Marvel News

I finished watching Daredevil season three over the weekend and, like the critics, I see it as a return to form after a disjointed season two. With that said, it's not in the upper echelon of Netflix products (for me consisting of season one, Jessica Jones one, and Punisher one). It reminded me, in a way, of The Force Awakens in how it paralleled the first season of Daredevil. If, as some suspect, we're in the final phase of Marvel Netflix shows, it's an excellent swansong.

I won't do a full review here, but I will touch on a few elements. Matt's arc is strong--essentially the reverse of when we first meet him in season one (instead of him learning to accept his Daredevil identity, here he has to learn to accept being Matt Murdock). Foggy has a solid if unspectacular arc, even if it feels a bit jarring (his family and their situation manifesting out of nowhere); Karen's plotline, unfortunately, comes across as tangential--well done, but too much time is spent on it given the limited payoff (there's also no reflection whatsoever about her time on The Punisher). Wilson Fisk is excellent as usual, but there's no evolution of the character, such that Bullseye (Dex) is actually the standout villain. As for agent Nadeem, he's adequate, but he doesn't carry the weight intended (he comes across as wishy-washy and I can't decide if that's the writing, acting, or both). Once again Netflix ruthlessly ignored references to its own corner of Marvel (one throwaway line about Jessica Jones is as meaty as it gets, despite the fact that it should be filled with Punisher-references given the storyline), as it resolutely resists embracing its own integration. At this point the shows are resembling the disconnected superhero films of 15-20 years ago rather than a shared universe. It's difficult to know if this disjointedness is from the creators or Netflix--I think it's the latter, as we know Steve Lightfoot (showrunner for The Punisher) was told he could not include the other characters (at a guess I think Netflix doesn't want to pay the licensing fees associated with crossovers--this may be part of why there were creative differences over Luke Cage that resulted in its cancellation).

Speaking of cancellations, could they be corporate maneuvering from Netflix ala Universal's (ie Comcast) refusal to work with Disney? Big picture, losing out on whatever profits Netflix derives from the Marvel shows isn't that relevant to their bottom line. As sad as it would be if the changes are simply a cynical ploy in corporate competition, it is within the realm of possibility (although, frankly, it's a limp blow by Netflix if that's the case, as Marvel has innumerable characters to put on their own service regardless).

Business Insider, in trying to track down reasoning for the cancellations, points to a reduced impact on social media for the sequel seasons. Unfortunately, the only context they offer are the other Marvel Netflix shows rather than other superhero shows and other Netflix shows--without that context it's difficult to intelligently gauge how much the drop in social media resonance impacted the decision. They also don't justify why this is a useful way to judge Netflix keeping or cancelling a show (as in they don't include prior examples or comments from the company).

We have further reporting (by which I mean a leaked photo) that suggests the Rescue armour story is real. It's an interesting development--I mentioned when I discussed it last time that I thought that if it was true it would serve largely as an easter egg, but could there be more to it? I still doubt it, unless Pepper is going to appear on one of Disney's shows on its new streaming service. Outside her role in the MCU Gywneth Paltrow hasn't had a hit movie in a very long time, so if this new identity has a longer planned future it's on TV.

Conrad has posted a very strange rumour--I say strange simply because of the source of the rumour. Frank Grillo (Crossbones) was interviewed and talked about the possibility of Chris Evans leaving the Captain America role and speculated that the role "could be African American [or it] could be a woman." How this qualifies as a rumour is beyond me--not only is the speculation from someone who doesn't even know if Cap is gone, he also has no access to the MCU's process. He never specifically says Falcon gets the role (which is Conrad's conclusion). This is CBR-levels of reporting and if Conrad continues down this path the credibility he garnered with his Eternals scoop is going to vanish and he'll become another Umberto Gonzalez.

One thing Grillo did confirm was his own rumoured appearance, saying it's in a flashback (this could also mean time travel, as Grillo is unlikely to truly understand the context of his role). Grillo was outspokenly unhappy with his death in Civil War and he's apparently disinterested in the olive branch the Russo's have given him by having him appear in the MCU again (he's been very open in saying what undoubtedly the filmmakers would prefer was kept quiet). I do think, as I've mentioned before, that the fact that time travel (or flashbacks) are so well understood by fans that we'll see it shown or referenced in either the teaser or trailers prior to Avengers 4.

