Avengers Infinity War Speculation

With Avengers Infinity War just around the corner I thought it would be fun to speculate on what we might see in the film. There are no spoilers for AIW below--everything discussed is via the two trailers (one and two) and other promotional material/public comments (including the prelude comic). There are, however, spoilers for all previous MCU movies.

Background

Most fans are aware of the comic inspirations for this story, which was first hinted at in The Avengers (2012). The comic inspiration begins with Thanos Quest (1990), whose story continues through The Infinity Crusade (1993); perhaps more important are the recent Thanos Rising and Infinity (2013) stories. The film isn't intended as a direct adaptation (Captain America: Civil War (2016) is a good template to keep in mind as that adaptation was also by the Russo's), but many elements are borrowed, particularly from the latter series. I won't go through the plots of each comic series (for those interested you can start here) or their many known connections to the films, as such explorations are plentiful online and I'm less interested in that then in speculating about the movie itself. I will point out that Thanos' children (other than Gamora and Nebula) are creations of the 2013 comic--known as the Black Order, they consist of Proxima Midnight, Cull Obsidian, Corvus Glaive, and Ebony Maw, and seem to feature prominently in the film.

The MCU-version of Thanos, like his comicbook counterpart, is seeking the six infinity stones to power the infinity gauntlet. His motivations for doing so are, however, very different. In the comics Thanos is in love with the manifestation of Death, so he seeks power and death to impress her. In the MCU he wants to bring balance to the universe (requiring the death of half the life in it--we don't know why he thinks this is necessary, although the second trailer suggests it has been his goal for quite some time)--this puts an end to theories that Hela would be a stand-in for Death. I don't think the movie-specifics of this idea were settled until recently--Kevin Feige clearly intended the MCU to culminate in a struggle against Thanos prior to his first appearance (2012), but given how much the comics written afterwards seem to have impacted things, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely had fairly free reign when they wrote the screenplay (which was composed no later than 2016). I definitely think a more nuanced, sympathetic Thanos will appear on screen.

The only active role Thanos has had in the MCU prior to these films was in Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), but his role there was virtually identical to the one he provided in the background of The Avengers--motivating a subordinate antagonist (Ronan and Loki) to gather an infinity stone for him. In the post-credit scene of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) he declares that he'll gather the stones himself and that's the true beginning of these films.

The stones themselves have featured much more prominently than their seeker in the MCU:
-The Tesseract (space stone) is an important part of Captain America (2011), having been introduced in the post-credit scene of Thor (2011), and subsequently of importance in The Avengers before being stored on Asgard (Loki steals it in Thor: Ragnarok (2017), a supposition confirmed by the first trailer)
-The Mind Stone is given to Loki by Thanos in The Avengers, which is subsequently used by Hydra to create Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver in the post-credit scene of Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014); it gets retrieved and becomes part of Ultron's creation of Vision in Avengers: Age of Ultron--Vision later appears in Captain America: Civil War (2016) and the stone continues to be a part of him
-The Aether (reality stone) is at the core of the plot of Thor: The Dark World (2013), which when recovered is given to the Collector who, despite the explosion of his collection in Guardians of the Galaxy, presumably still has it
-The Orb (power stone) is the core plot element of Guardians of the Galaxy which, when resolved, is stored on Xandar
-The Eye of Agamotto (time stone) has been held by earth's sorcerers for millennia, appearing in Doctor Strange (2016) and remaining with them
-The Soul Stone's location is completely unknown and, other than its image being shown by the Collector to the Guardians, virtually nothing is known about its location

What's interesting is that in the seven films since Age of Ultron the stones have only been an important plot element in one, Doctor Strange. I'm not sure what to make of that decision (since they were vital in five of seven previously), but their primary story will be wrapped up by the next two installments of the Avengers.

The gauntlet itself has been on its own brief, somewhat bizarre journey within the MCU, showing up as an easter egg in the first Thor (2011)--its appearance retained as another easter egg for Thor: Ragnarok where it was confirmed as a fake. In Age of Ultron we see that Thanos already has the real gauntlet, but we won't see it in action until Infinity War.

Speculation

With the background out of the way let's try to explore the story as presented in the trailers. We need to keep in mind that the film is intended to have a definitive ending, such that even though the fourth Avengers film is a sequel it's not meant to end on an unresolved cliffhanger.

Where We Begin

Many of the Avengers are on the run after the signing of the Sokovia Accords (Civil War)--Captain America, Black Widow, and Falcon are together and operating clandestinely as a team; Vision and Scarlett Witch are together apparently just as a couple (retired, perhaps); Hawkeye is retired and probably back with his family; Ant-Man is on his own (likely under a form of house arrest so that he can still see his daughter); Iron Man, War Machine, Spider-Man, and Doctor Strange are in New York; Bucky remains in Wakanda with Black Panther; the Guardians are together (including additions Mantis and Nebula); Thor and Hulk are on the Asgardian lifeboat which, at the end of Ragnarok, is confronted by Thanos' ship. Newcomers the Wasp and Captain Marvel won't appear until their own films (although post-credit appearances remain possible).

First Act

-Introduction to Thanos (the Russo's describe it as primarily his movie)--flashback to his origin and the death of his people, which serves as his call to action that informs his arc throughout this and the next film--likely followed by his successful attack on Xandar where he seizes the Orb (power stone)--the way the trailers are cut he acquires this stone first--it's unclear if the few Xandarians we were introduced in Guardians of the Galaxy will survive (Nova Prime and Dey), but I'd expect at least Glenn Close's character to be killed if she appears at all. It's possible this content occurs after the Asgardian lifeboat scene below.

-Thanos attacks the Asgardian lifeboat, defeating those on board; Loki uses the Tesseract (space stone) and his wit to save some of them (I don't believe Asgardian genocide will be on the table for this story as they are too integral to the future of the Thor franchise)--Thor and Hulk are sent away via the space stone (perhaps by Loki himself); I expect that the characters introduced in Ragnarok survive (Valkyrie, Korg, etc), but Heimdall might be killed (much as I'd rather keep Idris Elba); I've seen speculation that Loki will also die, but unless Tom Hiddleston is tired of playing the character I think that's very unlikely--he's an extremely popular character with plenty of untapped potential

-The Guardians crash into Thor in space; Gamora talks about Thanos with a flashback to when she was taken (the info dump augmented by Nebula and includes info about their other siblings, the Black Order); Thor, Rocket, and Groot head off to the dwarves (some think this will include Peter Dinklage's character, but it's just as likely he's providing the voice for one of the Black Order--this despite his notable failure as a voice actor in Destiny) and create his new weapon (presumed to be Stormbreaker--in the comics the weapon used by Beta Ray Bill)--the rest of the Guardians go to Knowhere (see below)

