Board Thread:Movies/@comment-3048593-20180715232450/@comment-29908830-20180814033338

KalKent wrote: Gemnist 2.0 wrote: What's head-scratching for me is that this isn't the 10th anniversary of Marvel Studios. The MCU is ten years old, but Marvel Studios has been around since 1993 (or 1996, if you want to exclude the years it was known as Marvel Films). Anniversaries can be weird sometimes, I guess. I would think 'Iron Man 1' was their first movie that they produced as Marvel Studios, but I could be wrong there. Or at the very least the first movie they self-financed.

In terms of Marvel being involved with movies, the only things that come to mind are them selling off the rights to the lowest bidders to get out of bankruptcy, and Marvel Entertainment being one of the production studios of movies ever since 'Blade'. I'm basically going based on the Wikipedia-page.

Essentially, yes. Prior to Iron Man, Marvel Films/Studios was the company that was tasked to license film rights following the Toy Biz merger, with Avi Arad himself as CEO. It was only when David Maisel became COO in 2004 that the studio became focused on production, with Iron Man obviously being the first one. And I mean, celebrating a change in style is definitely welcome, I just find it a tad odd that they would brand it as the birth of the studio rather than the birth of the style. It would be like having Wells Fargo celebrate its inception year as 2018 rather than 1852 for their own change in practices.