FANDOM


  • A continuation of the MCU-films, MCU-films: Phase 2 and MCU-films: Phase 3 threads that I created, since each thread is limited to a maximum of 500 posts.

    Like the previous ones, the intention of this thread is to discuss Marvel Cinematic Universe-movies made by Marvel Studios, whether they be old, new, or future ones. And also use the thread to bring light on news and announcements, and share speculations, on future movies.

    SPOILER RULES: When a new movie comes out, spoilers will only be allowed to be brought up 2 weeks after the movie's US release date, to give as many people as possible the chance on catching up with it, and being able to join in on the discussions without getting spoiled.

      Loading editor
    • To kick off this new thread:

      'Avengers: Endgame' will be re-released into theaters with new footage.

      "Not an extended cut, but there will be a version going into theaters with a bit of a marketing push with a few new things at the end of the movie."

      "If you stay and watch the movie, after the credits, there’ll be a deleted scene, a little tribute, and a few surprises."

      As the article brings up, it makes me wonder if said re-release will be US only or not. As much as I loved the movie, I don't really feel compelled to go see it again in the theater just for some extra scenes, especially with 'Far From Home' coming up which I've cleared my schedule for.

        Loading editor
    • Regarding what Marvel might bring to SDCC, I figure they'll show some Black Widow footage to go along with an official announcement.

        Loading editor
    • Ray Winstone joins the cast of 'Black Widow'.

      ...And that's pretty much it. I'm not even gonna bother guessing.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: To kick off this new thread:

      'Avengers: Endgame' will be re-released into theaters with new footage.

      "Not an extended cut, but there will be a version going into theaters with a bit of a marketing push with a few new things at the end of the movie."

      "If you stay and watch the movie, after the credits, there’ll be a deleted scene, a little tribute, and a few surprises."

      As the article brings up, it makes me wonder if said re-release will be US only or not. As much as I loved the movie, I don't really feel compelled to go see it again in the theater just for some extra scenes, especially with 'Far From Home' coming up which I've cleared my schedule for.

      While I agree that I probably won't see the movie in theaters for the third time just for those extra scenes, I do hope they push for an international release, JUST so they can potentially bump it past Avatar once and for all (it's still $40 million away). I can always watch those scenes online anyways, and the only one that piques my interest (unless it's a genuine post-credits scene, which I doubt) is the tribute, which is apparently for Stan Lee.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Meh, it was a good movie, I'll go re-watch it.

        Loading editor
    • I thought it was weird to re-expand Endgame so soon to Far From Home coming out, but then I remembered Captain Marvel did better-than-expected business when Endgame came out, as did Black Panther in Infinity War's opening weekend.

      With Far Frome Home being a direct follow-up to the events of Endgame, they probably figure people will want to go out and see it again anyway. Why not give them a little bonus content for doing that?

        Loading editor
    • Marvel ain't stopping till they've beaten Gone with the Wind.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Marvel ain't stopping till they've beaten Gone with the Wind.

      Yeah, if you wanna put inflation into the mix... it ain't happening. Gone with the Wind has TWICE the domestic total that Endgame has. Hell, freaking 101 DALMATIANS has more domestic money than Endgame when taking inflation into account.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Marvel ain't stopping till they've beaten Gone with the Wind.

      Is Gone with the Wind number one when taking inflation into account? I would've guessed Snow White or Wizard of Oz.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Marvel ain't stopping till they've beaten Gone with the Wind.

      Is Gone with the Wind number one when taking inflation into account? I would've guessed Snow White or Wizard of Oz.

      It is, with 'Avatar' second place with around $500 million behind.

      And with the talk of "'Avatar' made lots of money but no one remembers it!"; I had never heard about 'Doctor Zhivago' before, until I looked at said list. And when I brought it up to my parents, they said they vaguely remember it from when it originally came out in 1965. So it's not a new occurrence for high-grossing movies to just be a "flash in the pan" in the public consciousness.

        Loading editor
    • Wow, congratulations to Gone With The Wind, I guess.

        Loading editor
    • Salma Hayek in early talks to be in 'The Eternals'. So don't expect a strip-tease or anything.

      Article also says Jolie is still in talks, while Madden and Nanjiani are on-board.

        Loading editor
    • In other news, Far From Home's early reactions have come in, and they're above everyone's expectations. Some are even calling it the greatest Spider-Man movie ever made, and apparently the post-credits scenes ARE the best. It's not going to premiere until tonight in LA though, so that's when we'll probably get more concrete reviews.

      KalKent wrote: And with the talk of "'Avatar' made lots of money but no one remembers it!"; I had never heard about 'Doctor Zhivago' before, until I looked at said list. And when I brought it up to my parents, they said they vaguely remember it from when it originally came out in 1965. So it's not a new occurrence for high-grossing movies to just be a "flash in the pan" in the public consciousness.

      Funnily enough, Doctor Zhivago is actually my uncle's favorite movie, and it came out when he was five. It did come out the same year as The Sound of Music though, so it's no surprise that the Best Picture nominee got overshadowed by the Best Picture winner (especially in the classical Hollywood era). I've not seen it myself, but if you live in the US it's expiring on Netflix at the end of the month.

        Loading editor
    • July 1 (Canada Day), 2021 is a Friday.

      Just saying, the case for Spider-Man: Home and Native Land keeps getting better and better.

        Loading editor
    • Oh my God, THAT scene.

        Loading editor
    • Keep spoilers to a none please.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Oh my God, THAT scene.

      Yeah... BOTH of them!

        Loading editor
    • Well I saw it. Mysterio was pretty much what I was expecting.

        Loading editor
    • So it appears as if the quest for Endgame to beat Avatar... is a bust. With $10 million to go within the next three weeks, everyone is saying that Endgame will unfortunately not be able to surpass it. It's really unfortunate also, since I think most people would agree that Endgame (Marvel biases aside) is the superior movie.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Taika Waititi to direct Thor 4(!!!)

      I personally would've preferred it if they stuck with just trilogies for solo-movies, but I'm not complaining in regards to this. For all we know, 'Thor 4' may just be a placeholder for something Thor-related.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Taika Waititi to direct Thor 4(!!!)

      I was expecting them not to do this, and instead have Guardians Vol. 3 be a placeholder fourth Thor movie (kinda like Ragnarok was a placeholder Hulk sequel). I remember Waititi also stating that he wanted to do for another Marvel character what he did for Thor, and this does hamper the release of the Akira movie (though admittedly Waititi is not who I would choose for that movie, and it IS an anime adaptation). And hell, Thor basically got a sendoff in Endgame anyways, even if it wasn't as good as the other six Avengers' (minus Hulk, who didn't really get one period). But all that said, I'm not particularly mad either, since it's a smart move to capitalize on Ragnarok just like they did with Winter Soldier (with Civil War), and Ragnarok was a blast.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Taika Waititi to direct Thor 4(!!!)

      I personally would've preferred it if they stuck with just trilogies for solo-movies, but I'm not complaining in regards to this. For all we know, 'Thor 4' may just be a placeholder for something Thor-related.

      Spider-Man will definitely get more than 3 movies because Kevin Feige doesn't want Sony to start making their own Spider-Man movies (with Spider-Man, that is) again.

      Unless the Guardians movies start using a revolving cast, I don't expect anyone else will get more than a trilogy.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Taika Waititi to direct Thor 4(!!!)

      I personally would've preferred it if they stuck with just trilogies for solo-movies, but I'm not complaining in regards to this. For all we know, 'Thor 4' may just be a placeholder for something Thor-related.

      Spider-Man will definitely get more than 3 movies because Kevin Feige doesn't want Sony to start making their own Spider-Man movies (with Spider-Man, that is) again.

      Unless the Guardians movies start using a revolving cast, I don't expect anyone else will get more than a trilogy.

      I did expect them to do that with Spider-Man, considering the whole deal with Sony. Though hopefully it doesn't eventually lead to them being creatively bankrupt by making more just for the sake of it, hence why trilogies are sometimes the safest bet.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Taika Waititi to direct Thor 4(!!!)

      I personally would've preferred it if they stuck with just trilogies for solo-movies, but I'm not complaining in regards to this. For all we know, 'Thor 4' may just be a placeholder for something Thor-related.

      Spider-Man will definitely get more than 3 movies because Kevin Feige doesn't want Sony to start making their own Spider-Man movies (with Spider-Man, that is) again.

      Unless the Guardians movies start using a revolving cast, I don't expect anyone else will get more than a trilogy.

      I did expect them to do that with Spider-Man, considering the whole deal with Sony. Though hopefully it doesn't eventually lead to them being creatively bankrupt by making more just for the sake of it, hence why trilogies are sometimes the safest bet.

      There's still a lot they haven't pulled from, particularly stuff already covered in the previous 5 non-MCU Spider-Man movies.

      Peter's gonna go to college and find out Harry Osborn is his roommate.

        Loading editor
      • Fall 2020 - The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Zemo is in it and has a mask - albeit black instead of purple
      • Spring 2021 - WandaVision. Takes place after Infinity War and Kevin Feige says it's the weirdest thing they've ever done. Teyonah Parris is in it as Monica Rambeau.
      • Also Spring 2021 - Loki. Featuring the Loki that escaped from SHIELD during the events of Avengers: Endgame, so he's still a villain.
      • AGAIN Spring 2021 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Director Scott Derrickson and Benedict Cumberbatch are both back, and Scarlet Witch will be in it, and WandaVision ties directly into this. Derrickson promises this will be the first "scary" MCU film.
      • Summer 2021 - What If...?. A large portion of the actors from the films will reprise their roles, and Jeffrey Wright voices the Watcher.
      • Fall 2021 - Hawkeye. Kate Bishop will appear in this, but an actress wasn't named. The series explores more of Barton's time as Ronin.
      • November 5, 2021 - Thor: Love and Thunder. Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, and Natalie Portman (really?) are all back.

      That's it, though. No time for Black Panther 2, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Captain Marvel 2, Fantastic Four, or any mutants.

        Loading editor
    • Sweet. Jesus. A lot to unpack here.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote:
      Sweet. Jesus. A lot to unpack here.

      Normal for SDCC

      And yet I still want more...

        Loading editor
    • So that was ALL of Phase 4? I suppose Blade, Fantastic Four, GOTG 3, Cap. Marvel 2, X-Men and Black Panther 2 are part of Phase 5, right?

        Loading editor
    • Shawdy2003 wrote: So that was ALL of Phase 4? I suppose Blade, Fantastic Four, GOTG 3, Cap. Marvel 2, X-Men and Black Panther 2 are part of Phase 5, right?

      It is not all of Phase 4.

        Loading editor
    • Good.

        Loading editor
    • Second half of Phase 4 at D23.

        Loading editor
    • Wonder if they are going to make the Mandarin the father of Shang-Chi.

        Loading editor
    • Feels like they might, even though Mandarin has nothing to do with Shang-Chi. I'm guessing he won't be working with the British either.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, either that or Shang-Chi would say "My father is [REDACTED]."

        Loading editor
    • I'm betting they fuse the two into Fu Mandarinchu.

        Loading editor
    • I keep seeing people saying Blade is animated. Where was that confirmed?

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: I keep seeing people saying Blade is animated. Where was that confirmed?

      I rewatched some post-panel interviews and it may just be confusion over Feige discussing Ali having done voice work for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

        Loading editor
    • Ah ok, the announcement on Marvel's site doesn't say anything about it being animated.

      Edit: Said article also confirms Dave Harbour is playing Alexi Shostakov, A.K.A. Red Guardian.

        Loading editor
    • Renner posted the Hawkeye reveal on Instagram.

        Loading editor
    • *looks at announcements* ...Cool. So that makes Ali the second actor to be in both the movies and 'Luke Cage'.

      Also, 'Avengers: Endgame' just passed 'Avatar' as the highest-grossing film of all time.

      I really like both of them ('Endgame' more so obviously), even if said race turned a bit slow recently, but it does really show what movies people are into nowadays 10 years later.

        Loading editor
    • Are people seriously saying the Netflix shows aren't canon over Ali being casted in Blade? Because Cottonmouth is DEAD, that and a lot of actors have been in both the Big Side and Street Side of the MCU.

        Loading editor
    • Shawdy2003 wrote: Are people seriously saying the Netflix shows aren't canon over Ali being casted in Blade? Because Cottonmouth is DEAD, that and a lot of actors have been in both the Big Side and Street Side of the MCU.

      My thinking also. It still remains to be seen obviously what Feige is planning and such, but if people can handle the idea of Chris Evans and Michael B. Jordan both previously having been the Human Torch (albeit different continuities), and now are/were Captain America and Killmonger respectively, then it shouldn't be that hard to get. Not just Ali as Cottonmouth, but also Alfre Woodard as both Miriam Sharpe-Spencer in 'Civil War' and Mariah Dillard/Stokes (also) in 'Luke Cage', who for the latter (spoiler alert) also died in season 2.

      Even in the movies themselves this isn't the first time an actor played more than one character.

        Loading editor
    • Shawdy2003 wrote: Are people seriously saying the Netflix shows aren't canon over Ali being casted in Blade? Because Cottonmouth is DEAD, that and a lot of actors have been in both the Big Side and Street Side of the MCU.

      People have been saying the Netflix series - heck, ALL the Marvel Television series - are probably non-canon since we found out Marvel Studios would be making their own mini-series for Disney+, the Netflix series got canceled en masse, and the series themselves had less and less to do with the goings-on in the movies to the point where now even Agents of SHIELD has completely desynched from them.. Kevin Feige even recently answered a question about the characters from the Netflix series showing up in the movies, and he talked about them like he would talk about the potential to use more characters following the Fox deal.

      For a lot of people, one of the main stars of the Netflix series getting cast as one of the next main heroes in the movies is just one more nail in the coffin.

        Loading editor
    • Shawdy2003 wrote: Are people seriously saying the Netflix shows aren't canon over Ali being casted in Blade? Because Cottonmouth is DEAD, that and a lot of actors have been in both the Big Side and Street Side of the MCU.

