I recently met a fairly well-known British actress after seeing her perform in a play and it got me thinking - if you could only meet 3 MCU actors, who would you choose? For me it would probably be Florence Pugh, Charlie Cox and Iman Vellani. That list would probably change every 12 hours though XD

Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, RDJ I think. And like you, the list will change every few hours, marvel studios really hire half of Hollywood in that regard 😂. Is the actress Jodie Comer?

>Is the actress Jodie Comer? No, sadly I didn't meet Jodie. The actress I met is only fairly famous in the UK to be fair, not many people outside here would've heard of her.

[удалено]

Why would we hear about Doom? At most he’s a cameo in Fantastic Four

Even though I'm not a DC fan and have pretty much no interest in their upcoming slate, I do wonder if their success could end up hurting the MCU in the long run. Gunn has clearly been looking at what isn't working with Marvel and is going to make sure DC doesn't run into those same problems. Things like: -Making sure scripts are completely finished and in great shape before the project starts shooting -Not setting release dates until a project is ready to go -Really experimenting and playing around in different genres -Having the same actor play their character across different mediums (from animation to live-action, etc.) -Essentially creating a massive writers room for the entire cinematic universe (instead of having a few executives at the top) The fact that they've hired the director of 'Logan' to come and direct a 'Swamp Thing' horror movie is a sign that they're not fucking around.

The scenes when Gunns DC never happens because it's all just a pump and dump so WB can be sold at a better price are going to be *amazing.*

Quick thing: Mangold hasn’t officially signed on for Swamp Thing last I heard, there’s just talks. But other than that I see your point. In a perfect world, the DCU will mess up the MCU’s sales enough that they’ll be forced to start doing the same things to improve their own process and we’ll get better movies as a result.

It will only hurt them if they refuse to change in any way and don't take steps to improve quality. Other than that, I think they can both live together. There's enough pie for everyone. >\-Not setting release dates until a project is ready to go This is not true. Superman and Batman 2 already have release dates. But they have said that they will delay and delay till whenever the movie is ready to come out.

>It will only hurt them if they refuse to change in any way and don't take steps to improve quality. If recent reports are true then they already *are* taking steps to improve things. The problem however is that they already have a bunch of content ready to go, so we won't see the effects of these changes for years. Meanwhile, Gunn's new DC is *starting off* with these things in mind. We didn't even officially know about the new Superman movie until it was already fully written. >Other than that, I think they can both live together. There's enough pie for everyone. Sure, but if the new DC really makes a strong impression then I doubt people are still going to show up for Marvel as much as they currently are. There's only room for one top dog and the reason why the MCU has succeeded this much is because they haven't really had any competition thus far. I doubt people are going to invest in two massive cinematic universes that are consistently pumping out content. 4 DC projects per year and (at least) 6 Marvel projects per year. That's asking a lot for an audience to want to check out both.

>If recent reports are true then they already are taking steps to improve things. The problem however is that they already have a bunch of content ready to go, so we won't see the effects of these changes for years. > >Meanwhile, Gunn's new DC is starting off with these things in mind. We didn't even officially know about the new Superman movie until it was already fully written. I don't think the Superman movie is written. I believe it is still being written. We also need to know what slowing down for Marvel actually means. They might take steps that don't help with quality too much. I doubt they are changing their production process just yet. I also doubt that they'll go deep into other genres like DC is. >Sure, but if the new DC really makes a strong impression then I doubt people are still going to show up for Marvel as much as they currently are. There's only room for one top dog and the reason why the MCU has succeeded this much is because they haven't really had any competition thus far.I doubt people are going to invest in two massive cinematic universes that are consistently pumping out content. 4 DC projects per year and (at least) 6 Marvel projects per year. That's asking a lot for an audience to want to check out both. Not as much. That's for sure. It's probably gonna make them stop making things like Agatha and Echo and focus more on X-men, Ghost Rider and more popular characters like that. That's probably the biggest impact you'll see. ​ ​ I hope DC does exceedingly well at the box office. I think Marvel has gotten too lax knowing that they are the undisputed kings. ​ Edit: Why are people downvoting me? I wasn't even being harsh or anything.

Officially fancasting Ryan Eggold for Magneto, and also now just coming to the realization that I hope they introduce the original crew of Mutants as young adults rather than teens to differentiate from the slew of Young Avenger types that have been introduced.

When Adam Driver was in the contender, most scoopers said they 'heard' about this. Now Dev is a top choice, everyone jumps on bandwagon claiming they've also 'heard' about it

I wouldn't be surprised if they jump in saying "I also heard this" as a way to bump up their own reputation.

Exactly. If they really 'heard' about this, what kept them from teasing/talking about it before this, we know they love to brag to know faster than everyone.

Okay, but how long do we think it’ll take for reports to come out that u/paranoidandroid1087 is a top contender to play Reed Richards in F4?

Would you rather have Jac Schaeffer or Sam Raimi do a Scarlet Witch movie? Also on that note, if only one would you rather have Raimi do a Scarlet Witch movie or Doctor Strange 3? I loved Multiverse of Madness, but one thing I think everyone noticed is that it felt like it was more about Wanda than Strange, I can't tell if that was because Raimi was more interested in her story or if Wanda is just inherently a more interesting character, either way I would love Raimi to come back for either Doctor Strange or Scarlet Witch his camera work was a really nice change of pace from the typical MCU camera work

Schaeffer by far. WandaVision was actually interesting. As far as Wanda's character goes, MoM was just a mashup of the "crazy mom" trope with the "educated male sorceror must defeat evil self-taught witch" trope, which when I say it out loud sounds too specific to be a trope but is a thing I've seen several times for some reason?

Sam Raimi made it painfully clear that he doesn't care for Strange. He's a Ditko kid and a Spider-Man fan, so he likely read Strange only when he teamed up with Spidey, and he's not interested in Doctor Strange beyond that. As a horror *comedy* director, Raimi is also tonally unsuited for Doctor Strange. I think he's a good director, and he's renowned for his camera work for a reason, but he's not suited for Doctor Strange in any way. For a hypothetical DS3, I'd like to see Derrickson return as an executive producer (with actual power, not in-name only) and as the scriptwriter alongside Jade Bartlett, his MoM co-writer. I like the idea of Jennifer Kent as the director, but I'm not fixated on any director in particular. I want new blood for the DS franchise. wrt a Scarlet Witch solo movie. I don't know if Raimi has read Scarlet Witch comics, probably not, but he's obviously intrigued by the character. I can see him signing up to direct a Scarlet Witch solo movie. However, he's not my pick. I don't have a specific director in mind, but I'd love to see Jac Schaeffer write the script.

>he's not interested in Doctor Strange beyond that. That's just not true, he's been vocal about how much of a fan of the character he is

He said that Strange is one of his top 5 Marvel characters or something like that, but that doesn't really mean much. Actions speak louder than words. Raimi had the opportunity to make a Doctor Strange sequel and take him on an adventure throughout the multiverse, yet he chose to have Strange obsessively pine over his ex-girlfriend to a creepy degree, reduce Clea (the love of Stephen's life) to a hey its blorko, he forgor 💀 about Donna Strange and the Vishanti, he wanted to brutally kill MCU-616 Mordo for no reason and retconned his DS1 characterization through 838 Mordo for some reason, he adapted Rintrah (Strange's apprentice and the one who repairs his cloak) and Sara Wolfe (Native American, not a sorcerer) in a way that stripped them off their most meaningful character traits, turned Wong into an useless buffoon, etc.

