (Marvel Studios) is not a division thus not a part of the Walt Disney Company (corporation). Corporations are legal persons. Spshu (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Their site also calls Marvel Studios a part of Walt Disney Studios. And Marvel Entertainment as a part of Walt Disney Company.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NO, it does not, please actually read that page. It just show that another unit of the Walt Disney Company is another in house film banner distributed by Disney Studios as it states that Marvel Studios is not an unit of Disney Studios as I have quoted here. Spshu (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Status is correct that MS is a part of WDS and it might be said that Marvel Studios is a "division of Marvel Entertainment". If Disney owns Marvel Studios, and Marvel Studios is a part of Marvel Entertainment, then Marvel Studios is a part of the Disney. The source cited by Status is a primary source, but, per the primary sources policy, can still be used as long as it's "been reliably published" and is used with "only with care." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Status is wrong. It has been the source I have been using all along, he just is not reading his source completely. If Status' logic is correct then Marvel movies (Avenger, etc.) with the Paramount logo but distributed by Disney were truly must have been distributed by Paramount just because the logo says so. Spshu (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. So far, the consensus is 3:1 and anyone engaged in an edit war is automatically wrong. As we do not want to cause edit wars here, that's why I am following the dispute resolution guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So what should we do to resolve the issue now? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should get a consensus on this matter from other uninvolved users. That way, we can come up with a compromise and end this dispute once and for all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said by Status, Lord Sjones23 and Jedi94. Overall, it is now 4:1. Celestial Reader (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

←1) "3:1" and "4:1" don't mean anything as on Wikipedia we don't base consensus on votes per WP:Consensus; which says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." As well, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." per WP:Consensus#Determining consensus. The above arguments are not based on Wikipedia policy and therefore can not be used to determine a consensus.

2) Spshu‎ is correct, nowhere on site does it say Marvel Studios is owned Disney, it says "Marvel Studios, a division of Marvel Entertainment" and "Marvel Entertainment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." Saying Marvel Studios is owned Disney based on the fact that Marvel Entertainment is owned by Disney and Marvel Studios is a division of Marvel Entertainment would be original research per WP:No original research; which says "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." As well, WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Therefore, as it is a primary source, Marvel Studios is owned Disney can not be said in the article as that would be a interpretation of what the primary source says with no reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Powergate92Talk 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not need votes to gain consensus. To summarize the above statements, per Powergate and Spshu, saying that "Marvel Studios is owned by Disney" based on the fact that MS is a division of ME, which is in turn a subsidiary of TWDC would possibly constitute original research, unless there is a secondary source. One of the sources about Alan Horn's appointment as chairman states: "Unlike at say Sony or Fox, power at Disney's studio division is very much diffused over its Marvel and Pixar brands, making the job of studio chief more ringmaster than supreme commander;" unfortunately, Horn does not personally oversee Marvel Studios, but I could be wrong, though. Also, per the concerns by Jedi94, Status and Celestial Reader's opinions, Marvel Studios is listed as part of the Walt Disney Studios on Disney's official website. Nowhere on WDS's official website does it say in the website that Marvel Studios is directly owned by Disney, but if Marvel Studios is owned by Disney, we must find a reliable source to verify that matter; otherwise, it will be removed as original research. A Digital Spy source from December 2012 regarding Netflix America's recent deal with Disney states that the agreement "also includes movies from Marvel Studios and Pixar Animations, which are both owned by Disney," but that is a secondary source. With that said, I think it is about that time we should cooperate with each other and actually come up with a compromise that satisfies all parties to end this dispute. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a business article by the Los Angeles Times that states the following paraphrase: "Three top marketing executives at Marvel Studios have been ousted as part of a restructuring by corporate parent Walt Disney Co.,..." The article mentions specifically Marvel Studios (the production company), as opposed to its parent Marvel Entertainment, which we already know is definitively owned by Disney. Does that verify the claim of whether "Marvel Studios is owned by Disney", and also, does it qualify as a reliable source?

