My first thought was Gwen Stacy.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Spider-Gwen? But, I agree Black Cat would be right. I can see a scenario where "Everyone's moved on--MJ is dating Flash (or someone)" since they don't remember Peter. It seemed to me that NWH's ending was meant to set up a Brand New Day type of story.
NOTE: ABOVE WAS EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION AS MY ORIGINAL POST DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
NOTE: ABOVE WAS EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION AS MY ORIGINAL POST DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
Last edited:
Moved on in the movies? Comics? Real life?? because if it is the last one, which Flash??? If it is Ezra Miller, then Zendaya needs some intervention ASAP!
Some new details on Jeremy Renner's accident, including the fact that he broke over 30 bones.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...-injury-resulted-30-broken-bones/11096617002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...-injury-resulted-30-broken-bones/11096617002/
I didn't know they were dating, but it wouldn't be the first time a real life couple were paired other people when starred in the same movie or show. Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter were married while they co-starred on Dexter, but he spent most of the show with Julie Benz's character as his girlfriend/wife.
I think you're conflating a working title with a codename. A working title is exactly that; a project title that is meant to be temporary until they think of a better one, because they have to call it *something* while they're making the thing. This is fairly typical with large studio productions as usually the marketing people don't really get all that involved until post production and they can have a significant influence on the final title (but not always.) Indeed a production can go through several working titles over the course of production (pre & post) before then finally settle on a release title.
A codename is as one might surmise is a fake working title chosen to deliberately obfuscate exactly what the project is about, and as such is mostly a bookkeeping thing, used mostly just for locations shoots. Granted they're functionally identical in a sense, but the distinction is one of intent. The former exists because: "fuck it, we need to print something on the receipts!" the latter is because: "we'd rather not have the location shoot swarming with paparazzi & rubbernecks, nor have all the local businesses suddenly put an extra zero on the end of their prices because they think we're made of money."
Incidentally, the latter was the real reason for the now legendary 'Blue Harvest' codename for 'Revenge of the Jedi' (aka: the actual working title of the film.) It was no secret the film was being made. Indeed it was widely reported, which is kinda the point. Star Wars was a known quantity, and would have been recognised if the logo was plastered all over the crew gear and vehicles. It's only partially successful because the minute you start building a giant plywood spaceship out in the Yuma dunes, and Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher & Mark Hamill roll into town, people will put it together. The point is usually to slow the spread of rumours not stop them (because you can't) so by the time the looky-loos and/or the press show up, you're hopefully almost done with the shoot and ready to move elsewhere.
Last edited:
FWIW, Wikipedia asserts the same conflation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_title#Purpose]:
Working titles are used primarily for two reasons – the first being that an official title has not yet been decided upon, with the working title being used purely for identification purposes, and the second being a ruse to intentionally disguise the real nature of a project.
And it explicitly states that Blue Harvest was the working title of ROTJ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Jedi#Filming]:
The project was given the working title Blue Harvest with a tagline of "Horror Beyond Imagination." This disguised what the production crew was really filming from fans and the press, and also prevented price gouging by service providers.[11]
I'm not saying they're right, because I know next to nothing about the business. I'm saying that, if they're wrong, they're feeding the confusion, and, for all I know, they could be right.
Well this is wikipedia we're talking about, so odds are they're doing the former more than being the latter.
Here's a snippet from Rinzler's 'Making of Return of the Jedi', which is about as authoritative as such things get, given the access.
It wasn't a working title at all, it was a codename; basically a fake movie, complete with fake tagline, fake logo, fake credits, and fake launch date made explicitly and only for the location shoots in Yuma and the California redwoods. It was never used for the Elstree shoot, or the ILM stage shoot, or really internally at LF at all. Just those two locations. It even almost got rumbled when someone in Yuma got a look at the set construction blueprints that had "Revenge of the Jedi" printed all over them, not 'Blue Harvest'.
Wikipedia only gets better if people log in and edit it. In this case the citations are very sparse and clicking on them yields little supporting information. In fact one of the citations says this:
I am going to guess that there are no hard and fast rules in the industry and working title/fake title/codename are probably used interchangeably, but am a Jon Snow (I know nothing) in this area.
"Details on the project, which has been floating around the industry with a possible fake/working title of Greenbrier, are slim. It’s unclear if the movie would be another prequel — like AMC’s Better Call Saul — or a follow-up of some sort. It’s also unclear if any of the original stars, such as Bryan Cranston or Aaron Paul, are involved in the new project, which sources stress will be set in the existing Breaking Bad franchise."
It is pretty easy to become an editor if someone with better information (for example, the referenced doc above) wants to.
I am going to guess that there are no hard and fast rules in the industry and working title/fake title/codename are probably used interchangeably, but am a Jon Snow (I know nothing) in this area.
I'll amend that to say:
Wikipedia only gets better if people with expert knowledge log in and edit it.
Also, if you suspect something is wrong and the entry does not have decent citations you can also have the entry flagged with a note to that effect.
I actually was on a page that had something I had an issue with. Do you actually just go straight in and edit it? I got cold feet and chickened out, it just felt weird.
You just create an account. Anyone can edit. I imagine you would get banned if you just made stuff up. There are editing guidelines, and having citations is important.
Emphasis mine, which is the primary reason why I long since gave up editing anything over there. The behind-the-scenes politics and ego trips are just the worst. Well, maybe not as bad as Wookieepedia awhile back but still absolutely horrendous.
I think all Wikis are the same. The Doctor Who one is just as bad.
Yeah, that's why I gave up on it almost at its inception. I'd correct false information only to come back and find that my edits had been removed and the false information restored. No point in playing that game.