Marvel News

In one of the TV promos for Endgame Cap can be heard talking about teams and missions--this is undoubtedly what Scarlett Johnasson was referring to in interviews. What's not clear is what those missions are or how the heroes are divided up (there have been hints, via interviews, that the female characters will be grouped together--akin to what happened in Wakanda during Infinity War--but I wouldn't call that confirmed).

Comicbookmovie is floating a rumour about Doctor Strange 2 (which is slowly being picked up elsewhere):

During the trade's report on Disney's CinemaCon presentation, they note: "Not revealed — what the Marvel movies will be for 2020 for the new merger.  Word is that will come to reveal itself after Avengers: Endgame opens at the end of the month. Rumors have been that it’s Black Widow standalone movie and Doctor Strange 2."

They don't cite where they got the quote, but it comes from a Deadline article. The question is: was this a mistake by Deadline or is it feasible given what we know about Doctor Strange 2? Director Scott Derrickson was re-hired in December and his buddy C. Robert Cargill to write the next month. CBM claims the latter's script is done (speculation that's plausible--we know Derrickson had ideas for the sequel when he made the original), but we've had no announcement of when production starts (generally it's no sooner than a year from the beginning of filming to screen). If filming starts this fall it's possible for the movie to hit a November, 2020, release date (that's exactly the same timeframe as the first Doctor Strange). What about Benedict Cumberbatch's schedule? He's currently shooting 1917, which wraps in June, so that isn't a problem. He's also signed for Rio, which is listed as in pre-production, but I can't find a production start date for it. I've seen people dismiss the rumour, but until we know when Rio is filming it remains feasible.

Charles Murphy (of THS) is floating an uncertain rumour about a Namor film. What's really puzzling about this idea is the timeframe. Given that Marvel would have to had to negotiate with both Universal and Fox, why would they do so just months before buying the latter? Surely it would be simpler to wait for the Fox sale to complete before doing anything (this rumour is not related to the one from 2017, incidentally). I think if there's any truth to this it's about having Namor appear in someone else's film (reminding me of the speculation about Doctor Strange 2), but frankly I don't think it's real--at least, not as-is.

We've learned an upcoming MCU movie will be filming in Australia this summer and the consensus is that it's not Black Widow (even though the director is from there; rumours have BW filming in London). Speculation is that this is Shang-Chi, but it's not confirmed (you would think casting rumours would have filtered out by now if that was the case). The Eternals is much further along in its production process, even if rumours have its production beginning in September--if it's not Black Widow, that seems more likely.

The most interesting part of this rumour is Murphy's guess that if the MCU adds back a summer date for 2020 (as he and I believe), that it will be Fox's June 26th slot. His idea is plausible (whatever movie it would be for)--Fox also had March 13th and October 2nd reserved for superhero films that Marvel can use. Murphy also wonders if Remy Hii (cast in Far From Home) is Shang-Chi (something I doubt given that, ultimately, that's a Sony film and a franchise that could disappear barring a new agreement).

THR is reporting that Kumail Nanjiani is in talks to join The Eternals cast. In reference to the THS cast list from November, it's not clear who he will be playing (the only character with a specific ethnicity preference was female, Karen). I suspect he's in a supporting role (which may or may not be on that list).

Within that report THR seems to confirm that Angelina Jolie will be playing Sersi, which if true is a yet another slap in the face to Umberto Gonzales who, since The Eternals was announced, has been pushing that she will be race-swapped in the film.

Murphy is claiming that Hercules, if he is in the film, a rumour Charles himself started and most people take as fact now, is 99% not the gay character that's been reported for the film. He also believes Piper has not been cast (this is contrary to what THS reported back in March).

We have more casting news, as O-T Fagbenle has landed a leading role. Via the THS casting list I'm guessing he's "A male with an emphasis on African, Middle Eastern or East Indian actors late 20s/early 30s."

Speaking of Black Widow, I don't think I've mentioned that I believe Marvel is propagating the idea that her film is a prequel to avoid spoiling what happens in Endgame.

Before we get into the Hawkeye TV show let's acknowledge that the Wall Street Journal reported that Disney+ is launching in November (something confirmed afterwards).

Variety reports we'll be getting a Hawkeye series on Disney+ and it will feature Kate Bishop. This idea has been floating around for a very long time (given juice by a Kevin Feige interview last summer) and it didn't take a genius to guess it was coming (I talked about the possibility of the MCU using successor characters prior to Infinity War). Jeremy Renner is the first OG Avenger to land a show (joining Bucky, Falcon, Vision, Scarlett Witch, and Loki), and it's not surprising--he was never going to hold up a solo film. What it does do is remove him from the Endgame death list (making he and Black Widow definitively safe). As I've been saying for quite some time, I don't think we'll get many deaths in Endgame and this is more proof of that.

I want to address Conrad claiming the series is his scoop, which, as we'll see, is a preposterous idea. Back in June (before Conrad's first post) Kevin Feige said this:

"[There will be] different incarnations of characters you know"

This directly references characters like Kate Bishop. After this interview Conrad claimed "sources" specified a potential Hawkeye film, but I'm skeptical of him having sources given his track record. Let's note that I and others have suggested successor characters beforehand and that THS beat him to this specific idea by proposing it in April. There's no question that Conrad reads their material, so I think they are ultimately his unattributed 'inside sources.'

 Subsequently, in October he said:

I can say that such a project does still have a pulse, meaning it sounds like it’s in some stage of internal development. What I can’t say for certain is where it’ll end up, as with the advent of the Marvel Studios series for the forthcoming Disney streaming service; this sounds like the sort of story that would fit very well with an eight-episode series. Then again, it could still be a movie.

The only difference from his June speculation is that it might be on Disney+. This is also something that doesn't require (or even suggest) inside sources. The only time he brought up the project again was via 4chan rumours back in January (We Got This Covered also used the same source). That 4chan post about the show has been accurate thus far, without the vagaries of Conrad's own posts.

My point is there's nothing to suggest Conrad had inside information and he also did not break the story (I think the reason why THS' Charles Murphy is throwing shade at him on Twitter is because THS beat him by a couple of months). Scoop aside, this idea just wasn't that hard to guess--Feige literally said they were going to do successor characters beforehand.

Elizabeth Olsen says filming of her series will begin in the fall, meaning we'll see it in 2020. Until I know more about the show this is the least interesting series for me (other than the animated shows) that the MCU has announced thus far.

Kevin Feige had some interesting things to say about the X-Men to io9:

It’ll be a while [before you see the X-Men]. It’s all just beginning and the five-year plan [for Phase Four] that we’ve been working on, we were working on before any of that was set. So really it’s much more, for us, less about specifics of when and where [the X-Men will appear] right now and more just the comfort factor and how nice it is that they’re home. That they’re all back. But it will be a very long time.