Speaking of Gonzalez, he's reporting that actress Katherine Longford is in Avengers 4 in an undisclosed role. This is a pretty innocuous scoop so is likely true. Whether Longford is playing some ancillary, one-off role or has been cast in something going forward remains an open question. If we want to venture into speculation land, we can wonder if it's tied to the rumour that Emma Fuhrmann was cast as a 16-year Cassie Lang. We could go down the road of wondering if there's some sort of New Avengers theme going on, but I think it's far too early to delve into that.

Imaginary Axis attempts to deduce how Thanos will be defeated by going through all his defeats in the comics. He concludes the solutions are all ultimately due to Thanos' own personality flaws (or, perhaps, on some meta level him wanting to lose), rather than brute force. The idea that force alone is not enough is what I believe as well (as I went over in my Avengers 4 Speculation article).

Speaking of Conrad, he reported a rumour about a Nick Fury series on Disney's streaming service, which was then denied by Slash Film's Peter Sciretta. Normally I would leave it at that, but Conrad is claiming Sciretta is simply attacking him due to a fight the pair had over Star Wars leaks back in 2014 (!). For me what's notable is that Conrad didn't have enough faith in the rumour to do more than Tweet about it (the link provided is from elsewhere discussing it), therefore whatever Sciretta's motivations are there's a chance he's right regardless. Fury would be an easy character to write a series for, but by himself he's not a big enough character to draw fans into a show (and no, Maria Hill doesn't add enough to change that). Conrad mentioned a Fury show and something else, but has no idea what the latter is other than to say it's not Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan), not Moon Knight, not Namor, not Nova, not She-Hulk, and not the Avengers Hulk and Hawkeye.

The DCEU's New Gods was announced back in March, with Marvel announcing The Eternals a month later. For the most part the MCU hasn't specifically countered DCEU films, but it has happened before (the third Captain American film became Civil War in response to Man of Steel 2 becoming Batman v Superman). Going back to Jeremy Conrad's scoop at the time (via the link) I wanted to touch on a couple of his specifics:

Marvel is looking to launch The Eternals as a new franchise post-Guardians of the Galaxy 3.... The decision to do them came after the success of ... Thor: Ragnarok and DC developing their New Gods movie, but they’ve been preparing for them for a while.... The rumor says the movie is currently on the Phase 4 schedule for 2021 or 2022, and there’s a possibility some of the Eternals could pop up in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 before being spun off into their own franchise.

While the plan remains to use James Gunn's script, Guardians 3 has moved down the schedule, so how does that impact The Eternals? I'd written some speculation about this, but THS is now confirming the film has not moved and will appear in 2020 (November). I think whatever links were imagined for Guardians 3 will be switched (perhaps to Avengers 4 or a third 2020 film, because I believe there will be a third Marvel film in 2020). Will it have the same lighthearted tone of the Guardians films or the reinvented Thor? Or will it be more serious? The THS description:

The story of ‘THE ETERNALS’ is set millions of years ago when the cosmic beings known as the Celestials genetically experimented on humans, creating the super-powered individuals as well as more villainous off-shoots known as Deviants. The two groups went on to battle each other throughout history to see which would eventually become the ultimate race. The story involves the love story between Ikaris, a man fueled by cosmic energy, and Sersi, who relishes moving amongst humans.

Unlike the disappointment you'll read below, this sort of prequel (set millions of years ago) is just fine by me. Dramatic tension remains because I have no idea what will happen. THS reports that the series will owe more to Jack Kirby's original 1976 conception than to Neil Gaiman's from 2006 (this isn't that surprising given the reverence for Kirby and Gaiman's general decline over the last fifteen years). This adds some doubt to Umberto Gonzalez's suggestion that we'll be getting Gaiman's version of Sersi (which wouldn't be surprising given his hilarious error with Mary Jane in Spider-Man: Homecoming).

Incidentally, about THS as a source: their speculation is typically wrong, but their scoops have been quite good, which is why I take the report as legit.

