Marvel News

GWW (aka Omega Underground), which isn't the most credible site, claims Marvel is looking for a "Zach Efron-type" to play Moon Knight (I'm dubious of this because why cast for that show now?). The site also hinted at the Inhumans appearing in Ms. Marvel. The idea of rebooting the Inhumans in the rumour-mill goes back at least to WGTC in June and ultimately Adam McKay in December. GWW is echoing Conrad's speculation in August (which doesn't take a genius to come up with--if Kamala Khan is an Inhuman then that origin requires more of her folk). If they change her origin, of course, this requirement goes away.

One thing I've never looked into is the popularity of Kamala Khan, who arrived on the scene long after I'd left it. The question I had was if her cache is related to what she is/represents or if it's her actual popularity (on this fan list she's 95th, for example). Her initial run was for 19 issues (2014-15), the next for 38 (2016-19), but outside a switch in title and writer it is still in print, so for cancel-happy Marvel this looks very respectable. Going through the numbers on Comichron, however, it's a very low selling book (averaging around 150th on lists)--the rebranding gave it a momentary boost, but it quickly sank back to the normal low total it had previously (13k or so in sales to comic vendors). What does this mean? It's a very niche comicbook, so the MCU is leaning more into what she represents than a push from fans (there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I just hadn't looked at the numbers before). This isn't cause for concern (Guardians of the Galaxy was an obscure IP), and it's much safer to have her on Disney+ than supporting her own film, so it will all depend on how she's written (it will absolutely have a writer of Desi-descent, but Marvel isn't shy about script doctoring afterwards--ala Black Widow or the rumoured fix to Shang-Chi).

THR has put out a story claiming that Tom Holland played a role in getting the Sony-Disney deal re-signed:

Sources say the star, 23, made multiple appeals to Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger and Sony film chairman Tom Rothman to reach a resolution.... ... Holland began flexing his diplomacy after the D23 wrapped Aug. 25. He leaned on Rothman to re-engage with Disney (the actor was able to leverage his clout because he also is set to star in Sony's Uncharted) and also surprisingly reached out to Iger, beseeching one of Hollywood's most powerful executives to return to the table.

I'm dubious of the claim (not that he made calls, but that it mattered), as there were innumerable pressures on Rothman to return to the table (public backlash, Sony stock tumbling, director Jon Watts unsigned, the virtual impossibility of writing a sequel that cuts out the MCU-elements, and wanting to hit their two-year window for the third film). Holland's calls may have added an additional weight, but I find it hard to credit it actually impacting the decision since Holland still had two films on his contract.

A Redditor has put out a post with a theory about the intentions of the Sony-Disney deal (based largely on Mikey Sutton, but also a bit of Conrad):

The second contract between Sony and Marvel Studios with regards to Spider-Man only covers two [MCU] movies - one, the yet-to-be-titled Spider-Man 3, and the other, some other Marvel Studios-produced project. This came together quickly in order for Sony to get Jon Watts on their third movie, as they knew that Marvel Studios were gunning for him [referring to Sutton's rumour that Marvel pitched a Nova movie to him]. The two companies are likely [trying] to figure out a new contract where they can keep using Tom Holland in their respective universes. But, obviously, neither side has any intention of stopping there, and they've got time to figure out the future.

As of right now, Sony have been hinting for a while that they want Tom Holland in their movies set in Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters, and that was 100% the plan when they were prepared to leave the MCU - they know that rebooting the character for a third time is an unnecessary risk. Kevin Feige, meanwhile, has shown through his actions with Marvel TV that he's only really interested in developing the MCU and not having to "share" specific iterations of characters unless he's involved (Agent Carter being an example of this). The latest rumor is that they've figured out a compromise: have two different version of Tom Holland's Spider-Man pop up across the multiverse, unconnected to each other.