-Cull Obsidian and Ebony Maw arrive in New York to take the Eye of Agamotto (time stone) away from Doctor Strange--Wong is probably involved in this fight, but I suspect the villains are successful in taking it (which is why the ship Spider-Man see's is departing Earth and Iron Man has to race after him)--I'm assuming that they lose the time stone here because I think the fight in Wakanda is over the final infinity stone (either literally the last or the last other than the soul stone, but I expect the former), and because it gives the Black Order a "win" over the heroes, but this could happen later

-The Hulk crashes into the Sanctum in New York (Doctor Strange and Wong are there), which results in Iron Man showing up; Banner explains what Thanos is about--this could happen prior to the loss of the Eye of Agamotto, although I think the result will be the same

-Scarlett Witch and Vision are attacked by Corvus Glaive and Proxima Midnight in an attempt to take the mind stone--Captain America, Black Widow, and Falcon arrive and help defeat them, but Vision is badly wounded in the process--as a result, they will head to New York to meet with the other Avengers (likely after a call from Tony--see below); it's possible Tony's call is what has them arriving to save their friends

-Spider-Man see's one of Thanos' ships floating overhead and hurries to investigate--this occurs while Doctor Strange, Wong, Bruce Banner, and Iron Man are talking and Tony hurries out as the ship with Spider-Man begins accelerating into space--Iron Man brings him the iron spider suit so that Peter can survive in space

-The Guardians (minus Rocket and Groot) go to Knowhere to find the Collector and the Aether (reality stone); Thanos beats them there via the space stone, seizing the reality stone either before the Guardians or forcing them to flee (I fully expect the Collector to survive); when they fail they head to earth where two of the remaining infinity stones are

Act Two

-Tony has called Cap (this might occur before the above action with Peter Parker) and most of the Avengers assemble at their HQ (absent Bucky, Thor, Ant-Man, possibly Hawkeye, and unofficial Avenger Black Panther); I believe the Guardians (minus the aforementioned) meet them here because this is where the decision to split the team occurs--Captain America, War Machine, Black Widow, Falcon, Scalett Witch, Vision, and Bruce Banner in the Hulkbuster go to Wakanda, while Iron Man, Doctor Strange, and Spider-Man join the remaining Guardians (Star-Lord, Gamora, Nebula, Mantis, and Drax) in space heading to Titan--Wong presumably remains behind to defend the Sanctum. I believe the journey to Titan is to save the soul stone (there's no other reason to go there with the information we have)

-Hawkeye is sent on a mission of his own and a theory I like is that he's seeking out his old S.H.I.E.L.D. buddy Carol Danvers (a theory I first heard here)--this might be where we see Ant-Man--presumably he'll join the team for the Wakanda fight at the end; alternatively Clint is specifically looking for Scott Lang; I believe Hawkeye's family (or at least his wife) could be a casualty, although in what context I'm not sure yet (there's no obvious reason for the Black Order to seek them out)--my speculation is purely based on how poorly they were received and how they function better as character motivation for Clint to return to being a hero (he's really had no arc in the MCU yet)

-Thor and crew successfully create Stormbreaker; the Russo's have said he has a lot of screen time so there may be more going on with this plot than is readily apparent

-Shuri attempts to heal Vision--it's not clear if she's trying to separate the mind stone from his body (I've seen conflicting speculation, but given that I don't think he's likely to die, I expect she's trying to extract it and will succeed--this would present interesting character development for what is a pretty one-note hero)

-The space team confront Thanos on what's assumed to be his home planet of Titan--my guess (as mentioned above) is that they are fighting over the soul stone and it appears as though they fail (why the stone is there I'm not sure, but there isn't any other obvious reason for them to be fighting him there); it's possible Thor arrives dramatically to prevent them from dying at the end of this battle (see below)

Act Three

-The Battle of Wakanda: my guess is the team will fail until the cavalry arrives (the heroes who were in space) to avoid total annihilation, but it remains to be seen how Thanos can both get the sixth stone and the heroes still get a win; it's likely that they fail and the fourth movie is about preventing Thanos from following through on his plan (this would give dramatic license for Captain Marvel's arrival to help); I wasn't sure Ant-Man and the Wasp would have any connection AIW, but I've heard recently that it will impact the fourth movie

I don't think any of the infinity stones will be held in reserve for the fourth movie, such that in the next installment it will be about defeating Thanos with the infinity gauntlet. With that said I don't don't think the movie will end on a downer and the heroes will have achieved some sort of victory (even if it's a Pyrrhic one). I suspect the Russo's are aiming for an Empire Strikes Back feel where there's a sense of hope after failure (I'd guess that Thanos gets the stones, but his children and army are defeated).

An interesting theory is going around (eg here and here) that the movie will end with all the core Avengers (or at least some of them) dying with Thanos winning--Doctor Strange then sends heroes back in time to save them. There are reasons for suspecting time travel isn't an element in the fourth film, but it's really hard to judge the theories until we see how Infinity War unfolds.

As for deaths, I don't think we'll see more than one major character die in this movie (and even then it might not be permanent). Secondary and tertiary characters will fall however (much as they did in Thor: Ragnarok)--as mentioned above I'd guess Hawkeye's family (if not this movie, the next), Heimdall, Nova Prime, and perhaps a few others.

The Fourth Avengers Film

I've seen a few theories about this leading to a new timeline/partial universe reset to make room for the Fox properties (the mutants in particular), but I think this is very unlikely (the idea would remove the sense of consequence from previous stories). The writers of the fourth film have been keeping an eye on fan theories and said that none were right (it's difficult to establish when this interview took place--the report says "on the set" of Infinity War, which wrapped shooting in July of 2017).

In the untitled fourth Avengers movie (quite possibly Infinity Gauntlet assuming Zoe Saldana's slip of the tongue a year ago can be taken literally), however, I think we'll see casualties among the lead heroes. Briefly: Hawkeye (always a peripheral character) is commonly assumed to be among the dead; Nebula, whose only remaining character arc is killing Thanos, seems like an obvious choice as well (Gamora is also an option in this respect, but I suspect James Gunn wants to hang on to most of the Guardians for the third and final film of that iteration).

In addition to those two characters I think there are a number of others who might go simply due to their actors aging out: War Machine (Don Cheadle will be pushing 55 when the film comes out), even if it seems a bit redundant after he recovers from the spine injury from Civil War; Hulk (Mark Ruffalo will be pushing 52-- I'm not sure what will be left to do with his version of the character); and Iron Man--a suitably epic ending in his ninth major film (he'd be 54 at release; if he dies I think Robert Downey Jr. will remain as a voice however--his consciousness downloaded--echoing something that happened in the comics). If Banner goes we might see either the Amadeus Cho version of the Hulk or perhaps She-Hulk (problems with Universal's involvement seem negligible so long as they don't get solo films); there's also a chance Shuri (or someone else) will pick up the mantel of Iron Man as Iron Heart (even though the comicbook version of that character is enormously unpopular, the MCU could do a much better job with her).

