Some people are claiming Audi has spoiled the rescue of Tony Stark by announcing a virtual experience called "Marvel’s Avengers: Rocket’s Rescue Run." Does this spoil how he's saved? It's possible, but even if Rocket does rescue someone, there's no guarantee that it's Tony. The problem Rocket would have in making the rescue is that he lacks a ship--he came via Thor and the Bifrost. I don't think finding the Benatar itself is much of a problem (he can probably track it). Clearly he could make a ship, but doing so in time to save Tony seems unlikely.
Kevin Feige has vaguely confirmed that the clips shown in the trailer are from earlier in the film (he was asked if it was the first 15 minutes; Jeremy Conrad--the link--argues it's from the first half hour).
A 4chan post that was quickly deleted is making the rounds--the poster claims to be working on the VFX for Avengers: Endgame and this is what he claims about the movie:
- Hawkeye's daughter is the only one who was Snapped and this creates a rift with his wife so he becomes a mercenary and it is in that capacity that he's fighting the Yakuza
- Nebula will have a significant role (something hinted at in other leaks)
- Marvel has contingencies to include Easter Eggs for the Fox properties (but just that--hints--this is the most I'd expect, as I've mentioned before, but given the time frame below I don't see how its possible)
- Mjolnir will return and be wielded by both Thor and Captain America (there have been a number of rumours about the latter, although this is scarcely surprising given that Cap does that in the source material)
- Vision returns, but in a regressed state (like his personality from Age of Ultron)
- There are 'wish-fulfillment' scenarios depicted, mostly in epilogue form: the founding of New Asgard, the wedding of Tony and Pepper, Wanda and Vision rebuilding their relationship, T'Challa crowned again (the first two have been hinted elsewhere); this is oddly phrased, because 'wish-fulfillment' implies it's not real, but 'epilogue' implies it's how the movie ends, so...not sure exactly what's meant here
- Seeds are planted for future Doctor Strange and Ant-Man movies
- Tony's arc heavily mirrors the first Iron Man
- Peter Quill does not return to Earth (I find this an odd thing to note)
- The Stones are not destroyed, but scattered and given to those who can protect them (something that echoes the source material)
- The film is more character-driven--fewer big epic battles
- Time travel will be used as a tool to circumvent resurrection, but without heavy continuity impacts like in Back to the Future
We all remember the speculation and debate over what the title of the fourth Avengers film would be prior to the official reveal. When Conrad, who'd claimed it was Annihilation, received an indirect slap in the face from Kevin Feige, who revealed the title was in place as they were developing the film (so back in 2016). This means Conrad's explanation of constantly shifting titles is simply mistaken.
After the toy leak suggesting Jude Law was playing Mar-Vell it's been clarified by Marvel that he is, indeed, Yon-Rogg. The second trailer dropped for the film as well; this one (just like the first full trailer) continues to try to explain the plot, but clearly Marvel is responding to the complaints from the initial teaser that Captain Marvel seemed humourless, because there's an increased focus on the humour of the film. I'm still getting used to Brie Larson's voice--I think in context (the movie) it will be fine.
There's been another purported leak about Spider-Man: Far From Home that echoes some things we've heard before, so let's go through it:
- Tony Stark is dead
- Four elemental enemies (sand, water, stone, and lava)
- Mysterio is the main villain
- Chameleon is the secondary villain
- Peter spends most of his time in a SHIELD stealth suit
- Final fight is between Peter and Mysterio
- Leading into the final fight Mysterio beats Spider-Man and compromises SHIELD
- Relationship between Peter and Nick Fury a focus
- Mysterio uses Chitauri tech; Peter has to ask Vulture for help to find him
- No helicarrier
- Peter is depressed and doesn't want to be Spider-Man anymore, but realizes being an Avenger is always about 'rebuilding' himself like Tony did
- Movie ends with Peter and Michelle in a relationship
- There's a love triangle prior to this involving Alistair Smythe (as well as a love triangle between Flash, Ned, and Betty)
- Aunt May and Happy are dating
- Speculation that Tony dies in Avengers: Endgame is something I predicted back in March and rumours to that effect did the rounds in December; how does it jive with a wedding between he and Pepper (above)? It doesn't--there's still no clear clue which rumour is true
- We know the elemental villains are involved due to descriptions from the trailer shown at CCXP; I noted last time that Charlie had referred to the 'sand' elemental as 'Earth' and, speculating that such a designation made more sense, that 'lava' is more likely Fire. Regardless, there's been more than enough evidence to support the existence of these elemental enemies (two of them, Hydro Man and Molten Man, have been confirmed through toy leaks)
- Mysterio's role was confirmed long ago
- We've heard nothing about the Chameleon since his casting was announced back in July, but this leak would imply more than simply a cameo
- Set pictures of Tom Holland in the SHIELD suit are around, but how much time he spends in it isn't something I'd heard before
- Both the final fight and the prelude seem pretty obvious (and matches the pattern of the first Spider-Man film vs the Vulture)
- Peter's reluctance makes sense out of the CCXP descriptions that mention Fury having to recruit him--if he was an active Avenger, there would presumably be no need for recruitment. It's also a change for him, as up until now he's always been an enthusiastic Spider-Man.
