Marvel News

There's a new Reddit theory making the rounds which, were it not for the inclusion of Guardians of the Galaxy's Rhomann Dey, might sound plausible. Unfortunately for its author, the idea of John C. Reilly's character trying to take on Thanos is so ridiculous it dynamites everything else in the post.

THS is reporting that the MCU is looking to cast an openly gay character for its male lead role. Back in November they described the lead as a Greek God with THS speculating it could be Hercules (keeping in mind THS' notoriously terrible speculation). Unbeknownst to me, until I researched it, Marvel has had a version of the character who is gay, and while this isn't the canonical version of the character in the comics, the MCU could very easily borrow it (since the historical precedent was bi and most of the iconic LGBT characters in Marvel are mutants, ie part of the Fox IP). There's a different character described as 'physically imposing,' but with suggested actors Cameron Britton and Thomas Kot it doesn't fit the jacked-Hercules mould. In terms of the impact of the decision on the film, it will help the coverage and reviews, although I suspect it's a non-factor for most of the audience and likely won't be part of the marketing.

In the same article THS clarifies that the unnamed male lead will join Ikaris, Sersi, and "Piper" (possibly Katherine Langford's character) as the main characters in the film. I say 'clarified' because in their original cast list only the unnamed male lead and "Piper" were listed as leads. The problem with the Langford casting idea is that the original casting sheet for Piper said she was very young (10-16), and Langford is 22; this range makes it more suited to the Emma Fuhrman casting rumour (the actress is 16), but given when that rumour came out (April), it's unlikely casting had begun for The Eternals yet (although it makes a lot more sense for Fuhrman to be Piper than an aged Cassie Lang, unless that's a setup for New Avengers).

Incidentally, and I've seen no one bring this up, but it would be very easy to get a Thor or Loki (or any Asgardian) cameo in The Eternals if the MCU wants that link--particularly if there's a Hercules, because he and Thor have a long history together in the comics.

The one benefit to enduring the latest Dark Phoenix trailer (credit to Fox for not being able to put out a good trailer), is that it got me thinking about the MCU's approach to the X-Men. If the Fox film hits theaters (assuming Disney doesn't acquire Fox beforehand or if they do they still let it come out), I think it will cement the approach I suggested back in October of moving away from Jean Grey and her associated stories for awhile. Kevin Feige has shown a strong aversion to dealing with material that other films have used (eg with the Hulk and Spider-Man), and I believe that will be the case with the X-Men as well. We do know that we'll get Wolverine as part of the MCU team (I have no idea why people doubted this, as he's consistently the most popular X-character), but otherwise we have no hints as yet. One thing I didn't consider when writing my speculative article is that if you're avoiding Jean to begin with, you could use a young Havok to tease her (and Scott Summers) eventual appearance--although there's no need to rush that. My expectation, incidentally, is that the first X-film will largely be its own thing (just easter eggs or cameos from the rest of the MCU)--this would follow the pattern of Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Ant-Man, and seemingly The Eternals.

I mentioned in my aforementioned post that I expected the MCU to go with a very young team to contrast it with the mostly older actors who have carried the load through the first three phases (eg RDJ, Mark Ruffalo, Paul Rudd, Sam Jackson, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, and Paul Bettany). This would fit the flavour of the most popular versions of these characters as well (the early Claremont years, a mix of teenagers and early 20s); it would also make the actors cheaper to lock in as costs for the OG actors have soared. I don't think, incidentally, that any of the major X-characters will appear on the streaming service (the B-listers maybe--would I like to see an Alpha Flight show? Yes! But will I? No--strictly D-list, sadly, although they do have a good connection to both Wolverine and Captain Marvel).

We Got This Covered is claiming that not only will Deadpool films continue to be made, but that he'll cross over into the MCU proper (this flies in the face of what Disney CEO Bob Iger said not long ago (echoing his sentiments in 2017), although you could argue there's wiggle room in his statement that he means anything under the Deadpool banner will be separate as opposed to the character himself). This isn't implausible, although it's unclear how this integration would occur given that otherwise everything from Fox is being rebooted (the Quantum Realm presumably, since the MCU is pushing that more than alternative realities). I don't know WGTC's track record on scoops as yet, so take this with a large grain of salt (they habitually site a 'source,' as in the singular, which isn't encouraging--one thing you have to credit Conrad with is that he uses more than one source).

Speaking of Fox, those New Mutants reshoots announced back in January, 2018, still haven't happened. We were last reminded that the reshoots hadn't occurred in October--if we needed any further proof that this film is never hitting theaters, this is it.

WGTC is also claiming that a source has revealed the MCU's plans for the Fantastic Four:

[T]he film will be based on the Ultimate Fantastic Four comic book series, will feature a team in their 20s or 30s, and will be a cosmic adventure that sees the gang exploring space and the unknown. On top of that, it’s reported that Doctor Doom will not be the villain.

