Murphy believes set photos have revealed that Flag-Smasher will be the main villain of Falcon and the Winter Soldier (with Noah Mills as that character). Back in February both Murphy and Conrad speculated the character would be in the film based on set photos, so other than the actor identification, this isn't new (confirmation, perhaps, for those who doubted it).
[T]here are characters from the earliest Marvel movies that are coming back. We’re layering them in and reinventing them in a way that’s gonna shift the storytelling structure. It’s fucking awesome.
What constitutes 'early' for Kolstad isn't clear (I know 'earliest' sounds definitive, but people are looser with language verbally than when they write), but most fans thinks he means from Phase One. 'Bringing them back' implies a long absence and in terms of surviving characters let's briefly go over prominent ones who haven't been seen since Phase One:
- Iron Man: None
- Hulk: Emil Blonsky/Abomination (likely re-cast), Samuel Sterns/The Leader (likely re-cast), Betty Ross (I'm not sure if Marvel would keep Liv Tyler or re-cast her as they did Ed Norton)
- Iron Man 2: Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell would return)
- Thor: Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard would return), Sif (Jaimie Alexander would return)
- Captain America: None
- Avengers: None
- Iron Man 3 was also a long time ago, with Trevor Slattery being the only obvious option (Ben Kingsley), but I'd expect him in Shang-Chi
Because it's a show and we know it will visit Madripoor (a wretched hive of scum and villainy), it's easy for any of the previous villains (or heroes) to make an appearance. In terms of the tone of the show I think Nelson and Hammer are the most likely to re-appear (although perhaps those long lingering Sif rumours will hit the mark here--who knows?).
Let me give Murphy some credit: after all the excitement of Agents of Atlas due to the San Francisco filming for Shang-Chi (last time), he included an important clarification:
Turns out SF was just a stop on [Simu] Liu’s trip home [to Toronto] and he will not be filming any scenes there
This is pretty important for people's theories and a worthy correction. While it'd be nice to think updates like this are the norm, it's not in the fan communities, so a tip of the hat to Murphy. The fact that Liu did not participate in the San Francisco shoot doesn't inherently negate either the Agents of Atlas association or some sort of Ant-Man connection (not Scott Lang per se, but things associated with his films), just that if it is relevant, those scenes would have occurred on a set in Australia and we know nothing about them.
Natalie Portman recently called Thor 4 "Silly and fun," which is not how you'd describe Jane Foster's cancer story in the comics. Daniel followed this by saying the film will do the King Thor storyline, where he loses a hand (which, given that he loses in eye in Ragnarok, could be silly and fun?). I'm much more concerned about this film than the rest of the fandom, because with only one exception thus far, every Marvel director who was given a second film has produced a worse film.
Prior to the official casting news (below), Murphy reported on a rumour he heard about actors being considered for Moon Knight: Daveed Diggs or Nick Kroll. Neither really fit the traditional look of Marc Spector (which we now know wasn't important), although both are Jewish (which also wasn't important). Casting Diggs would get away from arguments about cultural appropriation for the character (his father is African-American) and his relationship with Khonshu. Both actors appeared in Hamilton, funnily enough. Both were older than I'd like (Diggs is 38, Kroll 42), but were clearly in the wheelhouse of what Marvel was looking for.
Right after this was posted, Borys Kit (THR) said Oscar Isaac was in negotiations for the role, which was echoed by Justin Kroll (Deadline). Isaac is not Jewish and not African (he's half Cuban, half Guatemalan), which is interesting given how much trouble Marvel went to in order to cast a Pakistani girl as Kamala Khan. No one had him on their radar, so him landing the role is yet another reason to question 'comic authenticity' when it comes to Marvel's casting. Does this news get me excited? No. It doesn't upset me either. It feels very safe, which suggests Marvel has plans for him beyond just the series (I think they save their risks for more peripheral roles). Isaac is a great actor, but (as we've seen in Star Wars), that by itself doesn't guarantee a great product. I would have preferred someone younger and less well known.
