Marvel News & Notes

Black Widow director Cate Shortland seemed to debunk a rumour when she talked to Empire. The salient point is that the film, as I (and others) have expected from the beginning, is a passing of the torch from Natasha to Yelena. That said, back in October Sutton said Marvel was thinking of bringing Nat back in the role for Black Widow 2 (where she'd appear with Charlie Cox's Daredevil). I thought this was an odd idea at the time and while comic characters often get resurrected, this approach would undercut her sacrifice in Endgame (something the actress and others have said repeatedly). We've seen two characters (Loki and Vision) die definitively only to come back, but Marvel has to be careful how often they pull that trick to avoid losing dramatic tension. More broadly, while it makes sense for an MCU-version of Daredevil to appear in a second Black Widow film (the two are closely tied in the comics), on the surface it's hard to jive a surprise return of Nat with all the publicity for Yelana (I talked to Sutton about this and he says from what he's heard Nat's return remains a possibility, guessing that the comments about Yelena are a misdirect--I'm not convinced, but it's food for thought).

The other thing that hasn't been clear until now (despite an avalanche of theories) is that Shortland see's the film as an origin for Yelena Belova, not a retread of Natasha's past. This makes me very happy, as I don't see the value in rehashing Nat's well-understood origin. If Yelena shares the spotlight then it puts big question marks on the various plot summaries we've seen thus far, because none have gone heavily into her story.

The final thing we learned is that the film is not a direct adaptation from the comics. This doesn't mean it's not borrowing from comic arcs, nor is this approach unique in the MCU (just not something we've specifically heard about until now). I wonder if this is the reason the film required two emergency re-writes (Ned Benson and then Eric Pearson) prior to production.

A Sutton scoop I missed from the 4th (via Geekosity):

Thor: Love and Thunder is enveloped in mystery despite rampant speculation of certain characters appearing. The Silver Surfer [appearance] was debunked not too long ago [by Taika], but Beta Ray Bill remains a question mark. According to my inside sources, Beta Ray Bill will be coming to the MCU without a doubt. Whether that will be [in] Love and Thunder is still an unanswered question; nevertheless, it seems quite likely. However, there is one thing that is supposedly inevitable: Beta Ray Bill will take Mjolnir away from Thor. Written and illustrated by Walt Simonson in The Mighty Thor No. 337 in 1983, the debut of Beta Ray Bill is considered one of comics' all-time game changers, and Marvel Studios has been wanting to adapt this story arc for years. Fans may see it sooner than they think.

His inside sources aside, we know Bill had scenes that were cut from Ragnarok, so much like Nova the MCU has wanted him to appear for awhile. Sutton's hesitation about whether Bill will be in the film is a change, because back in January he believed (like the other scoopers) that he would be. What's puzzling to me is Bill getting Mjolnir, since the marketing for Thor 4 makes it clear that Jane Foster will get the hammer--in terms of plot it's redundant for two characters to newly wield the hammer, especially right after Cap did in Endgame. My assumption is that Jane gets Mjolnir, but I doubt Natalie Portman wants to make a bunch of Marvel films, so I've assumed it's a one-off. The thing is, can you really do Unworthy Thor twice? He loses it to Jane and then Bill? I don't think so. Stormbreaker was Bill's original weapon in the comics and it makes more sense that he earns it rather than Mjolnir. I wonder if Sutton's hesitation in having Bill in the film is precisely because Jane serves that function already in Thor 4.

Murphy says production on Ant-Man 3 is scheduled for June, 2021 (previously the film was slated for earlier in the year--January or February). The MCU has refrained from saying anything about the substance of the film, which is going to need increased significance to avoid the low box office of its predecessors.

Kinda Culty's latest video reminded me that Feige said we'll see some H. P. Lovecraft touches in Doctor Strange 2, which immediately makes me think of the rumoured Chthon (as he's the most overtly Lovecraftian character in Marvel). I suspect whatever touches we get will remain subtle, as Lovecraft does not pass modern purity tests and Marvel is very risk-averse.

Last June, Sutton (on Geekosity) said he heard that Janelle Monae had talked to Ryan Coogler about playing Storm in Black Panther 2, something he later confirmed in November, which has now been confirmed by Monae herself. This is a win for Sutton (someone the Sonnenkinder of the scooper sphere like to take potshots at). This also leads into something I'll delve into below (Monae turns 35 later this year, which wouldn't fit the casting I expect for a young X-Men team--although if you wanted Storm to start in a leadership role, as I speculated back in 2018, you could do it). None of this confirms that Storm is in the film, incidentally, just that Monae asked for the role.

Indie Wire reports that physicist Clifford Johnson is advising on the show. Johnson previously worked on Thor: Ragnarok and both Infinity War films--his film work has centered on time travel, so how does that connect to the show? Unbeknownst to me (since I've never read Ms. Marvel), Kamala Khan's stretching abilities are via time travel (she shares mass with her future selves, I believe, which sounds pointlessly complicated and something I'd cut if I were Marvel). It does pose the question, however--will the time travel element from Loki impact Ms. Marvel?

