Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Kai "the spy"]

I mean, if they wanted to be cute, they'd have cast Kathleen Turner, bc while they did the War of the Roses, they are primarily known together for Romancing the Stone.
Pairing Douglas with Stone again would have given their on-screen relationship some toxicity from the get-go, and not the kind of toxicity Hank and Jan had in the comics. Might as well have cast Glenn Close as Jan and throw in a rabbit stew reference while you're at it.

So, yeah, better to just have two established A-list stars instead of two established A-list stars with a history together.

 

[Captaindemotion]

If we’re going to start doing stunt casting in the MCU, then they need to give Vulture and Janet a few scenes together.

 

[Rich Watson]

After what feels like years of made-up leaks it looks like hard facts about the next Spider-Man movie are finally out there courtesy of information being given to potential merchandisers.

The film's villains are (so far)

Spoiler

Scorpion, Tombstone, and Boomerang and... the Hulk. (Green, not red.)

 

[Anwar]

VISION Series Reportedly Casts FOUNDATION & LA FORTUNA Star T'Nia Miller As Jocasta

We had heard that Marvel Television's Vision series had found its Jocasta, and a new report now claims that T'Nia Miller is set to play the Bride of Ultron...

comicbookmovie.com

See how easy it is to get somebody that looks comics accurate?
Lord Matalas knows how to bring in the fans!
Perfect casting!

Pretty easy to do when the character isn't human and will be portrayed more by effects and you really just need a good voice actor.

 

[Mudd]

After what feels like years of made-up leaks it looks like hard facts about the next Spider-Man movie are finally out there courtesy of information being given to potential merchandisers.

The film's villains are (so far)

Spoiler

Scorpion, Tombstone, and Boomerang and... the Hulk. (Green, not red.)

That last is a super-smart move.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That last is a super-smart move.

A idea I had when discussing this film with my friend this past Sunday!

 

[theenglish]

After what feels like years of made-up leaks it looks like hard facts about the next Spider-Man movie are finally out there courtesy of information being given to potential merchandisers.

The film's villains are (so far)

Spoiler

Scorpion, Tombstone, and Boomerang and... the Hulk. (Green, not red.)

Hmm, if that's the case:

Spoiler: the movie should...

introduce Wolverine...

 

[eschaton]

Its not just Thunderbolts* (or New Avengers) that's failing at the box office. The problem is just as Feige and Marvel Studios employees have recently stated (see the quoted X posts a page of two back), and there's no answers, other than to take a step back (which will never happen), and focus on strong storytelling instead of stretched out arcs requiring a MCU class to follow--Feige's exact point. But we know an enormous amount is riding on the back of the coming FF film, serving as an origin story and arc launch pad for the next series of arc-tied movies. If that underperforms, you can imagine how the Disney shareholders will react.

I think it's interesting to note that three out of the last four MCU movies released gave the impression of needing to know about Disney+ content in order to be enjoyed.

• The Marvels involved characters and plot lines from Ms. Marvel and Wandavision
• Captain America: Brave New World involved background from The Falcon & The Winter Soldier
• Thunderbolts also involved The Falcon & The Winter Soldier

All of these movies underperformed. The only movie during this period which was a smash hit (Deadpool and Wolverine) pretty much ignored Disney+, other than using some of the background of Loki, like the TVA, though other than Hunter B-15 having a brief cameo, we didn't see any of the characters from that show.

A narrative can be drawn from this that the problem with the most recent slate of MCU movies is they provided the impression of relying on prior Disney+ knowledge too much. I'm not saying this is true, but I was talking to my daughter (who is 15, and not an MCU fan - she saw GOTG3 with her class the other year, but otherwise has no experience) and she explicitly told me that she didn't want to get into it because it seemed too much of an investment.

An alternative narrative is there were too many earlier missteps like Quantumania and Love and Thunder, which burned casual fans enough that they tuned out to "Mid CU" Or perhaps that even a lot of superfans are fine waiting a few months to see them on Disney+.

FF will be an interesting test, because the marketing is explicitly screaming "fresh" and "new" in such a way as to make it clear you don't really need to have prior MCU experience to get much out of the film. If it's a success, it would suggest that "MCU films got to be too much work to follow" is the correct narrative.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's interesting to note that three out of the last four MCU movies released gave the impression of needing to know about Disney+ content in order to be enjoyed.

• The Marvels involved characters and plot lines from Ms. Marvel and Wandavision
• Captain America: Brave New World involved background from The Falcon & The Winter Soldier
• Thunderbolts also involved The Falcon & The Winter Soldier

I'll never understand why people think you "need" to see previous adventures to understand or enjoy the current story. All the big sci-fi franchises begin in medias res with reference to events the audience never saw. Star Trek: "The Cage" opened with the crew hurting from the aftermath of a disastrous mission on Rigel VII. Star Wars opened with a chase in progress as Princess Leia fled with the Death Star plans. Doctor Who opened with its viewpoint characters discovering the mysterious Doctor and his granddaughter who told of many prior adventures and a secretive origin that audiences didn't learn about for years. So genre fans really ought to know better than to assume it's impossible to catch up with a story in progress along the way.