In regards to a compromise: If we don't ever reach a firm consensus on whether or not Marvel Studios is part of the Walt Disney Studios or not, we should still make note of their relation at both respective article pages. Spshu recently added a sentence in the lead of the Marvel Studios article which explains the Marvel Studios/Walt Disney Studios lineage. That's a suitable example as to what I am suggesting (and in favor of), in case a consensus is not reached. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Does anyone here actually have a background in corporate law? I certainly don't, but I do know that "ownership" can be a pretty complicated concept in company structures: Disney being "the parent company" of Marvel Entertainment doesn't necessarily make them owners, they could just have a controlling share which means they can run it like they own it. Alternatively, Marvel Entertainment may have fully merged with Disney, meaning that it ceases to exist as a company and has simply become a division of Disney; in this scenario, Marvel Entertainment doesn't exist as a company to be owned, it's just a name of department within Disney. In either of those cases, if Marvel Studios was a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment, it would have its own set of shareholders which may still own a stake in the company, regardless of what Disney have done with Marvel Entertainment. I don't think you can infer anything about Disney's ownership of Marvel Studios from Marvel Entertainment. All it means when company A is a subsidary of company B, is that company B has a controlling share in company A; if company C buys a controlling share or merges with company B, it just gets control of company's B share in company A. See Subsidiary for a better explanation. Basically, if you want to add a specific claim about the relationship between Marvel Studios and Disney, you must find a source that articulates that relationship directly. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• I got a random Rfc notice and wound up here, amongst quibblers. If you want my opinion, Marvel is owned by Disney. Period. The way it reads in the lede is correct. Leave it be. Jusdafax 08:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disney distribution (again)

It seems Spshu is up to his old tricks again, blanking out Disney as the distributor in Marvel Cinematic Universe table. I don't know if he has some sort of grudge against Disney or something, but just because the Disney distribution deal is mentioned earlier in the article, doesn't justify its omission in the table. It facilitates presenting information the average reader who doesn't have an intimate knowledge in backroom dealings of studio distribution. Richiekim (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the edits, it was pointed out in three different places in the article that Disney would be handling Marvel's distribution from here on out. THREE TIMES, once in the table (via the note) where Disney takes over early. It is absolutely redundant. Let us go to Disney's list of movies and list that Disney is the distributor for each and every one of those movies. Spshu (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Marvel Studios films

Is the new article List of Marvel Studios films really needed or should I put in for a delete request? Or should the movie tables here be move there as they are kind getting big. --Spshu (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't need two lists. I don't really have a preference if the list is here or there. Although as you say a separate article would allow more room for expansion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the second article should be kept, since a separate page could present itself with more opportunity for both articles to grow (Spshu points out that the film tables are getting noticeably cumbersome on the original one). The only issue is that there are currently two lists of the same information, which as TriiipleThreat pointed out, is unnecessary. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw this discussion too late, and just redirected the new page to Marvel Studios#Film. In any event, it should not be created until it is decided if it the info should stay on this page or the new one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, we're overall iffy on whether we should keep or delete it. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios

The issue that I'm about to bring up has already been repeatedly argued about and it's regarding Marvel Studios' role in The Walt Disney Studios. According to The Walt Disney Studios' updated "About Us" preface, it states; "Feature films are released under the following banners: Disney; Walt Disney Animation Studios; Pixar Animation Studios; Disneynature; Marvel Studios; Lucasfilm; and Touchstone Pictures, the banner under which live-action films from DreamWorks Studios are distributed." From that, the following is quite clear: this is a direct, primary source definitively stating that Marvel Studios is a film banner/imprint/label of The Walt Disney Studios, in addition to being a division of Marvel Entertainment, a fact that is reiterated by the same website. That being so, why is it that we can easily say Marvel Studios is a division of its parent Marvel Entertainment, but we can never add Marvel Studios to the table found in the studio structure section? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Studios is not listed for the same reason that DreamWorks Studios is not listed, neither are a part (ie. Studio Structure) of Walt Disney Studios. Both are listed in the distribution arm's article as having distribution with the Walt Disney Studios with Marvel Studios being interior to the Walt Disney Company (but not Disney Studios) and DreamWorks being an exterior distribution contract. Spshu (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

