Marvel Has Given The First Three Phases Of The MCU An Epic Name

Marvel Has Given The First Three Phases Of The MCU An Epic Name

In just over a month’s time, the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Phase 3 will come to an end in Avengers: Endgame. More than closing out Phase 3 though, Endgame also puts a cap on the first eleven years of the MCU, a journey that consists of three Phases and twenty-one films. We’ve been told that Avengers: Endgame represents a culmination; the end of the book and narrative that began with Iron Man. Now, as we race towards its climactic conclusion, we finally know what it’s called. And it is epic.

According to Empire Magazine, Kevin Feige has revealed that the first three phases of the MCU are called The Infinity Saga.

Yup, that is an appropriately epic and fitting name for the 21-film journey we have been on since 2008. It’s a super cool name that is going to look awesome emblazoned on a massive and expensive Blu-ray box set one day. Considering that we didn’t even know that these first three phases would have a specific name (think of all the speculation we missed out on!) beyond just Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, it is a pleasant surprise as well.

Marvel has clearly taken a page out of corporate brother Lucasfilm’s book with this name. Like ‘The Skywalker Saga’, the word ‘saga’ just conveys an extra level of grandiosity and has an epic quality to it, befitting a heroic tale, vast in scope and long in telling. Series or chronicle doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. The only thing that comes close is ‘cycle’ which is what George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire novel series is often referred to as.

Sometimes the most obvious answers are the right ones and The Infinity Saga frankly sounds like the most obvious and appropriate name for the Marvel Cinematic Universe films to date.

The Tesseract, which contained the Space Stone, was introduced all the way back in Phase 1 in Captain America: The First Avenger and the Infinity Gauntlet (albeit a replica) first appeared in Thor. Thanos first appeared in the end-credits scene of The Avengers and he and the Infinity Stones have acted like a specter hanging over everything and propelling the plot ever since. That the Infinity Saga built to the Avengers: Infinity War shows that this name is the right one.

I’m honestly not sure what the MCU’s first three Phases would be called other than The Infinity Saga. The Stan Lee Saga would honor the man who Marvel owes so much to and left such a legacy in the films, but it wouldn’t speak to the story. The only other choice would have been The Avengers Saga, but we may get more Avengers movies after Endgame, so that wouldn’t hold as much weight.

There are more stories yet to come in the MCU, and Endgame is a demarcation line between what came before and what comes after. What’s interesting about finding out this name is that if The Infinity Saga is book 1 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what’s book 2?

We know so little about Phase 4 (if it’s even called that) that it’s difficult to make an educated guess at this point. The New Avengers Saga? The Secret Invasion Saga? The Galactus Saga? Or, wishful thinking here as this may be more book 3 material but The Mutant Saga? We probably won’t know for some time, maybe in another 21 films, but it’s fun to think about.

Avengers: Endgame concludes The Infinity Saga on April 26. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all of this year’s biggest movies.

Glass’ Original Opening Scene Was Way More Chilled Out

Glass’ Original Opening Scene Was Way More Chilled Out

Here’s a new M. Night Shyamalan twist: the Glass director famous for his unexpected endings actually has an alternate opening he’s revealed as it's released digitally today. The final film in the trilogy that began with 2000’s Unbreakable and continued with 2016’s Split was going to begin at the psychiatric facility that much of the film is set in.

The brief alternate opening (via Entertainment Weekly) has men on ladders installing cameras to the walls of Glass' main location before the eerie string music sets the scene for the movies and the opening titles roll. M. Night Shyamalan has explained why he originally thought this scene would open the movie thusly:

Structurally, what I wanted to do with the movie was to kind of say to the audience that the whole movie is going to take place in one location… My original concept of how to set up that premise: the whole movie is going to take place in this one place, we’re going to come back here. So, I wanted to start in this mysterious place where they were setting up this ambiguous kind of rooms and things for we don’t know what purpose.

This alternate scene certainly builds a bit of tension for the audience in the beginning of Glass, but it was decided that it wasn’t particularly necessary to the film. Since many of us went into the movie knowing the facility was going to be a huge part of Glass’ storyline, I’d say it was a good call. Directors such as M. Night Shyamalan have to make a ton of tough decisions when cutting together their movie, and this is an interesting one that certainly would have worked. However, here’s why he decided against it:

Ultimately it didn’t end up in that structure because there were too many beginnings and the beginning of the movie. What I did was move Patricia to the front, immediately start with her and pick up right after Split.

