The Queens of Hollywood

Once again, I find myself amazed at the amount of geeky news regularly hitting the Interwebs. The Super Bowl brought new TV spots for Captain America and Spider-Man, as well as our first look at Transformers 4 (Dinobots!). The first pictures of the rebooted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have hit the news sites. And then there's the emotional roller coaster the Web was put on with two major announcements. One was the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Jeremy Irons as Alfred in the Batman/Superman movie. The other was the death of beloved actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman, may he rest in peace.

I could spend entire rants on these two subjects alone. But what's the point, considering every other nerd site has already done it? Suffice to say Hoffman was a bright talent in Hollywood who won't easily be forgotten, while I'm sure Snyder has his reasons for casting Eisenberg and Irons in their respective roles, controversial as they are (well, less so Irons, that's just brilliant casting really). No, what this rant is about is a topic I've had on my mind for the past few weeks.

Among the list of 2013 films I didn't get a chance to see was Disney's new animated film "Frozen." It's made 800 million dollars at the international box office, just swept the Annie Awards, and is a shoe-in for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. And after recently seeing it, I fell in love. It's not just the mind-numbingly gorgeous animation, the Broadway inspired songs, or the genre bending story. It's the depth of the characters that's endeared this film to me. Specifically, the leads Anna and Elsa. Both sisters, their story is about accepting that love comes in many forms, not always just romantic. It's a powerful character arc, and a sign of Disney's maturity in handling its animated canon.

It's made me realize that the complaints against Disney princesses don't hold up nearly as well as they seem, if only because the recent princesses are anything but pushovers. They're smart, strong, independent women who are role models to children everywhere, both girls and boys. And it's made me want to spend an entire rant focusing on the depiction of women in blockbuster films. It may seem like an odd topic to tackle, but Valentine's Day is coming up, so why not try something for the ladies? The fact is, this is a trend I've noticed in a lot of films recently.

Filmmakers nowadays want strong women who can kick ass just as much as the males. There are a lot of examples to support this, most from recent films, but some even predating them. Princess Leia from "Star Wars", Ellen Ripley from the "Alien" saga, Sarah Connor from "Terminator 2" and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are the prototypes for the modern action girl. They're proactive, willing to do anything and everything to get what they want. Men and women have reacted very strongly to them, to the point where these characters are embedded in the popular zeitgeist. But these feminist icons were only the beginning, the trailblazers for a new age of girl power.

Video games get protagonists like Samus Aran and Lara Croft. Cartoons like "The Last Airbender" and "The Clone Wars" have Katara, Korra, and Ahsoka as leads. Harry Potter wouldn't get anywhere without his best friend, Hermione Granger. The Witch King of Angmar is taken down by Eowyn in "Lord of the Rings." Danearys Targaryen, the mother of dragons, carves a bloody path on her quest to reclaim her kingdom in "Game of Thrones."

The leading ladies in modern super hero films are more than just passive love interests, often vital parts of the superheroes' lives. One need look no further than Black Widow in the Marvel films, the violent Hit-Girl in "Kick-Ass", the brilliant Gwen Stacy in "Amazing Spider-Man", the nosy Lois Lane in "Man of Steel", or Captain America's spunky Agent Peggy Carter. Not to mention the roles Pepper Potts and Catwoman played in helping Batman and Iron Man dispose of their respective archenemies. And I haven't even gotten to one Katniss Everdeen, arguably the greatest icon of feminine strength in the past few years. The immense success of the "Hunger Games" franchise can attest to that.

All of these are women that I would hate to piss off, if only because an ass whooping will surely follow. But what I find interesting is how this passion for strong female characters has affected Disney. Understand that Disney princesses are often a young girl's first role models. We guys have super heroes, Jedi, and GI Joes to idolize in our youth. Girls have princesses. And for years, people have complained how princesses are poor role models for these girls. They wait around for a man to save them, never taking charge of their destinies. And what's more, the very idea of a princess denotes a feeling of irresponsibility, coming with the perks of royalty but none of the challenges of the throne. That is, until the recent Disney films completely deconstructed this image.