Reddit weighs in on Moon Knight (I made some very minor corrections for clarity; my comments are in pink):

I got some interesting potential content for the Disney+ show from someone who is an editor at Marvel Studios who assists on set designs and was told a lot on what the early scripts of Moon Knight entails to be prepared for scene creation and location choosing. They are also in the know on casting. They will start shooting this Fall, and the script when shared with was already in its final revisions [Jeremy Slater, coming off Umbrella Academy, was signed as the head writer]. Let me know what you think of this:

Oliver Jackson-Cohen [soon to be 34, coming off TV-series The Haunting of Hill House] is eyed for Marc Spector for the most part, there are other contestants [of] course but this is the one the show producers are most interested in. Keanu Reeves is definitely not one of them [this goes back to LotLB who said some were pushing for him to have the role, which was repeated by GWW almost a year later], Reeves told Marvel that he is only interested in a one and done role in the mcu or one with limited appearances. They want a "nobody" for the role like Tom Holland or Chris Hemsworth when they were first cast. [Both the comment about Reeves and the kind of actor Marvel wants to cast fits my expectations, although Jackson-Cohen is older than what I'd expect]

Oliver or not they plan to make the actor play both Marc Spector and his other personalities, but also Khonshu himself. To be more specific they want the actor to present Khonshu physically but are deciding on either modifying his voice or getting someone completely different. Khonshu will be mysterious throughout the series when it comes to his origins, but there will be implications of whether he is even real or just another personality of Marc. Although after that you will learn of his connections to Egypt and past Marvel figures associated with that time period (Kang is one of them). Dracula will show up due to Werewolf by Night and his origin and ancestry [Daniel put Dracula in Moon Knight in December, although LotLB started speculating about him in general last July; LotLB also speculated about Werewolf by Night last July as possible Hulu fodder, with GWW being the first to speculate he'd be in Moon Knight in August; Daniel in January put both in Moon Knight].

The Darkhold will be the explanation for their existence [Sutton, this June, was the first person to bring up the Darkhold--I'm excluding fake Roger Wardell who did so in April]. The Darkhold will first debut in WandaVision created by Chthon [he showed up first via Reddit in December, with Sutton (link above) repeating it months later]. Werewolf by Night is considered for a spinoff show in Disney+ [this is basically the LotLB scoop from last July, link above]. Dracula will go on to be the main villain of Blade.

Bushman will be the main villain and working for a group of people that are after Werewolf by Night and magical artifacts. Morpheus is the leader of the organization but without his powers at first and is the reason Marc was sent on a mission to Egypt in the first place with Marlene's father [Sutton, back in September, is the only person to bring up Morpheus previously]. Marlene [the love interest] will not meet Marc in Egypt. Stained Glass Scarlet [Sutton scooped her in September] is a side villain that later turns into an ally of Moon Knight, she believes her son is murdered by the group and she gains powers through rituals done by the group that was suppose to kill her. She will also have a mental illness. She will eventually die in the first season. Bushman will also die but [it] will be a figment of Marc's imagination for a short period. Morpheus will live disfigured and in a mental [institution].

Khonshu will be revealed to be the one behind the group's creation. There is a twist in the show that Marc has a brother named Randall who he thought was another personality, but Khonshu just blocked him out of Marc's mind. He will be a villain in the future season, only have two [seasons] expected so far. The show even being in Disney+ will still be violent, Moon Knight will apparently kill though brutal deaths aren't shown fully. I guess it will be like The Mandalorian in that sense [I can't remember any brutal deaths from that show, but I'll take the poster's word for it as it didn't make much of an impression on me]. The show will talk about mental illness and will try to make the audience see how and why Marc is so broken through flashbacks from childhood and being a soldier. Weird and nonsensical things are done in the show when looking through the timeline. The show overall will be very trippy and delves into Marc's insanity. The name the show is going by during production is in reference to the relationship between Marc and Khonshu and as well between Marc and the audience. There will be a lot of deception on what is exactly going on and Marc and the audience can only have "good faith".

This post relies heavily on Sutton (directly or indirectly) in its substance, but also fits the general shape of speculation we've seen thus far. The approach shown reminds me a little of how Noah Hawley's Legion has been described (although I've never seen the show). The inclusion of Randall Spector is interesting, as he's a very minor character, but one who figures in both 90s run as well as Gregg Hurwitz's Shadowland in 2010. Is this reliable? It's Reddit, so probably not, but it could be.