All of these movies underperformed. The only movie during this period which was a smash hit (Deadpool and Wolverine) pretty much ignored Disney+, other than using some of the background of Loki, like the TVA, though other than Hunter B-15 having a brief cameo, we didn't see any of the characters from that show.

I think that's disingenuously downplaying how much its story depended on the background from Loki. Regardless of which characters appeared, the fundamental concepts of the TVA, its operations and methods, and the way the multiverse works were crucial to the plot of Deadpool and Wolverine.

Also, D&W was heavily dependent on past continuity, even if it wasn't from D+ shows -- Loki backstory, Avengers backstory, the backstory of the first two Deadpool movies, the backstory of the Fox X-Men and Fantastic Four series, the older Blade and Elektra movies, even obscure insider knowledge of the cancelled Gambit movie. The whole movie was largely an exercise in continuity porn and referential humor. So it's weird to use it as an example to show that too much continuity is bad for a movie's success.

I'm also not sure it's really valid to compare it to MCU films, since, from a creative standpoint if not a business/ownership standpoint, it's effectively a Fox-Marvel film that only ties into the MCU rather than being an integral part of it. So perhaps its audience consisted more of Deadpool and other Fox-Marvel fans than MCU fans, or at least the combination of the two fanbases may have compounded its success. So you can't isolate the factor of the level of Disney+ references from other factors that could influence audience size.

 

[Mudd]

It's also true that the MCU was built on the oldest and most established superheroes in Marvel comics other than those that were licensed to other entertainment companies. Not only do their beginnings and relationships not rely on earlier TV and film content, neither do their conceptions or backstories spring from some previously established continuities or sets of rules. Most of them sprang originally and in the MCU from concrete, real settings and events - Cap fought the Second World War. Tony's a defense contractor. As often as not, events revolve - as they did in the earliest days of Marvel - around New York City.

IMO, Black Panther did a brilliant job of breaking the MCU away from that, away from the American and Eurocentric aspects of the Marvel Universe, opening it up in ways that should have been (and were, in that case) even more appealing to a world audience. But the next step, delving into characters from Marvel's "Cosmic Catalog" - Captain Marvel, the Eternals, and so on - was not done so successfully.

I don't think the perceived (real, IMO) need to divorce Namor from his pulpy origins established the new version at all strongly or vividly.

 

[Anwar]

A narrative can be drawn from this that the problem with the most recent slate of MCU movies is they provided the impression of relying on prior Disney+ knowledge too much.

Then why do folks say they want the Netflix characters in the movies, if you need to see the Netflix shows to understand who they are?

 

[eschaton]

I'll never understand why people think you "need" to see previous adventures to understand or enjoy the current story. All the big sci-fi franchises begin in medias res with reference to events the audience never saw. Star Trek: "The Cage" opened with the crew hurting from the aftermath of a disastrous mission on Rigel VII. Star Wars opened with a chase in progress as Princess Leia fled with the Death Star plans. Doctor Who opened with its viewpoint characters discovering the mysterious Doctor and his granddaughter who told of many prior adventures and a secretive origin that audiences didn't learn about for years. So genre fans really ought to know better than to assume it's impossible to catch up with a story in progress along the way.

I was very deliberate by saying impression, and italicizing it. I wasn't saying it was true that you actually needed prior information. But if low-information people get that impression, that's a bad thing, because they can't be arsed to do enough research to find out if they're wrong.

I think that's disingenuously downplaying how much its story depended on the background from Loki. Regardless of which characters appeared, the fundamental concepts of the TVA, its operations and methods, and the way the multiverse works were crucial to the plot of Deadpool and Wolverine.

Also, D&W was heavily dependent on past continuity, even if it wasn't from D+ shows -- Loki backstory, Avengers backstory, the backstory of the first two Deadpool movies, the backstory of the Fox X-Men and Fantastic Four series, the older Blade and Elektra movies, even obscure insider knowledge of the cancelled Gambit movie. The whole movie was largely an exercise in continuity porn and referential humor. So it's weird to use it as an example to show that too much continuity is bad for a movie's success.

I'm also not sure it's really valid to compare it to MCU films, since, from a creative standpoint if not a business/ownership standpoint, it's effectively a Fox-Marvel film that only ties into the MCU rather than being an integral part of it. So perhaps its audience consisted more of Deadpool and other Fox-Marvel fans than MCU fans, or at least the combination of the two fanbases may have compounded its success. So you can't isolate the factor of the level of Disney+ references from other factors that could influence audience size.