I've been hoping that rumours that the Black Widow film would be a prequel were wrong, but now THS has dropped the definitive bomb that that's what we're getting. Their description:

At birth the Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanova) is given to the KGB, which grooms her to become its ultimate operative. When the U.S.S.R. breaks up, the government tries to kill her as the action movies to present-day New York, where she is a freelance operative. The standalone film will find Romanoff living in the United States 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

This is really disappointing. It leaves no room for dramatic tension whatsoever because no matter what happens in the film she's going to wind up in the same place we saw her in Iron Man 2. The film is getting the May, 2020, release date and I wonder how they'll spruce up the film with other characters. Right now I can't think of anything interesting for the film to do, but I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

Wonder Woman 1984's release has been shifted seven months from November, 2019, to June, 2020. This now means DC has just two releases in 2019. The move seems to be an effort to make more room for the Joker coming out in October--it also takes advantage of Marvel removing it's July, 2020, film from the schedule.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

Karthik Prasad is reporting that The Guardians of the Galaxy 3's production date is now February, 2021 (this has subsequently been echoed everywhere). If this is true then it's a full two years from the original expected start date of January/February and the film would be hitting the 2022 slate (Marvel has February, May, and July carved out from that calendar).

James Gunn's script is still expected to be used for Guardians of the Galaxy 3--Variety reported that intent in August and it was subsequently confirmed by his brother Sean. James Gunn has a pay-or-play contract, but nothing that I found relating to that specifically mentioned stipulations about using the script itself.

Speaking of Guardians, the Superbro Tweeter Jeremy Conrad is so fond of has put out what he claims is a director's shortlist for the film. I have no idea how real this is (I lean towards it being fabricated), but following up the story is one way of assessing the guy as a source for information.

The aforementioned Conrad is reporting that Marvel has removed one of their planned 2020 films (the July release), leaving them with just a May and November slot on the calendar. I would be very surprised if this remains the case, although it might simply be a consequence of the Guardians delay with an inability to get anything else up into production fast enough to make up for its absence. While we know Black Widow is coming and there are heavy rumours about Doctor Strange 2, the only other film that's close to production is The Eternals, but why lose the date if it's going to appear then? Regardless, I wouldn't get too excited about the news yet.

Roughly a week after Iron Fist was cancelled his Heroes of Hire partner Luke Cage was also cancelled. This follows confirmation in September that there were no plans for Defenders 2--so what is going on with Marvel at Netflix? There are four prevailing theories:

• 1) The shows were cancelled simply due to falling popularity, cost (THR reports with LC one of the issues were 'the terms', ie money--in context seemingly for showrunner Coker and his writing staff); or due to Disney's forthcoming competing streaming service (brand confusion), and/or other entirely functional reasons
• 2) The shows were cancelled to set up a Heroes for Hired title combining both heroes
• 3) The characters will persist in other shows, but not have their own title
• 4) Disney is buying back the IP from Netflix as part of a broader plan to reclaim all of its IP

I like #2 and it's certainly what fans want, but I think if that was the intention both shows would have been cancelled at the same time with an announcement for that show. The #3 option seems very unlikely to me--granting that Luke Cage folds very easily into Jessica Jones (an IP with a very thin lineup), but where can you really put Danny Rand? Between the other two options it's difficult to say, but I think if #1 is true then that would lead to #4 regardless--what point would there be for Netflix to hold on to IP it isn't using? My guess, then, is that the characters are on their way back to Disney. With that said, I wouldn't expect either to appear in that context soon--the fears of brand confusion remain (that's not to say there isn't the potential for the characters to simply move over to Disney streaming as-is, but I'm not sure how feasible that is logistically). [A late note: Deadline says there are no plans to bring Luke Cage to the Disney streaming-service.]

I haven't looked at a hypothetical Fantastic Four film yet (I don't remember ever reading an FF comic, but it turns out I actually have an issue, #320 (late 1988) in my collection), but I do have a theory related to it. I believe that, just like with Spider-Man, the MCU is going to avoid doing their origin. Why? Fox already put out two origin films (2005 and 2015), as Sony did with Spidey, which I think will make Kevin Feige want to avoid it and enter new territory (using comments, flashbacks, and perhaps an introduction in someone else's movie--ala Civil War--to deal with their beginnings in the MCU). This differs from how I think the X-Men will be handled (as discussed), because in that case Fox only did one true origin movie for them (First Class) and that's easily approached differently (as I go through in the aforementioned article).

