Marvel News

Not long after I posted my last article I discovered that Jeremy Conrad's idea about Black Knight appearing in the MCU was taken from a 4chan post (mirrored here). Let's go through its full contents and I'll comment as I go:

"Black Widow begins filming in February. Movie alternates between 16-year old Black Widow in the year 2000 in a storyline revolving around the Y2K bug, and 24-year old Black Widow in the events directly preceding Iron Man 2"

This pairs up with what we've heard about Black Widow (cf), including Omega Underground's contention about when the filming will start (my previous post), without including the debunked storyline THS was flogging in October (the first link). Conrad has been pushing the Y2K narrative consistently (the appeal, if true, is presumably name recognition). What's new here is the suggested lead-in to Iron Man 2. I'm at a loss over why the film will explore two separate periods in the past--presumably one will be the film's 'present' with the other being confined to flashbacks. I'm still holding out hope, probably pointlessly, that it's not going to be a prequel.

"The Eternals will begin shooting later this year. They would originally be introduced in Guardians of the Galaxy 3, but since that's been delayed, they might cameo in Avengers: Endgame. The movie will explore the 'origin' of the MCU and mostly be set thousands of years into the past. Hercules will be part of the cast, and Thanos is expected to appear in some capacity"

This is pretty vague, but matches what's been confirmed about the GotG3 connection and when the filming will start. It also echoes the Hercules speculation that THS had via their casting list back in November. There's nothing new here.

"There are plans to introduce Black Knight in the MCU. The concept would be that he would be trapped in the Quantum Kingdom, a subatomic city first glimpsed in Ant-Man and the Wasp. The Quantum Kingdom would feature people from across time and space who were accidentally pulled into the Quantum Realm, among them Black Knight, who in the comics is a time-displaced Arthurian Knight"

I talked about the possibility of the MCU introducing the Black Knight back in October due to his distinctiveness (there's no other character like him currently in film). The idea of the Quantum Kingdom is an easy way to introduce the character. That angle, trapped in the Quantum Realm, is the most unique idea presented here.

"There are plans to revamp the Avengers franchise post-Endgame with a combination of the comics' New Avengers and Young Avengers. Basically, a team that mixes up established MCU heroes like Doctor Strange, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel with a new generation of teenage/young adult heroes inspired by the original Avengers. The idea is for the project to play up the eclectic cast (wizards, aliens, gadgteers, vigilantes, etc) and the 'culture clash' between the two age groups"

There have been many rumours about a Young Avengers or New Avengers in the future. The idea of mixing old and new is what I suggested not long ago--there must be a bridge between the established and new characters. There's nothing new here however--not even speculation on who would be added, so it's a pretty empty as news.

"There are talks about Dark Avengers, which in the comics is a group of supervillains assembled by Norman Osborn to masquerade as the Avengers to advance Osborn's plans of world domination. There reportedly are plans to introduce Osborn in the MCU as essentially 'evil Tony Stark,' a wealthy entrepreneur and technological genius who uses his intellect and resources for evil, and sponsors and spearheads his own team of villains. He might not even become Green Goblin"

This is wholly or largely borrowed from a THS report back in October, with the only changes being a further explanation of the role Osborn would play (something wholly dependent on a continuing deal with Sony).

There aren't a lot of unique elements other than the Black Knight story, but even it is very slight on substance. Beyond that the only nuance from what we've heard before is the specific connection to Iron Man 2 for Black Widow, and speculation that we might not get a Norman Osborn version of Green Goblin. This is a very thin set of rumours and most of the content seems gleaned from THS articles.

I won't cover every 4chan post. For example, there's a ridiculous but popular one that includes chestnuts like the MCU doesn't know what it's going to do with the X-Men and Fantastic Four--a preposterous assertion, implying that Kevin Feige has done nothing with the years of preparation he's had ahead of the purchase and that, inexplicably, the spec scripts they routinely write for returning characters (like Spider-Man) don't exist in this case.

In reference to THS: I've gone over before how they get legitimate scoops, but their speculation tends to be terrible. We have another example of this fact as two days after posting that they thought it was unlikely that Doctor Strange writer (and Scott Derrickson buddy) C. Robert Cargill would be back for Doctor Strange 2...they confirmed that he would be writing the sequel. It didn't take a genius to figure out that Derrickson would get to keep his writing buddy (as I mentioned back in November).