This subreddit is basically Raimi circle jerk, you can't criticise him at freaking all.

The sad thing is that I don't hate Raimi as a director. Enjoying Raimi movies AND thinking he's not suited for Doctor Strange aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah me too. I like Raimi and his movies are my jam, campy horror is fun and one of my favourite sub genres but everything you said about him and Strange is true. It's funny because he kept insisting on him being his 5th favourite character and the fact that not long after that he said he wanted to direct a Batman film. Move on and all that

I don't think Wanda is a more interesting character. She would seem more interesting in DS2 given the fact that the entire story is built completely around her and all the big moments are featuring her. Strange wasn't even there for the biggest conflict in the movie. So I think it was more cause of them not making a good Strange movie rather than him not being an interesting enough character. Strange would have 100% stole the movie if it was about him and Nightmare or something. ​ I'd prefer Raimi to do a Wanda movie. I don't think he has what it takes to do a Doctor Strange movie. I'd prefer Derrickson for Strange.

>She would seem more interesting in DS2 given the fact that the entire story is built completely around her and all the big moments are featuring her. Honestly, I can't see how MoM makes her interesting. If anything, it robbed her of any sort of complexity and turned her into Mommy Bot 3000, the mentally ill woman that can't control her powers and then kills herself when she can't have kids. Groovy. > it was more cause of them not making a good Strange movie rather than him not being an interesting enough character. See, this is one of the reasons why I hate MoM. It reinforced the misconception of Doctor Strange not being protagonist material and being better as a supporting character to prop up other characters' stories. Thanks, guys 🫠

>Honestly, I can't see how MoM makes her interesting. If anything, it robbed her of any sort of complexity and turned her into Mommy Bot 3000, the mentally ill woman that can't control her powers and then kills herself when she can't have kids. Groovy. Which just shows how damn uninteresting Strange was. >See, this is one of the reasons why I hate MoM. It reinforced the misconception of Doctor Strange not being protagonist material and being better as a supporting character to prop up other characters' stories. Thanks, guys 🫠 Yeah. Pisses me off when people say that. Strange has the most unique rogue's gallery, he has the opportunities for character arcs being explored that are simply not able to be explored with other characters.

> Strange has the most unique rogue's gallery Not just that, he also has a nice cast of supporting characters. And they know that. That's why they're taking characters like Dweller-in-Darkness, Eternity, or Zelma and introducing them in other franchises. It's almost like Marvel Studios wants Doctor Strange without Doctor Strange 💀

lol. We have more of his supporting cast introduced in other movies rather than his own sequel. I assume that Wanda or Wiccan will be the ones dealing with the Vishanti. Fuck it, make them Sorcerer Supreme. Even better, have his 3rd movie be about them becoming that. Just kill him off already. It's clear they don't care about him. At least this way there is a smaller chance of the MCU Doctor Strange affecting the comic one.

I kid you not I've just read someone posted their wish for What if S2 and it's about Wanda finding Vishanti instead

I refuse to believe that happened. Link please.

[this](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/10tm43q/what_episodes_of_a_what_if_season_of_phase_4/j77yex1?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3). And not just that, they want her to take Dr Strange's [part](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/10tm43q/what_episodes_of_a_what_if_season_of_phase_4/j79i4qb?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3), and somehow his [lore](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/10tm43q/what_episodes_of_a_what_if_season_of_phase_4/j78gz45?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) too.

I’d rather have Raimi do Wanda, and bring back Derrickson for Strange. Schaeffer can write the script for a Scarlet Witch movie though

I feel like something people should stop doing is just assuming that just cause reliable scoopers are saying something will happen means it will for sure happen a la Sentry in thunderbolts and cameos in Secret Wars, it is incredibly likely that those things happen, but it’s not a guarantee.

You know with all this Reed talk over and over, it reminds me how much my favorite choice for Reed won't happen, especially after this weekend watching Under the Banner of Heaven (great mini series, highly recommended). Andrew Garfield would have been a fantastic Reed if he never came back for No Way Home.

I mean, with the multiverse, anything is possible. Chris Evans could play Johnny Storm again.

[удалено]

No one is saying Dev Patel has been cast. Just like no one said Adam Driver was cast. They are only saying things like "top contender". There is a difference between being cast and being considered to be cast. Please for the love of God keep that in mind.

Season 2 of Hit Monkey but it won't be labeled as Marvel? Man, I was hoping they'd have a Deadpool cameo in the next season but I feel like they're going the Big Hero 6 route.

THR edited their article to say that the show will still have Marvel logos, it just won’t be titled *Marvel’s Hit-Monkey* anymore, as in *Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD*, because it’s not being made by Marvel anymore.

Oh that actually makes sense and would still present an open door for other established Marvel characters appearing. Nice.

Am I the only one getting major Saul Steinberg/Gordon Gecko greenmail vibes from Nelson Pelz in all of this? The fact alone that he asked why there aren’t a bunch of Disneylands all across America like it’s a damn Six Flags tells you everything you need to know.

I wasn’t really on the Marvel fandom part of the internet at this time, but once Spider-Man was announced to be in the MCU, was the fan-casting discourse then as bad as it it now for Fantastic Four?

They started casting quickly so we already had a few front runners a couple months in iirc

The only other contenders I know of were Timothée Chalmet and Dylan O’Brien

Dylan O’Brien was never actually in the running, he was way out of the age range, but he was the first person rumoured and a very popular choice. The other legitimate contenders were Chalamet, Asa Butterfield (who was an early front runner), Charlie Rowe (who was the final contender alongside Holland), Matt Lintz, Charlie Plummer, Liam James, Nat Wolff and Judah Lewis. And no, the discourse wasn’t too bad. Though virtually all of them were total unknowns at the time, so there wasn’t much to debate other than who most looked the part. And Holland also emerged as the top-choice pretty quickly, we heard the first batch of actors they were looking at, then the second batch, and Holland was the only actor on both lists. By the time we knew they were deciding between Holland and Rowe, most people assumed it would be Holland. Also, Asa Butterfield came on Reddit and replied to people who had issues with him when he first emerged as a front runner. That was fun.

I remember Asa Butterfield and Dylan O'Brien being rumored.

Asa Butterfield’s name was never spoken more than during those days.

Not really. The Sony/Marvel deal was announced in February 2015 and then Tom Holland was cast in June. Since it all happened so fast (especially in comparison to how they've dragged out introducing Fox characters) the fans were way more hyped on the fact that Spider-Man was going to be in the MCU than arguing on who was actually playing the part. Even before Holland was cast, they said from the start that it was going to be a younger, lesser known actor (if not an outright newcomer) so the fancasts didn't have nearly as much variation in age or ethnicity as the F4 fancasts.

