Marvel News

The cancellation of Daredevil confirms my theory that Netflix is both getting out of the Marvel business and that Marvel is getting the characters back. What's the evidence? On the simplest level Netflix has cancelled three of their five shows, each after well-reviewed (or at least better-reviewed) and received seasons. It seems clear that this is part of Netflix's push to emphasize content they fully control (such as Witcher and other properties). As for the second element of my theory, just like with Iron Fist's cancellation, the press release for Daredevil mentioned the character will continue to appear for Marvel--this can only mean in television or film, so where else could that be but in the MCU? Marvel always retained some level of control over the IP as Netflix had to pay licensing fees to use the characters each season (this may explain the stubborn refusal to have actual Hellcat in Jessica Jones).

What does this mean for the remaining Netflix characters? Once The Punisher's second season (and Jessica Jones' third) drop they will also be cancelled. It also means there's no hope that the actors who portray these characters will be used again--the MCU doesn't like brand confusion and Kevin Feige doesn't want to have others involved in creative control (thus the refusal to let Sony's films be part of the MCU and his many fights with Ike Perlmutter).

Let's be clear about the timing of this and what it means: the cancelled characters are immediately available for use by Marvel. Given that, at any time (either on Disney's streaming service or the movies) we could see MCU-versions of these characters. I doubt there's any rush to do so, but it will be interesting to see what happens with them going forward. There is a theory that Marvel will do nothing with the characters for corporate reasons (as in, Disney does not want to promote Netflix by using characters whose shows they will continue to air). Those pushing this narrative skip the important clarification that comes with this idea:

And if they did, they’d be starting over from scratch creatively, like Sony ditching the Andrew Garfield movies for Tom Holland as Spider-Man

The negative approach is specific to Netflix-versions of the characters, not the IP itself. This is exactly what I'd expect--new actors, a new beginning, and done differently. The Netflix heroes were portrayed, generally, by older actors; the material was mature; the aesthetic dark. With Disney's edict for only PG-13 material (look at all the hoops Deadpool and Venom are going through attempting to adhere to this), we'll get lighter versions. Unrelated to this restriction I think there's no chance we ever see Jessica Jones again (the attempted reboot of her comic failed after 18-issues and Netflix has done virtually all her material already). Netflix experiments with Danny Rand and Luke Cage likely mean that if they ever appear again it will be as the lighthearted duo (Heroes for Hire) rather than with their own IP. The situation with Daredevil is very different, as Netflix resurrected the character as a viable property and he's the only hero that I think will definitely appear at some point (a more comic-accurate version, assuredly). As for Frank Castle, I don't think the MCU will touch him.

Netflix has also provided some lessons-learned for secondary characters: revitalizing Karen Page, making Turk work and not be just a bumbling stereotype, showing how not to do Elektra, creating the definitive Purple Man (ie, Kilgrave), etc. Whether any of these characters will make the transition to the MCU is an open question, but there's a lot to take away from how they were handled by Netflix.

Rumours have been swirling for quite some time that Jude Law's character in Captain Marvel is not Captain Mar-Vell (as originally reported), but noted villain Yon-Rogg (who accidentally gives Carol Danvers her powers in the comics); a toy leak has confirmed this idea. The decision makes a lot of sense--it avoids the very complicated backstory that goes with Carol picking up the mantel from her dead Kree lover (there's no doubt that the MCU wants to avoid multiple instances with that name as well as having her being derivative of a male character). It also clarifies why Captain Marvel is part of a Kree group that are villains in the comics (the toys spoil her Kree name: Vers, which has no comic-cognate, and was undoubtedly picked simply as a play off her last name). If Yon-Rogg and his cohorts are villains, how does that mesh with the Skrulls being the primary antagonists of the film? It seems like she'll have two separate sets of villains to deal with. Given that Ronan and Korath are the only remaining members of that group I think the odds of Yon-Rogg etc surviving the film are slim.