So instead of starting with the mysterious, Shyamalan went for the familiar. James McAvoy’s Split character was likely what many had most recently seen from the franchise, so it served as a great refresher to pick up with the story with Patricia, one of the Horde’s identities. The director also said Glass already had too many beginnings, since it also needs to quickly fill a large gap of time between David Dunn’s role in the franchise, so taking this portion out likely served the movie well.

Shyamalan has said that Glass used to be way longer, with a runtime of three hours and 20 minutes before shaving it off to a more reasonable time of 2 hours and 9 minutes. The director certainly seems like he had a grand vision for the trilogy closer. Considering the overall positive reactions of fans (polarizing the brutal critical reviews) and its $246 million worldwide gross, things turned out great.

Glass is available on Digital HD today and will be released on Blu-Ray and DVD on April 16.

Angelina Jolie Gets Threatening In First Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil Trailer

Angelina Jolie Gets Threatening In First Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil Trailer

Robert Stromberg's Maleficent was a massive hit when it hit theaters back in the summer of 2014, ultimately making over $750 million at the global box office - but it took a minute for a sequel to get the green light. While Disney continued to mine their expansive animated library for new live-action material, the idea of a sequel to the villain-centric fairy tale stayed on the back burner. Five years later, however, the studio is now finally getting ready to unleash Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil on the world, and today we got our very first look at the new blockbuster. Check it out!

The first Maleficent surprised a lot of people in the way in which it added new context to the primary antagonist of 1959's Sleeping Beauty, giving audiences an interesting opportunity to see the villainess in a new light. Taking that into consideration, it will be interesting to see what the sequel winds up doing with her, as this debut trailer for Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil definitely suggests that the film will be developing the character's sinister side quite a bit.

Directed by Joachim Rønning, who previously worked with Disney co-directing 2017's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, the Maleficent sequel picks up years after the events of its predecessor, and continues to explore the complicated maternal relationship between Angelina Jolie's titular character and the princess Aurora (Elle Fanning), whom the eponymous fairy memorably cursed on the day of her birth. The new movie features a number of actors who were featured in the original, including Imelda Staunton as Knotgrass, Juno Temple as Thistlewit, Lesley Manville as Flittle, and Sam Riley as Diaval, but there are also a number of new faces joining the franchise, including Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Skrein, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Harris Dickinson - who replaces Brenton Thwaites in the role of Prince Phillip.

Though production on Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil wrapped up last August, we initially thought that we were going to have to still wait quite a while for the release of this movie... but that all changed back in March in a significant way. While Disney had initially featured the film on their release schedule for May of 2020, apparently some significant moves were made behind the scenes that allowed them to push it up nearly a full year on the calendar. Now the blockbuster sequel is scheduled to arrive in a theater near you this October - meaning that it will be one of four different live-action adaptations of classic Walt Disney Animation features released in 2019 (the other three being Dumbo, The Lion King, and Aladdin). It will have some pretty stiff competition at the box office, with other releases that month including Joker, Zombieland: Double Tap, Gemini Man, and the animated Addams Family, but the studio clearly doesn't want to make fans of the original wait any longer than they have to for the anticipated sequel.

Are you excited for Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil? Hit the comments section below with all your thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the brand new teaser trailer, and be sure to check out our 2019 release calendar for a glimpse at everything that's coming out between now and the end of December.

Samuel L. Jackson Is Giving Mixed Signals About Working With The Cat On Captain Marvel

Samuel L. Jackson Is Giving Mixed Signals About Working With The Cat On Captain Marvel

It's a particularly exciting time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as there are just two more releases left in the highly successful Phase Three. Before it all comes to an end with Avengers: Endgame, Carol Danvers will get a 1990's origin story in Captain Marvel. In addition to bringing the title character to audiences, Anna Boden and

Ryan Fleck's Marvel blockbuster will also feature plenty of familiar faces including Phil Coulson, Ronan The Accuser, Korath, and Nick Fury. The latter is played by the always delightful Samuel L. Jackson, who is saying some conflicting things about Carol's pet cat Goose.