Another toy leak has come out which some are theorizing means Pepper Potts will get her Rescue-suit from the comics (first introduced in 2009). Toy-releases don't guarantee anything, but its certainly plausible (albeit's not a big deal since Pepper already had a moment with super powers in Iron Man 3). If Gwyneth Paltrow was a little younger--she's 46--you could theorize doing something more with her in the future, but if it is true I think it's largely an easter egg, much like her prior moment having powers (Pepper doesn't move the needle much for fans, thus her disappearing from the MCU for four years despite two ensembles--Age of Ultron and Civil War--where she could have appeared). Speaking of Paltrow, it doesn't appear that the various problems her company Goop is having has impacted her time with the MCU (for those who want to go down the Goop rabbit hole, these links are a good start: 2016 NAD inquiry, pseudo-science, dangerous coffee enema, and the 2018 payout).

When I posted my breakdown of the supposed Avengers 4 trailer on Saturday, no reputable source had touched it. That's all changed now as it went viral through all the usual places. Charlie's video was the most entertaining because while he thought it wasn't real his only specific problem was how much time travel was cited and the fact that they were stealing the Infinity Stones--there's no real reason to fault those elements anymore than any other (Charlie is on board with Conrad's five-year gap, so he's fighting that bias). For myself, it was a plausible film framework, but that's all we can say at this point.

Not surprisingly, after the first rumour arrived a rival trailer description on Reddit appeared (Charlie preferred it, albeit it isn't getting the same amount of traction). I don't put much stock in it and briefly these are my issues: to be charitable the dialogue is corny (how many dramatic pauses do we really need?), and this specific statement line from Tony ("I’ll do whatever it takes so that never happens again") makes little sense to me--he'll never let Thanos delete half the universe again? Never let Spider-Man die again? You can stretch and say he means another calamity like that, but it implies a kind of acceptance of the status quo and it doesn't resonate with me, reading like much less polished fanfiction.

The oft-referenced Conrad has gone on record to debunk the first trailer and he has two points of contention:

Just to be clear, I’m only addressing the “Hulk rematch” description here, as that’s the one that’s going viral and people are actually believing it. The real teaser trailer will be much shorter, and not spoil too much of the actual plot. It’ll feature dialog and scenes that give a hint about what happens in the next Avengers movie, without laying out specific plot points or story lines.

Presumably he's restricting himself to that one element because he doesn't want to be on the record opposing the rest of the content while still debunking the trailer. I agree with him that this trailer (and the other) are both far too clear on the plot to work as teasers (think of how Infinity War was teased). What's interesting to me is that Conrad is only debunking that one element (as opposed to others), suggesting he has (or thinks he has) insider knowledge--if true it adds further fuel to my contention that the 4Chan theory from five months ago is also false.

As the process towards the approval of the sale of Fox to Disney rolls on Disney has already
announced the corporate structure that will exist at Disney's Fox once that approval is in place. I note it not because I find it particularly interesting, but just to show how far down the road we are in this process.

Opinion Revisited

One thing I forgot to include in my comments about online entertainment news specific to the MCU was Armin from ComicBookCast2 (you can find references to him in my earliest posts). I came across Armin very early in my process and it didn't take long to realize his problem: he credulously believes everything. Armin has no filter at all and any piece of news that comes his way is the truth and a reason to pump out a three minute video. He rarely (if ever) reflects upon his many missteps, so while I love his enthusiasm, he's utterly useless as a purveyor of news.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Speculating on Future MCU Characters

With the Fox properties on their way back to the MCU I was thinking about other characters who might be coming to screens--those not currently confirmed and not part of the Fox deal. We'll exclude anyone already announced as on their way or directly hinted at (no Eternals, who include characters like Starfox and Sersi; no Adam Warlock or Nova; I also consider Kamala Khan a lock who simply required Captain Marvel before she could appear). To create this list I went through various others dealing with this topic as well as doing my own research in looking at popular heroes. I've listed them in order of their first appearance, with the year in brackets, and included any ongoing series they've had (those in green have had significant rumours about them or already been introduced in some informal capacity):

Namor (1939; 1968-74, 1990-95, and 2010-11) - because Universal owns his distribution rights (they were last working on a project for him in 2006), he's not going to get his own film (despite rumours), but he's heavily associated with both the Fantastic Four and (to a lesser extent) Black Panther, so I could imagine him appearing in their films. I've excluded his original comic run in the 1930s, incidentally.