Back when I posted my Avengers 4 Speculation article I mentioned that, unlike most people, I did not think Captain America was going to die in the film. That went against the overwhelming majority of theories out there who, due to Evans' contract situation and some ambiguous comments from the actor thought he was done. The Russo's have stirred the pot in my direction by saying Chris Evans is not done playing the character after that film--this hasn't prevented Charlie (the link) and others from bending over backwards to explain this away and continue to hold the opinion that he's going to die. He could still die and make appearances, and we have to keep in mind that the Russo's could be trolling or doing damage control from Evans Tweet not long ago, but the simplest explanation is that he doesn't die. As I've mentioned previously, Evans is only thirty-seven and is enormously popular--why on earth would you kill him off?

Jeremy Conrad believes the 'Karen' and 'Piper' characters we learned of through casting calls will be teased in Avengers 4. There's no reason to doubt that The Eternals will be teased prior to their own film and this is the only one where that makes sense (neither Spider-Man nor Black Widow are auspicious debuts for the ancient god-like characters).

THS as a Source

I've used That Hashtag Show as a source before and have mentioned that caution needs to be used when using their scoops (their speculation should simply be ignored). We may have reason to add more hesitation with their content, because there seems to be differences between the casting sheet THS put out (link above) versus the the plot description they offered back in October. Let's repeat the latter just to go through the issues:

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.

Both Ikaris and Sersi appear in the casting call, but neither are called the lead ('Male lead' and 'Piper get that honour) and there are no Deviants at all. We could push the interpretation and say that the other two characters are leads but simply not called that on the sheet--it's possible--but the absence of the Deviants does make me wonder if this blurb is real. The above is, in many ways, simply a description of the comic series.

The other issue from THS is that they (along with most other sites and people like Charlie), accepted the fake Black Widow film description via the aborted 2004 film from Lionsgate--this was debunked very recently.

This isn't to say we should completely ignore the site--they do get real scoops and are especially good with Netflix material (unfortunately for them something that's largely trivial now), but simply that we should treat them with caution (the casting stuff they get generally turns out, but the plot descriptions are where things get sketchy).

My theory about the MCU wanting a Greek god character in response to the DCEU's Wonder Woman seems right (I say in response because Marvel doesn't have a truly popular Greek character in the comics that you'd feel like 'oh, s/he should definitely appear'). While Hercules (or whoever it is) may seem like a logical inclusion in The Eternals, he was not part of that brand in either iteration of the comic.

The DCEU isn't the only company rushing to take advantage of the MCU removing their July, 2020, movie from the slate (by shifting Wonder Woman 1984 to June). Sony has announced their own July film (almost certainly Morbius due to scheduling, as it begins production in February). I still have a hard time believing the MCU will only have two films in 2020, incidentally (particularly two riskier properties in Black Widow and The Eternals), so don't be surprised if a third gets added.

A final Sony note: I haven't talked about Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse at all because it's an animated movie and about as far removed from the MCU as possible. However, one of the stranger things going on with the film is its box office tracking: for a movie that cost 90 million to make, tracking for a 25-30 million opening has to be worrying (despite increasing over earlier numbers putting it in the 17-27 range). Press coverage has been overwhelming positive so we'll see how that impacts its release (just a week before Aquaman and Mary Poppins, which can't bode well).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

THS has released character breakdowns for the film and these are incredibly vague:

• Main villain is simply described as “exciting” and the studio is open to ethnicity, but looking for someone in their 40s
• A “kick ass” female character described as a “female Bond” late 20s/early 30s
• A male with an emphasis on African, Middle Eastern or East Indian actors late 20s/early 30s
• One European Caucasian female and one European Caucasian male, both in the 50-60 year old range
• Actress in her 50s to play a smaller, villainous role. The character was only briefly described as a “conniving female villian”
• Minor role described as a “bookish American” in his late 20s

The only takeaway from this that I can see is that all of these are all new characters--which is not a surprise--although if this is indeed a prequel (see below) we're going to run into a problem where if one of the new characters is a hit how do you truly capitalize on using them in subsequent movies? That's one of the many issues with prequels in my opinion--so many things are lost if they are done well (look at how hard Wonder Woman is bending over backwards to bring Steve Trevor back for the sequel).