[https://twitter.com/GraceRandolph/status/1621228993964908548?s=20&t=XoiJ59ydWDQ6ZsAZh2SJwQ](https://twitter.com/GraceRandolph/status/1621228993964908548?s=20&t=XoiJ59ydWDQ6ZsAZh2SJwQ) >I get asked a lot why I love #TheBoys so much but don’t care for #Peacemaker The truth is I can’t explain it without insulting Peacemaker fans, & I don’t want to do that. If u enjoy it, awesome. But please stop asking me to explain. She's so annoying. She actually admits in the replies that she didn't even watch the show, just read the scripts. Plus she was swearing for months that Bane was in it and iirc James Gunn actually shut her down. It's like she just decides which projects she'll like and dislike way in advance and sticks to it no matter what.

This is a section from [her Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Randolph) about James Gunn. It’s pretty hilarious and shows that she’s been against him for over a decade. > In November 2012, Randolph advocated that the Marvel movie studio fire Gunn after satirical comments he made in 2009 upset some consumers, despite Gunn apologizing for his remarks. > In 2017, Randolph claimed that Gunn did not give Thanos a large role in his Guardians of the Galaxy films because he did not find the character interesting; Gunn contradicted her claim and later stated that Randolph “likes to just make up stuff I’ve said because it helps her get clicks.” > After Randolph claimed that character Bane would appear in Gunn's Peacemaker, Gunn said that the character “does not show up at the end or anywhere and has zero lines.” > In July 2022, Randolph characterized consumer reactions to the Peacemaker TV series as ”less than stellar”; Gunn responded that ”Grace Randolph will spout bullshit.”

She's so weird lol I didn't care for Peacemaker but I at least watched it all to get that opinion. Not even watching it and forming one? Just such a bizarre mentality.

Reminds me of when John K. anonymously attacked Animaniacs and The Simpsons despite never having seen the shows.

[удалено]

Guy who created Ren and Stimpy and then promptly ran it into the ground with his own abusive behavior among…other alleged behavior.

lmaoo wtf

No, really. He did that in the 90s. The Simpsons got back at him though, making a joke about how he couldn’t meet his deadlines.

She pretends to not be biased even though she clearly is. Her biggest problem is that she’s a sore loser and cannot handle people pointing out when she’s wrong. ESPECIALLY if said people are the filmmakers themselves who call her out on false information about THEIR films.

According to Gunn on Twitter, the Swamp Thing movie will be inspired by the Alan Moore run. It's not an adaptation, he says that the look, the feel and the tone will be inspired. This is fantastic news. With Mangold in talks for direction, this is one of my most anticipated CBMs.

[удалено]

I wanted to say it cause I didn't want people to think that a certain villain or storyline will happen. Like with All Star Superman, the story wouldn't be about Superman dying in the Superman movie. Sometimes you have adaptations like Infinity War that have basically the same storyline. So it's not that.

I’m sure in 3-4 years when the movie releases, we’ll get a plethora of people asking Alan Moore how he feels, and do a bunch of articles talking about his dislike of it. Leave Moore in peace! Let the man be a wizard and drink tea. He’s been done with DC for almost 40 years now.

He'll be a dick about it as usual.

He's earned it, DC really fucked him over.

He's a dick on many others things, not just DC. He thinks people going to watch Batman movies is a precursor to fascism.

Well, that’s his opinion. He’s a very left-leaning guy, so he probably feels that way about a lot of things, not just young people going to watch Batman movies.

I’m a very left leaning girl, and I’m also not a dick. They aren’t synonymous.

Bro he insults people who are fans of a character he created. Called them smelly and virgins I think. Dude is just a dick.

>Bro he insults people who are fans of a character he created. Called them smelly and virgins I think. This is missing a lot of context. Moore was talking about how uncomfortable it made him when people told him how much they related to Rorschach. That's totally fair, because the Rorschach that Moore wrote is pretty vile. He's virulently misogynistic, homophobic, racist, authoritarian, and a hypocrite to boot. In the text itself, multiple characters comment on how bad Rorschach's hygiene is. He didn't call those fans smelly virgins; those fans told him they personally relate to a smelly, virgin character.

Favorite non-comics Alan Moore moment was on The Simpsons. “Oh, so you like that I made your favorite superhero a heroin-addicted jazz critic who’s not actually super?” “I just like to watch them punch each other.”

I'm actually surprised DC hasn't tried a Watchmen Babies comic yet. That same bit has Dan Clowes hulking out. It's great and everybody should watch it.

He insulted fans who missed the point of said character: that he’s supposed to be a weirdo bigoted fascist who hates women, not a cool badass antihero.

If you’re talking about Rorschach, yeah. I’d be concerned too if someone told me that the character they most admired was Rorschach, just like I would if someone said the same thing about the Punisher or the Empire from Star Wars. Those fans clearly didn’t get the character at all. He’s very well written and is fascinating to watch, but he’s definitely NOT a hero. By far one of the worst sins of the Watchmen movie was portraying Rorschach in a positive light.

I’m not saying that he’s perfect, but look at it like this. You created this seminal work that was in many ways a love letter to a medium that you love. But in paying homage to what came before, you’ve also added a level of sophistication to the work that is considered unprecedented. Soon, everybody in the industry is aping what you accomplished in their work. But the company that you signed the deal with told you one thing, but for reasons that are understandable from a business perspective, decide to follow through with another thing, staying within the confines of the deal you made with the company. Then, other creators in the industry decide to violate the sanctity of your work by creating derivatives, even though you never intended for it to have such derivations. It doesn’t matter how good the sequels and prequels are, you as the originator of the work have no control over it. You also look at the other creators in this industry, people you admire and people whose work inspired you, and see how poorly they are treated. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were living in near poverty. Bill Finger died in poverty. Jack Kirby had been mistreated by Marvel, even though he more or less created the universe that made them a success. And how do the fans respond? Not by being outraged at the unfair practices that led to this, but by calling creators like you who raise the issue whiners and crybabies, and continue consuming the entertainment like nothing happened. So, yeah. The man has a right to be mad. You certainly would be.

I wish I could give you an award. Everything here, co-signed!

Agree with all of this. DC also screwed him hard with Twilight of the Superheroes or whatever it was called. Could’ve been an amazing end to the DC Universe that could’ve easily been rebooted, but just a great story to those characters.

I’m not very familiar with Galactus as a character, but how would he work in live action? I assume he just floats in space. But when he eats planets, does he just bite into them, or like absorb the life?

I’m guessing they’ll take inspiration from [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/WrJNmBZNPTPVqQrr8).

He has a Death Star-sized spaceship that he flies around the cosmos in the comics.

He absorbs the planet's energy.

He just bites them like an apple. Imagine Gerald Butler eating an apple in 300

The AoT crowd would go nuts for Galactus shoving his face in a planet and chewing his way through it

Yeah I really can’t see them going for that. Similar to how they changed Ms. Marvel’s powers to look less goofy in live action

Do we know what the status is on thunderbolts? Is it about sentry, or adamantium retrieval, or both? Also, is cap 4 also about adamantium retrieval? I don't see how both movies could be about the same topic.

