More Marvel prequels could be on the way, says Kevin Feige
Black Widow could be the first of numerous Marvel prequels
Film News Kevin Feige
Following Avengers: Endgame, which saw the culmination of the MCU as a time heist through previous movies, Marvel Studios seems intensely interested in the past and changing it. In addition to the company’s latest prequel, Black Widow, Marvel also has the time jumper TV show Loki, and The Eternals, a movie that seemingly encompasses all of history, making it a prequel not just to every MCU entry, but every movie ever made.
But apparently, per Slashfilm, a little timeline mischief isn’t all the company has in store. During a press conference for the upcoming Black Widow, studio head Kevin Feige gave a dire warning: more potential prequels are in the chamber. “Certainly this film and this story is a particular case for for Natasha,” said Feige. “But the notion of exploring the past, present, and future of the MCU is certainly in the cards for all of our characters. This particular story of this particular cast is very personal, very specific to Natasha.”
If they’re going to make a prequel to anything, it should be Iron Man 3. As far as anyone knows, the Iron Man movies jumped from Iron Man to Iron Man 3. As much as we all love the loose numbering system of Apple products, it just didn’t make that much sense for Iron Man movies. Why didn’t they ever make an Iron Man 2? We kid, of course. How could anyone forget Tony Stark taking a leak in the Iron Man suit?
As for the prequel business, it probably depends on the success of Black Widow or the failure of any of the company’s upcoming releases to determine how many characters they’ll pull out of storage. Maybe they’ll even do a Hulk movie again. In the meantime, we’ll have a chance to see how Marvel does prequels when Black Widow debuts on July 9.
110 Comments
I’m all about getting some backstory for Valkyrie. And I have no doubt Tessa Thompson could carry a movie.
at first I read this as “I have doubt Tessa Thompson could carry a movie” and started suiting up for battle. n/m carry on, I concur
Hey, I like Iron Man 2. Sam Rockwell. Mickey Rourke asking for his boird. Introducing Black Widow and bringing Don Cheadle to the party. There’s a lot to like there.
On the other hand, Mickey Rourke. He’s a great actor, just not here. They should’ve picked someone else. And if they were going to do “Demon in a Bottle”, do it, don’t half-ass it.
With how they’ve changed Tony’s character from the comics into the movies, they were always gonna half-ass it. It was back in IM2 that I started to suspect they were gonna soften Tony A LOT, which is understandable given how mainstream the MCU has become. They don’t want their golden boy to be too flawed or too unlikable like comics!Tony.
I don’t know how much difference it would have made but I heard Mickey Rourke was not happy about how much his part was cut down. I don’t know much of it was filmed and deleted but I think it might have been a fair amount.
The question is, how much of that was relevant and how much of that was riffing. Cause that movie’s already got a problem with too much letting the actors riff as it is (and I say this as someone who likes a good number of the people in that movie.)
“Mickey Rourke. He’s a great actor, just not here.”I couldn’t imagine someone could ever be so wrong!Rourke nailed it for it’s worth and brought it home…SMH!
The final battle was everything I ever wanted to see an aerial superhero battle.
I still wish they would’ve brought Sam Rockwell back to be the bad guy in “Ant Man and the Wasp”. Justin Hammer trying to steal Pym tech to get back on top is extremely on-brand.
Ooh, that would indeed have been epic! But I’m fairly confident Hammer will return (outside of the one-shot) to the MCU at some point.
ask and ye shall receive. https://screenrant.com/iron-man-2-justin-hammer-armor-wars-villain-return/
While I’ll probably never get over just how amazing Scarlet looked in IM2, her character didn’t actually make that much sense. And the way they revealed who she was was a bit anticlimactic. Plus that whole scene with her changing in the car is kinda cringe in hindsight.
Mickey Rourke pronouncing “boird” should be a ringtone.
Yeah I remember Iron man 2 , the last Iron man film , I did see a fan script for 3 which was a really really shitty take on the Extremis stuff from the comics ,but I don’t think anything came of it.
I just watched it again last night and forgot how solid the movie is.
Rourke asking for his bird AND Rockwell dwelling on it just as much: “Now you like the bird? IS that your bird??”
Honestly, as much as I feel a little burnt-out on the MCU in general, I think all three Iron Man movies are pretty delightful. Certainly prefer Iron Man 2 to any movie FAVS has made since then.