Mario-Francisco Robles of Revenge of the Fans is claiming he knows that Frigga will appear in Endgame. It's not clear if this is from a source because Robles doesn't specifically say so. What he does say is that he doesn't know the context in which she will appear. Her appearance has been rumoured for a long time (as I covered in my speculation article), based on her stylist posting an image on Instagram in May, 2017, that was tagged for Infinity War (she would have had no idea which film the scenes were for, assuming the post indicates that). Given the certainty of time travel and possibly flashbacks, her appearance wouldn't be a surprise, but take it with a grain of salt, as I'm unfamiliar with Robles.

Disney has made an SEC filing for their acquisition of Fox and according to reports it means the transaction will be completed in June. This means the March estimation by Variety that came out a few weeks ago is wrong (it has been echoed enough to believe the June report). This would put the acquisition back towards the summer closure we heard about this past summer.

I've been thinking about what other characters could be on their way to the MCU. As mentioned above I've gone over this previously (looking at potential X-Men characters as well as those outside the Fox purview). Popularity isn't the only measure, but I thought it might be fun to go over everything not already in the MCU with popularity lists...or rather list, as I found it very difficult to find recent fan voted-ones like this one (most are either editor curated or top-ten lists). Below I've excluded Deadpool characters since there's some evidence they will be folded into the MCU; I've also constrained myself by listing just at the top-50 (to avoid eye-bleeding length; those controlled by Marvel and available right now are in bold; Fox characters are in yellow, and those currently on TV shows are in italics):
2. Wolverine (Fox)
10. Daredevil (Netflix) - available to the MCU in November, 2020
11. Jean Grey (Fox)
12. Storm (Fox)
13. Professor X (Fox)
14. Silver Surfer (Fox)
15. Rogue  (Fox)
16. Punisher (Netflix) - available 2 years after cancellation
17. Cyclops (Fox)
19. Gambit (Fox)
20. Nightcrawler (Fox)
21. Beast (Fox)
23. Iceman (Fox)
26. Ghost Rider (ABC)
29. Human Torch (Fox)
34. Psylocke (Fox)
35. Thing (Fox)
36. Kitty Pryde (Fox)
40. Luke Cage (Netflix) - available to the MCU in October, 2020
41. X-23 (Fox)
43. Moon Knight
45. Blade
47. Iron Fist (Netflix) - available to the MCU in October, 2020
48. (original) Captain Marvel
49. She-Hulk (Universal)

We have to take this list with a grain of salt, but in it we can see both the impact of the MCU (occupying, with Deadpool, eight of the top ten spots), Netflix (four of the top-fifty), along with the general irrelevance of network TV (just one character from ABC and one who, arguably, didn't appear enough to get a boost from it; neither of the Fox shows, The Runaways, or Cloak & Dagger have made a noticeable impact). Two members of the Fantastic Four appear (three if you include Silver Surfer), along with thirteen X-Men characters. There's almost nothing remaining, other than two characters who have been heavily rumoured for shows or movies of their own. The very surprising inclusion of the Mar'Vell version of Captain Marvel is so odd I think it must be some kind of meme. It's also interesting to note how little impact the recent Fox films have had--with all the focus on Mystique she doesn't make the list. This illustrates why the MCU digs deep for characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy or The Eternals--there aren't many popular characters waiting in the wings to be depicted without those acquired from Fox. For the sake of transparency, here's the other already-owned characters in the top-100: Nova (#58), Black Bolt (#59), Namor (#61, Universal), Adam Warlock (#62), Elektra (#63; available November, 2020), Spider-Woman (#66), Red Hulk (#74, Universal), Hercules (#76), Jessica Jones (#78, available two years after cancellation), Beta Ray Bill (#82), Captain Britain (#87), Sentry (#89), Ms. Marvel (#95), Cloak & Dagger (#97), and Wonder Man (#99). All of the names here, except for Red Hulk, have cropped up in MCU rumours and its entirely understandable from the perspective of a pre-Fox purchase world (all of them, with the exception of Mar'Vell, were discussed in my speculation article linked above).

