Do you still consider the TV shows canon?

[BarryAllen]

On the subject of the shows, I honestly question the likelihood of all those characters coming back at all.

The Agent Carter folks are long done and with Cap and Tony gone, too, what would be the point in bringing them back? Agents of Shield doesn't have any character so big that I would really expect them to be continued - I think the MCU proper will get its own Ghost Rider in the next 5-10 years, but MS will want that flashy flaming motorcycle, so it won't be Robbie Reyes. Coulson was big in the movies, but again, who is left for him to reconnect with? And Quake, at most, would probably wind up a bit part in Ms. Marvel, but I doubt even that.

Punisher and Jessica Jones are darker than Feige has ever gone and I don't think he ever will go that dark. Iron Fist and Daredevil could be continued or rebooted, but if Feige was really raring to get his hands on those characters, why would he already be introducing lesser known characters that tread such heavily similar ground (Shang-chi, Moon Knight)? Luke Cage is the only Netflix hero I don't really see any significant obstacle to, except of course that he is traditionally joined at the hip with either Iron Fist or Jessica Jones, both of which are unlikely to be around.

And as for Runaways/Cloak and Dagger - how many young kid stars do we really expect the MCU to feature? Because we've already got Spider-man, with Ms. Marvel, Kate Bishop, and Cassie Lang on the way and persistant rumors about Wanda's kids (so Young Avengers and/or Champions seems inevitable) and even the Power Pack.

Between all the stuff that is already announced and all the stuff that we know is coming (x-men in particular is going to eat up a lot of movie and D+ real estate), there aren't THAT many open slots left to fill for the coming years and honestly not much reason why those slots should go to the former tv characters. If I were forced to make a bet, I'd say the only characters you're particularly likely to see again are the Inhuman royal family, and that only as supporting characters for Ms. Marvel. And maybe there's a chance at D'Onofrio's Kingpin just because he's a character with wide-ranging potential and probably the only performance from any of the tv series that's arguably just as impactful and beloved as the main mcu stars. And maybe Daredevil is big enough to make a return of some kind, eventually, when Feige starts running out of other characters, if the MCU still exists by then.

Summed up my thoughts for the most part, but I don't see Moon Knight or Shang-Chi really making Daredevil or Iron Fist redundant. The bits floating around about Moon Knight seem to be suggesting they are taking him in a more supernatural direction. Shang-Chi's film title evokes a pulp feel and his comic stories have always been a James Bond meets Bruce Lee type thing while Iron Fist has the crazy lore. So unless they plan on powering up Shang, having fight a dragon (Fin Fang Foom) or taking him in a more mystical direction, I don't see it making Iron Fist redundant.

If I had to guess which characters will make it (rebooted) into the MCU, I'd put my money on Iron Fist, Luke Cage and Daredevil. All three are big-name "classic" Marvel characters (at least in terms of the comics) and have operated in PG-13 stories for years, and in the case of Cage and Fist, they probably should've been in the movies/mainstream MCU to begin with rather than the lower budgeted, edgier, "adult" shows. Chris Claremont/Mary Jo Duffy's run on Power Man and Iron Fist is filled with fun antics and fun humor and a buddy cop dynamic. And I don't think there's anyone who believed that the Immortal Iron Fist run (which has a cinematic tone and reads like a MCU movie) could've been pulled off on a Netflix budget.

Whenever they start rebooting these characters, I think they'll start with Iron Fist for the easiest goodwill. Probably tease Luke Cage in a post-credit scene, and have a Fist/Cage team-up Heroes for Hire movie. Cage's backstory might be a little too gritty for a Disney audience but they could retool it or brush past it if they play up more of the H4H stuff. Iron Fist's solo series would focus on the Kun-Lun stuff, while Heroes for Hire would focus on a Luke/Danny team-up dynamic. Fiege already teased "very different" take on the X-Men from what we've seen, so how about more comic accurate takes here as well? Full costumes, proper personalities, Danny x Misty, etc?

Daredevil seems harder but he's a relatively bigger name, is popular but is more grounded than most of the MCU, including street-level characters like Spidey, Cage, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi, Moon Knight, etc. What would he bring to the wider MCU or justify a big budget? Would Disney want devil iconography and religious themes in a family friendly universe? We'll have to see what they do with Blade to get a sense of how dark they'll go. I do think they'll wait some time, let some of the noise regarding the Netflix shows die out and then reboot.