      People have been saying they're not canon ever since the beginning, though it really turned up to 100 when: Marvel Studios left Marvel Entertainment in 2015, Alfre Woodard showed up in both Civil War and Luke Cage within months of each other as two prominent characters, and when Agents of SHIELD refused to acknowledge the Snap (and Loeb foolishly claimed Season 6 was pre-Snap, even though the in-show dialogue explicitly says they're in 2019 and Endgame establishes the Snap as 2018).

      Even if Cottonmouth is dead, Ali still played him. Thankfully, Blade is British, rocks very extreme, over the top hairstyles and facial hair, and is always wearing sunglasses. As long as he sounds and looks different from Cottonmouth, we shouldn't have any big issues issues.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent
      KalKent removed this reply because:
      my bad
      07:53, July 21, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: As long as he sounds and looks different from Cottonmouth, we shouldn't have any big issues issues.

      Which was what helped Chris Evans when he started playing Cap, removing the doubt people had based off of his previous Human Torch role. He isn't just playing Johnny Storm again but with a shield. Ditto for Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger, but that was a significant difference going from playing a hero to villain, which will be the same but reverse for Ali. Just the idea of Blade acting like Cottonmouth doesn't really fit, but Ali has the acting talent to differentiate the two, and will hopefully have the proper direction for it also. Same thing practically for Alfre Woodard's roles, even if her stint as Miriam was brief.

        Loading editor
    • In terms of the upcoming slate, I gotta say I'm the most interested in seeing what they'll do with Shang-Chi. Not just that it will be their first Asian-led film and also martial arts focused, but the fact it will involve the already established Ten Rings and the Mandarin. I believe Feige did tease in the past that "the Ten Rings are still out there somewhere", so that'll be interesting to see in a post-Endgame world.

        Loading editor
    • They can also use the real owner of the 10 rings now Fin Fang Foom in storyline, it would be nice for the Mandarin story to be part of different movies and Foom showing up or at least be mentioned in the Shang-Chi one.

        Loading editor
    • As someone on the record saying the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 was the only part of the movie that really worked for him, the Shang-Chi movie wanting to re-litigate this doesn't particularly interest me. Fin Fang Foom would be cool, though.

      It's weird how Iron Man 3 - even moreso than The Incredible Hulk - has become the most skippable MCU film.

        Loading editor
    • I also dug up this comment I made MONTHS ago on another site:

      "As great as Mahershala Ali is as Wayne, I am somewhat jealous of the alternate universe where this season of True Detective was a Blade reuinion [sic]"

      The season starred Mahershala Ali and Stephen Dorff.

        Loading editor
    • In case y'all missed it with the Phase 4 slate and 'Endgame' beating 'Avatar's gross, 'Spider-Man: Far From Home' is now the highest-grossing Spider-Man movie, beating out both 'Venom' and (finally) 'Spider-Man 3', and is $30 million away from hitting $1 billion.

      I predicted this would happen. 'Homecoming' did well financially, but not enough to beat 'Spider-Man 3', but at the time I took that as the audience being cautious of those movies after 3 and both 'The Amazing Spider-Man' movies (last two being the lowest-grossing live-action ones as a result). Following his appearance in 'Civil War', with 'Homecoming' being well received, and Spidey's appearances in both 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', I knew it would propel 'Far From Home' to do the best financially in the end.

        Loading editor
    • Right, it's been almost three weeks since Far From Home came out. We can talk spoilers now.

      I like how Beck's "real" costume (the mo-cap suit) still evokes Mysterio's more theatrical appearance.

      I can't believe they brought back the "Tony Stark built this in a cave! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!" guy from Iron Man 1 who's Ralphie from A Christmas Story. Also interesting that the movie makes a point of showing him getting away after downloading Mysterio's technical specs to a thumb drive. Didn't Homecoming do something similar for the Tinkerer? I wonder if someone's going to bring them together...

      Oh yeah, and they brought back JK Simmons as Jameson. That was, you know, cool.

        Loading editor
    • I thought it was assumed that Ralphie was the one who sent the Daily Bugle that edited footage in the post-cred

        Loading editor
    • Ben 1,000,911 wrote: I thought it was assumed that Ralphie was the one who sent the Daily Bugle that edited footage in the post-cred

      I thought the same also, since I don't know how else they would've gotten that footage.

        Loading editor
    • I bet in the next Spider-Man movie Kraven the Hunter was Tony Stark's bodyguard before Happy and Tony fired him because he wasn't a good wingman.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: In case y'all missed it with the Phase 4 slate and 'Endgame' beating 'Avatar's gross, 'Spider-Man: Far From Home' is now the highest-grossing Spider-Man movie, beating out both 'Venom' and (finally) 'Spider-Man 3', and is $30 million away from hitting $1 billion.

      I predicted this would happen. 'Homecoming' did well financially, but not enough to beat 'Spider-Man 3', but at the time I took that as the audience being cautious of those movies after 3 and both 'The Amazing Spider-Man' movies (last two being the lowest-grossing live-action ones as a result). Following his appearance in 'Civil War', with 'Homecoming' being well received, and Spidey's appearances in both 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', I knew it would propel 'Far From Home' to do the best financially in the end.

      Just passed $1 billion.

      EDIT: I just realized that it makes 2019 the first year where all MCU movies made at least $1 billion (not counting 2012 obviously since 'Avengers 1' was the only one that year). "DAE sUPeRhErO fAtIGuE!?"

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      "DAE sUPeRhErO fAtIGuE!?"

      They been saying that since Superman from 1978! It doesn't make sense Comic Book Movies have always been and will be always be a huge part of american cinema.
        Loading editor
    • Is there really more to reveal at D23?

        Loading editor
    • Black Panther 2, Captain Marvel 2, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3, Fantastic Four, X-Men.

        Loading editor
    • Based on this: "The Walt Disney Studios will present a behind-the-scenes look at its blockbuster collection of upcoming films. including a peek at exciting projects from Marvel Studios. As always, attendees will be treated to exclusive footage, special guest appearances, and more!"

      Doesn't seem enough time to reveal the Phase 5 slate, since it won't be just Marvel Studios but also other Disney properties; although hopefully at the very least there is some acknowledgement to the ones Nurdboy mentioned. Like maybe mentioning that Ryan Coogler is back for directing 'Black Panther 2'.

        Loading editor
    • Gemma Chan, who previously portrayed Minn-Erva in 'Captain Marvel', is in talks to have a role in 'The Eternals'. Unconfirmed whether it'll be as the same role or a different one for the movie.

      I guess by using the logic of Mahershala Ali casting as Blade, it makes the entirety of 'Captain Marvel' not canon to the MCU./s

      EDIT: Article also mentions Barry Keoghan ('Dunkirk', 'Y: The Last Man') being in talks

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: I guess by using the logic of Mahershala Ali casting as Blade, it makes the entirety of 'Captain Marvel' not canon to the MCU./s

      LOL I made that same joke as well.

        Loading editor
    • Irish actor Barry Keoghan is also in negotiations to join Eternals.

      (He was the soldier in HBO's Chernobyl tasked with hunting down the dogs.)

      Edit: Didn't see Kal's edit

        Loading editor
    • Marvel’s Black Widow casts world’s tallest bodybuilder Olivier Richters, a.k.a. The Dutch Giant

      He's 7 feet tall. As much as I'd like him to be Ursa Major, he's probably just playing a goon.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Oh for the love of god...

        Loading editor
    • So we're all agreed the next Spider-Man movie with Tom Holland is non-canon

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: So we're all agreed the next Spider-Man movie with Tom Holland is non-canon

      Main thing I dread is that it somehow gives leeway to Sony having their non-Spidey Spider-Man spin-offs be in the MCU, since the planned third one would technically make it the first sequel to MCU movies not produced by Marvel Studios. God damn them to hell if they're gonna force Hardy-Venom and Leto-Morbius into it, repeating their mistakes of cramming from 'TASM 2'.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: So we're all agreed the next Spider-Man movie with Tom Holland is non-canon

      It'll be canon... to the SUMC...

        Loading editor
    • F in the chat

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: So we're all agreed the next Spider-Man movie with Tom Holland is non-canon

      If it doesn't contradict the MCU (and it's good, which I doubt), I'll consider it canon. But goddamn it, SONY. Just when we finally got to the good part.

      I saw this coming the second Far From Home hit a billion.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: I saw this coming the second Far From Home hit a billion.

      Which is interesting. It makes sense now, but I was among the people who predicted "As long as 'Far From Home' hits a billion, then Spidey will be safe in Feige's hands," but we didn't account for Sony's stubborness.

      Like the article I linked says: "Sony has made a decision that is similar to saying, thank you, but we think we can win the championship without Michael Jordan."

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: I saw this coming the second Far From Home hit a billion.

      Which is interesting. It makes sense now, but I was among the people who predicted "As long as 'Far From Home' hits a billion, then Spidey will be safe in Feige's hands," but we didn't account for Sony's stubborness.

      Like the article I linked says: "Sony has made a decision that is similar to saying, thank you, but we think we can win the championship without Michael Jordan."

      Actually, from what MCU Exchange is saying, DISNEY is the one that got greedy, and asked for 50% of the profits instead of the original 5%.

      Which is why I saw this coming when the movie got too successful. I knew one party or the other would start demanding more of the profits.

      But according to the MCU subreddit (/r/marvelstudios) the talks are still ongoing and it was actually all about a producer's credit on the films, not the profits. So who knows?

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Actually, from what MCU Exchange is saying, DISNEY is the one that got greedy, and asked for 50% of the profits instead of the original 5%.

      Which is why I saw this coming when the movie got too successful. I knew one party or the other would start demanding more of the profits.

      But according to the MCU subreddit (/r/marvelstudios) the talks are still ongoing and it was actually all about a producer's credit on the films, not the profits. So who knows?

      That is stated in Deadline's original article.

      io9 spoke to a Sony rep about the issue, which is where the story about the producer credit is coming from.

        Loading editor
    • To be fair, Disney were offering Sony 50% of the profits of every MCU film that potentially included any Spider-Man characters in return.

        Loading editor
    • Right now, everything seems to be conflicting. Some say the deal is completely dead, while others say it's on the brink of death. Thus, I'm going to be taking everything with a grain of salt until the full movie slate is revealed.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice
      AnnabellRice removed this reply because:
      Vandalism.
      02:25, August 21, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    •   Loading editor
    • An understatement if you ask me. I would more so feel hopeless and dreading at the idea of losing the person who helped the smooth sailing so far.

      "Feige [...] may just have too much on his plate, given that Disney recently acquired additional Marvel characters via its acquisition of 21st Century Fox."

      I don't buy it. As it's been pointed out, Feige, while uncredited, has given input on Sony's Spidey projects, including recent ones 'Venom' and 'Into the Spider-Verse' to a degree. And I especially don't buy it since it's not first hand from Feige himself. He can hold multiple balls in the air when it comes to overseeing projects, and if he couldn't and of the ones he would give up, I doubt it would be the character he cares a lot about.

        Loading editor
    • I really think there's a lot missing from the so-called "official" sources.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: I really think there's a lot missing from the so-called "official" sources.

      Seems to be, but it's been repeated here also, so they seem confident with them.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: OK, now it's being reported Jon Watts hasn't signed on for a third one yet.

      And it's been reported Tom Holland no longer follows Sony on Instagram.

        Loading editor
    • And I had so much fun coming up with dumb ways for the next Spider-Man movie to tie the villain to Tony Stark.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: And I had so much fun coming up with dumb ways for the next Spider-Man movie to tie the villain to Tony Stark.

      Among other things for me:

      • Where will Peter and MJ's relationship go
      • How will the ending affect Aunt May and Happy's relationship
      • If the third movie will/were to have Sinister Six, how would Toomes and Liz be involved in it in relation to Peter
      • With Spider-Man being wanted, would they hire Kraven the Hunter for the job
      • Will Miles be introduced (because lord knows people don't trust Sony to do Miles properly for a live-action movie)
      • Would they make Ganke the younger brother of Ned (Ned & Ganke Leeds)
        Loading editor
    • No Kraven the Hunter was Tony Stark's bodyguard before Happy who he fired for not being a good wingman.

      No Paste Pot Pete was a janitor who worked at one of Stark Industries' plants who slipped and threw out his back and Tony Stark personally prevented from collecting worker's comp.

      No Big Wheel was a delivery man who lost his job after Tony Stark stole his bike for no reason other than pure malice.

      No Doctor Octopus created the tentacles from one of Tony Stark's patents that he let lapse and he's portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in a fatsuit.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: OK, now it's being reported Jon Watts hasn't signed on for a third one yet.

      And it's been reported Tom Holland no longer follows Sony on Instagram.

      Allegedly, he never followed them to begin with.

        Loading editor
    • https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2019/08/21/sonys-pushback-to-disney-on-spider-man-sounds-like-a-negotiation-not-an-ultimatum/#7e1a0f932d7a

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/08/21/how-the-marvel-sony-spider-man-dispute-will-be-solved-one-way-or-another/#4d26135a6b50

      Now the word is that what's going on between Disney and Sony is a gross exaggeration of what happened and is happening. Apparently, Disney not only wanted half of the box office revenue, but also the production costs, creating a somewhat even deal within the film business. However, Disney also already owns the entirety of revenue attained from Spider-Man's merchandise, theme park exposure, and usage in other media, which when added up, gives them a larger share of the pie than Sony in regards to the character overall (merchandise revenue alone usually equals film revenues). And furthermore, it's being said that the negotiations aren't over in the slightest, and in fact counter-offers are being made as we speak (which, knowing Feige, I wouldn't put it past him).

