Marvel News

Kevin Feige gave an exclusive interview to CBR which they've inconveniently chopped up into pieces. In one of these he said a couple of things which various folk have happily misinterpreted, so let's hear from the man himself:

We've always said there are no mandates to make any more than two films a year. But, as we've seen the last couple years, when it naturally happens, and when there are ideas and when there are teams ready to go, we're not going to hold something back. I don't think we'll be announcing [the next slate of films for] five or six years, but we know sort of where we want to head in the next five or six years.

I've seen people take this as Feige "confirming" three films a year (!)--Charlie among them (link far down below). All Feige actually says here is that they know what they want to do over the next 5-6 years (which is exactly what you'd expect and refutes those suggesting Feige doesn't know what he wants to do with the X-Men and Fantastic Four). I think he's said a mandate of two films because the MCU will only have two films in 2020 (due to the shifting date of Guardians of the Galaxy 3). It's still my belief that we'll be getting four films a year subsequently (2021 onward), as I've gone over previously.

We were told back in 2017 that the title of the fourth Avengers film would be a spoiler and was thus being kept under wraps, but when we got the reveal that didn't seem to be the case. Collider asked Feige about this and here's his explanation:

Well, I think I’d said that it all had gotten blown out of proportion to some extent. But it was a spoiler, because if you knew before Infinity War came out that the next movie was called Endgame, then you know that there wasn’t an ending to Infinity War. But that had been the title of the movie from the moment we conceived of doing the two films. In large part, because…it’s seeded right there. I mean, it’s seeded in Ultron.

This does make sense, although it's not the kind of spoiler fans fixate on or were expecting.

One of the more puzzling rumours floating around about the Black Widow movie was that it would be R-rated. I've seen it repeated in many places, but Feige has now denied it saying it was never a consideration. I'm not sure why this rumour was given credence; with such an established character (her own movie will be her eighth major appearance in the MCU), it would have been very odd to suddenly switch her from PG-13 to R. For branding reasons it's very difficult to go from kid-friendly to adult (the other way around is easier).

Charlie is beating the drums for the death of Captain America again (flared up, I think, from various 4chan and Reddit rumours), and while it's nothing new (eg) I wanted to review his reasoning:
1. Chris Evans has (for years) expressed that his time as Captain America isn't forever and that he wants to do other things (to Charlie this isn't simply a contract negotiating tactic, but a genuine expression from Evans that he can'd both be Cap and do other things)
2. Contracts for the original Avengers actors (minus Scarlett Johansson) are up--this has happened before, but because of #1 Charlie thinks Evans won't re-sign (except perhaps for cameos and flashbacks)

3. For narrative verisimilitude some (or at least one) of the original Avengers are going to die and he believes this needs to include one of the two heavies (Iron Man or Cap); it's worth noting these two characters hit hardest at the box office (RDJ has five straight billion+ films where he's a lead; Evans has three)

4. We know Pepper Potts survives Endgame; the thinking is that therefore Tony Stark survives to pay off the talk of them having children in Infinity War

5. If Tony lives, Cap dies

This relies on a lot of assumptions. On a narrative level both characters have already been willing to sacrifice themselves for others (Cap in his first movie, Tony in The Avengers; Cap has been willing to do so in all his films), so doing the same thing here isn't growth for their characters--it's simply expected. I'm not sure the Russo's want to go down that path, even if the death of either would be a huge emotional blow. We have to remember that this movie is the Return of the King for the MCU, a film in which none of the heroes perish (Boromir is the only member of the fellowship to die, and he does that in the first book/film); Kevin Feige has also downplayed death as the key element, something he wouldn't do if audiences were about to be punched in the gut). The Russo's have also said Cap isn't done, granting that this could be to hide the fact that he dies (they've already lied about the film's title, so they remain unreliable sources). My opinion is that if either of the big two was going to die it would be Iron Man (as I said back in April), making him the alpha and the omega of the MCU through it's first ten years, but it's entirely possible both survive. Logistically Hulk is the easiest to kill--a big character, but one they don't fully own and Ruffalo will turn 52 this year--food for thought.