Black Knight (1955) - putting aside his original iteration in the 1950s and his villainous descendant, the hero (Dane Whitman) has a connection to Sersi (of the Eternals), but he's never been able to support his own book--instead he's been part of teams like the Avengers. He has a pretty unique hook (the knight motif) that the MCU hasn't covered yet, so he's a distinct possibility (he'd also work on television).

Wonder Man (1964; 1991-94) - there was a deleted scene in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 with Nathan Fillion in the role, but because it was deleted he's not officially in the MCU yet. Simon Williams has spent most of his time as a roleplayer with the Avengers and, as such, would only appear in a group context and I'm not sure what niche he'd fill for the MCU. Without James Gunn to advocate for him, I don't think he's likely.

Hercules (1965; 2008-10, 11-12) - a long time hero who generally serves as either support in a group (like the Avengers) or as second banana to Thor; if he appears I think it's most likely in the latter's context and there might be some push within the MCU to have Greek gods represented since Wonder Woman serves that same niche in DC.

Blade (1973; 1994-95, 2006-07) - with the popular film 20-years ago you'd think bringing him back to screen would be a slam dunk, but it's worth noting that the popularity of both vampires and ninjas has declined severely in the interim and it's difficult to see where an edgy character like Blade could work in the MCU; he'd fit easily on Netflix, but Marvel isn't cooperating with them, so I'm not sure what will happen (rumours for him can be found here).

Shang-Chi (1973; 1974-83) - while he's name-dropped by journalists as TV-fodder, he was born out of the Martial Arts craze of the 1970s he has the same problems that Iron Fist does, but is a much less popular character. Unlike Danny Rand there's been no popular renaissance for him since his original series and while he persists in the comics the market for ninjas is finite (especially since virtually every Marvel character uses martial arts now). I think there's no chance he appears on film (if we're looking for an Asian breakout character there are much bigger ones to lean on).

Tigra (1974) - frequently an Avenger, but outside of a mini-series she's never been able to support her own book; she'd never get her own film but could be part of a group, I'm just not sure what box she'd tick for the MCU so she's a very distant maybe (perhaps as a counter programming to DC using Cheetah).

Moon Knight (1975; 1980-84, 1989-94, 2006-09, 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-present) - I have no idea what the reluctance to use him is--he'd work on TV (too dark/edgy for film at the moment), but Marvel doesn't want to give Netflix properties anymore and none of the other streaming services seem like a good fit (maybe Hulu?). As a character who has persisted since he was introduced he has a core fanbase and represents something the MCU doesn't already have, so I'd put a lock on him appearing eventually (rumour archive here).

Captain Britain (1976; 1976-77, 1985-86, 2008-09) - probably best known for his time on Excalibur and New Excalibur, he not only has a long history but hits on a number of facets the MCU has only scratched the surface of (international heroes and mysticism). I think he's likely (if, perhaps, not soon), although I wonder if Marvel fears how many 'Captain' monikers they can carry (you can read the rumours about him here). Incidentally, he's unrelated to the Union Jack character whom MCU producer Nate Moore is so fond of (oddly enough the two UK heroes didn't appear together until 2008, despite the latter dating back to 1981).

Spider-Woman (1977; 1978-83, 1999-2000, 2015, 2016-17) - we already have rumours that Jessica Drew will appear in Spider-Man: Far From Home, so if that's the case she doesn't belong here. The Spider-Man films are the most logical ones for her to appear in, but she needn't be restricted to that (I do wonder if Marvel will use her hero name or simply have her referred to as Jessica Drew). Regardless, I'd be surprised if we didn't see her (oddly enough, it appears her rights are separate from Spider-Man's, such that the MCU could use her even if Sony walked away from their arrangement--I believe this is true for the Miles Morales as well, which if rumours are true are part of how Marvel pressured Sony into their current deal).

Quasar (1977; 1989-94) - if he didn't come up so much in various articles I wouldn't consider him, as he's (comparatively) obscure. James Gunn seems to be the one advocating for him, so I don't know if his departure means the character is less likely to appear.

