Thunderbolts (MCU) (2025)

[Jake Lipson]

Title: Thunderbolts (MCU)

Director: Jake Schreier

Cast: Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, David Harbour, Wyatt Russell, Hannah John-Kamen, Olga Kurylenko

Release: 2025-05-02

Plot: Plot unknown.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Deadline says Marvel has hired director Jake Schreier to make a Thunderbolts movie. Eric Pearson, who wrote Black Widow, is writing it. This is the first I've heard of this project, as Marvel has not officially announced it yet.

Marvel Studios’ top-secret Thunderbolts movie looks to have gained momentum as Deadline has learned that Jake Schrier is set as director of the new Marvel tentpole. Black Widow scribe Eric Pearson is penning the script with Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige producing.

Not much is known about the plot of film other than it revolved around a group of supervillains (or at least characters who have played bad guys at one point in MCU) who go on missions for the government. Another element that remains vague is which character will be part of this team since the film it technically still is in development, though sources say Marvel has been in touch with certain individuals who already are part of the MCU to make sure to keep an opening in their schedules for next summer when it shoots.

More at the link:

Marvel’s ‘Thunderbolts’ Movie Taps Jake Schreier As Director

EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Studios’ top-secret Thunderbolts movie looks to have gained momentum as Deadline has learned that Jake Schreier is set as director of the new Marvel tentpole. Black Widow sc…

deadline.com

The article speculates about some characters who may or may not appear in the film.

 

[dpippel]

Are you sure you don't mean The Suicide Squad???

 

[Jake Lipson]

Are you sure you don't mean The Suicide Squad???

That's the core issue with this movie. Because WB got there first, twice, Marvel will have to figure out a way to make this feel distinctive and different than either of those movies.

I think the first advantage that Marvel has is that they already have several established characters that they can use for this who we know from their other films and Disney+ shows. Both Suicide Squad movies established a lot of new characters. This one can more easily be positioned as a continuation of the stories they have already started.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not a huge surprise; they've been laying the groundwork for a while now with the failed Captain America John Walker in "Falcon and the Winter Soldier", Yelena Belova in Black Widow and "Hawkeye," Baron Zemo going back to Civil War, Ghost in Ant-Man and the Wasp, and Taskmaster in Black Widow.

I wouldn't be surprised if The Marvels introduces the Karla Sofen iteration of Moonstone, to further round out the team.

And with the current iteration of the Guardians of the Galaxy ending with Vol. 3, the MCU needs a new team of anti-heroes.

 

[dpippel]

The issue I have with the idea is that DC did it first. Twice. IIRC neither film exactly lit up the box office. Marvel may be looked upon as being a copycat here, a position I don't think they want to be in.

 

[Jake Lipson]

IIRC neither film exactly lit up the box office.

Suicide Squad (2016) had a worldwide gross of $745 million.

The Suicide Squad had a worldwide gross of $167 million last year. Of course, that result has to have an asterisk because of the pandemic and because WB put it on HBO Max simultaneously.

Marvel may be looked upon as being a copycat here, a position I don't think they want to be in.

I think comparisons are inevitable and I am sure Kevin Feige knows that. But if Marvel makes a really good movie, it won't matter.

 

[dpippel]

Thanks for those numbers, Jake. It seems that the first film wasn't as much of a failure as I remembered. Ironically, I thought Gunn's effort was far superior and it ended up doing a lot less business.

As for what Feige's thinking, who knows for sure. Usually, the perception is that it's DC working to play catch-up with Marvel, so it'll be interesting to see those tables turned.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Ironically, I thought Gunn's effort was far superior and it ended up doing a lot less business.

I can't comment on the 2016 film because I wasn't interested in seeing it. I watched Gunn's film at home on HBO Max. I think the box office for it would probably be higher if they had held it for this year, although how much is impossible to say.

Even though those movies exist, I'm not going to bet against Marvel making something good. This will be able to be sold as a crossover film with characters we already know interacting with each other. That is what made The Avengers into such a phenomenal success ten years ago. I'm not saying that I expect this film to make that kind of money necessarily, but it does point to something that Marvel has done well in the past that DC hasn't been able to do in the same way.

Is it possible that this film could feel repetitive and derivative of Suicide Squad? Sure, absolutely. The basic concept is clearly similar. But I don't think it has to feel that way because they don't have to tell the same story. The success of this film depends on the story they are trying to tell with these characters and how well they execute it, and that has nothing to do with DC.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The issue I have with the idea is that DC did it first. Twice. IIRC neither film exactly lit up the box office. Marvel may be looked upon as being a copycat here, a position I don't think they want to be in.

Marvel does a much better job of laying the groundwork, though. There were a lot of movies that led into The Avengers, and there are a lot of movies and Disney+ shows leading into this (depending on which characters end up in the lineup).

 

[Chip_HT]

It's not the same concept as Suicide Squad.

Suicide Squad is about taking bad guys and forcing them to carry out a mission, usually of the variety that is too dirty for a superhero to be involved in.

