The real locations behind West Virginia's appearance in ‘Captain America: Brave New World'
This article contains minor spoilers about the driving plot of 'Captain America: Brave New World,' but will not spoil any of the movie's big reveals.
'Captain America: Brave New World,' focuses on Sam Wilson, the newly-minted Captain America, and his friend Joaquin Torres, who recently stepped in to fill the now-vacant role of the Falcon. Following an assassination attempt on the newly-elected President Thaddeus Ross, Wilson and Torres begin searching for the person behind the plot to kill the president.
Eventually, their search leads them to a location known as 'Camp Echo One,' which Wilson points out is situated in a secluded location in West Virginia. As Captain America and the Falcon approach the facility, the camera pans to a sign on the side of the road that says the two are entering a radio quiet zone, exactly like West Virginia's real-life National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ).
Two large radio telescopes are prominent features of Camp Echo One, and Wilson comments on this during the movie, saying the radio telescopes must be a front for something more secretive. The two telescopes bear a striking resemblance to the 100-meter Green Bank Telescope at the U.S. National Science Foundation's Green Bank Observatory (GBO) and are no doubt a nod to the world's largest steerable radio telescope.
How does Green Bank get snow off its telescope?
However, there is another government facility in the NRQZ that could be a better comparison to the secretive Camp Echo One installation—the Sugar Grove Research Station in Pendleton County.
Sugar Grove Research Station, previously known as Sugar Grove U.S. Naval Radio Station or the Navy Information Operations Command Sugar Grove, was a communications research and development base for the U.S. Navy and other government agencies, according to the West Virginia Encyclopedia.
Because of this, very little public information exists online about the Sugar Grove station except that the Navy ceased operations at the site in 2015, though the National Security Agency (NSA) still operates part of the facility.
According to the WV Encyclopedia, the nature of the facility was revealed as part of Edward Snowden's controversial leaking of government documents in 2013, which revealed a large-scale surveillance program targeting U.S. citizens was being carried out by the U.S. government; for years, the site was allegedly being used to monitor satellite communications and cell phone traffic.
Today, the Sugar Grove campus appears to still be for sale by the Sugar Grove LLC. According to the property website, the Sugar Grove Station campus features housing for up to 400 residents, sports fields and courts, a swimming pool, a water treatment facility, a water tower, surveillance equipment like CCTV cameras and security checkpoints, administration buildings, a police and fire station, a youth activity center and even a bowling alley.
A map of the facility and labels of each building are available on the property website, along with interior pictures of many of the site's buildings.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Spider-Man: No Way Home' changed pivotal Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire scene after director looked at Reddit
You know, Jon Watts is something of a Redditor himself. The filmmaker behind Spider-Man: No Way Home recently discussed the challenges of uniting Tom Holland with Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield — who played other iterations of Marvel's web-swinger in previous movies — in the multiversal blockbuster during a panel at the Mediterrane Film Festival. Speaking to Collider's Steve Weintraub, Watts explained how the introduction of Maguire and Garfield's characters evolved over the course of production, noting that the older versions of Peter Parker were intended to arrive in a scene where Holland's version of the character is mourning the death of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). "There had been rumors that Tobey and Andrew were going to be in the movie, and this is while we're shooting," the director said. "We were writing the script, and we were working on where we wanted to reveal the guys, and it always seemed like Peter's going to be sad because Aunt May has just died, and that the portals are going to open, and the two Spider-Men are going to step out." Watts had a vague idea of where the three Spider-Men would first join forces. "It's probably a rooftop somewhere," he said. "It's all sort of hazy. You're still trying to figure it out." However, the filmmaker poked around online and discovered that fans had predicted that pivotal moment exactly as he'd first envisioned it. "Then I was on Reddit, and I was looking at people who had already