How might they do this in a way that doesn't completely confuse audiences, you ask? There's a relatively simple solution: have the SUMC Spider-Man be from an alternate timeline to the MCU. Per Mikey Sutton, here's how they've thought the partnership out:

"The Spider-Man appearing in the MCU won't be the same Spider-Man in the Sony Spider-Verse. Although both played by Tom Holland, there is an alternate-timeline Spider-Man perhaps caused by the Avengers, a part of the MCU multiverse. So Holland is indeed the hero who can cross cinematic universes, as stated by Kevin Feige. This will be explained by Doctor Strange [2].

"Now if the MCU wants to use villains already established in the Sony Spider-Verse, with permission they can do their own version of such characters because they are in the alternate timeline of the MCU, unaffected by the Sony Spider-Verse.

"Time to put the 'Spider-Man is being written out of the MCU' BS to rest. Seriously. This is becoming as annoying as "the door is closed." Kevin Feige never said this... Spidey is not leaving. Feige is teasing the opposite, of appearing in both. This tall tale is smoke and mirrors."

I should stress that I don't know if I'm reading the information correctly, but it seems like their plan is to insert Spider-Man into Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. The catch: the Spider-Man in that film we see won't be the Spider-Man who we last saw freaking out over having his secret exposed at the end of his second standalone adventure. It sounds like timeline shenanigans will be involved and this alternate universe Spidey will pull a 2014 Thanos in Avengers: Endgame, ending up in the SUMC by some bizarre shenanigans. The precedent is there. I'm guessing that, if this is true, then Spider-Man will have a role similar in size to what he did in Captain America: Civil War.

Sutton recently hinted that Marvel's plans include having Spider-Man as a supporting player in the Fantastic Four franchise, and that Secret Wars will be the next Avengers: Endgame-level event [cf] (which could involve the Venom Symbiote or Venom himself). As for the standalones, it's been suggested that that stuff like Spider-Man/Deadpool could happen after the third film, which would be in Sony's interests. As of right now, this is a rumor. The only other person that I've seen hinting at it is Jeremy Conrad - the first tweet teasing two Spideys and the second possibly hinting at the multiverse and/or Doctor Strange being involved by means of using the shot of Spider-Man coming out of the portal from Titan. ....

If this rumor is true, then this is the best of both worlds, and it likely sets the stage for both companies to continue their partnership well into the future. If future SUMC movies are bad, then the MCU iteration of the character won't be [bogged] down by it. Spider-Man purists who don't want to see ties to the MCU can also get what they want with a version of the character that diverges from the one we've already met. Meanwhile, the MCU can have their own versions of villains that Sony are using with permission. Also, Sony gets to make the shows that they really, really want with Marvel's permission.

Let's repeat that this theory is based primarily on comments from Sutton, so the poster is potentially building castles in the sand. If this were true then Sony has signed a poison pill, because alternative universe Tom Holland isn't going to wash with general audiences (and would explode Andre's theory below). When I heard about Spider-Man being shared I was imagined he would be able to cross over to Sony's universe in some way, but not how (two versions definitely suits Feige). After this post Conrad responded to the idea claiming it was false by quoting this from Deadline:

We hear that as Sony progresses their own Marvel universe with titles likes Venom 2 and [unannounced] Sinister Six, and Disney/Marvel their own, there could be a “call and answer” between the two franchises as they acknowledge details between the two in what is would loosely be described as a shared detailed universe. Details on that are still early.

This isn't a new update--this comment is from the original story from the 27th. The article comes from Deadline's Anthony D'Alessandro, who has at least twice made MCU statements that proved to be completely false. Beyond that, 'we hear' isn't remotely similar to 'sources at Sony/Disney say,' which suggests this is either D'Alessandro's own surmise or he's listening to theories (in the office, online, etc). What I'm saying is that D'Alessandro's comment, on its own, doesn't amount to much (ergo neither does Conrad's). I just don't see Fiege, on a creative level, sharing with others (Rothman also doesn't like giving up control).