Tiana from "Princess and the Frog" works her butt off to achieve her goals. Rapunzel in "Tangled" seizes the opportunity for freedom. Merida in "Brave" wants desperately to change her fate. The roots for these modern princesses obviously come from the Disney Renaissance era. Ariel. Belle. Jasmine. Mulan. All powerful women in their own right, willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. They were experiments, Disney's first attempts to create women with personalities, who were more proactive in reaching their goals. All that hard work led to the princesses of recent years, culminating in "Frozen." Elsa, in particular, is someone I want to focus on, since I believe she is the epitome of what young girls should aspire to be.

Elsa began as a princess, but she is actually the first in Disney canon to be thrust into the role of Queen. She now leads an entire kingdom, including dealing with the political machinations of its allies. And what's more, she has enough sense to tell her sister Anna that it's ridiculous to rush into marriage with a man she barely knows. Plus, she has amazing ice powers that can be used to create lethal snow storms and icicles just as much as beautiful ice castles and talking snowmen. She definitely can handle herself, that's for sure.

But there's more to Elsa than just all this. She lives in constant fear that her powers will hurt someone, especially her sister. She isolates herself from the world for this very reason, and struggles to open up to others. Then, she ultimately embraces her powers and her identity, embodying her new self-acceptance in song. Elsa is the epitome of self-empowerment, projecting strength and vulnerability with every action she takes. I'm not knocking the effectiveness of the other Disney princesses, but out of all of them, Elsa is the perfect example of a kick-ass woman who girls should strive to be. When I see her, and people's incredibly strong reaction to her, it makes me happy to know that cinematic women are no longer confined to just passive love interests, defined solely by their relationships with men.

Unfortunately, for every step forward, Hollywood moves two steps back. There are still a lot of women in film who do meet this archetype. The damsel in distress, the dumb blonde, the hot chick. Pretty much any woman cast in a Michael Bay flick (here's looking at you, Megan Fox!). I see the progress the women in superhero films have made, and then I remember Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson from the early "Spider-Man" films, who was captured by the villains in the climax of three movies. I mention the more progressive Disney princesses, but then think of how they had to fight against the stigma created by Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty.

But of course, if we're talking of cinematic women who take a giant dump on the feminist movement, we can look no further than "Twilight"'s very own Bella Swan. Just as Elsa and Katniss Everdeen embody the strong, independent woman of modern Hollywood, Bella represents the exact opposite. She has no real personality. No motives other than getting a man. She's needy, selfish, and lets others sacrifice themselves for her. The popularity of the "Twilight" franchise sickens me, mainly because this is not who women should aspire to be like. Thank God, then, that it looks like people are finally recognizing "Twilight" as an adolescent fad instead of a legitimate work of art.

I'd like to say Bella is the only counterpoint in this rant. But the absence of "Twilight" has given birth to something possibly more sinister. For every independent woman I see in modern film, there are other women who appear strong but ultimately amount to little more than eye candy. On the surface, this doesn't seem to make sense. A strong woman is a strong woman, right? Well, in all those superhero films I've mentioned, and most of the Disney films, these women do pair up with men. You could just write them off right there as love interests and call it a day.

But those films made it a point to tell the audience that these women would be in relationships, then proceeded to show they're a lot more than just helpless damsels. J.K. Rowling recently came out saying she made a mistake in pairing Hermione with Ron in "Harry Potter." She should have gotten with Harry, Rowling says. But if that were to happen, wouldn't that ultimately sacrifice the strong character Hermione had become, for the sake of making her just the main character's love interest?

