Marvel News

The TV spot opens with a shot of every character who was dusted in the reverse order of when it happened: Wasp (image is from the post-credit scene of Ant-Man), Nick Fury (image from The Avengers), Spider-Man (Civil War), Doctor Strange (Doctor Strange), Falcon (Civil War), Scarlet Witch (Infinity War), the Guardians of the Galaxy (Guardians of the Galaxy; this shot includes Rocket, but excludes Mantis), Black Panther (Black Panther), Bucky (Winter Soldier), and Vision (Age of Ultron; he's the only character shown who wasn't Snapped). It's notable that most of these images are not from Infinity War, but I suspect that's more about picking iconic scenes for each character rather than any other significance.

We see shots of post-Snap America and then two shots that suggest Cap is sitting with some kind of support group (it reminded me of season one of The Punisher, although I'm sure the actual reference is the sessions Falcon was running in Winter Soldier); we then see Nebula and Iron Man working together on the Benatar (in a shot reminiscent of the original Iron Man, suggesting he gets himself out of danger; I suspect another reason we get this shot was to clarify that the two were together, something that was confusing to some in the first trailer); Cap, Banner, Widow (with the shortest hair we see in the trailer, so presumably nearest the time of Infinity War), and War Machine walking through a field looking up (most of the speculation I've seen about this is that they are looking up at a returning Iron Man, but it's just as possible it's Captain Marvel or Thor; there's weird negative space between the foursome--see above--I believe either Hawkeye or Ant-Man have been digitally scrubbed from the picture--I include the latter because Cap and Nat are wearing the same outfits we saw in the teaser when Scott Lang arrives); Rocket opening a door on a seascape (Scotland, whatever it's a stand-in for--we know filming occurred there--perhaps for Norway and New Asgard, cf Thor: Ragnarok [the former is already confirmed]); Widow engaging in target practice with her hair tied back (implying time has past); Ant-Man and War Machine suiting up; Thor with a more grizzled beard and then a shot of him overlooking an area that has generated a lot of speculation (the consensus seems to be Wakanda, but I'm dubious of that--to me it looks similar to Rocket's location); Hawkeye somewhere underground; Cap tightening his shield (so not the shields given to him by Panther, but his own shield or something similar); finally a shot of Cap, Thor, Widow, Rocket, Ant-Man, War Machine, and Banner walking through the Avengers facility (we again have a weird negative space in the group and I believe this will be filled by Hawkeye).

The narration we hear is mostly Cap, but with a bit of Tony thrown in; it's spliced together and not easy to pick apart. It goes like this (I divided by splice, as best as I can determine):
Tony: Some people
Cap: Move on
Cap: But not us
Cap (different take or scene): Not us
I go through this just to dynamite the idea that we're simply hearing the line "Some people move on, but not us"--we don't actually get that as a line, so while it might be true of the spirit of the movie, it's unlikely anyone actually says this.

I think we can note here that both the earlier teaser and the TV Spot seem to confirm that the "unexpected friend" Nebula gains in Endgame is Iron Man (given that they are trapped together to start the film). I also think that Widow retrieving Hawkeye happens early in the film (given her hair in the original teaser) and that he will be with the group at the Avengers facility--this is a way he has a lot of screen time making up for him being left out of Infinity War (the same, it appears, will be true of Ant-Man).

I also want to reference time passing--something indicated by Widow's changing hair. We all recall the many theories about a time jump to begin Endgame and these got dunked on in the first trailer (Conrad, one of the major proponents of this idea, doesn't discuss the theory anymore). My sentiment has always been that the film would closely match the MCU's usual pattern, which is that films occur in (roughly) real time. The trailers suggest we'll get the start of the film soon after the Snap, but the majority will occur roughly a year later. There's no hint of the jump to the future that Conrad, Charlie, and others were/are promoting.

A more general thought about the film: the Russo's deliberately decided against calling this film Infinity War: Part Two, and I've been thinking about why that is. On the surface it could simply be marketing, but I think there's more story intention involved. I believe that after we see Endgame it will reset the timeline such that Infinity War never happened (as I've gone over before, passim). In that sense Thanos did win and cannot be defeated in the present. Presumably those involved in undoing the events will remember them (otherwise there's no price being paid), but it seems improbable that the Snapped characters will.

Let's give Jeremy Conrad some credit--while he has made a number of mistakes since his successful scoop (The Eternals), he correctly predicted the Superbowl spot for Avengers: Endgame would be just a TV-spot rather than a full trailer. It's a small win, but credit where credit is due.

Theory

I came across a video that provided an interesting theory for Endgame I wanted to touch on briefly. The idea is that the various surviving heroes split up to go after the Stones they are most connected with via their own franchises:

• Thor gets the Reality Stone
• Rocket gets the Power Stone
• Tony and Bruce get the Mind Stone
• Cap gets the Space Stone
• Strange gets the Time Stone
• Nebula sacrifices herself to give the Soul Stone to Gamora

It's an interesting theory, although it has problems. The theorist makes an error in assuming Valkyrie was killed in Infinity War (we've been told she survived the snap, so her appearing in Endgame is not a surprise and has already been confirmed via toy leaks). I'm not clear on how Nebula sacrificing herself would work--you have to sacrifice what you love the most and I'm not sure you can self-sacrifice to earn it (that seems convoluted and it also flies in the face of Cap continually saying 'we don't trade lives' in Infinity War). More importantly, there's the potential problem of wrecking continuity with too much interference with the past and we know the MCU continues largely unchanged in Far From Home.

