Marvel News

I mentioned back in April that one possibility for Avengers: Endgame was that Tony Stark would serve as our stand-in for the Uncle Ben moment for Spider-Man. If you think about their dialogue, especially in Homecoming and Infinity War, Tony has taken on a fatherly persona and, given Ben's visible absence, he's the one who could carry that same emotional weight. This theory has suddenly popped up everywhere (Reddit, What Culture, Comicbook.com, etc). As gratified as I am that others have picked up on it, I still have reservations about it: Peter Parker is already motivated to do good, so unlike the traditional Uncle Ben he doesn't need Tony to provide him with a moral compass (I went through other reasons Tony might die in my speculation article back in October).

Two ideas I came up with after posting my article about the teaser:
1) When discussing possible plans Cap is acting on in the teaser, another could be going into space to rescue Tony is certainly one of them (it's also possible the trailer is cut in such a way that he's discussing what to do after Ant-Man arrives and is aware of the Time Vortexes in the Quantum Realm)
2) Scott Lang is wearing the same outfit in the trailer that matches the leaked photos of him seen running through neighbourhoods during filming--there's no sign of Luis' van in the latter, so it's difficult to place the photos into the timeline

There's something about human nature that attracts us to speculative theories--JFK's assassination, ancient aliens, the Bilderberg Group, etc. When the Avengers: Endgame trailer landed it shook Marvel pundits to the core as it attacked the flash forward/time-jump theory. Our good friend Charlie is doing his best to keep the vestiges of that theory (the five-year gap) alive. The loudest proponents (like Jeremy Conrad) have opted largely for radio silence (I'll get more into that below).

Charlie is, to some extent, a realist in the cited video: there's no denying the scenes of Iron Man and Captain America take place shortly after the Snapture (at most months later, but no more than that and likely much less). This means the film does not and cannot begin years later as the original theory proposed (Conrad's post mocking any other opinion is still up). Regardless, Charlie clings to the flash forward, so how does he do it?

The text on the top left might read: "Strat 1983: Archive" (the year cited is not definitive and I've seen it argued that it actually reads "IS03" or "1503"; if the year is wrong then Charlie's argument, shared by others, completely falls apart). I looked into the acronym and the only "STRAT" that might fit is "Strategic Planning System" (assuming it's something not invented for the MCU). Charlie's logic here is pretty simple: Scott Lang is in 1983 and leaving a message that, for some reason, Cap is replaying in 2018 or 19.

This simple supposition has one basic problem: it includes Luis' van. As I mentioned last time the van did not enter the Quantum Realm with Ant-Man, so what is he doing with it? The van is a 1972 Ford Ecoline, so it certainly exists in 1983, but the only reason Scott Lang would be driving around with it is if it still has the Quantum machine Hank Pym built in the back (as it was at the end of Ant-Man and the Wasp). This means the van has to be from that time period or later and not from 1983. So what is Charlie's solution?

His theory is that Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm through a Time Vortex (cf Ant-Man and the Wasp) and arrives forward in time. He retrieves the van in the future (it's either unmolested or he's simply able to retrieve it and the machine). He then gets the assistance of a surviving Avenger (Tony Stark or Bruce Banner presumably) who help him figure out how to bring the van with him into the Quantum Realm. Scott then takes the van and somehow lands in 1983, apparently unaware of the fact (how that would be I don't know, but he's clearly unaware because he asks Cap to buzz him in). If he's in 1983, this means has to travel through time again to meet the Avengers in the present of the film Charlie imagines (years later).

To say this is convoluted is putting it mildly. Just to make it clear, here are the steps:

• 1) Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm via a Time Vortex and winds up in the future; keep in mind that we know from Ant-Man that escaping the Quantum Realm only requires him to grow large which (as of Civil War) he can do by simply using the arm bands of his suit (rather than the disk he originally used via Hank Pym)
• 2) Ant-Man's van/machine are unmolested in that future (either together or separately) and he's able to retrieve both (why he needs the van and not just the machine I have no idea)
• 3) Someone in the future helps Ant-Man figure out how to use the machine while it remains inside the van
• 4) Ant-Man uses the machine alone and goes through another Time Vortex, but misses the mark and lands in 1983 where he leaves a message for the Avengers at what would have then been a Stark warehouse (cf Ant-Man)--this odd occurrence goes unremarked at the time, but the recording is preserved for the next 36 years
• 5) Captain America et al for some reason go through the old security camera footage after the Snapture (how this occurs is beyond me--just imagine the dialogue, "Hey Nat, let's re-watch old recordings from the Stark Warehouse door-cam to drown our sorrows")
• 6) Ant-Man travels through another Time Vortex (despite Janet Van Dyne's warnings about the danger they pose) to meet the Avengers in whatever present Charlie imagines (the five-year jump perhaps)

This frankly doesn't make much sense. Charlie (and others) are falling victim to confirmation bias: they believe there's a time jump, so they are looking for any and all evidence that can prove it. The idea includes three time jumps by Ant-Man before we truly get into the story (to the future, the past, and then the present). The audience doesn't need an Avenger to 'figure out' the Quantum machine--it's a problem that's already been solved in Ant-Man and the Wasp.