      Overall, I think the blame lies with both companies: Disney for trying to get more out of deals they don't need to get more out of in the first place, and Sony for refusing to immediately make counter-offers (at least publicly) in order to fuel their own ego. And in the end, the only people I feel bad for are Feige and Holland, who had nothing to do with the negotiations but are more directly impacted by it than anyone else. But with rumors that Sony's film company will be bought anyways Fox-style, it's also been stated that even if negotiations do break down, Sony will collapse without another tentpole and they will end up losing Spider-Man in order to save themselves even if Disney isn't the studio buyer. But again, I want to see what D23 has in store for us in a couple of days, since at the very least, we know there was never going to be a Spider-Man movie until at least 2022 to begin with, and they're probably going to announce more movies at the conference. Ultimately, the movie will probably be Guardians Vol. 3'd, being pushed back considerably because of this commotion but ultimately getting the treatment it deserves. Holland will be as old as Maguire by then, but I bet the writers will work around it.

        Loading editor
    • I've heard that in addition to covering 50% of the production costs in exchange for 50% of the profits, Disney also offered SONY a 50-50 split on the profits of any movie that features Spider-Man, which is absolutely insane if this is true.

      If Marvel Studios ever hit another movie that was almost 3 billion dollars like Endgame, and it featured Spider-Man, that would be 1.5 billion in SONY's wallet for literally no work. That's a damn good deal, in my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • All I need is a photoshop or fanart based on the end of Endgame, except it's Tom Hardy's Venom who says "We are inevitable" and Tom Holland's Spider-Man says "I'm Spider-Man."

      Because if it's entirely in Sony's hands, then that crossover is inevitable.

        Loading editor
    • Now that I recall, [From Home is going to be re-released, starting August 29th]. I highly doubt they would bother going through with this if they didn't know where to divvy up the money.

      As of now, as KalKent said, all of the stories have either been conflicting or engaging in half-full, half-empty debates. And sorry to burst your bubbles guys, but the majority of people seem to blame Disney (I'm probably the only one who blames both).

      But again, I'm certain that Spider-Man isn't actually gone. Somehow, sometime, they are going to work out a deal; both companies know they stand to lose everything if this falls through. And if not, we can always call up the North Koreans and ask for a little help...

        Loading editor
    • https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/8/22/20827020/spider-man-mcu-sony-disney-tom-holland

      This seems to be the most optimistic set of reports coming out: that all of these stories are actually leaks posted by one of the companies in an attempt to gain the upper hand in negotiations.

        Loading editor
    • To move on to more happier things, with D23 going on, although this is apparently (so far) unrelated to it.

      Kit Harington apparently has signed on for a role in the MCU, though nothing on for what in what movie. First Robb Stark for 'The Eternals', and now Jon Snow. Looks like most actors post-'GoT' are pretty much set career-wise.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: To move on to more happier things, with D23 going on, although this is apparently (so far) unrelated to it.

      Kit Harington apparently has signed on for a role in the MCU, though nothing on for what in what movie. First Robb Stark for 'The Eternals', and now Jon Snow. Looks like most actors post-'GoT' are pretty much set career-wise.

      Don't forget about Dinklage in Infinity War.

      No idea what role Kit Harington could be on for. I couldn't even say if it's for a hero or if he wants to break out of the Jon Snow mold and play a villain.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: To move on to more happier things, with D23 going on, although this is apparently (so far) unrelated to it.

      Kit Harington apparently has signed on for a role in the MCU, though nothing on for what in what movie. First Robb Stark for 'The Eternals', and now Jon Snow. Looks like most actors post-'GoT' are pretty much set career-wise.

      Don't forget about Dinklage in Infinity War.

      Main reason I forgot is because that the role wasn't that big (no pun intended), compared to what Madden's and (presumably) Harington's will be. Although I wouldn't oppose to if Waititi is planning on bringing Eitri back for 'Love & Thunder', though no idea in what capacity.

        Loading editor
    • I'm surprised they didn't fully announce further movies that were said to be in development; I'd not have imagined that Phase 4 would just be those five films, especially with the 2022 films already scheduled (though I guess Guardians Vol. 3 was supposed to be the sixth one). I'll probably comment on all of them later.

      A final Spider-Man remark: if/when the deal does come back (fingers crossed), the release dates for some of these movies will probably get re-ordered, just like with Homecoming; it also would not be that hard to do, since Homecoming was fully developed in just two years after the deal was finalized (which, when you think about blockbusters, is super impressive, no pun intended). I don't think it will happen in Phase 4 though, since Spider-Man movies tend to release in July, and none of the Phase 4 lineup is currently positioned there; instead it will probably be the film positioned at May 6, 2022.

        Loading editor
    • The movie panel is tomorrow. If anything they'll announce more then.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: The movie panel is tomorrow. If anything they'll announce more then.

      ^ This. It's hard to announce things at a panel hasn't even happened yet.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: The movie panel is tomorrow. If anything they'll announce more then.

      ^ This. It's hard to announce things at a panel hasn't even happened yet.

      My mistake guys. I misread the schedule and thought the Marvel Studios panel was today, with the discussions online not disproving that.

        Loading editor
    • To reiterate something I said in the other thread: The fact that the three new Disney+ series are considered part of Phase 4 means there are probably more Phase 4 movies slated between them. People got ahead of themselves and assumed the SDCC reveal was all of Phase 4.

        Loading editor
    • Gonna update this comment with news as it's coming based of off this article updates and what's being said on Twitter, since the Marvel Studios of D23 is going on as I'm writing this.

      • 'Black Panther 2' (not final title but has a logo) will be released on May 6, 2022.
      • Gemma Chan and Kit Harington are playing Sersi and Dane Whitman, respectively, in 'The Eternals'. EDIT: Also, Barry Keoghan is Druig. EDIT 2: Concept art
        Loading editor
    • Feige hyped me up when he said Fantastic Four at Comic Con so this is bit of a letdown for me, especially after yesterday.

      Black Knight is surprising though.

        Loading editor
    • The things I find surprising about the 'Black Panther 2' announcement was: 1. People acting like Coogler returning was a new thing, 2. The movie getting the May slot of 2022 and not February (Black History Month), and 3. Makes me really wonder what could take the February slot of that year.

      Although I do can see why it got the May slot, since judging by the critical and financial reception to the first one, they're confident that it can stand as a blockbuster tent-pole movie, which is why late April and early May are often chosen for movies like that.

      And with Harington as Dane Whitman, are they keeping him American like the comics, or make him British with the actor?

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: The things I find surprising about the 'Black Panther 2' announcement was: 1. People acting like Coogler returning was a new thing, 2. The movie getting the May slot of 2022 and not February (Black History Month), and 3. Makes me really wonder what could take the February slot of that year.

      Blade.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: The things I find surprising about the 'Black Panther 2' announcement was: 1. People acting like Coogler returning was a new thing, 2. The movie getting the May slot of 2022 and not February (Black History Month), and 3. Makes me really wonder what could take the February slot of that year.

      Blade.

      Makes sense. And assuming the third Tom Holland Spidey movie doesn't happen (that hurts), then July 29 will probably be for 'Guardians Vol. 3'.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: The things I find surprising about the 'Black Panther 2' announcement was: 1. People acting like Coogler returning was a new thing, 2. The movie getting the May slot of 2022 and not February (Black History Month), and 3. Makes me really wonder what could take the February slot of that year.

      Blade.

      Makes sense. And assuming the third Tom Holland Spidey movie doesn't happen (that hurts), then July 29 will probably be for 'Guardians Vol. 3'.

      My guess is that in five years from now Sony and Disney will have worked something out to make Spider-Man: Home Again. Peter Parker went into hiding after his identity leaked, moved to the other side of the country, dyed his hair blonde, and started going by the name "Ben Reilly." Then something forces him to go back to NYC, and at the end of the movie there's something like the unmasking scene in Civil War (the comic one) where he publically comes out as Spider-Man, and it's also a visual parallel to Tony Stark's "I am Iron Man" and the end of Iron Man 1.

      Also he fought Venom at some point. Rumors that Spider-Man is active in like Seattle or something seems like a story investigative journalist Eddie Brock might be interested in.

      Look at me, being the optimist for once.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: And with Harington as Dane Whitman, are they keeping him American like the comics, or make him British with the actor?

      Hopefully British. I didn't even know he was American in the comics, I only ever see him with Captain Britain, and his powers are from there.

        Loading editor
    • Recently, there have been rumors circulating the Internet that a new deal is currently being worked on. They don't say the money involved, but they do say that there will be four more solo Spidey films and two team-up movies, the latter one of which will have him buddying up with Human Torch (which, personally, would make me cry to see on the big screen). Of course, they're just rumors, so I'd take them with a grain of salt, but they've still gotten quite a bit of traction.

      LoveWaffle wrote: My guess is that in five years from now Sony and Disney will have worked something out to make Spider-Man: Home Again.

      Look at me, being the optimist for once.

      I'm gonna be even more optimistic and say that they will probably make a deal far sooner, and that we will get the next Spider-Man film by 2022 or 2023 earliest (since I've heard that Sony's contract forces them to make a film every few years or lose the rights). It's painfully obvious both companies know that no one wins in this scenario, and considering Tom Holland even went to D23 (albeit to say a quick message), these just seem like what some are calling "public negotiations".

      Ironically enough though, as you pointed out the end for Far From Home is, continuity-wise, actually the perfect way to take Spidey out of the MCU before putting him back in, and since we probably won't get an Avengers movie for many more years (2024 at the earliest, if I had to guess), they do have plenty of time. Honestly, continuity is the only thing that I truly care about: you can remove Spidey from the equation (for the sake of people's jobs), but only when it's the perfect send-off; just that Far From Home is NOT that send-off, more of a "Next Time on Dragon Ball Z!" moment. In other words, once Spider-Man hangs up the mask in-universe (WHICH HE HASN'T), I say give it back to Sony until such time as they go bankrupt, get bought out, and the rights permanently revert to Marvel.

      My only concern is what will happen should the third film succeed before the deal is finalized. We got this deal in the first place because Sony failed financially with TASM2 (and maybe the email leaks), so if the third film does well, chances are they'll get even more cocky and shut down the deal permanently. Therefore it's probably best to hope that the deal is brought back sooner rather than later, and like I said before, they'll probably rework the schedule accordingly so that it takes up one of the spots already laid out (which is what happened to Homecoming; I mean, that entire schedule from 2014 got completely changed).

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:

      KalKent wrote: And with Harington as Dane Whitman, are they keeping him American like the comics, or make him British with the actor?

      Hopefully British. I didn't even know he was American in the comics, I only ever see him with Captain Britain, and his powers are from there.

      Super stoked for Black Knight, even if Kit Harington isn't necessarily my first choice (I've always heard that he's one of the many actors in the show that was good in that one role). Personally I don't care which country he's from, but I am intrigued to see how they will integrate a relative mortal into a movie full of gods (I'm guessing they'll do for him what they did for Black Panther - no pun intended - and Spider-Man in Civil War). Either way, now all I need is Sentry, Captain Britain, and Spider-Woman, and my MCU dream list is complete!

        Loading editor
    • My guess is the Ebony Blade is connected to the Eternals somehow.

        Loading editor
    • With Dane Whitman in the movie, I hope it means they're setting up things like the MI-13 and more UK heroes eventually (hopefully Brian Braddock, Pete Wisdom, Faiza Hussain, John the Skrull, Union Jack, etc.). While most likely American with Mahershala Ali playing him, they already have plans for Blade, so along with Dane maybe becoming Black Knight, it may be leading to that. Main reason I'm hoping is because, as much as I'm a fan of superhero comics in general, I like it when they diversify it to include heroes and such from non-US countries, and it would be cool to see it in the movies also.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: With Dane Whitman in the movie, I hope it means they're setting up things like the MI-13 and more UK heroes eventually (hopefully Brian Braddock, Pete Wisdom, Faiza Hussain, John the Skrull, Union Jack, etc.). While most likely American with Mahershala Ali playing him, they already have plans for Blade, so along with Dane maybe becoming Black Knight, it may be leading to that. Main reason I'm hoping is because, as much as I'm a fan of superhero comics in general, I like it when they diversify it to include heroes and such from non-US countries, and it would be cool to see it in the movies also.

      Don't forget Jessica Drew in that list.

      I agree that diversity is pretty much always a good thing, but that said, I'm not sure how much they would want to go full-Cockney on us, even though they already have featured London in a surprising amount of MCU films since The Dark World (Civil War, Black Panther, Far From Home...). Captain Britain's the obvious choice, but if you want to include all those heroes I would suggest doing the MI-13, Excalibur, or Captain Britain Corps movie right off the bat, and have a British director basically do for the franchise what James Gunn did for Guardians.

        Loading editor
    • Main reason I'd like to see MI-13 in the MCU, is not really for its own movie (I think a hero like Captain Britain would be good enough for that, which apparently Guy Ritchie has been rumored to be directing that), but mainly to see countries having their own superhero teams, would be cool to see in live-action. There are other ones like Triumph Division from the Philippines, the European Defense Initiative from the Ultimate Universe, the Russian Winter Guard, and so on.

        Loading editor
    • I'd love to see the classic version of Alpha Flight show up in something.

        Loading editor
    • I just hope we get more Puerto Rican heroes. The only one so far has been Yo-Yo Rodriguez from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but she doesn't even count because they made her Colombian in the MCU. (I know this thread is specifically for the movies, but bear with me for a second.) I still don't understand why they had to make her Colombian, there's police corruption everywhere, sadly. And Natalia is Mexican so it's not like they changed the character to match the actor.

      Hopefully they keep Blade British when he shows up, and same for Spider-Woman IF she shows up. I'm still waiting on Elsa Bloodstone.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: I just hope we get more Puerto Rican heroes. The only one so far has been Yo-Yo Rodriguez from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but she doesn't even count because they made her Colombian in the MCU. (I know this thread is specifically for the movies, but bear with me for a second.) I still don't understand why they had to make her Colombian, there's police corruption everywhere, sadly. And Natalia is Mexican so it's not like they changed the character to match the actor.

