Avengers: Endgame News

With so much official Avengers: Endgame news to cover I thought it was time for a post devoted to it. What's below includes spoilers for Captain Marvel, so be aware of that if you haven't seen the film yet (my review of it is here).

The Russo's have Tweeted that Endgame is picture locked, meaning the editing is complete. This means that we won't be getting any easter eggs for the Fox IP (something I thought was unlikely anyway), even if Disney completes the purchase later this month. The events of Endgame will likely open the door for the Fox material (I suspect something will occur that will later explain mutants), but explicit references won't be seen.

The hot Reddit post I dismissed previously has suffered catastrophic damage via Captain Marvel: 1) It implies that Fury considers Skrulls enemies, 2) It bought into Samuel Jackson's fake rumour that Carol Danvers can time travel, 3) It stated that Captain Marvel appears in the third act of Endgame, when it's clear from the first post-credit scene that she appears very early (see below). I bring this up because I'm still seeing the theory referenced as possibly authentic (eg).

The Captain Marvel post-credit scene reminds me a lot of the one in Ant-Man leading into Civil War. It clearly occurs early in the film (Black Widow's hair and Cap's beard are our clues--let us recall for future reference just how wrong Jeremy Conrad, his buddy Daniel, Charlie, and others were by insisting Endgame would begin with a multi-year jump from the ending of Infinity War). Four of the Avengers (Cap, Nat, Bruce, and Rhodes) are working on Fury's pager (this scene appears to be connected to the initial Endgame teaser when Bruce is looking at the 'missing' display of Ant-Man, Shuri, and Spider-Man). This means someone has retrieved the pager, but not Ant-Man because Cap no longer has his beard when he shows up (and in terms of story, there's only so much useful equipment you want him to bring--the Quantum Machine is enough). Let me briefly insert a theory: what if Cap's reaction we see in the teaser isn't to Ant-Man's arrival but to Iron Man sending a message? I think it's unlikely, but food for thought. Back to the scene: Captain Marvel appears as the group is trying to get the pager to re-send its signal and what's interesting about her appearance is that it busts the idea that Carol picks up Tony Stark (and Nebula) on her way to Earth--I increasingly suspect that Tony will save himself. It also suggests Carol has likely been digitally scrubbed from some of the scenes we've seen at Avengers HQ in both teasers.

Along with the post-credit scene we have our first authentic Endgame leak as a small amount of footage was shown to Disney shareholders. Scott Ladewig has posted a written description of what was shown (presumably there was no NDA--I haven't seen anyone question its authenticity, so I'm taking it as authentic). What he talks about includes elements that haven't been speculated anywhere (suggesting that other script or trailer leaks we've heard about are either fake or based on early drafts). I've made his comments on Twitter more coherent (Ladewig inexplicably didn't reveal all initially and added subsequent details that add some dialogue):

The Avengers: Endgame scene they showed was at Avengers HQ: Captain Marvel said let's go kill Thanos; Nebula says she knows where he is {the added dialogue is attached to this}; Rocket says [the] biggest energy surge ever seen on Earth [was] when [Thanos] used the glove, but [the energy surge] was seen again on another planet shortly [thereafter]. So that's where Thanos is retiring to [I'm not sure if this is Ladewig's conclusion or Rocket's]. [There is a] quick exchange between Captain America, Black Widow, Bruce Banner, Rhodes, and Captain Marvel. Bruce asks what guarantee they have [that] this [fight] ends differently. Captain Marvel says they have her this time. Rhodes asks where she was because they could have used her before. Carol says a lot of other planets out there need help and they don't have [the] Avengers [to help them] like Earth has. Thor gets up from sitting quietly in [the] back, walks up to Captain Marvel, summons his axe--which whizzes right past Captain Marvel (she doesn't flinch)--into his hand and he says, "I like this one." Cut to [the] Milano [Ladewig means the Benatar], [everyone is] buckled in, Captain Marvel in [the] copilot seat. Rocket asks who hasn't been to space [before and] Cap, Rhodes, and Natasha raise [their] hands--Rocket warns them not to puke in his ship and off they go. [There's a] cool reflection of stars and space stuff on Cap's eye as we zoom in on him and they warp out of there.

There's no reason not to think that this happens in the first act of the film (the conversation likely occurs right after Captain Marvel appears, as seen in the above post-credit scene). It gives us the initial plot point of undoing the Snap with a Snap of their own (the idea surely being to kill Thanos, take the glove, and undo what was done). I very much doubt this is the actual solution of the plot, even if it is part of the solution from the source material--the Russo's have never felt compelled to simply follow the comics (eg Civil War). I think the bravado from Carol Danvers is likely to be thrown back in her face--that an initial attack on Thanos will fail--otherwise, what's the point of the time travel we know is happening? It's possible that the three missing characters in this description (Iron Man, Ant-Man, and Hawkeye) go back in time via the Quantum Realm while the others go into space, either as a backup plan or to assist the assault (perhaps stealing Stones in the past to weaken Thanos), but my guess is that this very simple idea of a frontal assault cannot work without other elements beyond the addition of one character. There's even the small possibility that the group attacks Thanos and some are killed, requiring Tony to use the Quantum Realm to undo the events of Infinity War (either would fit my theory about the film--a revised version of which is forthcoming).

I'd guess the reason this specific scene was shown to shareholders was to explain where Carol has been all these years and what the Avengers are doing initially. It's also possible that the shareholders were shown two scenes artificially stitched together that are separate events--the discussion to attack Thanos and then the group going into space--but I doubt it.

A final note is that we see Nebula and the Benatar, but not Tony Stark. It's possible Tony is there and the scene was cut to leave his fate ambiguous after the teaser, but there remains the very faint possibility he does die in space (extremely unlikely, but it can't be completely discounted). There's also the chance (mentioned above) that he's off on a different mission.