Andre, when discussing the deal (and I wish he'd skip discussing the MCU, as it's his weakest--he doesn't have good sources or enjoy the content) tries to argue the deal is a huge win for Sony. Here's his argument:

• Kevin Feige doesn't like sharing MCU IP with anyone else creatively and part of the original agreement was he could veto MCU-Spider-Man from appearing in Sony films (& therefore making it seem connected in the public's mind); this appears to have changed with the new deal, ergo, victory dance for Tom Rothman.

The problem I have with this is threefold:
1. It's very clear from Feige's comment about Spider-Man appearing elsewhere that this is another universe--that verbiage is even more extreme than what he used to say about the Marvel Entertainment properties--it also implies that all the MCU-Spidey film characters will remain in the MCU and not be part of the Sony-verse
2. Feige will control both of Spider-Man's films (his sequel and his MCU-appearance), meaning he can shape what happens to the character (making him more or less integrated, however he chooses)
3. All Rothman has done is put Sony in the vague position of saying 'it's all connected' (much like Amy Pascal years ago), but with caveats from Marvel that it isn't--not really

Everything else in the deal (the 25% and Tom Holland remaining with Marvel) is what Disney proposed in January. Unless there's more that we don't know--such as Rothman having creative control over Feige's films (something Feige would never accept), getting permission to do their own TV shows, or something of similar weight, he's done nothing other than preserve the status quo while letting Marvel decide what they want to do with Spider-Man when his rights are in flux (the short-term deal).

LotLB here and here

• Chameleon will be the main villain of Spider-Man 3 and the post-credit scene will show the Baxter Building (the latter only makes sense if another deal with Sony is already complete)
• Sutton says there will be a number of Marvel team-up films (ala Ragnarok, which is plausible)
• Repeated the claim that Venom will appear in the MCU
• Claims Feige gets to decide what Sony characters to canonize in the MCU (absolutely)
• Sutton says there will be a Valkyries series on Disney+ that will be a flashback series (which if true sounds horrendous); this is similar to a WGTC Valkyrie rumour in August and Kinda Culty's theory in July (via vague Thompson comments she subsequently backtracked)
• Moon Knight has a 100 million dollar budget (this idea comes straight from Variety, which claims all the shows will have 100-150 million dollar budgets; in comparison the first five seasons of the various Netflix shows cost 200 million total, which is less than 20% of the money per episode on the low end of that estimate, less than 13% on the high)
• Daredevil will be in Black Widow 2 with Charlie Cox and Scarlett Johansson returning (!); then he'll go back to Hulu (!)

As I said when Kinda Culty proposed his own Valkyrie theory, there's just no appetite for it. The breakout character from Ragnarok was Korg, while Tessa Thompson's character fell flat and nothing from Endgame has changed that. Making her queen of New Asgard was a bit like parking the character in a dead zone--none of the iterations of Thor-films have made Asgard interesting--the adventures are elsewhere. I don't doubt Marvel has discussed the idea and the character could appear in a show, but not with her as the lead. To me the Lady Sif rumours are far more credible, but even that's iffy (Blindspot's end helps the probability of that occurring). It's possible Thor 4 will give Valkyrie some life, but that film is a long way away so Marvel can't simply plan on the hope that it will (for context the much better received War Machine doesn't have his own show or film--hell, Hawkeye is only getting to costar in his only 'solo' IP).

The Daredevil stuff: Tim's belief that Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment are now cooperating is, unfortunately for him and his theories, unsubstantiated (if not outright refuted by articles like the one cited in Variety). Until they are, it's impossible to accept Feige allowing Jeph Loeb to do what he wants with MCU characters. On a corporate level, it's difficult to imagine Disney wanting the Netflix characters to be given any standing either. Given that, I think there's zero chance Charlie Cox and his version of Daredevil will appear.

Finally, the idea of Scarlett Johansson returning is preposterous--what's the point of passing the torch to Florence Pugh if they are going to revert back the next film? It's nonsensical.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)