Punisher is a big name character and IP, so they'll probably reboot him on TV again (maybe on FX or Hulu) away from the rest of the MCU and in his own corner. Jessica Jones is someone I don't really see any path forward. Really a one-story wonder and doesn't have the "classic" status that the others do. Agreed regarding your assessment on the other Marvel TV properties.

 

[NHawk19]

Like someone else said Fiege is never going to be 100% clear on this until he has to.

Thus far all the movies events have fed down to the shows nothing has flowed up. (yes I'm aware of the helicarrier in Ultron but Fury never named Coulson so . . . .) The MCU also hasn't really even acknowledged SHIELD still exists. At best we got "Fury" in FFH still working for an agency but they never state which one. AoS also just started to diverge and play with time travel so they could be in their own pocket-verse at this point.

Until the shows specifically feed up to the movies, I'd say they're adjacent, or supplemental, but not necessarily cannon.

 

[TheVileOne]

Like someone else said Fiege is never going to be 100% clear on this until he has to.

Thus far all the movies events have fed down to the shows nothing has flowed up. (yes I'm aware of the helicarrier in Ultron but Fury never named Coulson so . . . .) The MCU also hasn't really even acknowledged SHIELD still exists. At best we got "Fury" in FFH still working for an agency but they never state which one. AoS also just started to diverge and play with time travel so they could be in their own pocket-verse at this point.

Until the shows specifically feed up to the movies, I'd say they're adjacent, or supplemental, but not necessarily cannon.

Pretty much this. It's all connected was nothing but a pack of false goods.

 

[Dark Raven]

Wasn't the first episode of AOS Season 7 immediately contradictory to Avengers Endgame time travel rules? Well, AOS's time travel was already different in Season 5, but they've doubled down on it in the first episode again.

 

[Mike Murdock]

^ I mean, Doctor Strange is arguably contradictory too, fwiw.

Like someone else said Fiege is never going to be 100% clear on this until he has to.

I think I mostly agree. It's just the conclusion I push back. I think Feige is happy with a deliberate vagueness and, while there have been accommodation to the TV shows, he will gladly sacrifice their continuity when necessary for a better product that he's making. The part I disagree with is assuming the presumption is that they aren't canon until he says they clearly are when, in reality, he has half-heartedly said they are canon and the rest of Disney has said they're part of the same continuity. It seems to me the more reasonable approach is they're part of the same continuity (while not necessarily essential viewing) until the point they are either disavowed or contradicted.

I would go a step further and distinguish those two things. If they're disavowed, they're not canon. If they're contradicted, the parts that contradict aren't canon.

 

[NHawk19]

^ I mean, Doctor Strange is arguably contradictory too, fwiw.

I think I mostly agree. It's just the conclusion I push back. I think Feige is happy with a deliberate vagueness and, while there have been accommodation to the TV shows, he will gladly sacrifice their continuity when necessary for a better product that he's making. The part I disagree with is assuming the presumption is that they aren't canon until he says they clearly are when, in reality, he has half-heartedly said they are canon and the rest of Disney has said they're part of the same continuity. It seems to me the more reasonable approach is they're part of the same continuity (while not necessarily essential viewing) until the point they are either disavowed or contradicted.

I would go a step further and distinguish those two things. If they're disavowed, they're not canon. If they're contradicted, the parts that contradict aren't canon.

Dr.S used magic not science and the quantum realm so maybe that's why?

Feige has no incentive to out-right declare them non-canon right now. It's better for the mothership if he doesn't because it generates interest in the projects until something else better comes along and replaces them. Once the Disney+ shows startup, and AOS ends, things will get interesting. The netflix shows will probably fade into obscurity until the larger MCU adds those characters back in. Though I don't think they'll be folded back in right away. Now that they have the Fox properties back there is a greater incentive to get those into the MCU.

Funny thing is that it seems to me like we're both leery about how cannonical they are, and will remain. I'm hedging more to the non canon side because that's where I believe they'll end up anyway. You're hedging more to the cannon side until proven otherwise. Either way I think we can both agree that all of them can be removed with little to no impact to the MCU in it's current state.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Dr.S used magic not science and the quantum realm so maybe that's why?

I don't think the movies have made that distinction. If anything, Doctor Strange went out of its way to emphasize that magic was just science not yet understood (specifically, the Time Stone in this case). Besides, what are the obelisks in Agents of SHIELD? Science or magic?

