‘Avengers: Doomsday': Everything We Know
Part of that excitement comes with the release of the new Fantastic Four film, which introduces the new Big Bad played by none other than Robert Downey Jr. Doctor Doom is coming and he is making worlds collide—worlds that the films have been setting up for over two decades.
Despite this epic threat, with a new batch of Avengers and Fantastic Four family members on the scene, things are bound to get pretty heroic. Here's everything we know about Avengers: Doomsday so far.
The story is still a bit under wraps, but fans of the comics have a pretty good guess. Ultimate Comics: Doomsday was released in 2011 in several books and it follows the Fantastic Four working with other Marvel superheroes to prevent a powerful villain from destroying their timeline.
Cast announcements have pointed to this being the film's premise, especially with Robert Downey Jr.'s return as Doctor Doom. The recent release of the new Fantastic Four movie, as well as actors from previous Marvel X-Men films slated to star, means we will likely see a mix from all the timelines/MCU franchises trying to take down Doom. And, since Doom looks exactly like Iron Man, it probably means that he is some alternate timeline version of Tony Stark who went very, very dark.
Seriously, who won't be in this movie?
Aside from Downey Jr., other confirmed cast includes Rebecca Romijn as Mystique, Patrick Stewart as Professor X, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler, Kelsey Grammer as Beast, and James Marsden as Cyclops. In March 2025, Marvel confirmed more cast during a livestream, including Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Mackie, Danny Ramirez, Paul Rudd, Tom Hiddleston, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, and Simu Liu.
Then there's the Fantastic Four team confirmed to appear, with Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm. Downey Jr. even made his first appearance as Doom in their movie in a mid-credits scene.
There are also big stars from amongst the Thunderbolts (or the New Avengers) to choose from, including Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes, Florence Pugh as Yelena Belova, David Harbour as Red Guardian, Wyatt Russell as U.S. Agent, Olga Kurylenko as Taskmaster, Hannah John-Kamen as Ghost, Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina Allegra de Fontaine, and Lewis Pullman as Bob.
Avengers: Doomsday already has a release date: Dec. 18, 2026. It will be followed by a part two, Avengers: Secret Wars in December 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Watch: Julia Garner teases 'a lot of jump scares' in 'Weapons'
1 of 5 | American actress Julia Garner attends the premiere of "Eddington" at the Cannes Film Festival in May. She stopped by "The Late Show" Monday to discuss her new film "Weapons." File Photo by Rune Hellestad/UPI | License Photo Aug. 5 (UPI) -- Ozark actress Julia Garner is teasing Weapons, a new horror film from Barbarian writer and director Zach Cregger. Garner, 31, said the upcoming feature, out Friday, has "a lot of jump scares," when she stopped by The Late show with Stephen Colbert Monday. She portrays a teacher whose entire class goes missing at the exact same time. The parents of these students blame her. "It's not like anything I've ever seen or read before, so it's ... really hard to describe," Garner said when asked about the film. "It's like a Marvel movie -- you can't really describe it." "It's very cryptic," she added "...There is a lot of jump scares." Josh Brolin also stars in the film and Garner said she was nervous to meet him "because he's one of my favorite actors." "We had so much fun and so many giggles," she added. Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Cary Christopher, Benedict Wong and Amy Madigan also star. Cregger directs from a script he wrote. Rising star Julia Garner turns 30: 17 red carpet looks Cast member Julia Garner attends the premiere of "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" at TCL Chinese Theatre in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles on August 19, 2014. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Fantastic Four Fails? Why Marvel Struggles For Footing Post-‘Endgame'
The Fantastic Four: First Steps will likely end it's theatrical box office run at around $510 million, plus or minus $10 million. In the aftermath of 2019's Avengers: Endgame, the capstone to a 12-year 'Infinity Saga,' Marvel has struggled to find its footing. Why? Fantastic Four And Marvel By The Numbers The degree of Marvel's struggles, and when exactly they really began, is a complicated discussion, and the problems they've faced are a combination of factors. First and foremost, Avengers: Endgame delivered a gigantic capstone to a run of films that became a shared cultural experience for the world, and the post-Endgame period was a slow sigh of sorts as the cinematic adrenaline rush diminished. It's not surprising that the ceiling for the genre settled into a lower level that will be more sustainable. So that's an easy enough one to see and understand, and was in fact anticipated by many. Secondly, the MCU isn't what it was during its first saga, a new world building heading toward a final reckoning where everything paid off and tied up. It was fresh and doing something nobody's done before, and Marvel stuck the landing. There had to be a collective sigh and post-glow, but that inevitably fades and we move forward. But afterward, the MCU was something different, and folks chasing the same buy-in were in for a shock. The