Marvel News

SPOILERS for ENDGAME below

I've posted my initial thoughts on Avengers: Endgame (along with checklists for scoops/predictions), but I have a few other bits and pieces before we get into the usual news.

Two supposed easter eggs have been making the rounds:

• The earthquake off the coast of Africa that Black Widow and Okoye reference is a nod to Namor

While this is possible, it's not as blatant an easter egg as Iron Man 2 (where Atlantis is seemingly shown on the map).

• Peggy Carter references Captain Britain by mentioning "Braddock"

This is during the 1970 time travel sequence, so if it is an easter egg it must be referencing his father (what would be the point of marooning the character in a time period where, canonically, he can't actually fulfill his hero role?).

We also have a couple of theories about how two deceased characters may appear in forthcoming properties if they aren't simply prequels.

Loki (Disney+): during the 2012 time travel sequence Loki is able to steal the Tesseract and escape (this is what requires the trip to 1970); narratively this means there's a timeline where that happens which does not effect the prime MCU timeline. What it does is create latitude if they want to use him again while still preserving his death (much as we have the 2014 Gamora set-up for Guardians 3)--Forbes believes the show will be his adventures in the alternate timeline, which is plausible, but that would not meet the expectation Kevin Feige set that these shows will impact the movies.

Black Widow (film): the theory above has a lot of proponents, while this one does not. Regardless, there are two ways we could get Widow in the MCU's present: 1) Banner says he tried very hard to bring her back when he performed the Snap, but couldn't--he might simply be wrong, 2) When Cap goes back in time, it affords him the opportunity to rescue Nat. I don't believe either of these is correct (the writers of Endgame are pretty explicit that she's dead, although their reasoning wouldn't apply to a past Widow who is rescued). I remain at a loss what a prequel to a dead character can hope to accomplish (if that's all it is).

A final observation: genuine spoilers for Endgame appeared broadly April 15th (via Twitter), the exact same timeframe that they did with Infinity War last year (back then Frank Palmer at Screen Geek indirectly spoiled Loki's death for me by discussing the spoiler). I steered clear of the usual places this time around and was able to avoid the problem. I don't think this will be an issue for the MCU for a long time, since culmination films like this are only going to reach a fever pitch after long intervals (a reality the comicbook industry has failed to learn, ie, Marvel's yearly events). As for how long that will be, the Thanos-narrative took seven or eight years (depending on when you believe Marvel decided to go with the Infinity Gauntlet story), so while that doesn't dictate how things will be in the future (especially since when it started Marvel was making two films a year and soon they will be doing four along with Disney+), but I'd think no sooner than five.

Two pieces of casting news for The Eternals have come out:

• 1) Umberto Gonzalez is reporting Korean star Ma Dong-seok has landed an undisclosed role--given how badly Umberto bungled the Katherine Langford scoop, we have to take this with a grain of salt
• 2) THS is adding details to its story from March about the film looking to cast a gay role with a gay actor: at the time they guessed this would be Hercules, but THS' own Charles Murphy says that's not the case and that Hercules may not even be in the film (an ironic pronouncement since he started that rumour). The role is for a character named "James" who is "intellectual, emotional, and has a strong sense of family." They are looking to cast an Asian actor and THS says that the lead option is Conrad Ricamora. It's difficult to match this character description to anyone on the cast list (meaning he could be in a supporting role, which would also contradict the initial THS report that said he was a lead)

Murphy continues to insist that Shang-Chi is going to be filming in Australia this summer rather than The Eternals, but I'm not clear on why. If it is Marvel has done a much better job hiding the casting for the film, because it would be the only one among the three in production (including Black Widow) that has had no leaks whatsoever.

In an interview with the LA Times Tessa Thompson said she'd heard rumours there was a pitch for a fourth Thor film--this matches hints from both Chris Hemsworth (in 2018 and then after Endgame's release) and Taika Waititi (2017) about it (their quotes via the link). Where there's smoke, there's fire, and I've been assuming we'll get another film with Thor ever since Ragnarok. Endgame also implies Thor will be in Guardians 3, which I hope is true since the change in his character suits that franchise extremely well.