Speaking of Endgame there's yet another 4chan post I want to look at briefly:

The first act of the movie shows a parallel between Thanos and Avengers and how they cope with the decimation. Cap goes to those group therapy sessions, Natasha follows a lead on Clint, Thor and Rocket go on a quest to find Thanos which really doesn't lead nowhere. War Machine stays in the Avenger HQ doing some work on his suit, later on he is one of those who recieves [sp] Ant Man at HQ. There is a scene with citizens protesting. [The] Gamora sacrifice took a toll on Thanos, and later on when he finds about the Avengers plans he reaches his breaking point.
A4 draws a lot of inspiration from LOTR3 [Return of the King], especially with the Thor/Rocket/Valkyrie assembling an army plot (Rocket and Valkyrie constantly need to calm down Thor who is instable [sp]). There is an epic training montage with that final walk from the TV spot. The snap also took a toll physically on Thanos [and] that's why he uses his armor There are several Outriders atacks [sp]. HEAVY FOCUS on the relationship between tony and steve.
Tv Spot scene where Caps straps his shield [on] is when he delivers a speech straight from the comics. Cap Marvel "action" scene where [sp] mostly filmed on [sp] reeshots, [because] they wanted to have an idea from the directors from her own movie [how to use her]. There is a scene where Iron Man and War Machine combine both armors to form some type of cannon.
Hawkeye has a scene where he has to protect at all cost the Stark Gauntlet and secure the entry of the Quantum Realm.
No word on most of the Third act. The only thing I know from it is a scene which combines a funeral and a memorial which has a Stan Lee speech on what defines a hero

Much of the above borrows from the trailers and various heavily repeated theories, so let's focus on what's not usually said: Thanos needing to cope with the Snap on an emotional level; Thor and Rocket on a quest (the idea is long rumoured, but not what quest--it would certainly explain Thor's absence at the Avengers facility in the teasers). The post is pretty conservative in saying all the above happens before the third act, but it's hard to imagine how the poster knows the first two acts but not the third. Given how heavily reliant on other well-known theories it is I think we have to dismiss it as yet more speculation.

Conrad has posted a rumour that he believes he knows the identity of "Karen" from the THS casting list from back in November. Conrad thinks she's archaeologist Margo Damien from the first issue of the Jack Kirby original, which would make her the 'Everyman' character for the audience being introduced to these powerful, ancient beings. It's important to note that Conrad is speculating--he doesn't cite an inside source, simply a comicbook reference, but it's more speculation than anyone else has put out as yet.

One of the last remaining roadblocks to the Disney purchase of Fox has been removed as they've agreed to sell Fox assets in Brazil and Mexico to gain regulatory approval. Since that announcement a closing date of mid-March has been bandied about, but it's not clear to me if that date is specifically related to Brazil or the sale as whole (if it's the latter, then the end date would match Variety's report back on January and be in plenty of time for easter eggs in Endgame).

In a follow-up to my previous post there's been another video from Andre about the topic after Brie Larson gave an interview where she said of course the film was meant for everyone. This kind of response is completely unlike how Sony (Ghostbusters), Lucasfilm (Star Wars), and CBS (Star Trek) have reacted to these 'controversies'. It's exactly what I expected (and predicted) from the MCU and it puts those making a fuss in a bit of a bind. Andre is stretching when he suggests this is damage control from Disney due to declining box office interest (he admits he has no good evidence for this and subsequently Forbes speculated it might open at 150 million, which is a huge increase from the previous number). My opinion is what I expressed previously, which is that Marvel has no intention of getting into fights with fans and wants the film to speak for itself.

