I heard Gemma Chan [Sersi] was a pain to work with on Eternals, so much so, Feige reduced her role in future plans and changed the ending to give Madden [Ikaris] a larger role, also heard other characters are introduced
This is not at all the kind of thing Walsh would make up--he's someone inclined to be supportive of Chan--so I believe he was told this (he's deleted the Tweet, but left others related to it--I suspect Murphy (who he'd already given this information too) and/or others in his circle told him to shut-up for fear of losing their access--this is not information Marvel wants public. As expected, in response to this there are now people talking about how great Chan was on-set. I see two possibilities: a source Walsh trusted set him up, which is hard to imagine, or this is true, but for obvious reasons Marvel doesn't want it out there. It will be interesting to see if Walsh feels pressured enough to offer up a mea culpa to maintain his access--we shall see--but don't expect this to be confirmed until years later (if ever). I'm also not expecting other scoopers to mention it, but if they do expect them to mouth the company line.
Assuming the above is true, let's consider what it means. I've pointed out before how risky it was to lean the film on Gemma Chan and Kit Harrington (a risk Marvel mitigated by including a billion supporting characters), but particularly with Chan because unlike Harrington, casual fans have no idea who she is. Clearly the hope was that Chan could pull off what we saw with Chris Pratt in Guardians, but I never anticipated her struggle would be on-set drama (when was the last time that happened in the MCU?). With an ensemble cast, transitioning away from her is very easy. I'm less clear on what Walsh means by 'other characters are introduced'--Eternals is already overcrowded, so how much time do you have for more intros? Perhaps he's talking about post-credit entries or the future of those taking Sersi's place in future plans.
Speaking of The Eternals, I've been seeing Marvel fans proclaiming the movie is the greatest thing ever made, but was unclear where the hyperbole was coming from given that we've seen nothing and director Chloe Zhao has made only three art films no one has seen. It turns out the hyperbole is from a Tweet via Erick Weber, editor-in-chief of Awards Ace (among other things), who said on Feb.22:
Just got a text from a high-level source who tells me Chloé Zhao "crushed" The Eternals & Marvel is "almost in disbelief" about what they have on their hands
Is Weber known for Marvel info? Not to my knowledge. Would he put this out just to hype the film for Disney? I have no reason to think so. However, before we put on our party hats, internal faith in an IP doesn't always work out--Batman v Superman received a standing ovation from WB execs before it released (cf) and it's standard procedure for studios to talk about how great something is prior to release (it's part of the hype). Is this a positive sign? Yes and I'd like it to be true. Does it alleviate my concerns? Not yet--let's see a trailer first.
We have a Reddit leak for WandaVision that was verified by mods. The Redditor echoes the 4chan leak from a few days ago, although the poster splits things between 'verified' and 'unverified', with most of the information being in the latter category (when the two posts are the same I've coloured them in green; my comments are in pink):
VERIFIED LEAKS
- I've seen images of White Vision, as well as Vision himself being created in the hex. [The 4chan post never specified a white Vision, but I think having two opposed Visions is close enough]
- White Vision is in some sort of chamber with a horizontal blue-ish light. Everything has a blue-ish cool tint, honestly. He seems to be asleep / deactivated. He is, indeed, totally white.
- Vision's creation involves a bunch of magical orange lines, like beams. There's a door right behind him in the image I have, and his (left?) arm is outstretched. It basically seems to be the precursor of what we've seen in the trailers. His pose is very similar. [He means when an in-colour Wanda meets a black and white Vision]
UNVERIFIED
- It shows how Agatha got her power.
- Agatha and Wanda see Wanda's past in front of them. [Supposed leaked stills show something of this]
- Wanda and Pietro as children watched old sitcom VHS tapes on TV. [ibid]
- Suddenly a bomb comes! Wanda and Pietro hide under the bed.
- It shows how Wanda got her power. [We've seen this scene in trailers repeatedly]
- Wanda and Vision talk before their Civil War scene. [I think he means Infinity War because of supposed leaked stills that came out this week]
- Wanda goes to the SWORD base and meets Tyler Hayward. She sees Vision's body torn apart. [We've seen parts of this in the show and trailers]
- She leaves the base without the body, goes to Westview, and cries. BOOM. The hex appears.
- Agatha got Wanda's child [children]. She's choking them with a pink smoky rope thing in the street.
- The mid-credits scene is Hayward activating White Vision. [If that's correct, it means the entire episode takes place in less than a day of real time]
There's no reason to question the verified elements as they have all the messy specifics of something the poster has seen with their own eyes. The rest seems like speculation informed by the actual spoilers. We will get two Visions in the show, which is interesting, although the show itself is hardly spoiled--it doesn't clarify Agatha's motives, why Wanda went to Westview, or why the hex occurred there (among other things).
Amidst the reveal of Spider-Man 3's title, No Way Home, came some interesting news from Tom Holland:
The way I understand it is that agreement between the two studios has already happened. I don’t think that they’re going to run into the same troubles that they did as we were going into… was it ‘Spider-Man 2’? ‘Far from Home’ had come out and then the whole thing happened between Sony and Marvel. I think the two studios have worked that out, and I don’t think that that will be a problem in the future. That said, I’m just the actor and I was a part of a few phone calls during that process, but I think they love working with each other, I think they found a way in which it can be beneficial for both studios, and I’m just kind of like a kid in the middle of it, between two parents during an argument (laughs).