A dead Twitter account (lasting all of a few days in December) from Roger Wardell had credible scoops for Endgame, such that I think the rest of his speculation is worth addressing:

• Black Knight in film

This was echoed by a 4chan post a month later, but as a potential Disney+ show (which was then presented as a scoop by Jeremy Conrad without referencing either source).

• Power Pack/Ms Marvel likely as shows

Feige has mentioned being fond of the former for years; he's also confirmed Kamala Khan appearing (the time jump in Endgame speeds up her arriving), but beyond that there have been no specifics (although both could easily work as shows, even if I have negligible interest in the former).

• A Thunderbolts film featuring: Zemo (Civil War), Ghost (Ant-Man and the Wasp), Justin Hammer (Iron Man 2), General Ross (Hulk), Abomination (Hulk), and the Leader (Hulk)

Rumours about this kind of film have been floating around for a very long time, spiced up by James Gunn admitting an interest back in 2014 (undoubtedly this transitioned into Suicide Squad nicely for him). There are contracts in place for many of the actors, but as yet there's nothing firm about it. I'm hesitant to accept the lineup here, but the general idea is plausible. I'm not sure if having Ross at Tony's funeral in Endgame is a nod to his future use or simply one to The Incredible Hulk (ala Harley Keener appearing in that scene for Iron Man 3).

In all these instances Wardell says that they are being discussed, not that they are specifically going to happen--this is an important distinction to keep in mind.

iHorror is reporting New Mutants has been delayed again, their source saying:

They want to wait until the merger is completed before they make decisions about the release of certain films, including The New Mutants.  The new release date will be far away from August.  Nothing else is known at this point. This makes perfect sense and, if true, is probably the end of the film as a theatrical release.

I have no idea how reliable iHorror is, but a delay (if not outright shelving) of the film would not be surprising.

With a 40% drop in viewership The Gifted has been cancelled. I believe that while Marvel Entertainment (which runs the TV shows that aren't on Disney+) will continue to have shows on Hulu, the number will be small and (once Agents of SHIELD ends) that will be the only network it's involved with. Personally, I don't see the point of disconnected elements of Marvel.

I've been mentioning Shazam's box office for awhile (346 million currently), due to the endless stream of articles and videos proclaiming it a great success. Where does the film fit on the scale of major comicbook movies since Iron Man? I have the MCU in green, DC in red, Fox in blue, and Sony remains black:
1. Infinity War 2.04
2. Avengers 1.51
3. Age of Ultron 1.4
4. Black Panther 1.34
5. Iron Man 3 1.21
6. Civil War 1.15
7. Aquaman 1.14
8. Captain Marvel 1.1
9. The Dark Knight Rises 1.08
10. The Dark Knight 1.0
11. Spider-Man: Homecoming 880
12. Batman v Superman 873
13. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 863
14. Venom 855
15. Thor: Ragnarok 853
16. Wonder Woman 821
17. Deadpool 2 785 (this includes Once Upon a Deadpool)
18. Deadpool 783
19. Guardians of the Galaxy 773
20. The Amazing Spider-Man 757
21. Days of Future Past 747
22. Suicide Squad 746
23. Winter Soldier 714
24. Amazing Spider-Man 2 708
25. Doctor Strange 677
26. Man of Steel 668
27. Justice League 657
28. Thor: The Dark World 644
29. Iron Man 2 623
30. Ant-Man and the Wasp 622
31. Logan 619
32. Iron Man 585
33. Apocalypse 543
34. Ant-Man 519
35. Thor 449
36. The Wolverine 414
37. Captain America 370
38. First Class 353
39. Shazam 346
40. The Incredible Hulk 263
41. Green Lantern 219
42. The Fantastic Four 168