      Hopefully they keep Blade British when he shows up, and same for Spider-Woman IF she shows up. I'm still waiting on Elsa Bloodstone.

      If you ask me, comics still have a long way to go before they represent a fully diverse spectrum. I'm of Indian descent, and the closest I've ever gotten to having a well-known superhero also of Indian descent is freaking Spider-Man India (and before you mention Kamala Khan, keep in mind you'd be opening a massive can of worms if you do - kind of like with your Colombian-Puerto Rican thing, only more religious and bloodline-related). Since there's so little representation for people like me in the media, I've coped with it by latching on to character personalities, which is why Spider-Man (the Peter Parker version, mind you) is my favorite superhero. Thankfully, we are making steps in the right direction, so while it will take many years, I do believe we will see full representation eventually.

      As for Blade being British, it does give me another reason as to why I DON'T think Ali is a great choice for the role. Don't get me wrong, he's a great actor and the Luke Cage thing doesn't bother me as long as he feels and looks totally different (which I think Alfre Woodard succeeded at), but I would have liked a more comics-accurate British version seeing as how Wesley Snipes was anything but that. Not to mention Ali typically plays cool-headed characters (of which Blade is anything but), and he's already in his 40s so he's really pushing it for a vampire.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote: If you ask me, comics still have a long way to go before they represent a fully diverse spectrum. I'm of Indian descent, and the closest I've ever gotten to having a well-known superhero also of Indian descent is freaking Spider-Man India (and before you mention Kamala Khan, keep in mind you'd be opening a massive can of worms if you do - kind of like with your Colombian-Puerto Rican thing, only more religious and bloodline-related). Since there's so little representation for people like me in the media, I've coped with it by latching on to character personalities, which is why Spider-Man (the Peter Parker version, mind you) is my favorite superhero. Thankfully, we are making steps in the right direction, so while it will take many years, I do believe we will see full representation eventually.

      For the Indian heroes, I wasn't going to mention Kamala. I know there's a huge difference between Pakistani and Indian. However, there is Trinary, Indra Thunderbird of the X-Men, Raz Malhotra the current Giant-Man, Grid of the NuHumans, Pinpoint of the Champions and even a villain in Omega Sentinel. All actual Indian characters.

      Us Puerto Ricans literally only have the White Tiger family (Hector, Ava and Angela) and Yo-Yo. And since Yo-Yo's been adapted as Colombian for the MCU, that only leaves us Boricuas with the White Tiger for representation.

        Loading editor
    • Left side of the poster: More Black Widows than just Nat and Yelena?

        Loading editor
    • Possibly. I's been confirmed Rachel Weisz is an ex-Widow at least.

      David Harbour playing a Russian named Alexi is kind of funny if you've seen Stranger Things season 3.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      Left side of the poster: More Black Widows than just Nat and Yelena?

      I mean, we know the Red Room's been churning out Widows since Dottie in the 40's, so this doesn't really surprise me.

        Loading editor
    • One last word on Spider-Man for the time being, basically going over what I think happened and what WILL happen in the future:

      The 50-50 deal is true in terms of both production and revenue, and it alone (not some compromise) was what caused Sony to back out. However, I don't think it's permanent. What I think will happen is that Feige will manage to renegotiate the rights so that we have another Spider-Man MCU film by 2023. Meanwhile, Sony will continue their own movies, but quickly run out of gas as their live-action brand collapses under critical disappointment and their animated brand is milked into the ground Lego Movie style. This will coincide with Disney having given Spider-Man a send-off in the MCU, akin to Thor in Endgame more than Iron Man or Cap. After this happens, the deal will close permanently, giving Sony the full rights to the character. They will attempt to do more movies, such as a Spider-Man vs. Venom vs. Spider-Verse crossover, but will eventually be drained of all life. Once this happens, Sony will be forced to sell their film division to Comcast, reducing the number of major studios to four, and effectively reverting all of the film rights back to Marvel, who will use them sporadically in case they want to use Spider-Man again, albeit in a far more limited capacity.

      EDIT: On a related note, I've heard people say that, while Holland was promoting the Pixar film Onward at Keystone Comic Con in Philadelphia, panel attendees were specifically told not to ask him any questions about Spider-Man in order to avoid him revealing contractual details that will be announced in the coming days (though he did give a farewell message, which has since leaked online, that is almost identical to the one he made at D23). This appears to be true since it's been circulated on several official sites, but I highly doubt they would have resolved the matter that soon.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote: Once this happens, Sony will be forced to sell their film division to Comcast

      We'll have to see how upcoming Jumanji and James Bond movies do before Sony just capitulates.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      Gemnist 2.0 wrote: Once this happens, Sony will be forced to sell their film division to Comcast

      We'll have to see how upcoming Jumanji and James Bond movies do before Sony just capitulates.

      I guess you have a point with Jumanji (though like Spider-Verse, I’m pretty sure they’ll bury that one as well), but Sony actually lost the distribution rights to James Bond, so No Time to Die is ironically leaving Sony to die, LOL. For the record though, I don’t think Sony will cave in anytime soon; it’ll be at least another decade before that happens.

        Loading editor
    • Sony's CEO has officially disclosed some of the current plans for Spider-Man going forward.

      This is being treated as the final nail in the coffin for this whole debacle, and it appears to be worse than I thought. I mean, five to six Spider-related shows all at once? That will create actual brand saturation, for real. I guess our only speck of hope is him saying "For the moment, the door has been closed", but as Hawkeye (and every Marvel fan on the Internet) said, "Don't do that... Don't give me hope".

        Loading editor
    • On the Saturn Awards, a clip was shown of Feige presenting a cut alternate take of the post-credits scene of Nick Fury from 'Iron Man 1'.

      While it's understandable why that take wasn't used in the final cut, it does bring up the questions of what were their mindset for doing said alternate take to begin with, and why they decided to finally reveal its existence now (although by him saying "putting them on this disc", it's presumably a bonus feature for something).

      EDIT: It's a clip of the bonus features featured on the Infinity Saga boxset.

        Loading editor
    • I wonder if those are just supposed to be Easter eggs, or if they were seriously considering getting Sony and Fox to play ball and get Tobey Maguire and Hugh Jackman in The Avengers.

        Loading editor
    • ADour
      ADour removed this reply because:
      Spam.
      23:08, September 14, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • ADour
      ADour removed this reply because:
      Spam.
      23:08, September 14, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • ADour
      ADour removed this reply because:
      Spam.
      23:08, September 14, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • ADour
      ADour removed this reply because:
      Spam
      23:08, September 14, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • My original guess was that they were going to do a George Lucas (with the Special Editions of 'Star Wars'), and re-add said take later on, once said concepts had been already introduced into the MCU, and/or once they got the rights back to them.

      But then I realized it wouldn't make sense at this point, since by the time of 'Iron Man 1' was 7-8 years before Peter became Spider-Man, and by the time of 'Endgame' there's been nothing related to mutants yet (not retroactively yet).

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: My original guess was that they were going to do a George Lucas (with the Special Editions of 'Star Wars'), and re-add said take later on, once said concepts had been already introduced into the MCU, and/or once they got the rights back to them.

      But then I realized it wouldn't make sense at this point, since by the time of 'Iron Man 1' was 7-8 years before Peter became Spider-Man, and by the time of 'Endgame' there's been nothing related to mutants yet (not retroactively yet).

      One could make an argument for Aldrich Killian's line in Iron Man 3 about there being an empty slot in the brain for evolution of some kind as a foreshadowing for mutants, but since it was never followed up on, it's kind of a stretch.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:

      KalKent wrote: My original guess was that they were going to do a George Lucas (with the Special Editions of 'Star Wars'), and re-add said take later on, once said concepts had been already introduced into the MCU, and/or once they got the rights back to them.

      But then I realized it wouldn't make sense at this point, since by the time of 'Iron Man 1' was 7-8 years before Peter became Spider-Man, and by the time of 'Endgame' there's been nothing related to mutants yet (not retroactively yet).

      One could make an argument for Aldrich Killian's line in Iron Man 3 about there being an empty slot in the brain for evolution of some kind as a foreshadowing for mutants, but since it was never followed up on, it's kind of a stretch.

      I forgot about that line. I would also guess it wouldn't play any role in the future, but I'm also remembering how in 'Far From Home' they brought back the scientist from 'Iron Man 1' that worked with Stane to work with Mysterio, so who knows. I would think it would just be a throwaway line regarding the rise of mutants being like "first postulated by Killian's theory on the brain" or "based on the research on the brain originally done by A.I.M.".

        Loading editor
    • Thanks Feige. Now I'm gonna cry in a corner lamenting what could have been - AGAIN.

        Loading editor
    • A bit off-topic, but remember when Sony claimed Feige might be too busy with the Marvel properties (including the recent acquired Fantastic Four and X-Men), to be able to also oversee Spider-Man movies under Marvel Studios?

      Well with the news of Feige overseeing a future 'Star Wars' movie, excuse me if I don't buy it.

      Feige (probably): "Oh, I'm not involved in Spider-Man movies anymore? Well sucks for you, Sony, cause I'll just fill that void with freaking Star Wars instead!"

        Loading editor
    • Big Kev's doing what?

      It would be cool if he adapted some stuff from Star Wars Vol 1, cause I kind of want to see Jaxxon in a movie.

        Loading editor
    • Looks like the storm is over (for now).

      Sony and Marvel has agreed to co-produce the third Spider-Man movie, and Spidey will also appear in one more Marvel Studios movie that's not the title character.

      I bet after the ridicule Sony got after revealing they're planning a Madame Web movie, announcing who's producing 'Venom 2', and Feige potentially doing a Star Wars movie; they needed to reveal something positive to make up for it.

      Also, it'll be released on July 16, 2021, making it 4 MCU movies that year (assuming one of the other ones won't be moved as a result of it), I guess making up for the ("only") 2 that 2020 will have.

        Loading editor
    • A Madame Web movie? Please tell me they mean Julia Carpenter, because a single mom who loses her physical sight but gains spiritual sight actually intrigues me way more than some gaudy octogenarian prophet.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: A Madame Web movie? Please tell me they mean Julia Carpenter, because a single mom who loses her physical sight but gains spiritual sight actually intrigues me way more than some gaudy octogenarian prophet.

      No idea, but I would assume a Spider-Woman on its own would make more sense, rather than giving a whole movie to a title character who's never had a solo run in the comics. It really makes me question how Sony is thinking, that they're more likely to do that, than a live-action or animated movie of Silk, Spider-Woman, Spider-Gwen, Spider-Man 2099, or Miles Morales.

      And Hutch Parker producing 'Venom 2', after the Marvel movies he produced under Fox... ugh!!!

        Loading editor
    • At long last, I can start tying every Spider-Man villain to Tony Stark again

        Loading editor
    • This has been a roller coaster of emotions.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: This has been a roller coaster of emotions.

      Before this announcement, whenever I read about older comic book movies, and they mention Spidey being currently in the hands of the MCU, it made me angry knowing it was no longer the case, and get madder at the stuff 'Far From Home' left dangling that wouldn't be followed up on. Now it's a special sign of relief knowing it won't be abandoned.

        Loading editor
    • While this is certainly a victory, I have to admit, I'm still cautiously optimistic about the future.

      Even with a new deal in place, I bet Disney is sweating like crazy in full awareness that Sony could just pull the rug all over again. And while a third movie will certainly be able to tie up Far From Home's loose ends, I'm wondering if Disney will try to create a contingency plan this time around - a way, almost, for them to be able to retire the character should the deal not be expanded upon, allowing him to more naturally go to Sony. And that could result in several changes being made to the film's plot.

      Most of the cast and crew has stated that they want to keep this a New York movie, so my concerns that they would not be able to use the supporting cast have pretty much dissipated. What I'm more concerned about are the villains. Both Watts and Holland have expressed their desire to have Kraven be the villain, but there are two problems with this. First, they've been setting up a Sinister Six on the big screen since Homecoming, and not only do they not have enough players to do that just yet (my count is Vulture, Shocker, Tinkerer (?), Scorpion, and Mysterio, unless they introduce the sixth member in the third movie), but if they rush it into a movie about Spider-Man struggling with the revelation of his identity (a premise more suited for Kraven anyways) it would end up with the same rushing and cramming problems as The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Second, given Sony's plans to apparently make a Kraven movie, they might force Marvel to abandon their plans of Kraven as the villain.

      At the same time though, I am intrigued about it as well. It was clear from the literal "passing the torch" sequence in Endgame that Marvel is pushing for Spidey, along with Black Panther and Captain Marvel, to be one of the three new pillars of the MCU. And him going back to Sony does not necessarily mean he can't be that.

      Ideally, here's how I would play out a situation like this: at the end of the third film, Peter and May find themselves in the Sonyverse (using the same Multiverse technique as those in Doctor Strange 2), where they eventually decide to reside in order for the revelation of Peter's identity to blow over. From there, Spider-Man interacts with the characters in that universe in a second trilogy of films (adhering more directly with the traditional supporting cast) and in the spin-off films, until the next Endgame rolls around. There, Norman Osborn will be the new big bad (at least according to the rumors), and Peter will lead a group of superpowered individuals through the Multiverse against him. Once the day is won, Spider-Man will do one of two things. If Sony ends up getting bought out by then, he will retire (I doubt they would kill him honestly). But if Sony still has full rights, he will decide to take a tip from Thor and continue travelling the Multiverse. In all honesty, that's both intriguing and concerning. I love the Multiverse, but I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice the character's integrity in order to get it. These two had better play their cards right for us fans, is all I'm saying.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: A bit off-topic, but remember when Sony claimed Feige might be too busy with the Marvel properties (including the recent acquired Fantastic Four and X-Men), to be able to also oversee Spider-Man movies under Marvel Studios?

      Well with the news of Feige overseeing a future 'Star Wars' movie, excuse me if I don't buy it.