Rockwell is fantastic as wannabe Tony Stark. I think they should do a IM2 remake with RDJ playing Hammer and Rockwell playing Tony, both actors would knock it out of the park.
See, I think phoenetically, it’s actually “boryd” but we won’t quibble.
Rourke was in the midst of a career comeback after “The Wrestler” and the MCU struck while the iron was hot. He’s done a lot of direct-to-DVD since then.
The MCU really doesn’t seem to be going for the “hot” names when casting now.
Personally preferred Howard to Cheadle. Howard was a great Rhodey and had a much better banter with RDJ IMO.
I actually agree that Howard did play off Downey much better, but they both have such different takes on the character, even in the respective scripts. Howard played him as the straight man to Tony, who sometimes gets drawn into Tony’s shenanigans. Cheadle started off that way but by the end of the film he’s just as much of a wiseass as Tony. Less of the straight man and more the comedic partner. Not sure if Howard would have pulled off that version of Rhodey quite as well.
Crispy fresh take: it wasn’t the more important movie, for a number of very valid reasons, but as a piece of storytelling, script, and acting, Iron Man 2 is better than Wonder Woman (yes, the first one).
Oh baby wants some attention today??
Wonder Woman was really good, but it does have 3rd act problems.
It’s not just the generic third act and its nonsensical, instant-daylight conclusion that’s faulty – the whole script is a mess. Remember when Diana mentioned how she’d read books upon books on erotic pleasure, and spoke every language known to humankind, but had to ask what freaking marriage was?!
The movie was graded on a serious curve for being a not-awful superhero flick starring a woman. And lest anyone try to read sexism into that opinion, it had four credited story/screenplay writers, all men, so, to quote Cap: “Just don’t.”
Not sure what any of that has to do with marriage.
So does Iron Man 2.
I would say that Iron Man 2 has better bones – the way it attempts to move the character and story forward feels very organic, from the “sins of the father” angle with Vanko to Tony’s self-destructive behavior. But it realizes almost none of its potential because it half-asses everything, and because most scenes sputter through shoddily improv’d digressions. Wonder Woman has a poor climax but at least achieves most of what it’s trying to do.
That is a crisp take, considering WW was bad for the last 45 min, and IM2 was bad from bell to bell.
I’ll certainly admit that IM3 righted the ship, while WW84…I’m not going to say the franchise is sinking, but it definitely took on some water.
“and IM2 was bad from bell to bell.”Nahh, the first act of Iron Man 2 is pretty good. And I say that as someone who, while he enjoys a lot of the cool moments in that film, thinks it’s top 5 worst MCU movies.
On the one hand, I’ll concede WW has its flaws.
On the other, Iron Man 2 is basically Patient Zero for one of the worst conceits of the modern comic book movie (i.e. Making large chunks of your movie exist purely to set up later franchise entries, leading to a large chunk IM 2 becoming the Nick Fury & Black Widow show.)
So I’m not going to go so far as to say you’re wrong, simply that this is a path I don’t think I can follow you down.
Iron Man 2 > Iron Man 3. There, I said it.
You typed the wrong symbol between those titles.
This is a pretty common take actually. Wrong, but common
It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, no one is judging you for that.Seriously though, I don’t hate Iron Man 2; when I rewatched it, it was much better than I remembered. But Iron Man 3 is one of the, if not the best Marvel movies. It features actual character development (undone in the next Avengers movie) and has an actual non-CGI (mostly) stunt action scene.For further evidence, here’s the funniest scene in any Marvel movie:
Hell yes.Iron Man 3 is atrocious.
I don’t get the allure. Prequels seem duller for the viewer (we know where everything ends up) and more limiting for the writers (no matter what, you have to hit a certain end point). Rogue One is the best one in recent memory, and that’s at least partially because the main characters weren’t in the original movies. It’s not impossible that Black Widow could be good, but we all know its status as a prequel is more or less a workaround for the fact that the character is dead in the “current” time.
I dunno, is Judas and the Black Messiah dull because we know what happens to Fred Hampton?
Historical movies are generally trading the suspense of not knowing what happens for the increased built-in investment people tend to have for “real” events (the reason movies will slap “based on a true story” on anything even close). Plus, filmmakers generally try to pick the most interesting time in a person’s life for their first major big screen portrayal. There’s a reason the movie didn’t focus heavily on Hampton’s time in sixth grade and then end with his budding interest in civil rights.