Originally I thought Captain America would die (Chris Evans is always talking about potentially leaving--see below), but there's no point in giving Bucky the new identity of White Wolf (Black Panther post-credit scene) if he isn't going to wear that for awhile and although Falcon could also take up the mantel I don't think we'll see that yet. Chris Evans will only be 38 once the film is out and is popular enough in the role that Disney will likely pay him whatever he wants to stay. A year ago I would have put Thor on the death list, but Chris Hemsworth had so much fun making Ragnarok, whose new direction fits the cosmic direction of the MCU, that I expect him to stick around.

The true crux of it all is we're unlikely to see many deaths at all--they are extremely rare in the comics (and almost never permanent) and as a massively successful franchise there's little impetus for the MCU to suddenly start killing off characters unless there are external reasons to do so.

Going back to Chris Evans for a moment: a New York Times article about him has been used as the source for innumerable articles and videos claiming he's done as Captain America. Here is the actual quote:

For now, he has no plans to return to the franchise (“You want to get off the train before they push you off,” he said), and expects that planned reshoots in the fall [2018] will mark the end of his tenure in the familiar red, white and blue super suit.

This is Reggie Ugwu (the reporter) providing statements about Evans' plans that suggest (and only suggest) finality. The predictable hoard of clickbait articles and videos echoing this have been so ridiculous that others have pointed out the obvious issue with that conclusion. This is also not dissimilar to the difficult contract negotiations with Robert Downey Jr. after Iron Man 3 (whose ending was made in such a way that if he didn't re-sign there would be a reason for him not to appear in Age of Ultron). This, for different reasons, is also worth keeping in mind in regards to Benedict Cumberbatch's comments that there are no plans for Doctor Strange 2--I believe in his case Cumberbatch wants to maintain the illusion that Strange could die in the Avengers films, because if he admits to a sequel fans will know he has the plot armour of a sequel.

Those are my thoughts. I'm sure I'll be hilariously wrong about some details, but it's a lot of fun to speculate.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel TV News

With Jessica Jones season two almost here information is slowly dribbling out. We now know all the writers for the series so let's go through them (returning writers in green; unlike the director choices this is not an all-female group):

Aida Mashaka Croal - two episodes; she comes via Luke Cage (both her episodes on that show are in the weaker, second half of the season, 8 and 13, which includes some of the corniest Diamondback moments, although the episodes have their moments)

Melissa Rosenberg - the showrunner returns and has written just as much as she did in season one (a full episode and another with a cowriter)
Hilly Hicks - returns and wrote one and a half (she wrote two the first season)
Lisa Randolph - one and a half (comes over from Star Trek: Discovery)
Jack Kenny - one and a half (comes from Kevin (Probably) Saves the World)

Raelle Tucker - one and a half (comes from Supernatural Gender SWAP)

Jamie King - returns to write one episode (as she did for season one)

Gabe Fonseca - one (comes from Night Shift)

Jenny Klein - one (comes from Supernatural and has since gone on to Cloak & Dagger)
Jesse Harris - responsible for just the story element of one episode (outside of short films doesn't have a lot of credits); had no credits on the first season but was part of the writing room

I mentioned months ago that because of the lengthy gap between filming seasons (twenty months) most of the writers for season one are long gone. Whether this and the absence of most of the comic source material will impact the show remains to be seen (for those who haven't read the comics most of Jessica's arc prior to having a daughter with Luke Cage was used in season one; she has storylines afterward, but they all connect to that reality and its one the Netflix show can't embrace).

One of the strange things to me is that Wil Traval's Simpson character (Nuke) is in Jessica Jones season two, but were it not for his Twitter feed I'd have no idea as his presence is in none of the marketing material or any of the public comments by the showrunner or co-stars. I can only imagine it's part of a strategy to keep the plot of the series secret (although to what end I really don't know--the approach seems to be to sell the attitude rather than the story to new viewers).

There's also a lot of speculation in the press about whether or not Trish Walker will become Hellcat in the show. I'm not sure if we'll see that this season or not, but in general Netflix, now that they've been cut off from the MCU mothership (by Disney to protect their new streaming service--as in, no more sharing of IP outside the company), will want to maximize their assets. So like the Punisher and Elektra (one successful, one not) they'll be looking to create an appetite for new shows (ergo, new heroes).

The early, formal reviews, have been uninformative. The ubiquitous (and meaningless) "too slow" has come up--something fans can ignore after it was used for the frenetic Defenders. There seems to be a critical consensus whereby family-friendly fair like the CW shows and Agents of SHIELD get a free pass, while more adult-oriented material (like The Punisher) hover in the low to mid-70s (with a shared general sentiment that, like Star Wars, these shows should be aimed at 12-year olds), all of which makes the collective opinion on the shows more or less useless as a guide. I did wonder if things like the #MeToo movement might move the needle for the show (the first season fits in with it perfectly) and the initial critical number has started to creep up so I think it will.

The release date for Luke Cage season two was announced (June 22nd). This fits the range that I predicted months ago and leaves plenty of room for the other two series' to come out this year. I wouldn't be surprised if we get Iron Fist or Daredevil in September (leaning towards the former to come out first given that they wrap filming at the same time and Iron Fist would be getting a bump from Danny Rand appearing in Luke Cage), with the other show in December--Netflix might be aiming for a three-month rotation for its Marvel properties (which seems reasonable)--in which case The Punisher would be next up in March, 2019.

Deadline reports that three series regulars have been cast for Punisher season two: Josh Stewart (as John Pilgrim), Floriana Lima (Krista Dumont), and Giorgia Whigham (Amy Bendix). After this news dropped That Hashtag Show had yet more casting information while realizing their earlier theory about the storyline was wrong, now believing that instead of Garth Ennis' "Slavers" the show is adapting "Suicide Run"--the latter was a Punisher crossover storyline (Punisher #85-#87, Punisher War Journal #61-#63, and Punisher War Zone #23-#25) running from December, 1993-March, 1994 (written by Steven Grant, Chuck Dixon, and Larry Hama). In that story Frank is thought to be dead and various imitators try to take over the Punisher reins while he's stuck in a small town recuperating. The casting call reads:

[Sheriff Bonnen] an authoritative male in his early 40s.
[Deputy Willis] a female, 33-37, who is a good cop but looks out for #1 above all else.
[Deputy Creamer] a 25-28 year old male who is described as optimistic and professional.
[Bob] a male in his early 50s who works at the desk at the sheriff office.

The switch in prospective stories means the THS guys believe John Pilgrim is a stand-in for Jimmy Pierce (whose name they believe was changed because it was used for a character who fought Colleen Wing in Iron Fist). This would mean another character THS is aware of (a female character dubbed "Drea") could be a version of Lynn Michaels, both of whom try to take over the role of the Punisher. My only issue with the latter theory is that the first letters used in the names for casting calls tend to match the actual character and that's not the case here. If they use this storyline there's plenty of room for appearances from characters like Daredevil if they choose to go that route.