      Feige (probably): "Oh, I'm not involved in Spider-Man movies anymore? Well sucks for you, Sony, cause I'll just fill that void with freaking Star Wars instead!"

      I'm thinking it was less Feige saying that and more of this:

      Iger/Horn: "Kevin! My man! Buddy-bud-bud!... Can you help us with Star Wars? Galaxy's Edge ain't doing so hot, and now our parks have lost their head - literally. So can you and your OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR expertise give us- I mean, Kathleen, a much-needed boost? Because Kevin... I love you... You - complete - me".

      Feige: "Just shut up... You had me at 'Star Wars'".

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Big Kev's doing what?

      It would be cool if he adapted some stuff from Star Wars Vol 1, cause I kind of want to see Jaxxon in a movie.

      This is a bit off-topic, but IIRC Disney's new canon policy means that none of the stories in the Star Wars canon will receive adaptations. Though they could make a story centered during that time period (and pretty much have been doing that their whole time on Star Wars).

        Loading editor
    • A few days late on this, but we can apparently thank Tom Holland for this deal being eventually reached. Until Holland stepped in, the negotiations were apparently dead.

      A case of how a big actor of a leading role can be a double-edged sword when it comes to the making of movies. In this case it's obviously a positive one, and hopefully leads to greater things once the 2 MCU movies with Spidey are eventually made.

        Loading editor
    • For those wondering if 'Ant-Man 3' will ever happen, Peyton Reed has signed on to direct it, with a predicted release date in 2022 (my guess July 29).

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: For those wondering if 'Ant-Man 3' will ever happen, Peyton Reed has signed on to direct it, with a predicted release date in 2022 (my guess July 29).

      Michael Douglas recently confirmed that he will be in the sequel, with a planned filming start date of January 2021. [[1]]

        Loading editor
    • More release dates for MCU movies, making the years 2021, 2022, AND 2023, with 4 MCU movies each (essentially one per season).

      All bets on table for which is which.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: More release dates for MCU movies, making the years 2021, 2022, AND 2023, with 4 MCU movies each (essentially one per season).

      All bets on table for which is which.

      Gotta get those X-Men an Fantastic Four and Deadpool movies out.

        Loading editor
    • Also: The October 2023 release date seems like it could be Feige wanting to get in on the "early October supervillain-reimagined-as-antihero origin story" action Venom and Joker found.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: Also: The October 2023 release date seems like it could be Feige wanting to get in on the "early October supervillain-reimagined-as-antihero origin story" action Venom and Joker found.

      If it's just for an anti-hero (if one could call him that), I could see the Blade movie being in that slot, if not the February (Black History Month) slot of that same year. And with 'Joker's financial success, it remains to be seen if it's R-rated or not (I'm of the opinion it's not obligatory, but if the Deadpool movies will remain R-rated then so be it).

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: Also: The October 2023 release date seems like it could be Feige wanting to get in on the "early October supervillain-reimagined-as-antihero origin story" action Venom and Joker found.

      If it's just for an anti-hero (if one could call him that), I could see the Blade movie being in that slot, if not the February (Black History Month) slot of that same year. And with 'Joker's financial success, it remains to be seen if it's R-rated or not (I'm of the opinion it's not obligatory, but if the Deadpool movies will remain R-rated then so be it).

      While I also agree that the rating isn't obligatory, I wouldn't be surprised if they go either way. Sure, Disney probably won't allow R-ratings for IPs without previously established success in that area, but considering that Blade: Trinity (as well as non-related franchises like Terminators 3-5 and the first two Wolverine movies) have been criticized for not going the extra mile, Disney might be willing to give it a shot if they felt the risk could pay off.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: Also: The October 2023 release date seems like it could be Feige wanting to get in on the "early October supervillain-reimagined-as-antihero origin story" action Venom and Joker found.

      If it's just for an anti-hero (if one could call him that), I could see the Blade movie being in that slot, if not the February (Black History Month) slot of that same year. And with 'Joker's financial success, it remains to be seen if it's R-rated or not (I'm of the opinion it's not obligatory, but if the Deadpool movies will remain R-rated then so be it).

      While I also agree that the rating isn't obligatory, I wouldn't be surprised if they go either way. Sure, Disney probably won't allow R-ratings for IPs without previously established success in that area, but considering that Blade: Trinity (as well as non-related franchises like Terminators 3-5 and the first two Wolverine movies) have been criticized for not going the extra mile, Disney might be willing to give it a shot if they felt the risk could pay off.

      Said movies you mentioned, had a ton more problems than just the PG-13 rating, that an R-rating alone wouldn't save (looking at the very recent 'Terminator 6', while an improvement, had more to do than just the R-rating, and still had problems).

      For something like Blade, they could go the 'Star Trek 6' or 'From Dusk till Dawn' route, of having the colour of the bloodshed simply not be red (which is what the MPAA have a bigger issue of rather than the quantity). In his own movie with vampires; or as a guest in other movies or shows by having him slash open robots, animals or aliens.

        Loading editor
    • Marvel Studios' Black Widow - Official Teaser Trailer

      Marvel Studios' Black Widow - Official Teaser Trailer

        Loading editor
    • "I don't think I want to watch it, since she died in 'Endgame'! What's the point?"

      When the hell has that stopped anyone?

      If this ends up like 'Winter Soldier' did, then I'm excited. And I'm not saying no to seeing more of what was happening after 'Civil War'.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: "I don't think I want to watch it, since she died in 'Endgame'! What's the point?"

      When the hell has that stopped anyone?

      If this ends up like 'Winter Soldier' did, then I'm excited. And I'm not saying no to seeing more of what was happening after 'Civil War'.

      It's also like people are overlooking this movie is clearly about introducing a new Black Widow.

      Like how the Hawkeye series is about introducing a new Hawkeye.

        Loading editor
    • IT LOOKS SO GOOD.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: "I don't think I want to watch it, since she died in 'Endgame'! What's the point?"

      When the hell has that stopped anyone?

      If this ends up like 'Winter Soldier' did, then I'm excited. And I'm not saying no to seeing more of what was happening after 'Civil War'.

      It's also like people are overlooking this movie is clearly about introducing a new Black Widow.

      Like how the Hawkeye series is about introducing a new Hawkeye.

      That too. The easiest explanation is both that, and for the sake of adding more closure to Natasha's story that she didn't really get in 'Infinity War' or 'Endgame' (unless one doesn't care about the character to begin with, or "there's no stakes in the story" with her being dead (although that didn't stop people from enjoying prequel games like 'Vice City Stories' or 'Red Dead Redemption 2')).

      Even in 'Endgame', her mysterious past was hinted at right before she died, with how she didn't know about her father's name, but Red Skull did.

        Loading editor
    • This is just a guess, but I assume the absence of O.T. Fagbenle's character ("Mason") in the Black Widow trailer means he's the Taskmaster.

      Only room for one "Tony" in the MCU.

        Loading editor
    • How do you think She-Hulk will play out? Like how do you think she will get her powers from?

        Loading editor
    • Chasenina1 wrote: How do you think She-Hulk will play out? Like how do you think she will get her powers from?

      Predictably, I think it will involve some form of Gamma radiation, mixed with the experiment of the Super Soldier formula. Whether Bruce is Jen's cousin who gives it to her via blood transfusion is up for debate, but other than that, I've no idea.

        Loading editor
    • Ryan Reynolds has confirmed that 'Deadpool 3' is currently being worked on at Marvel.

      I'm expecting jokes about the 21st Century Fox purchase, being controlled by the mouse overlord, and (assuming it's in the MCU and it's more like the comics version) questioning if Wade is a mutant in the movie or not (similarly to 'Deadpool 1' where he asked if it was the Patrick Stewart or James McAvoy versions of Professor X).

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Ryan Reynolds has confirmed that 'Deadpool 3' is currently being worked on at Marvel.

      I'm expecting jokes about the 21st Century Fox purchase, being controlled by the mouse overlord, and (assuming it's in the MCU and it's more like the comics version) questioning if Wade is a mutant in the movie or not (similarly to 'Deadpool 1' where he asked if it was the Patrick Stewart or James McAvoy versions of Professor X).

      Deadpool 1 pretty conclusively proves that this version of Wade is a mutant, since Francis was specifically trying to trigger his people's mutant genes through stress.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Ryan Reynolds has confirmed that 'Deadpool 3' is currently being worked on at Marvel.

      I'm expecting jokes about the 21st Century Fox purchase, being controlled by the mouse overlord, and (assuming it's in the MCU and it's more like the comics version) questioning if Wade is a mutant in the movie or not (similarly to 'Deadpool 1' where he asked if it was the Patrick Stewart or James McAvoy versions of Professor X).

      Deadpool 1 pretty conclusively proves that this version of Wade is a mutant, since Francis was specifically trying to trigger his people's mutant genes through stress.

      I know that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they made the Wade in 'Deadpool 3' a different version from the one we saw in the previous movies (MCU/199999 and not TRN414) that's not a mutant, and make a joke about that.

      Him and Juggernaut are sad cases of people thinking they're mutants, just because the movies made them as such, therefore casuals think that's the case in the comics as well (not counting Ultimate). So I would hope MCU versions would rectify that misinformation.

        Loading editor
    • I kind of want it to be about the merger, in the same way that the first two movies are parodies of origin story movies and their sequels.

      Give me Mojo, as practically an avatar for Kevin Feige, trying to find a way to fit Deadpool into a movie appropriate for Disney and the MCU; trying to get him to tone down the violence, tone down the language, tone down the sexy stuff, only to find that the Merc with a Mouth is not so easily controlled.

      Also through in cameos from characters from FOX properties, Marvel TV properties, basically anyone they can get where the meta can be that they're all from universes Mojo "cancelled."

      This will never happen but I can dream.

        Loading editor
    • I'm assuming Deadpool 3 will be an actual sequel rather than a reboot, so how about it's about Deadpool getting transferred to Earth-199999, and basically being a riff on capitalism? (because the merger). I wouldn't make it entirely about that though, since the Deadpool films are still relatively grounded in the X-Men world.

      Also, you forgot one joke: Deadpool discovers Thanos' existence, and tries to save his life the way "Thanos" saved his in Deadpool 2.

        Loading editor
    • Christian Bale is apparently currently in talks for a role in 'Thor: Love and Thunder'.

      Very interesting if true. Not only because he previously was Batman, but also that Bale is listed among those people in movies who've spoken out against superhero movies (after he's played a major one).

      No idea what is planned for said movie, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's in for something major like a villain (like Gorr or something). EDIT: Or as some people have suggested, Dario Agger.

        Loading editor
    • Seeing some people suggesting Beta Ray Bill, which people are only now being aware being an actual thing. Although I think that would be kind of a waste to just use Bale for mo-cap and voice (for a role that's not on a level of Thanos).

      And the obvious joke that spawned from that suggestion, was Bale going all the way to transform himself into a horse-man for the role.

        Loading editor
    • Beta Ray Bale

        Loading editor
    • Well that's a shame...

      Scott Derrickson has dropped out of directing 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' due to creative differences.

      Main reason I think it's a shame, is that it would've been a safe bet keeping the same one, especially with how well the last one turned out.

      Article mentions that production will start in May, so hopefully finding a replacement won't be too hard.

      EDIT: He'll remain signed on as executive producer.

        Loading editor
    • Didn't we get a comment from Feige about a week ago where he appeared to walk back from calling Doctor Strange 2 a horror movie? That probably has something to do with it.

      He probably wanted to push this thing as far as a PG-13 rating could go, and that wouldn't pair well with a series on a streaming service that is (ostensibly) for families.

      I'm sure this means great things for Blade and Moon Knight.

        Loading editor
    • One thing I saw, was simply clarifying that it would have "scary things" in it, while not being an outright horror movie. Which even the first movie, had a jumpscare with the broom in the closet Christine was in.

      Another possibility I heard, is that since 'WandaVision' ties directly into it, what they were planning in that series might've painted Derrickson into a corner creatively.

        Loading editor
    • That's what I was getting at. This might be the first hiccup in trying to heavily integrate series on Disney+ with the movies.

      And - you know - I get it. Derrickson signed on to the first Doctor Strange with the understanding that as long as things went well he'd come back to do a sequel where he would have more creative freedom to make a some Lovecraftian horror movie. Then he found himself making the back end of a story the first two-thirds(?) of which he has no control over and come from what is essentially the modern counterpart to what The Disney Channel was 20+ years ago.

      The deal kept getting worse for him. Can't blame the guy for bailing before Disney or Feige altered the deal further.

        Loading editor
    • One thing I've found other people misunderstanding (not just with 'In the Multiverse of Madness', but also with the upcoming 'New Mutants'), is the idea that "if it is horror, it has to be R-rated in order to be effective." Ignoring the fact that two recent horror movies that were very well received, 'A Quiet Place' and 'Under the Shadow' (both of which I've seen), were rated PG-13. Neither of which relied much (if any) on gore or violence to be effective (which would've most likely earned them an R-rating).

      And if one wants a classic example, 'Poltergeist' was PG (which is essentially PG-13 equivalent, since nowadays PG is used for kids movies), which is kinda what I can see a Doctor Strange movie doing, involving supernatural beings from other dimensions and such.

        Loading editor
    • Speaking of horror movies, we recently got two trailers for Marvel films: [New Mutants] and [Morbius]. I initially wasn't going to say anything because they obviously aren't in the MCU, but then came the reveal in the latter...

      I mean, I have very little confidence either will be good, and I'm fairly certain New Mutants will pull a Dark Phoenix (an open ending to the story, leading me to skip it because somehow Apocalypse actually made sense as an ending), but Morbius might lure me in for continuity's sake. Oy vey.

        Loading editor
    • Regarding 'Morbius', that's assuming anything comes out of it. I partly doubt Feige himself is planning to use said things (in that and 'Venom') in his own movies. Kinda frustrating seeing people jump to conclusions it's in the MCU, even though this isn't the first time an actor portrayed a character in more than one universe (since this is still the SUMC).