It will finish as one of the poorest performing comicbook films in years and the lowest in the DCEU by a considerable margin. I remain baffled that no one seems to want to discuss why it only worked in North America (I can find exactly one video looking at its performance). I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here and I will be letting it go, but that lack of reflection is puzzling--I'm genuinely curious why industry people think something so safe and critically praised tanked like this (my theory is the target audience was wrong--making it a straight-up kids movie killed it).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Avengers: Endgame Thoughts and Reviewing Predictions

Endgame: Initial Thoughts

SPOILERS ahead

Prior to seeing Endgame I watched through the entire MCU catalogue (something I've never done before); it was the first time I'd seen The Incredible Hulk (which wasn't as bad as I'd imagined, but it's not a good film). I've seen Endgame once and I'm still processing it. Right now I'd call it a great film--it didn't hit me quite the way Infinity War did, perhaps because I've been covering it so intensely. As a send off for the three phases of the MCU it made some bold choices and, with one exception, I think they were good choices. The film was much funnier than expected, but that didn't detract from its emotional beats. Did we feel the impact of Infinity War? I think we did. Was there character progression for the main characters? Absolutely--of the OG Avengers only Black Widow doesn't get an arc in the film. Were the deaths dramatically effective? I think so, even if (again) there was one that leaves me baffled. Has the film successfully concluded Marvel's opening phase while also setting up its future? The former absolutely, while with the latter is more of a mixed bag. Speaking of characters, the Russo's have a gift at making underwhelming or underused characters shine, and in this we get the best version of Frigga in this film (alas we didn't get the same treatment for Valkyrie, who remains bland, although burying her on the throne is one way to deep-six her as a major ingredient in the MCU-films).

That said, any film that's three hours long is going to be called slow (just like any Netflix series with 13-episodes is going to be called too long), but the pacing was fine. Like any conclusion it attracts criticism (64-years later and people still make jokes about the eagles in The Lord of the Rings). What's it's not is a disappointing or underwhelming end of an era--it's not the Matrix sequels, it's not The Dark Knight Rises, it's not Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, etc.

A more general thought: this earns the right to not simply be Infinity War 2--it does so because the film isn't really about Thanos, it's about undoing what he does with the Gauntlet--about saving those who were lost. In that sense past-Thanos is simply another obstacle (a formidable one), but not the main antagonist--the problem of the film is bringing the Snapped back.

A few other random observations: I enjoyed the Russo's making use of one of the comics bigger boondoggles of having Cap be a secret Hydra agent--that little nod, so perfect for the context of the film, is the only positive way to use that idea. Speaking of Steve Rogers, the assumption is that he's done as Cap--he's old, Evans wants a break, etc--is overblown. If the MCU ever wants to, bringing him back isn't that hard--he's been de-aged in the comics before (or we could see time travel), so while it's more likely Evans won't return, he still could since he wasn't killed off.

Uncertainties/Disappointments

There's no such thing as a perfect film and Endgame has a few elements that stand out to me as either problems or disappointments (some of which may be resolved in the future):

• 1) Black Widow's death: it struck me as a poor end for the character--yes, she pays back her debt to Clint in a way, but how does that move her character forward? She'd already repaid him by becoming a better person
• 2) How can a Black Widow movie happen if she's dead? We've had endless rumours it's a prequel (originating with former THSer Charles Murphy, who has a good track record), but how trivial is that going to be if we never see the impact of whatever that film is trying to do? If this is as straightforward as it seems it will be the first MCU film I have no interest in since Ed Norton's Incredible Hulk (keeping in mind there might have been foreshadowing via Banner's comment at the end of Endgame about really trying to bring her back)
• 3) Cap's time travel feels a bit wonky--the theory is he lives with Peggy in a separate timeline until she dies of natural causes and then travels back to his own timeline as old man Cap to give up the shield to Falcon--it's an odd approach, although it does give him his happy ending
• 4) The five-year jump--how will that work exactly? Those who survived the Snap have aged and those who haven't, haven't, which is a little odd (not necessarily the biggest of deals, just one I wonder if the future films will deal with at all)
• 5) Lack of mid/post-credit scene: I understand the logic of leaving them out, but they are such a hallmark of the MCU that I was disappointed to not see one