I came across an odd theory that Cap will be left back in time during Endgame; the logic (such as it is) proclaims that because Cap has died and been brought back repeatedly in the comics, the MCU would rather send him back in time so that they can make prequels, allowing Falcon or Bucky to become the modern Cap. I'm struggling to find any logic to this--I suppose giving Cap a happily-ever-after with Peggy Carter would be a nice send off, but doing so would get us into alternate timelines in the MCU and there's no suggestion that Marvel wants to go there. The other issue is how to jive a new Cap when both candidates are about to hit Disney+ as a duo--it just doesn't make much sense (particularly as the motivation for it is comic-based as opposed to MCU-based).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Captain Marvel Review

Prior to seeing Captain Marvel I read some spoiler free reviews for it (most of which considered it an average superhero film), and spent time covering the controversy about it. Given that, my expectations for it were quite low and upon seeing it I was pleasantly surprised (my reaction reminded me of when I saw Ant-Man, a film which had horrendous trailers leading into it). I'm going to do my best to be spoiler free with my comments, but if you haven't seen the trailers and want to know nothing about the film ahead of time, there are spoilers below.

Captain Marvel was a lot more fun than I expected, as well as being far less preachy than alarmists have tried to make it out to be. The plot device used to tell the story (Carol Danvers can't remember her past) is a unique choice for the MCU and added an interesting angle to what could have been a tiresome origin plot (one fascinating thing about reviews I've read is how many seemed to want a by-the-numbers approach). I particularly enjoyed the early parts of the film (which some reviewers couldn't follow and most thought dragged), wishing there was far more Starforce in the film (the entire supporting cast shines). The Skrulls were also well done, although both alien groups could have used a bit more development (there's also a moment of pathos that was laid on a bit too thick for me--reminding me of the clunky speeches in Germany in The Avengers). Nick Fury is excellent--his best MCU role since Winter Soldier. It was good to see Coulson again, but he wasn't given much to do (the de-aging CGI on Fury is amazing, but a little less so for Coulson). I expected Maria Rambeau to be a plot device, but she is given a chance to shine even if she ultimately lacks depth. As for Captain Marvel herself, I was quite worried going into the film because she came across fairly poorly in the trailers, but her performance is fine--the comedic beats are well done and she has great chemistry with Sam Jackson. The only criticism I have of Larson is that she doesn't project anger particularly well (not that Carol comes across as an angry person). I thought that Larson's portrayal as Vers is more interesting than once she knows who she truly is (which is when the film boils down to a by-the-numbers series of explosions which, for whatever reason, reviewers enjoyed most). Goose the cat, as expected, was fantastic (with, perhaps, just one scene coming across as a bit ridiculous). I would have liked to see more of Carol's brother Steve (seemingly the only positive part of her family), but he only has one meaningful scene before being forgotten (I missed, or it's never said, what happened to him). We get no substantial flashbacks, just quick cuts that very directly make a point and then move on.

As for the villains, the film doesn't truly have a central foe. The various antagonists are all backed by excellent actors, giving them a lot of gravitas (I wanted more Jude Law). The only underwhelming performance comes from Annette Bening, whose version of the Supreme Intelligence was incoherent. I think the intent was to have her be a very intellectual character (either coldly or filled with emotion), but the performance is so flat that she never comes across as a threat (or, even, very interesting).

The 90s setting is mostly played for humour--it also adds context to the fairly limited elements of chauvinism depicted (themselves all from the 80s)--other than referencing that female pilots weren't allowed to fly combat missions at the time (a restriction lifted in 1991), the film goes very light on specific issues women faced in the military at the time. The setting doesn't really add anything (by which I mean, if this movie was set 10 years later it would make no difference to the plot). The CGI was better than Black Panther (which had a pair of scenes that simply didn't look right). The musical choices were an attempt, I think, to imitate Guardians of the Galaxy, but it doesn't quite hit that level (there's only one spot where I thought the juxtaposition of song and events in the film fell flat--"I'm Just a Girl" doesn't punch hard enough for the scene that it's used in). I also thought it was odd that in what seemed like an attempt to have songs by all female artists that they included Nirvana [and also REM].

I don't have any major criticisms of the film, but a concern is that once Carol fully controls her power nothing is a threat to her--where this happens in the film means its not a crippling flaw, but it did rob the final fight of tension. Carol also doesn't (yet) have any personality flaws/quirks to battle through--this isn't inherently a negative (Superman doesn't either), but it does put a lot more pressure on the writers to make both she and her supporting cast likable enough to provide that tension.

Both post-credit scenes are great (I have thoughts about the Endgame tie-in that I'll save for another post). Some didn't like the Avengers easter egg late in the film--it is a bit cheesy, but it's in the same spirit as the retcon of Iron Man 2 that made the kid in that film be a young Peter Parker, so I was okay with it. How Fury loses an eye is funny and it certainly subverted expectations--it works, albeit his reaction to losing it is perhaps a bit too understated.

Where does the film stand among other solo intro movies? First let's eliminate both Black Panther and Homecoming from that discussion since both characters were fully introduced in Civil War. With those out of the way, here's the list in chronological order:

• Iron Man
• Incredible Hulk
• Thor
• Captain America: The First Avenger
• Ant-Man
• Doctor Strange

Most of these films (4) are from Phase One. Everything is better than the Hulk film, but I'd also put Captain Marvel ahead of Thor and the first Captain America. It's not better than Iron Man, Ant-Man, or Doctor Strange, landing it in the exact center of solo debuts (Charlie ranks it similarly, funnily enough). There are fans who would put it second (not everyone loved Ant-Man or Doctor Strange), but I suspect over time the middle is where it will get slotted (depending, of course, on box office). In terms of my box office expectations, I'd guess it will end up between Doctor Strange and Homecoming, depending on the response overseas (I'm not expecting it to resonate domestically like Black Panther did)--the culture war stuff might not hurt it, but I don't think it helps either.