        Loading editor
    • $10 says that's all of Michael Keaton that's in Morbius and the next Spider-Man movie he's in picks up with Toomes where Homecoming left off.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Regarding 'Morbius', that's assuming anything comes out of it. I partly doubt Feige himself is planning to use said things (in that and 'Venom') in his own movies. Kinda frustrating seeing people jump to conclusions it's in the MCU, even though this isn't the first time an actor portrayed a character in more than one universe (since this is still the SUMC).

      It's probably what Pascal was saying way back when: the events of Earth-199999 are there, but only the Spidey-centric stuff is utilized, and it's in a separate universe, leading Vulture to come back in the third Spidey film with no changes to the continuity. In other words, this is more convoluted than Never Say Never Again.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Regarding 'Morbius', that's assuming anything comes out of it. I partly doubt Feige himself is planning to use said things (in that and 'Venom') in his own movies. Kinda frustrating seeing people jump to conclusions it's in the MCU, even though this isn't the first time an actor portrayed a character in more than one universe (since this is still the SUMC).

      It's probably what Pascal was saying way back when: the events of Earth-199999 are there, but only the Spidey-centric stuff is utilized, and it's in a separate universe, leading Vulture to come back in the third Spidey film with no changes to the continuity. In other words, this is more convoluted than Never Say Never Again.

      That's what I hope. I don't like the idea that Feige & co. has to change their already existing plans, just to fit whatever bullcrap Sony is doing. And after this deal is done, if Holland's Spider-Man will only appear in SUMC movies, then I'll pass on those.

        Loading editor
    • It's times like this I wish everyone could default to Dwayne McDuffie's "Hey, maybe every TV show doesn't actually take place in a kid's imagination" idea.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: It's times like this I wish everyone could default to Dwayne McDuffie's "Hey, maybe every TV show doesn't actually take place in a kid's imagination" idea.

      Not sure if I should feel good or not for getting that reference.

      Though sadly, with the MCU's success, a shared universe is what major studios are going for (but without the planning of Kevin Feige). And even with WB/DC, who may or may not be doing their movies to be stand-alones, there is still the idea of a shared universe in the minds of the audience.

        Loading editor
    • So I looked at the trailer again, and towards the end, in the scene where Leto is walking down the street wearing an orange shirt, you can see a poster of Spider-Man with the word “Murderer” graffitied on it. This seems to confirm that the MCU’s events happened (specifically referencing Far From Home), and I’m wondering what that might mean. My guess is they’ll try to work it so that events in this film will play out such that it cannot have an impact on the MCU, but I’m not sure how they’ll coordinate that since Pascal isn’t involved with this film.

      EDIT: Even more strange is that the picture of Spider-Man in question looks like that of the Raimi suit.

      LoveWaffle wrote: It's times like this I wish everyone could default to Dwayne McDuffie's "Hey, maybe every TV show doesn't actually take place in a kid's imagination" idea.

      Two things. One: That might actually be the best way to describe it, since the crossovers happen but nothing actually impacts other shows for the most part (after all, The Walking Dead cannot actually take place in the same universe as Seinfeld). Two: Didn’t McDuffie create the Tommy Westphall Theory?

        Loading editor
    • Said picture is from the PS4 Spider-Man game, except mirrored version of the picture seen in loading screens, and wearing the Raimi-suit (which changes what Spidey is wearing in loading screens and cut-scenes). Which is weird to me they chose that specific costume, since if they wanted to fool people into thinking it's linked to the MCU, they could've taken a screenshot of Spidey with the costume from 'Homecoming' or 'Far From Home' (which are in the game).

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote: Didn’t McDuffie create the Tommy Westphall Theory?

      The thing a lot of people miss about the Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis is that McDuffie wants you reject the notion that it exists at all. He was making a case against deriving continuity between comic books based on guest appearances by pointing out that if you were to treat another medium like this you would have to conclude a large swath of popular TV series exist inside a child's imagination. It's an argument to the absurdity of the premise.

      And that's kind of how I feel about this. So Michael Keaton's Vulture cameos in Morbius. Is it going to matter any more than Clark Gregg starring as Phil Coulson in 7 seasons of Agents of SHIELD?

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Said picture is from the PS4 Spider-Man game, except mirrored version of the picture seen in loading screens, and wearing the Raimi-suit (which changes what Spidey is wearing in loading screens and cut-scenes). Which is weird to me they chose that specific costume, since if they wanted to fool people into thinking it's linked to the MCU, they could've taken a screenshot of Spidey with the costume from 'Homecoming' or 'Far From Home' (which are in the game).

      I think there's two possibilities for that. Either they don't have the rights to use the Stark Suit and are using the Webbed Suit as a stock photo while they try to get the Stark Suit, or they think that using the Webbed Suit is a clever way to make people question whether or not it's in the MCU.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Said picture is from the PS4 Spider-Man game, except mirrored version of the picture seen in loading screens, and wearing the Raimi-suit (which changes what Spidey is wearing in loading screens and cut-scenes). Which is weird to me they chose that specific costume, since if they wanted to fool people into thinking it's linked to the MCU, they could've taken a screenshot of Spidey with the costume from 'Homecoming' or 'Far From Home' (which are in the game).

      I think there's two possibilities for that. Either they don't have the rights to use the Stark Suit and are using the Webbed Suit as a stock photo while they try to get the Stark Suit, or they think that using the Webbed Suit is a clever way to make people question whether or not it's in the MCU.

      Both seem likely, and when I think about it, the second possibility would work, since it would stir up conversation on social media. Which for any piece of media, is what they want.

      Although if the first one is true, then it makes me question what the actual deal actually is Sony did with Disney to keep Holland's Spidey in the MCU, if they can't even use the design. If so, if Holland hypothetically appears as Spidey in 'Venom 2', will his suit look different? If it will, then I have to wonder how they would be able to sell the idea of being in the MCU, when costumes aren't consistent.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: I have to wonder how they would be able to sell the idea of being in the MCU, when costumes aren't consistent.

      As long as they can get Tom Holland as Spider-Man no one's really going to pay attention to the costume.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: I have to wonder how they would be able to sell the idea of being in the MCU, when costumes aren't consistent.

      As long as they can get Tom Holland as Spider-Man no one's really going to pay attention to the costume.

      Plus, they'll probably just handwave it away.

      Villain: "What's with the new costume, Wall-Crawler?" Spider-Man: "At least my fashion sense is better than yours."

        Loading editor
    • Feige said Spider-Man would be the only hero capable of crossing cinematic universes. So to me that's direct confirmation that Morbius, Venom and all of SONY's other stuff is not canon to the MCU.

      It just sucks because you know SONY's going to milk their irrelevant side stories' tangential connections to the MCU for all they're worth.

        Loading editor
    • Meanwhile, here's something refreshing to wash our mouths with.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Meanwhile, here's something refreshing to wash our mouths with.

      Real odd how this comes out the same day Johansson and Pugh (along with Taika Waititi and Anthony Hopkins) land Oscar nominations. Also, Endgame was nominated for Visual Effects. And nothing else. Which ticks me off a bit.

        Loading editor
    • And people also acting like 'Joker' landing Oscar nominations is some big leap for comic book movies, as if both 'Black Panther' AND 'Into the Spider-Verse' didn't win any last time (including the former being nominated for Best Picture).

        Loading editor
    • Marvel should rip off Scorsese. They'd get more nominations.

      Taskmaster is acting like Taskmaster so that's good.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Marvel should rip off Scorsese. They'd get more nominations.

      A Kingpin movie, with Vincent D'Onofrio back as Wilson Fisk, and make it their version of 'Goodfellas'. Marvel's answer to 'Joker' doing a 'Taxi Driver'.

        Loading editor
    • You remember how Captain America: Civil War had us thinking Zemo was going to reactivate a small army of failed Winter Soldier candidates and unleash them on the world?

      It seems like Black Widow is either unironically doing that or just doing that again.

      Taskmaster looks better in this trailer, at least.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: And people also acting like 'Joker' landing Oscar nominations is some big leap for comic book movies, as if both 'Black Panther' AND 'Into the Spider-Verse' didn't win any last time (including the former being nominated for Best Picture).

      It's less that and more people gushing about how Joker is supposedly the greatest piece of entertainment in the history of history (spoiler: it isn't, it's decent at best) and that this validates that argument. Either that, or they're just part of the right wing trying to push back against the left wing, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Joker is a left-leaning movie (and apparently director Todd Phillips is oblivious, too).

      KalKent wrote:

      Nurdboy42 wrote: Marvel should rip off Scorsese. They'd get more nominations.

      A Kingpin movie, with Vincent D'Onofrio back as Wilson Fisk, and make it their version of 'Goodfellas'. Marvel's answer to 'Joker' doing a 'Taxi Driver'.

      That... actually sounds awesome. Anything to get my man D'Onofrio a nomination 32 years in the making (Full Metal Jacket). Though Sony would probably have to do it, in which case I'd hand it to their Classics division to actually cater to modern Oscar-consuming audiences.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Meanwhile, here's something refreshing to wash our mouths with.

      Thank God. This looks miles better than Morbius and very clearly shows the difference between an MCU product and a SONY product.

        Loading editor
    • I just checked, and found out 'Morbius' is being co-written by Art Marcum & Matt Holloway, the same duo who co-wrote 'Iron Man 1'.

      I was gonna say: "How the mighty have fallen!" But then I realized that since then, they've done 'Punisher: War Zone', 'Transformers 5', and 'Men in Black: International'. So maybe 'Iron Man 1' was a fluke, or they didn't have that much input compared to the other people involved in it.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe Iron Man 1 was mostly carried by Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Bridges.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: Maybe Iron Man 1 was mostly carried by Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Bridges.

      True, and not everything written in the script ends up on the script. The other movies I mentioned weren't so lucky having the right people behind it.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: Maybe Iron Man 1 was mostly carried by Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Bridges.

      It's been widely stated that a major portion of the dialogue (like, upwards of 80%) was improvised by the actors, and that the use of humor in that movie is what inspired Marvel's usual humorous track record (despite different movies using different styles of humor and emphasizing them to varying degrees).

        Loading editor
    • No surprise at all, 'Captain Marvel 2' has been confirmed to be happening (Feige mentioned it in passing previously at SDCC).

      Of what we know:

      • Megan McDonnell, writer for 'WandaVision', is in talks to be writing the script for it.
      • Directors and co-writers Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck will not return for it, but Marvel has potentially other plans for them (like Disney+), and a female filmmaker is planned to take their place(s).
      • It's eyeing a potential 2022 release (I would guess either the February 18 or July 29 slots).
      • It will take place in the present (so thankfully not repeating what DC/WB is doing with Wonder Woman, by having it take place in the past again for the sequel).
        Loading editor
    • My takeaway from this is that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 has been pushed to 2023. Just feel like Marvel Studios would want to put some distance between the two as long as they cover a lot of the same territory.

      2022 is probably Blade, Black Panther II, Ant-Man and the Wasp², and Captain Marvel 2.

        Loading editor
    • Considering they set up Ronan having an obsession with Carol, I'm actually very disappointed that the sequel will take place in the 2020's when Ronan is dead, and not in the 2000's or pre-Guardians 2010's.

      Oh, and Deadline reported that Falcon and Winter Soldier is premiering in August, so that's cool.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Considering they set up Ronan having an obsession with Carol

      They did?

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Considering they set up Ronan having an obsession with Carol

      They did?

      Obsession wouldn't be the word I would use, but rather, as the MCU wiki puts it: "he vowed that they [the Kree] would soon return to get her [Carol] back and use her as a weapon."

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Accusers will play a part in the sequel, and perhaps following what Ronan was trying to do.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Considering they set up Ronan having an obsession with Carol

      They did?

      Obsession wouldn't be the word I would use, but rather, as the MCU wiki puts it: "he vowed that they [the Kree] would soon return to get her [Carol] back and use her as a weapon."

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Accusers will play a part in the sequel, and perhaps following what Ronan was trying to do.

      Really just took that to mean the Kree would be after her, not Ronan specifically.

      They've had two shots to make Ronan an interesting villain and blown both of them. I have no problem with them introducing another Kree villain instead of giving Ronan a third one.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Considering they set up Ronan having an obsession with Carol

      They did?

      Obsession wouldn't be the word I would use, but rather, as the MCU wiki puts it: "he vowed that they [the Kree] would soon return to get her [Carol] back and use her as a weapon."

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Accusers will play a part in the sequel, and perhaps following what Ronan was trying to do.

      Really just took that to mean the Kree would be after her, not Ronan specifically.

      They've had two shots to make Ronan an interesting villain and blown both of them. I have no problem with them introducing another Kree villain instead of giving Ronan a third one.

      Except I saw Ronan's second appearance as being too minor for making him "more interesting" to begin with, and more so a nod to what's been established before in 'GotG 1' (along with including Korath, who in 'Captain Marvel' we learned was unexpressive, which admittedly wasn't much but was something).

        Loading editor
    • Well that's unexpected!

      Sam Raimi is in talks to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      Remains to be seen if it actually happens (I remember when he was in talks, among many, to direct to planned Flash movie for WB/DC). But if it happens, it was kinda foretold in 'Spider-Man 2'.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Well that's unexpected!

      Sam Raimi is in talks to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      Remains to be seen if it actually happens (I remember when he was in talks, among many, to direct to planned Flash movie for WB/DC). But if it happens, it was kinda foretold in 'Spider-Man 2'.

      The man really loves his Ditko, apparently.

      But for real, considering he also has a background in horror, this would actually be a great fit. Plus, he hasn't directed a movie since 2013's Oz the Great and Powerful, so this should be a much-needed return to form.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Well that's unexpected!

      Sam Raimi is in talks to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      Remains to be seen if it actually happens (I remember when he was in talks, among many, to direct to planned Flash movie for WB/DC). But if it happens, it was kinda foretold in 'Spider-Man 2'.