The slate that we’re building over the next five years [is] not apples to apples [he said when asked to compare the past and the future.] It is two very distinct things and I hope they’ll feel very distinct. But there is a similar mentality going into it, which is ‘How can we continue to tell stories with some of the characters that audiences already know and love in a unique way, in a different way, in surprising way, of which we have a lot of plans and ideas and work already going into it?’ [Then] ‘How can we introduce new characters that even hardcore fans, comic fans, have barely known or barely heard of.’ That’s really exciting too.

I've provided the full context because of how many articles reacting to it only include the first paragraph. io9's Germain Lussier's response to it is very good:

It’s important to remember, though, that while Feige is saying the X-Men aren’t going to be around for a while, Thanos was first introduced back in 2012, years before his full impact was felt. And when Marvel and Sony made a deal for Spider-Man, the entire course of Captain America: Civil War changed very quickly, at least in filmmaking terms. Marvel has been known to make wild pivots and long, downfield teases. So it’s entirely possible Feige is being honest, or that whatever is planned, it’s simply too big of a surprise to acknowledge just yet.

This is exactly the point. Bringing up the X-Men now would be a huge distraction for Endgame (and Far From Home)--fans would be clamouring for hints and nods and that's not what the film is (it's the culmination of the first three phases of the MCU). Mutants are part of Phase Four, not the present. We know that Marvel won't announce their official plans until after Far From Home (as they've said repeatedly). We also know you don't make a 71 billion dollar purchase and then ignore the multi-billion dollar IP you gained from it just because your "just in case" plans need to be tweaked. Beyond those general points let's look at what he actually said:

• It will be 'awhile' and 'a very long time' before we see the X-Men
• They'd made a five year plan for post-Endgame prior to the acquisition of Fox (the five years is from 2020-24)

The first point includes delightfully vague terms he can easily step out of (a few years might feel like 'a very long time' to some). The second point is not even news--we've known long before the purchase was finalized that the MCU was planning for a post-Endgame existence without Fox. Six films are already in some state of progress that were initiated without the new IP available (Black Widow, The Eternals, Shang-Chi, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and the delayed Guardians film).

What could that five-year plan be? Feige has teased it's entirely different from the first three phases of the MCU and I think what he means by that is that it won't be anchored around three core characters the same way (Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, who had nine of the eighteen solo films). I expect there will still be an overall storyline that's completed with an Avengers team-up film (given the insane hype for Infinity War and Endgame there's no question we'll continue to get films like that).

Back to the first point, the two terms Feige used are mutually exclusive--'awhile' is radically different from 'a very long time'--nor, really, do we have context for what he believes those words represent in terms of team-up movie. It's also of note that Feige is referring to an X-Men film--there's nothing preventing the various characters who eventually compose the team from appearing before they get their own film. We already know the Russo brothers are interested in both a Wolverine film (or, perhaps, X-Men that includes Wolverine) and Secret Wars, projects they absolutely will be given because of their track record. The chatter about the X-Men will become incessant after Endgame such that Feige will have to put them on the board somewhere when they announce the Phase Four lineup.

As a final note inspired by all this: I remain confused over how we learned in February about a Dazzler animated show (with Tigra) before the Fox sale was complete. She's always been a mutant, so part of the Fox IP (apparently she'll appear in Dark Phoenix), while the latter character is Disney's--was this a joint decision by the two companies? It's on Hulu (a platform both Fox and Disney have a stake it), so presumably that's the case. No one seems very interested in the mechanics of the deal however (it's not mentioned in the various trades covering it), but it's an odd collaboration given the timing.

I've been saying for months that I didn't think Disney would release Dark Phoenix in order to protect the X-Men brand, but it appears conventional wisdom was correct and it will hit screens as planned. The choice makes more sense if we're getting a delay in seeing the MCU X-Men (see above), because allowing a second Fox-version of the "Dark Phoenix" story essentially eliminates the possibility of the MCU doing it for a long time (although it does support my idea that we won't have Cyclops or Jean Grey among our first X-Men iteration).

We also received confirmation that the Deadpool films (separate from the MCU) will continue; there's even the possibility that New Mutants will come out as-is. The former is no surprise, but for the latter even Fox thought the film needed reshoots which have never happened, so it would be an odd choice for Disney to release it in that state (John Campea and Robert Meyer Burnett, who attended the event where the release schedule was shown, said it was the only movie not verbally affirmed on stage--it simply appeared in the graphic). Was its inclusion just a slip, or was the slip being left out of the announcement? Given the lack of reshoots I think the former is more likely.

It wasn't clear to me is who owns the rights to Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) because there was a lot of confusion online (CBR and Screen Rant among others said it's unclear). However, an Amy Pascal interview in the summer mentioned that Jessica Drew would appear in one of the planned animated films Sony has in development, which makes it pretty clear that that Sony owns her rights (in Polygon's recent article about Marvel rights they specifically state Sony retains TV rights for their characters).

I looked into this because I thought there was a possibility that Florence Pugh's character in Black Widow, if she's the "kick ass female Bond," could be playing Jessica Drew. We know there was an early version of Far From Home that included her (ultimately replaced by Nick Fury and Maria Hill), but given the rights situation I think it's very unlikely this is who Pugh is.

I've been watching people struggle to explain Shazam's underwhelming opening box office weekend (53.5 domestic, compared to 153.4 from Captain Marvel, 67.8 by Aquaman, 80.2 from Venom, and 75.8 for Ant-Man and the Wasp). This isn't a question about whether the film will be profitable or if it's a good film (it's been critically praised and has positive word of mouth), but why did it open at a level where it's likely to finish its run at the bottom of the DCEU rankings?

I think there are three factors at play (in order of least to most impactful):
1) Endgame: with the ticket drop and advertising hype ramping up, the appearance of a minor DC-character in a film aimed at kids doesn't make much of a blip on the radar
2) Demographics: it's being advertised as a kid's movie (very similar to the Ant-Man films, which I think is part of the problem they've had in making typical MCU-money); this is not a significant part of the audience for superhero films; that audience loves The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, the devastation of Infinity War, the conflict of Civil War, the tragedy of Black Panther and Wonder Woman, etc. It's not appealing to the largest group of fans
3) DCEU's disconnected state: there's no reason for a fan of other DC films to see Shazam--it seems irrelevant whether you see it or not. MCU fans are always asking: do I need to see such-&-such MCU film? The answer is usually yes. Does any DCEU fan need to see Shazam to understand the upcoming Joker or Wonder Woman film? Absolutely not. This further isolates the potential audience

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Avengers: Endgame News Update

With Endgame just two weeks away the news is coming fast and furious, although happily we still don't really know how the Russo's intend to resolve the Snap.

To kick things off two separate scenes were screened at CinemaCon, one of which was identical to what was shown to Disney shareholders less than a month ago. It confirmed everything reported from there, only adding details the poster couldn't remember (as he subsequently Tweeted). Since then ten minutes of the film were shown to the press (consisting of the aforementioned footage and an elongated look at Tony and Nebula trapped in space). The later doesn't add much to what's already known about the plot of the film. We then had a minute dropped on Good Morning America (here), showing the discussion to attack Thanos.