We all expect The Punisher to be cancelled as Netflix moves away from Marvel IP and it appears they are following the same routine they used for all the other cancelled shows: Business Insider puts out an article claiming ratings are down just before (or after) the decision. Their story about Daredevil's drop was subsequently debunked hard and I believe we can infer the same for Iron Fist and Luke Cage--I suspect that, if there's a follow-up on Punisher's viewership, we'll learn it was just fine. These stories are designed to provide justification for the cancellation to obfuscate the very simple truth of corporate competition.

We all remember Jeph Loeb's favourite phrase: "It's all connected." While it has been clear for a long time that the Netflix shows didn't count when it came to that, I think we can safely say the TV-properties controlled by Marvel Entertainment (Agents of SHIELD etc) are also in their own separate little universe. I don't mean that the shows won't reference the MCU, but that it will remain a one-way street other than the Disney+ shows.

The trailers Sony puts out for the Tom Holland Spider-Man films have never been strong and thinking about that made me want to talk about Amy Pascal's impact on the films. A lot of fans forget that while Pascal was demoted after the Sony hacks in 2014 (as well as being forced to apologize for racist comments), she's still in charge of the Spider-Man films at Sony (including the plans for a Sony-based spinoff Silk, which I don't think will ever see the light of day). The arrangement with Marvel is that they pay them make the Spider-Man films (keeping all the profits) in exchange for the MCU using him in their films. Pascal retains a lot of influence over casting (including the push for Holland in the role). How much veto power she actually has I'm not sure, but it leads to a theory I have about the Michelle character.

I believe the push for the "MJ" label is coming from Pascal, who wanted another diverse member in the cast via Peter Parker's usual love interest Mary Jane Watson (switching ethnicity ala Ned Leeds, Liz Allan, and Flash Thompson). I've gone over before how Feige holds the line at switching out core characters in the MCU and my guess is he refused to simply re-cast her--as a compromise he proposed the Michelle character but with that nickname--this gave Pascal her diverse cast without enraging fans of the classic MJ character (from both the comics and the Sam Raimi films). It's just a theory, but I can't think of any other reason why the comicbook character Michelle would suddenly have that iconic Spider-Man appellation.

While in the past we're used to WB making announcements about DC films and then having it fall apart, I think we can take the latest announcements as locked in: June, 2021 for Batman, and August, 2021, for Suicide Squad 2. It seems like, at least for the immediate future, the WB will stick with two comicbook movies a year. How Shazam is going to perform squished between Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame will be interesting to see.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

Back in October it was reported that Katherine Langford would be appearing in Avengers: Endgame, but not what her role would be (whether the report means she was only brought in for re-shoots is unknown, but would make sense if the hair-change is related). Not long after that Jeremy Conrad floated a rumour that she was playing the adult daughter of Iron Man (carrying on the idea Conrad has professed for months that a child of Stark's (originally a baby via his theory) will perish as part of the 'price' paid to defeat Thanos, cf). On the 21st Langford  posted a picture of herself on Instagram with red hair--we have no idea if this look is for the Avengers film, but it has fans in a tizzy echoing Conrad's old rumour. To me, assuming her look is relevant, she could pass for a young Black Widow, but there's no reason for her to play that role (cutting 10 years off Scarlett Johansson's age doesn't require re-casting), so who is she playing? The red hair suggests the connection to Pepper Potts, but this presents all sorts of puzzling issues (Conrad envisions a time jump 20 years into the future where we see her, but as the MCU do you want to waste Langford in a throwaway role?). Even Charlie finds it hard to swallow that this is a Stark daughter from that far in the future.

Let's just briefly go over some Marvel characters it could be if she's neither of the options mentioned above. I brought up Firestar in my Future MCU Character speculation list, but as she's a mutant she's presumably unavailable (there are a lot of redheaded mutants, incidentally); there's also Tigra, but I don't know how that would fit Endgame. Could she be one of the Eternals? If she is, Piper (possibly a female-version of Sprite) or "Karen" seem like the only possibilities, although Longford would be much older than the casting sheet suggests for the former. Medusa would be a possibility if The Inhumans show hadn't bombed so badly. It's really difficult to find viable candidates that Marvel has access too (she's definitely not Mary Jane). It's possible this is a male character who has been gender swapped (see below), but given that Langford is a natural brunette, presumably the colour is an iconic element.

