Marvel News

We have a new official synopsis (the third deemed as such, but even more official than the others):

The grave course of events set in motion by Thanos that wiped out half the universe and fractured the Avengers ranks compels the remaining Avengers to take one final stand in Marvel Studios’ grand conclusion to twenty-two films, "Avengers: Endgame."

This isn't very different from the previous synopsis, but one element of note is that it's talking about a last stand, suggesting battle, whereas in the other it was to restore the universe. I think both elements make up the plot and that they don't contradict each other--there will be a last stand to restore the universe.

Another bit of "news" has arrived via posters revealing all the characters for Endgame (well, not all, but an intentional 16-16 split for our Thanosian 'perfect balance' of those alive and those Snapped--this number reminds me of Scarlett Johansson's oddly specific comment about the ubiquitous "everyone" scene consisting of thirty-two heroes--I wonder if she had this promotional material, or something like it, in mind). The news I'm referring to is confirmation that Valkyrie and Wong survived the Snap and Shuri did not. I've put "news" in quotations because the former two were confirmed to be alive by various folks at Marvel shortly after Infinity War last year, but that does not seem to have made its way into the broader public consciousness. Shuri's fate was unknown up until the first teaser in December, but this is further confirmation that showing her wasn't a fake out and she was Snapped. I referenced at the time that killing off Shuri made a lot of sense for what the Russo's want to do with Endgame: have the original Avengers solve the problem. You can't really have Tony Stark (or Banner) play the inventor/intellectual role when you've established Shuri as smarter than them. This runs into a problem writers McFeely and Markus mentioned to Collider months ago, where they didn't want a new character (their example was Adam Warlock) arriving on the scene to solve all the problems. So, for the Science Bros, or just Tony, to play their usual role Shuri needs to be out of the picture.

Another point, somewhat related, is that I think people are going overboard with their theories about how much fakery is occurring in the official material--if you look at what was done with Infinity War the fake shots are not that deceiving (the Hulk fighting in Wakanda instead of Banner in the Hulkbuster). I believe it's this kind of subtle deception that's going on (thus my theory that the B.A.R.F. photo from the Endgame shoot in 2017 was a deliberate plant by the Russo's to try and confuse the time travel issue--something that has worked very successfully with Charlie and others).

THR is reporting that Angelina Jolie is in talks to play an unknown role in The Eternals. The only specific mentioned is the love story of Ikaris and Sersi, but the article doesn't speculate on who she is playing. Going through the THS cast list and assuming Jolie is taking a major role, Sersi seems like the most probable, although she looks like Elysius and could even be in the "Karen" role. If she is Sersi this would be yet another time when Umberto Gonzales was wrong, as he's been implying from the beginning that the character would be race-swapped.

It's important to carefully and fully read articles and most covering a THR article on the Fox acquisition don't quite get there (Conrad, eg, etc). The basic problem is Couch (the author) mixes speculation with fact and that hasn't been parsed out at all. Let's look at the substance.

Avengers: Endgame will presumably be the swan song for some of the characters

This is a key element--Couch is making an assumption--an educated guess. It's one shared by many, granted, but he's not sharing sourced information (something he only brings up once in the entire article), so it's no more valuable than whatever you or I think.

Reynolds' Deadpool is expected to be the only iteration of the X-Men to make the jump to Disney

This is another assumption, albeit backed by repeated comments from Bob Iger (and therefore a reasonable assumption, although we must remember that Kevin Feige has creative control over the MCU, not Iger).

[T]he film [New Mutants] could ultimately end up on a streaming platform, such as Disney+ or Hulu rather than a theatrical release.

This is another assumption (one based on many rumours and backed by the lack of planned reshoots for the film).

[T]here are producer deals that will need to be looked at and either untangled or bought out, say sources. Lauren Shuler Donner, who championed the 2000 film and has been a producer on all Fox's mutant-centric movies, is said to have a deal that calls for her to receive an executive producer credit on any X-Men movie whether or not she is actively involved. Kinberg may have a similar deal.

This is the quote that has Conrad so excited (link above)--exactly why, since none of this was unknown to Disney's bookkeepers, I have no idea. And again, while sources are noted, there's an assumption attached about Kinberg: "may have a similar deal," Couch is guessing. Why dealing with this would be an impediment to making X-Men films Couch does not go into and frankly I don't see how it could cause any significant delay.

Marvel Studios has not publicly revealed any plans for integrating members of the X-Men and Fantastic Four into its cinematic universe

This is absolutely true and legally they couldn't even if they wanted to. The article was written the day before the sale was finalized, so Couch has no more knowledge about those plans than you or I do.

While Disney's release schedule does contain the highest volume of untitled Marvel movies yet ... it remains unclear when an X-Men or Fantastic Four movie could make it onto the calendar. ... Unless Feige has a completed script waiting in his desk drawer, any of the newly arrived heroes are unlikely to hit screens at least until 2021, if not later.

This is a conflation of two independent ideas: 1) it's unclear when the first films for those properties will come out (as it must be since, legally, it could not be discussed before the article was published), 2) unless there's a finished script, a film couldn't come out until 2021. The latter is almost certainly true, although it's also true the MCU keeps spec scripts for many properties (even if these would ultimately be re-written when the project's are given the greenlight).

My point here is less about disagreeing with Couch's theories, but simply that he has no idea whatsoever what Marvel will do--he's speculating based almost entirely on information already widely available. There's nothing wrong with speculation, but I do think he's presenting the information as an a fait accompli and that's what's getting picked up elsewhere. I happen to agree that 2021 is the earliest we'll see those movies due to production schedules (see below), but I think the response that Conrad (and others) had in response to this is more than a little ridiculous.

What timeframe can we expect for MCU versions of the Fox IP? No one goes into it, but it's not hard to work out from existing MCU examples. Take the upcoming Black Widow: the writer was hired in January, 2018; the director in July; production is expected in June, 2019, with an expected release in May, 2020--that's just under two and a half years from script to screen. Films can, of course, be made faster than this (Shang-Chi, if my theory is right, will be a late 2020 release, which would be just two years). The time from when filming starts to it hitting theaters is what's largely set in stone, but elements like the time spent on the script and taken to find a director can be much, much faster (or slower). Let's also keep in mind that only two films are moving into production right now (Black Widow and The Eternals) and Marvel does not have a stated slate for Phase Four, providing a lot of flexibility. They also have access to Fox's production facilities, which means they can have more going on at the same time.

The guesses on release dates for Fantastic Four and X-Men doesn't address introducing the characters, which could happen as soon as Black Widow if desired (I'm no expecting that, but there's nothing preventing it). I would expect Feige is keen on making introductions as quickly as possible.

For the purposes of bookkeeping and clarity let's acknowledge that Disney did not (as claimed) quietly rehire James Gunn just weeks after his firing. There are enough credible stories in the press to know that, for some time at least, there were attempts to replace Gunn with another director (the last reported was Adam McKay, although it's difficult to know exactly when he was approached--the news of it came out in December). James Gunn was hired by DC to write and direct the Suicide Squad sequel in October (which is apparently a complete reboot--a smart move by DC in my opinion), so at least well into the fall Alan Horn had not reconsidered and Gunn was still out of the MCU. My guess is that after failing to find any competent director who would take the gig, Horn relented and Gunn was brought back. What I'm interested to see is whether he'll continue to make movies for Marvel afterwards or not--I'd like to think so, but at the moment there's no guarantee (unlike with actors, the MCU hasn't specifically locked up directors consistently).

Speaking of clarity, I'd been under the impression that Marvel had reacquired the TV-rights from Sony when they bought the merchandising rights back for Spider-Man (in 2011 in return for the 5% film profit share they used to receive). However, if Polygon is to be believed, those rights are still at Sony (the article in question is a little sloppy, but it's a more credible source than the one I got the opposite information from). This would bust my theory that development of said shows illustrated a done-deal between the MCU and Sony.

Apparently some fans believe (or hope) that the Marvel Netflix characters will be translated over to the MCU along with the rights--the same actors, the same continuity, etc. This simply can't be the case--not because it's logistically impossible, but because Disney has no interest in validating the Netflix seasons (and thus, empowering Netflix with content they don't control). Instead, if the characters are used in the future (I believe at least Daredevil will be), they will be full reboots, cast in the mould of whatever the MCU is doing at the time. Incidentally, I've been dubious that we'd ever see Iron Fist in the MCU, not because of the show's mixed reception, but because of all the hassle that came with the well-intended but nonsensical whitewashing claims. Something Shang-Chi may achieve is to deflate that complaint since now the first MCU martial artist will be ethnically appropriate and you can more easily get away with Danny Rand arriving later (I do think, however, that Heroes of Hire is more likely to be cartoon fodder ala Dazzler and Tigra, alas).

As we come closer to the release date of Dark Phoenix I keep seeing the same arguments about why it will be released (from people like Armin and John Campea): the money is already spent, best get it out to recoup some of the losses or even make a small profit. This is an understandable idea, but I think the reasoning is a little simplistic, so let's go into why I think killing it is the better idea.

We've had stories over the last week or so that illustrate it would have been better for Fox if it had never released Josh Trank's Fantastic Four (2015), due to the dramatic negative impact it had on the company. While shelving the film would have cost money in the short term, it would have saved them from ruining the IP and killing off other movies (like Gambit). Keep in mind we're talking about a much smaller IP--the Fantastic Four--it's not a key brand--not automatically a billion dollar franchise like the X-Men. The X-Men have a rich history and characters that continue to resonant--a brand that needs protecting. Let us recall the exact same arguments for releasing the film can and were used for New Mutants (and by the same people), but now no one has a problem with that film being shelved (you might make the argument less money is tied to the latter, but the principal is the same). The MCU could easily let New Mutants hit theaters--it would likely make its budget back if they did so and absolutely make more money than if it's not be released--so why not let it out? There's only one reason and it's not about immediate finances: save the IP. The New Mutants are just a small piece of the X-Men IP, so if Disney is willing to spike that film (as everyone seems to agree they are), the logic follows that they'll kill Dark Phoenix--losing 200-300 million to make billions is not a difficult equation.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for Dark Phoenix to appear, I just believe it's more likely to be shelved.