Knowing what happens isn’t a dealbreaker — why would anyone rewatch anything if it were? — but it is a handicap that you should have a better reason for saddling your movie with than “this way we get more prequels.”
Well said. And my comparison to movies based on true stories was admittedly imperfect.I think the other big advantage true stories have is in personifying and giving narrative structure to events that seem more like abstract bullet points when they’re presented as history or news articles. On the other hand, prequels are usually dealing with characters who have already been personified and presented as part of a narrative structure.Which suggests that part of the reason some types of prequels (which star previously unknown or unseen characters whose exploits have only been mentioned in passing, like Rogue One) work is because of that same effect. Whereas if your prequel stars characters who have already been depicted on screen, the feeling of “already knowing how the story ends” is more pronounced.“Knowing what happens isn’t a dealbreaker — why would anyone rewatch anything if it were? — but it is a handicap that you should have a better reason for saddling your movie with than “this way we get more prequels.””Wholeheartedly agree, and I think the point of my comment was to point out that it’s not automatically a dealbreaker, but not to say that it doesn’t matter at all.
It helps when you replace “prequel” with “retcon” and realize that it’s mostly a way to introduce a longer history of superpowered people (Captain Marvel, the Skrulls, Eternals) and a way to introduce new characters to the franchise with “built-in” connections to characters audiences already like (Black Widow II).
I don’t think of Rogue One as being a prequel so much as A Star Wars Story ( which was its tagline I think?)
for Rogue One to have been a prequel they would have had to include all of the characters, or at least the main one, in a later-set movie, or refer to them, or have a flashback, that tells you pretty much everything that happens in Rogue One and then make us sit through two hours to see what we already know happened. Like, we know the actions of the Rogue One team didn’t directly affect the original trilogy, but they weren’t already pre-rendered entirely dramatically inert, so not really a prequel, and why it was good.
(we know where everything ends up): Such a lame excuse.
You’re saying that true stories can’t be exciting either?
I’ve basically always hated prequels in pretty much all media unless it’s just super, super separate from everything else. I’m pumped for Black Widow but only because I’m a die-hard MCU fan – I’d much rather we keep moving on to fresh ideas/faces.
How about Godfather II, which is half prequel?
And if Rogue One is a high mark for prequels, that says a lot, since it still had the problem of not mattering, and being cash grabby waste of time. The Star Wars universe is technically 80% prequels given where things need to be in the stories, so that’s an IP that has contributed a lot towards my feelings on this.A prequel that I feel works is actually Better Call Saul, and even that took a few seasons before really becoming something substantial.
I mean, in the grand scheme of things, none of this matters, but BCS is another example of a prequel getting a lot of its suspense from a character whose fate we don’t already know. A substantial chunk of the discussion revolves around what happens with Kim because she’s just gone, without explanation, by the time BB happens.
I don’t get the allure. Nor do I, as prequels are almost always sub-par even moreso than the also much-maligned sequel.
I actually polled friends on Facebook recently about their opinions of prequels, specifically asking folks to name good ones. Folks couldn’t come up with very many nominees and they included a bunch of questionable ones like Godfather II (half a prequel/half a sequel), and Casino Royale (which most respondents agreed should be called a reboot.) A bunch of horror movies from franchises I’ve never seen got nominated, so apparently that’s a thing which works more often in that genre than others, but I can’t personally confirm that. The picks also included two X-Men movies, Rogue One, Prometheus and Covenant, and Temple of Doom, all films which elicited very divisive opinions among respondents. That as many of those disagreements were about the semantics of what is and isn’t a prequel as the quality of the films themselves is probably indicative of just how few good prequels there have been overall. (Such quibbling would be unnecessary to make a list of actually good-to-great sequels, after all, as there are more than enough obvious ones to choose from.)
Special mentions for two movies which are prequels to TV shows: Fire Walk With Me got several nods and so did The Muppet Movie, although the “flashback” segments in the latter are presented as a fictionalized film account, not an accurate history, making it yet another iffy inclusion. (As self-appointed judge of the conversation, I declared it valid because I believe The Muppet Movie — to this day the finest Muppet movie by a large margin, IMHO — should win all the awards and be forever treasured by everyone.)