Reflections on My Predictions

There were three notable things that I got right:
1) The death of Tony Stark (which I predicted all the way back in March of last year); I was by myself predicting this up until December (other than a 4chan Far From Home scoop in May)
2) Cap wouldn't die (I suggested retirement, although I did not imagine how he'd give up the shield)--this went against an avalanche of popular opinion that was sure Steve Rogers would die heroically in the film.
3) There would be no use of B.A.R.F. tech (something I long suspected was a plant by the Russo's to spread disinformation); the biggest advocate of this was Charlie Schneider, who, given the size of his audience, is significant.

There are plenty of things I got wrong, with the biggest being the Stark Gauntlet--a very popular theory (including a toy leak which was real, despite my doubts), but one I thought in-universe was unlikely (it was hard to figure out who could handle the Power Stone or who could wield the Gauntlet--the film's solution was that no one directly handles the former except Thanos, and that using the Gauntlet nearly kills Hulk and does kill Tony). Another, and I'll gladly eat humble pie here, was rejecting the legendary five-year gap (most prominently pushed by Jeremy Conrad & his buddy Daniel). I thought Jeremy's evidence for it was weak, but within the film's narrative it makes sense, making room for: Kamala Khan, Stature (Cassie Lang), Kate Bishop, etc (it's good for successor/inheritor characters). Going back to Jeremy, the evidence prior to the film was weak (it was never clear to me that the universe would stay five years in the future). I wonder if he or (more probably) Daniel had some fragment of insider knowledge; regardless, we can remove that as an error from Conrad's track record (as well as the strike against him believing Frank Grillo's walked-back claim that there would be a new (black) Captain America).

Reflections on Leaks/Predictions from Others

We'll colour code this to break up the wall of text; those coded red are completely wrong, those coded orange are partially correct, and those in green are completely correct:

Jeremy Conrad
The five-year jump

Tony Stark's child would be sacrificed (initially saying it would be a young child and then suggesting that role would be Katherine Langford's--see below)

THS (That Hashtag Show - posts lost via a hack)
Emma Fuhrmann was in the film playing an aged-up Cassie Lang
Howard Stark would appear
The Wrap (Umberto Gonzalez)
Katherine Langford would appear in the film
Nerdist (post deleted afterwards)
Rocket and Hulk would form a bond/friendship--other than their brief mission to New Asgard, this isn't emphasized in the film (indeed, Thor is more his buddy)
News-catching Reddit Posts
Hela would appear (this included claims that people saw her on set)

The film would draw inspiration from Return of the King with Thor playing the role of Aragorn

News-catching 4chan Posts

January plot summary of the film was complete bunk
The most famous (infamous?) 4channer gets his own breakdown below (it's a mixed bag)
Actors
Frank Grillo: there would be a new, black, Captain America; Grillo also confirmed his own appearance
Tom Holland: Doctor Strange talks a lot about the Quantum Realm

Mark Ruffalo: the Ancient One would return

Ty Simpkins: Harley Keener would appear

Hayley Atwell denied being in the film
Aaron-Taylor Johnson denied being in the film

Popular Theories

The Soul Realm would appear/be involved
A link/hint of the X-Men/mutants*
Doctor Strange would help Tony & Cap's relationship
Ant-Man would appear far in the future and/or past before arriving at Avengers HQ (the infamous door cam video)
Quicksilver would return
Yondu would return

*I do wonder if the Snap, which generates a tremendous amount of energy, are what causes mutations

The Famous 4chan Post

This is the one Jeremy Conrad was promoting and I went over it a month ago:

• Iron Man reassembles the Avengers and decides to build his own Infinity Gauntlet to undo what Thanos did. They recruit Ant-Man to help them travel through time and space using the Quantum Realm to retrieve the Infinity Stones from different time periods. Thanos finds out about their plans and becomes hellbent on stopping them

It's actually Captain America who assembles the Avengers, but Tony does build his own Infinity Gauntlet with nanotech; the idea of undoing the Snap is Scott Lang's, who simply arrives rather than being recruited, but the plan and Thanos' pursuit is correct