One of the big 4chan theories I addressed in my original Avengers speculation article has been debunked as that author's 'accurate predictions' for Infinity War have been attacked on Reddit and I went ahead and completed its demolition. We still have yet to see any plot descriptive leak for Endgame that have held up. Joe Russo talked about keeping things secret, saying:

When I was 11 years old, I went to see The Empire Strikes Back, having seen Star Wars a bunch of times with my uncle. I was at the theater from 11 until 10 at night watching Empire over and over again because I knew nothing about what was going to happen in the film beyond what I’d seen in a trailer in front of a movie once or twice. Information was so much more limited. It was so shocking to me what happened that I was emotional watching it. That’s the feeling that my brother and I are trying to replicate for other kids who want to be surprised. It’s why we limit the amount of information in trailers. That’s why we obfuscate it. Audiences are so predictive. Everyone has a PhD in content now, and it’s constant. The smallest clue in a trailer can ruin a movie

Speaking of theories, another 4chan theory has popped up. This one has the added bonus of actually including the third act (unlike all the others), even though its substance is preposterous:

• Movie starts off with the world dealing with the decimation and Tony/Nebula stranded in space.
• Pepper & Crew rescue Tony/Nebula in a Stark Spaceship. Tony is hospitalized when he comes back to earth. Steve visits him.
• Captain Marvel arrives, and with Nebula's help, they find Thanos, but he has no intent to fight. He tells them he can’t undo the snap because he used the last of the gauntlets power to scatter the stones in deep space.
• Thor and Captain Marvel charge Thanos. The team beat him and Rocket analyzes the Gauntlet. It’s too busted for them to use it again.
• They start to torture Thanos but Cap says it’s enough. They go back home.
• Scott falls through a Time Vortex and ends up in the present. He tells the Avengers there might be a small chance they can reverse the snap using a time vortex.
• They start working on a Quantum Tunnel in Wakanda.
• Clint is brought in by Natasha. We see him in Japan killing criminals as we see flashbacks of his family disappearing.
• They separate into 2 teams diving into Time Vortexes, running through set pieces in previous movies (Avengers 1-3, Guardians, Doctor Strange, Winter Solider, The Dark World), as they assemble a new gauntlet.
• Hulk wields it, undoing the snap, but at the same time merging his two personalities becoming an “intelligent hulk”.
• Strange takes the gauntlet to study/protect it.
• In a time skip, everything is back to normal but Thanos attacks Avengers HQ demanding an explanation. In the fight the whole HQ is destroyed.
• In a surprise move, Strange says Thanos is right and offers him the Gauntlet. Thanos messes with the Avengers with Strange by his side.
• Thanos prepares to snap but this was all part of Strange’s plan...
• A black cosmic void envelopes everyone as cosmic beings tower over them. Thanos snaps but nothing happens... The Living Tribunal takes the gauntlet.
• The Living Tribunal is furious. These artefacts don’t belong in this reality, and he threatens earth but Strange strikes a deal. Earths best champions as a willing sacrifice for each stone... in exchange for life on earth.
• Strange apologizes for not telling the team... It was the only way.
• Tony, Clint, Natasha, Banner, Steve, And Strange all agree. Whatever it takes...
• They along with the gauntlet are taken.
• We hear a speech about heroism as we see the fallen Avengers in different lives.
• Tony with his parents, Cap in WWII, Natasha in high school (not assassin school), Banner talking to people in a lab, and Strange doing surgery... But he notices strange cracks that appear on a wall. He brushes them off.
• We see a crowd at an Avengers as the statues of the fallen Avengers are unveiled. Pepper and her son are there. He leaves a homemade MK 1 helmet at the feet of Tony’s statue.

There are a number of ridiculous elements here: Thanos is beaten in the first act and then tortured by a group that includes Captain America? Strange sacrifices himself with his sequel going into production next year? The Living Tribunal is a literal deus ex machina? And on and on. It's a bizarre farrago of the trailers, leaks, and the poster's own nonsense.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Debunking Theories about Avengers: Endgame

With Avengers: Endgame only a month away, I wanted to dig into some popular theories that we can safely debunk by attacking their source. They all derive from one place: a 4chan post by a guy purported to have made good predictions about Infinity War. The 4channer was given credence by people on Reddit, which was picked up by tabloids like The Express, and then broadcast by Jeremy Conrad (especially here); this legitimized the leak which has since been covered by Charlie Schneider, Midnight's Edge, etc (his impact on MCU news continues today, as you can see here). However, recently the claims about the accuracy of his Infinity War post has been thoroughly demolished, and I want to complete their destruction here. Along with that, I want to assess the aforementioned Conrad as a source. We'll do the 4chan poster first, as it's one thing for me to say he's a fake, but another to prove it. We'll start his Infinity War predictions (posted at the end of November, 2017), since there's no ambiguity about the results.

I'm going to address his claims point by point; he makes a lot of claims, so to make the wall of text stand out visually I've colour-coded it (false claims in red, those known beforehand are in green). It's important to remember that the 4chan post is after the first Infinity War trailer leaked online (Charlie had a video about it on the 26th); it's also after audio had leaked and we'd seen leaked footage from SDCC in the summer:

• Cap has adopted the identity of Nomad (false - his identity doesn't change, he's simply not authorized to act officially & therefore in the exact same place he was in Civil War)
• Cap is leading Falcon and Black Widow (true) - revealed in the leaked trailer
• Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, and Ant Man are on their own (false - the later two don't appear and the former is never alone)
• Of those three only Ant-Man is not involved in a significant way (false on two fronts - Hawkeye and Ant-Man do not appear, making it impossible for Scott to be involved insignificantly)
• Cap etc rescue Scarlet Witch and Vision (true) - via the trailer leak
• They send them to Wakanda (false in two ways - this happens after they go to New York, talk to Rhodey, and realize they can't fix Vision on their own; they are also never separated from them, so they aren't 'sent' anywhere)
• Black Panther and Shuri extract the Mind Stone (false)
• Corvus Glaive kills Vision (false)
• Cap kills Corvus Glaive (false)
• Loki trades the Space Stone for his life (false)
• Loki becomes Thanos' adviser (false)
• Thor is found by the Guardians (true) - via SDCC
• Starlord, Gamora, and Drax go to Knowhere to talk to the Collector, but find him being tortured by Thanos (true) - via the audio leak
• Thor, Rocket, and Groot go to Etri for weapons (true to a point - just one weapon, however)
• Thor finds Jarnbjorn but it is unfinished (false)
• Groot makes the handle for Jarnbjorn (true - I believe this was known via a toy leak)
• Thor wears an eyepatch the entire movie (false)
• Iron Man and Doctor Strange go into space to meet with Thor and the Guardians to stop Thanos (false)
• Spider-Man gets injured in battle (false)
• Black Panther unites the tribes (false)
• Black Panther brings Winter Soldier out of cryosleep (false) - apparently the poster didn't watch the end-credit scene from Black Panther
• Hawkeye joins the battle (false)
• Bruce Banner returns to earth via an escape pod (false)
• Banner bursts out of the Hulkbuster to defeat Cull Obsidian (false on two fronts, because Banner kills Cull)
• Ebony Maw breaks into the Sanctum Sanctorum (false)
• Ebony Maw has psychic powers (false)
• Ebony Maw steals the Time Stone (false)
• Doctor Strange becomes good friends with Tony, Peter, and Starlord (false)
• Spider-Man and Groot have comedic scenes (false)
• Valkyrie has a minor appearance (false)
• Ebony Maw's attack is before Wong, Strange, and Banner meet Tony (false)
• Red Skull is stranded in space (false - if the poster knew what his role was he would have mentioned it, instead he talks about a separate Soul Stone 'guardian')
• Thanos does not love Gamora (false - the test to gain the Soul Stone proves this)
• Gamora's death compels Nebula to join the others (false - she doesn't know she's dead until after she joins the others)

The wall of red (false claims) makes it clear: there's nothing about the post that suggests insider knowledge. I believe even the Jarnbjorn elements had been revealed by toy leaks by then (although at this stage I didn't feel the need to dig further). If the 'leak' is this bad, why is it given so much credence? We have to point the finger at Conrad. Hot off his Eternals scoop in early April, Jeremy gave it credibility after Infinity War dropped and that helped boost the signal.

With the 4channer's credibility busted, let's look at the claims he's unleashed on Endgame. I covered his post in my original speculation article (the link to the full thing is there), but I want to go through its most pernicious points one-by-one.

The Stark Gauntlet

Iron Man reassembles the Avengers and decides to build his own Infinity Gauntlet

This is already debunked because we know from the trailers Cap reassembles the team (Tony is in no position to assemble anything), but we'll carry through the theory to completely debunk it.

He (Hulk) is the one that ultimately wields the Stark Gauntlet against Thanos, losing his arm in the process

A brief list of those buying into this: CBR, HN Network, Warstu, & Cosmic Wonder

We've established that the 4channer doesn't have inside sources, so where did this theory come from? It's one of the most obvious ways to defeat Thanos--the Gauntlet's would either cancel each other out or the more clever person would win. It's also something from the comics, given some extra zip from the MCU by accidentally showing two gauntlets (via the easter egg for it in Thor; there's also the mould Etri has). There's plenty of comicbook precedent for another gauntlet, but why a Stark gauntlet? Well, Brian Michael Bendis (in 2011) has Tony wield the Gauntlet in the comics, but MCU lore makes this problematic, because they've established normal people cannot use something like the Power Stone without being destroyed. If Tony can't use the Gauntlet, he is the most likely MCU character to create the housing. As for the Hulk, he's also used it in the comics (2011 in the Ultimate universe, in a story by Joshua Hale Fialkov and Carmine Di Giandomenico), and with Peter Quill gone he is the kind of character who might be able to use it. Why does the Hulk lose a limb? This seems to be a nod to an MCU trend--Aldrich Killian (Iron Man 3), Malekith (Thor: The Dark World), Bucky (Winter Soldier and Civil War), Groot (Guardians of the Galaxy and Infinity War), Nebula (Guardians of the Galaxy), Klaue (Age of Ultron and Black Panther), Yellowjacket (Ant-Man), and Cull Obsidian (Infinity War) all lose limbs.

There is no other source for this rumour--all the theories about the Stark Gauntlet trace back to this post--there's nothing in real leaks to support it. I pointed out the thematic problem with this approach in my first Endgame speculation article: if the Gauntlet can be used for good, then why not use it to solve other problems? It also means that Thanos wasn't wrong to use it, but simply using it wrong. This violates a tenant of most fiction (and a concept generally accepted in real life), that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely--there are no 'right' hands to use it (it's the exact same reason the One Ring has to be destroyed in The Lord of the Rings). Thematically the Avengers have to solve this problem in a way that refutes Thanos' approach as much as his actions.

The Return of Mjolnir and Cap Wielding It

Timeline alterations have restored Mjolnir and Cap wields it against Thanos to allow others to escape, and is killed holding Thanos off

Brief list of those buying into this: Inverse, E-Man, & Everything Always

These are actually two separate elements (Mjolnir's return and Cap's death) that all trace back here. This idea is one that began after the SDCC footage leaked, but this post gave it life. Where does the idea come from? We had Cap nearly pick it up in Ultron and this is an easter egg from the comics where Cap has, indeed, used it (four times as of 2017). Thanos killing Cap is also from the comics (the original Infinity War) and this happening is something that's been rumoured ever since Infinity War was announced years ago. Basically everyone has written Cap off as a casualty of the film (I'll get into death more below).