made fan art of, 'This is probably what it's going to be like when the two Spider-Men get revealed,'" Watts recalled. "It was on a rooftop. It was sad, two Doctor Strange portals were open and two Spider-Men are stepping out. I was like, 'Well, we can't do that. If that's exactly what everyone thinks we're going to do, we absolutely can't do that.'" The film ultimately introduced Garfield and Maguire in a different location, and without Holland's character present when they first arrive in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Rather than showing up simultaneously on a rooftop, the other Peters are accidentally summoned by Ned Leeds (Jacob Batalon), who uses the magical sling ring belonging to Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to bring the alternate Peters into Ned's family home. Watts explained how the Reddit art prompted him to play with audience expectations. "I was like, 'What does no one expect that we're going to do? What's something that no one's going to see coming?'" he recalled. "I was like, 'Probably having the two Spider-Men appear at Ned's Filipino grandma's house in Queens. I don't think anyone was doing fan art of that on Reddit.'"Including Ned's grandmother, played by Mary Rivera, provided the zig-zag that Watts wanted for the scene. "It was the middle of the pandemic, so we had to find a lady and fly her from Hawaii to Atlanta to shoot all of this," he said. "So, as soon as you put her in that scene and change the location, now I feel like I've double-crossed the audience in the best way, where they're seeing everything that they were hoping that they would see in a way that they were never expecting they were going to." Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The Death of the Movie Star Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
Do movie stars still exist? Film journalists, cinephiles, and producers have been debating this point for over a decade, declaring the movie star extinct. But throughout the 2010s, Hollywood leaned into intellectual properties and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while original films starring A-list talents like Jennifer Lawrence ('Passengers'), Johnny Depp ('The Lone Ranger'), and Will Smith ('Gemini Man') flopped, and gradually everybody seemed to be lining up to pay their respects at the grave of the movie star. More from IndieWire '28 Years Later' Review: A Tender, Thoughtful, and Strangely Moving Sequel to One of the Scariest Zombie Movies Ever How 'Materialists' Finds True Love in New York City They've blamed the death on Hollywood's hunger for IP, the erasure of the mid-budget movie, and the rise of television. But many of these arguments miss the forest for the trees: We not only still have movie stars today, but stardom today is very similar to what it was in the Golden Age of Hollywood. The film industry is not post-movie stars, and big-name actors still influence audiences' viewing habits and films' financial success. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, whose films 'Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning' and 'F1' are in theaters this summer, are widely considered the last 'true' movie stars, the few aged movie veterans still capable of reliably opening a film. But contrary to popular belief, stardom is not dependent on watertight box office potential — Katharine Hepburn, for instance, was considered box office poison for years. From 1935's 'Break of Hearts' until at least 'The Philadelphia Story' in 1940, her films consistently earned great reviews but poor attendance. Cary Grant also made many commercial failures while still a leading man, including George Cukor's 'Holiday' and 'Bringing Up Baby' (in which he co-starred with Hepburn). Cruise and Pitt might be movie stars, but they still have off days, like 'Rock of Ages' or 'Wolfs,' respectively. These actors certainly elevate the profile of their films and increase the likelihood that they'll make money, but financial security doesn't automatically determine who's a movie star. What makes an actor a movie star is their persona. When you watch Cruise hug the door of an airplane as it takes off in 'Mission: Impossible — Rogue Nation,' you forget you're watching the character of Ethan Hunt. Instead, you're watching the carefully crafted screen persona of Tom Cruise, action hero, who will risk certain death if it means delivering cinema to his adoring fans. In 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that Jason Statham, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, and Vin Diesel had unique contracts for their collaborations in the 'Fast and Furious' franchise that basically meant they couldn't lose fights. Statham's contract reportedly protected him from getting beaten up too much on screen, while Johnson and Diesel had people on set to monitor how