As an appendix to the review I want to complete my coverage of the controversy over the film by wrapping up what it has done to a YT channel I used to quite like (which will serve as an explanation for where I think all of this hostility comes from and why).

The Struggle of Confirmation Bias

I've mentioned previously that I'm a fan of Midnight Edge and its entertainment news editorials. It's sister channel, After Dark, has poor content and never managed to gain much of a foothold. Andre, who runs both channels (but generally ignores the latter), has never focused much on the MCU and I think that's due to a lack of interest (for instance, from the end of July until mid-February, there was just one MCU video on the main channel). However, there is only so often you can go back to the well of covering the backlash over both Star Wars and Star Trek (for which there is intense competition), and there's nothing more popular than than MCU right now, so how to tap into its huge potential audience?

Like a gift from the gods enter the Captain Marvel 'controversy.' I put the word in quotes because I believe all the videos about it (from Andre and others) are entirely cynical ploys to excite an audience still angry about entirely different properties (as I mentioned when I first covered it). Why? Because the comments that are the basis of the outrage were made in the summer and at the time no one complained. All the channels currently screaming about the film were still soaking in the views about The Last Jedi (I think Red Letter Media put the final nail in the coffin about the film with their video that came out in late August). As the TLJ hubbub began to die down there was still Star Trek: Discovery to get agitated about, but one can only beat that dead horse for so long since the Trek fanbase is much smaller.

Andre always stood out from the crowd because he's generally been pretty reserved about drawing conclusions when presenting his case. This has slipped badly when it comes to Captain Marvel. In his initial video his entire argument was that Larson's comments were causing a drop in interest in the film, basing that on one early prediction versus later predictions. This is a weak argument that was subsequently proven false (remember this argument is about projections, not the actual take). As this narrative fell apart suddenly the discussion became about Rotten Tomatoes and some sort of conspiracy between corporate enemies Comcast and Disney (the same Comcast that fought the Fox acquisition and refuses to work with Marvel over the properties Universal owns). Despite having moved the goal posts, the argument remained the same--the RT change was a sign of declining interest, but again, none of the actual evidence supported it. The follow-up video is even more ridiculous, with Andre peddling the narrative of a Reddit poster who claimed to know that there are two cuts of Endgame--one with Captain Marvel heavily featured, and one where she isn't, with the idea being they will pick which cut based on how Captain Marvel does at the box office. This is preposterous--no Redditor, even if they worked at Marvel, would have access to that kind of information.

I want to outline the timeline just to illustrate how problematic all of this is, especially coming from someone who hitherto was so fact-based:
June 13 - Brie Larson receives an award and makes her speech about more representation among critics
June 14 - Larson clarifies she wasn't attempting to exclude anyone with her comments
January 11 - Box Office Pro projects the film to make 150 million domestically
February 7 - Larson is interviewed by Marie Clare and makes similar statements
February 14 - Variety and other sites predict an 80-100 million domestic opening
February 18 - the initial Midnight's Edge video (and their first MCU video since July 21st)
February 21 - Larson once again clarifies her views in a paid-for Fox 5 interview

February 25 - Rotten Tomatoes makes minor changes in response to review bombing

February 26 - Forbes projects 150 domestic
March 5 - Deadline echoes those projections

Given the above we can debunk the following: that her initial comments upset anyone (an eight month gap makes that clear), and that declining box office projections were caused by those comments. The idea of a corporate conspiracy is ridiculous, as is some Redditor having complete access to Endgame plans. These are all objectively false, so we can move on from them (none of this, incidentally, says anything about the quality of the film).

To sum up: what is a serious person like Andre doing making these videos? I believe it's for views. His sister channel (After Dark) is dying and his own channel had largely stopped growing. Beyond that, however, and the reason I gave this section the title it has, is I think he's suffering from confirmation bias. Andre, unfortunately, is surrounded by people who all share the same point of view--smaller YTers whose channels depend on the culture war--people who have a desperate need to keep their small audiences agitated to maintain their support. Having people like that around him in addition to needing something big to cover is the perfect synergy for these videos. Attacking Captain Marvel is good for business--there's no question about it--although the views still aren't as high as his usual fodder (as you can see on Socialblade), nor is it really sustainable with Endgame arriving so soon. The downside for him is that those of us interested in good journalism now have to question his material in a way we never have before. It's highly unfortunate for me, because there's so very little comicbook commentary that is even remotely similar.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

There's a new Reddit theory making the rounds which, were it not for the inclusion of Guardians of the Galaxy's Rhomann Dey, might sound plausible. Unfortunately for its author, the idea of John C. Reilly's character trying to take on Thanos is so ridiculous it dynamites everything else in the post.

THS is reporting that the MCU is looking to cast an openly gay character for its male lead role. Back in November they described the lead as a Greek God with THS speculating it could be Hercules (keeping in mind THS' notoriously terrible speculation). Unbeknownst to me, until I researched it, Marvel has had a version of the character who is gay, and while this isn't the canonical version of the character in the comics, the MCU could very easily borrow it (since the historical precedent was bi and most of the iconic LGBT characters in Marvel are mutants, ie part of the Fox IP). There's a different character described as 'physically imposing,' but with suggested actors Cameron Britton and Thomas Kot it doesn't fit the jacked-Hercules mould. In terms of the impact of the decision on the film, it will help the coverage and reviews, although I suspect it's a non-factor for most of the audience and likely won't be part of the marketing.