The tangible evidence of Mjolnir is twofold: 1) returning to the Battle of New York means Thor has his hammer in the past; 2) there is a fan picture of Joe Russo holding it while filming in Scotland. This is the most evidence-based prediction, but let's keep in mind that flashbacks/time travel easily explain it and that Joe could simply be trolling (as, indeed, he has done in other cases).

Nebula Fights Herself

Nebula's subplot centers on her efforts to redeem herself. At one point, she fights her murderous past self

This is such a slight element that not many people make videos about it, but here's an example of someone discussing it via Cosmic Book.

One of the problems with this idea is that Nebula already redeemed herself in Guardians 2--that was the point of her arc in that film and why she's looking for Gamora in Infinity War. We do have a leak that suggests past-Nebula appears (there's a video of Zoe Saldana and Karen Gillan in their original Guardians garb while filming Endgame), but beyond that we have no evidence for what happens. The latter part of this idea would be plausible if the first part wasn't completely wrong.

Hawkeye is Instrumental in Defeating Thanos

At one point, Hawkeye must protect the Stark Gauntlet from Thanos' minions. He plays an "instrumental" role in Thanos' defeat.

Much like Nebula above, this is such a slight element that not many people are making anything specifically about it (although you can find an example here).

This idea references a meme of sorts (where Hawkeye defeats Thanos by calling the cops on him), but really, it's just to give the character something important to do given that he missed Infinity War (while carrying on with the Stark Gauntlet plot mentioned above). Keep in mind the same poster thought Hawkeye would be part of the battle in Infinity War, so this is just a wild guess.

Thor Assembles an Army

Thor's subplot centers on him assembling an army to challenge Thanos

As with the above two entries, this isn't substantial enough to warrant much separate discussion, but there are examples (and, as always, Charlie).

This is one of the more repeated ideas and it's one borrowed by the poster from leaks that had various Thor scenes being shot in Scotland. This included what's assumed to be a return to his visions from Ultron, with many speculating that this might be a visit to Valhalla or Hel (the Norse realms of the dead--I go over this in my updated speculation article). In addition to this was a casting call for 'vikings.' It's a slim basis for the theory and a drab plotline (since armies won't truly effect the battle). Another Redditor spiced this up by saying Thor was following the Aragorn storyline from Return of the King and that new idea has helped carry the theory forward.

It's important to note that neither the Russo brothers nor Kevin Feige have ever referenced Return of the King as an influence on the movie. All the comments about it go back to the Reddit post which runs in parallel to the 4chan post. We have nothing official that indicates armies are being assembled by anyone--indeed, you could argue that if the intent is for the OG Avengers to defeat Thanos, then assembling an army goes against that idea thematically.

Doctor Strange Fighting a CGI Creature

Doctor Strange and a fully CGI creature...which takes up a sizable portion of the budget

Same restrictions as above, but Newsweek has been suckered into this (and Charlie).

This is one of those ideas that I've always found rather bizarre since this already happened in Infinity War. The battle between Strange and Thanos was incredibly CGI dependent and expensive. This theory is the source of all the videos we see about there being an antagonist greater than Thanos in the film--a preposterous idea on a story level (if the Russo's want the OG Avengers to solve the problem, the problem is Thanos--introducing a new villain undercuts that idea).

Most of the Avengers Die

Only two of the original Avengers [are] meant to survive the movie. Cap dies.

Esquire gets this from a separate Reddit theory born from it, but you can also see it reflected in Comicbook.com, HN Entertainment, Super Bro Movies, etc (and in Charlie).

The Cap death rumours have been heavy since before Infinity War. There's literally nothing more expected when it comes to deaths and that expectation is based on three things: 1) it's happened in the comics, 2) other characters who have picked up the mantel of Captain America are available (Falcon and Bucky), 3) Chris Evans' periodic moaning about leaving the role (something other MCU stars have done as well). There is, however, no tangible evidence for this. People have tried very hard to read into a Tweet by Evans along with a comment he made in an interview months earlier (link above), but it's all very ephemeral and the Russo's happily debunked it in November (you could argue they'd lie about it, but they could have just as easily ignored it). The point here is less that Cap dies and more that the 4channer is attaching himself to the most common theory out there--nothing is being added. The larger idea that only two OG Avengers will survive has been heavily parroted and for this there is no basis at all. A ten year celebration of the MCU doesn't work well if you're murdering most of the original crew that brought you here--as I've been saying since my original post about the film, it just doesn't make sense on a story level (especially after teasing their deaths in Ultron--that was done to prevent it, not cause it).

Jeremy Conrad as a Source

Let's acknowledge Jeremy's scoop for The Eternals--it is a legit scoop that he had before anyone else (Umberto Gonzales embarrassed himself by denying it initially). Since then, however, he's been the source of near endless failure as his various scoops and theories have crashed and burned. Let's go through his predictions one by one since he launched his website (those in red were completely wrong, those known to be stolen from elsewhere are in blue).

2018
April - predicted Black Widow in 2020, something I beat him to a month earlier (this was a very easy thing to theorize about, so he didn't get this from me)
May - predicts that the reason Nick Fury paged Captain Marvel was because he feared a Skrull invasion (debunked by Captain Marvel)
June - his claims about Dark Phoenix are debunked
July - predicts Kronos will have a cameo in Endgame (yet to be determined)
August - predicts Hydro-Man will appear in Far From Home without revealing that got the information from an Instagram post
September - claimed Black Widow will involve Y2K (yet to be determined)
October
His most famous boondoggle, where he claimed the title for the fourth Avengers film was Annihilation (going on to embarrass himself saying there was a whole transition of different titles--Kevin Feige killed that lie by saying the title was decided years ago)
Conrad double downed on Endgame beginning with a five-year jump theory (debunked by the various Endgame trailers)
Bought into Frank Grillo's trolling that there will be a new Cap (after making the statement Grillo admitted he was just making things up--something very obvious from the interview)
Claimed (same link) a Nick Fury series was in development, which got slapped down by Slash Film immediately
November
Suggested a Hawkeye Disney+ show was being discussed, but was too hesitant about it to say it was in development (yet to be determined)
Claimed Katherine Langford's character was playing the adult daughter of Tony Stark, an idea so preposterous even Charlie balked at it (theoretically still possible)
Predicted that 'Karen' and 'Piper' from The Eternals will be teased in Endgame (yet to be determined)
December - his plethora of vague rumours got him banned from Reddit; he also got scooped by John Campea (of all people) for the date of the Endgame teaser release
2019
January
Steals the idea of a Black Knight appearing in the MCU from a 4chan post (again, no attribution)
Thought the rumour of an R-rated Black Widow was credible
February - Claimed 'Karen' is archaeologist Margo Damien (yet to be determined)

That's where we sit among his many claims. Let's keep in mind all the significant developments he missed (despite supposed 'inside sources'):

• Debunking the fake Black Widow synopsis
• Scoops about the Black Widow cast
• Scoops about The Eternals cast
• Shang-Chi coming to the MCU
• Spoilers for Captain Marvel
• Details about who Emma Fuhrmann is playing

All the above examples come from That Hashtag Show, incidentally. THS' speculation remains hilariously inaccurate, but their scoops are usually good.

Back to Conrad, if you exclude his Eternals scoop, he's had nothing since then--just infrequent correct speculation. The point of this isn't to embarrass Conrad, but to point out that he does not have reliable inside sources--if he did, we wouldn't see him consistently put his foot in his mouth. Given his track record, you have to wonder if whatever source he had no longer exists (or is no longer giving him info). Keep in mind, being wrong repeatedly is not necessarily the end of a career--Umberto has been wrong innumerable times and still runs The Wrap.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

We've heard about the reshoots for Endgame before and Karen Gillan tells Empire that they were very frequent indeed. Until we've seen the movie we'll have no idea what they were for--final touches or entire scene insertions/changes? Given the situation with James Gunn (fired and re-hired) I wonder if plans for the Guardians changed with his status.

I rarely agree with Hector from Hyper RPG, but his belief that few if any of the major characters will die in Endgame is the same as my own (and a view not shared by many). We both believe that most of the OG Avengers will be put out to pasture, but Marvel will still want access to them--I leave room for maybe the death of Iron Man, but I think it's highly unlikely.

Black Widow is negotiating to cast Florence Pugh, with THR saying she would be playing a spy opposite Widow (presumably the 'female Bond' we heard about via the THS cast list). The plot continues to be described as a prequel and mentions the KGB, even though the KGB ceased being an entity in 1991 (presumably they mean the Russian successor organization). I do wonder if one of the reasons we seem to be getting a prequel is to avoid fans asking the question, "Why doesn't she just call so-&-so to resolve this?" It does make casting Pugh an odd choice though, depending on how far in the past it is (what are you going to do with her after the film?). Unlike with Captain Marvel where most of the supporting cast are aliens so you can use them decades later, with humans characters they are going to be one-and-done.

There's a supposed Eternals leak on 4chan to assess (with the usual grains of salt encouraged; I've gone ahead and made the post more coherent):

• [The] leaked synopsis is mostly wrong--the movie isn't set millions of years ago. Only the opening [is]. [The] main story is set 30,000 years ago
• [A] love story between Ikaris and Sersi is [the] main plot, but not the crux of the film. [A] genderbent Sersi for two gay leads is being considered
• Karen, Piper, Ikaris, Makkari, Sersi, Starfox, Thena, Zuras, and Hercules are the leads
• Entire Greek pantheon will be alluded to, but may not be cast in this movie
• Druig is the main villain
• Karen leads the team, but is not the lead of the movie
• Piper (Sprite) is planned to be super endearing and sympathetic, so if they do the Gaiman arc [2006-07] then the audience will have a connection
• The Celestials [seen in the first Guardians film] get fleshed out a lot in this movie. We see the universe while they ruled it
• [The] action is set entirely in the past to allow for greater powersets and [a larger] sense of scale than any MCU movie so far
• We meet Odin at the age Thor is now in this film, [who] shows the same brash arrogance
• Titan is visited in the film
• [It] was described multiple times as "an epic" compared to The Odyssey
• The word "awe inspiring" was used many times in relation to the action scenes, "Powers that can shape the course of planets"
• Most multicultural and inclusive MCU film yet

Let's open the discussion by saying most of the information here either matches what we know or what's been broadly speculated. The cast list generally matches the leak from THS in November (including their speculation that Hercules is the unnamed male lead and that Piper is a stand-in and gender swap for Sprite)--the only difference is it does not mention Elysisus or The Forgotten One/Gilgamesh. I believe the synopsis he's referring to is the debunked one THS reported in October, and we already know Marvel is looking to cast a gay lead. I don't think we'll actually get a gay love story as a focus in the film (given that they cut Valkyrie's very tame lesbian moment from Ragnarok). The push for diversity certainly fits the direction Marvel is going (they won't feel the need to adhere to traditional depictions of Greek mythology anymore than they did with Norse, nor is there any dedication to Kirby's original white versions of the characters). What is puzzling is the "if they do the Gaiman" or "may not be cast" comments above--why doesn't the poster know? There's actually no sign of the plot either, just the backdrop--what, exactly, are the Eternals doing? If the above has any weight, the person must be working from early discussions about the film aided by what's come out in leaks. The specifics that are unique to it are: the timeframe given (other leaks have said thousands of years ago, some millions, but 30,000 is very specific) and Odin's appearance. Even if it's authentic it really doesn't reveal very much.