Vulture was interviewing Krysten Ritter and asked her about The Defenders and she had a very interesting response:

I had a great time doing The Defenders and honestly, it was such a good experience that I would even do it again. I don’t think we are doing it again. It was never intentioned to do it again, but, you know, if I was given another opportunity, I would. ... My heart is in Jessica Jones, but I did have a great time doing The Defenders with the guys. We had a good time.

There are some clickbaity articles coming out as a result of this, but parsing it down what's clear is:
1) she was only signed to do one Defenders series
2) she isn't aware of plans to do another (while she might be under NDA, I think if that was the case she'd simply say she can't talk about it)
In essence the only thing we really know is that Netflix hasn't approved another team-up series, but it's clearly just a matter of time. Superhero team-ups do very well (on the CW, in the MCU), and crossovers (like Luke Cage in Jessica Jones or Danny Rand in the upcoming Luke Cage) suggest Netflix understands this lesson. A Defenders vs Kingpin would be excellent--it could include Frank Castle as well--and virtually writes itself. For those thinking these comments mean an end to Netflix team-ups there's no reason to worry.

After Deadpool 2 moved it's release date from June 1st to May 18th back in January, I wondered if Marvel would tweak the Avengers date (either to help support its fellow Disney property and/or to regain some breathing room against Deadpool). On March 1st the change happened, as the date moved a week forward from May 4th to April 25th, giving the film about four weeks without serious competition (Screen Rant has a good piece going through the permutations of the change). The most commonly given theory is that it's to avoid oversea spoilers in North America, which I'll buy if (after seeing the movie) there really are huge spoilers--until then, I think space for both Deadpool and Solo seems responsible.

Speaking of the broader MCU, I was curious to see if the acquisition of Fox (or, at least, the return of the characters to Marvel) would bump how many films the studio would put out per year. The new dates put on the calendar for 2021-22 don't indicate any change (three per year), albeit there's plenty of room to add more titles. Beyond the confirmed Phase Four second Spider-Man film (July 5, 2019) we have:
2020 (May, August, November)
2021 (May, July, November)
2022 (February, May, July)
[It's important to note that, although we're getting a Spider-Man 3, Sony picks the date, not Marvel, so it's not included in this assortment]

A few of these dates seem pretty clear: we know via James Gunn that the Guardians sequel is in 2020 and it is almost certainly in May (matching the release of the second movie); February, 2022 is Black Panther (why not use the same timeframe as the first?); more speculatively a second Doctor Strange is likely the November, 2020 release, while another Captain Marvel film probably fits into May, 2021. If Ant-Man is slatted for a trilogy then that could be the August, 2020 slot (although I don't think the studio feels beholden to solo trilogies for all its characters). Its likely that James Gunn will get a spinoff series of sorts (Adam Warlock perhaps, or The Nova Corps--although both could simply be folded into a new version of the Guardians), but there's no obvious spot for a third Doctor Strange (the Black Panther date also seems awfully far away). We can reasonably expect another Thor movie given that everyone involved is interested; a Black Widow movie seems to be in the works as well; it's hard to imagine Marvel giving up on Captain America; and we've had Avengers movies at three-year intervals. All this speculation looks like this:
2020
May - Guardians 3 (previous film May/17)
August - Black Widow (new) or Ant-Man 3 (prev July/18)
November - Doctor Strange 2 (prev Nov/16)
2021
May - Captain Marvel 2 (prev Mar/19)
July - Captain America 4 (prev May/16)
November - Thor 4 (prev Nov/17)
2022
February - Black Panther 2 (prev Feb/18)
May - Avengers 5 (prev May/19)
July - Adam Warlock/Nova Corps (new) or Guardians 4 (prev May/20)

The August, 2020 date is pretty speculative, but two-year turnarounds for sequels have happened before (Captain America 2 and 3). Granted, all of this could be wrong and it doesn't include the various other legacy characters (like Iron Man) getting their own movies.

I don't have the Fox properties shown above because we don't know the timeframe for the sale and the above announcements sound a lot like what Marvel was planning before that purchase. The earliest we're likely to see the Fox characters would be 2020, but there's plenty of room for films to be added. Fantastic Four doesn't require a prominent release date, although any new X-Men films are likely to drop in a key slot (so, hypothetically, the May, 2022 spot). People like Charlie Schneider speculating about 7-10 years before integrating the X-Men is bizarre (as I've addressed before). Marvel would have known Disney was attempting to purchase the properties years in advance and spec scripts might have been written even earlier for "what-if" scenarios like what's happened with Sony. There's no question Kevin Feige knows what he wants to do with the characters and the only real adjustment will be fitting them into the current state of the MCU (and then attaching directors and actors).

Almost a year ago I briefly looked at the state of the DCEU, largely in terms of what's been announced and what's changed because I was finding it hard to keep track of. Since then things have only become more chaotic. Despite a solid return for Wonder Woman, Justice League bombed (a bad omen for Aquaman). I've mentioned before that I'd like DC to get its house in order and start putting out consistently good films, but we aren't there yet (I'd love to see a version of The Teen Titans that I grew up with in the 1980s, but there's no sign of that). Here are the changes, as best as I can determine, since my last post:

Upcoming (films with dates attached)
Aquaman (December 21, 2018) - initially slated for an October release; production has wrapped
Shazam! (April 5, 2019) - announced back in 2014, it was split into two movies (it and Black Adam) and given this release date in 2017; filming began at the end of January
Wonder Woman 2 (November 1, 2019) - announced after the reception of the original film, this will be yet another flashback movie (understandably they want to steer clear of the modern day mess that is the DCEU, although I still think it's a poor decision) and it will be interesting to see how it's received post-Captain Marvel--while I enjoyed the first WW, the plot was largely a mishmash of the first Captain America and Thor (with Uncle Ben's death thrown in) and I don't think they can get away with that a second time
Cyborg (April 3, 2020) - still has no director or script, meaning my suspicion that it's not going to happen remains unchanged
Green Lantern Corps (July 24, 2020) - moved about a month up from its original date awhile ago and although it has had screenwriters since 2017 there is still no director attached

Development (listed in announcement order)
Flashpoint - it's March 23, 2018, release date was abandoned some time ago; many directors have walked away the film, whose script was finished in September, 2017; in March new directors were confirmed who will get to re-write the script, so it's hard to know when it will come out; the general assumption is that the film will be used to reboot the DCEU out of dark mold of Zack Snyder's and Christopher Nolan's vision
Justice League Dark - originally an idea from Guillermo del Toro way back in 2013; since his departure in 2015 the studio hasn't had an acceptable script and there hasn't been a director attached in almost a year, putting this way back in the potential production schedule (the lukewarm reaction to Snyder's darker DCEU likely hasn't helped)
The Batman - in production on some level since Ben Affleck was picked to play Batman in 2014, the 2018 release became 2019 to where it stands now (unknown); much of this delay can be attributed to Affleck stepping away from the director/writer role (his script abandoned by January of 2017 at the latest); new director Matt Reeves suggested a 2018 production date last summer, but with no word since that seems unlikely
Justice League Part 2 - while Zack Snyder is no longer involved with the sequel, WB hasn't officially scrapped it, although it lacks writers, a director, or anything else of substance since Snyder's vision was scrapped; while I'm sure there will be another JL film at some point it's going to be an entirely different animal
Lobo - announced in March, 2016 (it's not clear how much of the plans--if any--date back to the 2009 project); it has a screenwriter attached, but as yet no director or finished script
Suicide Squad 2 - work on a sequel began in March, 2016 (prior to the release of the original) and the film has a writer/director locked in (September, 2017) with signs that production will occur in October of this year (making it a candidate to take either Cyborg or Green Lantern's release date)