The books and films had built up her feelings for Ron, making her the strength and guidance Ron needed to combat his feelings of inferiority. Harry never needed that guidance, and got support from Hermione as a friend and surrogate sister. That's a much more interesting relationship, and also plays up Hermione's innate strength when Ron leaves briefly in "Deathly Hallows." Instead of moping around like Bella, she keeps searching for ways to bring down Voldemort, setting her own goals even when her true love has seemingly abandoned her. Hermione is another fantastic example of a strong woman who does find romance, but never sacrifices her inner strength in doing so. Pairing her with Harry would completely undermine this.

In contrast, a lot of Hollywood films like to present women who appear strong and tough, who apparently scoff at the idea of a man defining them. But come the film's end, all their perceived character development is thrown out the window, and they're sidelined to love interest status once again. Think of Lt. Uhura in the new "Star Trek" films, a talented xenolinguist who ends up just being Spock's main squeeze. How about Trinity in the "Matrix" trilogy, a seemingly kick-ass woman who ends up defining herself by her love for Neo?

And then there's Padme Amidala, former Queen of Naboo. It's ironic that her daughter is one of the first real action women in blockbuster film. Ironic because Padme herself goes from active Queen, to gun-wielding Senator, to pregnant, mopey wife who loses the will to live because her husband turns evil. But I haven't even gotten to the best example, one who is much more recent.

When Tauriel was introduced in the second "Hobbit" as an original character to Tolkein's lore, fans were furious. I didn't mind the idea of her, as we need more badass women in fantasy films. Truthfully, Tauriel was a great addition from an action standpoint. She provided a female voice to proceedings, and proved she's just as powerful as Legolas and the dwarves, if not more so. The problem was that the writers didn't give her a proper character arc. Since she's made up, their idea of giving her depth was to make her the center of a love triangle between Legolas and Killi. Here you have a potentially strong female protagonist, and you waste her as a simple love interest. I can only hope that "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" gives her more to do than just get mushy over Killi, especially with a giant battle coming up.

I see a lot of potential in Tauriel, and the idea behind her is definitely an indicator of a more feminist Hollywood. But her execution worries me, as it illustrates filmmakers' lack of strong female characterization. When Wonder Woman shows up in the Batman/Superman film, I hope she's more like Katniss, Hermione, and Elsa and less like Tauriel. Wonder Woman is THE feminist icon, the premiere female superhero. It's bad enough she's playing second fiddle to Bats and Supes in her feature film debut. The best we can hope for is that Diana is written well enough to stand out on her own, so she won't be defined as a love interest  like in some cartoons and comics. Lynda Carter had the right idea when she donned the costume back in the '70s, and Zack Snyder would do best to draw inspiration from that.

Now, as a man, my opinion on the representation of females in Hollywood will widely differ from others. I recognize that, as well as the flak I may get just for writing this. All I'm doing with this rant is pointing out a trend I've been seeing in recent films. More and more women are actually  being written as strong, smart, independent people instead of just male eye candy, and for that I'm very grateful. These women are role models for millions of young girls, and in a lot of ways embody traits that men should idolize as well. I grew up with the Disney princesses of the '90s, and then Leia and Hermione soon after. Now I have Katniss and Queen Elsa, among many other women who serve as shining examples of feminine strength in modern Hollywood. I hope these powerful icons keep coming, because they are a credit not only to the strength of women, but to us as people.

Reign of the Fandom

Damn. Just...damn. I begin this rant with this phrase because, in the last two weeks, it seems like a million geeky things happened that either made fans extremely happy or pissed them off to no end. Geeky shows like "Sherlock," "Community," "Arrow" and "Agents of SHIELD" all returned, with trailers for the upcoming "Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones" seasons making the rounds as well. The Oscar nods were released, to their usual predictability and surprising snubs (no Tom Hanks nods or "Pacific Rim" for best VFX? For shame.) Seeing the reactions to the Oscar nods, the return of these geeky shows, and all the recent film development news got me thinking about something. In this information age, the fan dominates. All these passionate fan reactions prove this. It made me think: exactly how much power does the fan hold in forging creative content, versus the creators?