      I'm ready for a Bruce Campbell cameo.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Well that's unexpected!

      Sam Raimi is in talks to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      Remains to be seen if it actually happens (I remember when he was in talks, among many, to direct to planned Flash movie for WB/DC). But if it happens, it was kinda foretold in 'Spider-Man 2'.

      The man really loves his Ditko, apparently.

      But for real, considering he also has a background in horror, this would actually be a great fit. Plus, he hasn't directed a movie since 2013's Oz the Great and Powerful, so this should be a much-needed return to form.

      My thinking also. The 'Evil Dead' trilogy, 'The Gift' and 'Drag Me to Hell'. And previous work with superhero movies doesn't hurt, not just the Spidey-trilogy, but also 'Darkman'.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Well that's unexpected!

      Sam Raimi is in talks to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      Remains to be seen if it actually happens (I remember when he was in talks, among many, to direct to planned Flash movie for WB/DC). But if it happens, it was kinda foretold in 'Spider-Man 2'.

      I just checked what the article has been updated with, and that is that Rachel McAdams won't reprise her role as Christine Palmer. A bit of a shame to me, since I like her as an actress, but if the story they're telling doesn't include a romantic sub-plot, then it's fine by me.

        Loading editor
    • Wait, after hyping up Palmer as Night Nurse, and even going so far as to forbid Netflix from using Linda Carter (or officially giving Claire Temple the Night Nurse moniker), they're not even going to bring her back?

      Ugh, what a waste of a great actress and a potentially great character. Apparently the comic book version flirts a lot with Nightcrawler in his solo series, so I'll cross my fingers for a return in the X-Men properties.

        Loading editor
    • Michael Waldron, the head writer for the upcoming Disney+ series 'Loki', is now attached as writing 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'.

      No idea if it means Jade Bartlett is completely out, or the existing script is getting re-worked on.

        Loading editor
    • I've decided that if Sam Raimi does sign on for Doctor Strange 2, then Bruce Campbell, Lucy Lawless and Ted Raimi should be the Vishanti. I will have it no other way.

      As for Christine, her role in the first Doctor Strange was to be the link between Strange's old life as a surgeon and his new life as a sorcerer. Now that Strange is completely immersed in his role as a master of the mystic arts, I'm not too upset there isn't much of a reason to bring her back. She wouldn't be the first actor to be left behind by how the MCU unfolds.

        Loading editor
    • Jennifer Kaytin Robinson has now been recruited to help work on the script for 'Thor: Love and Thunder', along with Taika Waititi.

      To be topical, it's impressive how Waititi just won the Oscar for writing 'JoJo Rabbit' for two reasons. The first is that it's after Todd Phillips (of 'Joker' fame) claiming you can't make a successful edgy comedy anymore because of "PC-culture". The second is I saw people claiming he wouldn't win, because apparently making a superhero movie makes one less respectable in their eyes.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Jennifer Kaytin Robinson has now been recruited to help work on the script for 'Thor: Love and Thunder', along with Taika Waititi.

      To be topical, it's impressive how Waititi just won the Oscar for writing 'JoJo Rabbit' for two reasons. The first is that it's after Todd Phillips (of 'Joker' fame) claiming you can't make a successful edgy comedy anymore because of "PC-culture". The second is I saw people claiming he wouldn't win, because apparently making a superhero movie makes one less respectable in their eyes.

      Phillips' comment (while not entirely unwarranted) has basically just been written off as him trying to make Joker sound more important than it actually is. I'm not sure if a narrative has really been drawn as to whether or not being in a comic book movie makes you less eligible for critical praise, since there are so few examples to choose from when it comes to writing and directing. I guess to list a few others: Tim Burton has remained a household name since doing the Batman films, James Mangold just did his first Best Picture nominee as a follow-up to Logan, Jon Favreau did two billion-dollar movies after Iron Man 2, and Christopher Nolan - well, he's pretty self-explanatory. A lot of other directors just kinda faded into obscurity (Joe Johnston), went back to their roots (Shane Black), and/or made stinkers from that point onwards (Alan Taylor).

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't go as far as say there's a "narrative", but it is an idea one can draw based on people's comments (Scorcese's and Coppola's comments don't help). The person I saw claiming that Waititi wouldn't win an Oscar, referred to him as "Marvel boy", which is either the "narrative" I mentioned, or simply a DC/Snyder fanboy who automatically dislikes anyone associated with MCU properties (unless they happen to do a non-MCU property they like of course).

        Loading editor
    • Seems like we missed this from last month, but ahead the Disney investor's meeting, a plot synopsis for 'The Eternals' was released, which confirms both that it's the earliest MCU-movie, taking place over 7000 years, and also pretty recent since it will take place following the events of 'Endgame'.

      The latter part is surprising to me, since I assumed with the scale of when it will take place, that it would cover everything up to the present, but slightly before 'Infinity War' and all that.

        Loading editor
    • So does it began thousands of years ago and then jump to after Endgame (similar to the first Thor movie), or does it literally take place over 7000 years? If it's the latter - that's gonna be trippy (but also undoubtedly cool).

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote: So does it began thousands of years ago and then jump to after Endgame (similar to the first Thor movie), or does it literally take place over 7000 years? If it's the latter - that's gonna be trippy (but also undoubtedly cool).

      It's the latter. It will be unique in that the timescale it takes place over will be epic, especially when compared to previous movies.

      My guess is that it will start after the events of 'Endgame', and will flashback to 7000 years ago, and will go through it all until it reaches the present, where the climax will take place.

        Loading editor
    • Final trailer.

      Taskmaster sure is gonna be a treat to watch!

        Loading editor
    • The character 'Mason' portrayed by O-T Fagbenle has not appeared in any of the trailers for Black Widow.

      In case you were wondering who the Taskmaster is.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: The character 'Mason' portrayed by O-T Fagbenle has not appeared in any of the trailers for Black Widow.

      In case you were wondering who the Taskmaster is.

      Although he appears on the most recent poster. My guess is that his name is along the lines of Anthony Mason, or Mason is just a pseudonym.

      Also, note how he's watching 'Iron Man 2' when observing Nat's moves in the trailer, though security cam footage (a la 'Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock').

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: The character 'Mason' portrayed by O-T Fagbenle has not appeared in any of the trailers for Black Widow.

      In case you were wondering who the Taskmaster is.

      Although he appears on the most recent poster. My guess is that his name is along the lines of Anthony Mason, or Mason is just a pseudonym.

      Also, note how he's watching 'Iron Man 2' when observing Nat's moves in the trailer, though security cam footage (a la 'Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock').

      My guess is they don't want another character named "Tony" so soon after Iron Man died.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: The character 'Mason' portrayed by O-T Fagbenle has not appeared in any of the trailers for Black Widow.

      In case you were wondering who the Taskmaster is.

      Although he appears on the most recent poster. My guess is that his name is along the lines of Anthony Mason, or Mason is just a pseudonym.

      Also, note how he's watching 'Iron Man 2' when observing Nat's moves in the trailer, though security cam footage (a la 'Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock').

      My guess is they don't want another character named "Tony" so soon after Iron Man died.

      Doing a Frank Castle & Will Simpson then...

        Loading editor
    • https://comicbook.com/marvel/2020/03/09/thor-4-guardians-of-the-galaxy-mcu-crossover/

      Guardians are gonna part ways with Thor on-screen. YAY.

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2020/03/09/thor-4-guardians-of-the-galaxy-mcu-crossover/

      Guardians are gonna part ways with Thor on-screen. YAY.

      While I've always been excited for the movie, the Guardians had me worried, since I got excited by the end of 'Endgame'. Essentially wondering "How long until we see Thor as part of the Guardians proper in a full movie?", and "Will it happen in 'Love and Thunder'?", and if so "How much will they play a part in it?"

      For the last question, I wouldn't be surprised if it's like other solo movies with major guest stars, mainly like 'Civil War'. "So it's technically 'Guardians of the Galaxy 2.5'?"

        Loading editor
    • Tasky watching footage of superheroes and running a training school is more comic accurate than I thought he would be.

        Loading editor
    • So he's got Cap's shield, Hawkeye's bow, Black Panther's claws, Black Widow's acrobatics (I assume)... is Taskmaster gonna get an Iron Man thing?

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: So he's got Cap's shield, Hawkeye's bow, Black Panther's claws, Black Widow's acrobatics (I assume)... is Taskmaster gonna get an Iron Man thing?

      My guess is the hand-repulsor, similar to the portable one that Tony used in 'Civil War' when out of his suit.

      Also, some people noted how after he showed of the Black Panther claws, Taskmaster did a landing similar to Spider-Man. Although with the Sony deal, it may be "unofficial."

        Loading editor
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2020/03/09/thor-4-guardians-of-the-galaxy-mcu-crossover/

      Guardians are gonna part ways with Thor on-screen. YAY.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardians are as big in the movie as Doctor Strange was in Ragnarok - aka not big at all. It'd be great for continuity, but I wouldn't be surprised if they instead focus on the main Thor storyline and give the Guardians almost zero spotlight.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2020/03/09/thor-4-guardians-of-the-galaxy-mcu-crossover/

      Guardians are gonna part ways with Thor on-screen. YAY.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardians are as big in the movie as Doctor Strange was in Ragnarok - aka not big at all. It'd be great for continuity, but I wouldn't be surprised if they instead focus on the main Thor storyline and give the Guardians almost zero spotlight.

      Wonder if it would've been different if Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 didn't get pushed back 3 years.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2020/03/09/thor-4-guardians-of-the-galaxy-mcu-crossover/

      Guardians are gonna part ways with Thor on-screen. YAY.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardians are as big in the movie as Doctor Strange was in Ragnarok - aka not big at all. It'd be great for continuity, but I wouldn't be surprised if they instead focus on the main Thor storyline and give the Guardians almost zero spotlight.

      Wonder if it would've been different if Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 didn't get pushed back 3 years.

      Kevin Feige: Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

        Loading editor
    • I was dreading this would happen on our end.

      Production on 'Shang-Chi' in Australia suspended, as director Destin Daniel Cretton awaits results of COVID-19. I'm both very worried for him and the other crew and cast also. And figures it would happen to the Phase 4-movie I'm most excited for. Although to make it seem less serious, it's only first unit that's been suspended, while "second unit and other production aspects will continue to move ahead."

      Also kinda unrelated, but, 'New Mutants' has been pushed back (again!) due to COVID-19 concerns, getting a new release date later this year. Remains to be seen if things will improve or not, to where if it will happen to 'Black Widow' (Universal already pushed back 'Fast 9' a whole year).

        Loading editor
    • In retrospect, Marvel kind of lucked out by having only two movies on their slate this year.

        Loading editor
    • It happened!

      'Black Widow' has been delayed due to the Coronoavirus pandemic.

      I'm not even going to bother guessing what the new release date will be, or if it affects 'Eternals' also.

      EDIT: On a happier note, 'Shang-Chi' director Destin Daniel Cretton has tested negative for the virus.

        Loading editor
    • If I had to guess, these are the two most-likely scenarios:

      • Black Widow opens at Christmas, Eternals stays where it is for now.
      • Black Widow takes Eternals' release date, and Eternals opens at Christmas instead.

      Disney doesn't really have anything coming out in December. The release windows would be close, but not much closer than, say, Captain Marvel to Endgame, and it minimizes what they will have to the rest of Marvel Studios' slate (which is important for Disney's streaming strategy).

      The big variables are where Disney will move Mulan, and if they will try to re-release Onward once people are going to the movies again.

        Loading editor
    • My prediction is this:

      • Black Widow and Soul get moved to August, catching the tailwind of the summer season. In the case of the former, Guardians of the Galaxy released in August, so I’m guessing Disney and Marvel will see it as a viable option; for the latter, it gives it space between it and Raya and the Last Dragon (which should keep its release date), assuming the situation doesn’t blow over.
      • Eternals keeps its release date, since Marvel movies have been doing well in November, and most movies are getting pushed to then. Additionally, Disney is probably aware that four MCU movies in one year is pretty extreme already.

      As for the non-Marvel ones, since those come with the territory of being Disney:

      • Mulan gets a big Black Panther-style diversity push, taking up Star Wars’ usual Christmas-centric date and goes for the awards (I mainly predict this due to the raves it got out of its premiere).
      • I’m crossing my fingers for a re-release of Onward since it’s a pretty great movie, but I’m not betting on it since Disney wants control of its releases.
      • The New Mutants either gets dropped unceremoniously on Hulu or it gets dumped in February 2021.

      Honestly, as long as it comes out, I’m fine. My life’s already kinda sucky right now thanks to all this, so movie watching is one of my lesser concerns at the moment (though how COVID will impact the industry plus a higher concern).

        Loading editor
    • Mulan gets a big Black Panther-style diversity push, taking up Star Wars’ usual Christmas-centric date and goes for the awards (I mainly predict this due to the raves it got out of its premiere).

      They probably want to put some room between Mulan and Shang-Chi. Both are supposed to be plays for Disney to finally have a huge, breakout hit in China. It is not a coincidence that Shang-Chi is coming out on the Lunar New Year.

        Loading editor
    • New release date for 'Black Widow', for November 6 this year.

      This results in 'Eternals' taking the release date of 'Shang-Chi', which takes 'Doctor Strange 2's, which takes 'Thor 4's, which gets February 18, 2022 slot.

      Of note is that 'Black Panther 2' still has the May 6, 2022 slot (no surprise), and the sequel for 'Captain Marvel' has the date July 8 of the same year (something positive out of the news).

      Interestingly, the third Spider-Man movie's date is unchanged (since it's Sony), which hopefully doesn't change the plans of the story being planned.

      EDIT: Something else positive, Jeff Loveness, writer and producer of 'Rick and Morty', and writer of Marvel books, has been tapped to write 'Ant-Man 3'.

        Loading editor
    • Fitting they would announce all that on the day (well, one of them) New Mutants was supposed to come out.