Man of Steel 2 - put in "active production" August, 2016, but with no script or director attached it's difficult to imagine it coming to fruition any time soon

Birds of Prey - a report in November, 2016, along with comments from Margot Robbie are the only sources of news on this; beyond a script writer there's been nothing firm from WB about it
Gotham City Sirens - announced in December, 2016, with both a director and screenwriter attached, but no news has come out since and with Margot Robbie presumably preparing to film the Suicide Squad sequel it's difficult to parse when (or if) this will be appearing
Deadshot - inexplicably announced in December, 2016, in what I saw as a sop to Will Smith's ego; with no director or screenwriter attached this seems unlikely to ever occur
Black Adam - announced in January, 2017, as the character was split off from the Shazam film; it has no finished script or director, so won't be a reality any time soon (the longer this stretches on for Dwayne Johnson the more it seems like Channing Tatum's Gambit movie)
Nightwing - announced in February, 2017; with both a director and script attached this is one of the projects that was theoretically closer to production, but the director is doing another movie at the moment so it's not happening any time soon (it makes little sense in a connected universe to have the Nightwing movie happen before a Batman film--this is one of the problems with suggestions for a Ms. Marvel film or show--you need Carol Danvers before you can have Kamala Khan)
Batgirl - announced in March, 2017, but attached writer/director Joss Whedon walked away this February, meaning that however much of a rush the studio may be to push this out it has to start from scratch
Harley Quinn/Joker film - announced in August, 2017; it has writer/directors attached so is ahead of other films listed here
Deathstroke - reported on October, 2017, with Gareth Evans rumoured to write and direct, but nothing has officially been announced
Harley Quinn - I'm not sure how real this is, as the Margot Robbie statement it's based on (from November) doesn't require a solo film--in could, in fact, be referencing Birds of Prey--WB has said nothing official about it as yet

What can we expect? Aquaman is in the can and both Shazam! and Wonder Woman 2 can be expected to come out as is (there may be tweaks to release dates, but nothing more). This December WB seemed to confirm Suicide Squad 2, The Batman, Flashpoint, Green Lantern Corps, Justice League Dark, and Batgirl, but this list was updated just a month later with Man of Steal 2 and Nightwing added, but minus Batgirl, Justice League Dark, and Green Lantern. What to conclude from all this chaos? To me what's most likely are films with directors and scripts in place--it doesn't guarantee a film will happen, but it's more likely than when they are not. That said, SS2 seems to be actively moving forward, but none of the other films listed here seem that close to production. The other projects that have both directors and writers are: Gotham City Sirens, Nightwing, Harley Quinn/Joker, and (if the rumours are true) Deathstroke.

While we're discussing other studios it's worth mentioning that Sony's Silver & Black (announced in 2017 with a planned 2018 production date) has been shelved "indefinitely" due to script issues. With this change, other than the already produced Venom, there's nothing in production (although both Nightwatch and Morbius were announced in 2017, the latter has writers, but neither have dates attached). Reading the tea leaves it's clear Sony wants to see how a non-MCU Venom fares before sinking a bunch of money into spinoff properties. While there's a lot of depth to the characters attached to Spider-Man, most are best suited as secondary characters or having homes on TV (Netflix could do wonders with some of them, although I don't think they could survive if detached from their Marvel context). The odds are very good that Venom will fail and Sony will then sell the properties to Disney, ending the bizarre bifurcated of Marvel we've lived with for decades on screen.

No reason not to quickly check in with Fox as well. We know Deadpool 2 is coming out in May and the unwanted X-Men: Dark Phoenix appears in November. New Mutants, which was a completed film and originally due out this April, is now having extensive re-shoots and is set to premiere next February (this date, conveniently, is late enough that if Disney's purchase is approved Marvel could kill the movie--something I see as likely if they're given the chance). Beyond these three:
Gambit - Channing Tatum has been attached since 2014, but three directors have walked with the latest (Gore Verbinski) causing Fox to skip a March, 2018 production date and remove the film from a June, 2019 release to TBD. Because of the delays I don't think this film is ever going to come out, as the property will be back at Marvel (who are unlikely to want the aging Tatum in the role)
X-Force - production is slated to begin in October with former Daredevil showrunner Drew Goddard writing/directing--despite changing scripts and directors through its genesis this seems likely to happen given the success of Deadpool and with Ryan Reynolds backing it
Deadpool 3 - likely to occur even after Disney's acquisition; it will simply be re-branded in some fashion

A number of other films have been announced and X-23 has a script, Multiple Man a star (James Franco) and screenwriter, and Kitty Pryde a director and scriptwriter. However, none of these projects (or others that have been announced) will be far enough along for Marvel to not have a say in them. From what's been said it seems likely that Feige will allow Ryan Reynolds and his Deadpool mini-verse to continue while rebooting all other aspects of the Fox properties.

[Just a quick correction for previous pieces: I've inexplicably been writing "the" Hashtag Show rather than THAT Hashtag Show--an error I only noticed recently.]

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel TV News

I haven't posted in quite some time--the death of my father threw off a lot of things--but here we are with an update on various Marvel Netflix shows along with a little of the broader MCU. Beware of SPOILERS for all previously released Netflix titles.

I was underwhelmed by the second trailer for Jessica Jones season two. Most of the footage is cobbled together from season one or The Defenders and at this stage I'd expect something that's a bit clearer on the plot. I understand the intent may simply be to inform newer viewers of what kind of character she is, but using recycled footage is an odd choice if that's the idea ("Watch our new show! See none of these scenes in it!"). With that said, it hasn't hurt my excitement for the show, but there's nothing to really breakdown from it. Showing Luke Cage is an interesting choice--a good one if he shows up, a poor one if he doesn't (it would be very easy for Mike Colter and/or Finn Jones, as Iron Fist, to show up as both were filming Luke Cage for much of the same time--four months--as Jessica Jones).

Vincent D'Onfrio talked about the deal he made with Marvel when he signed on to play Wilson Fisk and it's very interesting:

We made a deal, before the first season [2014], that I could come in and out of the show. We made an agreement that we would give each other a head’s up, throughout the years, so they’d know my availability. So, we picked a particular amount of time that he would give me the heads up on, if they needed me to come in. That particular amount of time, I won’t tell you, but that’s the agreement that we have.