Something I missed in December: Adam McKay (who worked on the initial treatment of Ant-Man and the Wasp) mentioned that he'd batted around ideas with Kevin Feige about The Inhumans. After the ABC show flopped in 2017 I didn't think the MCU would touch the IP for awhile, but it appears as though Feige remains open to the idea (presumably such a project would be a long way away).

We Got This Covered is saying the following:

A source ... has alleged that Endgame will be Hemsworth’s last outing as Thor. Though the report adds that there’s still a slight chance he’ll return several years from now in Marvel’s Phase 5, the possibility isn’t considered very likely.

Let's note that WGTC has had no successful MCU scoops to date, so their solitary source isn't worth much. Secondly, this runs contrary to Hemsworth's public comments in response to Ragnarok. Is their idea feasible? Absolutely, but I think it's just speculation. I bring it up because there will be people who use this as a basis to theorize about Thor's death in Endgame.

There's a long article by Ben Pearson (itself a commentary on a Deadline article) that goes into Netflix's overall strategy for shows and we can reflect on what this meant for the (now cancelled) Marvel shows:

[T]hat stipulation [two to three years before a show can move to another network] applies to all Netflix TV shows that come from other studios ... [I]t’s in Netflix’s best financial interests for shows to not last more than three seasons ...  the streaming service reportedly “does not see significant growth potential beyond Season 3” – unless it’s receiving significant awards attention. After a second or third season, those mid-tier shows will not drive new subscriptions – which, of course, is Netflix’s primary goal. So Netflix will cancel middle-of-the-road shows and divert those funds to making something new and flashy in the hopes of hitting big and attracting new subscribers

There were clearly other, corporate reasons for cancelling the Marvel shows, but what this illustrates is that even if there was a good relationship with Disney it's likely none would have gone beyond two or three seasons anyway.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

Deadline is reporting that the Fox acquisition will close March 20th, which matches what Variety predicted in January. This is far earlier than most pundits were proclaiming and it means there is plenty of time for Marvel to kill Dark Phoenix (which I expect them to do--sacrifice millions for the sake of billions), but what about the other Fox projects floating about in the aether? My assumption was that all of them would get tossed aside, but a THR report mentions that Kevin Feige talked to Noah Hawley (working on Doctor Doom for Fox)--does this mean there might be life left in some of them? These are the Marvel properties Fox had in the works prior to the purchase:

• New Mutants - there's a complete cut of the film, but after testing poorly the planned reshoots have never happened (Vanity Fair says, "Other, smaller films ... are likely to be shuttled to Disney’s new streaming service.... One likely casualty, observers guess, will be Josh Boone’s Marvel spin-off, The New Mutants"--my personal view is that the film will simply be shelved so that the MCU can introduce the property properly)
• Gambit - the long-suffering Channing Tatum project was supposed to start filming last February, but was put on hold due to the upcoming purchase
• X-Force - former Daredevil showrunner Drew Goddard was writing the script for the film he was going to direct (which would include Deadpool)
• Doctor Doom - Hawley finished a script for the project last year
• X-23 - James Mangold and Craig Kyle were writing a script for the film in October, 2017, but it was put on hold two months later due to the impending sale
• Multiple Man - in November, 2017, James Franco was signed and Allan Heinberg hired to write a script
• Kitty Pryde - Tim Miller was signed to direct and Brian Michael Bendis to write
• Silver Surfer - Brian K. Vaughan was hired to write the script last February

Let's go back to what THR actually reported:

Hawley said he met with Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, who asked him of the script, "Are you still working on it?"
"Should I still be working on it?" Hawley replied. But no concrete answer was forthcoming.

This is pretty ambiguous. Feige can't make an official comment until the sale is complete, so there's not much he could tell Hawley. It goes without saying that even if he likes Hawley's script it will have to be adjusted to fit into the MCU (although unlike Edgar Wright on the original Ant-Man, Hawley seems open to making those changes).

On the broader point, I think there's no chance whatsoever that Gambit, X-23, Kitty Pryde, or Silver Surfer are kept by Marvel (two are X-Men and won't predate the team; X-23 is a spinoff of Logan (which doesn't exist in the MCU); and I don't think the latter happens before a Fantastic Four film). I think it's unlikely Multiple Man is kept either, but there's an outside chance as the character can function on his own (although I doubt Franco would want his film to be part of the wider MCU). X-Force is a likely exception, as Disney CEO Bob Iger has been pretty clear he wants to leave the Deadpool franchise intact. As for Doctor Doom...it's difficult to say. Can you introduce him prior to The Fantastic Four?

Deadline reported (which was then confirmed) that James Gunn has been reinstated to direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3:

The decision to rehire Gunn — he was fired last July by Disney after alt-right journalists made public a fusillade of decade old social media missives that made light of pedophilia and rape — was one that was mulled and actually made months ago, following conversations with Disney studio leadership and the team at Marvel Studios. Why the change of heart? After the firing, Walt Disney Studios president Alan Horn met with Gunn on multiple occasions to discuss the situation. Persuaded by Gunn’s public apology and his handling of the situation after, Horn decided to reverse course and reinstate Gunn.

We know from other reports that Feige wanted him reinstated immediately. It's difficult to tell how quickly Horn changed his mind (THR is implying the decision to bring back Gunn occurred not long after his firing), but the critical pounding Horn took in the press and within the industry likely helped (clearly Iger also took Feige's side). This is a great thing for Disney and the franchise (even if I think Guardians 2 is a weaker film than the original).

One element to bring up with Gunn's return is a needed revision of my expectations for which new characters might appear in the MCU. Gunn was an advocate for Wonder Man (whose cameo was cut from Guardians 2), and Quasar, who has yet to be introduced. Gunn's return means there may be space for both, although to what degree is unknown.

The other thing of note is that because Gunn is directing Suicide Squad 2, the final chapter of Guardians won't come out until 2023 (instead of 2022, as most had been speculating).

Scott Derrickson Tweeted out an image from the comics showing Doctor Strange with Namor and then promptly deleted it. This has lead many to wonder if the long-rumoured character will appear in the MCU at last. There are several possibilities: Derrickson simply liked the undersea image of Strange and Tweeted it without realizing the reaction it would get; he posted the image as an intentional tease; it's an attempt to pressure Marvel into letting him use Namor; or he deleted the Tweet because the character is only truly available after the Fox deal--see below. In my opinion it comes across as a tease, but without more information we can't dismiss any of the options.

Armin, who is an iffy source at best, said something I'd never heard before: that Fox owned part of the rights to Namor (presumably because Marvel made him a mutant), but no one else discussing his rights has ever brought that up. This idea lead me to research what's actually known about his rights and here's what Kevin Feige told Empire magazine in 2013:

That's [Namor] at Universal

Then to IGN in 2014:

Yes [we would make a Namor film, not another company], but it’s slightly more complicated than that. Let’s put it this way – there are entanglements that make it less easy. There are older contracts that still involve other parties that mean we need to work things out before we move forward on it. As opposed to an Iron Man or any of the Avengers or any of the other Marvel characters where we could just put them in.

And to IGN in 2018:

I think there’s a way to probably figure it out [making a Namor film] but it does have — it’s not as a clean or clear as the majority of the other characters.

Comments by Joe Quesada in 2012 and 2016 (the link) confuse the issue, as he claims Marvel has the rights to him, but reading his comments strongly suggests Quesada doesn't have a strong grasp of the situation (I'll get into why I think he said that below). Borys Kit (of THR) made a similar statement in 2014, but reading through the Twitter thread he too didn't seem sure about the situation (Feige's 2014 comments were from two months later, incidentally).

Finally, we have to note the last time Universal was making a Namor movie: 2006, when they replaced departing director Chris Columbus with Jonathan Mostow; not long after that change the project died.

What does all of this mean? There are a few things we can be sure of:

1) Universal once had the right to make a Namor film, but by 2014 this was no longer the case; more than likely those rights were on the seven-year ticking clock that all Marvel properties seem to be on (like Daredevil etc)

2) Feige mentioned in 2014 that 'other parties' (plural, so more than just Universal) would be involved in making a film, but named none of them

3) The situation remained complicated in 2018, but Feige did not specifically mention multiple parties

The general assumption is that Universal still holds the distribution rights (as they do for the Hulk), although I would be shocked if there wasn't a ticking clock for those rights as well (Universal acquired the rights to Namor no later than 2001). Quesada's comments probably reflect two different realities: in 2012 they likely could have made a film with Universal, so in that sense, the option existed; in 2014 Universal had lost exclusive rights so that Marvel could make a film, but not without complications (as Feige mentioned). I suspect Kit had either heard about the latter change or simply seen Quesada's quote.

The 'other parties' comment by Feige means Universal isn't the only company involved, so who else could it be? Saban Entertainment originally owned the rights that Universal acquired, but they were absorbed by Disney long ago, so clearly that's no impediment. Without other information to go on Armin's theory that Fox is involved (through the mutant connection) makes the most sense, although in what fashion that impact's his rights is difficult to say. This secondary involvement would explain why the MCU hasn't just ignored Universal (as they did with the Hulk) and had him appear outside of his own film. It's worth noting the only easter egg in the MCU related to Namor came from Iron Man 2, produced by Marvel prior to being purchased by Disney, when they still had a healthy relationship with Universal.

If my supposition is correct (that Fox was involved with the Namor rights), then the purchase will add the availability of another core MCU character none of us realized required the change (tying in, perhaps, with Derrickson's Tweet).

Captain Marvel hit theaters, controversy and all, and had a great opening (my review is here). I always expect a big haul for an MCU film, but there is a wide range for that--Ant-Man and the Wasp pulled in just 75 million domestically and 85 million internationally (including it's delayed Chinese opening). I have no idea what kind of legs Captain Marvel has, but it's certainly on-target to beat the anemic pull of AMATW (622.7) and push beyond Doctor Strange territory (677.7) into Wonder Woman range (821.8), even if it winds up fading fast (through Thursday it was at 559).

The demographics of the film are interesting, as Box Office Mojo's early numbers show the crowd was split 55/45 male/female--this is a higher percentage of women than typical for the MCU, but less female-dominated than Wonder Woman which was 48/52; the audience was also older than typical. It will be interesting to see if these trends hold up as the film completes its run.

Slash Film provided this quote from Kevin Feige about Captain Marvel's power levels:

In future stories, well, none of the Marvel characters are immortal. Even ones that seem immortal, some people might be very hard to kill, but nobody’s un-killable. So if we’re lucky enough to see future adventures with Captain Marvel, of course there will be limitations and there will be Achilles heels and there will be things that we learn and see that it’s, it’s not as easy as a slicing through whatever she wants to at any point. But this wasn’t the time to accentuate that.