In a Q&A Sutton had the following to say (my comments in pink):

• No current discussions with Keanu Reeves about a role in the MCU [Sutton, to my knowledge, hasn't proposed a role for him previously]
• No new Runaways plans [This is no surprise given that its final season completed this December]
• X-23 being left alone for awhile [This has to be the case if Marvel is introducing a younger Wolverine anyway--the original should be good for two or three Phases before you start thinking of a successor character]
• Nothing said about Gorr appearing in the future or not (Tim said there aren't plans for him currently, but I think that's his interpretation of Sutton's non-answer) [Gorr is a popular choice in the rumour-mill, but Sutton has said nothing about him as far as I can tell]
• Apocalypse put on the shelf for now [Not a surprise as I go into below]

It's interesting to see that Sutton hasn't jumped onto the Gorr-speculation wagon (probably the most popular speculation for Christian Bale right now). I do want to talk a bit about Apocalypse, because if he is on ice for awhile I don't think it's inherently because X-Men: Apocalypse came out recently (2016). While Apocalypse does have an interesting history with the X-Men, it's not an early one--in fact, he started as a prominent X-Factor villain and it's only post-Claremont in the 90s and the work Jonathan Hickman is doing now that he takes on special importance. Given that, and with the presumed (hoped) desire of the MCU using early Claremont material, there's no rush to get to the character.

Just a brief aside about Hickman's run on X-Men (and I should probably do something more expansive on this). One of the problems he's solved with his current run (2019+) is the issue that hurt the end of Claremont's run and all subsequent writers--the Mutant Menace. The endless human vs mutant stories get very tired very quickly, trapped in an endless cycle of repetition. Hickman, by shifting the paradigm the way he has, he can still play with that story element, but he's not locked into it the way his predecessors were.

Conrad is floating a rumour that Marvel is considering bringing Thanos back. This is not a new idea, as back in October LotLB (via their original source TBK) said a Disney+ series was coming for him. Conrad doesn't claim to know where or how Thanos will return, just that it is being discussed. Because he's being so vague, it's impossible to know if this truly comes from a source or if Conrad is engaging in speculation.

One thing I've brought up frequently is the ages of various actors for roles (as I do above). Why is that and is it fair? Let's start by saying I don't have a particularly stake in this--while I think some characters are best suited to be younger/older, you can tell interesting stories at either end of the spectrum (even if the amount of runway for the later is limited). However, I think Marvel cares and I believe we can demonstrate that. I think Feige decided to have most of his leading actors sign when they were young because it makes them cheaper and easier to sign to long-term deals (none of the leads had been blockbuster stars beforehand). Let's also be clear that what I mean by 'young' is under-35 for male actors and under-30 for female. What's my evidence to back this up? Let's look at the ages of actors who fit this category (I skipped Tom Holland, 19 when hired, in the chart below because of Sony):

In case the above is hard to see or decipher:
2006
Robert Downey Jr 41
2008
Ed Norton 39 - Universal picked him over Ruffalo
2009
Chris Hemsworth 26
Scarlett Johansson 25
2010
Mark Ruffalo 43 - Can never have his own film, but possibly a TV-show
Chris Evans 29
Sebastian Stan 28 - Falcon seems less like a shared IP and more like Mackie's, but we'll see
2012
Anthony Mackie 34
2013
Paul Rudd 44
Chris Pratt 34
Elizabeth Olson 24
2014
Paul Bettany 43 - I'd argue Vision isn't really a lead, just a supporting part of WandaVision, but he does headline it with her
Benedict Cumberbatch 38
Chadwick Boseman 38
Evangeline Lilly 35
2016
Brie Larson 27
2019
Kit Harington 32
Simu Liu 30
Florence Pugh 23
2020
Kate Bishop actress (teens-early 20s--I used 20 for round numbers)
Kamala Khan actress (teens-early 20s--I used 20 for round numbers)
She-Hulk actress (26-34--I used 30)
Moon Knight actor ('young' without an age range--I used 25)
Average male age: 34.93 (including Tom Holland: 33.93)
Average female age: 25.5 (including Gemma Chan: 26.66)

Downey was hired when Marvel needed a 'name' of sorts to help launch the MCU, while Hulk had complications because of Universal and both are intended to be older characters anyway. With Bettany I don't think we're ever getting a Vision show or movie, so I think his age wasn't relevant. You could argue that I should include Sersi since she co-leads The Eternals (Gemma Chan was 36 when announced in the role), but I've only heard chatter about the Black Knight in the future, which makes sense, as that's the more successful IP in the comics (the marketing thus far hasn't focused on either, oddly enough). You could also argue some of these characters (eg Falcon) were never hired with their own IP in mind, and that may be true (were it not for Disney+ many of these characters would never have their own IP). With that said, the last three male leads Marvel hired (or will be hired) are 32 and under, so the trend is clear. With actresses I don't think there's any room to argue--we have additional evidence like Charlize Theron never being approached by Marvel (she's turning 45) and Alison Brie (38) having to contact them even though her name was used as the template for She-Hulk. Keep in mind there could be other reasons why these two actresses weren't approached, but it's just another bit of evidence that fits the general idea. Finally, we also have to throw out casting bias against older actresses, since Sarah Halley Finn has been in charge throughout.

I believe Marvel is looking to stay relatively young with their leads, both for cost and longevity reasons. It's because of this that I'm dubious of most casting speculation, which focuses on older, established stars (or, at least, 'names'). This approach is in contrast with DC, which tends to go for established actors (just as Universal did for its aborted Monsters universe). Does the MCU want to include someone like Keanu Reeves? Of course, just as they have with many older stars, but he (like them) would either be in a one-off role or be something along the lines of Nick Fury (supporting).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)