Marvel News & Notes

The third episode of WandaVision (just 24 minutes minus credits/recap), which was included with the first two episodes for early reviewers, is a mixed bag (I enjoyed it more the second time). It does the most to push the plot forward, but the comedy is the weakest thus far. The jokes aren't rooted in the 70s, nor is that era important to events (it has that Wonder Woman 1984's sense where the time period seems superfluous). The pacing problems caused by the adherence to sitcom tropes continue, but we are getting somewhere. The show would be better off if it either strengthened the mystery element (make it more tangibly involved), or abandoned it (going back and forth between Wanda and SWORD). As it is, since we don't see the SWORD side, we're left with a generic comedy that's spinning its wheels due to a lack of dramatic tension (Wanda's easy dismissal of any threat to her fantasy makes those threats seem empty). As I've said before, this might not be a problem once the entire series is out, but it does means all three initial episodes are easily skipped for those who want to re-watch the show (which is problematic).

Marvel's recent advertising is pushing that we'll get answers soon--this seems to be in response to casual fans struggling to become engaged. I wanted to see if there's a way back-up that theory (thus the graph), but at least through Trends its not blindingly apparent. If there is disengagement, what's the source? Beyond possible confusion, the show hasn't established stakes. As I mentioned above, Wanda's goals aren't being threatened. While these threats will come, none of that helps the dramatic tension of what we've had thus far. Some general context: the three episodes combined are just 73 minutes (100 if you include credits and recaps), leaving 287 (or 260) minutes remaining--we know each series is six hours. This opening feels like a prolonged prologue that's irrelevant going forward that's a weakness in story structure. In the end it may not matter--if the rest of the show is excellent it's fine to have a middling beginning, but I hope Marvel is paying attention and will improve the sitcom formula for She-Hulk.

Drew Dietsch of Giant Freakin Robot (a site I've never heard of) says that Jon Bernthal will return as the Punisher, but it will be a complete reboot, jettisoning the convoluted Netflix continuity. Dietsch isn't known as a scooper, but Sutton believes him (echoing it on his own site) and certainly the basic idea fits what I've thought (that you have to dump the Netflix specifics). If this is true, it means rebooting the character in a way that doesn't follow what we saw on Netflix (most of which, while inspired by the comics, was unique, leaving the original material available). Dietsch claims this will be a solo vehicle, not a supporting role, but he's uncertain on which platform (Disney+ etc). Sutton is pushing the character for Hulu. Neither seems aware that Hulu is being integrated into Star which itself will be part of Disney+, so even if the branding is different the character is going to be available on Disney+.

A broader point about the Netflix iterations of Marvel characters: the stories were quite far afield from the comic originals, meaning the MCU loses out on very little in avoiding what's come before (the main losses, to my mind, are the first two seasons of Karen Page, the Meachums, and the first season of the Kingpin--the former pair are actually better than their comicbook basis and the latter is simply an interesting take on the character).

Last January Patrick Stewart confirmed he had talks with Kevin Feige about playing Professor X (we learned Hugh Jackman had discussions with him as well--I can't recall if it was confirmed to be about Wolverine, but that's been the assumption). This must have been intended for Multiverse reasons and poses a question I haven't seen anyone address: given that Feige wants Fox connections for the event, who else would he talk to from those films? Jackman and Stewart are the faces of the first generation of Fox films (you can see screen times here), leaving only Ian McKellen (Magneto) as another serious option. To me that suggests they'll lean into the second generation of films and if that's the case, then Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are the obvious contenders (although we know Evan Peters is in WandaVision in some capacity). Other choices could be made with different characters, but from what we've seen with Sony, Marvel wants marquee players from the past to anchor those appearances and the Fox films leaned heavily on a small number of characters.

Daniel says Sony is considering a Scorpian movie--it's starting to feel like either Sony or Daniel are just drawing IP out of a hat at this point.