The above was followed by a myriad of interviews as part of the promotion and from that only two things stood out to me (keeping in mind none of them have seen the finished film):

• Mark Ruffalo claiming five different endings were shot
• Scarlett Johansson saying there were three separate units filming

The former may well be the Russo's working to confuse the cast about the ending--it may even be Ruffalo's confusion. The only thing it reminded me of was a 4chan post from January that talked about "wish-fulfillment scenarios" in an epilogue. That leak has not yet been debunked, largely because the predictions in it are so vague and safe (it did call for Steve's wedding, which Ruffalo specifically mentioned).

As for Johansson's comment, this seems at least partially true as the Battle of New York photos only include Tony, Cap, Banner, and Ant-Man. There's no hint at what the others are doing (or whether anyone else is with them). It would also fit the primary approach from Infinity War of using smaller groups for much of the movie.

Another tidbit of news that came out is that the Russo's were actually still working on the movie up until a few of days ago--it was picture locked back in March, so this was simply to finish VFX. The directors also confirmed that none of the Fox IP will appear in the film (which is no surprise--not only is the focus of the film wrapping up the first three phases, but filming was locked before that was possible).

I didn't mention in my speculation article about how much Doctor Strange's words must eat away at Tony--that Tony believes there's a way to win and that his survival is the key to that. I see a lot of people wondering how Strange is the key to unlocking the relationship between he and Cap and I think it could be as simple as that the hope Strange gave to Tony allows him let go of his anger. I have more speculation about Tony below.

We are back again with the Stark Gauntlet (passim) via a supposed toy leak. Confirmation bias is a funny thing, because to me, looking at it, the flaws of this being real are pretty obvious: there's no Power Stone and there's an extra, superfluous red stone in the 'new' gauntlet. You can't even argue the former is in the Time Stone's slot because that doesn't appear either. The other problem is the packaging (it doesn't say Endgame), so what we've got is some knockoff that has people who like this theory excited (We Got This Covered bought into it in now deleted Tweets, which gives you an idea of how careful they are with their reports).

I've been assuming the Avengers are trying to prevent the Snap from happening, however, let's at least consider the idea that they are going to undo what occurred (the difference is that they must assemble and use a gauntlet themselves, whereas in the former they simply have to prevent Thanos from gathering the stones in the first place). To do so they need all the stones, but when do they get them? Since the idea is revisiting prior films, these would be in the movies where those stones are most prominent and that list is:

Avengers (Space)

Thor: The Dark World (Reality)

Guardians of the Galaxy (Power)

Age of Ultron (Mind)

Doctor Strange (Time)

(The Soul stone doesn't appear until Infinity War, so it doesn't count)

One of the problems with this idea is that, while the Space, Reality, and Power Stones are never featured again (ergo, safe to pick up at the end of those movies), the Mind Stone is in Vision's head and the Time Stone is guarded by Doctor Strange. These aren't insurmountable problems, but in terms of avoiding timeline issues the Mind Stone would have to be removed after Civil War at the earliest. You then worry about causality issues, which is why my theory involves things being changed just as Infinity War begins (meaning the only event that's changed is that film).

The other issues to me are on a story level. This idea is incredibly busy--can you really re-visit all these films in a meaningful way within the confines of one or two acts in the film? I don't think so. We also have the ethical quandary (link above) that occurs by having the heroes solve the problem by using what caused it in the first place. Beyond that is the fact that this has been a popular theory since Infinity War came out and if we take the Russo's at their word, no fan theories have figured out the plot yet. I'd argue in the context of my theory they don't need to get all the stones--that the Space and Power Stone are enough to prevent the Snap from happening (even, arguably, just the Space Stone)--these are the tools that allow Thanos to so easily gather the other Stones. What this means is just one (or two) visits to the past are all that is necessary for the plot, likely focusing on the Battle of New York from The Avengers (given the set photos we've seen).

I've theorized for the past year that, if any of the OG Avengers die, Tony Stark is the logical one to do so. I wanted to revisit that idea and go over why, especially since most people believe Steve Rogers is the man to go out on his shield. Let's list them in point form:

• If Endgame is to bring the first three phases to its conclusion, Tony kicked it off and dying to save everyone at the end is as impactful a bookend as you could ask for--no one has had more screen time or appearances in the MCU than he has
• In Iron Man Tony talks about how he must have survived for some reason (you could argue that's becoming a hero, but it would dovetail nicely into saving half the universe--what better redemption could there be for a narcissistic merchant of death?)
• In the first Avengers film Cap tells Tony he's not willing to die for others (you could argue he answers this criticism at the end of the film, as he's willing to die, but he doesn't die--something that Cap does, essentially, in his first appearance)
• In Age of Ultron Tony's dream has him survive while the rest of his teammates die--you could argue the deaths in Infinity War pay off this nightmare, but Tony hasn't made the sacrifice that's implied by that comment
• His words to Peter in Homecoming give him Uncle Ben's role without suffering his fate--his death here would fulfill that role
• The baby McGuffin in Infinity War could be, rather than a sacrifice Tony has to make (as has been speculated), but a sign of rebirth after he's gone (I also think the idea of sacrificing the baby or child is ridiculous anyway--one of Jeremy Conrad's contributions)
• There's not much left for Tony to achieve as a character once he makes peace with Steve and becomes a team player--his continued presence makes it virtually impossible for another character to become the face of the MCU
• It's less expected--while speculation about him (other than my own) began mildly back in December, the general consensus is still that Steve dies (all that's changed is people will add that Tony might too)
• RDJ is expensive, making 50 million a movie
• RDJ is aging out of the role--he'll be 54 this year

While you can argue a couple of these elements also apply to other characters, no one has as much cumulative foreshadowing and other factors as Tony does. That's not to say I believe it's an absolute certainty that he dies, but that if we're looking for hints and evidence he has more than anyone else.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

We had a new short trailer that dropped along with tickets for Endgame. As with all the other trailers it added only a small amount of information (there's even dialogue clipped in from Age of Ultron, similar to the Winter Soldier dialogue heard in the previous trailer). That said, I think it answered/confirmed some story elements:

• An early attack on Thanos (link below), since we only have War Machine, Cap, Nat, Rocket, Carol, Nebula, and Thor shown on the Benatar (we know this is early because Nat has short blond hair)--this is almost certainly connected to the footage shown at the Disney shareholder meeting
• Tony and Nebula either rescue themselves or do so via Pepper (given the shot of the two in the field outside Avengers HQ); the odds are that Tony does it to mimic his journey in the first Iron Man (cf the Russo's talking about revisiting the earlier films)
• The reaction shot on the HQ lawn from the Superbowl teaser is related to Tony and Nebula's arrival back home (and that the missing person in the reaction shot is Pepper); it's also clear Cap's "Is this an old message?" is related to Tony's return, not Ant-Man's arrival
• Scott Lang's arrival is after the failed attack on Thanos and the return of Tony (given the shareholder scene and the group shown on the Benatar connected to it)
• Further confirmation of an attack on Avengers HQ by Thanos (as seen in toy sets and in the previous trailer)--this is clearly after the team goes after him in the Benatar earlier in the film
• Charlie has a theory that the 'cabin' we saw Thor in during the Superbowl trailer is the one Thanos has on Titan II and this seems plausible--Screen Crush believes they find his farm abandoned, with no idea where he is

I suspect that the reason Banner isn't part of that initial attack from the Benatar (assuming he isn't) is because the Hulk still won't come out. What I'm not clear on is why Tony isn't there--perhaps he's fulfilling his promise to Pepper about hanging up the suit in Infinity War.