Funny thing is that it seems to me like we're both leery about how cannonical they are, and will remain. I'm hedging more to the non canon side because that's where I believe they'll end up anyway. You're hedging more to the cannon side until proven otherwise. Either way I think we can both agree that all of them can be removed with little to no impact to the MCU in it's current state.

I'm just recognizing that anything that comes later reserves the right to retcon what comes before it. This is true even if someone replaces Feige and declares Thor to be non-canon.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

I don't think the movies have made that distinction. If anything, Doctor Strange went out of its way to emphasize that magic was just science not yet understood (specifically, the Time Stone in this case). Besides, what are the obelisks in Agents of SHIELD? Science or magic?


I'm just recognizing that anything that comes later reserves the right to retcon what comes before it. This is true even if someone replaces Feige and declares Thor to be non-canon.

I think that counting Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D we have three different technologies to account for time travel and the rules of travel via the time stone in Dr Strange and Infinity War didn't seem to be the same as time travel via the quantum realm used in Endgame. The rules of the monolith and time loop leading Deke's parents to be among the Lighthouse refugee/slaves seem to go a third way.

 

[Mike Murdock]

That being said, the rules in Agents of SHIELD seem somewhat unclear. The show referenced the branching timeline theory and the fact that Deke is still alive suggests that his timeline wasn't rewritten. This would be consistent with Endgame even if the characters aren't certain.

 

[NHawk19]

I'm just recognizing that anything that comes later reserves the right to retcon what comes before it. This is true even if someone replaces Feige and declares Thor to be non-canon.

Agreed. But a drastic retcon, or abandonment is far more likely to happen to the shows than it is to the movies. It's also easier to do to them since they have yet to significantly feed up to the films.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

That being said, the rules in Agents of SHIELD seem somewhat unclear. The show referenced the branching timeline theory and the fact that Deke is still alive suggests that his timeline wasn't rewritten. This would be consistent with Endgame even if the characters aren't certain.

We were given Deke giving a thumbnail theory that he subscribed to his Director and team where as from the Ancient One to Bruce Banner presented her case as absolute fact.

 

[Bayne]

Trying to apply the rules of basic time travel to the time stone is pointless. The entire point of the infinity stones is that they can do things that are otherwise utterly impossible. That's why the space stone can take you anywhere instantaneously (rather than needing hundreds of jumps to cross the galaxy as established in guardians vol. ii), why the reality stone can literally rewrite or erase from existence anything you want, etc.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

That being said, the rules in Agents of SHIELD seem somewhat unclear. The show referenced the branching timeline theory and the fact that Deke is still alive suggests that his timeline wasn't rewritten. This would be consistent with Endgame even if the characters aren't certain.

In Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 7 episode 2 one character made a reference to himself in this timeline. Being a fast but definite statement that we are following a branch away from the earlier story.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I consider them canon until they are specifically contradicted

wouldn't the casting of Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali in more than one role count as contradictions?

 

[Bayne]

wouldn't the casting of Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali in more than one role count as contradictions?

Why? They're not playing Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali. And I doubt Blade will be particularly reminiscent of Cottonmouth as a character. Or that the woman in Civil War was secretly a major crime boss. Plenty of totally unrelated people look exactly like each other in the real world, too.

 

[Naked Shia]

yes but not all.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Why? They're not playing Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali. And I doubt Blade will be particularly reminiscent of Cottonmouth as a character. Or that the woman in Civil War was secretly a major crime boss. Plenty of totally unrelated people look exactly like each other in the real world, too.

When Disney cast Alfre and Mahershala in new MCU projects, their rationale wasn't about unrelated people resembling other people in reality, their rationale was that they just didn't care that the actors were already cast in the MCU before.

 

[Bayne]

yes but not all.

Two is not all. This really shouldn't be hard to grasp.

When Disney cast Alfre and Mahershala in new MCU projects, their rationale wasn't about unrelated people resembling other people in reality, their rationale was that they just didn't care that the actors were already cast in the MCU before.

No one should give a damn whether they were already cast before in the shows. Actors can be in multiple projects, as long as the producers/director/casting crew believe they can pull it off. And why shouldn't they be able to? We're talking about two of the best actors around.

 

[OB12]

wouldn't the casting of Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali in more than one role count as contradictions?