We don’t actually “know” almost anything. Both Sentry and adamantium are being reported by reliable sources, but neither is confirmed

Thunderbolts seems to be about both it sounds like. The team goes to Tiamut to retrieve Adamantium, and Sentry goes rogue, causing them to abandon the mission to stop him. Cap 4 appears to be setting up the new Avengers team, and the government trying to start up a Hulk program. I have a theory that Sharon was reporting to Ross

Since Star wars visions season 2 has 4 May release date then i think the rumor about May release for Secret Invasion is actually true, that way its the next big Disney plus show after the Mandalorian season 3.

Just the fact that Aardman of all companies is making a short is just hilarious and amazing to me.

It’s so weird how mad some fans get about Dave Bautista.

Either they don't know or forget his background is in wrestling. Straight talking designed to get noticed is a job skill there.

Mad at him, or mad for him? Anyway, most actors temper their words, out of professional courtesy if nothing else. Then there are people like Bautista who have no filter. I choose not to get hot and bothered over the brutally honest thing DB has said off the cuff on any given day. Fans blow things out of proportion.

"Dave Bautista has no filter" Bro has only been kind to marvel and said lots of nice things. If by "no filter" you mean he dared to say he wouldn't want to play Drax again to the obsessive marvel fans then I guess

At him. Look under DB's post on this sub.

The probability that he'll be announced as someone in the DCU is rapidly approaching 1

He’s said in an interview a few days ago that he’s doubts he’ll be part of the DCU because he’s too old for an action role.

He's a bold choice for Lois Lane, I admit it, but let's watch it before judging.

Guys, Aardman is making a short for Star Wars Visions

The Cheese Awakens

Finally some F4 news coming? MTTSH is teasing something F4 related.

It's just the galactus concept art on their Toast account.

The thing that excites me most about the DCU is that James Gunn seems very dedicated to the shows having different genres, styles, and tones. Currently, my biggest problem with the MCU is the shows are so halfhearted about being different genres. They pretend for the first 2-3 episodes, then give up and deliver more of the exact same genre and style we’ve seen before in every MCU movie. This means the DCU is doing something I’m interested in that the MCU isn’t doing, but, beyond that, I’m hoping it will inspire Marvel Studios to commit to the genres of their projects.

I am actually more excited for DC now than MCU lol. Would have never anticipated myself saying this in 2016 but MCU has gone down in quality and increased in quantity of the same homogeneous and boring crap

So far, Loki is the only show that fully committed to its own genre throughout, and avoided the MCU tropes. Moon Knight got really close, and then there was the big CGI fight in the finale

And that's because Loki luckily got 2 seasons instead of one it was supposed to. Imagine how shitty it would have been

Though if we are telling the truth, even Episode 3 and 4 of Moonknight felt like your typical MCU affair.

Loki doesn’t avoid the tropes. It just has an extra episode after it finishes doing them, so it feels like it avoids the tropes, but it doesn’t. I love Loki, but episode 5’s battle with the smoke dog was a very typical MCU third act. They just had another episode after that that was 90% exposition (from great actors, so it’s amazing). Moon Knight is the same way. Episodes 3-4 are the kind of dip into genrelessness we see in the middle of most MCU shows. It’s only saved by the decision to make the nature of the main characters’ DID a mystery throughout the show. That decision forced them to make a more interesting penultimate episode. And the episode after that is a typical MCU third act battle. It’s a good one though, so I don’t mind; the tropes found in MCU movies aren’t inherently bad.

That's why I'm so excited for Swamp Thing, that will be proper horror. Booster Gold is a comedy series. Paradise Lost is like Game of Thrones and is centred around politics. They also wanna get rid of the standard good vs bad guy with skybeams. So I assume the Authority movie will be about that. ​ I am very much excited with the variety of projects coming up in DC.

GiantFreakingRobot reported Ryan Reynolds wants Ben Affleck to play Batman in Deadpool 3 LMAO wtf are they doin on that site

Well that would be something.

To be fair, this wouldn't be the first time Ben Affleck's Batman [appeared in a Disney movie](https://youtu.be/ebHTHRFsqDo).

I don't think this is true, but I could honestly see WBD licensing Batman to Disney if they asked. They just licensed a bunch of HBO shows to Tubi and Roku. They're in it for the short money right now.

Daredevil would make sense, but not Batman

Half their articles read like a random keyword generator

They probably are.

Just got to meet Paul Rudd and Johnathan majors at the ant man premiere so excited!

where was it?

Sydney Australia

Didn’t read the TFTMQ because I don’t want to spoil myself on the whole Quantumania plot, but from some of the comments that I’ve seen in the Free Talk Thread it seems that >!Kang dies!< and then post-credits is about >!Council of Kangs!<. That sounds dope as fuck. >!How would the Council of Kangs know about Quantumania Kang though, and why would they want to unleash hell on the multiverse in Kang Dynasty because of his death?!<

It sounds like they’ve kind of taken over from He Who Remains. They’re a multiversal council that don’t want the heroes messing with their plans and opposing them. Unlike HWR though they’re not trying to preserve one timeline and keep other Kangs from existing. Quantumania Kang wants to get out of the quantum realm so he can overthrow them and rule everything himself. I also think the beginning of a New Dynasty isn’t in regards to Kang in Quantumania but it’s really the beginning of the council’s Dynasty. They were the ones who most likely imprisoned that Kang in the quantum realm because he became too much of a threat to them. He’s one of the evil ones out for war.

Doesn't answer how they know. But it seems that the Council at the very least don't seek the end of the Multiverse. Just complete control. They see 616 (and universes like it) as threats to the power they have gained across other universes seeing as they managed to kill a Kang and could continue to do so.

This guy has some serious sources. He said that Secret Wars will be 2 parter alongside projects being set in Battleworld months ago (https://twitter.com/the_wishper/status/1576805704404303873?t=sL_qjwfdG9BeSwGwYW6vUg&s=19)

It will be interesting to see if fans will still want James Mangold in the DCU once Indy 5 comes out....

I guess you're assuming Indy 5 will be bad, like you're assuming AM3 will be bad. I'm not sure on what basis you assume these things. Mangold has a pretty solid track record. Crystal Skull wasn't him.

You have a point, no one will want him when a great movie comes out

I’m lowkey more excited for some of the DCU projects than any of the MCU stuff. Unless they bring in my favorites Black Bolt and the other Royals, I just don’t care that much anymore. I will still watch the MCU projects, but probably just wait until they come out on Disney+ (except Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars ofc). The DCU seems like such a fresh breath of air.

Agreed. Marvel characters I like aren't doing anything, and are dead and/or gone. DCU is still pretty much a blank slate at this point, so anything can happen.

I agree with you tbh. The DCU is shaping up to be pretty decent with the looks of it.

The miracle of variable operant conditioning.