Discussing Film (link via Conrad) has revealed that the Black Widow prequel description going around is in fact fake, taken from a 2004 cancelled Black Widow movie involving David Hayter. Conrad still believes the film will be a prequel, but his belief is that it will be centered on Y2K--a bizarre choice in my opinion (what story beat does that serve other than minor name recognition for a certain age demographic?). I'm much happier that the aforementioned concept is busted because it reignites my faint hope that the film is either not a prequel or at least not entirely so.

With that said, I have been wondering what they can do to spice up the film if we are stuck with a prequel. Her past (in broad strokes) is already well-understood, but friends of mine suggested that it might instead be something that was hushed up. My initial objection to that idea is that it seems unlikely Natasha would stay quiet unless Nick Fury was involved and swore her to secrecy (her personal connection to him is pretty clear in Winter Soldier). If these past deeds are indeed under wraps, what could they be that's movie-worthy? Namor and Atlantis would fit the bill (already hinted at in an Iron Man 2 easter egg--I discuss him appearing in the MCU here--it would be an odd place to debut him, albeit any of the male calls could describe him). It could also touch on either Mutants or the Fantastic Four. I think it has to be something big, because if all we're going to get is an exploration of the Red Room via Age of Ultron (or Budapest via The Avengers) it's just retreading territory which is a poor way to sell your film. I'm all for another film with a Winter Soldier feel, but I don't want to have the result of what's occurring already well understood.

It's been confirmed that Captain Marvel (the character) is being based on Kelly Sue DeConnick's run--this comes as no surprise as DeConnick is the one who made her 'Captain' Marvel in the first place (her run on the comic lasted 32 issues, 2012-15) and established her as an iconic Marvel character. We also now know that the film is set in 1995. What significance the year will have is unknown.

Incidentally, I mentioned back in May about the speculation that Monica Rambeau will appear in the film and meant to follow-up it up now that we know the answer to that question. At the time I thought it was odd introducing the character since that meant it was unlikely she could appear in a sequel, but now we know it's Maria Rambeau who is appearing (likely in a small role), such that her daughter (Monica) can appear subsequently. This is a smart choice in terms of anticipating a supporting character going forward without having awkward time travel explanations to do so. Most won't be familiar with the character (I wasn't), but she's kicked around Marvel for a long time (1982) without ever establishing herself enough to have a comic run of her own. She wasn't always attached to Carol Danvers and it's DeConnick who began the association in 2012.

THS is reporting that The Eternals production start date is tentatively September, 2019. It's important to note that the source is only providing that information and that the rest of the THS article is simply their own speculation (which, as I've gone over before, is generally terrible; Conrad also excises the latter portion).

THS subsequently offered the character lineup and it's huge, although the information is sparse for most of them:

• Karen: Actress in her early 30s. Open to any nationality or ethnicity particularly Middle Eastern, African and Native American. Powerful, a timeless quality, a leader. Warm, nurturing and intuitive. Should have an international/timeless feel. My feeling is that the role seems to have been invented for the film.
• Male Lead: Described only as a Greek God. THS wonders if this is Hercules (I think it's plausible--I talked about the possibility of the MCU using him here).
• Druig: the presumed villain who first appeared in Eternals #11 in 1977. Though he was a Kirby creation, THS says he gained notoriety after his appearance in Neil Gaiman’s 2000’s Eternals revival.
• Piper: The studio is looking to cast a lead female, 10-16 years old of any nationality or ethnicity. Strong, charismatic presence with a magnetic personality. Wise beyond her years, articulate and quick-witted. Natural acting ability and some type of athletic background a plus. THS believes this character is a new take on the Eternal known as Sprite.
• Elysisus: An actress, 20-40, for the role--Elysius is an artificial being created by ISAAC, the sentient computer system of Titan.
• Forgotten One: The studio is looking for a male, ages 25-45, to play the Forgotten One, aka Gilgamesh (who first appeared in Eternals #13).
• Ikaris: A male, 20-40.
• Makkari: A male, 25-45.
• Sersi: A female, 20-40.
• Starfox: The brother of Thanos--male, 25-45.
• Thena: Actress 20-40.
• Zuras: the character is male, but THS doesn't include any call sheet information for him.