This is a great deal for Marvel as it means with notice D'Onfrio is on-tap to appear when they need him (hopefully--and I think probably--he'll be the central villain for the next Defenders). For those who want to guess how much notice he requires I looked for potential clues from his other work: the show Ghost Wars wrapped in August and the movie he directed called The Kid ended its filming in October (A Fall from Grace was filmed in 2012 but has yet to be released, so while it sits near the top of his upcoming films isn't relevant). Given that D'Onofrio has largely kept the weight on, the only physical tweak for him seems to be shaving his head, meaning this kind of detective work has limited value.

The Hashtag Show has yet another scoop: character breakdowns for Punisher season two (this  suggests Netflix decided on a second season long before its announcement). Here's the gist:

The breakdowns below are for two series regulars [...]: ANNIE BEIR and KIM DAVIS. For the role of ANNIE, they are looking for an 18-year old female to play a 16-year old on the show. She’s been described [as] someone who is used to the streets and is both scrappy and aware of her environment. For the role of KIM, they are looking for a female in her mid-30s, open ethnicity, to become a series regular working as a therapist. ... We’re told that a casting search is underway for a [series regular] male of any ethnicity in his early 30s to play an honest detective by the name of MELVIN SKELLING

They speculate that Annie is Viorica from the comics and Kim is Jennifer Cooke--both are from the "Slavers" storyline by Garth Ennis (2005-06) which focuses on a sex slave ring (the former a victim, the latter a social worker). Melvin, they believe, is Martin Soap, a detective also from the Ennis run (he was in charge of the Punisher Task Force). These are reasonable guesses--certainly the story is evocative enough to motivate Castle into punishing those responsible. I'm curious if showrunner Steve Lightfoot will be given the go-ahead to connect Frank's stories to the other Defenders (something he was denied for the first season).

Production is apparently ramping up as well, as SpoilerTV is reporting filming will begin February 26th (with an end date of July 20th)--this would fit the usual timeframe for the Netflix shows of filming for five months.

I don't think Charlie Schneider is particularly good at breaking news (he's a summarizer, not a journalist), but in a recent video he talked about Iron Fist temporarily taking over Daredevil's identity in his second series (something that has happened in the comics under very different circumstances, such as in the first Civil War). This theory would rely on Iron Fist coming out before Daredevil, despite the latter beginning filming a month before the other (November 13th vs December 13th; albeit they both wrap in May). If this happens (and I consider it unlikely just based on Charlie), it wouldn't be the first Marvel Netflix show to appear out of sequence (The Punisher started filming four weeks before The Defenders). My belief is Schneider's theory comes from the final shot of Iron Fist at the end of The Defenders, but I haven't seen any other news to suggest it. Charlie has also been calling Luke Cage season two "Heroes for Hire" without any support from other sources--presumably this is because Danny Rand is appearing in it. I'm not saying none of this is true, but until there are other sources talking about it I'd take it as speculation. Do I think these are good ideas for the character? Absolutely. Netflix Danny Rand needs some wins to change the perceptions of him.

It's without question that The Defenders, while an entertaining series, was a disappointment for Marvel fans in the wake of the stunning success of some of the shows leading up to it. In the aftermath of that reaction--along with varied criticisms of both Iron Fist and Luke Cage--I felt like Marvel would make some adjustments to what it was doing on Netflix. The most beloved shows, Daredevil and Jessica Jones, are gritty and grounded at their best, and the reception of The Punisher (cut from the same cloth, albeit less popular with critics than fans) simply emphasizes the point.

So what is Netflix doing? Jessica Jones and Luke Cage were already filming when the team-up came out, so they were only responding to reactions beforehand (one of the few criticisms of JJ was a lack of action, while LC was criticized for pacing issues and a lackluster villain, ie, Diamondback). Daredevil and Iron First, however, got the benefit of hindsight. What I've noticed, and take this with a grain of salt, is an increase in the casting of law enforcement characters. While this makes sense contextually for all the characters, the decision to include FBI Agents seems a bit more specific and outside the normal purview. Daredevil season three has one (cast regular Wilson Bethel, whose character name is unknown) and Iron Fist season two does as well (Tanya Parker, possibly played by Alice Eve). Is this part of a larger set-up for the next Defenders? The FBI would certainly fit a Kingpin story. That said, it's just a theory.

One of the interesting things on the heels of The Punisher's release is the under reported reaction to it. The show's critical rating is low (only higher than Iron Fist among the Netflix offerings) and frankly there wasn't a lot of press material written about it (other than the obvious debate about violence). What there has been, however, is an extremely high audience score and a wide variety of reaction videos to it that continue to be posted even now--from a cursory look these are far more popular than those for The Defenders and Iron Fist and it wouldn't surprise me if it's had the most impact since Jessica Jones.

B-Stories

All the Netflix shows have had B-stories in them--major subplots involving supporting characters--and I thought it was worth briefly going through them to look at their strengths and weaknesses:

Daredevil season one
Karen Page - an excellent subplot where she transitions from a victim to a proactive character. Initially she serves both Matt's arc as a lawyer and as Daredevil, but becomes the hero of her own mini-story, freeing herself from Wesley (a story that literally no one knows about in-universe); she doesn't suddenly start kicking ass (a poor decision they've made, incidentally, with Claire Temple--not every character in the shows should be beating on people), but simply becomes a stronger version of who she was in the beginning.

Jessica Jones
Trish Walker - an excellent subplot whereby her complete arc is about becoming a hero--transitioning from having to be saved from Simpson to then defeating him--there are some similarities with Karen here, except Trish is never as fragile or terrified and Simpson has abilities the criminals threatening Karen do not; the arc is largely an affirmation of the work and intent Trish has to start with (she desperately wants to be a hero).
Jeri Hogarth - more of a C-plot, but a solid arc involving a love triangle where Hogarth's narcissism causes her to lose both partners; it's not clear Hogarth learns anything from this, or evolves, but it's a powerful illustration of her self-destruction tendencies.

Daredevil season two (directly carried on in The Defenders)
Elektra - a cliched mess where a sociopath...remains a sociopath? Unfortunately there's no arc for her at all--Elektra-the-child is the same as Elektra-the-adult (one of the reasons she didn't resonate with fans); this failed so poorly it's unlikely we'll ever see the character again. The fault for this rests with adapters Douglas Petrie and Marco Ramirez (showrunners on DD2 as well as TD), and tangentially on Frank Miller's 90s retcon of the character (the latter is still popular with comicbook readers, but I think it's a much poorer version of the character).
Foggy Nelson - a C-plot, but one that helps shift Foggy from simply serving as a Daredevil foil to rounding him out as a good lawyer--it was a smart move to have him independently defend Frank Castle and helped what was a fairly weak character in the first season.