        Loading editor
    • It was just pointed out to me, with these movie delays (of not just MCU but also 'New Mutants' and Sony's 'Morbius'), that this should give a break to people who still believe superhero fatigue to be a thing. Hopefully, for 'Black Widow's sake, there will be a superhero hunger feeding into its box office when it does come out.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: It was just pointed out to me, with these movie delays (of not just MCU but also 'New Mutants' and Sony's 'Morbius'), that this should give a break to people who still believe superhero fatigue to be a thing. Hopefully, for 'Black Widow's sake, there will be a superhero hunger feeding into its box office when it does come out.

      Also the longest we've gone without a movie in the MCU (and the first time there's more than a year between releases) since the gap between The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: It was just pointed out to me, with these movie delays (of not just MCU but also 'New Mutants' and Sony's 'Morbius'), that this should give a break to people who still believe superhero fatigue to be a thing. Hopefully, for 'Black Widow's sake, there will be a superhero hunger feeding into its box office when it does come out.

      Also the longest we've gone without a movie in the MCU (and the first time there's more than a year between releases) since the gap between The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2.

      Which after an epic of an entry as 'Endgame' was, with 'Far From Home' serving as the epilogue, people are probably fine with a break (even if it was longer than expected).

      Back when 'Iron Man 1' came out, it could seen as an appetizer, before the main dish that was the rest of the MCU, with a new movie coming out at least once every year after that ('Incredible Hulk' being more optional since it's the lowest grossing one). Which I guess would make 'Far From Home' the dessert, albeit a delicious one.

        Loading editor
    • One minor, but still kinda interesting, thing I noticed about the announcement of the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date, was how THR reported on it:

      "Black Panther 2's May 6, 2022, date is unchanged, while Captain Marvel 2 is moving up two weeks [from July 22] to July 8, 2022."

      Which means that Disney has had a date for the movie planned for a while but unannounced, while also being different from the original July 29, 2022 slot that was announced a while back (which at this point we should expect to be subject to change).

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: One minor, but still kinda interesting, thing I noticed about the announcement of the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date, was how THR reported on it:

      "Black Panther 2's May 6, 2022, date is unchanged, while Captain Marvel 2 is moving up two weeks [from July 22] to July 8, 2022."

      Which means that Disney has had a date for the movie planned for a while but unannounced, while also being different from the original July 29, 2022 slot that was announced a while back (which at this point we should expect to be subject to change).

      I'm surprised they haven't officially rescheduled Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. I wager they were waiting to see what that movie's production schedule might be before officially announcing a release date for Captain Marvel 2: Marvel This!.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: One minor, but still kinda interesting, thing I noticed about the announcement of the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date, was how THR reported on it:

      "Black Panther 2's May 6, 2022, date is unchanged, while Captain Marvel 2 is moving up two weeks [from July 22] to July 8, 2022."

      Which means that Disney has had a date for the movie planned for a while but unannounced, while also being different from the original July 29, 2022 slot that was announced a while back (which at this point we should expect to be subject to change).

      I'm surprised they haven't officially rescheduled Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. I wager they were waiting to see what that movie's production schedule might be before officially announcing a release date for Captain Marvel 2: Marvel This!.

      Since Gunn is still signed on, they're probably waiting to see not just when the work he's doing on 'The Suicide Squad' will be done, but also the time he will spend promoting it.

      And since the Guardians will make an appearance in 'Thor 4', whether as major or minor players, it'll fill the same role as their appearances did in 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', of reminding the public of their existence, and hyping their next movie. Which hopefully won't affect the third movie financially in a negative way, by Vol. 2 last coming out at least 6 years before the third one.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Since Gunn is still signed on, they're probably waiting to see not just when the work he's doing on 'The Suicide Squad' will be done, but also the time he will spend promoting it.

      And since the Guardians will make an appearance in 'Thor 4', whether as major or minor players, it'll fill the same role as their appearances did in 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', of reminding the public of their existence, and hyping their next movie. Which hopefully won't affect the third movie financially in a negative way, by Vol. 2 last coming out at least 6 years before the third one.

      Isn't The Suicide Squad done, though? I thought they wrapped production before things started shutting down because of the pandemic. They could presumably restart pre-production the second lockdowns get lifted (not to mention all the things they could do while still in quarantine).

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Since Gunn is still signed on, they're probably waiting to see not just when the work he's doing on 'The Suicide Squad' will be done, but also the time he will spend promoting it.

      And since the Guardians will make an appearance in 'Thor 4', whether as major or minor players, it'll fill the same role as their appearances did in 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', of reminding the public of their existence, and hyping their next movie. Which hopefully won't affect the third movie financially in a negative way, by Vol. 2 last coming out at least 6 years before the third one.

      Isn't The Suicide Squad done, though? I thought they wrapped production before things started shutting down because of the pandemic. They could presumably restart pre-production the second lockdowns get lifted (not to mention all the things they could do while still in quarantine).

      It is, and it's planned to come out August, 2021. But Gunn may be involved in things like reshoots (which for Gunn's and our sakes, hopefully won't be as excessive as first movie).

      Although, they could be going on in pre-development now with Gunn, but with his contract eventually being summoned by WB to do reshoots for 'The Suicide Squad' whenever it's necessary.

      And according to Wikipedia, it was said by Feige at SDCC last year, that Vol. 3 was "in development" (presumably pre-development), hence why my guess is May 5, 2023 for its release, since that's enough time after their appearance in 'Thor 4'. Unless they decide to switch around the 2022 release dates they've set (although I guess that's Disney's decision rather than Feige & Marvel Studios).

        Loading editor
    • Also, with the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date officially being known, that means in 2022, there will be back-to-back-to-back, of movies that the stable geniuses are very much looking forward to, for obvious reasons for each.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Also, with the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date officially being known, that means in 2022, there will be back-to-back-to-back, of movies that the stable geniuses are very much looking forward to, for obvious reasons for each.

      And if the October movie is the third Ant-Man, that would make 2022 the first year where all of Marvel Studios' movies are sequels since 2013.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Also, with the 'Captain Marvel 2' release date officially being known, that means in 2022, there will be back-to-back-to-back, of movies that the stable geniuses are very much looking forward to, for obvious reasons for each.

      And if the October movie is the third Ant-Man, that would make 2022 the first year where all of Marvel Studios' movies are sequels since 2013.

      Reminds me of the complaint people have about movies. "It's only movies that are sequels, adaptations, and remakes/reboots that are successful and/or being made nowadays, and not enough original stand-alone ones!" For the MCU, it's sometimes a combination of the three (with only 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' coming to mind which is technically all three at the same time, being also a sequel/follow-up to 'Civil War').

        Loading editor
    • Sam Raimi confirms he's signed on to direct 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness', and in the interview where he confirms it, he brings up the reference from his film 'Spider-Man 2'.

      Since Raimi has a unique style to his movies, it remains to be seen if it will be shown with people like Feige overseeing it all.

        Loading editor
    • Things are moving again (per Deadline):

      • Spider-Man 3 moves to November 5, 2021 from that July. Not really a surprise since Sony just moved Venom: Let There Be Carnage (what a title!) to the weekend before it's old release date.
      • Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness lost its release date to Spider-Man and is now opening on March 25, 2022. I hope this and WandaVision can be enjoyed on their own.
      • Thor: Love and Thunder moves UP a week to February 11, right before Valentines Day.
      • The sequel to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse takes the October 7, 2022 release date that Marvel Studios had claimed for an unspecified movie.

      With FIVE movies currently slated for 2022, my takeaway from this is that all of these plans are super temporary. Don't be surprised to see them move again.

        Loading editor
    • All of Hollywood will be in a state of flux until it's safe to shoot anything.

        Loading editor
    • As soon as 'Venom 2's release was announced, I called that 'Spider-Man 3' would move as a result. Although I didn't expect to a date like November, since it's usually not the season for a mainline Spidey-movie, so I won't be surprised if the two end up being swapped with each other later on.

      EDIT: Although I just realized, with these release date changes lately for the Marvel movies, and there still hasn't been a new date for 'New Mutants'. I've seen the question come up about "Why don't they (Disney) just release it on streaming services like Disney+ or Hulu?" And the answer to that, is that there is still an output deal in effect until 2022, for Fox movies to be exclusive to the HBO streaming services when not in theatres (hence 'Dark Phoenix' being made available on it recently).

        Loading editor
    • Since news are slow due to the COVID-19 shenanigans...

      Remember when Sony threatened us with announced the plans for a SPUMC-flick based on the well-known and iconic supporting Spider-Man character Jackpot? Well, Marc Guggenheim is doing a script for it. Recently, it was also announced that S.J. Clarkson, who's directed episodes of the Netflix shows 'Jessica Jones' and 'The Defenders', has signed on to direct a female-led Marvel movie for Sony; but that remains to be seen if that's related or not.

      It's been pointed out how weird it is that Sony are moving ahead with a movie for a character like Jackpot, but not yet for obvious ones like Silver Sable, Black Cat, Spider-Gwen or Silk (some of which are known to be planned at different stages). Although just because a script is being worked on, and probably finished, that may not mean it'll end up being made into a film (Bendis doin a Shadowcat movie before 20th Century Fox was bought for example). But you'd think they would focus on more well-known ones.

        Loading editor
    • Having watched every season of Arrow, I'm not excited for Guggenheim being involved with another superhero project...

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: Having watched every season of Arrow, I'm not excited for Guggenheim being involved with another superhero project...

      Or doing another movie in general, after his previous two were 'Green Lantern' and 'Percy Jackson 2'.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: Since news are slow due to the COVID-19 shenanigans...

      Remember when Sony threatened us with announced the plans for a SPUMC-flick based on the well-known and iconic supporting Spider-Man character Jackpot? Well, Marc Guggenheim is doing a script for it. Recently, it was also announced that S.J. Clarkson, who's directed episodes of the Netflix shows 'Jessica Jones' and 'The Defenders', has signed on to direct a female-led Marvel movie for Sony; but that remains to be seen if that's related or not.

      It's been pointed out how weird it is that Sony are moving ahead with a movie for a character like Jackpot, but not yet for obvious ones like Silver Sable, Black Cat, Spider-Gwen or Silk (some of which are known to be planned at different stages). Although just because a script is being worked on, and probably finished, that may not mean it'll end up being made into a film (Bendis doin a Shadowcat movie before 20th Century Fox was bought for example). But you'd think they would focus on more well-known ones.

      I have three possibilities as to why that might be the case:

      • Sony is attempting to save up some of their heroes by doing what the MCU is currently doing and focusing on the lesser-known heroes.
      • Making a movie on Jackpot would be relatively inexpensive, since she mainly just has enhanced fighting capabilities like Cap and operates in present-day NYC.
      • It's a push for further diversity compared to the other female heroes (except Silk of course), as the Alana Jobson version of the character is a lesbian.

      Speaking of Silk, I wonder if Sony even has her considering she was in Homecoming. I guess Marvel would be more lenient for her since she didn't get snapped, but you still have to wonder.

        Loading editor
    • Gemnist 2.0 wrote:

      KalKent wrote: Since news are slow due to the COVID-19 shenanigans...

      Remember when Sony threatened us with announced the plans for a SPUMC-flick based on the well-known and iconic supporting Spider-Man character Jackpot? Well, Marc Guggenheim is doing a script for it. Recently, it was also announced that S.J. Clarkson, who's directed episodes of the Netflix shows 'Jessica Jones' and 'The Defenders', has signed on to direct a female-led Marvel movie for Sony; but that remains to be seen if that's related or not.

      It's been pointed out how weird it is that Sony are moving ahead with a movie for a character like Jackpot, but not yet for obvious ones like Silver Sable, Black Cat, Spider-Gwen or Silk (some of which are known to be planned at different stages). Although just because a script is being worked on, and probably finished, that may not mean it'll end up being made into a film (Bendis doin a Shadowcat movie before 20th Century Fox was bought for example). But you'd think they would focus on more well-known ones.

      I have three possibilities as to why that might be the case:

      • Sony is attempting to save up some of their heroes by doing what the MCU is currently doing and focusing on the lesser-known heroes.
      • Making a movie on Jackpot would be relatively inexpensive, since she mainly just has enhanced fighting capabilities like Cap and operates in present-day NYC.
      • It's a push for further diversity compared to the other female heroes (except Silk of course), as the Alana Jobson version of the character is a lesbian.

      First point: If it's later on, I could see Sony doing it, but only if their movies start doing MCU numbers in terms of box office (and critics scores to an extent), to where the general audience is willing to watch a movie starring a no-name character like Jackpot (unless they keep the budgets for the movies low enough to make a profit out of lesser box office numbers).

      Second point: It does make me wonder how much, if any, of it will be tied to Spider-Man the character in these planned movies. Like are they expecting Spidey to play a major part in all movies as a supporting role, or just be mentioned? I feel it's a bit risky either way hinging each movie on the one character that's the selling point of the universe, since the audience might get tired of it (especially for the latter if he never shows up). And with her "mainly just has enhanced fighting capabilities like Cap and operates in present-day NYC", kinda sounds like a Jessica Jones movie, but with a costume, and without the detective element to it; which I'm not sure how that would sell.

      Third point: Totally understandable. Unless they decide to focus on the Sara Ehret version, and have her be part-time mother, part-time vigilante.

        Loading editor
    • We're talking about the same studio that put out a Bloodshot movie earlier this year, in the before-times when there were still movies coming out.

      They want to mine any superhero property they have to see if there's anything of value there. And then sell the streaming rights to one of the various streaming services for more than they would if it was a generic action flick.

      Pick a character no one cares about like Jackpot, the stakes are lower. Pick a character people do care about like Black Cat, they better not screw that up. Maybe Disney has a better position when it comes time to fight over Spider-Man again. Maybe they can't put that character in an Into the Spider-Verse sequel or spin-off.

      That all being said, I hear the SJ Clarkson project is for Madame Web somehow.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+