• The movie revolves around the relationship between Captain America and Iron Man

This is incredibly generic and echoes frequent comments by the Russo's beforehand, so it's not really a prediction

• At one point, Captain America and Thor fight Thanos. Timeline alterations have restored Mjolnir, and Cap wields it against Thanos to allow the others to escape, and is killed holding Thanos off

The first part of this is true, the latter is not

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

The first part is true, the second is more ambiguous (what does Clint do directly to defeat him other than be part of a long chain of heroes who try, unsuccessfully, to prevent Thanos from grabbing the Gauntlet?)

• Thor's subplot centers on him assembling an army to challenge Thanos. Captain Marvel joins him

This is wrong on all points, as Doctor Strange gathers the army off screen at the end

• Hulk's subplot centers on Banner and Hulk finally merging to become Professor Hulk. He is the one that ultimately wields the Stark Gauntlet against Thanos, losing his arm in the process

The first part of this is wrong (Banner achieves harmony off-screen), the second is partially correct (he doesn't use it against Thanos, he simply uses it, nor does he lose his arm, it's simply badly injured)

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

The first part is wrong (she's already redeemed), but the second is correct

• Several MCU movies are revisited and retconned (probably not permanently), such as the Avengers retrieving the Power Stone creating a timeline where the Guardians of the Galaxy never came together

This is completely wrong, as there are no ripples in time at all (we now have a Gamora from the past, but that has no impact on the existence of the Guardians at any point in the film)

• There's a pivotal scene between Doctor Strange and a fully CGI character being shot on a secret location, with a skeleton crew, and takes up a relatively sizeable portion of the budget.

This is also completely wrong; Strange barely appears and spends most of his time holding a water break

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

Completely wrong; only two die and Cap retires

• The title was Avengers: Infinity Gauntlet at one point, but it might be changed after Zoe Saldana accidentally leaked it

Kevin Feige has debunked this one--it was always Endgame

In total the poster got five things right, three partially right, and ten completely wrong. What the poster seems to have known is a rough outline of the plot with a selection of specifics that are hit and miss (mostly miss)--whether that's due to changes to the outline or the poster's own speculation we'll likely never know.

One final addendum, a guy called Roger Wardell (who I've never heard of), known via two apparently dead Twitter accounts (this seems to be the main and first one, but this has Reddit excited) seems like he knew some of Endgame's elements if it's accurate. I don't know how easy it is to fake Twitter dates, so I have to assume it's real for now--oddly this information did not circulate much despite containing a couple of juicy spoilers.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

In one of the TV promos for Endgame Cap can be heard talking about teams and missions--this is undoubtedly what Scarlett Johnasson was referring to in interviews. What's not clear is what those missions are or how the heroes are divided up (there have been hints, via interviews, that the female characters will be grouped together--akin to what happened in Wakanda during Infinity War--but I wouldn't call that confirmed).

Comicbookmovie is floating a rumour about Doctor Strange 2 (which is slowly being picked up elsewhere):

During the trade's report on Disney's CinemaCon presentation, they note: "Not revealed — what the Marvel movies will be for 2020 for the new merger.  Word is that will come to reveal itself after Avengers: Endgame opens at the end of the month. Rumors have been that it’s Black Widow standalone movie and Doctor Strange 2."

They don't cite where they got the quote, but it comes from a Deadline article. The question is: was this a mistake by Deadline or is it feasible given what we know about Doctor Strange 2? Director Scott Derrickson was re-hired in December and his buddy C. Robert Cargill to write the next month. CBM claims the latter's script is done (speculation that's plausible--we know Derrickson had ideas for the sequel when he made the original), but we've had no announcement of when production starts (generally it's no sooner than a year from the beginning of filming to screen). If filming starts this fall it's possible for the movie to hit a November, 2020, release date (that's exactly the same timeframe as the first Doctor Strange). What about Benedict Cumberbatch's schedule? He's currently shooting 1917, which wraps in June, so that isn't a problem. He's also signed for Rio, which is listed as in pre-production, but I can't find a production start date for it. I've seen people dismiss the rumour, but until we know when Rio is filming it remains feasible.