But the above source suggests otherwise, does it not? Marvel Studios is dual-faced - its a production studio division and a film label. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't suggest otherwise. Generally, a production studio is a film label, but a film label may just be one of many used by a production studio, ie. DisneyNature and Touchstone for Disney Studios. While it is a banner, the source states that is a banner "released" through them. Studio structure table indicates the parts of The Walt Disney Studios, not banners released through them like DreamWorks Studios and Marvel Studios.Spshu (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

They're all referred to as banners. Disney lists seven of them. By your logic, then we shouldn't list any of them, since the source says they're all banners "released through them". The phrase "released under the following banners" refers to all seven of them. There is no distinction being made for Marvel Studios. It's either none or all. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

←NO, my logic doesn't state that we shouldn't list any of them, this isn't "It's either none or all." Banners within Disney Studios would release through Disney Studios since the Disney Studios has a distribution arm or other wise what is the point of the distribution unit. Marvel Studios is a part of Marvel Entertainment as sources state but releases it movies through its corporate affiliate, Disney Studios.Spshu (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My statement of "either none or all" was a manner of speaking, not a literal one. It was a hypothetical extension of your logic. You stated that, "While it is a banner, the source states that is a banner "released" through them." That was the frayed part in your logic that I was pointing out; the "about" paragraph never mentions Marvel Studios separately from all the other six, as the wording in the sentence conveys. And yes, Marvel Studios (the production studio) is a legal subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment; no one is even arguing against that. Remember, the Marvel Studios section of the site does clarify that. What you're completely avoiding though, is the fact that the Walt Disney Studios' site has provided a clear-as-day confirmation that Marvel Studios (identified as Marvel in the phrasing) is a film banner akin to the other six, in addition to (and I stress that conjunction ever so greatly) to a production company that's not part of the Studio structure itself. See where I'm getting at now? A production studio and a film label intertwined with one another, which is supported by the site's two distinct paragraphs found here and here. I'm not suggesting we start messing around with the Marvel Studios article, taking it apart and reforming it to make it a part of the WDS, which it's not. That's far from what I'm suggesting. All that I'm proposing is that we add Marvel Studios to the studio structure table as one of the studio's film banners, not as one of its divisions. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have understood what you have been saying from day one. You are looking for a "frayed part in your logic" (meaning mine), that doesn't exist. Studio 'structure' indicates units internal to Walt Disney Studio, so placing Marvel Studios in the table indicates that it a component subsidiary (it isn't a division) of WD Studios. The banner releasing part as I pointed out "Both are listed in the distribution arm's article as having distribution with the Walt Disney Studios with Marvel Studios being interior to the Walt Disney Company (but not Disney Studios) and DreamWorks being an exterior distribution contract." So the Distribution wlink in the studios structure covers those banners released through Disney. The Distribution article covers "releasing banners": "Current units: Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios, Lucasfilm, The Muppets Studio, Marvel Studios, Disneynature, Touchstone Pictures" Spshu (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If my proposed action violates the phrasing "studio structure", then it can be simply rewritten in a different fashion that doesn't present any contradictions. Also, is it possible to get some other editors involved in this discussion? It's difficult to reach a consensus when it's just two people. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the situation has been muddied a bit due to the fact the the two Marvel films distributed by Disney (The Avengers and Iron Man 3) feature the Marvel logo alongside the Paramount logo (even though Par had nothing to with distribution). If you look at the teaser trailer and poster for Thor: The Dark World, only the Marvel logo is presented, which leads me to believe that Disney is positioning Marvel Studios as a film distribution banner/brand, similar to Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures.Richiekim (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly, Richiekim. That's a prime example that's supported by the fact the Walt Disney Studios' website refers to it as both a banner and a production division.~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Disney may have already begun the process with Avengers and Iron Man 3, since the Marvel logo is presented first in both films and the credits state: "Marvel Studios Presents...", which is indicative of a film distribution label.Richiekim (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

←"... Presents..." isn't indicative of a film distribution label, could be film production label. Spshu (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You both are right. Typically, major studios and film distributors are credited with the "presents..." tagline (e.g. Walt Disney Pictures presents), but sometimes production companies are also included (e.g. Jerry Bruckheimer Films). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)