In the same article THS clarifies that the unnamed male lead will join Ikaris, Sersi, and "Piper" (possibly Katherine Langford's character) as the main characters in the film. I say 'clarified' because in their original cast list only the unnamed male lead and "Piper" were listed as leads. The problem with the Langford casting idea is that the original casting sheet for Piper said she was very young (10-16), and Langford is 22; this range makes it more suited to the Emma Fuhrman casting rumour (the actress is 16), but given when that rumour came out (April), it's unlikely casting had begun for The Eternals yet (although it makes a lot more sense for Fuhrman to be Piper than an aged Cassie Lang, unless that's a setup for New Avengers).

Incidentally, and I've seen no one bring this up, but it would be very easy to get a Thor or Loki (or any Asgardian) cameo in The Eternals if the MCU wants that link--particularly if there's a Hercules, because he and Thor have a long history together in the comics.

The one benefit to enduring the latest Dark Phoenix trailer (credit to Fox for not being able to put out a good trailer), is that it got me thinking about the MCU's approach to the X-Men. If the Fox film hits theaters (assuming Disney doesn't acquire Fox beforehand or if they do they still let it come out), I think it will cement the approach I suggested back in October of moving away from Jean Grey and her associated stories for awhile. Kevin Feige has shown a strong aversion to dealing with material that other films have used (eg with the Hulk and Spider-Man), and I believe that will be the case with the X-Men as well. We do know that we'll get Wolverine as part of the MCU team (I have no idea why people doubted this, as he's consistently the most popular X-character), but otherwise we have no hints as yet. One thing I didn't consider when writing my speculative article is that if you're avoiding Jean to begin with, you could use a young Havok to tease her (and Scott Summers) eventual appearance--although there's no need to rush that. My expectation, incidentally, is that the first X-film will largely be its own thing (just easter eggs or cameos from the rest of the MCU)--this would follow the pattern of Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Ant-Man, and seemingly The Eternals.

I mentioned in my aforementioned post that I expected the MCU to go with a very young team to contrast it with the mostly older actors who have carried the load through the first three phases (eg RDJ, Mark Ruffalo, Paul Rudd, Sam Jackson, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, and Paul Bettany). This would fit the flavour of the most popular versions of these characters as well (the early Claremont years, a mix of teenagers and early 20s); it would also make the actors cheaper to lock in as costs for the OG actors have soared. I don't think, incidentally, that any of the major X-characters will appear on the streaming service (the B-listers maybe--would I like to see an Alpha Flight show? Yes! But will I? No--strictly D-list, sadly, although they do have a good connection to both Wolverine and Captain Marvel).

We Got This Covered is claiming that not only will Deadpool films continue to be made, but that he'll cross over into the MCU proper (this flies in the face of what Disney CEO Bob Iger said not long ago (echoing his sentiments in 2017), although you could argue there's wiggle room in his statement that he means anything under the Deadpool banner will be separate as opposed to the character himself). This isn't implausible, although it's unclear how this integration would occur given that otherwise everything from Fox is being rebooted (the Quantum Realm presumably, since the MCU is pushing that more than alternative realities). I don't know WGTC's track record on scoops as yet, so take this with a large grain of salt (they habitually site a 'source,' as in the singular, which isn't encouraging--one thing you have to credit Conrad with is that he uses more than one source).

Speaking of Fox, those New Mutants reshoots announced back in January, 2018, still haven't happened. We were last reminded that the reshoots hadn't occurred in October--if we needed any further proof that this film is never hitting theaters, this is it.

WGTC is also claiming that a source has revealed the MCU's plans for the Fantastic Four:

[T]he film will be based on the Ultimate Fantastic Four comic book series, will feature a team in their 20s or 30s, and will be a cosmic adventure that sees the gang exploring space and the unknown. On top of that, it’s reported that Doctor Doom will not be the villain.

The brains behind the Ultimate version of the team were Brian Michael Bendis, Mark Millar, and Adam Kubert, with the series running from 2004-09. If WGTC is correct about it being a younger team, than popular choice John Krasinski (for Mr. Fantastic) seems unlikely, as the actor turns 40 this year. However, as mentioned above, I don't have a track record to work from for WGTC, so take this with a grain of salt--particularly as Christopher Markus (writer for all three Cap films, the last two Avengers films, and credited on Thor: The Dark World) believes Doom should “stick to the comic book and make him the king of his own country,” which is unlike the Ultimate version.

One thing I wanted to note about the Netflix shows is that almost every season of each show was about the main character struggling with their superhero identity (or, in one case, their non-superhero identity). Let's briefly go over it:
DD1: should he be Daredevil?
DD3: should he be Matt Murdock?
JJ1: should she be a hero?
JJ2: should she be a hero?
P1: should he be the Punisher?
P2: should he be the Punisher?
LC1: should he be a hero?
IF1: should he be Danny Rand or just the Iron Fist?

Only the second season of Iron Fist fully moves away from this, although Colleen Wing inherits that dilemma (these identity questions also inform Wilson Fisk, Elektra, Simpson, Mary Walker, Bullseye, etc). Both Daredevil 2 and Luke Cage 2 are slightly more nuanced, where their struggle is what kind of hero they are, but I think the creative teams simply went back to this well far too many times, hurting the quality and distinctiveness of the shows. At some point as a fan you want the hero's struggle to be the mission more than whatever internal issues are going on.