When the new deal between Sony and Marvel was announced in 2020 it was for one more MCU-produced Sony film (aka Spider-Man 3) plus an MCU appearance. Many are taking Holland's comments to mean an extension has already been negotiated between the two companies, but while this is indicative, I wouldn't take it as confirmation.
A Redditor put out a purported scoop that Spider-Punk and Spider-Man 2099 will appear in Spider-Man 3. The poster knows a guy and despite not being able to verify things with the mods, was allowed to leave the post up without comments--this is not normal procedure and presumably the poster is friends with a mod/s. That aside, if true these would have to be cameos--the cast is too bloated for anything else--but I'm familiar with neither and researching them hasn't added any excitement.
Another tidbit from Feige is that there are currently no plans for R-rated IP that are currently in development besides Deadpool 3. While this isn't a big surprise (Marvel comics themselves are PG), just two months ago in a now-deleted article, Sutton claimed Blade would lead into a number of R-rated supernatural shows. If Blade isn't R-rated, it's hardly the proper lead-in, and if it isn't R-rated, why would related supernatural shows be? This looks debunked to me.
I've long thought the primary purpose of introducing the Multiverse was that it offered an opportunity for the MCU to give itself a 'Get Out of Jail, Free' card. With it, you can not only bring in characters from non-canon IP, but you can also bring back dead characters (through other iterations). Its introduction makes this option perpetually available and its a great way to either fix things that aren't working or simply experiment (it's also an odor-remover if Sony films start to bomb).
LotLB, in conjunction with Lauder from Small Screen, talked shop and I'm glad to see Tim doing this--whatever you think of him, I find him entertaining--a passionate guy with a good sense of humour. I think the usual LotLB crew is more engaging, but none of his buddies can offer scoops. That said, Lauder did not have any new info to offer, simply repeating the rumour of a Captain America 4 with Chris Evans (cf), along with Ultron having something to do with Hayward in WandaVision (cf).
I don't know what's going to happen to Mikey Sutton if his Agents of SHIELD rumours go unfulfilled. Innocuous comments from Feige prompted this response (Mikey accidentally missed mentioning one of the shows referenced, specifically Daredevil). I admire his faith, but if he's wrong he's pushed this so hard it will reflect poorly on him. Mikey was right about Charlie Cox appearing (something I was wrong about), but I think how he's presenting what will happen to AoS is beyond the pale. Here are the key quotes, starting with Feige (direct quotes are in quotes):
"I think there are legions of Agents of SHIELD fans and Daredevil fans and Jessica Jones fans and Luke Cage fans. There’s a very big fanbase for those shows." ... Feige indicates that some of the stories you see about characters they can use again from the previous TV shows are true, some are not, but they would be open to opportunities depending on the scenario. ... "There are often rumors that are true and there are often rumors that are not. It was great fun to have Clark Gregg come back to the MCU in Captain Marvel… Everything else, we’ll just have to see."
Here's Sutton's response:
First of all, he singled out Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as among the Marvel TV series with a “very big fanbase.” The other programs he mentioned were Jessica Jones and Luke Cage. This wasn’t random. He never spills the beans until he’s ready. … The substantial followings he described provide a reason for Disney to resurrect those shows. … Read between the lines. Those are programs that Marvel Studios is planning on bringing back. Regarding Marvel’s AoS specifically, the Marvel Studios producer admitted that “There are often rumors that are true.” … Furthermore, many have claimed that they don’t even exist in the MCU. Kevin Feige shot those down. He said that it depends on the situation; some of it will be kept in continuity while others will not.
There are a number of prevarications here (Feige did not 'single out' AoS). One of the immediate issues for Sutton's theory about these comments is that Feige did not mention The Punisher or Iron Fist, and he's said both are coming back (with Iron Fist re-cast, cf and cf)--so if Feige only mentioned those shows that are coming back, RIP those scoops. That aside, it takes special pleading to associate the huge fanbase for Netflix's Daredevil with the anemic AoS fanbase--this isn't a matter of debate as I went over the numbers. We know the list of shows Feige provided were off-the-cuff because of the absence of the aforementioned two along with Agent Carter, The Runaways, Cloak & Dagger, and Hellstrom. Does Feige excluding a show he executive produced (Carter) mean it's on the scrapheap? I don't think anyone believes he'd sleight his own work even if that was the case, but that's the implication of Sutton's argument. Two more prevarications: Feige doesn't use the word "continuity" in any quote I've seen--there's a huge difference between using characters from past IP and canonizing their continuity within the main MCU (we aren't talking about Multiverse continuity); secondly, Feige did not 'shoot down' the idea that AoS isn't part of continuity. I believe this is a rare case where Sutton's love for a show is overwhelming his ability to be objective--he's suffering from confirmation bias and I don't know what he'll do if it all falls apart.
I've said this before: Marvel could borrow characters from AoS via the Multiverse, but what I object to is the idea that the shows will have their canon be within the prime MCU universe. I see no benefit in doing so--it reduces opportunities rather than multiplies them.
This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)
No comments:
Post a Comment