So why do Charlie (and others) have so much attachment to the flash forward theory? It boils down to three things and I'll quickly go through them (they are also discussed here):

• 1) Casting: THS reported (in a post now removed) that actress Emma Fuhrmann had been cast to play an aged-up version of Cassie Lang (Fuhrmann is 16, while original actress Abby Ryder Forston is 10); this has never been confirmed by anyone else (or denied), unless you count IMDB; subsequently Umberto Gonzalez reported that Katherine Longford was cast in the film in an undisclosed role and Conrad added the rumour that she's playing the adult daughter of Tony and Pepper (how this jives with the notion below of a baby I don't know)--no one else that I've seen has backed this theory; finally, there was a casting call for twins for the film and Conrad believes this could only be for Tony/Pepper's baby (the assumption being no one else in the film would have one)
• 2) Gwyneth Paltrow comments: she gave an interview for the official magazine leading into Infinity War with this particular quote causing all the fuss: "[N]ow a decade later they're married, and they have a child." People initially jumped all over the 'decade later' part, claiming it meant since the first Avengers (ie 2012), but it's obvious from the context (and simple logic) she meant since the first Iron Man (2008). The married with a child element, however, remains and I'll get into that below
• 3) Hair styles/custom changes: Cap's shaved beard, Nat's longer red hair with blond tips, Tony's blond hair; along with Hulk's suit in the concept/toy art

Let's deal with #2 first: keeping in mind that Paltrow is not the most mentally balanced human being, during Infinity War her major scene was discussing the wedding with Tony and a hypothetical child--she may well be confused enough to think those two elements were a tangible fact. More simply (and likely) is that Endgame ends with the a marriage and a child--the latter does not require much of a shift forward in time (indeed, it works perfectly well for the film to occur in 2019) and would fit the oft-rumoured scene featuring everyone from the MCU

I think we can quickly dismiss the hair and costume elements (#3) as largely superfluous. The only one that genuinely requires time is Widow's longer hair, but by itself it doesn't mean much (we don't know the context--is it an end credit scene?). The changes themselves are a very normal process of making the film distinct from its predecessor (as well as making it easier to sell new toys/ merchandise).

Finally is the casting (#1): we have no clue who Longford is playing and no secondary confirmation about Fuhrmann. Is it possible the team sees visions of the future? Of course, but that doesn't require time travel (we saw visions in Age of Ultron without that, after all).

Beyond these specifics there are just more and more problems with the idea. Janet Van Dyne warned Scott to avoid the Time Vortexes because they were dangerous and since he doesn't need one to escape the Quantum Realm, why would he use it for that purpose? There's also Nat's response to Cap in the teaser: "It's the front door," which only makes sense in the present (otherwise the response is "yes," because she was asked if its a recording).

The final blow to the underlying premise of a five-year (or at least years) gap is that the film is supposed to start that way (ie forward in time, something professed by both Conrad and his buddy Daniel). The teaser absolutely refutes this. What remains are whatever fragments can be preserved from that idea, but on a story-level there's really no room for 'time passes' once your starting point is the present. The universe is broken and that requires resolution--there's no point in paging Captain Marvel if her arrival doesn't signify immediate help. I want to be clear that I still believe time travel is an important element in the film and the team will undoubtedly use a Time Vortex, I'm only refuting the basic idea that Endgame included a five-year (or similar) gap.

 

If Aquaman can perform well outside of China, what (if any) impact does that have on the use of Namor in the MCU? I mentioned that the change in tone of the DCEU character (away from Snyder's dark version) helps the MCU by creating space for him to be distinctive, but could Aquaman do so well as to make Namor seem like a pale imitation? I think it might preclude an Atlantis-based storyline (since so much of Aquaman's action seems tied to that), but it was unlikely that would have been the MCU's approach anyway. I still believe that if he appears it will be as an antagonist in other films--The Fantastic Four perhaps, although it could be elsewhere. I forgot, in my previous piece, to mention that the use of Jason Momoa (rather than a blond-haired, blue-eyed actor ala the comics) makes the anticipated Asian race-swap for Namor slightly less of a selling-point (although the odds of a Caucasian actor were always virtually zero since Marvel has so few prominent Asian characters to put on screen--thus the Shang-Chi film).

Amidst the press for Spider-Man into the Spider-verse was this buried comment from Amy Pascal:

I think about crying [should the Sony-Marvel arrangement end]. I can only hope for a future where things work out. I’ve known Kevin since he was Avi’s very, very quiet assistant, who for many years sat in that room listening to us and being so much smarter than any of us without any of us realizing. I will say that working with Marvel has been one of the highlights of my professional career.

There's nothing surprising about Sony wanting to maintain the arrangement with Marvel. The trick will be that Sony wants their films to be part of the MCU and Feige does not. Sony also needs the MCU more than Marvel needs Spider-Man. The MCU can carry on just fine without Sony's properties--with the Fox IP returning, Tom Holland could fade off into Sony's very chaotic sunset until the company has to crawl back to Marvel. In essence, it's much more difficult for Sony to end the arrangement than it is for Marvel and the loss for Sony would be far larger. The negotiations may drag on for awhile, but I fully expect the arrangement to continue.

Speaking of the animated feature, high critical scores and hype have pushed the opening tracking towards 40 million, but it's still hard to imagine the film making much money. With a 90 million budget (excluding marketing) and Aquaman coming out next week, I have to wonder if Sony will actually put sequels/spinoffs into theaters in the future.

As the sun continues to set on the Marvel Netflix shows (oddly enough the starting point not just for this blog but also for Youtube's Midnight's Edge), we've learned that the deal between the two companies means there is a  two-year waiting period from cancellation before the character's can be used again by Disney. In the grand scheme of things this doesn't matter much, but it does mean no Daredevil until 2020 at the earliest. This may not apply to the Punisher (whose show drops in January), as he was not part of the original framework, but I don't imagine the MCU will ever use him, so that's a moot point.

I just wanted to touch on the ridicule that has been heaped upon both Conrad and his buddy Daniel RPK when some of their loud predictions crashed and burned. Excluding the usual 'mad-on-the-internet' crowd, the vitriol has nothing to do with the duo being wrong, but the fact that they behaved like asshats towards anyone who disagreed with them prior to the trailer. There's no reason for them to act that way and their behaviour is what's made the backlash as strong as it is.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)