After writing the above Conrad posted the theory that Black Knight (Dane Whitman) might appear in Endgame because he appears in a True Believer comic coming out associated with Endgame [after I posted this I realized Conrad stole this theory from 4chan--I'll get into that in my next post]. This is a very weak reason, because these comics are simply reprints of stories associated with the movie (Black Knight did make my list on potential characters for the MCU, as you can read in my speculation article), but I bring it up because it reminds me of a theory I had about Langford above: could she be a female version of Black Knight? There's only one such that I can find (the little known member of the Masters of Evil), but red hair has never really been a thing for the character. I'd take the idea with a large grain of salt (both mine and Conrad's), as it's far more likely Langford (if she's playing a long term character) is meant to link to The Eternals.

In addition to the above there were more toy leaks (cf) and this brings us back to my discussion in December about the five-year gap (or whatever gap you want between Infinity War and Endgame). At the time the only bit of solid evidence to justify the persistent rumours was Black Widow's hair, but in the trailer we saw her with the same hairdo as at the end of Infinity War. However, in leaked toys her action figure has the longer hair, so has Marvel digitally removed her longer look for the trailer (ala Thor's eye in Infinity War and Ragnarok)? Or will the movie see her transition from the short blond hair to longer red? It's not something I have a good answer for yet.

Speaking of Endgame, we can put to bed the rumour that Rocket will rescue Tony Stark in space (which I dissmissed a couple of weeks ago as very unlikely), because gameplay footage of "Rocket's Rescue Run" has now been shown and he's seen piloting the Benatar, not rescuing Tony from it.

THS posted a follow-up to their speculation ripped from 4chan in May that Jessica Drew would appear in Far From Home. They indicate that the plan was scrapped in favour of using Nick Fury and Maria Hill, suggesting that if the rumour was valid that the idea was scrapped fairly early in the process.

We've had our first significant Black Widow news since November, as Caleb Williams (of Omega Underground) is reporting that the movie will begin filming February 28th (giving it plenty of time before the expected May-release). THS, via the link above, does not believe this and is sticking with a start date of March 25th--this is all pretty trivial, as the difference of four weeks isn't that significant. THS, incidentally, is sticking to the film being a prequel which, as I've said repeatedly, would deflate some of my excitement for it (loss of stakes being the major issue).

Heroic Hollywood is reporting a rumour that Fox is considering either another delay for New Mutants or simply releasing the film as-is on Hulu. If this is true it's not surprising, as back in October the reshoots announced in January (2018) for the film still hadn't happened. In the grand scheme of things Fox's plans for the film are irrelevant, as Disney will control its fate in a couple of months and burying the film on Hulu is certainly a possibility (if not shelving it altogether). This point of decision applies equally to Dark Phoenix, although most reports tend to gloss over the fact and continue pushing the narrative that it will hit screens this summer.

Speaking of Dark Phoenix, we have further confirmation that the final outing of the Singer-verse X-Men is a disaster. John Campea, a man who drifts whichever way the industry winds push him, is echoing the growing insider opinions (eg Jason Inman back in May) that the movie is a "disaster"--something anyone who saw Apocalypse isn't surprised by (Robert Meyer Burnett, who is far more connected to this, mentions, via the link, that the film is basically X-Men: The Last Stand again--given who was creatively in control this is as expected). Not that more reason was needed, but this certainly adds impetus for to Disney will kill the film when they take control of it to protect the brand from further degradation (as I go over here).

The Hollywood Reporter gave us these comments from Toby Emmerich (WB's film chief):

We all feel like we've turned a corner now. We're playing by the DC playbook, which is very different than the Marvel playbook. We are far less focused on a shared universe. We take it one movie at a time. Each movie is its own equation and own creative entity. If you had to say one thing about us, it's that it always has to be about the directors.