Speaking of Daniel, here's more from his rumour file (it seems worthwhile to record what he thinks could be true despite the label):

• Shang-Chi is being positioned like Black Panther as a huge figure in the MCU [Daniel's phrasing could imply instead of Black Panther, but that might not be intended; I'm still dubious Marvel can make a martial arts film work]
• RDJ will return to interact with Reed Richards [This is probably based on Illuminati rumours (Sutton last January and Daniel in July)]
• Christian Bale will return for more films after Thor 4
• Doctor Octopus will appear post-Spider-Man 3 [This is an odd idea, although I could see Sony wanting to do it--perhaps for the never ending plans for Sinister Six]
• Sam will fight Evil Cap in the future
• Coulson will return to present day Marvel [Not sure what the point would be--he's had a full character arc]
• If the current Sony Marvel films fail, Sony Pictures will be forced to sell the Spidey rights back to Marvel by their corporate overlords

Insider?

We have another self-proclaimed scooper, trumpeted this time by people on Reddit. The person claims to have been a source for Charles Murphy on WandaVision (the information coming from a source they know)--mods have accepted this and no one has disputed it, so it seems accurate. I scrolled through their predictions and here are a couple (as expected they spend much of their time screaming at people--something almost ubiquitous with scoopers):

• Agnes is actually Nightmare [This is interesting because it's not Murphy's theory, which suggests neither actually knows her role]
• Evan Peters is Quicksilver [Common assumption]

As far as I can tell, this person only has inside information on WandaVision (they have discussed Spider-Man 3 items, but in context there's no specific claim that the information is their knowledge). The Peters idea isn't unique, but the notion of Agatha Harkness being Nightmare isn't something I've seen suggested (even if the latter character appearing is common). I think we have to accept that, at least for the show, the person does have incomplete inside information (albeit, only one piece remaining is of interest).

Given that the MCU might reference Marvel Entertainment properties (Netflix and the ABC shows), I was thinking about how they could approach it. The official MCU references from Netflix largely stop after the Avengers (so 2012); Agents of SHIELD stays meaningfully faithful through Age of Ultron (2015) before becoming increasingly ancillary. Because of the events of Endgame, there are breaks in 2012 and 2014 (Loki's escape and Thanos disappearing), meaning these folk could have been part of the MCU up until that point (retroactively making their own continuity more consistent). I'm probably grasping at straws, but for points of synergy that's the best I can do (granted, brief cameos don't require a specific explanation).

I realize this is far afield from both the MCU and comics, but the broader ideas about prequels and casting may have some relevance.

When The Witcher: Blood Origin was announced back in July I had mixed feelings about it (the title sounds like a teen vampire franchise, but that's neither here nor there). As a rule I don't like prequels because they lack narrative tension, but in this case Netflix had no choice--you can't do a sequel to The Witcher when you haven't finished Geralt's story. I thought picking ancient history was the best choice for a prequel (even if that decision blew-up in the face of the Game of Thrones prequel Bloodmoon, another show that sounds like a teen vampire franchise). Sapkowski's lore isn't as defined as George R. R. Martin's, so there's less chance of upsetting fans when creating a story for the period. With that said, the weakest part of The Witcher was the writing, so I have little faith that something from Lauren Hissrich is going to work (credit for the success of that show is down to the actors).

I was thinking about their first casting announcement (Jodie Turner-Smith): why go that route, why start with her? We can see the opposite approach with House of the Dragon, where the show went with very safe announcements that included a 'name' of sorts before announcing Danny Sapani. For Blood Origin, the showrunner and executives knew ahead of time that this announcement would annoy the fanbase (they saw the same thing with Anya Chalotra), so why put the actress through it? The only thing I can come up with is it's a deliberate PR move to generate discussion. The showrunner expects hate and the backlash guarantees not just extra coverage, but positive coverage (instead of a little blurb about so-and-so cast in a spinoff no on cares about). This wouldn't be my approach--Amazon's decision with Lord of the Rings to announce palatable actors followed by group announcements is a better way to have your cake and eat it too. Personally, I think there's no reason to complain about the choice unless we get the accompanying casting confusion from The Wheel of Time (which looks like a CW show set in present day). Casting won't make or break the show regardless--it needs good writing, which I'm not expecting.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)