THS notes the absence of the Deviants, which doesn't necessarily mean they won't be included, but does indicate a very reduced role if they are. This is a massively overstuffed cast if they were all key characters, but instead I think most of the above are secondary--the male lead (perhaps Hercules) and 'Piper' seem to be the actual leads facing off against Druig.

We all recall that we were told the title of Avengers 4 would be a 'mild spoiler.' If that title is "Annihilation," what is the spoiler? The most likely reference is the Annihilation event, Keith Giffen's 2006 miniseries which culminates in Thanos' death. It's primarily a Nova story and nearly all the specifics don't mesh with what the MCU is doing, so I have to think it's the latter element which is the spoiler (if there is one). Conrad believes the title has changed twice already (from Infinity Gauntlet to Endgame to Annihilation), which means that 'spoiler' might refer to either of the other two titles (if his speculation is correct). Most speculation about the fourth film is derived from that original title (you can read the conventional thinking and my own here), the other title ('Endgame') doesn't have a comicbook history that I'm aware of.

Derek Cornell is reporting that Bumblebee director Travis Knight is being considered to helm Guardians of the Galaxy 3. I'm unfamiliar with Cornell, who claims an inside source, but Knight is exactly the kind of guy I'd expect to be willing to pick up James Gunn's legacy and finish it off (he's not a big name and can work under difficult circumstances, ie Michael Bay)--most directors, out of respect for Gunn, won't touch his baby (especially as they would be held to his script). Whether it's Knight or someone else, Marvel has a reasonable amount of time to pick a director if the reported production date of February, 2021, is correct.

There's a rumour that a Groot and Rocket show will be coming to the Disney streaming service. The two certainly fit the format and would generate a lot of excitement, but given that both are CGI I have to wonder if it fiscally makes sense to do so. If it is true it means Feige doesn't think the duo can carry a movie by themselves (which I agree with, incidentally).

The legal hurdles to the acquisition of Fox continue to fall as both the EU and China have approved the deal. Everything is on schedule for this to be wrapped up sooner than later.

The success of Venom (780 million, putting it on par with the first Deadpool and ahead of the following recent superhero films: Ant-Man and the Wasp, Deadpool 2, Justice League, Logan, Doctor Strange, Suicide Squad, and X-Men: Apocalypse) has Sony doubling down on its Sonyverse, setting aside two dates for untitled films in 2020 (July and October, specifically). Speculation is that these consist of the Morbius movie along with a Venom sequel--this is almost certainly the case as no other rumoured films are anywhere close to actual production. Conrad (link I used) makes an assertion that I agree with:

As for the question of how this affects Spider-Man, it probably doesn’t. If anything Sony realizes how much money Spidey being in the MCU makes them, and they’ll probably want to try to get their movies side-loaded into the MCU somehow. It isn’t so much about forcing Spider-Man out of the MCU, but crossing their movies over with the MCU money bin.

Ever since Amy Pascal's awkward attempt at shoving Sony content into the MCU, I think that's been the wish: to have Sony's Marvel material associated with the MCU rather than taking the character back. I'm not sure Feige has any interest in doing that, given that he's given Marvel Entertainment (all the TV shows) a cold shoulder right from the outset. Incidentally, I haven't seen Venom, but I get the feeling it's soaking up some of the Transformer audience, particularly internationally (fans who like big, loud, over the top films that aren't that serious).

Stray Observations

I was a bit surprised to see Campea take shots at Jeremy Conrad (without naming him); in trying to figure out why (he absolutely knows who Conrad is since he broke The Eternals scoop), it might be because he's friends with people at Slash Film whose Peter Sciretta is apparently feuding with Conrad. Ultimately this doesn't matter other than it's juvenile behaviour from Campea.

A brief comment on people like Conrad or the guys at THS: you may be wondering why such small sites get the scoops they do--especially given that they are superfans rather than journalists or former insiders. It's not just that they know people in the industry, but rather that they play ball with their corporate masters (in this case, Disney). Both produce an inordinate amount of positive Star Wars content (Jeremy on Twitter, THS generally) and this makes them worthy. It's important to note that the kinds of scoops given to them are never negative and that if Disney wanted to turn the tap off they could easily do so.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

Variety is reporting that a Winter Soldier-Falcon series is in the works and unlike the others that have been reported this one has a writer attached (Malcolm Spellman). This continues the phenomena of secondary characters from MCU Phases One and Two being shifted over to the streaming service. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't appear in movies after Avengers 4, but it does suggest that they will have a much smaller presence, such that the upcoming movies will truly be a watershed moment for who we see on screen going forward.