fact Spider-Man was the franchise immediately following Avengers: Endgame in 2019 was particularly extra-lucky for Marvel and audiences, but it did also set up some of the deflation feeling even heavier later since Spidey gave us temporary surprise hope that after Endgame we could stay aloft on that perpetual high, subconsciously at least. Third, right after Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home, the Covid pandemic hit and the world shut down. No MCU movies released for a year, and then in 2021 we suddenly had four of them – Black Widow, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Eternals, and Spider-Man: No Way Home burst into theaters across just six months. All tonally different and completely unrelated, all during a partially-closed theater industry while audiences were still scared to go to multiplexes and some films released on streaming at the same time. Notice, that the box office was just starting to try to recover, and besides Spidey's massive $1.9+ billion results the other three MCU films did well in the context of the rest of the box office that year. During that time, audiences had to watch everything at home, a lot of movies wound up released there, a lot of kids were born and growing up during lockdowns and decreased public events for several years and closed schools. This created a major shift in theatrical attendance that's still playing out, where family households tend to wait for the biggest IP their young children want to see as the priority, and only see three films a year nowadays, waiting to watch everything else at home. Where to spend an average of $11 per ticket for multiple people in the family, when knowing you'll also be buying a few $5-10 sodas and likely $30 or more in food, becomes an important question if you're averaging only three or four movies at most, like most families. That number could drop if the economy continues hammering folks' grocery bills and savings. The most successful exceptions are films like Avatar where the children and parents and single adults and teenagers all love the film, or the examples where an adult-appealing movie is also so appealing to children that parents bring the youngsters even if it's not entirely fitting (like to Deadpool & Wolverine or Jurassic World: Rebirth). Blockbuster status in today's theatrical marketplace is reserved for globally kid-appealing movies first and foremost, with room for two or three adults-/parents-first films that also appeal to kids, and maybe a lucky parents/adults movie that breaks out as the choice for date night when there's a babysitter. Superhero films and franchises built on the brands most appealing to kids first and then also parents and adults (Superman), or appealing to parents and other adults primarily but equally as much to children (the R-rated Deadpool & Wolverine), are part of that winning formula for Marvel and DC going forward, in my opinion, at least unless/until a new paradigm takes hold at the box office (which I don't see happening until the right forces come into play, which won't happen for a while if I'm correct). But films like The Fantastic Four: First Steps that appeal first to parents, and then to other adults, and then to children are going to be iffier. So people will wait to find out what other adults say, and then rank it as a priority against other films in theaters. If the quality is anything other than A+, A, or A- then you better have long legs overseas and be fun enough on a big screen people will pay to watch it anyway, like Jurassic World. So moving back to the historical perspective again to really pinpoint how and when changes began and how it's affected Marvel directly, we can see that whole evolution of audience attendance was starting to assert itself after the Covid period of shutdowns and fearful attendance. But once again, Spidey showed up to remind everyone why they love Marvel, and the payoff carried over momentum to the excellent Doctor Strange In the Multiverse of Madness. The fact it followed and continued the multiverse from Spider-Man: Far From Home probably boosted it as well. Thor: Love & Thunder saw some decline from Ragnarok, but that was a high-point of the franchise before Covid and co-starring the Hulk, so a follow-up making $760 million box office (compared to Ragnarok's $855 million) was still solidly in the second-tier where Thor's franchise has comfortably resided during all of their relative releases. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever saw a sizable drop-off in box office, but the death of the lead actor and his absence from the sequel undeniably hit the film's reception and performance hard. $859 isn't top-tier like the original film, but it's still another strong performance out the gate "post"-Covid, and ahead of most other films in the marketplace at the time. So all things considered and despite some bumps here and there, the media and fan narrative that Marvel suffered a lot in those first post-Covid years isn't an accurate estimation of what went on at all. Marvel navigated the shutdowns and initial revival better than anyone, frankly, and had multiple big blockbuster hits during this period right after Avengers: Endgame, even if the ceiling on potential box office came down to Earth a bit. Notice, though, those last two films – Thor: Love & Thunder and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever – really had particularly adult-skewing perspectives and appeal first and foremost, with the kid-accessibility in around third place. This is where I believe important blocks of mainstream audiences started to apply a new far more family-and-child skewed preference for spending money at theaters. It's a subtle shift in some ways, but I'm talking about specifically blockbuster-status films, so roughly at least $500-600 million on the lowest end, and at least $1-2+ billion on the high end. You can read the details of the audience paradigm shift in my article about how Superman won the family audience that Fantastic Four couldn't quite capture. It all goes a long way to explaining what we've seen happen to Marvel at the box office the past three years, with the studio suffered ups and downs along with everyone else. So continuing our accountant trip down memory lane, in 2023 the real problems began for Marvel and we saw the full manifestation of 'the new normal' in theaters. Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania disappointed and The Marvels face-planted, with only Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 3 delivering its usual blockbuster results because it's widely beloved by all-ages audiences and continued to deliver exactly what each segment of the audience wanted and expected (which doesn't mean being predictable, it means living up to the promise of the premise). I think both of 2023's failed MCU releases suffered first and foremost from the new paradigm, and audiences being unclear about who the films were mostly for, with the former looking like it was too different from previous family-friendly Ant-Man movies but not fully enough Avengers-level to ensure 'something for everybody.' For the latter, I think a combo of confusion about its ties to a streaming show, a changed title that buried the lede of it being a sequel to Captain Marvel, and the marketing being too unclear about the target age demographic all added up to sink the film's chances. In 2024, Marvel took no chances and released exactly one single film: Deadpool & Wolverine, which I've already explained in terms of how it fits into the new paradigm, which explains its $1.3 billion result. But this year's Captain America: Brave New World and Thunderbolts* very openly skewed much more toward adult audiences, and didn't market on much for kids, who were expected to just keep showing up because it's superheroes and their parents might want to see it. Problem is, parents didn't, for the reasons already explained. The Fantastic Four: First Steps received overwhelming praise from critics and audiences alike, and the marketing tried to really sell it hard as a new look for the MCU and a new future ahead, built around family and serious storytelling that stands on its own. Unfortunately, the latter aspects suggested to a lot of potential viewers that Fantastic Four is a more dramatic and adult-skewing movie, where dangers and child-threat elements might be too scary or off-putting to the youngest kids and their parents. Especially true when Superman is playing across the hall, with a flying dog and all the parents at school saying 'take your kids, it's the best time at the movies this year.' Fantastic Four: Fantastic Future? Next up are for Marvel Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars, both of which rely heavily on the Fantastic Four, and after which the newly re-imagined MCU will put Fantastic Four front and center with a rebooted X-Men. Is there a danger that, even with the return of the Russo Brothers to direct and Robert Downey Jr. as (unexpectedly) the villainous Doctor Doom, Avengers might underperform? Doubtful, since the films will be packed full of the characters audiences do love so much, and will be far more akin to previous Avengers films that applied a perpetually winning formula of appealing to everybody simultaneously. But what of the aftermath, and the new soft-rebooted MCU? I think an obvious answer for Fantastic Four would be a sequel with an Earth-based threat, and Spider-Man showing up early at the Baxter Building asking to join and have a funny apologetic scuffle with the Fantastic Four, then during the climax Spidey could show up and help out, they could talk about potential to become the 'Fantastic Five,' but Peter Parker can't remove his webbed mask and he can't fully commit the way they need, so he reluctantly bows out), as well as a few Avengers in a cameo scene (a video call, even), and make a story first and foremost for the kids and younger fans. Putting much/most of the perspective from Sue's and Reed's kids would be a smart choice, too. For the X-Men, I think if there was ever any doubt that the rebooted MCU version should be teenagers, it should be gone now. There's no live-action MCU movie franchise starring teenagers and kids, but there should be. And seriously, Marvel, cast actual teenagers or young-college-age at most, so that you retain the identification with younger audience through more than a single film. Kevin Feige and James Gunn are both smarter than I am and have more experience at this than me, so if I figured this out then they surely have by now. And they no doubt already have plans in place to do what's necessary in the new theatrical landscape, but I hope the rest of the folks at their respective studios and higher-ups at parent companies recognize the truth as well, and let these two make the choices in how to handle it. But I would be any successful decisions result in films much more targeted toward the kids and teenagers first, and less of the appeal to older adult fans as the dominant target audience for the storytelling and perspective. The Fantastic Four: First Steps failed to become an MCU summer blockbuster tentpole as hoped and expected by many of us, for a host of reasons having nothing to do with the film's quality or even the marketing, the latter both looking and being perfect for any time other than the past 18 months. For the sake of their future, Marvel's needs to implement a more family and child-focused approach, as DC Studios so far has already mastered. And if both studios rise to the challenge, we'll be in for a new golden age of superhero cinema.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