Incidentally, debunked theories are still floating about in popular media, as Looper is parroting Conrad's five-year time jump theory, among others.

The Updated Plot

The trailers have collectively given us the spine of the first act and possibly the second. I've put it in point form:

• Captain Marvel arrives near the beginning of the film (we know because Steve still has his beard)--I mentioned long ago that narratively this had to be the case, otherwise there was no point in Fury paging her so dramatically at the end of Infinity War
• Tony and Nebula arrive with the Benatar (the beard is shaved, but Nat's hair is still short & blond); this makes a lot of sense since the film is meant to focus on Tony and Steve's relationship
• The group, minus Tony and Banner (and Ant-Man and Hawkeye, see below), try to take the fight to Thanos--they find Titan II abandoned (see below)
• Ant-Man arrives with the Quantum Machine (we know he comes next because he's involved in the HQ attack)
• Thanos attacks Avengers HQ and destroys it, presumably the Benatar, and possibly the Quantum Machine as well (the latter two are a guess)--Screen Crush believes Thor dies in the attack as Thanos wants to prevent them from using the Bifrost, but this runs against the idea that the original Avengers are the ones to solve the problem of Thanos
• Time passes--a year or so (this is where Nat gets the longer hair; note that there are no shots of her having an intermediate length, it's just short and blond and then longer and red)--in which the group tries and fails to deal with their situation
• Hawkeye is collected by Nat (this is later given her hair); presumably the impetus is that Tony has found a way to either rebuild the Quantum Machine or to use it

I'm least sure about when Hawkeye arrives in the sequence--it could be before the HQ attack, but if it is I'm unsure why he's found earlier unless there's a plan being attempted. Beyond that point we have nothing coherent. There are no scenes of Carol Danvers or Thor beyond this point, and minimal footage of anything (I believe the theory that the scene of Steve and Tony shaking hands is actually during the time travel back to 2012 New York, with the former's Winter Soldier outfit CGI'd onto the era uniform he's actually wearing--but believing that doesn't really inform the plot).

Marvel has done a great job at not spoiling the film. Despite the various set and toy leaks, it's still not clear how the film will end--what exactly they are doing in the past and how that will help.

Casting continues for Black Widow. Variety is reporting Rachel Weisz is in talks to join the cast, while THR says Hellboy's David Harbour has signed on. Variety responsibly reminds us:

It’s unclear whether Black Widow will be an origin tale or set after Avengers: Endgame.

I bring this up because we've been dealing with fan sites endlessly claiming the film will be a prequel since its announcement (from the unreliable Jeremy Conrad to THS). Assuming the THS cast list is correct, I'd guess both actors are in line for villain roles given their relative ages (49 and 44), although Marvel could have changed their initial ideas for the age of the characters (particularly given that the Ned Benson re-write occurred after the cast list leaked). Speaking of which, the Florence Pugh role might be the new character Benson added in his re-write.

Chris Evans gave a lengthy review to THR (from early February, but only published recently), where he says that when he was hired Feige outlined the entire arc for Cap through his trilogy of films. This is a good indication about how the MCU plans their arcs early (unlike the very hodgepodge approach the DCEU has fallen into).

[W]e've always been huge fans of Wolverine. We certainly haven't been thinking about if and when and how we would ever go there, but just off the top of my head, that's a character we've always been passionate about.

That's what Anthony Russo told Fandango while doing press for Endgame. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the directors who've made in excess of 3.915 billion over three movies (and are about to add a couple more billion with Endgame) want something, they can punch their ticket. Whether it's a solo Wolverine film (I'd love to see a proper Weapon X program and Alpha Flight), or a straight-up X-Men project, there's no way to know, but I'd love to see the Russo's tackle the character.

It's been rumoured since November that Hercules will be one of the leads in The Eternals. Inexplicably, with no new information, Conrad is running this rumour now. I think the reason he's floating it is to try and cash in on the excitement about the news of Angelina Jolie's casting, but it's pretty embarrassing to float a four-month old rumour as 'news.'

Speaking of rumours, one of the strangest comes from Deadline, who, in the midst of an article looking at potential R-rated MCU characters headed to the big screen, included Deathlok (who has been on ABC's Agents of SHIELD for quite some time). All Geoff Boucher (the writer) says is "there's been rumours that Marvel Studios may use the character soon." Nothing is cited, but this story has been picked up by most of the usual sources. I would be very surprised to see the character in the MCU--while I think Marvel's hesitation in duplicating characters from TV is less now than it was (eg the Inhumans discussion we learned of in December), this is still a D-grade character with little to no name recognition. His only chance to appear would be at the behest of a particular writer or director rather than from Feige himself.

It's been clear since Aquaman that the DCEU is in the midst of a reboot of sorts and I have to applaud the open reboot of Suicide Squad we're getting from James Gunn. It's the kind of thing I think studios should be less afraid of. When a film fails it's on the studio and they need to swallow their pride, recognize that the IP isn't the problem, and fix their approach.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

We have a new official synopsis (the third deemed as such, but even more official than the others):

The grave course of events set in motion by Thanos that wiped out half the universe and fractured the Avengers ranks compels the remaining Avengers to take one final stand in Marvel Studios’ grand conclusion to twenty-two films, "Avengers: Endgame."

This isn't very different from the previous synopsis, but one element of note is that it's talking about a last stand, suggesting battle, whereas in the other it was to restore the universe. I think both elements make up the plot and that they don't contradict each other--there will be a last stand to restore the universe.

Another bit of "news" has arrived via posters revealing all the characters for Endgame (well, not all, but an intentional 16-16 split for our Thanosian 'perfect balance' of those alive and those Snapped--this number reminds me of Scarlett Johansson's oddly specific comment about the ubiquitous "everyone" scene consisting of thirty-two heroes--I wonder if she had this promotional material, or something like it, in mind). The news I'm referring to is confirmation that Valkyrie and Wong survived the Snap and Shuri did not. I've put "news" in quotations because the former two were confirmed to be alive by various folks at Marvel shortly after Infinity War last year, but that does not seem to have made its way into the broader public consciousness. Shuri's fate was unknown up until the first teaser in December, but this is further confirmation that showing her wasn't a fake out and she was Snapped. I referenced at the time that killing off Shuri made a lot of sense for what the Russo's want to do with Endgame: have the original Avengers solve the problem. You can't really have Tony Stark (or Banner) play the inventor/intellectual role when you've established Shuri as smarter than them. This runs into a problem writers McFeely and Markus mentioned to Collider months ago, where they didn't want a new character (their example was Adam Warlock) arriving on the scene to solve all the problems. So, for the Science Bros, or just Tony, to play their usual role Shuri needs to be out of the picture.