Using these recent film and TV announcements, I plan to answer this query. But how exactly to proceed? Well, let's start with the franchise that quite possibly has the largest (if not one of the largest) fandoms in recent memory: "Star Wars." I've waxed poetic on the Disney merger and sequel trilogy before, but these recent announcements have been very interesting.  Several news sites, including The Hollywood Reporter, have said that former screenwriter Michael Arndt left Episode VII because he wanted to focus more on Luke, Han and Leia's children. Abrams, on the other hand, wished to focus more on the original heroes, to give them a proper sendoff.

Lawrence Kasdan, who worked on Episode V, is also said to be working on a Boba Fett spinoff film, which has a bounty hunter kill the Jango Fett clone and take his armor and name, all in an attempt to wipe away the prequel backstory and make the character cool again. These developments seem motivated purely from a desire to please fanboys who have waited a lifetime to see the OT heroes back, and to get the stench of the prequels out of their heads. I admit, these ideas are very intriguing as a long-time fan. But I'm wondering if they are motivated from a creative standpoint, or just to cater to existing fanboys.

Like it or not, an entire generation grew up with the prequels (myself included), and they may not enjoy Abrams favoring the OT generation over theirs. "Star Wars" has a wide-reaching fandom that spans multiple generations, and any new films should find a way of honoring the previous generations while presenting enough new ideas to rope in new audiences. It seems like a no-brainer to say that, but right now the decisions behind these sequels and spinoffs seem more like fan service, or outright fan fiction, than a legitimate attempt to carry the series forward.

Then there's the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even a blind man could see that, despite having a solid plan in place going forward, a lot of Marvel's decisions with their films and TV shows have been motivated by fan reaction. Loki becomes a breakout character in "Avengers"? Re-shoot some "Thor: The Dark World" scenes to increase his role and screen time. There's a huge backlash from Trevor Slattery's Mandarin in "Iron Man 3"? Make a One Shot with Slattery to correct the problem. Fans make Phil Coulson a fan favorite by praising his role in the films and One Shots? Devote an entire show to him and bring him back from death.

The show itself isn't any good? Start by getting writers to expand the popular "Agent Carter" One Shot into a show, while also distributing more mature shows on Netflix. Then, for good measure, add Bill Paxton, Stan Lee and Jamie Alexander's Lady Sif into the back half of "SHIELD"'s first season. Clearly, Marvel has seen that their latest creative decisions have pissed fans off, so they're trying to course correct. What I find interesting, though, is the handling of Coulson's resurrection. Let's compare it to another beloved character who just cheated death-Sherlock Holmes, as played by Benedict Cumberbatch. I love the show, and like many couldn't wait for season 3. The two year gap between seasons allowed the show to gain a massive following on Tumblr and Twitter.

When it returned, the first episode, "The Empty Hearse", presented multiple scenarios for Sherlock's survival. None of them were exactly real. In the show, the last scenario is given by Sherlock himself to a fanboy, Anderson. Despite this scenario being the most realistic, Anderson rejects it and calls it disappointing. This seems to be a sort of meta commentary on the nature of the "Sherlock" fandom, and why a single reason wasn't given. No matter what scenario the writers came up with, none of them would satisfy the rapid fans. Hence, multiple ones were given so the fans could make up their own minds. In other words, the creative integrity of the show was somewhat compromised to satiate the fandom.

The following two episodes were also unique in their relationship with the fans. "The Signs of Three" focused more on characterization and comedy instead of the show's trademark mystery. Then "His Last Vow", while a thrilling return to form, ended on another cliffhanger that brings back Moriarty, the fan-favorite villain from the first two seasons. This came at the cost of sacrificing an amazing new villain in Charles Augustus Magnussen, all for the sake of renewing the conflict that hooked fans on the show in the first place. Now from my writing, it may seem like I hated the new season. On the contrary, I loved it. But even I admit that a lot of the decisions made here, including scenes like Sherlock and Watson getting drunk, were more like shout outs to the fans than ways of honoring the integrity of the show.