A final note: this reveal means all the scoops about casting for the show were incorrect.
And while the idea of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield returning to the franchise could make Spider-Man 3 an event that could potentially rival that of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, we cannot get ahead of ourselves with something that isn’t tangible just yet.
This idea, that seeing the three Spider-Men together, would rival the culmination of the first three phases of the MCU is so ridiculous I want to call it hyperbole, but I actually think Murphy believes this. I bring it up as more evidence of the disconnect between what (most) scoopers think is popular versus reality. Would appearances by the others help the box office? Absolutely. Would it rival the box office of the aforementioned films? Not even close. That aside, the rest of the article is on-point and covers the bigger rumours about the film. I just don't understand the disconnect between "me and my friends like something" equals "everyone will like it." It's an approach I see with virtually all the scoopers.
Sutton says Wanda and Quicksilver will be retconned to having been mutants all along (rather than getting their powers from the Tesseract). This, however, is not Sutton's scoop. He attributes this information to a source, but in fact this is based off public information: the recently published The Wakanda Files (covered by Screen Rant and others a couple of days prior). Here's the quote in question:
The Stone similarly transformed her nervous system, but it has ionized and charged it in ways that have given her an extraordinary ability. Neural-electric interfacing allows her to create bursts of extreme energy using only her mind and the tips of her fingers. The manipulation of this energy permits her short bursts of levitation, in addition to a staggering weapon that only requires her bare hands.
What is beguiling is how Wanda's nervous system has also unlocked potential for telekinesis. These are not parlor tricks; she is not just bending spoons. She can manipulate minds and plant suggestive thoughts, even enhance preexisting paranoias. She can see into the mind of a human, find out what they fear and what will motivate them.
This fits what I've always assumed, in that the mutant potential will be retconned to have always been present, but requiring an inciting incident to get going (I've long assumed that for most it will be the snap during and after Infinity War).
Daniel says Emma Stone might return as Gwen Stacy for Spider-Man 3; he classifies this as a rumour and I frankly don't believe it. He throws in Hugh Jackman appearing in Doctor Strange 2 (which, again, I don't believe). He also says the MCU is interested in adapting: Civil War 2 (which was tremendously unpopular), World War Hulk (whose content was used in Ragnarok), and Avengers: Forever. None of this seems credible.
More from Sutton: repeating his assertion back in July that we'd be getting a Miles Morales series called Ultimate Spider-Man (based on the original Brian Michael Bendis series). This followed his claim in May that a live-action Into the Spider-Verse film was coming, and he now says this will be the vehicle to launch Morales. The article is not written very clearly, but at the end Sutton adds the necessary details:
Will Kevin Feige produce them, though? I am told that is the plan as both Disney and Sony would like a few MCU superheroes to meet the new kid on the block.
I absolutely believe Sony could have plans like these, although whether any of them have been cleared with Feige seems unlikely (the deal with Disney expires next year and none of these ventures would be appearing so early). Keep in mind Sony can do all this without the MCU, but it's extremely unlikely the disassociated Sony universe would fare any better than what we saw at Fox (which was run by Tom Rothman and his acolyte), prior Sony ventures, Universal, or Warner Brothers. As I said last time, bringing in Morales now makes absolutely no sense when Peter is still a kid.
Daniel says Marvel's approach to make the X-Men different is by having multiple teams. This sounds a bit like what Hickman did with mutant characters in House of X, although I think he's getting this idea directly or indirectly from Sutton (who has proposed something similar--having various mutant IP launching around the same time, cf, Excalibur and X-Men, with LotLB adding X-Factor and New Mutants).