I thought we should take a look at the Sony-Disney deal to share Spider-Man as it nears its conclusion (Homecoming is the last movie covered by it). The deal has benefited both sides, with Marvel's crossover movies getting a boost from Spider-Man's appearance and Sony's films being made at lower costs, higher profits, and a reversal of the trend of diminishing returns since Spider-Man 3 (the MCU Spidey is the second highest earning Spidey film of all time). For those unaware of how it works, Sony pays Marvel to make the films and keeps the profits--in return Marvel gets to use Spider-Man in the MCU. Tom Holland has one film left on his contract that isn't part of the original deal with the MCU, so this situation will need to be resolved soon.

For Sony, Venom's massive success (885 million, which is slightly more than Homecoming) has encouraged the studio to fund more Spider-verse films, and even if Morbius, The Living Vampire tanks there will still be a Venom 2. Sony has a ton of potential movies on their slate (we haven't had a serious update since the summer, but Kraven the Hunter, Silk, Jackpot, Nightwatch, Black Cat, and Silver Sable are in various stages of development). What's important to realize about this laundry list is how little substance there is behind it--the latter two properties used to be one movie (Silver & Black) and lack both a writer and director; Spike Lee left Nightwatch no later than the fall; etc. Most of the slate exists purely on paper and Sony doesn't have someone overseeing the whole project--instead Avi Arad, Palak Patel, and Amy Pascal are in charge of different projects. Sony also made the mistake of giving up both the merchandising rights and the television rights to Marvel years ago, so they can't make TV shows without Disney's approval, such that they can only profit from a film's box office.

One of the stipulations in the deal is that only the MCU can use Spider-Man in live-action productions (ergo, Sony can't put him in Venom etc). This stipulation makes it very difficult for Sony to make its universe coherent. Getting out of the deal with Disney would mean they can use Spider-Man however they want, but this would put Sony in the awkward position of either extricating Tom Holland's version from the MCU or else go through the turmoil of yet another reboot (Feige has cleverly positioned the Spidey film after the events of Infinity War/Endgame, avoiding the easy story-out Sony could have had). All things considered, it's far simpler for Sony to renew the deal.

I believe renewing that deal will cost more concessions from Sony, because the MCU doesn't need the character in the same way anymore. When the deal was struck Marvel was quite limited in the number of high profile characters they could use (you could argue they had no A-list characters at all, with a limited list of B's available), but now that they are about to be flooded with the Fox properties, which includes almost all the best-known IP, that's not the case. This doesn't give Sony much leverage--however big a fan Feige is of Spidey, the MCU missing only him is no big deal. Will Sony give up more concessions if they want to maintain the arrangement? I suspect so, likely in the form of Marvel getting exclusivity over other iconic characters that are part of the Spidey IP.

One of the rumours floating around right now (via Armin, of all people, passim), is that Sony are open to offering a lot more of the Spider-Man setting to Disney in exchange for permission to develop a Spider-Verse television series and the right to get Spider-Man in their own movies. I think there is no chance Feige will give up control of Spider-Man, but some wheeling and dealing (such as television shows) is something I can imagine. Armin wonders if an alternative universe Spider-Man would be allowed so long as he doesn't have his own film--I see this as unlikely, but possible, depending on how it's handled.

Further to this: Armin claims that Sony wants to stay on Disney's good side in the event that Sony Pictures is sold (I believe Midnight's Edge covered this possibility some time ago)--either if Disney is the buyer or for another corporation (Comcast could swoop in to interfere with Disney some more, as they did with the Fox deal and continue to do so over the Hulk et al). Sony could also simply sell the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel, which for fans is the simplest scenario, but such a deal boils down to how Sony Pictures is performing and how the Sony corporation itself is doing.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

Kevin Feige gave an exclusive interview to CBR which they've inconveniently chopped up into pieces. In one of these he said a couple of things which various folk have happily misinterpreted, so let's hear from the man himself:

We've always said there are no mandates to make any more than two films a year. But, as we've seen the last couple years, when it naturally happens, and when there are ideas and when there are teams ready to go, we're not going to hold something back. I don't think we'll be announcing [the next slate of films for] five or six years, but we know sort of where we want to head in the next five or six years.

I've seen people take this as Feige "confirming" three films a year (!)--Charlie among them (link far down below). All Feige actually says here is that they know what they want to do over the next 5-6 years (which is exactly what you'd expect and refutes those suggesting Feige doesn't know what he wants to do with the X-Men and Fantastic Four). I think he's said a mandate of two films because the MCU will only have two films in 2020 (due to the shifting date of Guardians of the Galaxy 3). It's still my belief that we'll be getting four films a year subsequently (2021 onward), as I've gone over previously.

We were told back in 2017 that the title of the fourth Avengers film would be a spoiler and was thus being kept under wraps, but when we got the reveal that didn't seem to be the case. Collider asked Feige about this and here's his explanation:

Well, I think I’d said that it all had gotten blown out of proportion to some extent. But it was a spoiler, because if you knew before Infinity War came out that the next movie was called Endgame, then you know that there wasn’t an ending to Infinity War. But that had been the title of the movie from the moment we conceived of doing the two films. In large part, because…it’s seeded right there. I mean, it’s seeded in Ultron.

This does make sense, although it's not the kind of spoiler fans fixate on or were expecting.

One of the more puzzling rumours floating around about the Black Widow movie was that it would be R-rated. I've seen it repeated in many places, but Feige has now denied it saying it was never a consideration. I'm not sure why this rumour was given credence; with such an established character (her own movie will be her eighth major appearance in the MCU), it would have been very odd to suddenly switch her from PG-13 to R. For branding reasons it's very difficult to go from kid-friendly to adult (the other way around is easier).