I think this sentiment goes without saying, but given the climate surrounding the character it's a smart move for Feige to clarify. My guess, as I mentioned in my Endgame speculation article, is that she'll be defeated by Thanos as part of the process of reigning in her power level.

Two things happened this week to cut down on the noise surrounding the film: the unexpected release of the Avengers: Endgame trailer on Thursday, and the reinstatement of James Gunn on Friday. Both of these exciting and unexpected events completely took attention away from those who have been screaming about Captain Marvel. I'm not sure that these events will impact the box office any, but it does mean the amount of static online will die down for a time.

I speculated awhile ago that Shang-Chi might simply be a placeholder for another MCU film, but that doubt can be put to bed as THR is reporting Destin Daniel Cretton has been hired to direct the film. I'm still not sure how they are going to make Shang-Chi standout--as I mentioned when it was announced, martial arts films are very played out, unable to perform well at the box office for decades. All the reporting around the film implies that Marvel thinks they can get Black Panther money from the IP, but unless they are going to pair him with some well-known MCU character I'm not sure Shang-Chi has enough panache to even come close to that (despite the MCU-branding). It's not that I think it can't work, just that I have a lot of concerns until we know more. One thing I wonder about is if they'll steal Iron Fist elements, removing the Rand element, and give it a fresh coat of Shang-Chi paint (this would provide a lot more material, although for my part I think the Rand part of the identity is what actually makes Iron Fist interesting). The character would definitely benefit from being introduced in someone else's movie, but it's difficult to know which film that would be (Black Widow could work, but there's no hint he'll be there; The Eternals makes no sense--perhaps Doctor Strange 2 if Shang-Chi is going mystical). Robert Meyer Burnett suggested including the Mandarin--perhaps as his father or a relative--and that could be interesting (and give renewed relevance to the oft-forgotten Iron Man 3).

According to THS the Ned Benson re-write of Black Widow has added an entirely new (younger) character. This is, presumably, a quite minor role. THS believes the point of adding the character is that the actress will have a future in other MCU films, but given how broad a net they are casting with there's no obvious established comicbook inspiration, so I'm not convinced by their speculation. Incidentally, I'm curious what this late Benson re-write portends for original script writer Jac Schaeffer (who also worked on Captain Marvel). Given that I expect Marvel would have preferred only female writers for the film, I have to think she's on thin ice due to the delays in production.

The Internet has been awash with confusion over the history of the Tesseract in the aftermath of Captain Marvel, something I find puzzling, but it's easily fixed (Charlie and others have done this already):

• Odin brings the Tesseract to Earth and entrusts it to those who worship him (Captain America: The First Avenger)
• Red Scull discovers it, is rejected by it, and ultimately Cap takes it with him when he crashes into the ocean and freezes (ibid)
• Howard Stark retrieves it from the ocean (ibid) and brings it to SHIELD while working on it himself (Thor post-credit scene as well as Iron Man 2)
• Dr. Lawson uses the Tesseract to try and unlock lightspeed, but her experiment fails; Captain Marvel recovers the Stone and returns it to SHIELD (Captain Marvel)
• SHIELD begins working on the Stone to try and create weapons (post-credit of Thor as well as Avengers)
• Thor takes the Tesseract back to Asgard (Avengers)
• Loki steals the Tesseract (Ragnarok) and then hands it over to Thanos (Infinity War)

While it's too late to save Dan Merle from making a fool of himself over imagined contradictions, the above will save anyone else who couldn't be bothered to Google the matter.

For those who missed it, incidentally, I put together a new Endgame speculation article, fully updated from the October original (it's comprehensive and therefore long).

Speaking of Endgame, there's an interesting image floating around that does it's best to break down the timeline of the scenes shown in the trailer. While it's a pain in the ass to read, it's worth going through. The people who put it together mention that (according to the Russo's) there's nothing from the third act in the trailers ,which is a far more realistic limitation than the usual chestnut of everything being from the first 15-30 minutes (the first act). Here is their chronology:

• 1) Steve, Nat, Bruce, and Rhodey meet Carol Danvers shortly after the Snap
• 2-3) They aren't certain when Thor or Tony/Nebula arrive, but it's early since two of the three (minus Tony) are part of the Thanos killing conversation with Carol (via the shareholder meeting); they believe the reaction shot of Cap and Nat to "is this an old message?" is actually in response to Tony aboard the Benatar (rather than Ant-Man at the door, as the trailer makes it appear)
• 4) They believe the fight shots (of Nebula/Cap) are from attacking Thanos and, like me, they believe the heroes lose and have to deal with it (this would be an important step in Carol's evolution as a character as well)
• 5) Next there is a time jump, which they peg loosely at a few months to a couple of years (I think it's a year, because that's how the MCU likes to do things); they think Nat goes to collect Hawkeye at this point, but narratively that makes no sense at all (there's no motivation to just up and do it then--see below)
• 6) I think Scott's appearance is what sparks new hope and gets Nat to go and collect Hawkeye in Tokyo (the original posters think the scene with his daughter is a flashback when the two old friends meet as opposed to opening the film--whether it is or isn't seems trivial)

And that's as far as it goes. Presumably it would be at this point that the group get their Quantum suits and time travel. This arrangement is different than my chronology, but I actually agree with the above given my adjustments--having Ant-Man appear after they are defeated by Thanos makes a lot more sense than how it seems in the teaser (and justifies the long gap of inactivity).

We have a hint via Variety that the Sony-Marvel deal may have already been renewed. In the article Sony talks about developing a bunch of TV shows based on their Marvel IP--why does this matter? Because Sony can't make Marvel TV shows without Disney's permission. If this is a sign of a new deal, what concessions did Marvel get in return? My assumption is access to more of Sony's IP (ie, more characters). I suspect the announcement of that renewal is being withheld until Marvel announces it's Phase Four plans post-Endgame.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Avengers: Endgame Updated Speculation

Four days ago I posted the sum total of the official Endgame material available at that time, while I continued working on an update of my Endgame speculation article (previously posted in October). Yesterday a new trailer came out, so I've incorporated that into this post rather than commenting on it separately. A lot has changed over the last five months and to break-up the wall of text I've divided everything into sections.

What's Known

We have an official synopsis, two teasers, the mid-credit scene from Captain Marvel, a full trailer, and a leak from a Disney shareholder meeting (seemingly confirmed by the trailer). Beyond that there are toy leaks and comments from those involved. One character who survived the Snap that seems to be involved, but we know nothing about, is Okoye--she was included in the most recent poster, but hasn't appeared in official footage, fan theories, or leaks (suggesting a minor role). With that summary out of the way, let's break it down.

Here is the official synopsis:

After the devastating events of Avengers: Infinity War, the universe is in ruins due to the efforts of the Mad Titan, Thanos. With the help of remaining allies, the Avengers must assemble once more in order to undo Thanos' actions and restore order to the universe once and for all, no matter what consequences may be in store.

There's not much substance here, but there are two key elements: "undo" (suggesting time travel)
and "consequences"--what, exactly, are the consequences of restoring order to the universe? It
almost seems as if the consequences of defeating Thanos are a greater threat than he is, although
that could simply be a quirk of the wording.

Before we get into the various trailers, let's keep in mind that Marvel creates fake scenes (including
CGI) to confuse what the plot is (you can see here that there were 21 Infinity War trailer shots not
included in the film).

In the first teaser we learned a few key things:

• Iron Man believes he's about to die on-board the Benatar, where he is trapped in space with Nebula (whether she'd die as well is not clear to me); this means that the duo get the ship off Titan after Infinity War, but for whatever reason cannot fly it home (or, presumably, anywhere useful)
• Cap has a plan of action that is either because of Ant-Man's arrival or changed by it (how this relates to the shareholder leak remains to be seen--see below); I'm basing this interconnection due to the consistency in Cap and Nat's hair during the relevant clips, although the scene could be deceptive (as in their reactions might not be to Ant-Man)
• Black Widow retrieves Hawkeye from wherever he is (and whatever he's doing post-Snap)
• Ant-Man has brought the van containing Hank Pym's Quantum Machine with him to Avengers HQ

Nat's narration about what happened is presumably for Carol Danvers (see below) or Scott Lang, as
everyone else would know what happened and Hawkeye's collection happens later (Nat's hair is
longer in that scene).

The second teaser is much shorter than the first, but contains these interesting elements:

• Time passing; there are two clear time periods within the film being shown--one soon after the Snap (Cap has his beard, Nat's hair is still short and blond), and one after what might be almost a year (Nat's hair gets longer and red; Thor's beard gets gnarly; Cap shaves his Infinity War beard)
• Trickery: there are two shots where someone (or possibly more than one person) has been digitally scrubbed from a shot (the former for a walk on the Avengers lawn and the latter a group shot inside the Avengers HQ--these gaps are largely filled in when we see the shot again in the trailer released yesterday)

The Captain Marvel mid-credit scene answered some questions (both broad ones from various
theories as well as those posed by the foregoing):

• Carol Danvers arrives early in the film (we know the scene is early because Cap still has his beard and Nat's hair is still short and blond); she responds to Fury's pager, which the surviving Avengers have retrieved and are using at their HQ (this seems to connect with a scene from the first teaser when Bruce is looking at the list of the missing)

To me this suggests that it's Captain Marvel who has been scrubbed out of the lawn scene in the
second teaser. It also implies that Carol arrives on the scene before Ant-Man, although it's difficult
to be certain about the timeline given that we can't be sure the reaction scenes shown for Scott
Lang are actually about him (as opposed to someone else, perhaps Nebula and Iron Man returning in the Benatar).

Combing through the latest trailer we get a variation or extension of Tony's soliloquy to Pepper
from the first teaser, as well as dialogue from Peggy Carter (long rumoured to appear in the film,
see below, although the speech is taken from Winter Soldier). This type of narrative introduction was used in the initial teaser for Infinity War via Nick Fury; another parallel to that trailer is the use of the Avengers theme. I have to wonder if the Peggy line 'start over' is another clue for time travel (like 'undo' in the synopsis above), although it could be about the Avengers becoming a team again. During the narration there are specific references to the first Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America (due to the rights situation with Universal and the re-casting of the Hulk, they don't use The Incredible Hulk).

Initially I thought the actress playing Lila Barton (whom Clint is showing how to shoot the bow) was Emma Fuhrmann--long rumoured to play an older Cassie Lang--but this is apparently one of the
Russo's daughter's in a cameo. Clint doesn't yet have the Ronin haircut so the scene is before the
Snap when it's widely assumed all or most of his family is dusted. I'd been wondering of late if
Fuhrmann would have the Kate Bishop role, but I think including it now would be pretty redundant
(the rumours about Bishop were either about a future film or a Disney+ show--both might be true in the long run).