If Black Widow had been released before Infinity War and Endgame, would you really think she had a chance of dying? No, because we’d expect her to appear in the big crossover movie that’s been built up for a decade. We’d also expect it to be the first in a series of movies led by Johansson. We would be wrong in this instance, but the expectation would be there.
And just because we know Johansson’s character lives, that doesn’t mean there are zero stakes. We do not know the fates of the entire rest of the cast, who presumably are being introduced to appear in future movies.Not to mention a well made movie will still be worth watching again and again. I can watch a thrilling movie a dozen times and still be just as excited by it as I was the first time. Yes, I know what the outcome will be, but a scene that has high stakes and loads of tension will still be exciting on repeat views.
Look, we all know they could bring back Black Widow if they wanted to and Scarlett Johannson wanted to keep playing the part. We saw them already bring back Gamora (who died the exact same way!) and Loki so far more or less!
This sounds dumb until you think about the characters whose origins we haven’t seen and then it suddenly sounds awesome. Valkryie, Rocket and Groot, Okoye… I’d happily watch any of that.
Man, a Valkyrie movie showing how she got from Asgard to Sakaar could be really good.
I hadn’t considered a Valkyrie film until you mentioned it. This would be great if done properly, obviously.
I’m usually fine not needing to know every detail about how every side character came to be. It’s the exact problem Disney’s live-action stuff is having, and Marvel doesn’t need to pull the same tactics.Prequels are what companies resort to when they are out of ideas or need to milk something. The MCU has more than enough material to look forward, not backwards. That said, I’d be okay with a prequel about the original Hank Pym Ant-Man. He’s a fully realized superhero they established with a history.
The untitled Wakanda series which was already revealed for D+ is reportedly an Okoye origin story (Danai Gurira is already signed on).
Idk, Guardians 3 seems like they would get into Rocket’s backstory. Depending how much goes on in Thor 4, yes, the Guardians will have to let Star Lord re-woo Gamora. So there’s a priority list with the things and places the Guardians will go. 1) Restitch Quill and Gamora2) Something Something Sylvester Stallone 3) Rocket’s backstory Which sounds like the most fun? Hopefully James Gunn goes there.
Also, that Adam Warlock tease at the end of Guardians 2? Gotta follow that up.
I can’t go on without knowing about the madcap exploits of young Taserface.
Back then he was called Regularface.
“Kenny”
What was wrong with Iron Man 2?
Not enough Sam Rockwell.
Too much Elon Musk
Honestly I’d love it if they kept making just Black Widow movies and they go further and further back but Scarlett Johannsson just wears bad wigs a la Wet Hot American Summer revival
noooooooo
Seems kinda sorta like the whole prequel thing, in this case, might be Marvel expressing a wee bit of buyer’s remorse for having killed off a whole bunch of the main characters of their super successful prior three phases only to find themselves in a situation where they don’t seem to have a lot of clear successors for several of them. It does, after all, potentially open up the door for Steve Rogers and Tony Stark to return somehow.
And that’s why I’m the perfect demographic for a bunch of prequels because I’m not ready to let those characters move on! And let’s get a decent Hulk movie because c’mon.
Unless something’s changed that I’ve missed, Universal still has the final say on that.
And at this point, I feel like encouraging that further is just gonna lead to more buyer’s remorse because it’s gonna lead to Disney not wanting to stop at just the Hulk.
The death of Chadwick Boseman upended a lot of plans at the MCU, I would expect.
The prequels also lets them tell stories that avoid having to deal with the post Blip, 5 year gap continuity (and whatever impending multiverse rules change). I like exploring this setting, but I can also see how basically most of the stories going forward (for the near future at least) will have to account for how those events impacted the characters.
Secret Avengers movie with Cap, Nat, and Sam on the run please
… teaming up with Luke Cage, JJ, and Daredevil. Make it happen!
Throw in a little Daisy Johnson and baby, you got a stew going!
We really do need a Hulk movie set during the blip that explains how Banner created Smart Hulk and why his relationship with Natasha failed. (The reason in my mind now would hardly be PG-13)Not only would it explain a key plot point in the Avengers story and provide an opportunity to explore blip world, but the entire character arc of Ruffalo’s Hulk, across 5 movies, takes up about 15 minutes at this point
I wasn’t under the impression they had tried again after the snap. I think that relationship was done the moment Hulk chose to run away. Or maybe the moment Natasha pushed Bruce down that hole.