It's worth noting that all of the characters appearing on the streaming service confirms they will never have their own films. This isn't particularly surprising--none of the characters we've heard about thus far have been able to support their own comic for any length of time--but it does indicate that Phase Four will radically reduce the number of current MCU characters appearing (making space not just for new characters, but for the Fox properties). I have to wonder if future Ant-Man material will also be put on the streaming service. It's interesting that none of the actors involved are among the older in the MCU (no 54-year old Don Cheadle, 53-years young RDJ, or 51 year-old Mark Ruffalo, although 71-year old Sam Jackson has been rumoured); granted I doubt that's truly a factor in these decisions.

One other thing the above story tangentially confirms is that neither co-star will be replacing Captain America (as has been speculated many times)--even Charlie has figured this out--such that if Chris Evans leaves the role they won't be picking up the shield (a smart decision--Disney won't want brand confusion). My contention remains that Cap survives.

Speaking of the shows, Peter Sciretta is reporting that Vision is meant to not only appear in Scarlet Witch's show, but have a large role and possibly costar with her. The inclusion of Vision suggests one of two things: Shuri backed up his mind on her computer or that Avengers 4 will undo his death somehow (it would fit my theory that the team goes back in time to prevent Thanos from ever assembling the Infinity Gauntlet).

With so many shows coming to Disney's streaming service, all of which directly connect to the MCU, I have to wonder what the fate of Marvel TV outside of that is. There's no question that Kevin Feige wants to have a hand in anything happening within the MCU and that hasn't been the case outside of Agent Carter. It's generally understood that The Gifted and Legion will have no attachment to the future and broadly accepted that the Netflix shows are also unrelated. What about those on ABC, Hulu, and Freeform? To me it's been clear for a very long time that Agents of SHIELD is irrelevant to Feige (it's final season wraps this year regardless), but what about The Runaways and Cloak & Dagger? I believe that these will also be put on the pyre of Jeph Loeb and allowed to burn away in some alternate universe while Feige spreads his wings into an integrated television sphere. If I'm right I suspect Disney will want to jettison these non-canonical shows sooner than later (to avoid brand confusion). If anything is to be retained I fully expect some sort of crossover with Disney's service, but I don't think Feige is going to accept something he wasn't fully involved with creatively.

Just broadly, putting aside my own attachment to the Netflix shows, it makes sense to have one creative head for all the MCU. Splitting it between Feige and Loeb over at Marvel Entertainment never made much sense.

Related to this, Screen Rant is loudly proclaiming that Daredevil season three's viewership numbers are down 57%. Given that they have no access to Netflix's data, how do they arrive at this conclusion? Via a social media study from Jumpshot (whose data only covers the US audience). I'd take this with a grain of salt. It's probable that the numbers are down, but affixing any kind of number to it this way seems pretty reckless. If the show is in decline (probable), I don't think the primary factor is the quality of shows, but rather that we were sold on 'it's all connected' only to learn that it's not connected. This massively hurts viewer investment (part of the reason why AoS never found heavy traction on ABC either). Netflix refused to even try to CW itself by making the shows more self-integrated. We are, it seems, in the final death spiral of this glorious experiment.

[An update to this story: Business Insider is reporting that Daredevil season three is the most 'in demand' streaming show of the week (as measured by Parrot Analytics, which uses Demand Expressions as its data).]

Jeremy Conrad is re-confirming the title of the movie (Annihilation) as well as saying the trailer will drop in November (he doesn't source the latter, but it apparently comes from trailer production leaks that were loosely echoed in the most recent, and almost certainly fake, trailer description).