Goose has been rumored to be stealing the show in Captain Marvel, which arrives in theaters in a matter of days. Samuel L. Jackson and Brie Larson had to work with a number of cats during filming, and it doesn't seem like either of them are exactly cat people. When speaking with CinemaBlend's own Sarah El-Mahmoud, Jackson seemed to have worked well with his feline co-stars, saying:

There were actually four cats, Reggie was the main cat we worked with, he adjusted to us and was more people friendly than I think the others were. Yeah, always a good day when he was there. All snack based, you give them the right snack at the right time and use the right tone of voice. He was a very accomplished and fun cat to work with. He always hit his mark, always look at you and do what he was supposed to do, he was friendly.

Cats aren't known for being overly friendly, so it must be somewhat nerve-wracking to act alongside them. But as Samuel L. Jackson told CinemaBlend, there was one Goose actor that was a bit more easy to get along with. That cat was Reggie, who is reportedly doing much of the film's heavy lifting as Goose the cat. But now the question is: is Reggie the one on the awesome character posters?

You can check out Sarah El-Mahmoud's conversation with Samuel L. Jackson below.

Seems like Samuel L. Jackson had a pretty copacetic relationship with the cats on Captain Marvel's set, right? Well, it turns out he might have been a bit less enthused than he let on to CinemaBlend.

Given how much buzz is around Goose's role in Captain Marvel, Samuel L. Jackson has fielded plenty of questions about the feline cast member. After all, there's that old saying about working with animals and children in show business. When speaking with io9 about his role as Nick Fury, Jackson revealed he wasn't a big fan of the cats. Mostly because he's not a pet person in general. As he tells it:

No, I am not a cat person. But I’m also not a dog, bird or a fish person, either. I don’t engage pets. You know, Reggie is like most animals that people bring to set that have been trained to do this, that, or the other — he’s snack-oriented. You give him something to eat, he shows up. You give him something to eat, you talk softly and nice to him, give him something to eat again. They love you. You know, so, it works out. And… there were actually four cats, but Reggie did the majority of the heavy lifting most of the time.

Well, that certainly paints a different picture. It looks like working with Reggie and the rest of the cats wasn't exactly Samuel L. Jackson's cup of tea. But Nick Fury has no fear, so Jackson had to put his game face on, and try to connect with Carol Danver's pet Goose on camera. Fury can be seen petting the cat during the trailers for Captain Marvel, already proving that the actor succeeded in making that specific situation work. As if we'd expect anything else from Sam Jackson.

Goose may be poised to be a scene stealer in Captain Marvel, but some changes were already made to the character from the Marvel comics. Namely, Carol Danver's pet was given a different name. In the comics, he's called Chewie-- named after Chewbacca from the Star Wars franchise. That ultimately got canned for the live-screen adaptation, and he was given the name of another well-known fictional character: Goose, Anthony Edwards's character from Top Gun. This is an especially adept pop culture reference, given that Tom Cruise will bring back the franchise with Top Gun: Maverick.

The cat's name was changed from Chewie to Goose to it would relate even close to Carol Danver's mysterious time on Earth. Brie Larson's hero is an Air Force pilot, so it makes sense that Top Gun might be an important movie from her past. This will no doubt create plenty of opportunities for comedy in Captain Marvel, as the MCU has made levity an important part of its formula over the years. We'll see just how much Goose factors into the narrative when Captain Marvel arrives in theaters in a matter of days.

Smart money says that Goose won't be just a regular cat in Captain Marvel. With the movie's story tied to the cosmic side of the MCU, fans assumed the cat might end up actually being an alien of some sort. That also vibes with Chewie's backstory from the page. The cat is actually a creature called a Flerken, and has even come to blows with Rocket Raccoon. If Goose joins Captain Marvel for her highly anticipated role in Avengers: Endgame, that could even come to fruition in The Russo Brothers' upcoming blockbuster.

Indeed, Captain Marvel has been teased to have a major role in the future of the MCU. With so many of the OG Avengers likely departing due to actors' contracts coming to an end, the new class of heroes will be needed to fill in the gaps. Cue Brie Larson's Carol Danvers, teased to be the most powerful hero in the shared universe.