Contrast this with what Marvel's done with "Agents of SHIELD." The mid-season premiere, "The Magical Place," showed that Agent Coulson was dead for days after "Avengers" and was brought back on Fury's orders through a series of painstaking surgeries. That's all well and good, but there's still the underlying question of why he was brought back. It's interesting that in "Sherlock," when John tells Sherlock he doesn't care how he came back but why he faked his death, the show lingers on that when we already know Sherlock did it to protect John. We know the why, but not the how, in a detective show that thrives off providing explanations.

"SHIELD", meanwhile, exists in a universe where I could personally think of several ways to resurrect someone. Magic, cloning, robots, alien tech, what have you. It doesn't really matter. I want to know with Coulson why he came back. The show hints that Coulson's incredibly important. This seems like meta-commentary too, since Coulson is incredibly popular with the fanbase. But why was he resurrected in-universe? He's not a superhero, just another agent. Therefore, there needs to be a reason why this particular agent was resurrected. It's just interesting that Coulson and Sherlock were both resurrected, but  the most interesting aspects of their returns were glossed over, since the creators thought their immense popularity meant the fans wouldn't bat an eye.

It's the perfect case of how the fans of a genre film or show can effect the quality of the storytelling. Fans don't really know what they want, so content dictated by them often comes across as poor fan fiction than actual creativity. There are other examples I could use, of course. J.J. Abrams includes Kahn in "Star Trek Into Darkness" for the Trekkies, but they get upset that he's remaking their favorite film. Peter Jackson includes more Tolkein lore for the die hard fans in "The Hobbit", but  expands the story into a trilogy with an inconsistent tone, made up characters, and a lack of focus on lead character Bilbo.

Sony puts fan-favorite Venom into "Spider-Man 3," dooming the film's narrative. WB makes a boring, action-less "Superman Returns" as a homage to the popular Donner films. "Batman & Robin" exists due to the perceived popularity of "Batman Forever." The fans hated them all, so the listening studios made reboots. "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Batman Begins" were hits, but fans complained about "Man of Steel" due to having too much action and being too un-Supermanlike. Its upcoming sequel aims not only to correct those problems, but add Batman and Wonder Woman to sweeten the deal.

But Warner Bros. haven't stopped at just that for the sequel. I've heard rumors of Brian Cranston, Denzel Washington, Dwayne Johnson, Jason Momoa, and Josh Holloway being courted for roles. Lex Luthor, Metallo, Doomsday, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter are the roles that are, apparently, up for contention. Isn't that a tad bit overcrowded? We already have Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, the latter two being played by controversial actors. There was a huge fan backlash with Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot's casting, and all these rumored actors won't help calm the fans down. You could easily say that WB felt Superman just isn't popular on his own, so they're adding the entire Justice League to compensate. But now the film's been delayed until May 2016. This, I think, is where things get interesting.

Here's where my complaints of the studios basically making poor fan fiction find a nice counter-argument. The controversial casting decisions thus far, coupled with the former 2015 release, led many to think this was being rushed to compete with "Avengers 2" that same year. But with the delay, Warner Brothers can do this right. The film may exist, in part, to placate the negative "Man of Steel" reception.  But this delay means WB has time to get the casting right, while making sure the story is up to par. They may be building their own cinematic universe formula, using "Batman vs. Superman" to introduce the JL members in cameos before their big break in "Justice League." More time is needed to do this properly, and that means WB is thinking of the long haul like Marvel, wanting to honor fans and audiences without sacrificing artistic integrity.