I've been thinking about Avengers 4, in part inspired by another toy leak (showing concept art). Not only does it confirm an earlier toy leak (from early October) showing Thor and Rocket in uniforms reminiscent of Hank Pym's from Ant-Man and the Wasp (ie, intended for the Quantum Realm), but it also reconfirms the concept art that leaked earlier in the year showing Thanos in his armour and carrying a massive sword. The latter image is a curious one for me, because with the Gauntlet Thanos needs neither a sword nor his armour. This suggests two possibilities: 1) the Avengers are powerful enough that the Gauntlet alone isn't enough (I don't believe this to be the case, but if we buy into the Avengers building their own Gauntlet it's possible), 2) Thanos no longer has a functioning Gauntlet and/or doesn't have all the Stones anymore (this fits my speculation).

Executive producer Michael Grillo (no relation to Frank) has revealed that the Ancient One, long rumoured to appear in Avengers 4 (courtesy of the always talkative Mark Ruffalo), will indeed do so. Grillo said the actress only had availability for "one day," meaning it can't be more than a cameo. What sort of cameo is hard to say, since she dies in Doctor Strange, but if Ruffalo shared a scene with her clearly it involves the Hulk in some way.

The last few weeks have variously confirmed and denied various rumours I covered in my Avengers 4 speculation article. We've had Frank Grillo confirming what he himself hinted over a year ago, then deny it (he might simply be trolling since he wasn't happy with his character's death in Civil War, but I think if that was the case Marvel would officially end the rumours); Aaron-Taylor Johnson (Quicksilver) largely denying an appearance (albeit there's ambiguity with what he said); and the Swinton confirmation above. None of this, really, tells us much about the film, although Conrad claims it won't be three hours long.

Conrad is reporting that a Hawkeye/Kate Bishop show or movie is in some kind of internal development (echoing his own rumour from back in June). He's not confident enough to say it will happen or where, but he is confident enough to talk about it being in development. I think such a story has no chance to be a feature film--Black Widow is already pushing the envelope of what can work as a superhero outing--but it would be a very cheap (in relative terms) TV show to make (the CW's Arrow has had seven seasons after all).

Unknown Marvel Film

THS is reporting writer David Callaham has been hired to write a script for an upcoming film, but they aren't sure which, other than not Black Widow, The Eternals, or Black Panther 2 (all three already have announced writers). THS speculation is notoriously wrong, but they throw out Doctor Strange 2 and Young Avengers as possibilities (the former is unlikely, as director Scott Derrickson likes working with writer C. Robert Cargill).

Conrad is reporting a rumour that the role Katherine Longford is playing is that of the adult daughter of the Stark's and, therefore, basically a cameo without a future in the MCU (or so he implies). It's certainly plausible to have a 'name' actor in a limited role like this (Matt Damon did it in Thor: Ragnarok), but since this is a rumour about a rumour, we'll have to wait for more information to come out. Conrad's idea--of a fully adult daughter being sacrificed by the Avengers to defeat Thanos--would be a much more interesting sacrifice than his earlier narrative of them giving up a kid (as I mentioned when critiquing this idea, what's preventing them from having the kid once things are fixed?).

Speaking of rumours, there are a bunch of clickbait articles floating around right now about Namor because Kevin Feige was asked about him and his vague response was given far more weight than it should (his paraphrased answer was "Namor could make an appearance, still deciding IF & when"). This is no different from what we've heard before. Awhile ago, when I thought we were getting Zack Snyder's darker version of Aquaman from the DCEU, the likelihood of Marvel's Atlantian appearing (because of his similar profile and the rights situation with Universal) was slim. However, given that Joss Whedon and James Wan have shifted the character into a lighthearted surfer dude, there's suddenly space for the brooding, antihero that is Namor. I very much doubt he'll get his own film, but he could easily make appearances in The Fantastic Four or Black Panther (as I previously went through).

I've been a voice in the wilderness for quite some time in saying X-Men: Dark Phoenix is unlikely to ever be released. Apparently my voice is not alone anymore however, as I stumbled across a Captain Midnight video from mid-August (prior to its date shift to the summer) making the same assertion. He makes one point I did not which is worth repeating: while shelving the movie (or burying it) is expensive, compared to the value of the brand itself the cost is negligible (fans might have a hard time believing it, but prior to the MCU the Avengers were a B-brand compared to the X-Men). This is also why New Mutants (whose reshoots still haven't happened) is something I think will never appear.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)