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)