The Future Of AI In Gaming: What's Here And What's Next
Decades before AI became a big deal, the 1983 movie WarGames portrayed a mainframe computer supposedly using artificial intelligence to play a game of thermonuclear war. It accessed huge databases, ran automated simulations without human oversight, and (finally) learned that playing with nuclear weapons isn't such a great idea. Setting aside the two now-tired tropes—that computers can turn on us and that only teenagers know how to use them—it was a fascinating early glimpse into how video games, or at least computers that play games, might use artificial intelligence. Now AI-based advancements in games are accelerating. Game developers are using AI to make games more realistic, more complex, and more challenging. However, it's not all fun and games: AI also brings a few downsides, including impacts on the game-development industry, privacy issues, and—potentially—great increases in energy consumption. Shall we play an AI game? AI, using a very general definition, has been in games for decades, and some of the common AI-based elements include the following: Leveling up with AI While games have long been vehicles for pushing the boundaries of computing and creativity, not all game types take advantage of AI. Julian Togelius, associate professor in the department of computer science and engineering at New York University (NYU) and director of NYU's Game Innovation Lab, says popular games such as Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein from the 1990s have certain designs and features that are expected of such first-person shooters, and that such games don't really benefit from using AI. 'If you took Doom and put some super-fancy AI into these games' monsters, what difference would it make?' Togelius says. But AI can make other games more interesting. Ubisoft, a large game developer and publisher, incorporated generative AI features into a prototype role-playing game, in which a large language model (LLM) improvises dialogue for NPCs on the fly. And, in September 2025, a startup called Ovomind plans to release a wristband that will measure players' physiological responses. It will identify emotions such as excitement and stress, and use AI to create-personalized experiences. Togelius suggests that augmented reality gaming, wherein digital content is combined with real-world content, is a good prospect for more innovative, immersive AI-based gaming. One early example is Pokemon Go, in which players use mobile phones to locate and capture virtual Pokemon characters in real-world settings. The game uses only location information, Togelius points out. He notes, 'There are definitely huge potential uses for AI in converting the world you see in front of you into game content.' (Most of the glasses still make you look like a total geek, though.) AI in gaming challenges Even though AI can make games more challenging and immersive, there are also downsides. Take personalization, for example. 'Games that can adapt themselves to you and produce a new, interesting world that it knows is interesting to you … that's going to come,' says Togelius. But it can also go too far. 'Some people would think it's extremely creepy.' Games have also been called out over concerns about data privacy and manipulation to encourage spending within games. Furthermore, when incorporating AI and its underlying LLMs into games, developers have to think about consoles' limited memory. Most can't run an LLM locally, says Togelius, nor is it cost-effective to engage the model from a remote server. The $50–$75 people pay for a game doesn't cover the incremental cost to power the data center that would host it. 'But I do think LLM-based non-player characters will come,' Togelius says. AI is forcing changes to how games are developed, too, not all of which are welcome. While more than half of respondents to a survey of game-industry workers said they use AI tools, others are concerned that—as in other industries—AI could replace workers. That fear has a basis: Microsoft, one of the largest game developers, recently announced huge layoffs in its gaming division. Generative AI tools can create stories, graphics, and other content by sampling the work of writers and artists (which some contend violates copyright protections). AI tools can also generate game code and perform the quality assurance (QA) testing. But Togelius, who also co-founded company that makes AI game-testing bots—maintains that QA, at least, is ideal for AI to handle. 'Game testing, well, it sounds like fun; you get to play games all day. Until you realize that you're playing the same scenario hundreds of times, trying to see if every potential subgoal can be released under various conditions, and every time they do an update. It's a really grueling thing, and not fun at all.' Ideas you won't find anywhere else: SAP Insights tells you what's new and what's next for your business. Original research, unique ideas, expert takes – sent directly to your inbox twice a month. Sign up now.