On the surface this is Emmerich (and WB) waving the white flag of surrender and giving up on competing with the MCU's shared universe. It's an odd choice if they stick to it (which I doubt); the genius of a shared universe is that it boosts all properties (rising tides raise all ships), whereas the traditional approach means films can only support their own particular IP. The reason I'm including qualifiers to the statement is twofold: they are 'less focused' (which means what exactly?--are they are mildly focused?), and his final statement: 'it always has to be about the directors.' That chestnut is WB verbal diarrhea and is manifestly not true for the DCEU films ever since Man of Steel: from executive interference with Zack Snyder's Batman V Superman, the massive changes made to David Ayer's Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman reportedly saved via reshoots and editing (cf with a lot of help from Jon Berg and Geoff Johns), the well-reported changes to Justice League, and finally all the work done on Aquaman (again from Berg and Johns). So what is really being said here?

What it means, I think, is that Emmerich can't hope to make sense of the current DCEU slate of films (the present or immediate future). He lives in a world with two Joker's and soon to be two Batmen, with apparently no attempt at explaining that. It's an impossible mess that includes incoherent character portrayals even within canon (as with Aquaman, for example). What Emmerich achieves by saying it's not connected is that he's freed from these concerns--nothing needs to make sense--but this is a short term solution (one Marvel's Netflix shows started to move towards, much to their detriment). In a perfect world the WB would simply reboot the entire universe--start from scratch with Matt Reaves' Batman film, James Gunn's Suicide Squad, etc, but because Wonder Woman and Aquaman were successful they remain as holdovers from Snyder's DC, making a reboot impractical (I realize for DC fans this could easily be explained with Elsewhere stories, but that's apparently too inside baseball for casual moviegoers and, perhaps, WB exec's). I think this approach ensures WB's profits will ultimately remain lower than Disney's over time and sooner or later someone at WB will wonder why their comic properties aren't competing and demand an approach that does.

An observation related to this: I think the unexpected success of both Sony's Venom and WB's Aquaman (films that didn't review well) is related to the appetite the MCU has created for comicbook movies. Fans want more of them, but due to scheduling Marvel had no films in theaters for seven months. I suspect in the future (by 2021) that kind of gap won't exist anymore (even though we get an even larger one in 2019, stretching for nine months until Black Widow in 2020).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

With the film just three months away reshoots are occurring, something I find a bit surprising given that previous reshoots ending in October were thought to wrap the film. We know Nebula and Gamora are involved because both actresses Tweeted about it, so whatever is occurring clearly impacts The Guardians of the Galaxy. I very much doubt this will touch on either the Fox IP (legally Disney still can't use them) or next year's upcoming films (Black Widow etc), so presumably these are pickups the Russo's want either to fix scenes that didn't work or add ones they think are needed.

Charles Murphy from THS claims that the tentative 2022 slate for the MCU is Captain Marvel 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and a completely new IP (he doesn't speculate on what it is). Interestingly, he has a question mark next to Shang-Chi appearing in 2021--I'm not sure if that's doubt the film will appear at all or simply doubt about when. I've been expecting new IP in the 2022 slot since we were told the release dates back in March, but this reminds me I haven't posted a revised release list since July, so let's update that (with official information in brackets):

2020
May - Black Widow (writer added in January, 2018, director in July; filming expected later this year)
July - Date cancelled; originally Guardians of the Galaxy 3
November - The Eternals (writer added in May, director in September)

2021
February - Black Panther 2 (writer/director re-signed in October)
May - Doctor Strange 2 (director re-signed in December; filming expected in 2020)
[July - Spider-Man 3 assuming Sony follows it's previous release pattern]
November - (Shang-Chi (writer added in December; film being 'fast-tracked'))

2022
February - Captain Marvel 2 (release date fits)
May - Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (script in place; filming delayed to February, 2021)
July - Thor 4 (confirmed it will happen at some point, but nothing is known beyond that)

A sequel for Captain Marvel is expected, assuming her film is successful (I have no idea what the bar for that is now--the Ant-Man franchise is the current litmus test for either what is or isn't acceptable box office). There's nothing here for the Fox IP and we know that X-Men and Fantastic Four films will be coming. I believe their eventual dates will be new adds to the current list, such that the MCU will be putting out four films a year (the additional capacity of Fox's infrastructure makes this simple enough to do). I mentioned in my X-Men article that the fastest we could see such a film would be 2020, but that seems a bit too ambitious with the sale ending in March (the usual turn around for a film is 18-months), so 2021 is more likely. This brings me to my theory that Shang-Chi could simply be a placeholder (back in December I went through all the problems of making such a film)--something to fill the gap until they can announce a fourth Thor or what have you. Another possibility is that the MCU squeezes Shang-Chi into 2020 (of all the films in development it's ostensibly the simplest and cheapest to produce). I've included the third Spider-Man film assuming the deal with Sony is re-signed (until it is it won't appear on the schedule).