many licks they got. Such contracts are nothing new in Hollywood, and many scholars of classic Hollywood will likely recollect the strict contracts studios had for their stars in that era. In the old days, stars — especially female stars — were put on strict diets, their names often changed, and they were usually given voice lessons to learn that classic Transatlantic diction. Control over a star's image went even further than that, though. Jean Harlow was forbidden by studio mandate from marrying, since producers at MGM didn't want to complicate her image as a sex symbol. Actors like Ava Gardner, Judy Garland, Jean Harlow, Marilyn Monroe, and Fay Wray were all contractually prevented from having children — some, according to lore, were forced to have abortions. Now, Hollywood studios no longer own their stars' images; they haven't since the early 1960s. Instead, actors control their own images, and they have teams of agents, publicists, and, sometimes, personal stylists on hand to do it. When Emily Blunt and Penélope Cruz became pregnant while making 'Into the Woods' and 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,' respectively, they weren't dropped from the films — instead, the costume departments, stunt teams, and directors accommodated the actors and their pregnancies, reimagining complex sequences and altering costumes as needed. Actors today still rely on contracts, creative control over their productions, and agreements with producers to build and maintain consistent images. The 21st-century definition of brand image means that some movie stars get typecast — unless, like Emma Stone, Kristen Stewart, Anna Kendrick, and Jennifer Lawrence, an actor leverages their mainstream success to break the mold and make independent films. Some naysayers allege that the decline of film stars is due to social media, that having the increased exposure of celebrities' personal lives has made them seem less alluring. But these stars still have agents and publicists, and as such, major actors like Jennifer Lawrence, Zendaya, Tom Hanks, and Ryan Reynolds still have carefully cultivated images, the same way that Jimmy Stewart, Charlie Chaplin, Veronica Lake, and Rita Hayworth did. Some actors preserve the illusion (and their own privacy) by not being on social media at all, including Lawrence, Pitt, and Johansson, but they still engage with viral marketing, which includes everything from GQ and Vanity Fair's career breakdowns to eating spicy wings on 'Hot Ones.' The stars might be on TikTok now, but they're still stars. At Comic-Con 2017, 'Captain America: Brave New World' star Anthony Mackie famously said that there are no movie stars anymore. 'Anthony Mackie isn't a movie star,' he said. 'The Falcon is a movie star.' And Mackie is right that, increasingly, Hollywood has hitched its wagon to intellectual property over original ideas — and the stars have, too. Quentin Tarantino echoed these words in 2022, saying, 'It's these franchise characters that become a star,' rather than the actors playing them. In 2024, out of the 50 highest-grossing domestic films in the U.S. according to BoxOfficeMojo, 32 were IP-driven movies (i.e., remakes, reboots, or sequels) with huge stars in them, like 'Bad Boys: Ride or Die' starring Will Smith. Six films, like 'Wicked' and 'The Fall Guy,' adapted successful IP for the screen. Only 13 films in the top 50 were star-driven projects that didn't rely on IP, and even among that group, you can identify some, like 'Red One' or 'Argylle,' that seem like they're trying to astroturf a franchise. Others, like 'Anyone But You' and 'Bob Marley: One Love,' adapt material many are familiar with — William Shakespeare and the life of Bob Marley, respectively — which helps with brand recognition but means they're not wholly original works. Simply headlining a film these days does not make someone a movie star. But it's always been that way. Chris Evans, Brie Larson, and Chadwick Boseman all headlined movies that grossed a billion dollars worldwide, but those films were built around the brands, characters, and stories rather than the actors. It's telling that Marvel has recast both Captain America and Black Panther (passing the mantle onto Letitia Wright's Shuri) and still found box office success, but rather than recast a new Iron Man and replace its biggest star, Robert Downey Jr., the studio invited him back in a completely different role for 'Avengers: Doomsday.' Marvel didn't kill the movie star; they know the value of one as much as anyone else. The difference between a movie star and an A-list actor is a fine line. Timothée Chalamet, for example, straddles the line between movie star and character actor, choosing complex roles that require him to inhabit radically different characters and show off his range and acting chops. Yet when you watch 'A Complete