Another point, somewhat related, is that I think people are going overboard with their theories about how much fakery is occurring in the official material--if you look at what was done with Infinity War the fake shots are not that deceiving (the Hulk fighting in Wakanda instead of Banner in the Hulkbuster). I believe it's this kind of subtle deception that's going on (thus my theory that the B.A.R.F. photo from the Endgame shoot in 2017 was a deliberate plant by the Russo's to try and confuse the time travel issue--something that has worked very successfully with Charlie and others).

THR is reporting that Angelina Jolie is in talks to play an unknown role in The Eternals. The only specific mentioned is the love story of Ikaris and Sersi, but the article doesn't speculate on who she is playing. Going through the THS cast list and assuming Jolie is taking a major role, Sersi seems like the most probable, although she looks like Elysius and could even be in the "Karen" role. If she is Sersi this would be yet another time when Umberto Gonzales was wrong, as he's been implying from the beginning that the character would be race-swapped.

It's important to carefully and fully read articles and most covering a THR article on the Fox acquisition don't quite get there (Conrad, eg, etc). The basic problem is Couch (the author) mixes speculation with fact and that hasn't been parsed out at all. Let's look at the substance.

Avengers: Endgame will presumably be the swan song for some of the characters

This is a key element--Couch is making an assumption--an educated guess. It's one shared by many, granted, but he's not sharing sourced information (something he only brings up once in the entire article), so it's no more valuable than whatever you or I think.

Reynolds' Deadpool is expected to be the only iteration of the X-Men to make the jump to Disney

This is another assumption, albeit backed by repeated comments from Bob Iger (and therefore a reasonable assumption, although we must remember that Kevin Feige has creative control over the MCU, not Iger).

[T]he film [New Mutants] could ultimately end up on a streaming platform, such as Disney+ or Hulu rather than a theatrical release.

This is another assumption (one based on many rumours and backed by the lack of planned reshoots for the film).

[T]here are producer deals that will need to be looked at and either untangled or bought out, say sources. Lauren Shuler Donner, who championed the 2000 film and has been a producer on all Fox's mutant-centric movies, is said to have a deal that calls for her to receive an executive producer credit on any X-Men movie whether or not she is actively involved. Kinberg may have a similar deal.

This is the quote that has Conrad so excited (link above)--exactly why, since none of this was unknown to Disney's bookkeepers, I have no idea. And again, while sources are noted, there's an assumption attached about Kinberg: "may have a similar deal," Couch is guessing. Why dealing with this would be an impediment to making X-Men films Couch does not go into and frankly I don't see how it could cause any significant delay.

Marvel Studios has not publicly revealed any plans for integrating members of the X-Men and Fantastic Four into its cinematic universe

This is absolutely true and legally they couldn't even if they wanted to. The article was written the day before the sale was finalized, so Couch has no more knowledge about those plans than you or I do.

While Disney's release schedule does contain the highest volume of untitled Marvel movies yet ... it remains unclear when an X-Men or Fantastic Four movie could make it onto the calendar. ... Unless Feige has a completed script waiting in his desk drawer, any of the newly arrived heroes are unlikely to hit screens at least until 2021, if not later.

This is a conflation of two independent ideas: 1) it's unclear when the first films for those properties will come out (as it must be since, legally, it could not be discussed before the article was published), 2) unless there's a finished script, a film couldn't come out until 2021. The latter is almost certainly true, although it's also true the MCU keeps spec scripts for many properties (even if these would ultimately be re-written when the project's are given the greenlight).

My point here is less about disagreeing with Couch's theories, but simply that he has no idea whatsoever what Marvel will do--he's speculating based almost entirely on information already widely available. There's nothing wrong with speculation, but I do think he's presenting the information as an a fait accompli and that's what's getting picked up elsewhere. I happen to agree that 2021 is the earliest we'll see those movies due to production schedules (see below), but I think the response that Conrad (and others) had in response to this is more than a little ridiculous.

What timeframe can we expect for MCU versions of the Fox IP? No one goes into it, but it's not hard to work out from existing MCU examples. Take the upcoming Black Widow: the writer was hired in January, 2018; the director in July; production is expected in June, 2019, with an expected release in May, 2020--that's just under two and a half years from script to screen. Films can, of course, be made faster than this (Shang-Chi, if my theory is right, will be a late 2020 release, which would be just two years). The time from when filming starts to it hitting theaters is what's largely set in stone, but elements like the time spent on the script and taken to find a director can be much, much faster (or slower). Let's also keep in mind that only two films are moving into production right now (Black Widow and The Eternals) and Marvel does not have a stated slate for Phase Four, providing a lot of flexibility. They also have access to Fox's production facilities, which means they can have more going on at the same time.

The guesses on release dates for Fantastic Four and X-Men doesn't address introducing the characters, which could happen as soon as Black Widow if desired (I'm no expecting that, but there's nothing preventing it). I would expect Feige is keen on making introductions as quickly as possible.

For the purposes of bookkeeping and clarity let's acknowledge that Disney did not (as claimed) quietly rehire James Gunn just weeks after his firing. There are enough credible stories in the press to know that, for some time at least, there were attempts to replace Gunn with another director (the last reported was Adam McKay, although it's difficult to know exactly when he was approached--the news of it came out in December). James Gunn was hired by DC to write and direct the Suicide Squad sequel in October (which is apparently a complete reboot--a smart move by DC in my opinion), so at least well into the fall Alan Horn had not reconsidered and Gunn was still out of the MCU. My guess is that after failing to find any competent director who would take the gig, Horn relented and Gunn was brought back. What I'm interested to see is whether he'll continue to make movies for Marvel afterwards or not--I'd like to think so, but at the moment there's no guarantee (unlike with actors, the MCU hasn't specifically locked up directors consistently).

Speaking of clarity, I'd been under the impression that Marvel had reacquired the TV-rights from Sony when they bought the merchandising rights back for Spider-Man (in 2011 in return for the 5% film profit share they used to receive). However, if Polygon is to be believed, those rights are still at Sony (the article in question is a little sloppy, but it's a more credible source than the one I got the opposite information from). This would bust my theory that development of said shows illustrated a done-deal between the MCU and Sony.

Apparently some fans believe (or hope) that the Marvel Netflix characters will be translated over to the MCU along with the rights--the same actors, the same continuity, etc. This simply can't be the case--not because it's logistically impossible, but because Disney has no interest in validating the Netflix seasons (and thus, empowering Netflix with content they don't control). Instead, if the characters are used in the future (I believe at least Daredevil will be), they will be full reboots, cast in the mould of whatever the MCU is doing at the time. Incidentally, I've been dubious that we'd ever see Iron Fist in the MCU, not because of the show's mixed reception, but because of all the hassle that came with the well-intended but nonsensical whitewashing claims. Something Shang-Chi may achieve is to deflate that complaint since now the first MCU martial artist will be ethnically appropriate and you can more easily get away with Danny Rand arriving later (I do think, however, that Heroes of Hire is more likely to be cartoon fodder ala Dazzler and Tigra, alas).