Let's also briefly go over what's not here: Ant-Man. Following the three-year cycle of that film there should be a third film in 2021, but it's not something anyone is predicting. I mentioned after Ant-Man and the Wasp came in at a very modest profit that it likely meant an end to that franchise--Disney (and Marvel) expect more now. At the time I wondered if Disney+ would be a place to finish the trilogy, but the films are just too effects heavy for that. The only thing that might change its status is if Ant-Man gets a big boost from Endgame, but the series has a very old cast (Paul Rudd turns 50 this year), so I'm not sure how long you can really wait on doing another film for he and his costars. There's also no new Iron Man (no surprise), Incredible Hulk (impossible given Universal's involvement), Captain America (hinging on Evans continued interest presumably), or a fifth Avengers film (although we should expect one within the next 3-5 years). If my speculation that Shang-Chi is a placeholder is correct perhaps we'll see Thor 4 in its theoretical place and then Avengers 5 where I've slotted Thor.

4chan rumours posted on the 12th about Disney streaming have made the rounds and virtually everyone has commented on them now (including Conrad, whose summaries are terrible)--you can find the original leak mirrored here and I thought I'd go through it:

Loki meets the Norns after his death in Avengers: Infinity War and must persuade them to spare his soul from Hel. Tom Hiddleston will appear in bookend scenes and narrate throughout, but the blunt of the story is about Loki’s youth and the events that led him down the path of evil, with a new actor playing young Loki. One name that has been frequently brought up is Fionn Whitehead from Dunkirk and Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. We will also see young Thor, and Rene Russo will have a big role as their mother Frigga. Odin will be away on a mission for most of the story, and the few times he appears, his face will be obscured, with Anthony Hopkins ADR-ing the dialogue. The sorceress Karnilla and the barbarian Ulik will be the main antagonists.

This comes just two days after the vaguer THS rumour whose specific was (as I pointed out) simply that Hiddleston would narrate the show (the Young Loki idea is from THS themselves). Whether either is true requires more evidence than this, but personally I'm not a fan of prequels (as I've said innumerable times before), so it does not bode well if true.

Vision is reborn in Avengers: Endgame and reunites with Scarlet Witch. They attempt to lead normal lives in the suburbs of New York, but Vision is no longer connected to the Mind Stone and is therefore cold and emotionless. Scarlet Witch attempts to use her powers, which are connected to the Mind Stone, to restore Vision’s “soul”, with disastrous results. This project has been described as a “psychological thriller”, light on action and heavy on atmosphere, and exploring the lead characters’ personal issues. Vision will be in human form for most of it and become the antagonist, as Scarlet Witch slowly realizes she accidentally allowed a dark spirit to possess him. Agatha Harkness will be featured as a mysterious figure attempting to reveal to Scarlet Witch secrets of her past, and there will be a subplot about the public’s backlash against human/machine relations once the true nature of Vision and Scarlet Witch’s relationship is revealed. High-caliber actresses like Frances Conroy, Vanessa Redgrave and Dianne West have already been approached for Harkness.

We learned that Vision would appear with Scalett Witch back in October via Peter Sciretta, but no news about the show has come out since. This premise would certainly cut costs considerably, making it viable to put on the streaming service (skipping Vision's makeup helps quite a bit). It's an incredibly odd storyline however and one that, on its surface, doesn't appeal to me. It's interesting that both Kevin Feige and Marvel Entertainment's Jeff Loeb have made a point of casting well-known actresses whose career opportunities have begun to fade with age (Sigourney Weaver, Annette Bening, Marisa Tomei, Janet McTeer, etc)--I'm not sure if that's part of a larger trend in the industry or not. Jac Schaeffer was announced as the showrunner earlier this month.