Alternate Reality/Universe Theory

There are a lot of alternative reality theories out there as the solution to the Snapture and I picked out one to quickly underline the problems with them (we'll ignore the fact that the Russo's denied they would be using them because we know they are unreliable with these denials, eg the title of the movie).

Thanos didn't actually wipe out half the universe's inhabitants with the snap, but instead created an alternate universe and tossed half the occupants into this other universe via the "dusting". And this alternate universe is the one that Marvel moves forward with in the future. What if the people who lived at the end of Infinity War are actually the ones who get left behind? ... What if (at the finale of End Game) one of two things happen: 1) the survivors sacrifice their universe to save the other one, or 2) the survivors defeat the villain / scenario only to insure that the stones can never be used again, but the universes remain split.

The poster points out that the comics have done things like this all the time, so what's the fly in the ointment for me? There are a number problems: 1) I think we can throw out the first possible ending immediately as heroes don't sacrifice billions to make up for...the sacrifice of billions--that's not a satisfying conclusion and contradicts Cap's dictum mentioned above, 2) Kevin Feige has made multiple comments about how he's excited to bring the Fox characters into the MCU--that's a comment about integration, not separate-but-equal, 3) Continuity confusion: how do you pay off the set-up from Thor: Ragnarok in this scenario? The MCU wants to retain what happened from Ragnarok so how do you rationalize that with an alternate universe?--you'd have to argue it's the same as the MCU in every way except...hey, X-Men! This is also a huge problem with Far From Home, which clearly dovetails from Endgame directly, 4) Payoff: the film is going to have a heroic victory--it's Return of the Jedi for the franchise--you don't get that if all the OG Avengers die at the end, 5) Marketing: in the lead-up to Infinity War everyone was talking about death to prepare fans for what was to come--no one is doing so now and that's ground that would be paved if it was a major element in the film (Feige went out of his way to deflate the death idea right after Infinity War dropped). I'm sure there are even more issues here, but I think that's enough to show that while this idea is plausible I think everything we've heard makes it improbable.

I mentioned briefly when we heard about the Falcon and Winter Soldier show that it implied that neither character will ever take up the mantel of Captain America (despite both having done so in the comics). This echoed a thought I'd had a month earlier that the MCU seems to be avoiding derivations of established characters despite how common they are in the comics. We know there are exceptions to this theory, as Kevin Feige has made it clear there are plans for Ms Marvel and we've seen hints about the Miles Morales-Spider-Man in Homecoming (albeit given the age of our current Peter Parker he's a very long way off--perhaps Sony using him in Into the Spider-verse will also keep him in the shelf, while perhaps pointing the way to portray him when he does arrive--see below).

So what's my point? Given the above I think that whatever happens to Captain America in Endgame he won't simply be replaced by one of his companions. This is an interesting choice, because I don't think fans would be opposed to it (both Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie have talked about becoming Cap). There's been no hint of Ironheart replacing Iron Man (admittedly she's a very unpopular character), the Amadeus Cho-version of the Hulk, and so on. I suspect that the reason we aren't seeing these successors/fill-ins is to make the original characters more iconic and more standalone. If another character can fill the role than how special is Captain America? It's worth noting that typically the original characters remain more popular than their new versions, so perhaps the MCU is simply recognizing and embracing that, preferring to unveil new characters who can stand on their own.

Speaking of TV shows, the development of an A-Force-type show on ABC has been halted. This is no surprise as I expect Marvel Entertainment (which produces the TV-shows) is being pulled away from the TV-business to allow Kevin Feige to fully control all MCU products (I fully expect all MCU-related shows to wind up on Disney+ sooner than later). This is being echoed, likely in unrelated fashion, at Fox, with Legion finishing with three seasons and The Gifted's crashing ratings chalking up to likely cancellation as well.

I stumbled across an interesting video essay that posits that the MCU's version of Peter Parker borrows a great deal from Miles Morales (and not just via a poorly disguised Ganke). The basic idea is that the MCU wanted to avoid the very similar portrayals of Spider-Man in the previous Sony films and rather than reach back into the Ditko/Lee era of stories, ripped most of the substance from Morales and incorporated it into Parker. It's a convincing thesis and an interesting one that helps explain many of the divergences among the usual supporting cast (something I was discussing last time when I was unaware of this borrowing).

For more than a year we've been hearing about how Dark Phoenix has been bombing in test screenings. This is well known enough that even Looper is commenting on it. They note that at least three separate screenings have been held (in February, 2018, in October, and finally one recently), all of which are reported to have performed terribly. There is plenty of solid evidence for the first test-screening bombing and while I'm inclined to believe the other reports I haven't vetted them as thoroughly because I assumed the film would never see the light of day (the credible report that came out a couple of weeks ago saying it's simply a retread of X-Men: The Last Stand would explain the poor reception). With Disney now acquiring Fox in June (around the time of the planned release), there remains a small chance it will be in theaters--I think there's no way Feige let's this be seen if he has his hands on the button.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)