You can judge for yourself when Captain Marvel arrives in theaters on March 8th, and the character will pop back up again in Avengers: Endgame on April 26th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Rogue One Originally Had A Happy Ending

Rogue One Originally Had A Happy Ending

The epic conclusion to 2016’s Rogue One was bold, tragic and yet incredibly satisfying. One might call killing off each and everyone of the rebels introduced to in the Star Wars spinoff a brutal ending, but it added new depth and emotion to A New Hope and showed the stakes of the series’ conflict more than ever before. However, the scene that sticks in our minds of most when we think Rogue One wasn’t initially in the backbone of the script.

Shocking isn’t it? Rogue One’s co-writer Chris Weitz recently said before he came on to the project, the spinoff actually had a happy ending. In his words:

The version prior to [my involvement] didn’t have everyone die. As a matter of fact, it ended with a wedding I think it was on the presumption that Disney wouldn’t allow characters to die with such abandon.

Wait? Does this mean Jyn and Cassian were going to originally tie the knot at the end of Rogue One? Chris Weitz doesn’t specify, but what could have been certainly doesn’t top the perfect finale we got in the 2016 spinoff. Looks like the writers’ early draft was aimed to please the Disney brand, but wasn’t doing service to the story to be told.

When Chris Weitz came on as screenwriter, he told The Cult Popture Podcast that he pushed for the characters’ mission to become a suicide mission for this smart reason:

I felt it was necessary because nobody ever mentions them or sees them again. But also because we’ve done this whole sort of theme about sacrifice that it was appropriate that all of our main characters die.

If the writers didn’t kill off the cast of Rogue One, fans would have certainly wondered why they were never mentioned in the Star Wars franchise starting with A New Hope. In the movie, they are able to send out the weakness of the Death Star to the Rebellion right before their demise, allowing for Luke Skywalker’s heroic journey to still make sense and feel untouched. So, the end of Rogue One just had to end the way it did and without it, the movie would not have been so highly regarded by fans.

Thanks to positive reception of Rogue One, the series is getting a spinoff of its own for the studio’s upcoming streaming platform Disney+. The Rogue One television series will by a spy thriller starring Diego Luna’s Cassian Andor, taking place before the events of the 2016 movie. The developing series has The Americans writer and executive producer Stephen Schiff signed on as the showrunner.

Disney+ has a Star Wars series titled The Mandalorian from Jon Favreau coming to the platform when it launches later this year. The Skywalker saga is also set to conclude when Star Wars: Episode IX hits theaters on December 20, 2019.

How Brightburn Weirdly Benefitted From James Gunn’s Guardians Of The Galaxy Firing

How Brightburn Weirdly Benefitted From James Gunn’s Guardians Of The Galaxy Firing

When James Gunn was fired by Disney last summer, one of the projects most directly affected was David Yarovesky’s Brightburn. More than the fact that Gunn had a direct link to the movie as an Executive Producer, the news about his removal from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was announced just hours before the start of a San Diego Comic-Con panel that was scheduled to see the film’s title and plot revealed to the world prior to its scheduled November 30, 2018 release date. Because of the controversy, the decision was made to push the horror feature, and Screen Gems ultimately decided to make it a May 2019 release.

But while this may all seem like it would be a bad thing, in retrospect, David Yarovesky feels that it actually wound up helping Brightburn a lot.

Earlier this month I had the wonderful pleasure of sitting down with David Yarovesky to interview him for our superhero podcast HeroBlend, and the first question I asked was about what happened at San Diego Comic-Con last summer. Curious about his perspective on the ordeal, I asked how the events wound up impacting Brightburn as a movie, and he explained why it surprisingly wound up being a good thing for the project. Said the director,

I'm a filmmaker, so any chance I have to have more resources, more time, more anything I'm going to take it. I worked on this movie until the very end, and I kept working on it. One of the producers, Simon Hatt, who I was very close with on the movie, he said to me that ‘no movie is finished; they're pried out of the director's hands.’ And he told me that he was going to be the one to pry this movie out of my hands. I always love him saying that to me because it felt like this kind of like sweet mercy that was coming for me - like he was going to take me out in the woods and shoot me at the end of the process. So I just went to work.