The review bombing of the film has caused Rotten Tomatoes to change a couple of it's features:

We will no longer show the ‘Want to See’ percentage score for a movie during its pre-release period. Why you might ask?  We’ve found that the ‘Want to See’ percentage score is often times confused with the ‘Audience Score’ percentage number. ... We are disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date. Unfortunately, we have seen an uptick in non-constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling, which we believe is a disservice to our general readership. We have decided that turning off this feature for now is the best course of action. Don’t worry though, fans will still get to have their say: Once a movie is released, audiences can leave a user rating and comments as they always have.

This will undoubtedly make some people lose their minds (a few have suggested some sort of conspiracy involving Disney and RT, which is ridiculous since the latter is owned by Comcast whom, as we know from it combating the Fox deal, does Disney no favours), but both features are easily abused and frankly served little purpose (I went over previously how this isn't a right/left issue, as Iron Fist was review bombed in a similar fashion from a completely different direction).

I mentioned in my X-Men speculation article back in October that one of the ways the MCU might introduce Rogue was to mimic her comicbook origin and have her first appear as a villain for Captain Marvel (from whom she gains most of her iconic powers). This is a sentiment now 

echoed by Robert Meyer Burnett (not a huge surprise given how big a comicbook fan he is). My thought when I saw this is that if they followed that plot Rogue's attack could be the trigger for Kamala Khan to appear (or serve as a way to give Photon something heroic to do; Charlie claims the former is confirmed to appear in her sequel, but he's speculating from far less definitive comments from Feige). The downside to this approach is that it would delay her appearance to 2022 (the mostly likely time we'd get another Captain Marvel film). Alternatively, Captain Marvel could appear in the first X-Men film--you could even imagine a Suicide Squad-like scenario where Professor X collects various mutants who have gotten into trouble (Wolverine could attack the Hulk, as he does in his first comicbook appearance) with the aim of reforming them.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

There were reports that Black Widow had been delayed and we now know why: at the eleventh hour the film is getting a re-write from Ned Benson (the original script was from Jac Schaeffer). This kind of thing, last minute re-writes, is nothing new either in Hollywood or the MCU (Iron Man is notorious for being reworked while the film was shooting), but it has meant a two month delay in production (suggesting the re-writes are significant).

A couple of weeks ago Jeremy Conrad posted an Endgame theory which I was going to comment on in an updated version of my theories for the film, but as that's still in process I wanted to touch on it here. Conrad's theory was inspired by something Kevin Feige said during the press tour for Thor: Ragnarok (back in 2017), but those comments themselves aren't relevant other than they reference Star Trek (Feige's love of the franchise is well-known). Here's the theory:

The series finale of Star Trek: Voyager was titled…”Endgame“. The episode features an old [Captain] Janeway in an imperfect future where it [took] years for Voyager to return home, and the crew is in pretty bad shape as a result. Janeway travels through time to sacrifice herself and change history so the bad future she came from never exists. TNG’s [Star Trek: The Next Generation] finale “All Good Things…” [referenced by Feige when talking about Avengers: Endgame] also features [Captain] Picard jumping between different time periods, giving a nostalgic look back at the show. Both of those plots sound pretty similar to some of the rumors about what Avengers: Endgame could be about.

It's hard not to imagine Conrad doing a Google search of 'Endgame' and 'Star Trek' to come up with this theory, but however he arrived at it there is some resonance with the TNG episode Feige has referenced. Presumably this analogy would put either Iron Man or Captain America in the role of Janeway (most likely the former). It's food for thought.

Speaking of Endgame, I've been thinking about what sacrifices the group will be making given that I don't think many characters are going to die. One possibility is that, with access to time travel, they will be forced to give up on loved ones who are dead in the present--Cap has to give up on Peggy Carter again (this time young Peggy with a chance to settle down with her), Thor on his mother Frigga, Iron Man on his parents, etc. It could work if done right and might provide enough pathos for the heroes to call it quits afterwards (while remaining conveniently available if needed later).