Charles Murphy (of THS) is floating an uncertain rumour about a Namor film. What's really puzzling about this idea is the timeframe. Given that Marvel would have to had to negotiate with both Universal and Fox, why would they do so just months before buying the latter? Surely it would be simpler to wait for the Fox sale to complete before doing anything (this rumour is not related to the one from 2017, incidentally). I think if there's any truth to this it's about having Namor appear in someone else's film (reminding me of the speculation about Doctor Strange 2), but frankly I don't think it's real--at least, not as-is.

We've learned an upcoming MCU movie will be filming in Australia this summer and the consensus is that it's not Black Widow (even though the director is from there; rumours have BW filming in London). Speculation is that this is Shang-Chi, but it's not confirmed (you would think casting rumours would have filtered out by now if that was the case). The Eternals is much further along in its production process, even if rumours have its production beginning in September--if it's not Black Widow, that seems more likely.

The most interesting part of this rumour is Murphy's guess that if the MCU adds back a summer date for 2020 (as he and I believe), that it will be Fox's June 26th slot. His idea is plausible (whatever movie it would be for)--Fox also had March 13th and October 2nd reserved for superhero films that Marvel can use. Murphy also wonders if Remy Hii (cast in Far From Home) is Shang-Chi (something I doubt given that, ultimately, that's a Sony film and a franchise that could disappear barring a new agreement).

THR is reporting that Kumail Nanjiani is in talks to join The Eternals cast. In reference to the THS cast list from November, it's not clear who he will be playing (the only character with a specific ethnicity preference was female, Karen). I suspect he's in a supporting role (which may or may not be on that list).

Within that report THR seems to confirm that Angelina Jolie will be playing Sersi, which if true is a yet another slap in the face to Umberto Gonzales who, since The Eternals was announced, has been pushing that she will be race-swapped in the film.

Murphy is claiming that Hercules, if he is in the film, a rumour Charles himself started and most people take as fact now, is 99% not the gay character that's been reported for the film. He also believes Piper has not been cast (this is contrary to what THS reported back in March).

We have more casting news, as O-T Fagbenle has landed a leading role. Via the THS casting list I'm guessing he's "A male with an emphasis on African, Middle Eastern or East Indian actors late 20s/early 30s."

Speaking of Black Widow, I don't think I've mentioned that I believe Marvel is propagating the idea that her film is a prequel to avoid spoiling what happens in Endgame.

Before we get into the Hawkeye TV show let's acknowledge that the Wall Street Journal reported that Disney+ is launching in November (something confirmed afterwards).

Variety reports we'll be getting a Hawkeye series on Disney+ and it will feature Kate Bishop. This idea has been floating around for a very long time (given juice by a Kevin Feige interview last summer) and it didn't take a genius to guess it was coming (I talked about the possibility of the MCU using successor characters prior to Infinity War). Jeremy Renner is the first OG Avenger to land a show (joining Bucky, Falcon, Vision, Scarlett Witch, and Loki), and it's not surprising--he was never going to hold up a solo film. What it does do is remove him from the Endgame death list (making he and Black Widow definitively safe). As I've been saying for quite some time, I don't think we'll get many deaths in Endgame and this is more proof of that.

I want to address Conrad claiming the series is his scoop, which, as we'll see, is a preposterous idea. Back in June (before Conrad's first post) Kevin Feige said this:

"[There will be] different incarnations of characters you know"

This directly references characters like Kate Bishop. After this interview Conrad claimed "sources" specified a potential Hawkeye film, but I'm skeptical of him having sources given his track record. Let's note that I and others have suggested successor characters beforehand and that THS beat him to this specific idea by proposing it in April. There's no question that Conrad reads their material, so I think they are ultimately his unattributed 'inside sources.'