Charlie is beating the drums for the death of Captain America again (flared up, I think, from various 4chan and Reddit rumours), and while it's nothing new (eg) I wanted to review his reasoning:
1. Chris Evans has (for years) expressed that his time as Captain America isn't forever and that he wants to do other things (to Charlie this isn't simply a contract negotiating tactic, but a genuine expression from Evans that he can'd both be Cap and do other things)
2. Contracts for the original Avengers actors (minus Scarlett Johansson) are up--this has happened before, but because of #1 Charlie thinks Evans won't re-sign (except perhaps for cameos and flashbacks)

3. For narrative verisimilitude some (or at least one) of the original Avengers are going to die and he believes this needs to include one of the two heavies (Iron Man or Cap); it's worth noting these two characters hit hardest at the box office (RDJ has five straight billion+ films where he's a lead; Evans has three)

4. We know Pepper Potts survives Endgame; the thinking is that therefore Tony Stark survives to pay off the talk of them having children in Infinity War

5. If Tony lives, Cap dies

This relies on a lot of assumptions. On a narrative level both characters have already been willing to sacrifice themselves for others (Cap in his first movie, Tony in The Avengers; Cap has been willing to do so in all his films), so doing the same thing here isn't growth for their characters--it's simply expected. I'm not sure the Russo's want to go down that path, even if the death of either would be a huge emotional blow. We have to remember that this movie is the Return of the King for the MCU, a film in which none of the heroes perish (Boromir is the only member of the fellowship to die, and he does that in the first book/film); Kevin Feige has also downplayed death as the key element, something he wouldn't do if audiences were about to be punched in the gut). The Russo's have also said Cap isn't done, granting that this could be to hide the fact that he dies (they've already lied about the film's title, so they remain unreliable sources). My opinion is that if either of the big two was going to die it would be Iron Man (as I said back in April), making him the alpha and the omega of the MCU through it's first ten years, but it's entirely possible both survive. Logistically Hulk is the easiest to kill--a big character, but one they don't fully own and Ruffalo will turn 52 this year--food for thought.

Speaking of Endgame there's yet another 4chan post I want to look at briefly:

The first act of the movie shows a parallel between Thanos and Avengers and how they cope with the decimation. Cap goes to those group therapy sessions, Natasha follows a lead on Clint, Thor and Rocket go on a quest to find Thanos which really doesn't lead nowhere. War Machine stays in the Avenger HQ doing some work on his suit, later on he is one of those who recieves [sp] Ant Man at HQ. There is a scene with citizens protesting. [The] Gamora sacrifice took a toll on Thanos, and later on when he finds about the Avengers plans he reaches his breaking point.
A4 draws a lot of inspiration from LOTR3 [Return of the King], especially with the Thor/Rocket/Valkyrie assembling an army plot (Rocket and Valkyrie constantly need to calm down Thor who is instable [sp]). There is an epic training montage with that final walk from the TV spot. The snap also took a toll physically on Thanos [and] that's why he uses his armor There are several Outriders atacks [sp]. HEAVY FOCUS on the relationship between tony and steve.
Tv Spot scene where Caps straps his shield [on] is when he delivers a speech straight from the comics. Cap Marvel "action" scene where [sp] mostly filmed on [sp] reeshots, [because] they wanted to have an idea from the directors from her own movie [how to use her]. There is a scene where Iron Man and War Machine combine both armors to form some type of cannon.
Hawkeye has a scene where he has to protect at all cost the Stark Gauntlet and secure the entry of the Quantum Realm.
No word on most of the Third act. The only thing I know from it is a scene which combines a funeral and a memorial which has a Stan Lee speech on what defines a hero

Much of the above borrows from the trailers and various heavily repeated theories, so let's focus on what's not usually said: Thanos needing to cope with the Snap on an emotional level; Thor and Rocket on a quest (the idea is long rumoured, but not what quest--it would certainly explain Thor's absence at the Avengers facility in the teasers). The post is pretty conservative in saying all the above happens before the third act, but it's hard to imagine how the poster knows the first two acts but not the third. Given how heavily reliant on other well-known theories it is I think we have to dismiss it as yet more speculation.

Conrad has posted a rumour that he believes he knows the identity of "Karen" from the THS casting list from back in November. Conrad thinks she's archaeologist Margo Damien from the first issue of the Jack Kirby original, which would make her the 'Everyman' character for the audience being introduced to these powerful, ancient beings. It's important to note that Conrad is speculating--he doesn't cite an inside source, simply a comicbook reference, but it's more speculation than anyone else has put out as yet.

One of the last remaining roadblocks to the Disney purchase of Fox has been removed as they've agreed to sell Fox assets in Brazil and Mexico to gain regulatory approval. Since that announcement a closing date of mid-March has been bandied about, but it's not clear to me if that date is specifically related to Brazil or the sale as whole (if it's the latter, then the end date would match Variety's report back on January and be in plenty of time for easter eggs in Endgame).

In a follow-up to my previous post there's been another video from Andre about the topic after Brie Larson gave an interview where she said of course the film was meant for everyone. This kind of response is completely unlike how Sony (Ghostbusters), Lucasfilm (Star Wars), and CBS (Star Trek) have reacted to these 'controversies'. It's exactly what I expected (and predicted) from the MCU and it puts those making a fuss in a bit of a bind. Andre is stretching when he suggests this is damage control from Disney due to declining box office interest (he admits he has no good evidence for this and subsequently Forbes speculated it might open at 150 million, which is a huge increase from the previous number). My opinion is what I expressed previously, which is that Marvel has no intention of getting into fights with fans and wants the film to speak for itself.

The review bombing of the film has caused Rotten Tomatoes to change a couple of it's features:

We will no longer show the ‘Want to See’ percentage score for a movie during its pre-release period. Why you might ask?  We’ve found that the ‘Want to See’ percentage score is often times confused with the ‘Audience Score’ percentage number. ... We are disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date. Unfortunately, we have seen an uptick in non-constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling, which we believe is a disservice to our general readership. We have decided that turning off this feature for now is the best course of action. Don’t worry though, fans will still get to have their say: Once a movie is released, audiences can leave a user rating and comments as they always have.