From there we see a follow-up scene from the teaser where Black Widow meets Hawkeye in his
Ronin guise. Then Thor has his first piece of dialogue from any of the marketing where he reflects on the Snapture. Cap then talks to Nat (whose hair is longer and red--perhaps a year
after the Snap) that hits the "Not us" dialogue from the second teaser. We get a shot of Scott
Lang that matches leaked photos from eons ago (see below)--it looks like a reaction shot before he
goes to Avengers HQ (he is without the van). That's followed by a series of action shots with no context while the OG Avengers talk over them about doing what needs to be done 'whatever it takes.' We then have a shot of the group walking through the HQ in the white uniforms that were leaked last summer (and then confirmed by toy leaks); they look like Hank Pym's suit from Ant-Man and the Wasp, meaning they are for the Quantum Realm--Tony is in this shot as well, having been scrubbed from the previous teaser. The tag line is the Thor scene with Captain Marvel (see below), which confirms the shareholder leak. The former is wearing the same outfit we saw in the initial teaser, but Carol is not in the uniform she was wearing in her post-credit scene.

Disney showed a scene (or two scenes cut together) to their shareholders recently (apparently not
under an NDA). The substance is interesting and dynamites a number of Endgame theories:

• Everyone (minus Iron Man, Ant-Man, and Hawkeye--they may be there, but are not referenced) is debating what to do and Carol suggests killing Thanos, believing that with her present the Avengers can defeat him in combat
• The group knows where Thanos is due to an energy surge detected on Earth, but then also appeared on another planet (a place Nebula believes he would go anyway); they gather on the Benatar and depart for space

When this scene occurs isn't entirely clear--Nebula is present and so is Captain Marvel, so I believe
this is early in the film (the film's first act), but without our touchstones for time (Nat's hair
and Cap's beard) I can't be absolutely certain (this suggests, incidentally, that this attack will fail). I believe this scene was shown to explain where Carol has been all these years. Why will this attack fail? Endgame writers Markus and McFeely told Collider last year that the reason they didn't use Adam Warlock was because they didn't want a powerful newcomer to solve the plot--they wanted the OG Avengers to do that. This problem with Warlock applies equally to Captain Marvel--she can't be the solution and it suggests to me that when this fails it may take Carol out of the picture for awhile.

From a lego set and clues in the trailer (eg), it appears as though Thanos attacks Avengers HQ relatively early in the film--when is hard to say, other than after Cap's shave (we don't get a good look at Nat's hair to truly tell, but it's before the heroes are wearing their Quantum suits). We have no idea why Thanos attacks or in what context--from the toy it's after Carol's arrival, but how does that jive with the scene of them going into space from the shareholders leak?

Finally we get to the toy leaks--these are official toys whose advertisements are either already out
or have been leaked. Keep in mind these are rarely 100% accurate, but they are all approved items
by Marvel and they confirm two things:

• Valkyrie will appear in the film (something known from leaks and suggested by her official survival of the Snap)--she's in the same white uniform as the other heroes, suggesting she plays a part in the larger action of the film
• Pepper will wear the Rescue armour from the comics, making her a more active part of the film

That summarizes everything official we have about Endgame. However, before we jump into leaked
photos and what not, we have comments made by those involved in the film that can tell us
something. We'll start with the Russo's:

I don’t think there are any comics that correlate to it [the story of Endgame]. I think we’re in pretty fresh territory with Avengers 4. If anything, I think it’s interesting after to go back and look at some of the Marvel films and view them through a different lens. But I can’t think of any comics in particular that would have value.

This is pretty clear cut and flies in the face of virtually all the theories about the film (which borrow heavily from the comics). It's worth noting that because the Russo's were caught lying about the title of the film (denying it was Endgame months before the reveal), we have to take this statement with at least some caution, even if I think the latter case was very specific and they were under orders to deny it. The comment doesn't mean there are no comicbook influences or direct borrowings, but I think the point is that the plot is not a direct adaptation--it's important to remember that when we get into theories.

And now, Kevin Feige:

People always will jump to that [character death]. That’s not necessarily what we’re talking about. I talk a lot, because I’m a big-ass nerd, about Star Trek: The Next Generation, “All Good Things." That to me is one of the best series finales ever. That wasn’t about death. [Captain] Picard went and played poker with the crew, something he should have done a long time ago, right?

This is an important point to emphasize because there's a lot of lazy speculation about character
death out there. Whereas prior to Infinity War there was a great deal of discussion by cast and crew
about who would die, here Feige is clearly deflating that expectation for Endgame.

Leaks

While the MCU is good at keeping secrets, there have been a leaks about the film, even if none have truly given away its plot. To keep things digestible, I'll break these down by subcategories

Leaks - Casting

• In April THS (in a now-deleted post) reported that Emma Fuhrmann had been cast as Cassie Lang--this is the rumour that fueled a thousand time-jump rumours (which Conrad simply can't give up on)--but digging into it the identification of her as Cassie is in doubt since both THS and IMDB have since backtracked on it--maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but I think it's still up in the air
• In October The Wrap reported that Katherine Langford had been cast in an unknown role; a few months later she posted a picture of herself with red hair (above), leading to all sorts of speculation

THS is fantastic at scoops, but horrendous at speculation--if this future Cassie role is correct it
seems like a waste of the actress because what, then, would be her future once the Snap is fixed?
While there are no immediate plans for another Ant-Man film, it would pose some timeline issues
depending on when you wanted to use the character again (I'm also at a loss as what the point of
such a leap forward would be--Scott is already emotionally invested in solving the problem, so
what's the point of additional, convoluted motivation?). Who she is remains open--I don't think she's part of The Eternals cast because that film hadn't started casting yet (see below), and she could be a tertiary character like Jena Malone in Batman v Superman.

Langford has been predicted to be all sorts of people, but given the lateness of the leak I think
there's a strong possibility she's a link to the upcoming Eternals film (given that it lost its planned
lead-in, Guardians of the Galaxy 3, because of re-scheduling after James Gunn's firing). If that speculation is correct, it's possible that Langford is playing "Piper" from the casting list THS put out in November (that's their theory, although again, their speculation is generally terrible). It's unlikely she will have a very large role and Langford may be crammed into a post-credit scene.

The one thing not shown in any official material is time travel, which is the one thing most definitively established by leaks that go all the way back to 2017. Set photos came out showing a number of the Avengers and Ant-Man in a recreation of the 2012 Battle of New York. The general conclusion is that this represents time travel and the devices depicted are related to the Quantum Machine Scott Lang brings to the Avengers HQ in the first teaser (we know there are Time Vortexes within the Quantum Realm as they are mentioned by Janet Van Dyne in Ant-Man and the Wasp). There are two competing theories to this: one is that the devices are related to Iron Man's B.A.R.F. technology shown in Civil War, but not only is that a far less dramatic way to look at them, but there are photos of Tony Stark suffering an injury in these sequences which are not possible in re-imagining the past, so I believe the BARF idea is a deliberate plant by the Russo's to throw people off (successfully in the case of Charlie Schneider). The final option is alternative realities, but that's an idea the Russo's have rejected:

Joe: There’s no ‘What If’ scenarios. Everything that happens in these movies, happens in these movies. There’s not like, you know, some potential, a tangential reality. We wanted to commit to the storytelling and the most complete way and not give ourselves any kind of, you know, potential, uh, outs, like, uh, it was all a reality dreams.

I'll get into the why of time travel below in the speculation part of this.

Leaks - Other Elements

What follows is a mix of comments from actors and reports from fans and the media that give us hints about what's to come. I've placed them piecemeal, commenting as I go.

• Several actors referenced being in a scene much larger than the airport battle in Civil War--Sebastian Stan mentioned it included Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, and Nick Fury; Scarlett Johansson said there were thirty-two heroes together (an oddly specific number); Anthony Mackie said there was a scene with everyone (specifically only mentioning Tom Holland and Dave Bautista); there's a Reddit claim that Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana also confirmed an "everyone" scene, but I couldn't find a link to confirm that

There's no reason to doubt that this scene will occur, although in what context I'm not sure (is it a
fight? a funeral? a wedding?--all have been speculated). There's no point in celebrating the three
phases of the MCU without a scene like this, although logistically I'm sure it was a nightmare to
arrange.

• In a now deleted post Nerdist said that Rocket and Hulk were going to form a bond (which makes sense, as there's something Grootish about the Hulk)

This idea is fairly innocuous and without further information there's no reason to either stridently
deny it or indulge in rampant speculation--I don't think the idea of the friendship really informs us
about the plot.

• Doctor Strange helps Iron Man and Cap's relationship (this should be taken with a grain of salt as the comment was made before the filming of Infinity War in 2016)

This is something oft repeated, but it's not easy to imagine how Strange could impact their
relationship given that he's dusted. Take this with a grain of salt until we have a better idea
how this would work (it might even mean that his action, his self-sacrifice to save Tony, is the
catalyst)--I've long thought his sacrifice of the Time Stone was a moral decision, unrelated to what the best outcome against Thanos was--he may have even lied about seeing a 'winning' scenario.

• Vin Diesel comments in Mark Ruffalo's illicit video from the 10th anniversary MCU photo shoot about the Hulk and Groot fighting together

This could just be hyperbole from Diesel and I've heard nothing else about it.

• Tom Holland mentioned that Doctor Strange talks about the Quantum Realm at length--it does not sound like cut dialogue from Infinity War, so presumably is from the upcoming film

It's difficult to know in what context this could occur (see above)--when would Strange be in a position to discuss this with anyone (barring time travel, of course)? It's even possible Holland was confused or had read a fake script and Cumberbatch let him talk about something that's not in the film. I'll dismiss another leak here while I'm discussing both characters: there's an image floating around of a scene involving the two with a bit of dialogue in the background of a promo for Infinity War. We never see this scene in that film so people believe it's from Endgame, but if you really look at it, it's clearly a cut scene from Infinity War before Peter rushes off to save the unconscious Quill, Mantis, Drax, and Nebula after Thanos hits them with the Power Stone.

• Frigga could appear (her stylist was near the filming in Scotland and posted an image with the hashtag Infinity War)--in what context she would appear is unclear; Revenge of the Fans has picked up this idea very recently, but without providing additional information (suggesting it's simply from the same source)

If this is the case I'd expect her to appear either in flashbacks or a scene in Hel/Valhala (see below).

• Hela will appear (see the Ruffalo comment below, plus some Redditors claim to have seen her around the filming)

The exact same parameters apply as above (for where we would see her), but note the 'confirmation' for her appearance is pretty weak (there are no photos showing her and Ruffalo's comment could be about Ragnarok).

• Aaron-Taylor Johnson (Quicksilver) was rumoured to have been spotted on the set by a British tabloid, but their report is based on a now-deleted Spanish blog; it's also been denied by Johnson

Johnson might be playing coy or adhering to an NDA, but the source of the information is very bad.
If he does appear it would be via time travel or a flashback.