 Subsequently, in October he said:

I can say that such a project does still have a pulse, meaning it sounds like it’s in some stage of internal development. What I can’t say for certain is where it’ll end up, as with the advent of the Marvel Studios series for the forthcoming Disney streaming service; this sounds like the sort of story that would fit very well with an eight-episode series. Then again, it could still be a movie.

The only difference from his June speculation is that it might be on Disney+. This is also something that doesn't require (or even suggest) inside sources. The only time he brought up the project again was via 4chan rumours back in January (We Got This Covered also used the same source). That 4chan post about the show has been accurate thus far, without the vagaries of Conrad's own posts.

My point is there's nothing to suggest Conrad had inside information and he also did not break the story (I think the reason why THS' Charles Murphy is throwing shade at him on Twitter is because THS beat him by a couple of months). Scoop aside, this idea just wasn't that hard to guess--Feige literally said they were going to do successor characters beforehand.

Elizabeth Olsen says filming of her series will begin in the fall, meaning we'll see it in 2020. Until I know more about the show this is the least interesting series for me (other than the animated shows) that the MCU has announced thus far.

Kevin Feige had some interesting things to say about the X-Men to io9:

It’ll be a while [before you see the X-Men]. It’s all just beginning and the five-year plan [for Phase Four] that we’ve been working on, we were working on before any of that was set. So really it’s much more, for us, less about specifics of when and where [the X-Men will appear] right now and more just the comfort factor and how nice it is that they’re home. That they’re all back. But it will be a very long time.

The slate that we’re building over the next five years [is] not apples to apples [he said when asked to compare the past and the future.] It is two very distinct things and I hope they’ll feel very distinct. But there is a similar mentality going into it, which is ‘How can we continue to tell stories with some of the characters that audiences already know and love in a unique way, in a different way, in surprising way, of which we have a lot of plans and ideas and work already going into it?’ [Then] ‘How can we introduce new characters that even hardcore fans, comic fans, have barely known or barely heard of.’ That’s really exciting too.

I've provided the full context because of how many articles reacting to it only include the first paragraph. io9's Germain Lussier's response to it is very good:

It’s important to remember, though, that while Feige is saying the X-Men aren’t going to be around for a while, Thanos was first introduced back in 2012, years before his full impact was felt. And when Marvel and Sony made a deal for Spider-Man, the entire course of Captain America: Civil War changed very quickly, at least in filmmaking terms. Marvel has been known to make wild pivots and long, downfield teases. So it’s entirely possible Feige is being honest, or that whatever is planned, it’s simply too big of a surprise to acknowledge just yet.

This is exactly the point. Bringing up the X-Men now would be a huge distraction for Endgame (and Far From Home)--fans would be clamouring for hints and nods and that's not what the film is (it's the culmination of the first three phases of the MCU). Mutants are part of Phase Four, not the present. We know that Marvel won't announce their official plans until after Far From Home (as they've said repeatedly). We also know you don't make a 71 billion dollar purchase and then ignore the multi-billion dollar IP you gained from it just because your "just in case" plans need to be tweaked. Beyond those general points let's look at what he actually said:

• It will be 'awhile' and 'a very long time' before we see the X-Men
• They'd made a five year plan for post-Endgame prior to the acquisition of Fox (the five years is from 2020-24)

The first point includes delightfully vague terms he can easily step out of (a few years might feel like 'a very long time' to some). The second point is not even news--we've known long before the purchase was finalized that the MCU was planning for a post-Endgame existence without Fox. Six films are already in some state of progress that were initiated without the new IP available (Black Widow, The Eternals, Shang-Chi, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and the delayed Guardians film).

What could that five-year plan be? Feige has teased it's entirely different from the first three phases of the MCU and I think what he means by that is that it won't be anchored around three core characters the same way (Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, who had nine of the eighteen solo films). I expect there will still be an overall storyline that's completed with an Avengers team-up film (given the insane hype for Infinity War and Endgame there's no question we'll continue to get films like that).

