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)