Despite Atwell saying "Not that I know of" when asked if she was in the film, and that Peggy's narration from the trailer doesn't guarantee anything (because the dialogue is all from Winter Soldier), given the 1940s set (see below) it's probable--whether as a flashback, dream, or time travel we can't say yet.

• Howard Stark scenes were shot (likely in connection with what follows below)

No one else has echoed this THS report, but it hasn't been retracted--this could be a recording that's
being watched as opposed to time travel or B.A.R.F. The purpose of these shots is probably related
to the Space Stone, because Howard invests reactor technology based on it in the 60s/70s (cf).

• There was a casting call for extras for scenes from the 1960s

I believe this is also Howard Stark-related (with an outside chance of Peggy); this would also be a
flashback, I believe.

• There was a casting call for extras for the 1970s (hippy women specifically, which makes the scene a bit hard to place)

This could be more Howard Stark, but with an outside chance for Hank Pym (again quite possibly
from a recording or flashback).

• We had rumours that Yondu and the Ancient One would return; these initially came from a Disney promotional display, which is ambiguous evidence at best, but the latter idea was backed up by the always talkative Ruffalo (Hulk) who said he enjoyed working with both Tilda Swinton and Cate Blanchett (Hela)--the Swinton comment can only be from Endgame (something that was confirmed in November in what sounds like a brief cameo); Yondu remains a possibility given that we may see the Guardians characters in the past

Swinton was only there for one day of filming, so it's a cameo and presumably via flashback or time travel given that she dies in Doctor Strange. As for Yondu, it's entirely possible he reappears (with the same context in play). For Cate Blanchett, see above.

• There were comments by Frank Grillo (Crossbones) who hinted his character will return despite having been blown up in Civil War

Assuming he isn't just trolling (something Grillo is fully capable of doing), this would be in flashbacks or via time travel.

• The weirdest rumour is about Harley Keener (the kid from Iron Man 3)--the link is from IMDB, but the actual source is the actor being in Atlanta (where Endgame was filming) at the time (something revealed by his Instagram)

I don't know why they'd waste time on this character and the evidence for him appearing is incredibly slight, so I'm doubtful (it's far more likely he was there for the 10th anniversary celebration, which occurred at that time).

Set Photos (link)

Battle of New York:
-Cap, Tony, Scott, and Bruce are together; the Ant-Man suit is his latest and it's 'current' Tony (as
identified by his blondish hair), while Cap is wearing his 2012 gear and carrying some sort of baton
with CGI dots on it (there's no telling if it's 2012 Hulk or the 'present' version)
-'Current' Tony is in the gear of a 2012 SHIELD soldier
-2012 'past' Tony, Thor, and Loki are inside a building (the latter is sometimes Tom
Hiddleston's stunt double); this seems connected to the Tony-as-a-SHIELD-agent photo

1940s:
-A street shot with era cars--no actors are included in the shot, although there were reports of Chris
Evans on the set

San Francisco
-Scott running through a suburban neighbourhood in his civies (the same outfit he has on when he
arrives at Avengers HQ in the teaser, as well as when he's looking about that same neighbourhood in
the trailer); this is almost certainly his return to Cassie's neighbhourhood

Unknown:
-Cap and Nat at Landmark Jr.'s Diner (the latter has longer hair); it's not clear where this is (other than, presumably the U.S.)

Reports & Fan Sightings

Thor-related:

• While filming in Scotland a pub was turned into the Cormorant and Tun (this does not have any comic book or other connection that I can find--if Bird & Barrel means something to someone, let me know!), with Tony, Bruce, Thor, and possibly Nat seen filming in it (the former three were reported by a local paper, the latter was mentioned by a fan)
• Valkyrie was spotted in Scotland during filming; reports had she, Bruce, Thor, and Rocket filming in Durham Castle (where Thor's dream in Ultron was shot). It was at this time that Frigga's hairstylist made her post (mentioned above)

The theory thrown at these elements is that Durham Castle is being used again as Hel (the Norse
realm of the dead), while other locations are going to be the New Asgard that Thor intends to
establish in Norway (cf Ragnarok). Hela was reported to be on set (see above), which would also
suggest a visit to the realm of the dead. The problem with the Norway association is that the pub has an English name--there's the possibility the group is in Scotland (Vision and Scarlet Witch were during Infinity War, after all), but for what purpose is unknown.

Other:

• Zoe Saldana posted a video where she and Karen Gillan were dressed in their 2014-era Guardians costumes, suggesting either time travel to that era or flashbacks
• A scene on a ship featuring Tony, Cap, Nat, Carol, and Pepper was shot in the presence of a fan (if it had included Nebula I'd be tempted to say it's Tony's rescue from the Benatar, but she was not present)

This is all very interesting, but without further context it's difficult to make heads or tails out of it.

Ten months ago (a few days before Infinity War's wide release, but on the same day of its world
premiere), a now deleted Redditor posted a leak, all of which was accurate about Infinity
War (albeit somewhat vague and given the date, slightly questionable as a leak), but included this for Endgame:

[Endgame] draws inspiration from LOTR: Return of the King and is very thematically similar to it. And it features a Sam-Frodoesque team up between two heroes and THOR plays the role of Aragorn.

The poster also says only two of the original Avengers survive. The latter, if true, could imply the
Stones are like the One Ring and must be destroyed. Who would play the roles of the titular hobbits?
Presumably characters who are not heavy-hitters, since they would be needed for the Aragorn-like
heavy lifting, although perhaps it's the main duo (Iron Man and Cap). As for the battle storyline,
there were two casting calls specifically calling for Vikings (one in late March and again in mid-
November); then a call for 'warriors' in December. It's believed this is all connected to the idea that
Thor is gathering an army (ala Aragorn). We should take all this with a large grain of salt, however.
If the parallel is exact, incidentally, it means there is no defeating Thanos in any context--at least
not directly. That means the heroes have to engage in a distracting move (ala Aragorn) while the
true strike against him is made (the Hobbits). As it stands, this is purely speculative.

There was a Chinese post (from a supposed reviewer) in January that's recently made it's way to Reddit. At first I thought it could be partially authentic, however, problems became apparent as it borrowed extensively from an old 4chan rumour from last May (which created all sorts of spinoffs--I talked about it in my original speculation article). I also questioned how this person could have seen the film--he doesn't claim to work for an effects company (typically the 'source' for these rumours), or have heard about it from a friend/colleague, so the only option would be as a test screener, but they sign NDA's and there are serious consequences for breaking them--yet months later his material is still up and he's still writing about the MCU. The reason, as it turns out, that all of this is fishy is because it's completely fake. The original poster was able to edit their work without having the date change (his original post from January is riddled with errors). For clarity I've left a detailed description of it below.

Speculation

From what's been said one of the goals of the film is to bring the original Avengers back together
again--they haven't been together since Age of Ultron (four years and ten MCU movies ago) --but
even more than that, to truly become a team. This means a lot of things, but the biggest is
undoubtedly putting their egos aside for one another.

So why time travel? Why not a straightforward adventure where the Avengers defeat Thanos and use
the Infinity Gauntlet to undo what's been done (exactly the idea shown in the Disney shareholder
meeting)? I think it's related to stakes--if Thanos could be defeated while in possession of the
Gauntlet, then the failure of the heroes in Infinity War is simply due to tactics--something true to life, but not very interesting. It would also rob Thanos of his victory, something a well-constructed antagonist deserves. Defeat builds character and for the Avengers it should be something that evolves them forward. This is why I believe the plan that ultimately succeeds is preventing Thanos from ever completing the Gauntlet in the first place--preventing the Snap from ever occurring.

Previously I discussed the idea of the Avengers bouncing around in the timeline to collect the Stones
(or at least most of them), but in truth simply denying Thanos the Space Stone changes his entire
plan--he cannot teleport to Knowhere without it (to grab the Reality Stone), which is how he gains
the Soul Stone (and then goes to Titan for the Time Stone and to Earth for the Mind Stone). This
would leave him with only the Power Stone, but one Stone likely isn't enough to win (we may also get a vigorous defense of Xandar to prevent even that, but I doubt it since I think they will defeat Thanos in the present of when Infinity War occurred--again, minimal impact on the MCU timeline prior to Infinity War).

If this is the case, why not simply get the Space Stone from Asgard before the events of Ragnarok?
I'd assume it's both to ensure Hela remains defeated, but also to avoid the butterfly effect on history. So why the Battle of New York? Is it to convince Loki not to steal it in the future? Is it to tell Thor not to take it to Asgard? Or is it simply to steal it? Stealing it from Asgard would seem to be much simpler, but presumably if they did Thor (and Loki) would pursue them, so I have to think it's about persuading them to allow it to be taken.

While there are many suggestions about the Avengers bouncing around through time, the only era-specific things we've seen are from The Avengers and Guardians, but the latter outfits would have served Gamora and Nebula in the former context as well (this would also fit an appearance from The Ancient One, Crossbones, and Yondu), although it doesn't get us to the 40s, 60s, or 70s (which may well be flashbacks). What I'm saying is, we can only be sure of time travel to one specific event.

The time travel doesn't reveal the story of what happens to about half the other characters--there's no sign of modern Thor, Nat, Clint, Rocket, Nebula, etc in the past--just Cap, Tony, Hulk, and Ant-Man--so what are the others doing? There's nothing official to work on, just repeated rumours about Thor gathering an army. This idea, the army, only makes sense if they are going to battle a Thanos who has one Stone or none, but thus far there's nothing to confirm it.

There was a (different) 4chan leak in January and while I don't believe it (the guy claimed to work for a fired FX company who worked on the films), one of the things it said is that Endgame would try to avoid the continuity effects seen in Back to the Future. One doesn't need the 4channer to understand why this is: the Russo's (and Feige, the MCU, and Disney) have no interest in invalidating any of the previous films--those movies must remain 'real/authentic' after the events of Endgame in order to maintain their relevance. Given that, whatever time travel the Avengers are doing has to be done in such a way that the only thing they are impacting are Thanos and the events of Infinity War.

Fake Chinese Leak Breakdown

I mentioned above that this post has been revealed to be fake (it's proven the guy who wrote it has been changing it over time while maintaining the original date stamp of January--the original post is riddled with errors). This explains, I think, why 3/4's of it is in broken English when translated, but the remainder is perfect English. Despite the ability to edit his work, he incredibly left lines like, "The Ancient One is likely to appear in the Avengers 4 because of the true role of the interpretation [of] time gems"--if this is a review of the film, how does he not know if the Ancient One appears or not? Anyway, here is the gist of his post (with me bringing up a few key points as I go).