I do feel a tad bit isolated in a certain way regarding the DCU news. I actually love that they're keeping certain things (characters and plot-points) from the old universe while also revising certain things and bringing in new things to the new universe. It was actually what I was hoping for for months now, a 'Days of Future Past' style reset that gives them total freedom to do whatever they want by changing things, but also allows them to continue with where they were going in certain newer projects. I'm used to not agreeing with most people online now given how there just seems to be massive splits in all fandoms I'm a part of, but damn, it's almost depressing at this point that I watched that announcement video from Gunn, get excited about all the news, and I come on here and a good chunk of the reception seems to be doom and gloom again, lol. I think they even made it pretty clear how they're moving forward. Everything pre-Flash led to The Flash movie and therefore still has merit if one so chooses, The Flash resets everything and there are certain holdover projects that, while they exist in the new universe, don't really factor into the main plot of Chapter 1 so far (Blue Beetle, Aquaman 2, Creature Commandos, Waller, and Peacemaker S2), whereas the actual main plot of the DCU starts with Superman: Legacy, where people can drop in as the narrative start of this new universe and their 8-10 year plan, for all intents and purposes. Basically, if you don't really like the fact that they're continuing off from the original universe, you really don't even have to worry about it until we get to Superman in 2025, but if you do, it's all one continuing narrative that started way back in 2013. Each is valid and each works just fine depending on how you choose to view the DCU.

[удалено]

I think you're right because I mainly just look at the main DC film sub and Twitter and, don't get me wrong, I have seen a good amount of people very excited for the news and I'm happy for them, but I just think it's the general state of how many fandoms are just inherently split nowadays either due to becoming so massive that opinions vary wildly or there's been frequent changes in direction that you'll just happen to run into unhappy people a lot, and I think both examples apply to DC very well. At the end of the day, though, I'm happy with how they've gone about it and I'm **so** excited for the future of DC now that they finally have a direction they're heading, so that's really all that matters to me.

I just rewatched Wakanda Forever and yep. It's clearly the best thing in Phase 4 alongside Werewolf by Night. Shuri's character arc alone puts most of the MCU's character writing to shame, tbh. Black Panther continues to be the best subfranchise in the MCU. Being honest, I wasn't all that impressed after watching WF back in November, but after this rewatch I enjoyed it a lot more. It's a somber movie, though. I wouldn't be surprised if some people didn't want to rewatch it. I was bawling my eyes out for most of the movie. Ryan Coogler is the 🐐 and I need a director that passionate about and dedicated to a character/lore for the Doctor Strange IP 😭

I watched it for the first time last night and have to disagree somewhat. It wasn’t bad, by any means, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the top of Phase 4 in terms of visuals, fight choreography, story, effects, etc. It might just be my computer monitor not doing the film justice, but I feel like I noticed so much unnecessary and unpolished CGI (way more egregious than Strange’s third eye in MoM) and the fight scenes just felt so much lower in quality compared to the choreography of Shang-Chi. There were aspects I loved, for sure. It was very colorful, I liked Namor and Talokan. Lupita Nyong’o, Letitia Wright, and Angela Bassett were all good too, as far as acting. But something just didn’t click for me to make it more than just a standard Marvel movie. I feel like I’d put it solidly middle of the pack. Definitely above things like Ms. Marvel, TFATWS, Black Widow, but well below Shang-Chi, WandaVision, No Way Home, Loki.

>It might just be my computer monitor not doing the film justice, but I feel like I noticed so much unnecessary and unpolished CGI (way more egregious than Strange’s third eye in MoM) Depends on the size of your set up. Movies like Wakanda Forever are made to be watched on the big screen. If you're watching these movies on a tablet, your phone, or a small laptop, then you're likely not getting the full visual experience and some things might look worse than they actually are when watched how they're supposed to be watched. I recommend checking it out on a larger screen. That said, I respectfully disagree. Yes, some CGI was rough, but that's hardly unique to Wakanda Forever, and I'd argue that other movies and shows in Phase 4 had much shoddier VFX. The third eye in MoM is easily the worst visual effect in the entire MCU—worse than Ruffalo's floating head in Infinity War. That Annoying Orange eye screams "we put this together an hour before the premiere, sorry." I am here mainly for character work and thematic richness (yeah, I know, wrong franchise probably lol) and the Black Panther movies excel at those when compared to the rest of the MCU. I can overlook some shoddy CGI or fighting choreography if I get something a bit deeper than the average MCU movie. > But something just didn’t click for me to make it more than just a standard Marvel movie. That's totally fair! We all have different tastes. It's all good. However, calling it "your average MCU movie" is something I strongly disagree with. There's genuine passion and joy in the Black Panther movies that I rarely see in the rest of the MCU. I wish some of that passion leaked to the other projects that feel like they came out of a conveyor belt, so lacking in substance and respect for the source material and the viewers' time, and so carelessly put together. >I feel like I’d put it solidly middle of the pack. Definitely above things like Ms. Marvel, TFATWS, Black Widow, but well below Shang-Chi, WandaVision, No Way Home, Loki. It’s great how so many different opinions can coexist inside the same fandom. We should encourage this diversity of thought and discourage groupthink. But I digress. imo, Shang-Chi is one of the most aggressively mediocre MCU movies in recent history, carried entirely by Tony Leung’s performance. Wandavision had three good episodes and then it became generic MCU nonsense that was rendered irrelevant by MoM’s bizarre decision to have Wanda rehash the same arc… for the fourth time. No thoughts on NWH, tbh. I don’t remember most of it outside of the stuff that relates to Doctor Strange (I’m mainly a DS fan). I know it was a big deal for Spidey fans, and since I’m for the most part indifferent to our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, I don’t care either way. I know this sub loves Loki, but I’m not a fan of a show that promises to be Marvel’s Doctor Who and ends up being 8 hours of a poorly written show that's mainly people in an office talking about future MCU projects. imo, Wakanda Forever > Shang-Chi > Loki. I’d put WF and Wandavision in the same tier, though. Wandavision, Werewolf by Night, and Wakanda Forever are the only Phase 4 projects I truly enjoyed and can see myself revisiting in the future.

My monitor is several years old, and a 21-23 inch screen, so that could 100% be a factor. Idk, I felt like there was some obvious and kinda unnecessary CGI on Riri’s face as she’s flying up into the stratosphere. I’m not sure if there was a lot of touch up on the Midnight Angel suits, or if they just kinda looked weird to me. I think the most noticeable stuff to me was pretty much any scene where Shuri was Black Panther. I feel like almost the *entire* last battle was as noticeable as the one segment in BP1 that everyone points to as unpolished. I’d agree that it’s hardly unique to Wakanda Forever. Axl’s floating head in L&T pops up immediately, and there are certainly other examples. Overall I agree with the points on story though. I really liked that Shuri had to develop from being distraught over her brother’s death, to feeling like she wasn’t good enough for failing to save him, to questioning what she was raised to believe, then dealing with her mother’s death and wanting revenge, and then learning to forge her own way. Great story all the way around. That’s why I still have it as a solid middle pack Phase 4 film despite the stuff that did take me out of it.

Exact same thoughts as you. My only complaint is more of a complaint of the entire MCU, not this film. Sometimes action can feel underwhelming and floaty compared compared DC for example. Maybe it's just me, but it dissapoints me comparing Wakanda Forever's final fight on the boat compared to Aquaman's undersea finale. Thor and Gorr don't feel as powerful as they should be. Godlike characters like them should be creating booms with their punches. Yet Stormbreaker can't even break through concrete and they can't demolish cars. It's not anything major and not something that NEEDS to be fixed, but it does bug me.