She-Hulk (1980; 1980-82, 1989-94, 2004-05, 05-07, 14-15) - has the same tricky arrangement with Universal as her male counterpart and unlike Namor she doesn't have the same kind of cache; when not in her own book she's been an Avenger or associated with the Fantastic Four. The concern here, besides the situation with Universal, would be the possibility that the MCU wants to avoid derivatives of core character--this would change considerably if Hulk dies, of course.

Firestar (1981) - this is a funny one as the character comes from an animated series (Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends), the only such character presented. She's only ever had miniseries' and is probably too obscure to appear (doesn't tick any particular boxes)--I included her because she's appeared on a number of lists I've seen, but in researching her she's always been a mutant and therefore is via Fox--I left her in because of her very curious origin.

Beta Ray Bill (1983) - his visage (or at least one of his race) appeared in Thor: Ragnarok, and I'd be shocked if we didn't see him in the fourth Thor film; he's only had miniseries to himself, but he's a beloved character and well-suited to interacting with Thor.

Sentry (2000; 2018-present) - I'm adding this late because I'd quite forgotten the rumours about him that have circulated the last couple of years (for example) because I wasn't covering them extensively at the time. Despite currently having his own comic, it's clear he works best as part of a team or as an antagonist--he certainly fits the framework of the Cosmic Marvel stuff James Gunn was supposed to run. With that said, he hasn't slipped into any official rumours (unlike Quasar above), but his split personality definitely offers unique opportunities for the MCU and I think uniqueness is what you look for in characters who aren't especially popular.

This isn't a comprehensive list by any means, of course, and leans more towards older heroes. Marvel isn't afraid of obscure properties given both Guardians and Eternals (both of which, admittedly, fit the older hero model). The MCU might one day tackle characters like the Tarzan-like Ka-Zar (1965) or Shanna the She-Devil (1974)--I think both are tied up with Fox. If we're looking for representation someone like Moondragon (1973) or America Chavez (2011) are possibilities, although they either have never had their own series or (in the latter case) weren't able to sustain one (2017-18).

Which of the above characters do I consider most likely to appear (excluding Firestar for the reasons given above):

Definitively
Namor - likely in Fantastic Four rather than his own film (I can't decide if Feige thinks it's worth competing with Aquaman or not)
Blade - I'm 50/50 on him being on TV rather than film, but in either case I don't think it's soon
Moon Knight - I have no clue why he's not already on TV, but if he's being reserved for film it must be for a particular reason
Captain Britain - he ticks a lot of boxes, has interesting connections to different characters, is quite distinct from the other Captain--I think we'll see it, but probably not soon (likely waiting for the X-Men introduction, particularly if we get Psylocke and she remains his sister)
Spider-Woman - if she's not in Far From Home she's going to pop up soon--in film as a supporting character or on TV in a similar role
Beta Ray Bill - he'll absolutely appear in the next Thor--that's speculation on my part, but I'd be shocked if he didn't

Maybe
Black Knight - the main attractive thing about him is his distinctiveness (no one has done a medieval-style hero on film); he'd also be very easy to do on TV, but there's no chance he gets his own film (I could see him either in the Avengers or perhaps showing up in Doctor Strange)
Hercules - the easiest fit for him would be Thor, but that IP is getting very crowded (while Ragnarok killed off a lot of characters, it also added Valkyrie and Korg with Beta Ray Bill presumably on his way)
Tigra - slips into the maybe pile just because DC is doing a similar character and if she's done poorly it gives Marvel the opportunity to take that (narrow) niche; she'd most likely be an Avenger
Quasar - I'm not sure if he's planned for whatever comes after Guardians or not and I also don't know how much James Gunn was the force behind him as part of Marvel Cosmic; I'd guess he'd be part of the second phase of the Guardians (if that's still a thing)
She-Hulk - were it not for Universal I'd put her in the definite pile, but because of those complications the most likely event is that she's a new member of a group (Avengers etc)
Sentry - the most intriguing thing about him is his split personality--he serves as a foil against threats to the larger universe or as that threat himself if his power-levels are maintained

Unlikely
Wonder Man - I just don't know what using him accomplishes, but if he does appear it's as a supporting character on the Avengers
Shang-Chi - if he appears it would be as a supporting character and almost certainly on TV

Of these characters only three, I believe, can lead their own property, but only one (Moon Knight) is a lock to do so--either on TV or film. The other two, Captain Britain and Blade, are somewhere in the MCU pipeline, but all three are later than sooner.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)