Luke Cage
Misty Knight - the arc is a mess, with Misty fighting with the police internally due to her inconsistently written choices as a cop--the attempt to show her go from calm detective to angry isn't serviced well enough to work (the motivation is there: Scarf's death and betrayal, but it's so poorly done it's not effective). The Defenders shifts her more towards the calmer side, albeit she spends most of the show as plot-service so there's plenty of room to clean-up her characterization.

Iron Fist
Ward Meachum - my favourite B-arc in all the shows and actually better than the A-plot for Danny Rand, Ward undergoes a complete transformation from a narcissistic, self-indulgent asshole to becoming someone who recognizes his personal failings and how he has to grow and be a better person; the performance is fantastic and I'm looking forward to seeing more of him.

The Defenders
Danny Rand - technically he's one of the A-plots, but as he's largely used as plot-service (once he's taken captive he stops being an active participant in the story) so I think he fits here. Denied personal growth in his own show for the purposes of the team-up, here he undergoes the transformation from angry, single-minded man-child to a more rounded person; it's poorly written, but intermittently effective--leaving room for Cheo Hodari Coker to help grow the character in Luke Cage (when he'll next appear).

The Punisher
Micro - virtually an A-plot, Lieberman's story is entertaining as he both has a great personal stake in the main plot and an arc to go through himself (returning to his family)--he's also a welcome foil to Frank's personality. The arc's only weakness is that Micro doesn't really evolve as a person (something that isn't always required, but more evocative when it happens).
Dinah Madani - a mixed bag as her motivations are fairly bland (she's looking for career growth and recognition) that's marred by middling writing (she makes a lot of poor choices that others have to save her from--this echoes Danny Rand's arc in his own series).

Jon Schnepp, on the heels of his failed Moon Knight prediction for The Punisher, claims that Spider-Man will appear in Venom; unlike the former prediction many other outlets have reported it. The rumour has been further refined to say Peter Parker will appear as opposed to Spider-Man, but in what capacity remains unknown, as does it's implications for Sony's involvement in the broader MCU. Most of the theories I've seen believe it's an attempt by Sony to shoehorn their own films into the MCU with whatever wiggle room exists in the agreement.

With the bizarre state of it-is-but-isn't connected to the MCU, the second Spider-Man film is apparently casting a European femme fatal (this is again from The Hashtag Show), with every outlet struggling to figure out which character this might be (other than one of those from Sony's stable, presumably, as it benefits Marvel to include them in official MCU productions). Early predictions that it would be Gwen Stacy seem off-target (what would be the point when a romance with Michelle is the next logical step?).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel TV News

The rumoured purchase of Fox by Disney is now official and means that both the X-Men and Fantastic Four are returning to the MCU. This likely has no impact on the Netflix side of things, but certainly for TV in general it opens a lot of doors. As for the movies, presumably all the Fox films currently (or nearly) completed will come out as-is in 2018 (so New Mutants in April, Deadpool 2 in June, and X-Men: Dark Phoenix in November), with the reboots for the mutant franchises to come afterwards (the Channing Tatum Gambit movie, scheduled to start filming in March, may also go ahead). What will be interesting is: when will we start to get easter eggs for this stuff and how quickly will characters begin appearing in the MCU? The sale opens the door for changes to Captain Marvel (the Super Skrull is now available), although I don't think any other film on the current slate is likely to include elements of the returned properties (Jude Terror thinks it will be as early as a Avengers: Infinity War post-credit scene, but I see this as wishful thinking). In general I think we'll see The Fantastic Four first, but the idea floating around that mutants won't appear on film until 2020 or 2021 is, I think, absurd--there's no point in acquiring the IP and not getting out it ASAP.

This event has lead to people losing their minds--I don't mean the excitement amongst fans, rather it's entertainment pundits losing their senses and posing a variety of ridiculous theories about the purchase--ranging from the end of the Deadpool franchise (Disney won't allow an R-rated movie!) to keeping the X-Men completely separate and under the same auspices at Fox (John Campea suggesting this is understandable, but I have no idea what Charlie Schneider was smoking to suggest it--what would be the point of the acquisition if the status quo remains unchanged?). It's abundantly clear from how Marvel has hid its slate of films in Phase Four that plans for this possibility were long-considered (much like the inclusion of Spider-Man predated Civil War by a considerable margin--Kevin Feige made comments back in 2015 talking about their contingencies should things like this occur). Beyond the obvious point that we'll be getting a Fantastic Four reboot in the MCU, it also makes sense to reboot the X-franchises to avoid brand confusion and get away from Fox's nonsensical continuity and erratic quality.

Another interesting question is: how many MCU films a year will we get now? Each studio is releasing three movies in 2018--will that volume be maintained by Marvel or will they cut back? At minimum I think we'll get four Marvel movies a year, but more is certainly feasible.

We now have a date for Jessica Jones season two: March 8th, 2018. This is later than my prediction (January-February, favouring January), but fits in nicely with International Women's Day and previous releases (Daredevil season two and Iron Fist were also March releases). This also begins the framework for when the other shows will air. If it's a matter of symmetry then it will be a show at three-month intervals (Luke Cage in June, Daredevil in September, and Iron Fist in December). That said, there's nothing preventing Netflix from fitting them closer together if they wish (the original plan for The Punisher was October, just two months after The Defenders). The latter two shows (DD and IF) are filming at essentially the same time (with even more overlap than JJ and LC, which shared three months of filming vs the four DD and IF will have), making it easy to drop them within close proximity (there's been no hint that Luke will appear in JJ2, despite the parallel filming, incidentally). Indeed, with how closely together they are being produced it's possible we might see IF drop before DD (a precedent established by The Defenders vs The Punisher, granting very different circumstances). I think it would benefit the shows to cross pollinate more--it makes them more interconnected and would help with hype for The Defenders--while that's clearly the case for LC and IF, it will be interesting to see if either JJ or DD follows suit.

I thought the teaser for JJ season two was solid (the musical choice was great)--there was an emphasis on action, which seems like a direct response to the (albeit infrequent) complaints about the first season. The only revelation was that the Oscar Ramirez character is a love-interest (I'd mentioned previously that I thought the show would maintain an interracial relationship to mimic the absent Luke Cage--whose relationship with Claire Temple seems likely to continue--although I hadn't pegged Oscar as that person).

We still know very little about the plot, outside earlier comments that it would delve into the IGH story teased in season one (leaving room for more superpowered individuals if they choose to go that way). Showrunner Melissa Rosenberg said recently:

We’re allowing Carrie-Anne Moss and Hogarth’s story line, Rachael Taylor who plays Trish, and Eka Darville who plays Malcolm to have more opportunities for development so our world will feel a little bigger. The show is still totally focused on Jessica, but the supporting players are getting great moments to shine this season.