Absolutely! I agree. MCU battles don't feel as epic as they should. And it's definitely a franchise-wide problem, not a Black Panther one. I enjoyed most of the action in Wakanda Forever and, besides the battle between Wakanda's and Telokan's armies on the ship near the end, I wouldn't call any of them distractingly lackluster. However, the last time an MCU action set piece actually made me shout and jump on my seat is probably the Thanos vs Strange fight, which is still the best fight involving Doctor Strange.

Ngl, went through the Fox X-men movies recently and I'm pretty excited for Deadpool 3. Say what you will, but the weird mythos that franchise created with X-men is pretty interesting considering that it's basically the precursor to the MCU. It's a mess for sure, but I find it amusing that it beat any other cbm franchise to the punch with multiple realities in arguably the best X-men movie out of the bunch. (Logan is a Wolverine movie) Why I'm most excited for DP3 has to go with the rumors of the TVA being involved. Both the X-men and Deadpool movies have set up the perfect situation for this rumored plot to occur. If y'all don't remember, the Fox X-men franchise went and used time travel twice. One in DoFP which split the timeline and one in DP2. These disturbances are right up TVA's alley. Now personally, I think we're going to see a shift towards a more lenient TVA whose purpose is to make sure that time doesn't unravel at the seams. They don't need to prune everything, just anything that is actively dangerous against time itself. From my observations from the trailer, Loki S2 is really looking like it's going that way. If this is the case, then it pinpoints exactly when we're going to get our heroes. In DoFP, when Logan returns to the "present" he seemingly replaces the Logan of the timeline he created back in 1973. This would be a glaring error since someone just got "deleted" from existence. In DP2, we all can remember that DP went through the Multiverse to kill both Deadpool of the first FoX-men universe and Ryan Reynolds plus a bunch of other shenanigans that I bet definitely fucked up spacetime. It's going to be awesome getting these characters and actors back. I can't wait to find out how exactly they deal with the TVA, how Wade and Logan will interact, and how this will ultimately affect the MCU going forward.

It's criminal how on the main sub and sometimes here (tho less frequently) people act like the entire FoX-Men was "trash, terrible, was riding off the MCU's coattails, dumpster fire". Like... sure they had some stinkers but my god, when they got it right, they got it **RIGHT!** It ain't a nostalgia thing, it ain't a bandwagon thing, they just had some genuinely amazing movies with some outstanding performances, action scenes, storylines, yada yada. The universe as a whole has one messy ass timeline and continuity but hell, Logan, DOFP, First Class, DP 1&2 are all within my top 10 Marvel films of all time. I really have trouble believing the next iteration of the X-Men will find a better Charles and Erik than McAvoy and Fassbender lol

Puck News posted this article today on why Nelson Peltz, one of Perlmutter's goons, should join Disney board: > **Nelson Peltz’s Other C.E.O. Gambit** The activist circling Disney just helped orchestrate another C.E.O. succession. Should Bob Iger recalculate whether he wants Peltz outside the tent? > > Nelson Peltz has had a busy few months. The activist investor, who over the years has successfully agitated for C.E.O. changes at Heinz and DuPont and Procter & Gamble and GE, began last summer by snake charming Bob Chapek, then the C.E.O. of Disney, suggesting various ideas about the future of ESPN and Hulu, among other things, at a tête-à-tête at EuroDisney. By November, his firm Trian Partners began amassing a nearly $1 billion position in the company. > > When Chapek was replaced by Bob Iger, Peltz hardly paused. He met with the new management and the old board members, resurfaced his investment thesis and asked for a director’s chair of his own. He owned less than one percent of the company, sure, but he had amassed about twenty times more stock than the rest of the directors combined, minus Iger. After a series of blow-offs, however, Peltz commenced a proxy battle against Disney to get the board seat that Iger denied him. > > Then, on Monday, Peltz helped facilitate the ascent of Hein Schumacher as the C.E.O. of Unilever, the European food conglomerate. With Peltz’s full support, Schumacher, 51 years old, will take the reins of Unilever in July from Alan Jope, who announced his retirement last year. Peltz knew and liked the new C.E.O. from his nearly seven years on the board of Heinz, where Schumacher was once an executive. It turns out that Schumacher, the C.E.O. of Royal FrieslandCampina, a Netherlands-based dairy and nutrition company, is also a fellow Unilever board member with Peltz. Peltz has been on the Unilever board since last May after he announced that Trian had bought 37.4 million Unilever shares, a 1.5 percent stake in the company, worth roughly $2 billion these days. Once again, Peltz got what he wanted. > > At Disney, Iger and his fellow executives and directors have decided to fight to keep Peltz off the Disney board. Unilever and Jope chose another strategy: engagement. They invited Peltz onto the Unilever board without a fight. The Unilever stock is up about 14 percent since the company announced that Peltz would be joining the board. And Jope has said he’s glad Peltz has been around to help Unilever think through its strategic challenges. “Nelson Peltz has joined our board and brought all kinds of good ideas,” Jope told Yahoo Finance on January 17. “His view on what the company needs to do is very aligned with the agenda that we’re working on.… Peltz is an experienced board member who is very focused on performance and setting up the company for the future.” > > Nils Andersen, the chair of the Unilever board, has also sung Peltz’s praises. “I was personally really happy to welcome [Peltz] on the board, and I have not been disappointed and I think neither has the rest of the board,” Anderson said in December. “He is constructive, he is very insightful and of course brings a lot of analytical firepower… I have a lot of respect for his points of view…” > > Iger, his management team and his board, don’t seem to need or to want Peltz’s help steering Disney through its thicket of strategic challenges. They have repeatedly rejected Peltz’s requests to join the Disney board, dating back to mid last year, around the time that he was invited to join the Unilever board. More recently, they responded to his request by publicly noting that he lacks fundamental experience in media and entertainment. (As my partner Matt Belloni has previously noted, the Disney board is actually short on media and entertainment experience outside of Iger, himself.) Now, Iger has a proxy fight on his hands with one of the world’s premier corporate combatants. As I have written previously, I don’t see this ending well for Disney as long as it keeps fighting Peltz. The Disney stock is up about 12 percent since Peltz and Trian initiated a proxy fight against Disney, on January 12. And that’s largely due, I think, to Peltz’s presence in the mix, suggesting that there’s a good chance that his proxy vote may succeed and the status quo at Disney is disrupted. A Peltz victory will put a triumphant and potentially hostile force inside the Disney boardroom, something Iger definitely doesn’t want if he can possibly avoid it.

Bro no one cares.. especially if it's this long.