As we come closer to the release date of Dark Phoenix I keep seeing the same arguments about why it will be released (from people like Armin and John Campea): the money is already spent, best get it out to recoup some of the losses or even make a small profit. This is an understandable idea, but I think the reasoning is a little simplistic, so let's go into why I think killing it is the better idea.

We've had stories over the last week or so that illustrate it would have been better for Fox if it had never released Josh Trank's Fantastic Four (2015), due to the dramatic negative impact it had on the company. While shelving the film would have cost money in the short term, it would have saved them from ruining the IP and killing off other movies (like Gambit). Keep in mind we're talking about a much smaller IP--the Fantastic Four--it's not a key brand--not automatically a billion dollar franchise like the X-Men. The X-Men have a rich history and characters that continue to resonant--a brand that needs protecting. Let us recall the exact same arguments for releasing the film can and were used for New Mutants (and by the same people), but now no one has a problem with that film being shelved (you might make the argument less money is tied to the latter, but the principal is the same). The MCU could easily let New Mutants hit theaters--it would likely make its budget back if they did so and absolutely make more money than if it's not be released--so why not let it out? There's only one reason and it's not about immediate finances: save the IP. The New Mutants are just a small piece of the X-Men IP, so if Disney is willing to spike that film (as everyone seems to agree they are), the logic follows that they'll kill Dark Phoenix--losing 200-300 million to make billions is not a difficult equation.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for Dark Phoenix to appear, I just believe it's more likely to be shelved.

One of the big 4chan theories I addressed in my original Avengers speculation article has been debunked as that author's 'accurate predictions' for Infinity War have been attacked on Reddit and I went ahead and completed its demolition. We still have yet to see any plot descriptive leak for Endgame that have held up. Joe Russo talked about keeping things secret, saying:

When I was 11 years old, I went to see The Empire Strikes Back, having seen Star Wars a bunch of times with my uncle. I was at the theater from 11 until 10 at night watching Empire over and over again because I knew nothing about what was going to happen in the film beyond what I’d seen in a trailer in front of a movie once or twice. Information was so much more limited. It was so shocking to me what happened that I was emotional watching it. That’s the feeling that my brother and I are trying to replicate for other kids who want to be surprised. It’s why we limit the amount of information in trailers. That’s why we obfuscate it. Audiences are so predictive. Everyone has a PhD in content now, and it’s constant. The smallest clue in a trailer can ruin a movie

Speaking of theories, another 4chan theory has popped up. This one has the added bonus of actually including the third act (unlike all the others), even though its substance is preposterous:

• Movie starts off with the world dealing with the decimation and Tony/Nebula stranded in space.
• Pepper & Crew rescue Tony/Nebula in a Stark Spaceship. Tony is hospitalized when he comes back to earth. Steve visits him.
• Captain Marvel arrives, and with Nebula's help, they find Thanos, but he has no intent to fight. He tells them he can’t undo the snap because he used the last of the gauntlets power to scatter the stones in deep space.
• Thor and Captain Marvel charge Thanos. The team beat him and Rocket analyzes the Gauntlet. It’s too busted for them to use it again.
• They start to torture Thanos but Cap says it’s enough. They go back home.
• Scott falls through a Time Vortex and ends up in the present. He tells the Avengers there might be a small chance they can reverse the snap using a time vortex.
• They start working on a Quantum Tunnel in Wakanda.
• Clint is brought in by Natasha. We see him in Japan killing criminals as we see flashbacks of his family disappearing.
• They separate into 2 teams diving into Time Vortexes, running through set pieces in previous movies (Avengers 1-3, Guardians, Doctor Strange, Winter Solider, The Dark World), as they assemble a new gauntlet.
• Hulk wields it, undoing the snap, but at the same time merging his two personalities becoming an “intelligent hulk”.
• Strange takes the gauntlet to study/protect it.
• In a time skip, everything is back to normal but Thanos attacks Avengers HQ demanding an explanation. In the fight the whole HQ is destroyed.
• In a surprise move, Strange says Thanos is right and offers him the Gauntlet. Thanos messes with the Avengers with Strange by his side.
• Thanos prepares to snap but this was all part of Strange’s plan...
• A black cosmic void envelopes everyone as cosmic beings tower over them. Thanos snaps but nothing happens... The Living Tribunal takes the gauntlet.
• The Living Tribunal is furious. These artefacts don’t belong in this reality, and he threatens earth but Strange strikes a deal. Earths best champions as a willing sacrifice for each stone... in exchange for life on earth.
• Strange apologizes for not telling the team... It was the only way.
• Tony, Clint, Natasha, Banner, Steve, And Strange all agree. Whatever it takes...
• They along with the gauntlet are taken.
• We hear a speech about heroism as we see the fallen Avengers in different lives.
• Tony with his parents, Cap in WWII, Natasha in high school (not assassin school), Banner talking to people in a lab, and Strange doing surgery... But he notices strange cracks that appear on a wall. He brushes them off.
• We see a crowd at an Avengers as the statues of the fallen Avengers are unveiled. Pepper and her son are there. He leaves a homemade MK 1 helmet at the feet of Tony’s statue.

There are a number of ridiculous elements here: Thanos is beaten in the first act and then tortured by a group that includes Captain America? Strange sacrifices himself with his sequel going into production next year? The Living Tribunal is a literal deus ex machina? And on and on. It's a bizarre farrago of the trailers, leaks, and the poster's own nonsense.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Debunking Theories about Avengers: Endgame

With Avengers: Endgame only a month away, I wanted to dig into some popular theories that we can safely debunk by attacking their source. They all derive from one place: a 4chan post by a guy purported to have made good predictions about Infinity War. The 4channer was given credence by people on Reddit, which was picked up by tabloids like The Express, and then broadcast by Jeremy Conrad (especially here); this legitimized the leak which has since been covered by Charlie Schneider, Midnight's Edge, etc (his impact on MCU news continues today, as you can see here). However, recently the claims about the accuracy of his Infinity War post has been thoroughly demolished, and I want to complete their destruction here. Along with that, I want to assess the aforementioned Conrad as a source. We'll do the 4chan poster first, as it's one thing for me to say he's a fake, but another to prove it. We'll start his Infinity War predictions (posted at the end of November, 2017), since there's no ambiguity about the results.