The brains behind the Ultimate version of the team were Brian Michael Bendis, Mark Millar, and Adam Kubert, with the series running from 2004-09. If WGTC is correct about it being a younger team, than popular choice John Krasinski (for Mr. Fantastic) seems unlikely, as the actor turns 40 this year. However, as mentioned above, I don't have a track record to work from for WGTC, so take this with a grain of salt--particularly as Christopher Markus (writer for all three Cap films, the last two Avengers films, and credited on Thor: The Dark World) believes Doom should “stick to the comic book and make him the king of his own country,” which is unlike the Ultimate version.

One thing I wanted to note about the Netflix shows is that almost every season of each show was about the main character struggling with their superhero identity (or, in one case, their non-superhero identity). Let's briefly go over it:
DD1: should he be Daredevil?
DD3: should he be Matt Murdock?
JJ1: should she be a hero?
JJ2: should she be a hero?
P1: should he be the Punisher?
P2: should he be the Punisher?
LC1: should he be a hero?
IF1: should he be Danny Rand or just the Iron Fist?

Only the second season of Iron Fist fully moves away from this, although Colleen Wing inherits that dilemma (these identity questions also inform Wilson Fisk, Elektra, Simpson, Mary Walker, Bullseye, etc). Both Daredevil 2 and Luke Cage 2 are slightly more nuanced, where their struggle is what kind of hero they are, but I think the creative teams simply went back to this well far too many times, hurting the quality and distinctiveness of the shows. At some point as a fan you want the hero's struggle to be the mission more than whatever internal issues are going on.

I thought we should take a look at the Sony-Disney deal to share Spider-Man as it nears its conclusion (Homecoming is the last movie covered by it). The deal has benefited both sides, with Marvel's crossover movies getting a boost from Spider-Man's appearance and Sony's films being made at lower costs, higher profits, and a reversal of the trend of diminishing returns since Spider-Man 3 (the MCU Spidey is the second highest earning Spidey film of all time). For those unaware of how it works, Sony pays Marvel to make the films and keeps the profits--in return Marvel gets to use Spider-Man in the MCU. Tom Holland has one film left on his contract that isn't part of the original deal with the MCU, so this situation will need to be resolved soon.

For Sony, Venom's massive success (885 million, which is slightly more than Homecoming) has encouraged the studio to fund more Spider-verse films, and even if Morbius, The Living Vampire tanks there will still be a Venom 2. Sony has a ton of potential movies on their slate (we haven't had a serious update since the summer, but Kraven the Hunter, Silk, Jackpot, Nightwatch, Black Cat, and Silver Sable are in various stages of development). What's important to realize about this laundry list is how little substance there is behind it--the latter two properties used to be one movie (Silver & Black) and lack both a writer and director; Spike Lee left Nightwatch no later than the fall; etc. Most of the slate exists purely on paper and Sony doesn't have someone overseeing the whole project--instead Avi Arad, Palak Patel, and Amy Pascal are in charge of different projects. Sony also made the mistake of giving up both the merchandising rights and the television rights to Marvel years ago, so they can't make TV shows without Disney's approval, such that they can only profit from a film's box office.

One of the stipulations in the deal is that only the MCU can use Spider-Man in live-action productions (ergo, Sony can't put him in Venom etc). This stipulation makes it very difficult for Sony to make its universe coherent. Getting out of the deal with Disney would mean they can use Spider-Man however they want, but this would put Sony in the awkward position of either extricating Tom Holland's version from the MCU or else go through the turmoil of yet another reboot (Feige has cleverly positioned the Spidey film after the events of Infinity War/Endgame, avoiding the easy story-out Sony could have had). All things considered, it's far simpler for Sony to renew the deal.

I believe renewing that deal will cost more concessions from Sony, because the MCU doesn't need the character in the same way anymore. When the deal was struck Marvel was quite limited in the number of high profile characters they could use (you could argue they had no A-list characters at all, with a limited list of B's available), but now that they are about to be flooded with the Fox properties, which includes almost all the best-known IP, that's not the case. This doesn't give Sony much leverage--however big a fan Feige is of Spidey, the MCU missing only him is no big deal. Will Sony give up more concessions if they want to maintain the arrangement? I suspect so, likely in the form of Marvel getting exclusivity over other iconic characters that are part of the Spidey IP.

One of the rumours floating around right now (via Armin, of all people, passim), is that Sony are open to offering a lot more of the Spider-Man setting to Disney in exchange for permission to develop a Spider-Verse television series and the right to get Spider-Man in their own movies. I think there is no chance Feige will give up control of Spider-Man, but some wheeling and dealing (such as television shows) is something I can imagine. Armin wonders if an alternative universe Spider-Man would be allowed so long as he doesn't have his own film--I see this as unlikely, but possible, depending on how it's handled.

Further to this: Armin claims that Sony wants to stay on Disney's good side in the event that Sony Pictures is sold (I believe Midnight's Edge covered this possibility some time ago)--either if Disney is the buyer or for another corporation (Comcast could swoop in to interfere with Disney some more, as they did with the Fox deal and continue to do so over the Hulk et al). Sony could also simply sell the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel, which for fans is the simplest scenario, but such a deal boils down to how Sony Pictures is performing and how the Sony corporation itself is doing.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)