This is interesting because all three supporting character had story arcs in the first season (very good ones; Hogarth's divorce, Trish's relationship with Simpson (aka Nuke), and Malcolm's drug addiction via Kilgrave), so I'm not sure what this means exactly. It does make me wonder if the casting call for Ingrid (Leah Gibson's character) might be as a new love interest for Hogarth (Rosenberg worked with Gibson on Twilight, incidentally).

One of the interesting consequences of the long gap between JJ seasons is that most of the writers from season one are gone (Scott Reynolds went to Iron Fist and then Inhumans; Micah Schraft to Jane the Virgin; Hilly Hicks to Feed the Beast; Dana Baratta to Good Behaviour; Liz Friedman to Conviction; and Edward Ricourt to Wayward Pines). Potentially only two writers, plus Rosenberg herself, remain, and neither of those two (Jamie King and Jenna Reback) contributed to more than one episode. Whether this will impact the quality of the writing this season remains to be seen.

Incidentally, speaking of writers from the Marvel Netflix series, Lauren Schmidt Hissirch (who worked on Daredevil season two and The Defenders) will showrun Netflix's Witcher.

I didn't mention it at the time, but I find it interesting that new showrunner Erik Oleson was only announced on October 25th, with filming beginning just nineteen days later (November 13th). I have to think he was involved before that (possibly working with scripts from previous showrunners, Doug Petrie and Marco Ramirez). The late switch is unusual, with the closest parallel being Daredevil season one (showrunner Drew Goddard dropped out with Steven S. DeKnight taking over May 24th--filming beginning in July). I haven't found any reporting on what happened to previous show runner Marco Ramirez--did he leave, was it a mutual parting of ways, or was he let go? Regardless, with twenty months since the release of season two the third season should be well planned.

The official announcement for season two has dropped. This is pretty fast for Netflix to publicly renew (just under a month), implying a lot of confidence in the property (I still haven't seen any stories talking about viewership numbers, although those can take months to come out). While no details were provided, I assume Steve Lightfoot will remain as showrunner and that Jigsaw will be the main (or one of the main) antagonists. Logistically Netflix could film and debut the show in 2018, but while the former is a lock I wouldn't expect it until 2019. This is a good interview with Lightfoot about the first season, incidentally.

Speaking of interesting articles, there's one on Vox about The Punisher's approach to dealing with the topic of PTSD. The author is, I think, far too generous towards those who complained about the show's violence (which boils down to it somehow celebrating violence which encourages it--this ridiculous idea falls apart if you apply it to anything else (eg, you enjoy crime shows, therefore you both encourage crime and wish to commit them! It's absurd).

In a somewhat similar vein, why does Hollywood Reporter's Lesley Goldberg say this when talking about the season renewal:

After less than a month, the show has a 60 percent critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with the 94 percent audience score painting a different picture among the show's diehard fanboy target audience

There's no good reason to use the term "fanboy" here ("diehard" is questionable, as he has no idea who is voting for the show on the site, but it's a little less egregious)--it's meant as a slight and suggests a lot of bitterness from Goldberg about the audience reception. What's his investment? I find this kind of thing bizarre--if he has some moral or ethical objection to the show then he should bring it up, otherwise his personal opinion is irrelevant to what is simply a news release.

I didn't reflect on this at the time because saying something is "for the fans" is normal rhetoric for anything excoriated by critics, but I do want to briefly comment on part of Finn Jones' comments from earlier this year:

I think some of the reviews we saw were seeing the show through a very specific lens

This part of his statement is, I think, absolutely correct. Putting aside what you thought about the show personally, one of the clearest things from the myriad of reviews was that each one had a very specific idea going into the show what they wanted from it. We could put some blame on the marketing perhaps, but (as I've said previously) it seemed like everyone had either the Immortal Iron Fist in their heads or a 70s style Kung Fu epic--this sentiment is still reflected in expectations for the upcoming season.

As bad as Inhumans ratings were, it's interesting to see the much-praised Agents of SHIELD (100% again this season?) slip below that watermark after the premiere (1.93/0.5, 1.84/0.5). Ratings for The Gifted also continue to slide, this time not just with general audiences, but also the key demographic (2.81/0.8 and 2.78/0.8). AoS has been in decline for a long time and is only on-air due to Disney's demands (what the ratings suggest is that this, indeed, will be its last season). As for the Fox show, in lieu of Disney's purchase and the declining ratings, cancellation seems likely (we might get something similar in the future, but a more coherent version of Bryan Singer's one-note view of mutant characters).

I wonder if one of the reasons Netflix is producing their Marvel series' in such quick succession is because they felt The Defenders was hurt by the long gap between shows (both of the upcoming seasons of JJ and DD will be over two years later). I'm just speculating, but you have to think that releasing them close together throughout the year will help build buzz and momentum for the team-up.

I'm also curious when exactly the Netflix shows realised the MCU (as in, the movies) were completely ignoring them. Daredevil season one, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage feature prominent MCU connections (eg: Fisk's plan begins through exploiting the damage done to the city via The Avengers; JJ has the subplot of the couple who try to kill her because of "the incident"; LC's plot heavily involves Justin Hammer tech), but Daredevil season two, Iron Fist, The Defenders, and The Punisher do not. I'm not sure if the effort to distance themselves is simply acknowledging a reality or trying to set apart the Netflix shows. I think the shows are better off being referential even if they are being ignored--it lends verisimilitude to the idea of them being in the same universe (and fans like the easter eggs).

Going back to the discussion of what characters are available for Netflix to use: there were rumours back in the August of 2016 that four pilots (including White Tiger) were presented to Netflix as potential series' (the notorious Umberto Gonzalez disputed this at the time, which, at this point, seems to be correct). I'm less interested in whether pilots were shot or proposals were made and more if Netflix was offered other IP--it seems that if they were, they passed on it, but I do wonder when Disney decided to go ahead with their own streaming service and stop expanding their footprint at Netflix. It seems like it was last year, with Cloak & Dagger's announcement (April, 2016), followed by Ghost Rider appearing in AoS (July, 2016), and then The Runaways and New Warriors announcement (August, 2016).

One of the funny things that I've heard repeatedly about Avengers: Infinity War is that there are (or could be) too many characters. This is one of those statements that makes no sense whatsoever without context. There's no magical threshold where there are "too many" characters. One of the struggles some critics (and fans) have is adjusting their perception from individual, self-contained films versus the serialized approach of the MCU. If AIW was a stand alone film, or the first of a series, then you could make an argument that there's not enough screen time to support all the characters that appear. That's simply not the case here. Marvel can reasonably assume that most of its audience has seen some of the films and therefore does not need to do the establishing work that a solo film requires. Fans know who Tony Stark is, so the Russo's only need to worry about what he's doing within the context of the film (if you think about the first Avengers film, a fan only needed to see Iron Man and Thor to understand the team-up). Lazy sentiments like this drive me crazy. It's like when critics complain about there "being too much CG" in a film--the amount isn't relevant, it's how good it is and how well it works with the property (this goes along with the "MCU villains are bad" sentiment, which is pretty ridiculous at this point).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)