I'm going to address his claims point by point; he makes a lot of claims, so to make the wall of text stand out visually I've colour-coded it (false claims in red, those known beforehand are in green). It's important to remember that the 4chan post is after the first Infinity War trailer leaked online (Charlie had a video about it on the 26th); it's also after audio had leaked and we'd seen leaked footage from SDCC in the summer:

• Cap has adopted the identity of Nomad (false - his identity doesn't change, he's simply not authorized to act officially & therefore in the exact same place he was in Civil War)
• Cap is leading Falcon and Black Widow (true) - revealed in the leaked trailer
• Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, and Ant Man are on their own (false - the later two don't appear and the former is never alone)
• Of those three only Ant-Man is not involved in a significant way (false on two fronts - Hawkeye and Ant-Man do not appear, making it impossible for Scott to be involved insignificantly)
• Cap etc rescue Scarlet Witch and Vision (true) - via the trailer leak
• They send them to Wakanda (false in two ways - this happens after they go to New York, talk to Rhodey, and realize they can't fix Vision on their own; they are also never separated from them, so they aren't 'sent' anywhere)
• Black Panther and Shuri extract the Mind Stone (false)
• Corvus Glaive kills Vision (false)
• Cap kills Corvus Glaive (false)
• Loki trades the Space Stone for his life (false)
• Loki becomes Thanos' adviser (false)
• Thor is found by the Guardians (true) - via SDCC
• Starlord, Gamora, and Drax go to Knowhere to talk to the Collector, but find him being tortured by Thanos (true) - via the audio leak
• Thor, Rocket, and Groot go to Etri for weapons (true to a point - just one weapon, however)
• Thor finds Jarnbjorn but it is unfinished (false)
• Groot makes the handle for Jarnbjorn (true - I believe this was known via a toy leak)
• Thor wears an eyepatch the entire movie (false)
• Iron Man and Doctor Strange go into space to meet with Thor and the Guardians to stop Thanos (false)
• Spider-Man gets injured in battle (false)
• Black Panther unites the tribes (false)
• Black Panther brings Winter Soldier out of cryosleep (false) - apparently the poster didn't watch the end-credit scene from Black Panther
• Hawkeye joins the battle (false)
• Bruce Banner returns to earth via an escape pod (false)
• Banner bursts out of the Hulkbuster to defeat Cull Obsidian (false on two fronts, because Banner kills Cull)
• Ebony Maw breaks into the Sanctum Sanctorum (false)
• Ebony Maw has psychic powers (false)
• Ebony Maw steals the Time Stone (false)
• Doctor Strange becomes good friends with Tony, Peter, and Starlord (false)
• Spider-Man and Groot have comedic scenes (false)
• Valkyrie has a minor appearance (false)
• Ebony Maw's attack is before Wong, Strange, and Banner meet Tony (false)
• Red Skull is stranded in space (false - if the poster knew what his role was he would have mentioned it, instead he talks about a separate Soul Stone 'guardian')
• Thanos does not love Gamora (false - the test to gain the Soul Stone proves this)
• Gamora's death compels Nebula to join the others (false - she doesn't know she's dead until after she joins the others)

The wall of red (false claims) makes it clear: there's nothing about the post that suggests insider knowledge. I believe even the Jarnbjorn elements had been revealed by toy leaks by then (although at this stage I didn't feel the need to dig further). If the 'leak' is this bad, why is it given so much credence? We have to point the finger at Conrad. Hot off his Eternals scoop in early April, Jeremy gave it credibility after Infinity War dropped and that helped boost the signal.

With the 4channer's credibility busted, let's look at the claims he's unleashed on Endgame. I covered his post in my original speculation article (the link to the full thing is there), but I want to go through its most pernicious points one-by-one.

The Stark Gauntlet

Iron Man reassembles the Avengers and decides to build his own Infinity Gauntlet

This is already debunked because we know from the trailers Cap reassembles the team (Tony is in no position to assemble anything), but we'll carry through the theory to completely debunk it.

He (Hulk) is the one that ultimately wields the Stark Gauntlet against Thanos, losing his arm in the process

A brief list of those buying into this: CBR, HN Network, Warstu, & Cosmic Wonder

We've established that the 4channer doesn't have inside sources, so where did this theory come from? It's one of the most obvious ways to defeat Thanos--the Gauntlet's would either cancel each other out or the more clever person would win. It's also something from the comics, given some extra zip from the MCU by accidentally showing two gauntlets (via the easter egg for it in Thor; there's also the mould Etri has). There's plenty of comicbook precedent for another gauntlet, but why a Stark gauntlet? Well, Brian Michael Bendis (in 2011) has Tony wield the Gauntlet in the comics, but MCU lore makes this problematic, because they've established normal people cannot use something like the Power Stone without being destroyed. If Tony can't use the Gauntlet, he is the most likely MCU character to create the housing. As for the Hulk, he's also used it in the comics (2011 in the Ultimate universe, in a story by Joshua Hale Fialkov and Carmine Di Giandomenico), and with Peter Quill gone he is the kind of character who might be able to use it. Why does the Hulk lose a limb? This seems to be a nod to an MCU trend--Aldrich Killian (Iron Man 3), Malekith (Thor: The Dark World), Bucky (Winter Soldier and Civil War), Groot (Guardians of the Galaxy and Infinity War), Nebula (Guardians of the Galaxy), Klaue (Age of Ultron and Black Panther), Yellowjacket (Ant-Man), and Cull Obsidian (Infinity War) all lose limbs.

There is no other source for this rumour--all the theories about the Stark Gauntlet trace back to this post--there's nothing in real leaks to support it. I pointed out the thematic problem with this approach in my first Endgame speculation article: if the Gauntlet can be used for good, then why not use it to solve other problems? It also means that Thanos wasn't wrong to use it, but simply using it wrong. This violates a tenant of most fiction (and a concept generally accepted in real life), that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely--there are no 'right' hands to use it (it's the exact same reason the One Ring has to be destroyed in The Lord of the Rings). Thematically the Avengers have to solve this problem in a way that refutes Thanos' approach as much as his actions.

The Return of Mjolnir and Cap Wielding It

Timeline alterations have restored Mjolnir and Cap wields it against Thanos to allow others to escape, and is killed holding Thanos off

Brief list of those buying into this: Inverse, E-Man, & Everything Always

These are actually two separate elements (Mjolnir's return and Cap's death) that all trace back here. This idea is one that began after the SDCC footage leaked, but this post gave it life. Where does the idea come from? We had Cap nearly pick it up in Ultron and this is an easter egg from the comics where Cap has, indeed, used it (four times as of 2017). Thanos killing Cap is also from the comics (the original Infinity War) and this happening is something that's been rumoured ever since Infinity War was announced years ago. Basically everyone has written Cap off as a casualty of the film (I'll get into death more below).

The tangible evidence of Mjolnir is twofold: 1) returning to the Battle of New York means Thor has his hammer in the past; 2) there is a fan picture of Joe Russo holding it while filming in Scotland. This is the most evidence-based prediction, but let's keep in mind that flashbacks/time travel easily explain it and that Joe could simply be trolling (as, indeed, he has done in other cases).

Nebula Fights Herself

Nebula's subplot centers on her efforts to redeem herself. At one point, she fights her murderous past self

This is such a slight element that not many people make videos about it, but here's an example of someone discussing it via Cosmic Book.