It's continuity porn in the same sense that No Way Home was continuity porn, though, largely built up on nostalgia for an older set of Marvel movies.

I'm not saying - at all - that people don't like memberberries. It's clear that they do. But there's a difference between referencing something from 10+ years prior that people fondly remember, and referencing something that happened in a Disney+ show 2-4 years ago.

The fact remains though, Disney+ shows have a fraction of the box office audience. For example, Thor - Ragnarok sold 94.9 million tickets globally, but the Loki Season 2 premier had 10.9 million viewers. Referencing stuff that happened in prior movies will thus always, always be massively more popular than stuff that happened in TV only.

Then why do folks say they want the Netflix characters in the movies, if you need to see the Netflix shows to understand who they are?

The folks saying that are superfans, and there are no concrete plans to do anything with the Defenders. I'd be shocked if we saw more than the occasional cameo ala Matt appearing in No Way Home.

I wouldn't be surprised if more people overall have seen the Netflix era shows than the Disney+ shows, however, given they've been out for awhile, and Netflix had much deeper market penetration.

 

[Christopher]

I was very deliberate by saying impression, and italicizing it. I wasn't saying it was true that you actually needed prior information. But if low-information people get that impression, that's a bad thing, because they can't be arsed to do enough research to find out if they're wrong.

I just think that if people are wrong about something, the rest of us shouldn't change the way we do things to pander to their wrongness, but should stick to our guns and stand up for what's right. How are they ever going to learn they're wrong if we all act as if their opinions are actually valid?

It's continuity porn in the same sense that No Way Home was continuity porn, though, largely built up on nostalgia for an older set of Marvel movies.

Except NWH was more than that, because it used the continuity in an effective way that served the characters. D&W was more just wallowing in self-referentiality for its own sake. I definitely feel nostalgia and reference are overused these days, but NWH was the only one of the Holland Spidey trilogy that I particularly liked, because it told a good story with what it used, and that matters more than where the elements of that story came from.

As I often say, what matters isn't what a story does, but how it does it. The same story device can be brilliantly utilized in one movie and poorly in another. Which is why it's misguided to try to find some generalized formula or factor that explains why movies do or don't work. The only thing that determines that is each film's individual merits. And of course, there are many cases where excellent movies like The Marvels fail at the box office through no fault of their own. Just try Googling for lists of now-classic movies that were box-office failures, and you'll get plenty of hits. There is no way to define a universal formula for success, any more than there's a formula for winning at slot machines. It's always a gamble.

The fact remains though, Disney+ shows have a fraction of the box office audience. For example, Thor - Ragnarok sold 94.9 million tickets globally, but the Loki Season 2 premier had 10.9 million viewers. Referencing stuff that happened in prior movies will thus always, always be massively more popular than stuff that happened in TV only.

Correlation does not imply causation. And you're making the profound mistake of ignoring the high percentage of casual moviegoers who don't closely follow MCU continuity anyway but are just looking for somewhere to take a date or their kids for a night out, or who are there to see an actor that they like. Casual audiences are far more decisive to any film's success or failure than dedicated fans.

 

[oktay]

Tony-Nominated Sadie Sink Talks ‘John Proctor Is The Villain’, ‘Stranger Things’ And Joining The Marvel Universe – Deadline Q&A

Deadline's Q&A with the Tony-nominated actress Sadie Sink.

deadline.com

 

[Rich Watson]

Emily Hampshire (Schitt's Creek and more relevantly 12 Monkeys) will play a humanoid version of E.D.I.T.H. from Far From Home in the Vision series.

Next up Kerry Condon as F.R.I.D.A.Y.?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Emily Hampshire (Schitt's Creek and more relevantly 12 Monkeys) will play a humanoid version of E.D.I.T.H. from Far From Home in the Vision series.

Loading up with Marvel AI/Android IPs? Who's next? Machine Man?

 

[JD]

There's also the android Human Torch who possibly existed in the MCU since we saw his costume somewhere, I can't remember where now.

 

[Turtletrekker]

There's also the android Human Torch who possibly existed in the MCU since we saw his costume somewhere, I can't remember where now.

We saw the Torch himself in Captain America the First Avenger (at the 25 second mark)...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Now THAT would be a deep cut callback. I wonder if Marvel would be willing to do it at the same time that they're reintroducing Johnny Storm?

 

[Nerys Myk]

There's also the android Human Torch who possibly existed in the MCU since we saw his costume somewhere, I can't remember where now.

Stark Expo. Captain America the First Avenger

 

[JD]

We saw the Torch himself in Captain America the First Avenger (at the 25 second mark)...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That was it, thanks. I had thought it was just a mannequin wearing his costume, I didn't realize it was actually him.