It’s never going end, is it.
The pandemic happened at a great time for the MCU. I am almost ready to start seeing Marvel movies again after Endgame.
Fuck, I’d take a Hulk: Year One.
I think due to legal shenanigans Disney have to pay Universal a chunk of any solo Hulk movie , so that’s probably not going to happen soon.
“…and The Eternals, a movie that seemingly encompasses all of history, making it a prequel not just to every MCU entry, but every movie ever made.”That’s…not how prequels work. Just because Braveheart is set in 1280 doesn’t mean it’s a prequel to literally every movie set after 1280.
eternals is set over hundreds of years, though, unlike braveheart.edit: i was a bit early on my snark this morning and i missed your point. snarkinception.
Actually, it’s in the multiverse where “Braveheart” referred to William Wallace instead of Robert the Bruce
I felt robbed by Hulk figuring his shit out off-screen between Infinity War and Endgame, so on the list of good prequel ideas I’d definitely like to see a personal story of how he integrated his two selves during that time period.
I remember being really excited when red hulk and green hulk became banner hulk back in the day, they definitely threw away that whole arc
Disney doesn’t have full rights to make Hulk movies, its tied up in a complicated agreement Marvel had with Universal. Basically they can include him in crossover films but have to share revenue with Universal if they make a solo film. That’s why they haven’t had a solo Hulk movie in quite some time and played his story arc out in Thor and Avengers movies.
that’s interesting to know (not kidding, the rights fuckery is always worth keeping some track of) but per the OP they really skipped a large part of the arc. I suppose now he’s just a really strong green dude with a big ass d**k. Maybe he’ll show up in She-Hulk. Sony worked it out for Spider-Man after years of sabotage, so hopefully they can do something more with Hulk and aren’t just going to act like it would be like us paying North Korea royalties. Umm…did Banner remember everything he did as Hulk? Because they could do a “he has to revert to the Hulky Hulk to solve a puzzle” “the morning after” type thing I suppose, although that’s really a retread. Or they could show how he uses anger management and basic intelligence to overcome his rage over government restrictions due to COVID and required mask wearing, just being contemporary 🙂
PLEASE add some Crispin Glover.
Thats great and all but , Nebula movie when??
People have noted that putting Zemo on the raft, and Agatha Harkness in the 50s (which is weird because they town isn’t in the 50s) shows progress in serializing villains instead of just dropping them in and having them give a one-line explanation of their motivations then boomboomboom. Marvel has fumbled a lot of storylines by just cutting them off (my biggest grudge is shorting out any kind of “friendly neighborhood spider-man” with that turd at the end of “Far from Home”), hopefully they will ease up on the “deaths to make the plot meaningful” device, but doubtful. Wtf is cataract Vision up to anyway?
1) Lazy-ass, cookie cutter bullshit writing about Iron Man 2 vs. Iron Man 3
Iron Man 3 was a bloated piece of crap that milked the “Ooooh, is it a drone or a real Tony” about five times too many, copped out on the Mandarin, caved to the worst of MCU executives with Guy Pearce over Rebecca Hall, went with the annoying kid sidekick and had a conclusion that was obsolete by the next movie.
Iron Man 2 had real stakes, the introduction of Black Widow, the proper introduction of Rhodey and a bad-ass finale.
It’s not enough you guys have to suck, is it? You guys have to suck and not even try hard not to suck?
2) Prequel suggestions
* Ant-Man and Wasp – the Hank and Janet versions.
* Pick any time frame you want from African history and do Wakanda and the Black Panther of the time.
* Ancient Avengers – Odin, an early Iron Fist, an early Black Panther, an early Sorcerer Supreme and whoever else you want.
* Maria Rambeau founding SWORD
* Secret Avengers – Cap, Wanda, Natasha, Falcon on the run between Civil War and Infinity War.
XMen Babies!
“Running this money machine into the ground with awful creative decisions could be on the way,” says Kevin Feige
Okay Onion writer, I see you
Oh no, no more prequels. I understand the appeal of safely reflecting back on the MCU’s very successful history. However, I’d much rather the focus remained on moving forward and building a new great story.