One of the problems with this idea is that Nebula already redeemed herself in Guardians 2--that was the point of her arc in that film and why she's looking for Gamora in Infinity War. We do have a leak that suggests past-Nebula appears (there's a video of Zoe Saldana and Karen Gillan in their original Guardians garb while filming Endgame), but beyond that we have no evidence for what happens. The latter part of this idea would be plausible if the first part wasn't completely wrong.

Hawkeye is Instrumental in Defeating Thanos

At one point, Hawkeye must protect the Stark Gauntlet from Thanos' minions. He plays an "instrumental" role in Thanos' defeat.

Much like Nebula above, this is such a slight element that not many people are making anything specifically about it (although you can find an example here).

This idea references a meme of sorts (where Hawkeye defeats Thanos by calling the cops on him), but really, it's just to give the character something important to do given that he missed Infinity War (while carrying on with the Stark Gauntlet plot mentioned above). Keep in mind the same poster thought Hawkeye would be part of the battle in Infinity War, so this is just a wild guess.

Thor Assembles an Army

Thor's subplot centers on him assembling an army to challenge Thanos

As with the above two entries, this isn't substantial enough to warrant much separate discussion, but there are examples (and, as always, Charlie).

This is one of the more repeated ideas and it's one borrowed by the poster from leaks that had various Thor scenes being shot in Scotland. This included what's assumed to be a return to his visions from Ultron, with many speculating that this might be a visit to Valhalla or Hel (the Norse realms of the dead--I go over this in my updated speculation article). In addition to this was a casting call for 'vikings.' It's a slim basis for the theory and a drab plotline (since armies won't truly effect the battle). Another Redditor spiced this up by saying Thor was following the Aragorn storyline from Return of the King and that new idea has helped carry the theory forward.

It's important to note that neither the Russo brothers nor Kevin Feige have ever referenced Return of the King as an influence on the movie. All the comments about it go back to the Reddit post which runs in parallel to the 4chan post. We have nothing official that indicates armies are being assembled by anyone--indeed, you could argue that if the intent is for the OG Avengers to defeat Thanos, then assembling an army goes against that idea thematically.

Doctor Strange Fighting a CGI Creature

Doctor Strange and a fully CGI creature...which takes up a sizable portion of the budget

Same restrictions as above, but Newsweek has been suckered into this (and Charlie).

This is one of those ideas that I've always found rather bizarre since this already happened in Infinity War. The battle between Strange and Thanos was incredibly CGI dependent and expensive. This theory is the source of all the videos we see about there being an antagonist greater than Thanos in the film--a preposterous idea on a story level (if the Russo's want the OG Avengers to solve the problem, the problem is Thanos--introducing a new villain undercuts that idea).

Most of the Avengers Die

Only two of the original Avengers [are] meant to survive the movie. Cap dies.

Esquire gets this from a separate Reddit theory born from it, but you can also see it reflected in Comicbook.com, HN Entertainment, Super Bro Movies, etc (and in Charlie).

The Cap death rumours have been heavy since before Infinity War. There's literally nothing more expected when it comes to deaths and that expectation is based on three things: 1) it's happened in the comics, 2) other characters who have picked up the mantel of Captain America are available (Falcon and Bucky), 3) Chris Evans' periodic moaning about leaving the role (something other MCU stars have done as well). There is, however, no tangible evidence for this. People have tried very hard to read into a Tweet by Evans along with a comment he made in an interview months earlier (link above), but it's all very ephemeral and the Russo's happily debunked it in November (you could argue they'd lie about it, but they could have just as easily ignored it). The point here is less that Cap dies and more that the 4channer is attaching himself to the most common theory out there--nothing is being added. The larger idea that only two OG Avengers will survive has been heavily parroted and for this there is no basis at all. A ten year celebration of the MCU doesn't work well if you're murdering most of the original crew that brought you here--as I've been saying since my original post about the film, it just doesn't make sense on a story level (especially after teasing their deaths in Ultron--that was done to prevent it, not cause it).

Jeremy Conrad as a Source

Let's acknowledge Jeremy's scoop for The Eternals--it is a legit scoop that he had before anyone else (Umberto Gonzales embarrassed himself by denying it initially). Since then, however, he's been the source of near endless failure as his various scoops and theories have crashed and burned. Let's go through his predictions one by one since he launched his website (those in red were completely wrong, those known to be stolen from elsewhere are in blue).

2018
April - predicted Black Widow in 2020, something I beat him to a month earlier (this was a very easy thing to theorize about, so he didn't get this from me)
May - predicts that the reason Nick Fury paged Captain Marvel was because he feared a Skrull invasion (debunked by Captain Marvel)
June - his claims about Dark Phoenix are debunked
July - predicts Kronos will have a cameo in Endgame (yet to be determined)
August - predicts Hydro-Man will appear in Far From Home without revealing that got the information from an Instagram post
September - claimed Black Widow will involve Y2K (yet to be determined)
October
His most famous boondoggle, where he claimed the title for the fourth Avengers film was Annihilation (going on to embarrass himself saying there was a whole transition of different titles--Kevin Feige killed that lie by saying the title was decided years ago)
Conrad double downed on Endgame beginning with a five-year jump theory (debunked by the various Endgame trailers)
Bought into Frank Grillo's trolling that there will be a new Cap (after making the statement Grillo admitted he was just making things up--something very obvious from the interview)
Claimed (same link) a Nick Fury series was in development, which got slapped down by Slash Film immediately
November
Suggested a Hawkeye Disney+ show was being discussed, but was too hesitant about it to say it was in development (yet to be determined)
Claimed Katherine Langford's character was playing the adult daughter of Tony Stark, an idea so preposterous even Charlie balked at it (theoretically still possible)
Predicted that 'Karen' and 'Piper' from The Eternals will be teased in Endgame (yet to be determined)
December - his plethora of vague rumours got him banned from Reddit; he also got scooped by John Campea (of all people) for the date of the Endgame teaser release
2019
January
Steals the idea of a Black Knight appearing in the MCU from a 4chan post (again, no attribution)
Thought the rumour of an R-rated Black Widow was credible
February - Claimed 'Karen' is archaeologist Margo Damien (yet to be determined)

That's where we sit among his many claims. Let's keep in mind all the significant developments he missed (despite supposed 'inside sources'):

• Debunking the fake Black Widow synopsis
• Scoops about the Black Widow cast
• Scoops about The Eternals cast
• Shang-Chi coming to the MCU
• Spoilers for Captain Marvel
• Details about who Emma Fuhrmann is playing

All the above examples come from That Hashtag Show, incidentally. THS' speculation remains hilariously inaccurate, but their scoops are usually good.

Back to Conrad, if you exclude his Eternals scoop, he's had nothing since then--just infrequent correct speculation. The point of this isn't to embarrass Conrad, but to point out that he does not have reliable inside sources--if he did, we wouldn't see him consistently put his foot in his mouth. Given his track record, you have to wonder if whatever source he had no longer exists (or is no longer giving him info). Keep in mind, being wrong repeatedly is not necessarily the end of a career--Umberto has been wrong innumerable times and still runs The Wrap.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)