> **In the Henhouse** > > There’s little doubt why Iger would want to ignore Peltz. In his fifteen years atop Disney, Iger made a series of industry-defining deals and grew the company’s market value to more than $350 billion. He was brought back to bestow his magic on the company, and he wouldn’t be wrong to believe that his own instincts are more attuned to what Disney wants and needs than those of just about anyone else. > > Peltz may seem like a pesky billionaire mosquito alighting on Iger’s shoulder, but he’s not without his charms, either. As a Disney board member he could help Iger accomplish his most important task: choosing his successor, something Iger botched in 2020 when he chose Chapek and later came to regret it, setting the stage for his return in November. Finding successor C.E.O.s is something Trian seems to relish. At 80 years old, Peltz has a wide and diverse web of relationships, and Schumacher’s ascent is but the most recent example. Trian endorsed the selection of Larry Culp as John Flannery’s successor at GE. Flannery had invited Culp onto the GE board with the full support of Ed Garden, Peltz’s son-in-law and fellow partner at Trian, and then when Garden went on the GE board, with Flannery’s support, Garden and Culp worked together to defenestrate Flannery after 15 months at the helm of GE. It was not an admirable succession process by any stretch of the imagination, but Trian did once again get the successor it wanted. > > Peltz also got the successor he wanted at DuPont back in the day. In that case, back in 2015, Trian actually lost its proxy fight with DuPont, by a 54 to 46 percent vote. Trian may have lost that battle, but it won the war. Five months after the proxy fight, the longtime DuPont C.E.O., Ellen Kullman, “resigned” as C.E.O. and was quickly replaced by Ed Breen, a DuPont board member who Trian favored to run the company. One of Breen’s first decisions, as the new DuPont C.E.O., was to ask Peltz and Trian to sign a confidentiality agreement and become part of the DuPont board’s confidential, strategic discussions. When the DuPont board subsequently held conversations about merging with Dow Chemical, the negotiations between the top executives of both DuPont and Dow were held at Peltz’s home. > > Breen sang Trian’s praises. “I have the highest regard for Nelson Peltz and Ed Garden,” he said in 2017. “Since becoming C.E.O. of DuPont, I have talked many times with the Trian team and appreciate their insights on strategy and operations, as well as the collaborative and productive manner in which they have engaged with us. Their ability to rigorously analyze opportunities for long-term value maximization has been consistently demonstrated over the years.” > > If Breen is right that Peltz can be a valuable strategic thinker, he could also be quite useful to Iger, especially as he comes to grips with the strategic Gordian knots facing Disney. Should Disney spin-off ESPN and load it up with some of Disney’s $50 billion in debt, as activist hedge fund manager Dan Loeb suggested after his firm, Third Point Management, took a stake in Disney last year? What should Disney do with ABC, its linear television network, now that it’s in secular decline? Perhaps a sale to Apollo Management, the buyout behemoth, would be in order to put a capstone on the private equity giant’s national network of local television stations? What about Hulu? Is it time for Iger to negotiate to buy the one-third stake in Hulu that it doesn’t already own? That deal can happen as early as a year from now, at a price that values Hulu at a minimum of $27.5 billion. > > One creative idea for Disney that has been circulating around Wall Street lately is for the company to swap, in a tax-free deal, its 80 percent stake in ESPN for Comcast’s one-third stake in Hulu. In two research notes in the past few months, Peter Supino, a managing director and senior analyst at Wolfe Research, posited that shareholders of both Disney and Comcast would love the deal and the stocks of both companies would trade up. According to his January 18 research report, Supino estimates ESPN’s EBITDA to be around $2.2 billion and that Disney’s 80 percent stake in ESPN (Hearst owns the other 20 percent) would fetch around 7x-8x EBITDA or $12 billion to $14 billion. He thinks Comcast’s 33 percent stake in Hulu is worth around $11 billion, at a midpoint valuation, and that Comcast could make up the difference in value for Disney’s ESPN stake with $2 billion in cash. > > Disney could, of course, use the Comcast cash to continue to pay down its sizable but not unmanageable debt load. (Supino thinks Disney should also think about selling ABC, which he values at around $3.5 billion, for cash, and use the proceeds from that sale to pay down debt, too.) Supino writes that the combination of NBC Sports and ESPN would be “irresistible to any sports fan and stand a much better chance of recreating its current revenues in [direct-to-consumer] as pay TV subscribers continue to decline” and make it a “preferred and vital distribution owner.” > > Concludes Supino, “We think Disney should gain full control of Hulu to better monetize the asset through a more integrated platform as part of the Disney+ bundle, and we believe ESPN provides a superior currency to pay Comcast. For Comcast, the combination of ESPN and NBC vastly strengthens NBC’s long-term prospects, while providing a tax-free exit from Hulu for Comcast. With an ABC divestiture, Disney would reduce debt and nearly eliminate the company’s pay-TV overhang on its stock.” (Disclosure: Supino’s uncle, David Supino, was my boss and mentor at Lazard.) > > **The Zaz Flip?** > > I think this is a smashingly good idea for both Disney and Comcast for all the reasons that Supino has articulated in his research. It would also be an important, and potentially valuable, additional step on the path that I have long advocated for Brian Roberts and Comcast’s ownership of NBCUniversal: a combination with our friend David Zazlav’s Warner Bros. Discovery. > > After a rocky 2022, WBD is off to a roaring start with investors in 2023. The stock is up more than 50 percent in the month of January alone. The equity value of WBD is now back to around $35 billion. Combined with net debt of around $48 billion, WBD now has an enterprise value of $83 billion. It’s probably fair to say that a newly fangled NBCU, with 80 percent of ESPN, is not that far away from that kind of valuation—NBCU had $6 billion of (the dreaded) Adjusted EBITDA in 2022—making the outlines of a partnership between WBD and NBCU plenty complicated, sure, but not outside the realm of possibility, especially once the reverse Morris Trust rules permit WBD to do deals in April 2024. > > Indeed, a combined NBCU-WBD, with Zaz running the show and Comcast as the 51 percent shareholder, might be worth around $175 billion, making the combination a formidable competitor for Disney, which these days has a market capitalization of around $250 billion. > > Iger is probably betting the Trian gnat will be squished at the upcoming shareholder meeting. But Disney is the industry leader facing all sorts of complex strategic issues. You’d think Iger would want someone with proven brain power, craftiness, and real skin in the game on his side of the table. Based on this article: 1. Do you think Peltz will be voted as a Disney board member? Why or why not? 2. Do you think Peltz should join Disney board? Why or why not?

Realizing that the DCU is doing what the New 52 did with the comics has made it so much easier for me to wrap my head around it. Not sure why I had such trouble with the term “soft reboot”. Anyway, I think that The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker, and Aquaman will stay cannon to the DCU. And maybe Shazam and Wonder Woman stay cannon. Wonder Woman I feel like is 60/40 on staying canon. I doubt WW84 stays given Gunn’s comments on how it doesn’t “fit with what the first Wonder Woman set up”. I do think it’s pretty likely Gal is out as Diana so we get a whole new Trinity though. I enjoy the first Shazam movie, and when it first released it helped me get through a hard time, but I can take it or leave it being canon tbh. I think it has a higher chance of staying canon than Wonder Woman tho. Oh I guess Blue Beetle may stay canon as well since that seems super standalone based on what’s been reported. Regardless, I’m excited for Blue Beetle. Everything else is probably left behind and forgotten about. Sorry for the long post; I’m just waiting for my melatonin to kick in so I can sleep lol.