This will undoubtedly make some people lose their minds (a few have suggested some sort of conspiracy involving Disney and RT, which is ridiculous since the latter is owned by Comcast whom, as we know from it combating the Fox deal, does Disney no favours), but both features are easily abused and frankly served little purpose (I went over previously how this isn't a right/left issue, as Iron Fist was review bombed in a similar fashion from a completely different direction).

I mentioned in my X-Men speculation article back in October that one of the ways the MCU might introduce Rogue was to mimic her comicbook origin and have her first appear as a villain for Captain Marvel (from whom she gains most of her iconic powers). This is a sentiment now 

echoed by Robert Meyer Burnett (not a huge surprise given how big a comicbook fan he is). My thought when I saw this is that if they followed that plot Rogue's attack could be the trigger for Kamala Khan to appear (or serve as a way to give Photon something heroic to do; Charlie claims the former is confirmed to appear in her sequel, but he's speculating from far less definitive comments from Feige). The downside to this approach is that it would delay her appearance to 2022 (the mostly likely time we'd get another Captain Marvel film). Alternatively, Captain Marvel could appear in the first X-Men film--you could even imagine a Suicide Squad-like scenario where Professor X collects various mutants who have gotten into trouble (Wolverine could attack the Hulk, as he does in his first comicbook appearance) with the aim of reforming them.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

Marvel News

There were reports that Black Widow had been delayed and we now know why: at the eleventh hour the film is getting a re-write from Ned Benson (the original script was from Jac Schaeffer). This kind of thing, last minute re-writes, is nothing new either in Hollywood or the MCU (Iron Man is notorious for being reworked while the film was shooting), but it has meant a two month delay in production (suggesting the re-writes are significant).

A couple of weeks ago Jeremy Conrad posted an Endgame theory which I was going to comment on in an updated version of my theories for the film, but as that's still in process I wanted to touch on it here. Conrad's theory was inspired by something Kevin Feige said during the press tour for Thor: Ragnarok (back in 2017), but those comments themselves aren't relevant other than they reference Star Trek (Feige's love of the franchise is well-known). Here's the theory:

The series finale of Star Trek: Voyager was titled…”Endgame“. The episode features an old [Captain] Janeway in an imperfect future where it [took] years for Voyager to return home, and the crew is in pretty bad shape as a result. Janeway travels through time to sacrifice herself and change history so the bad future she came from never exists. TNG’s [Star Trek: The Next Generation] finale “All Good Things…” [referenced by Feige when talking about Avengers: Endgame] also features [Captain] Picard jumping between different time periods, giving a nostalgic look back at the show. Both of those plots sound pretty similar to some of the rumors about what Avengers: Endgame could be about.

It's hard not to imagine Conrad doing a Google search of 'Endgame' and 'Star Trek' to come up with this theory, but however he arrived at it there is some resonance with the TNG episode Feige has referenced. Presumably this analogy would put either Iron Man or Captain America in the role of Janeway (most likely the former). It's food for thought.

Speaking of Endgame, I've been thinking about what sacrifices the group will be making given that I don't think many characters are going to die. One possibility is that, with access to time travel, they will be forced to give up on loved ones who are dead in the present--Cap has to give up on Peggy Carter again (this time young Peggy with a chance to settle down with her), Thor on his mother Frigga, Iron Man on his parents, etc. It could work if done right and might provide enough pathos for the heroes to call it quits afterwards (while remaining conveniently available if needed later).

Briefly, before I get into the 'controversy' surrounding Captain Marvel, I want to say I think the marketing for the film has improved. Despite beginning with a poor promotional poster and middling trailers (eg), I think the efforts have improved considerably--especially the posters. Back to the point at hand.

Over the last few weeks I've seen a growing clamour among a certain group of Youtubers attacking Captain Marvel. Normally I wouldn't pay much attention to it (particularly since it seems like an isolated phenomena), but there was a video from someone reasonable (Andre) addressesing it and I wanted to briefly go over what's going on.

To understand the present we need to re-visit the genesis of this kind of controversy and to do that we need to go back to Sony's Ghostbusters (2016). In the lead-up to that film hardcore fans of the franchise began to express concerns about it (most wanted a continuation of the series, the planned Ghostbusters 3, which right now, ironically, Sony is making). Either the marketing people or the corporate folks (perhaps both) decided that the best way to make the criticism go away was to paint it with an alt-right brush--marginalizing the critical by conflating them with trolls and haters, making them go away (or, at least, keep their criticisms from reaching the masses--I'm clearly simplifying and if you're interested in fully exploring the issue Midnight's Edge has a ten-part series on it). Sony didn't think trying to embarrass the fans would prevent them from showing up to the film or buy merchandise, and while the tactic helped boost reviews of the film, it failed both at the box office and with merch and in the aftermath most critics conceded it wasn't a very good film. Just two years later Sony fully capitulated (as mentioned above) and are making the film the fans wanted all along.

This played out in very similar fashion on TV with Star Trek: Discovery (that fight, despite dragging on, also seems to have been won by the hardcore fanbase--again the battle was over adherence to the antecedents of the brand rather than embracing a re-imagining). The next major battleground still simmers today and that's over The Last Jedi (2017). Criticism prior to the movie opening was far more muted (largely due to the success of A Force Awakens), but after it hit theaters those who attacked it were painted with the Ghostbusters' brush--alt-right sexist/racists. The film reviewed well and opened well, but ultimately it simply wasn't a great movie (just like with Ghostbusters the critical consensus has turned) and that impacted Solo's box office five months later (which rocked Lucasfilm). It is utterly astounding how many Youtube channels TLJ is unintentionally floating due to the controversy--for my part I like Red Letter Media's review of the film best.