Falcon & The Winter Soldier will be deeply ingrained in the events of Phase 4, and features Falcon and Winter Soldier being recruited by SHIELD to prevent anarchist group Ultimatum from enforcing a secret plan developed by Hydra to destroy the United Nations. The duo must also deal with John Walker [aka U.S. Agent], a soldier recruited by the U.S. government to become the new Captain America, who slowly goes insane and becomes a threat. The project is described as a “spy thriller” with lots of twists and turns, and it relies heavily on Falcon and Bucky’s dynamic, in the same vein as Lethal Weapon or 48 Hours. Emily VanCamp's Sharon Carter will be the team’s contact with SHIELD, and Samuel L. Jackson will make appearances as Nick Fury. William Hurt is also in talks to appear as Secretary Thaddeus Ross.

News about this show also came out in October from Sciretta (link above), at which time Malcolm Spellman was named the showrunner. Since then we've heard nothing, but if this rumour is true it certainly increases my excitement for it (which was already the highest among all the announced MCU shows). The atomic bomb within this blurb is "the new Captain America," which could imply the death of the character (or it could simply mean Cap has retired).

Early development. Pitched as a “caper” about Hawkeye coming out of retirement to help aspiring vigilante Kate Bishop after she gets in trouble with the organized crime while using his name. Hawkeye’s family would be heavily featured, and Linda Cardellini is willing to return, but Jeremy Renner is still studying his options. The Hood would be the main antagonist, with Trickshot as his enforcer.

This echoes Conrad's rumour in November (which echoed his own sloppy speculation from June). For the most part I like the idea, although it's exasperating to have to deal with Hawkeye's derpy family (maybe the Russo's can fix them). Getting Jeremy Renner to commit might be a stretch (how much I'm not sure--fellow Avenger Chris Evans is doing a Netflix show with Tom Holland after all).

Early development. Pitched as a “sidequel” about Lady Sif’s journey across the Nine Realms after being betrayed and exiled by Loki masquerading as Odin. Beta Ray Bill would be featured as one of Lady Sif’s companions in her journey, and the Enchantress would be the main antagonist. Jamie Alexander is willing to return, but they are still figuring out a schedule that doesn’t conflict with her TV show Blindspot.

This echoes a rumour from Discussing Film that came out the same day. As I mentioned when discussing that rumour, I don't think Blindspot will be around to interfere (because of its declining ratings), but what makes me pause in regards to this rumour is the inclusion of Beta Ray Bill--would they use that iconic character on the streaming service? The argument for it is that Sif by herself isn't much of a draw, so perhaps Bill is serving as additional oomph to bring people in, but he could be too inside baseball. Regardless of how realistic it is, I like the premise.

Early development. Pitched as a “sci-fi thriller” about Colonel James Rhodes pushing the boundaries of his own humanity as he investigates the theft of Stark Industries’ technologies and uncovers a conspiracy masterminded by an elusive organization that is providing criminals and terrorists with cybernetic enhancements. Envisioned as a “deep dive” into War Machine’s often overlooked lore, introducing his sister Jeanette Rhodes, girlfriend Glenda Sandoval, and friends Suzi Endo and Jake Oh, with Parnell Jacobs and Stewart Clarke as villains. Limiting factors are the budget and Don Cheadle’s schedule.

There have been no rumours about this elsewhere and as-mentioned War Machine is an effects-intensive character. Cheadle's availability is no joke either, although the soon-to-be 55-year old actor likely has the time if he wants too. I'd find this more interesting than either the Loki-prequel or the Scarlet Witch show, admittedly, but I'm not sure many others would.

These [the above] are the six projects in active development, but several other ideas are being discussed, like spin-offs about Rocket & Groot, Agent 13 (aka Sharon Carter), Nebula and Okoye; prequels about Hank Pym and the Ravagers, and even new properties unlikely to get feature movies, like Moon Knight and The Sentry. There will probably be several X-Men projects once the rights fully revert later this year.