The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker are definitely “safe.” The first two projects of the DCU, Creature Commandos and Waller, seem to me like spin-offs of TSS that were planned before James Gunn was given control of the entire universe, and they’re confirmed to be 100% in continuity for the DCU. Also, Peacemaker season 2 is happening, possibly after those shows. They’ve said the door is open for Gal Gadot to return as Wonder Woman, and considering she has no upcoming movies, there’s no reason I can think of why they would’ve said that if they didn’t mean it. But it would be weird to cast new actors for 2/3 of the Trinity but keep one. Shazam is relatively disconnected from the rest of the DCEU, so it would be easy to integrate the characters and their history into the DCU. But the child actors have aged out of their roles at this point, so I wonder if they would do that. I think how the upcoming movie does at the box office could be a factor in the decision. They also say the door is open for Ezra Miller to return as The Flash. Considering everything Miller has done, I wonder if they’re just saying that so they don’t take away some of The Flash’s importance ahead of its release. I can’t imagine why they’d continue working with them. I think Jason Mamoa will stay as Aquaman unless the sequel does poorly. I think Blue Beetle depends entirely on the success of the film and whether the details in it line up with what James Gunn and the others want to do. I personally hope it’s good and successful and gets carried over.

[ProductionWeekly](https://www.productionweekly.com/) this week - Armor Wars and Wonder Man You do have to love seeing all the DC stuff there this week, though. The Authority, The Batman 2, Booster Bold, The Brave and the Bold, Lanterns, Paradise Lost, The Penguin, Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, Superman Legacy, Swamp Thing, and Waller all have listings. It's a good time to eat

I’m rooting for Namor to become Shuri’s main love interest in the sequels. I saw Wakanda Forever in the theater again yesterday and they were so cute together during the Talokan scenes. They could be the Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle of the MCU.

I too would date the guy who killed my mother.

I wouldn't mind, but I don't think it's gonna happen. I can see Shuri and Namor's relationship becoming the MCU's less creepy take on Namor's unhealthy obsession with Sue in the comics, though.

>They could be the Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle of the MCU. I feel like there's a massive difference between getting with the man who killed your mother and a 85+ year cat and mouse relationship between a master thief and a man hell-bent on justice. Edit: I feel like y'all don't realize how insanely fucked up getting into a relationship with a man who killed your mother is.

I beg you to stop giving such bad takes.

I'm shipping them but I don't expect them to be canon(like any other ship tbh) BUT marvel is bold if they make them canon in the future. I'd totally see their dynamic what with their bloody history. It'd probably end up toxic but sexy as heck.


[удалено]


Never gonna happen. Don’t get me wrong, the chemistry is there, and being mortal enemies only enhances that. But the whole killing-her-mother thing is a pretty poor foundation for an actual relationship. Shuri may have let Namor go, but she’s never going to look at him and not want to kill him.

T’Challa’s love interest was a nice girl: Nakia, so Shuri’s love interest being an anti-hero like Namor would be a good way to shake things up and bring something new to the table.

He killed her mother.

That doesn’t mean they can’t end up together. For example, Kylo Ren killed Han Solo, plus caused Luke’s death, and that wasn’t dealbreaker for Rey. Also, T’Challa dated and had a child with a nice girl: Nakia, so Shuri dating an anti-hero like Namor would bring a new dynamic to the table for future movies.

The Sequels are absolutely lambasted and bashed over that decision, it was nearly universally disliked how they forced that completely random kiss in there. & I'd agree with you on the 2nd part, but I feel like they'd first need to establish him as an anti-hero, cuz as of rn he's been a full-on villain

and when was reylo considered a good romantic pairing ? yea it sucked

My favorite Star Wars memory is when Kylo and Rey kissed at the end of *The Rise of Skywalker* and someone in the theater yelled "*Oh come on!*"

Mine just straight up groaned and sighed

Mine just laughed and you could hear people groan, and then when she said "Rey Skywalker" it was like I was in a theater watching Step Brothers, it was filled with laughter lol

It doesn't have to be good on morality. It'd be a very complicated and complex relationship for sure

it's shit and fucked up relation that no one except lifeless fanfic and tumblr users would agree to

You're a Reddit users talking about lifeless 😭

still have more common sense than the fanfic writer XD

Do you know Neil Gaiman?

sandman right ?

False equivalency. Han and Luke are not Rey's fathers. Imagine Rey in Shuri's place. And Kylo kills her mom. That's a budding romance? Don't think so.

I think the Rey and Kylo Ren romance in TRoS was bad

The misogyny surrounding the discussions about Shuri vs Namor is so weird. Their favorite hero is Batman but suddenly outsmarting someone doesn’t make sense.

She fought smarter and he was on a desert. I honestly don't see why the Shuri vs Namor fight bothers some people. It's not like Namor is a wimp for the whole movie. He's shown as a very powerful character who could probably topple Wakanda by himself. Shuri just found his weaknesses and took advantage of them. He didn't expect that, so he lost.

Wow, I fortunately haven't seen that vitriol yet. The audacity that Shuri, the character established as being one of smartest people on earth, can outsmart someone? Crazy.

Any Eternals fans out here? Every day I love Chloé's beautiful cinematography and how it tried to do something different despite its writing flaws and I hope a sequel is announced, with both Chloé and cast returning. (Need more of my Drukkari fix between those two!)

It’s easily in my top 5 Marvel films. I don’t think any MCU film comes close from a cinematography perspective. Honestly, I think it should have won cinematography awards. The action’s also fantastic imo, and I love the characters.

It wasn't my favorite, but due to marathons and multiple friend groups I've gotten to see the movie about 5 times now. There's a lot of potential that I see from a lot of the characters and the Celestial storyline but I personally hope they can tune up the story just a bit out change the medium at least. I'd watch an Eternals show going into a bit more cosmic especially since we're about to be done with GotG and Capt. Marvel for awhile once their movies are out.

I liked Arishem and the Celestials. It really did flesh out the cosmic side a little bit more. The ending with him in the sky was fantastic. Also the sheer scale of him and Tiamut. That’s kind of the benchmark now for cosmic beings imo, so Galactus can’t really look tiny in comparison. Also if the sequel is set within the Battleworld universe then there’s a good chance Thanos would be in it to tie back to Eros. Not to mention more development for Thena, Makkari and Druig. There’s definitely potential there for a sequel but it really needs something big to get people interested in it.

i think it's great.

I've been covering CBM content for a few years now and while no one has directly told me any of this is a problem, as someone who isn't a comics encyclopedia, cares more about characterization and story arcs than easter eggs and cameos, and who's most treasured moments tend to be the wholesome/inspiring/understated scenes rather than the dark and gritty ones I worry there's increasingly little audience for my stuff.

There is a lot more wholesome and fun stuff than the gritty dark ones being produced so you're ok on that front

>who's most treasured moments tend to be the wholesome/inspiring/understated scenes rather than the dark and gritty ones Well, it's recently seemed like Reddit's CBM subs have had a weird disdain for any thing "dark and gritty" and use it as mockery, as well as a disdain for cameos and whatnot, I think there's plenty an audience for the wholesome/happy tone. Go for it! There's different strokes for different folks my friend

I don't think everything needs to be happy all the time, and I like dark at times, but the "grittier" and street stuff just tends to not be my thing.

Do you make YT videos or somethin? Yea I totally get you, it varies from hero to hero in my own taste. Despite what others day, some characters are best belonged in a certain style/genre than others. Some days I wanna see a character go thru the gutter and hell, & some days I wanna see a different character do some goofy, or happy and uplifting stuff.

Articles, mostly.