There are many filmmakers who find themselves begging for more time and resources when they are working on a feature, and while David Yarovesky surely would have preferred getting both of those things for Brightburn under totally different circumstances, things did weirdly wind up working in his production’s favor at the end of the day (not to mention the fact that James Gunn was eventually rehired by Disney, bringing everything back to status quo). Yarovesky wound up getting an extra six months to make his second film as good as it could be, and it was time he took full advantage of when it was given.

I followed up by asking about exactly how David Yarovesky took advantage of the situation, and while he didn’t get extremely detailed in the discussion, he did note that the period allowed for a small amount of extra production time, as well as some much-needed edit bay work. He even admitted that Brightburn may have been delayed even without the whole “James Gunn being fired” incident, as the schedule as it had been established apparently may not have been enough for the film. He explained,

With more time came more resources, and we were able to do a little additional photography and we were able to spend time. These movies go so quick, and to be totally honest with you, there was a part of me that was betting that the movie was going to get pushed anyways because of how fast we were moving to make that deadline. It was pretty tight. And so there was a bit of, 'Okay, now we can really explore and dive in.’ So that was great.

The subject of the delay was one of many things that I had the opportunity to discuss about the making of Brightburn, and we really had a wonderful spoiler-free conversation. You can listen to my entire chat with David Yarovesky on the latest episode of our HeroBlend podcast, which is available to stream and download right now:

Starring Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Jackson Dunn, and Matt Jones, Brightburn is a twist on the classic Superman mythos, and crafts a story questioning what would happen if a Man of Steel-esque being was filled with natural malevolent intent. The movie is now playing in theaters everywhere, and we’ll have more for you about the feature in the coming days here on CinemaBlend!

Zac Efron Had Trouble Separating Himself From Ted Bundy In Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile

Zac Efron Had Trouble Separating Himself From Ted Bundy In Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile

Zac Efron will always be known for breaking into song as teen heartthrob Troy Bolton in the High School Musical movies, Link Larkin in Hairspray, or alongside Hugh Jackman and Zendaya in The Greatest Showman, among his other acting projects. Getting the catchy showtunes of his past out of his head was nothing compared to playing his darkest role yet, serial killer Ted Bundy.

During the recent London premiere of Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile, the actor opened up about how portraying Bundy became a challenge due to its sinister subject. In his words:

I’ve never played a role in which I really have to separate myself from [him] when I go home at night, and it was almost impossible. I’d like to say that I did it successfully, but I couldn’t.

It’s no surprise that getting into the frame of mind to play a serial killer would mess with one’s head a bit, and Zac Efron experienced this firsthand while working on his upcoming Netflix project. The drama chronicles the crimes of the infamously attractive Bundy, who later confessed to 30 homicides he committed across the United States in the ‘70s.

In Zac Efron’s interview with Daily Mail at the premiere, he talked about his initial concern with taking on the dark role and why he ultimately decided to sign on to play Ted Bundy:

I really wasn’t interested in playing a serial killer, I’m not in the business of glamorizing a horrendous person or his acts, but there is something unique about the way we went into the psyche of Ted, and his longtime girlfriend Liz. It’s a different perspective and not your run-of-the-mill serial killer cliché -- body count gets higher and higher and oh the guy you always knew did it, did it.

Looks like Zac Efron was intrigued by the Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile script and how it tells the story from the perspective of Ted Bundy’s girlfriend Liz (played by Lily Collins). The film has been criticized for glamorizing the criminal with the casting of the former Disney teen idol, but the actor has previously explained the responsibility he feels to not celebrate the killer through the role. It’s instead meant to serve as a cautionary tale to the young generation who often mistakenly trust attractive men.

The film’s director Joe Berlinger (who also recently helmed Netflix’s Conversations with a Killer: Ted Bundy Tapes) said he felt casting Zac Efron was an intentional choice geared toward the demographic crushing on actors such as Efron who may feel like he could do no wrong due to his good looks. Ted Bundy manipulated and lured women with his charm, so the film seeks to show this firsthand with Efron’s performance.

After premiering earlier this year at Sundance, the R-rated drama was purchased by Netflix for $9 million. Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile will hit theaters and the streaming platform on May 3.