Marvel Mad Men (mid-60s version)
Peggy Carter, Dominic Cooper’s Howard Stark, Jarvis and Rosamund Pike as Maria Collins, the eventual Maria Stark.
(Although I have no clue how Dominic turns into John Slattery, I can easily see Rosamund turning into Hope Davis)
Young versions of Hank and Janet, Thunderbolt Ross, Nick Fury and Alexander Pierce can be part of the fun. The Black Panther of the time (probably T’Challa and Shuri’s grandfather) is active. The Black Widow program is still active and churning out assassins. No end to the possibilities. Agatha, Loki and the Ancient One could all be involved. Zola is active. An Iron Fist (an Asian one) is possible.
I’m still hoping for a 60s Fantastic Four, even if it’s just one movie.
My hot take is that the Lucas Star Wars prequels were exactly the kind of story where a prequel makes sense. The predestined ending works extremely well for a tragedy about the downfall of a Republic and the corruption of an innocent. We know where this is going, which makes it even more frustrating to see it happen. But this just isn’t the case for any other prequels. Filling in backstory just isn’t interesting enough to justify an entire film.
I just want X-Men.I’ll vote “No” to anything Feige’s getting distracted with that isn’t that.
As for the prequel business, it probably depends on the success of Black Widow or the failure of any of the company’s upcoming releases to determine how many characters they’ll pull out of storage.
So they’re going to do the same with what Disney has done recently. But that’s a mixed bag. Sure, Cruella and Malificent had success the first time but the Malificent sequel lost its appeal very fast because the story wasn’t strong enough.
Geez, have Marvel ran out of ideas already? And as much as prequels seem like a cool idea that would make a mess out of the continuity. You can only retcon so much that people are going to start to question what this character did or didn’t do. Even the current timeline has so many inconsistencies that makes me wonder if Feige or the other directors were aware of the other films but only at a surface level. I don’t know if they’re that good at keeping track of the continuity and then claim it’s shared cinematic universe.
I feel so out of step with the Iron Man 2 praise. 3 is delightful and I love that 3 is just doing it’s own thing and having a good time, it even offers a possible conclusion and those are few and for between in Marvel movies. Guy Pearce is a fun villain, the Mandarin twist is fantastic and it’s really just a great Shane Black movie. 2 made me think this entire universe thing would immediately collapse, it’s just clumsy and really feels like a situation where there was barely a script.
Well, at least you were right about the universe thing collapsing…
I’m not wrong in liking one movie over the other either. That’s just personal preference.
2 is bad, 3 is great. Not a huge fan of the Mandarin twist though. It was super fun in the moment, but it also robbed the film of almost all the tension it had been building up (which is one of the MCUs worst habits)
Of all the new and upcoming marvel movies , only spiderman has interest for me , the last one finished on a pretty great cliff hanger.
Pretty sure this is a head-fake by Feige, playing into the idea that Black Widow is “just” a prequel.
Is Iron Man 2 how Sam Rockwell and “the Bibbster” met?
I don’t mind the idea of prequels but I am not hungry for them either. There are vast troves of characters, locations and time periods in Marvel Comics that I would much rather see explored, like the Savage Land or Machine Man or Marvel’s version of the Old West. Its smart and cautious — the pillars of Feige’s producing philosophy — to keep milking the characters they have established, but I’d be more excited to see the MCU stretch beyond them.
So they’re going to Phantom Menace this Marvel franchise?What? Really? Marvel made BOLD choices to kill off characters and then suddenly backtracks because they see where the money/franchise goes. They used the characters/actors for these story decisions but when they suddenly realizes there is positive responses/money to be made off of them they realize “oh crap, we killed them off. Oh well let’s find a loophole to exploit that.”
So I really can’t take their storytelling/character development seriously since it’s not motivated by “we have more stories to tell” to “we’re going to have to find ways to sell merch like in Cars.”
And why should I take Feige seriously? Not long ago he was willing to doubledown on the casting of Tilda Swinton on Doctor Strange and then when the climate changed he suddenly has regrets. I’m not so sure. (So much regret she reappeared again in Endgame.) He changes his tone to where the direction the money goes, which is fine, that’s his job as a salesman not as a “visionary”. His words don’t mean much it’s mostly as a glorified salesman where I don’t think he even believes what he’s selling as much as he thinks.