You can't really go by the standard of casting the same actor in multiple roles, otherwise Eternals and Captain Marvel are not canon (Gemma Chan is cast in both).

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

No one should give a damn whether they were already cast before in the shows.

I give a damn, and I don't think it's up to any one individual person to determine who should give a damn about what.

Actors can be in multiple projects, as long as the producers/director/casting crew believe they can pull it off. And why shouldn't they be able to? We're talking about two of the best actors around.

No one said actors can'e be in multiple projects, and no one said they shouldn't be able to be in multiple projects, and no one questioned the acting ability of these two particular actors...

...all I did was point out that these two actors are in two projects that are part of the same fictional continuity, my point being the fact that this recasting took place could suggest that the canonicity of the television series aren't acknowledged in the film series.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

You can't really go by the standard of casting the same actor in multiple roles, otherwise Eternals and Captain Marvel are not canon (Gemma Chan is cast in both).

You have a point there. I honestly didn't know about Gemma Chan being in more than one MCU role

 

[Bayne]

I give a damn, and I don't think it's up to any one individual person to determine who should give a damn about what.

No one said actors can'e be in multiple projects, and no one said they shouldn't be able to be in multiple projects, and no one questioned the acting ability of these two particular actors...

...all I did was point out that these two actors are in two projects that are part of the same fictional continuity, my point being the fact that this recasting took place could suggest that the canonicity of the television series aren't acknowledged in the film series.

Except that's a non-sensical standard. Actors have played multiple different roles in related projects throughout history. Often on the same tv series. Sometimes even in a single movie. And more often than one might expect, the audience literally doesn't even notice. Alfre Woodard in particular literally just played a little throwaway character in Civil War that no one ever sees again after her one scene. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim that would somehow fundamentally invalidate her original role or the series that her original role was on. Especially not when much larger, more noticeable 'breaks' with the continuity are explicitly allowed (ie, recasting Terrance Howard didn't invalidate Iron Man, nor Ed Norton the Hulk, totally screwing up the timeline didn't invalidate Spider-man Homecoming, etc).

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Except that's a non-sensical standard.

What's a nonsensical standard? I don't know which part of my post you're responding to here.

Actors have played multiple different roles in related projects throughout history. Often on the same tv series. Sometimes even in a single movie.

I know they have, but it sounds like you're talking about when the character an actor is portraying has multiple different versions of themselves in one story, which isn't the same thing as we're discussing here. And if you are talking about the same thing, that still doesn't change my point. Just because it happens often doesn't mean in a continuity like the MCU, contradictions aren't introduced because the franchise cast the same actors in different roles.

And more often than one might expect, the audience literally doesn't even notice.

This is completely besides the point...but I can entertain it anyway by saying even if the vast majority of the audience didn't know or care that the character's actress was already in the MCU, there still was part of the audience that did, and it was considerable enough that I wouldn't be surprised if comic book articles even talked or mentioned it.

Alfre Woodard in particular literally just played a little throwaway character in Civil War that no one ever sees again after her one scene.

While her role was very small, the significance of her presence and the effect her scene had on the narrative, was not. It was her confrontation of Tony that set the dominos off in his head about the Accords and superheroes needing to be under watch.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim that would somehow fundamentally invalidate her original role or the series that her original role was on. Especially not when much larger, more noticeable 'breaks' with the continuity are explicitly allowed (ie, recasting Terrance Howard didn't invalidate Iron Man, nor Ed Norton the Hulk, totally screwing up the timeline didn't invalidate Spider-man Homecoming, etc).

My argument here is that if Marvel Studios cared to be consistent in acknowledging the events of the Netflix MCU series, they wouldn't taken casting a little more seriously and not cast someone who was already in a series that was supposed to be part of the franchise which could be seen as a contradiction in the narrative.

 

[Naked Shia]

Two is not all. This really shouldn't be hard to grasp.



No one should give a damn whether they were already cast before in the shows. Actors can be in multiple projects, as long as the producers/director/casting crew believe they can pull it off. And why shouldn't they be able to? We're talking about two of the best actors around.

You don't say!

 

[Mike Murdock]

wouldn't the casting of Alfre Woodard and Mahershala Ali in more than one role count as contradictions?

Probably not any more so than casting Gemma Chan in Captain Marvel and Eternals. I'd argue reusing actors isn't dramatically different from recasting, so you have Bruce Banner, Howard Stark, and James Rhodes on your list.