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)