Let's just take this idea as the reality for a moment and think about what that might mean for the MCU. For non-comicbook readers, I don't think it's clear how much more popular the mutant books are to everything else, meaning there's a good chance that once the X-Men and their various associates appear the relative interest in other Marvel IP could drop. Phase Four is, indeed, cluttered with C-level characters most people have never heard of who can't maintain their own comics. Heavy hitters like the mutants, along with Fantastic Four, could very well push much of the other Marvel IP to the margins. Whether Feige believes this is something to fear or not isn't clear to me, as the Phase Four structure was determined before the Fox IP were available (it received some alteration once the sale was complete, but the principal thrust is based on its absence). I'd imagine the X-Men will herald in the mutant age, but strictly speaking this isn't necessary for IP like Excalibur which only have an ancillary attachment to them. Anyway, food for thought.
It's interesting in retrospect to see how many thematic similarities the Zack Snyder's Justice League films have to Infinity War/Endgame. Both involved time travel to prevent an apocalyptic failure and both involved the sacrifice of key characters. The Russo films are much more coherent and the tone of the MCU is lighter (Snyder doesn't seem aware that it's more impactful to move from a light to dark tone, rather than remain dark all along). We also saw this thematic match in how Batman v Superman and Civil War functioned, with (again) the MCU-version working much better than Snyder's. I've always thought Zack's principal failure was plot (you see this from Christopher Nolan as well)--the concepts are fine, but the execution is filled with holes and confusions that don't show up in the comparable Markus & McFeely scripts.
I am interested to see how WB untangles it's nonsensical universe (if they do). Will they bring things into harmony, or will we have this divergent mess of disconnected films that fail to support one another with an entirely separate narrative off in the kiddy pool of the CW? I have no idea. In theory rising tides lifts all boats, but ever since Snyder/Ayer's vision failed (a problem of plot in my opinion, not the dark tone) WB has been flailing around incoherently.
We haven't had an update to the Joss Whedon/Ray Fisher situation since Jason Momoa's vague comments in mid-September. Unbeknownst to me, because I don't follow John Campea religiously, he accidentally showed a private email from someone with inside info about a month ago that we have a screen grab of. Campea isn't normally a source for anything, but he does know people at WB, so much like the specialized situation of Grace Randolph with DC, this is something that could be credible. Let's go over it:
[Blurred intro paragraph, two lines]What most people don't understand is that the entire JL experience was an absolutely nightmare. J [Joss] faced unreal expectations and deadlines from the execs almost immediately and a toxic set environment like you wouldn't imagine. You have to understand that ZS [Synder] had a very good relationship with "almost" everyone on set, so his departure was jarring for several reasons. It was their posse and kind of a tight one. It was also a posse that J [Joss] was never really taken into.
Adding to the relentless pressure from everyone from J [Joss] to [Jon] Berg and [seven words blurred out] came something J [Joss] just wasn't expecting. See, The Avengers experience was tough on J [Joss], but everyone there from the execs to the crew to all the cast were all on the same team. Everyone checked their egos at the door and were all dedicated to making the best movie possible for Kevin [Feige], Marvel and the fans. That was the top priority for everyone. Certainly not that everything was roses or that there weren't issues and problems like any production, but everyone was focused on the movie and doing what was best for it. JL was an entirely different experience.
With the exception of a couple of individuals, almost no one on that set cared about the movie. Maybe a better way to put it was that they only cared about the movie in as far as what it was going to do for them and their careers. Who was getting the better framing. Who was getting the choice lines. Who was getting their scenes cut. It was always about them. It just wasn't an environment J [Joss] is accustomed to working in. And frankly it doesn't help that J [Joss] isn't exactly a peacemaker either. It got contentious [nine blurred words] in theaters by deadline. On top of that a few specific people would never pass up the chance to remind J [Joss] that this wasn't his movie. This became a regular bargaining chip whenever certain parties weren't happy with what was happening with their characters or their scenes.
[Blurred closing paragraph, three lines]
There's no mention of Geoff Johns in what we can see, but we know he was on set and had run-ins with Fisher as well. What's above isn't exactly new, but suggests that the conflict between Whedon and Fisher (and perhaps others--Momoa also had content cut) was related to career elements rather than abuse. This is just one person's version of events, but it would explain why in the months following Fisher's complaint no one has come forward with similar complaints from either this or other Whedon productions.
This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)
No comments:
Post a Comment