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:
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:
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
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
This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)
No comments:
Post a Comment