• In the immediate aftermath of Infinity War, Thor searches for Thanos but can’t find him and returns to Norway; Rocket (who is in Wakanda) goes to meet Thor and the two decide to look for Tony, the Guardians, and the surviving Asgardians
• On Titan Nebula and Tony a need of parts for the Benatar, so go looking for the remains of the Milano—it’s on this journey that Tony records his message for Pepper
• Thor’s hunt for Tony begins with Pepper—she joins him in his search; Rocket wants them to get the pod they left on Nidavellir in order to send a message to the Benatar—when they arrive they hear Tony’s message, but he isn’t receiving when they try to reply; they follow the signal back to the Benatar and collect the two heroes. Thor brings them back to Avengers HQ via the Bifrost (bringing the ship with them)--this is the scene of the Avengers on the lawn looking up
• After Tony and Steve meet for the first time since Civil War we transition into the Captain Marvel post-credit scene. Afterwards they discuss what to do, but Tony and Pepper decline to partake—Tony says there’s no way to beat Thanos
• We get the shareholder meeting scene beginning with Nebula saying she knows where Thanos would go
• Carol info dumps about herself and realizing her powers came from the Space Stone they think they can destroy the Stones with her (much like Scarlet Witch did with the Mind Stone in Infinity War)
• The Avengers (minus Tony and Banner) get ready to take the Benatar out (Banner staying behind to help Tony out, whose health suffered while on the Benatar)—we then get the scene from the shareholders meeting where Rocket asks who has been to space before
• They arrive on Titan 2, fight Thanos, and lose [that's the Reddit translation, the original is more ambiguous--suggesting what follows is all that happens]. Thanos destroys the gauntlet and the infinity stones to stop anyone from ever changing the past--this is a problem because Thanos still has the Gauntlet in the lego set where he attacks Avengers HQ
• The Avengers Endgame intro plays
• In defeat the Avengers return home; Steve and Rhodey go back to the military to help re-establish peace and order; Thor leaves to go find the Asgardians; Carol goes to help the rest of the planets; Rocket remains with the Avengers; Banner and Tony have been conducting experiments on how to bring back the decimated, but cease that work to put their efforts towards helping the survivors [the latter is via the original]
• [Thanos has hidden himself in another dimension or some such and no longer exists in this universe]
• Scott Lang appears on video (ala the first teaser)—he’s just escaped from the Quantum Realm via a time vortex. He received help from the Quantum Kingdom and ants [from the original it seems as though the ants opened the portal for him via his remote commands]. Scott explains that he ended up in parallel universe where he went to see his daughter Cassie, but she did not recognize him. That's before he ended up here in his own universe--this would contradict the Russo's saying no alternate realities
• Tony decides to make use of Quantum tech and Scott unshrinks Hank Pym's lab; Tony wants to visit these parallel world and he makes suits and equipment for the Quantum Realm [This idea matches the 4chan plot; it's left out of the Reddit translation, but the original does say the point of this is to get the Stones from other realities]
• It’s not explained when he left, but Banner returns showing his ability to control the Hulk [The 4chan post includes this unification for the character]
• Nat goes to find Hawkeye and finds him in Japan with a female apprentice
• Thor has been trying to reestablish control of the nine realms to form an army big enough to fight Thanos. He goes to the ruins of Asgard and finds that it has become a part of Hel. Hela is there and he tries to get her help [The idea of Thor assembling an army matches 4chan]
• [Not included in the Reddit translation is the need for the group to go back to the Battle of New York, the Battle of Wakanda, to face Thanos in his base in outer space--I'm guessing this means where he's residing in Guardians of the Galaxy--and finally, go to a place they don't know and meet a very important person]
• [The reviewer says this ends the middle portion of the film]
• [There's a back story from a novelization that gets slammed into the review ad hoc, but amongst that material is a character poorly translated as "Lorez Peck" from whom Thanos gets the Mind Stone prior to the events of The Avengers]
• Thanos has been watching the Avengers and knowing that neither Carol nor Thor are away, decides to finish them off; the Avengers think about escaping into the Quantum Realm, but Scott explains that if the Quantum Tunnel is destroyed while in the Quantum Realm, they'll be stuck there for decades (just like Janet Van Dyne)
• Tony calls to Thor and Captain Marvel and Carol arrives with the Nova Corps while Thor arrives with Hela’s undead Army and the remaining Asgardians via the Bifrost; Banner and Thor protect Quantum Tunnel and face off against Thanos; Vision then arrives, recreated from the parts Shuri saved in Infinity War; he and Rhodey stay behind to fight while the rest of the Avengers go into the Quantum Realm

From there he offers no coherent conclusion--no description of Act Three--it simply speculates interminably (there's something about the Soul Stone and a sacrifice, but it's completely speculative). What we have, really, is a farrago of various theories given the author's own particular twist--with actual information edited in as it appears. Here are a few things he missed: 1)We're lacking the Hawkeye/daughter scene, 2) We don't see the Ancient One (he's apparently unaware her appearance has been confirmed), 3) There's very little interaction between Steve and Tony, 4) There's no attempt to thematically touch on "All Good Things" (the TNG episode), 5)  The plot shares a lot of similarities to the Secret Wars comic where Doctor Strange assembles an Infinity Gauntlet from different universes--this would run contrary to the Russo's saying the story wasn't heavily indebted to existing comicbook material (and Secret Wars is not an obscure or unrelated comic to borrow from).

That's more than enough time spent on a busted theory!

Conclusions

What's the structure of what we've seen? What story has been presented in the material we've been
handed? Let's break it down chronologically as best we can with the clues in the footage:

• We open with Clint teaching his daughter how to use the bow (we know this is early because Clint doesn't have his Ronin hairdo yet)--my assumption is that she then gets Snapped--I think the film opens this way to touch base with Hawkeye (absent from the MCU since Civil War) and illustrate what turns him into Ronin and shows us his emotional stakes for the film--it's also the only scene set before the events of Infinity War
• We check in with both Tony and Cap shortly after the Snap--the former is trying to get home on the Benatar with his new ally, Nebula; the Avengers are trying to deal with the catastrophic event--having recovered Fury's pager and working to continually send its signal (we need this scene to show what's happened in the immediate aftermath of the Snap)--for time jump fans like Conrad this is a direct slap in the face to his original theory
• Before the Tony situation is resolved Carol Danvers arrives at the Avengers HQ in response to the pager; they explain to her what's occurred (we know this is early because Cap still has his beard--I believe it's pre-Tony because of that--the beard disappears quite early)
• Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm (presumably by growing big, as he did in Ant-Man) to discover the horror of the Snap; he grabs Luis' van, which contains the Quantum Machine, and drives to Avengers HQ (I believe this happens early because Nat still has the short blond hair and because Scott is present when the HQ is attacked in the trailer)
• Tony is able to Macgyver he and Nebula home (I believe this is the scene on the lawn with the four Avengers looking up--I believe Carol has been airbrushed out)--I think this happens early because of what's said in the shareholder meeting and because we know the film heavily focuses on the relationship between Cap and Tony (which can't be the case if it doesn't start early)
• We have the debate about what to do about the situation with Carol wanting to kill Thanos; the group agrees and they all board the Benatar (this fits the context of what we've been told from the shareholders meeting)
• I believe it's that this point that the HQ is attacked--the explosive scene we see with Ant-Man from the trailer being evidence of this (plus no one is wearing their fancy Quantum gear, so it's earlier in the film); my assumption is that Thanos does enough damage to somehow put their activity on-ice for a long period of time (this assumption is based on Nat's transition from short blond hair to shoulder-length red hair)
• It's presumably at this stage Cap is either part of or holding support group meetings; Thor is likely creating New Asgard in Norway, etc--this is conjecture on my part, however
• About a year after this setback (give or take, again based on Nat's hair), something happens to change their situation--what I'm not sure (the arrival of the Quantum Machine would make sense, but if Ant-Man arrives early that can't be the catalyst); it's around this time that Hawkeye is collected by Nat (again, her hair) and, afterwards, we get the group shot of everyone in their Quantum suits
• The finale, or certainly towards the end, we get the big group shot referenced above; in what context (battle, wedding, funeral) remains to be seen

That, it seems, is that--at least from the trailers/teasers etc. The various leaks we've had don't provide context, so placing them anywhere is quite arbitrary. I'd guess, given Tony's blond hair/older look, that the time travel is in the third act, but otherwise there are no indications (none are in their Quantum suits, but all have the dots on them for effects to paint them on). I will say that the shareholder leak and the Avengers HQ lego attack toy really makes it hard to sort out the chronology--an early failure to attack Thanos in space is fine, but how does that jive with the group being attacked at home by him? Dramatically, I'd think, the attack on the HQ would be late in the film--perhaps after the time travel--a last desperate attempt. An attack on Thanos that fails would definitely excuse the long gap between their post-Snap activity and a year later. Perhaps the Thanos attack destroys the Quantum Machine Scott brings them and that's what causes the delay in action (Tony has to try to rebuild it or some such). I have to give credit to Marvel, because I'm really not sure even after all the marketing and leaks.

Character Death

Let's just briefly address the death of characters, since it's a popular topic. Most people believe, for contract reasons, that Cap is doomed. A smaller number, for dramatic reasons (and for the MCU to come full circle), believe that Tony dies. I've long been in the minority in rejecting the end of Captain America. Not only is Chris Evans one of the younger MCU stars (he'll be 38 this year), he's also one of its most bankable stars--why let him go? Dramatically, too, Cap sacrificing himself has already happened--he did it in his first film and has been willing to do it in every film--so what's achieved by having that happen again? I think the Russo's have no interest in going down that obvious road with Cap, whatever his situation is (particularly as it so strongly echoes what's happened in the comics--remember what the Russo's said about comicbook influences above).

Iron Man is a very different situation. RDJ will turn 54 this year, has taken on the Uncle Ben role for Peter Parker, is incredibly expensive, and is the spark that launched the MCU--a heroic death would be an excellent way to wrap-up the first three phases of Marvel (granting that he was willing to make that sacrifice in The Avengers). With that said, we had a wedding with Pepper teased in Infinity War and we know she survives Endgame, so it's entirely possible he survives and retires--but I do think his death is the most dramatic one you could have in the film.

As for the other OG Avengers, older actors like Don Cheadle (55 this year), Mark Ruffalo (52 this year), and Jeremy Renner (48 this year) could easily be written off--none support their own films and, other than Ruffalo, are particularly popular. However, them passing away doesn't mean much unless there's a strong context within the film for it.

I don't think Nat or Thor are in any danger (they are turning 35 and 36 this year)--Ragnarok saved the latter's character and the former has a film coming up--even if it's a prequel I don't think killing Black Widow would help marketing it. Nebula and Rocket are in Guardians 3, so they are safe, Okoye will be in Black Panther 2, so she's also safe, and there's no doubt that Captain Marvel will survive.

So what's my prediction for who could die? I'd say Iron Man, although I don't feel absolutely certain about it. Others, like Hulk, might also die (a way to take a shot at Universal and their lack of cooperation, perhaps), but I don't think the film is really focused on death--that's what Infinity War was for.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)