Chris Gore, who is not a scooper, but is well connected in Hollywood, had this to say about Marvel:
I do know people who work at Marvel. They have cleaned house. They quietly, months ago fired all the producers could be labeled activist. ... Kevin Feige recognizes… basically, he said that we tried it, it didn’t work. He’s talking about Phase 4. It didn’t work. No Kang. None of these side characters that don’t have the legacy of classic characters [The Eternals, Shang-Chi, etc]. And if Deadpool and Wolverine proves anything, you’ve heard that phrase ‘male and pale is stale,’ that was spoken aloud across studios, [it was wrong.] ... Additionally, they fired people that don’t know the comics. … But it’s going to be a sea change that will take years. Years. That’s why they are announcing this [RDJ as Doctor Doom] now. ‘We know we screwed up and failed, but look at what’s coming.'
There's independent confirmation of some of this from THR (link above) along with vague comments from Feige himself and the firing over a year ago of Victoria Alonso. However, Nate Moore (responsible for The Eternals, among other things) remains, so Gore's comment that all the activist producers is gone is hyperbole. If Gore is right and if Feige goes back to proper planning and competent writers, it means there's a chance the MCU could rebound...maybe. Dare I hope for a comic accurate Alpha Flight? Probably not, but perhaps the Cavillrine (ahem, Henry Cavill as Wolverine)...maybe. It would be a relief to go back to writing positive articles about the MCU, but we're far away from that (I did enjoy Deadpool & Wolverine, despite it's plot issues and reliance on memberberries--see below).
To speak briefly about the film (beyond the comments above that yes, I did enjoy it), the most amusing thing to me in the cameo-stuffed affair was: 1) Jennifer Garner could have played an interesting Elektra if she'd had a better script, 2) the Channing Tatum Gambit (eventually killed by the Fox purchase) could have been interesting with the right script, 3) nothing can make the TVA or multiverse interesting, 4) Ryan Reynolds couldn't find anything worth keeping (in terms of characters) from the prior Deadpool films (people forget what a mess Deadpool 2 was--some of the weakest elements in this film were Vanessa and Peter, but at least we were saved from a Domino cameo).
I wanted to comment on the upcoming Assassin's Creed Shadows, not due to an attachment to the franchise, but because of the ridiculous arguments Ubisoft has used in response to the negative reaction from Japanese players to their 'creative' history. Ubisoft is saying their changes to the historical Yasuke are no different than in their other iterations of changing historical peoples and periods. The reason I describe this as ridiculous is, if that was the case, why be so faithful to everything else in the game and advertise it as faithful? Marketing prior to the controversy stressed authenticity, so moving away from that only when it's convenient is hypocrisy. Beyond that, if the past is simply a canvas to do whatever you want with, why use a historical figure like Yasuke? They could have easily gone the nonsensical diversity route seen in Baldur's Gate 3 or the Dungeons & Dragons movie. Ubisoft can't have it both ways. The truth is Assassins Creed looks authentic because Ubisoft knows the Japanese audience and those who enjoy that setting demand it, but the ESG/DEI money they receive demands that Yasuke be some kind of hero/superstar. The company can't confess this because it's not permitted when you take blood money from Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street. The other aim in Ubisoft's statement is to protect Sweet Baby Ink, who are the leads in the creative decisions for Yasuke. What's funny about this is if Ubisoft had simply done things honestly and included Yasuke more reasonably, no one would complain (putting aside arguments that he actually was a samurai--that's not the only way for a character to be important).
I think it's worth talking about Neil Gaiman, as he's an interesting example of how reluctant progressives can be to cancel their own. For those who have not heard (and it seems like many have not, much like the accusations against MrBeast or his friend Ava Kris Tyson), Gaiman has been accused of sexual assault by five women, with some incidents going back to the 1980s. None of this has been proven, but unlike with Scott Lynch and others, it's not simply one accuser. We don't know if Gaiman is guilty, but other than Jian Ghomeshi (3 accusers) and possibly Marilyn Manson (6, with Manson countersuing and that suit isn't resolved), it's hard to find a case with multiple accusers where there hasn't been some malfeasance. What's most likely to occur is a financial settlement with an NDA, but time will tell.
What I'm curious about are the consequences. People like Vaush and others have skated on seemingly serious allegations (grooming etc, similar to Tyson above), yet the much tamer ones against the progressive Joss Whedon and Johnny Depp derailed their careers. Gaiman, much like Whedon (or Chuck Wendig or George R. R. Martin etc), is a self-described feminist who talks about his progressive leanings incessantly (and unfortunately he's engaged in fan-baiting). We now have to wonder how much of that was simply a cover for his alleged impropriety. I suspect, given the number of accusers, that Gaiman will be forced to step away for a time (saving us from his miserable Sandman/Good Omens series perhaps), but we shall see. The much less famous Wendig (whose reputation for inappropriateness with women is apparently similar to Neil's) seems to have escaped thus far (his Wiki is scrubbed clean and there are no independent articles--you only learn of this by reading about Gaiman).
Speaking of cancelled people, Lindsay Ellis, who went into self-imposed exile after an incident two and a half years ago, has re-emerged. She never went away entirely (they never do), as she's been publishing novels, but has recently returned to the YT space (almost certainly due to a mix of financial needs and a desire for attention). I'm not saying I think Ellis should have had to leave--cancelling is absurd and often punishes innocent people--but given how much time she'd spent previously screaming and advocating it for others, it was an appropriate Karmic punishment.
This article was written by Peter Levi