Briefly, before I get into the 'controversy' surrounding Captain Marvel, I want to say I think the marketing for the film has improved. Despite beginning with a poor promotional poster and middling trailers (eg), I think the efforts have improved considerably--especially the posters. Back to the point at hand.

Over the last few weeks I've seen a growing clamour among a certain group of Youtubers attacking Captain Marvel. Normally I wouldn't pay much attention to it (particularly since it seems like an isolated phenomena), but there was a video from someone reasonable (Andre) addressesing it and I wanted to briefly go over what's going on.

To understand the present we need to re-visit the genesis of this kind of controversy and to do that we need to go back to Sony's Ghostbusters (2016). In the lead-up to that film hardcore fans of the franchise began to express concerns about it (most wanted a continuation of the series, the planned Ghostbusters 3, which right now, ironically, Sony is making). Either the marketing people or the corporate folks (perhaps both) decided that the best way to make the criticism go away was to paint it with an alt-right brush--marginalizing the critical by conflating them with trolls and haters, making them go away (or, at least, keep their criticisms from reaching the masses--I'm clearly simplifying and if you're interested in fully exploring the issue Midnight's Edge has a ten-part series on it). Sony didn't think trying to embarrass the fans would prevent them from showing up to the film or buy merchandise, and while the tactic helped boost reviews of the film, it failed both at the box office and with merch and in the aftermath most critics conceded it wasn't a very good film. Just two years later Sony fully capitulated (as mentioned above) and are making the film the fans wanted all along.

This played out in very similar fashion on TV with Star Trek: Discovery (that fight, despite dragging on, also seems to have been won by the hardcore fanbase--again the battle was over adherence to the antecedents of the brand rather than embracing a re-imagining). The next major battleground still simmers today and that's over The Last Jedi (2017). Criticism prior to the movie opening was far more muted (largely due to the success of A Force Awakens), but after it hit theaters those who attacked it were painted with the Ghostbusters' brush--alt-right sexist/racists. The film reviewed well and opened well, but ultimately it simply wasn't a great movie (just like with Ghostbusters the critical consensus has turned) and that impacted Solo's box office five months later (which rocked Lucasfilm). It is utterly astounding how many Youtube channels TLJ is unintentionally floating due to the controversy--for my part I like Red Letter Media's review of the film best.

It's important to note that the situations above all feature films or shows that ultimately disappointed--where the strategy was deployed and the franchise became poisoned only because the product didn't excel. Attempts by some to attack Black Panther (2018) failed utterly, for example, and as Andre points out (below) a good film will wash all the Captain Marvel controversy away. What's important to remember is: the corporations that make films do so to make money and they pay marketing people to make that happen. The strategy to wave the progress flag is meant to guarantee good reviews (which it does) more than bring new people into the theaters (this is because corporate bonuses can be tied to review scores, just like in video games). None of the films above are deep dives into serious human issues--they are blockbusters given a mild veneer of the progressive.

With that preamble out of the way, let's address the specific situation: the marketing for the film from Brie Larson in particular has had a feminist slant (as one would expect given the version of the character they are using and what's expected from a female-lead film). Larson herself is very progressive and quite vocal about it. Some of her comments have been taken as anti-male, or at least, anti-white male. The key examples cited are:

• While accepting a Crystal Award this summer (from The Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards) she talked about how she wanted more representation among film critics; she also said she had no interest in knowing what white male critics thought of A Wrinkle in Time because it wasn't made for them
• In February, for a Marie Claire interview, Larson handpicked a disabled woman of colour to interview her and in that interview made a comment very similar to what she said at the Crystal Awards (about diversity among critics)

If you find it hard to comprehend why people are upset by this, I share your confusion (although her comments about A Wrinkle in Time are more than a little odd). I think Larson's intent is pretty obvious (inclusivity) and no one can oppose that. Some are conflating these two comments as proof that Larson is somehow anti-white men (as she's dating one, it's a puzzling conclusion). As Andre points out in the video, she's not only never said this, she's said the opposite, but there's an agenda behind those fanning the flames of controversy (see below). I think Andre is correct that comments about inclusion are likely part of the marketing campaign from Marvel rather than random comments by Larson herself (the fact that she believes them is simply a bonus)--his theory is that some fans are concerned that the strategy means the MCU is going down the path of The Last Jedi with a full-on war between fans and the corporation. This seems like an overreaction to me.