- Love triangles are the cliche of cliches for anything teen-oriented; Smythe is someone we heard about via a 4chan rumour back in May (no one else has mentioned this, lending at least some credence to that post)
- Happy and Aunt May was officially confirmed (can't remember if it was prior to CCXP or during).
THS is reporting a rumour that the Loki TV show will focus on Kid Loki (a version of the character I'm unfamiliar with, but is apparently popular in the comics). Or are they? That's how those reporting on the report are relaying it, but let's look at the actual words of the report:
While I was unable to confirm it with a second source, I was told that Marvel Studios might be taking an interesting approach to their Loki series. It’s been reported that Tom Hiddleston will return to reprise the role of Loki, but it seems that the series may find him narrating the events of his own life, presumably from the afterlife (Valhalla) following his death at the hands of Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War. This opens up all sorts of story-telling possibilities and is consistent with the original reporting on the show which indicated it could take place at any time during Loki’s considerably long life.
Fans of the comics will know that Loki has died and come back to life many times in many different forms, among them Kid Loki who interacted with the Young Avengers. Should the studio cast a younger actor or two in the role, it certainly does not preclude Hiddleston from doing more than narrating. Who knows what the God of Mischief has up his sleeve?
Let's be clear: the rumour is Hiddleston narrating the show. That's it--and it's a rumour from just one source. All the rest is speculation. It certainly sounds like a Disney move (not a positive in my book), but I'll reserve judgement until we see it. I would not be surprised if Hiddleston is simply a narrator however, as taking the time to shoot an eight-episode TV show is likely not what he wants to do at this stage of his career.
Discussing Film, a site I've never heard of, is claiming the Disney streaming service is going to launch a Lady Sif show. Jaime Alexander is currently committed to Blindspot on NBC, but ratings for the fourth season are horrible so she could be available. Regardless, I'd treat this as speculation until we've heard more about it.
After posting my previous article a lengthy interview with Kevin Feige dropped where he said the following:
We’ve been told it’s [the purchase of Fox] looking very, very good and could happen in the first six months of next year. The notion of the characters coming back is great. It’s nice when a company that created all these characters can have access to all those characters. It’s unusual not to. But in terms of actually thinking about it and actually planning things, we haven’t started that yet.Somehow this bred articles claiming that Feige said they would be working on films for these characters within the next six months. This is obviously false, but I do take issue with another idea that's come up about this statement: that there will be a long delay in working on these properties once they are re-acquired--this is simply absurd. Disney spent a fortune to acquire the IP; we know the MCU has spec scripts for this eventuality (just as they did for Spider-Man), and I expect work to commence on them the moment the sale is finalized (I covered this in my X-Men Speculation article back in October). We'll see some of these characters in 2021 (if not 2020).
Since the above came out Variety reports the deal is expected to be finalized in March, which fits the parameters Feige mentions above.
Something I want to point out about the Netflix properties as they sail into the sunset: a year ago Ted Sarandos said they owned the IP--we now know that's not true. Netflix was licensing the properties, not purchasing them--those are two very different things. It's one of the reasons the cost of producing the shows was high (paying fees to Marvel for rights).
A stray thought I had in the aftermath of Aquaman: One of the bizarre consistencies of all the DCEU films is that they feature weak plots--this has come from a diverse group of writers and directors and isn't derived from the source material. Presumably at the corporate level no one thinks its important. Just to briefly go over just some of the issues at hand:
1) Superman can't think of any other way to defeat Zod other than killing him
2) Lex Luthor: what is his motivation? How does his plan mesh with his complaint about Superman?
3) The premise of Suicide Squad (how are any of its members supposed to tackle a Superman-level threat?)
4) Wonder Woman was persuaded to come out of hiding to help with WWI, but doesn't have a problem with WW2?
5) Not much about Aquaman makes sense, but let's start with the trident that his brother doesn't believe in: there's a pile of Atlantean bodies who have tried to retrieve it, statues with the guy holding it, etc, so where does his doubt come from? A more fun one is the renaissance statue in Italy used by a guy who died thousands of years earlier
I don't have a theory attached to this--it's not like there's an intent to have bad plots (and Wonder Woman's isn't as badly mangled as the others), but it is odd how consistently mediocre-to-bad the writing of the films has been.
This is slightly tangential from my usual focus, but there was an interesting expose last month that explored Internet metrics. It's apparent that many of the numbers (views etc) are faked--either through bots or by providers themselves. This kind of thing, on a small scale, is something I think is common knowledge, but knowing that on a macro scale this is happening means we have to take raw numbers with a large grain of salt. The article is worth reading in its entirety.
This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)
No comments:
Post a Comment