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)