We heard rumours about Rocket and Groot from THS back in November, but as I pointed out then this would be enormously expensive to do, so I doubt Disney will go for it (unless it's animated). The other shows have not come up in rumours related to streaming. I think we can quickly delete most of these from consideration (and keep in mind this wouldn't be Stallone playing a Ravager on TV, but someone recast for the prequel version), although perhaps the long rumoured Moon Knight show will eventually come out of this.

Conrad believes all the above is based on information a year old, but provides no reasoning for that. Is any of this true? It's really hard to say, but it's certainly plausible, as most of the detailed descriptions include the underlying need to cut costs to make them feasible. There's an overall emphasis on capers and thrillers and psychodramas, which are well suited to the format. It's also clear that many of these ideas are early in development and subject to change (and deletion). Only the first three are on track to appear for certain.

Christian Bone from We Got This Covered (someone and something I've never heard of) is floating this rumour:

Sources [...] have confirmed that a New Avengers movie is in the early stages of development over at Marvel. Despite the title, the line-up being touted for the film is the group known as the Young Avengers in the comics – the next generation of heroes. Specifically, we’ve been informed that the rejuvenated roster will be made up of Kate Bishop’s Hawkeye, Hulkling, Iron Lad, Patriot, Wiccan, Stature and Vision (not Paul Bettany’s version).

This is the initial lineup of the 2005 comic minus Speed (the second version included Kid Loki, who is part of the rumours about the Loki show above, as well as America Chavez, who ticks off representation boxes--cf my future MCU characters article). This speculation isn't new, as ever since the Emma Fuhrman casting rumour dropped (back in April) many have wondered if some version of that group would appear (even Charlie). There are, however, a number of problems with the way this idea gets presented:

• There's a presumption of the mass death of the original Avengers

As I've gone over before (for example) there's no real evidence for this (Kevin Feige has gone out of his way to indirectly say it's not all about death, unlike how Infinity War was promoted). Up until this December all the death talk was focused on Captain America due to Chris Evans' contract situation (as if an actor who has been in four--soon to be five--billion dollar movies can't be negotiated with); in December everyone jumped on board my speculation that Iron Man might die and there's at least some evidence for that (his absence in Spider-Man: Far From Home; the Russo's saying his armour in Infinity War is the best he'll ever make, implying he won't be around to make another; it would make sense of the sentiment in Age of Ultron when he dreams that all the Avengers die except him; he would gain the Uncle Ben pathos for Spider-Man; Robert Downey Jr will be 54 in 2019 and has been doing this longer than anyone; finally, even if he physically dies he could survive as an AI, much as he's done in the comics). I'm not saying I think he definitely dies, but in terms of evidence, Iron Man is the only character we have some for. Beyond that, we already know (from announced movies and shows) that Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye survive the film--if half the Avengers are going to live the idea of some sort of glorious fatal end for them falls apart.

• The underlying idea that the next Avengers film will feature an all-new roster

This is preposterous to me, and no, Nick Fury does not count as enough of 'the old' guard to bridge the gap between Avengers films. Captain Marvel and Black Panther are going to be Avengers, certainly, but neither of them is yet and for Panther he can't be until a fifth film at best. The MCU will absolutely have OG Avengers carry the torch over to the next team film and I think that will include at least one of the heavyweights (Cap or Tony).

• The belief that the team will have the same lineup as the original comic

The MCU has had no problem creating their own interpretations of the source material and I have no idea how you'd have a Vision character who isn't Vision when the original is still around in his own TV-show. It just doesn't track as described.

Will we get a Young Avengers or New Avengers? Just the latter, I believe, although it will contain the flavour of the former. When I see the Young Avengers discussed (I haven't read the comics) they sound like a CW show--kid-versions of adult characters going through young adult problems. This can make excellent TV-fodder, but seems rather pointless to do on film when you have far richer material from the X-Men that covers that territory.

I wondered previously if the animated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse would turn a profit and we're definitely beyond that point as the film creeps past 300 million. Interestingly, most of the success is from the domestic box office (unlike Aquaman whose success is largely driven by the foreign market, especially China). So the film will not only break even, but make a modest profit for Sony: is that enough for sequels on screens? It hasn't cracked the top-fifty all-time animated list and has no hope of catching The Grinch (which came out before it), but the critical praise might be enough for executives. If a sequel does hit theaters I have to believe it will be for a much lower budget.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)