Unknown,' you're not seeing Chalamet disappear into Bob Dylan. You're seeing Chalamet pretending to be Bob Dylan — the performance is as much about the actor as it is about the character. His character actor contemporaries like Tilda Swinton, Gary Oldman, Lakeith Stanfield, Paul Giamatti, and Toni Collette become whatever their roles require them to be. But Chalamet is still Chalamet, regardless of what costume or affectation he's wearing. He has a brand and an identity that shows through in all of his roles and that he carries with him to every single film, just like Meryl Streep or Tom Cruise. His films might not always make their money back, and he might not be hanging on the wing of a biplane, but his persona is what makes him a star. Best of IndieWire The Best Thrillers Streaming on Netflix in June, from 'Vertigo' and 'Rear Window' to 'Emily the Criminal' All 12 Wes Anderson Movies, Ranked, from 'Bottle Rocket' to 'The Phoenician Scheme' Nightmare Film Shoots: The 38 Most Grueling Films Ever Made, from 'Deliverance' to 'The Wages of Fear'
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Conflicting Russell Wilson Buzz Could Spark a Wild Summer
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. No one has ever denied there are certain perks that come along with being QB1 of the New York Giants. Russell Wilson is learning that first-hand. If he delivers some wins, he'll only become more popular, but in the meantime, however, he's blowing off some steam. He may as well. Once training camp begins, the pressure cooker is turned up higher, but by the looks of things, the veteran isn't showing the signs we'd expect from a man who has been given up on by two franchises in three seasons. (Photo byfor YouTube Music) (Photo byfor YouTube Music) Photo byfor YouTube Music In a tad over four months, we have seen Russell Wilson courtside at a New York Knicks game. He's been seen at the most recent Met Gala, Fanatics Fest, and a Vanity Fair Oscar party. He's certainly having the time of his life. Must read: Kayvon Thibodeaux's Long-Held Promise Haunts in a Crucial Year Good for him! It's the offseason. Guys can't pump iron or workout with their receivers every waking moment of every day, right? They just better be ready when the rookies report to Giants training camp on July 15 and the veterans report on July 22. All eyes will be on Wilson. That's the price of playing in the Big Apple and for winning a Super Bowl and blowing another... No, we haven't forgotten about any of that. So, what's to be expected? That will be an intriguing discussion for the rest of the summer as trusted voices are already on opposite sides of the expectation spectrum. Must read: A Giants Backup Role Might Not Fit Jaxson Dart's Grand Vision Varying theories surround Giants QB1 Russell Wilson "What Russell Wilson brings to the Giants is something they haven't had since Eli Manning." Those are the words of Dan Salomone, senior managing editor of as he quoted general manager Joe Schoen. NFL Network mainstay Ian Rapoport offers a slightly different theory. He mentioned, during a recent episode of The Insiders that it isn't a matter of 'if' Jaxson Dart will replace him. It's simply a matter of 'when'. From The Insiders on @NFLNetwork: #Giants QB Jaxson Dart has impressed early, and it's not hard to see coach Brian Daboll is a believer. — Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) June 17, 2025 Well, we all knew Dart was the long-term answer and Wilson was the projected starter and QB1 of the moment, correct? Wilson has had a great career, but the clock is ticking. Despite earning another Pro Bowl nod last season, his tenth, he wasn't at his best down the stretch for the Pittsburgh Steelers, and he appears to be living off of reputation now more than anything. Dart turned 22 years old this past May. He's been given the 'golden-child' treatment, but he isn't the perfect candidate for a starting role in Big Blue either. Daboll has raved about him at every turn, but there are questions about how he might adjust to NFL-style offenses and defenses after from Lane Kiffin's one-read offense. Russell is interesting. Every critique is different. Some like and are pumped about New York's decision to acquire him. Others would be more inclined to agree with Rapoport, also adding that Dart's time will arrive sooner than expected. Must read: ESPN's All Quarter Century NFL Team Has a Giant-Sized Mystery It's hard to disagree with the latter contingent. That's especially true when you consider the warm seat Giants head coach Brian Daboll is sitting on and the one-year, $10.5 million contract 'DangeRuss' signed in March. If things go haywire, look for the youngster to get some early snaps if it is ever deemed New York's season is on life support or over. For more New York Giants and NFL news, head over to Newsweek Sports