It's important to note that the situations above all feature films or shows that ultimately disappointed--where the strategy was deployed and the franchise became poisoned only because the product didn't excel. Attempts by some to attack Black Panther (2018) failed utterly, for example, and as Andre points out (below) a good film will wash all the Captain Marvel controversy away. What's important to remember is: the corporations that make films do so to make money and they pay marketing people to make that happen. The strategy to wave the progress flag is meant to guarantee good reviews (which it does) more than bring new people into the theaters (this is because corporate bonuses can be tied to review scores, just like in video games). None of the films above are deep dives into serious human issues--they are blockbusters given a mild veneer of the progressive.

With that preamble out of the way, let's address the specific situation: the marketing for the film from Brie Larson in particular has had a feminist slant (as one would expect given the version of the character they are using and what's expected from a female-lead film). Larson herself is very progressive and quite vocal about it. Some of her comments have been taken as anti-male, or at least, anti-white male. The key examples cited are:

• While accepting a Crystal Award this summer (from The Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards) she talked about how she wanted more representation among film critics; she also said she had no interest in knowing what white male critics thought of A Wrinkle in Time because it wasn't made for them
• In February, for a Marie Claire interview, Larson handpicked a disabled woman of colour to interview her and in that interview made a comment very similar to what she said at the Crystal Awards (about diversity among critics)

If you find it hard to comprehend why people are upset by this, I share your confusion (although her comments about A Wrinkle in Time are more than a little odd). I think Larson's intent is pretty obvious (inclusivity) and no one can oppose that. Some are conflating these two comments as proof that Larson is somehow anti-white men (as she's dating one, it's a puzzling conclusion). As Andre points out in the video, she's not only never said this, she's said the opposite, but there's an agenda behind those fanning the flames of controversy (see below). I think Andre is correct that comments about inclusion are likely part of the marketing campaign from Marvel rather than random comments by Larson herself (the fact that she believes them is simply a bonus)--his theory is that some fans are concerned that the strategy means the MCU is going down the path of The Last Jedi with a full-on war between fans and the corporation. This seems like an overreaction to me.

The response to all this could be: So what? None of the above is meaningful ammunition to attack the film, so why does it matter? What's provided fuel to the dozens of Youtube videos preaching doom and gloom comes from a January prediction from the website Box Office Pro (not particularly distinguished when it comes to preditions), which said the film could open to 140-180 million dollars. I ignored this at the time because the prediction didn't come from a reputable site. Recently however, reputable sites pegged it for a 100 million opening, so those already upset about the film are claiming this proves interest in the film is trending down, as if one can compare BOP to the other sites. As Andre points out in his video, this cannot be done and that earlier estimate can't be accepted as accurate without further evidence. In essence, there is no 'evidence' for interest in the film one way or another, but for those already convinced that doesn't matter.

So why are people bothering to agitate about the film? Why pick this film over another? I believe that the Youtubers who have spent the last year feasting on The Last Jedi need more fuel. Other than Star Trek: Discovery, there's really no geek-culture product that's controversial, and not enough people care about STD for it to generate a lot of views. The MCU, however, is incredibly popular and there are plenty of people who would like to see it fail--along with a pre-existing audience that feels attacked from earlier controversies. I see it as a cynical attempt to profiteer, although that's speculation because I can't speak to the character of everyone who has taken this position about the film. Captain Marvel is also unlike the examples above because there is no pre-existing, well-known popular lore to fight over--while it has its comic basis, the version of the character they are using fits the marketing campaign perfectly. The attacks are a stretch--a long shot being taken by those who need controversy to feed their channels.

Right now a small group of trolls are review-bombing Captain Marvel (downvoting it without having seen it)--something they did to Black Panther last year to no avail. It's important to note such efforts aren't unique to progressive films/shows, as Iron Fist was also review bombed for different reasons by progressives (as was, very briefly, Doctor Strange).

On the more general point of the opening, I thought it was worthwhile trying to assess it (assuming the latter predictions are accurate). Let's compare it to recent MCU films:

Captain America: Civil War (May/16): 179

Doctor Strange (November/16): 85

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (May/17): 146

Spider-Man: Homecoming (July/17): 117

Thor: Ragnarok (November/17): 122

Black Panther (February/18): 202

Avengers: Infinity War (April/18): 257

Ant-Man and the Wasp (July/18): 76

This would put Captain Marvel ahead of Doctor Strange and Ant-Man and the Wasp, which isn't bad for the first appearance of a little-known character (most of the films above are reboots, sequels, and or team-up films). It isn't Black Panther money, but he was introduced in Civil War, was a much more popular character, and filled a more unique niche as a landmark for superhero films (it also had better trailers).

In an odd move, Gwyneth Paltrow has announced her exit from the MCU. This was done with the caveat that she's open to cameos, but I'm honestly not sure how seriously we should take the comment. It could imply the MCU is done with Tony Stark, although it's clear in the Far From Home trailer that she's alive and well after Endgame, making it hard to parse what this means. Paltrow has never been the most coherent person, so I'd take the comment with a grain of salt.

The expected hammer has fallen on The Punisher and Jessica Jones via Netflix. While it's not surprising, JJ3 is going to be the first Marvel show cancelled before airing--even Iron Fist was given a short grace period before getting axed. It's an unceremonious end to the properties, but does mean that in two years (February, 2021) the characters tied to these shows will return to the MCU (although I doubt either of them will appear). I have to wonder if Jessica Jones was given this treatment because the show's third season isn't testing well, but I'm speculating and it may be nothing more than convenient for Netflix.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)