The original version of the Thunderbolts was a bunch of old Avengers villains who disguised themselves as a superhero team after the Avengers and Fantastic Four were killed off. But the MCU will probably be leaning more on a later incarnation (also known as the Dark Avengers), which consisted of a team of villains or anti-heroes that were "dark" versions of existing heroes. So they had someone with the Venom suit being "Spider-Man", Wolverine's crazy son as "Wolverine", Bullseye (the Daredevil villain) as "Hawkeye". All being led by Norman Osborn in the Iron Patriot suit (being both "Iron Man" and "Captain America").

 

[dpippel]

Good info Chip, but I think that for a lot of the movie-going audience that’s too fine a point to be an issue. They’ll see “government makes former bad guys do good things” and that will be that.

 

[Jake Lipson]

They’ll see “government makes former bad guys do good things” and that will be that.

They'll see characters that they already know from other MCU projects and go to the movie. Then the movie can speak for itself. Guardians of the Galaxy opened huge even though no one knew who those characters were because people trusted the Marvel brand and came out. Then when they got there, the movie was fantastic and it got an "A" CinemaScore. Ant-Man (2015) with almost entirely new characters opened to $57 million and another "A" CinemaScore. Captain Marvel had Nick Fury in a supporting role but was mostly focused on new characters and situations. That movie opened to $153 million and got another "A" Cinemascore.

More recently, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings opened to $75 million over Labor Day of all weekends, which is traditionally among the slowest weekends of the year. The only previously established MCU character who had a substantial role throughout that movie was the Trevor Slattery from Iron Man 3. Again, once people got in the door, they found a movie that they really liked with an "A" CinemaScore.

The initial success of those movies in their openings even with brand new characters at the forefront proves how much the audience trusts Marvel. If they've got characters from all across the various MCU properties who are going to be appearing in this movie, I think that's enough to result in a sizable opening weekend audience. The Marvel brand is just that good, especially when they're in the realm of crossover films. Even Eternals opened to $71 million and that had largely negative critical reaction.

Then it will be up to the movie to be good and to spur good word of mouth. I would not bet against Marvel being able to do this just because DC did something similar. If the movie is bad, that would be a problem. But if the movie is good, I don't think the mere existence of Suicide Squad will stop people from seeing it.

 

[Wayne_j]

Thanks for those numbers, Jake. It seems that the first film wasn't as much of a failure as I remembered. Ironically, I thought Gunn's effort was far superior and it ended up doing a lot less business.

As for what Feige's thinking, who knows for sure. Usually, the perception is that it's DC working to play catch-up with Marvel, so it'll be interesting to see those tables turned.

The first film just wasn't that good, it did great at the box office for DC at that time.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

They’ll see “government makes former bad guys do good things” and that will be that.

I don't think this iteration of the Thunderbolts is working for the government, at least not directly. I get the sense that the organization the Countess represents is somewhere between a military contractor like Blackwater and an organized crime syndicate like the Bratva. Certainly their services are sometimes hired by criminals like the Kingpin and they carry out targeted assassinations and other illegal activities.

And unlike the Suicide Squad, which are coerced into working for the government, the Thunderbolts do it for the paycheck. And their unique talents are very well compensated indeed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I get the sense that the organization the Countess represents is somewhere between a military contractor like Blackwater and an organized crime syndicate like the Bratva. Certainly their services are sometimes hired by criminals like the Kingpin and they carry out targeted assassinations and other illegal activities.

It's interesting you mention the Countess because Deadline's article suggested that they could use General Ross as the head of the team. The only problem with that is William Hurt passed away earlier this year, so they would have to recast him if they want to use his character. I don't think they should do that.

Considering that they have already shown her interacting with both Yelena and John Walker, I think she is the natural person to put in this role. Julia Louis-Dryfeus has only had a fleeting bit of screen time so far, and it would be ridiculous to think that an actress of her caliber would come in for only cameos. This seems to be the project in which they will pay that off and give her a substantial presence.

 

[Sam Favate]

Yeah, I’d also prefer not to see William Hurt recast.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

I was assuming that General Ross would have to be involved somehow since it's called 'Thunderbolts'.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I was assuming that General Ross would have to be involved somehow since it's called 'Thunderbolts'.

Maybe they name the initiative after him? Honestly, I don't think his character has ever been referred to as "Thunderbolt" in dialogue in any of his MCU appearances anyway, so maybe they could just find another way to use that word. It just seems in poor taste to recast William Hurt, especially this soon after his passing.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I was assuming that General Ross would have to be involved somehow since it's called 'Thunderbolts'.

I think the author of article assumed the same thing, and that's why he was mentioned. There are more iterations of the Thunderbolts that have nothing to do with General Ross than there are iterations that do.

Even if William Hurt hadn't passed away, I don't think the character would have been involved in this. Ross built his post-military career on the Sokovia Accords. The arrival of Thanos underlined the need for superheroes, and the Sokovia Accords were more or less directly responsible for the Avengers failing to stop Thanos from wiping out half of all life. After the Blip, I can't see him having anywhere near the power or influence he had before.