Back to the first point, the two terms Feige used are mutually exclusive--'awhile' is radically different from 'a very long time'--nor, really, do we have context for what he believes those words represent in terms of team-up movie. It's also of note that Feige is referring to an X-Men film--there's nothing preventing the various characters who eventually compose the team from appearing before they get their own film. We already know the Russo brothers are interested in both a Wolverine film (or, perhaps, X-Men that includes Wolverine) and Secret Wars, projects they absolutely will be given because of their track record. The chatter about the X-Men will become incessant after Endgame such that Feige will have to put them on the board somewhere when they announce the Phase Four lineup.

As a final note inspired by all this: I remain confused over how we learned in February about a Dazzler animated show (with Tigra) before the Fox sale was complete. She's always been a mutant, so part of the Fox IP (apparently she'll appear in Dark Phoenix), while the latter character is Disney's--was this a joint decision by the two companies? It's on Hulu (a platform both Fox and Disney have a stake it), so presumably that's the case. No one seems very interested in the mechanics of the deal however (it's not mentioned in the various trades covering it), but it's an odd collaboration given the timing.

I've been saying for months that I didn't think Disney would release Dark Phoenix in order to protect the X-Men brand, but it appears conventional wisdom was correct and it will hit screens as planned. The choice makes more sense if we're getting a delay in seeing the MCU X-Men (see above), because allowing a second Fox-version of the "Dark Phoenix" story essentially eliminates the possibility of the MCU doing it for a long time (although it does support my idea that we won't have Cyclops or Jean Grey among our first X-Men iteration).

We also received confirmation that the Deadpool films (separate from the MCU) will continue; there's even the possibility that New Mutants will come out as-is. The former is no surprise, but for the latter even Fox thought the film needed reshoots which have never happened, so it would be an odd choice for Disney to release it in that state (John Campea and Robert Meyer Burnett, who attended the event where the release schedule was shown, said it was the only movie not verbally affirmed on stage--it simply appeared in the graphic). Was its inclusion just a slip, or was the slip being left out of the announcement? Given the lack of reshoots I think the former is more likely.

It wasn't clear to me is who owns the rights to Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) because there was a lot of confusion online (CBR and Screen Rant among others said it's unclear). However, an Amy Pascal interview in the summer mentioned that Jessica Drew would appear in one of the planned animated films Sony has in development, which makes it pretty clear that that Sony owns her rights (in Polygon's recent article about Marvel rights they specifically state Sony retains TV rights for their characters).

I looked into this because I thought there was a possibility that Florence Pugh's character in Black Widow, if she's the "kick ass female Bond," could be playing Jessica Drew. We know there was an early version of Far From Home that included her (ultimately replaced by Nick Fury and Maria Hill), but given the rights situation I think it's very unlikely this is who Pugh is.

I've been watching people struggle to explain Shazam's underwhelming opening box office weekend (53.5 domestic, compared to 153.4 from Captain Marvel, 67.8 by Aquaman, 80.2 from Venom, and 75.8 for Ant-Man and the Wasp). This isn't a question about whether the film will be profitable or if it's a good film (it's been critically praised and has positive word of mouth), but why did it open at a level where it's likely to finish its run at the bottom of the DCEU rankings?

I think there are three factors at play (in order of least to most impactful):
1) Endgame: with the ticket drop and advertising hype ramping up, the appearance of a minor DC-character in a film aimed at kids doesn't make much of a blip on the radar
2) Demographics: it's being advertised as a kid's movie (very similar to the Ant-Man films, which I think is part of the problem they've had in making typical MCU-money); this is not a significant part of the audience for superhero films; that audience loves The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, the devastation of Infinity War, the conflict of Civil War, the tragedy of Black Panther and Wonder Woman, etc. It's not appealing to the largest group of fans
3) DCEU's disconnected state: there's no reason for a fan of other DC films to see Shazam--it seems irrelevant whether you see it or not. MCU fans are always asking: do I need to see such-&-such MCU film? The answer is usually yes. Does any DCEU fan need to see Shazam to understand the upcoming Joker or Wonder Woman film? Absolutely not. This further isolates the potential audience

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)