The response to all this could be: So what? None of the above is meaningful ammunition to attack the film, so why does it matter? What's provided fuel to the dozens of Youtube videos preaching doom and gloom comes from a January prediction from the website Box Office Pro (not particularly distinguished when it comes to preditions), which said the film could open to 140-180 million dollars. I ignored this at the time because the prediction didn't come from a reputable site. Recently however, reputable sites pegged it for a 100 million opening, so those already upset about the film are claiming this proves interest in the film is trending down, as if one can compare BOP to the other sites. As Andre points out in his video, this cannot be done and that earlier estimate can't be accepted as accurate without further evidence. In essence, there is no 'evidence' for interest in the film one way or another, but for those already convinced that doesn't matter.

So why are people bothering to agitate about the film? Why pick this film over another? I believe that the Youtubers who have spent the last year feasting on The Last Jedi need more fuel. Other than Star Trek: Discovery, there's really no geek-culture product that's controversial, and not enough people care about STD for it to generate a lot of views. The MCU, however, is incredibly popular and there are plenty of people who would like to see it fail--along with a pre-existing audience that feels attacked from earlier controversies. I see it as a cynical attempt to profiteer, although that's speculation because I can't speak to the character of everyone who has taken this position about the film. Captain Marvel is also unlike the examples above because there is no pre-existing, well-known popular lore to fight over--while it has its comic basis, the version of the character they are using fits the marketing campaign perfectly. The attacks are a stretch--a long shot being taken by those who need controversy to feed their channels.

Right now a small group of trolls are review-bombing Captain Marvel (downvoting it without having seen it)--something they did to Black Panther last year to no avail. It's important to note such efforts aren't unique to progressive films/shows, as Iron Fist was also review bombed for different reasons by progressives (as was, very briefly, Doctor Strange).

On the more general point of the opening, I thought it was worthwhile trying to assess it (assuming the latter predictions are accurate). Let's compare it to recent MCU films:

Captain America: Civil War (May/16): 179

Doctor Strange (November/16): 85

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (May/17): 146

Spider-Man: Homecoming (July/17): 117

Thor: Ragnarok (November/17): 122

Black Panther (February/18): 202

Avengers: Infinity War (April/18): 257

Ant-Man and the Wasp (July/18): 76

This would put Captain Marvel ahead of Doctor Strange and Ant-Man and the Wasp, which isn't bad for the first appearance of a little-known character (most of the films above are reboots, sequels, and or team-up films). It isn't Black Panther money, but he was introduced in Civil War, was a much more popular character, and filled a more unique niche as a landmark for superhero films (it also had better trailers).

In an odd move, Gwyneth Paltrow has announced her exit from the MCU. This was done with the caveat that she's open to cameos, but I'm honestly not sure how seriously we should take the comment. It could imply the MCU is done with Tony Stark, although it's clear in the Far From Home trailer that she's alive and well after Endgame, making it hard to parse what this means. Paltrow has never been the most coherent person, so I'd take the comment with a grain of salt.

The expected hammer has fallen on The Punisher and Jessica Jones via Netflix. While it's not surprising, JJ3 is going to be the first Marvel show cancelled before airing--even Iron Fist was given a short grace period before getting axed. It's an unceremonious end to the properties, but does mean that in two years (February, 2021) the characters tied to these shows will return to the MCU (although I doubt either of them will appear). I have to wonder if Jessica Jones was given this treatment because the show's third season isn't testing well, but I'm speculating and it may be nothing more than convenient for Netflix.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)