Marvel hasn't forgotten that either. While I just wrote of their attempts to course-correct their recent failures, at least they're still willing to take risks. We recently got a huge amount of information on "Ant-Man." Michael Douglas was recently cast as Hank Pym, confirming Paul Rudd as Scott Lang. The film, then, is an adaptation of "To Steal an Ant-Man", with a "Tales to Astonish"-style prologue in a '60s Cold War setting to show Pym inventing the Ant-Man tech. I've seen a lot of fans complain that this ruins the chances of a younger Pym joining the Avengers.

But this also establishes Pym as an important MCU figure, possibly a founding SHIELD scientist. He could even still help invent Ultron, maybe work with Howard Stark to forge the A.I. tech that leads to the robot's present-day creation. The Wasp could easily be handled by having Hank marry Janet in the '60s, leading to a modern daughter also named Janet who has mutant powers similar to the Ultimate version.

That's just me speculating, but that's already showing how this change could fit in the established MCU, honor the fans, and make for a thrilling film. And I'm speaking as a fan myself and someone who just wants to see a good film. The mentor-student dynamic between Hank and Scott and the generational aspect alone is exciting. It makes a B-list hero like Ant-Man interesting, and gives something new to the MCU that we haven't seen before. Isn't that a little more important than doing everything just like the comics, just for the fans' sake?

Even though Marvel may be trying to course-correct their mistakes with "SHIELD" and "Iron Man 3", they're still making decisions for creative, instead of monetary, purposes. This makes for a balance between respecting the fans that made these works famous, while also creating better shows and films. With adaptations, there should always be a balance between respect for the source and creative integrity. The first "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" are excellent examples of this. And should a work piss fans off, the examples I've listed above show that fans can forgive, and trust the creators to do better since they love the material enough.

We do live in an age of social media, where the fandom reigns. But it's important that a fandom shouldn't dictate a work's creative decisions. If a film or TV show is well-made, people will love it regardless. It's the artistic integrity that allows these works, and their fans, to succeed. Don't sacrifice a work for the fans, but don't ignore them either. Often a fan backlash will turn people off a work altogether. A balance needs to be struck, and as long as creators realize this, this golden age of geekery we're seeing will last for a long time.  

Ringing in the New: Back to '13, Forward to '14

 

2013 was a hell of a year. In terms of movies, it was all over the place. The big blockbusters were hit and miss, the less-hyped films had the best quality. I'm tempted to just leave it at that, forget about 2013 and move on to 2014. We're already nine days into it. But I guess I just need the closure from last year if I really want to move forward. Because for all the trash that 2013 had to offer, there were some gems. And if Hollywood pays more attention to these gems than the trash, then these next two years should be spectacular. Considering what's been announced, I expect great things. With that said, this rant is actually composed of a couple lists. The first ranks all the films I've seen in 2013 from worst to best, along with a short list of films I didn't get a chance to see. The next list goes over the films from 2014 I want to see, and others that look interesting. It's a lot, I know, but I'll try not to make it too long. Here's to a great new year ahead. 

26. A Good Day to Die Hard- The fifth "Die Hard" film feels more like a generic action movie, sacrificing the character-based thrills of the last four films in favor of a spy-thriller starring John McClane's son. One of the greatest action movie icons deserved better. 

25. 21 & Over- There is literally nothing to distinguish this film from any other coming-of-age raunchy college comedy. Do yourself a favor and pop in "Animal House" instead. 

24. Identity Thief- Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman have great chemistry together, but the jokes are subpar and the premise a tad too unrealistic. Who gives their credit card info over the phone to a random stranger?

23. Dark Skies- What started as a tense psychological thriller quickly turned into a hapless UFO horror film, feeling more like a rejected "X-Files" episode. 

22. Machete Kills- Yes, it's supposed to have a "so bad it's good" vibe, like its admittedly hilarious predecessor, but this one goes a little too far, and seems more concerned setting up a sequel than being its own thing. I found the move to sci-fi in the last half too bizarre a tonal shift to buy into this. 

21. G.I. Joe: Retaliation- This one got Cobra Commander right! And it has ninjas fighting on the side of a mountain! And...that's pretty much all I can praise about this. An improvement over its predecessor, but not by much. 

20. Oblivion- I give this film props for Tom Cruise's performance, the vivid production design, and a decent plot twist. I just wish it was more original with its story. 

19. The Evil Dead- What could have been another pointless horror remake was actually a nice love letter to the cult classic, filled with plenty of blood and gore to satisfy "Evil Dead" fans. I just can't get over the severe lack of Bruce Campbell. 

18. Olympus Has Fallen- Ironically, this film was more "Die Hard" than the actual "Die Hard" we got, a nice homage to the brainless action films of the '80s. It's unrealistic, yes, but great fun anyways. However, it doesn't stay with you like the best of them, hence why it's so low here. 

17. Now You See Me- It had a clever, magic-themed heist plot, yes. And its cast was to die for. It just left too much to coincidence to really hold up for me. Still, meshing the cast of "Zombieland," "The Dark Knight" and "Avengers" together has to count for something. 

16. Elysium- The action scenes were amazing, and Shartlo Copey's Kreuger character was a delight. Too bad I was expecting something a little more thought-provoking from the "District 9" director. So much wasted potential, this. 

15. Warm Bodies- I thought this would be terrible, but it turned out to be one of the smartest takes on the zombie genre I've ever seen. Who would have thought to focus on a zombie apocalypse from the zombie's perspective? Thrilling stuff, plus funny and romantic when the need arises. 

14. We're The Millers- It's raunchy comedy at its finest, but the four hapless strangers forming a surrogate family plot anchored the proceedings. This had some gut-busting moments, so I thought it was worth it. 

13. Kick-Ass 2- A worthy sequel to its predecessor and a decent adaptation of the comic. Jim Carrey shines, and the parallels between Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl and the Mother Fucker's arcs were clever. But despite its enjoyment, it never hits the charm and biting satire of the first film. 

12. Thor: The Dark World- I applaud this latest entry in the MCU for creating a more lived-in Asgard, focusing on the Thor-Loki relationship, and confirming some big things for this world's future (Infinity Gauntlet!) But more hokey, Earth-bound comedy and a wasted villain were definite drawbacks. Still a lot of fun though, especially the portal-hopping finale and a cameo from a certain Avenger. 

11. The Wolverine- Sixth time out, and Hugh Jackman finally does the iconic mutant justice on the silver screen. This was what the first film should have been, and a Japanese noir setting makes this the most grounded, personal "X-Men" film yet. The cartoonish Silver Samurai finale limits it some, but all is forgiven come the end-credits scene. 

10. Star Trek Into Darkness- Yes, it's a Wrath of Kahn remake. So what? It may pay homage to its roots a little too much come the climax, but this is still an exciting, adrenaline-fueled entry in the new "Star Trek" canon. You proved yourself on the Enterprise, Abrams. Now show me what you got for the Falcon.

9. Iron Man 3- I will still defend this film's brilliant, post-modern, extremely meta take on the Mandarin, even if others hate it. For all the changes to the comic mythology, this was a fun, character-centric outing for Tony Stark that outdoes "Iron Man 2" in every way. 

8. Man of Steel- Similarly, I'm completely fine with most of the complaints leveled at this film. Death by Tornado, Zod's neck snap and Metropolis destruction included. I just think the pluses outweigh the minuses with this film, since it delivers a new take on Supes's iconic mythos that honors his roots while giving him a much needed "paint job", so to speak. Bring on Batfleck!

7. Monsters University- I wanted to scoff at a prequel to such a beloved film like "Monster's Inc.", but the college setting was too good to resist. Personally, it's not up to Pixar's best, but this is still an excellent addition to the canon and delivers a thrilling new dynamic to the Mike-Sully friendship. 

6. This Is The End- Six actors make fun of themselves as they try to outwit a crazed Emma Watson, a possessed Jonah Hill, the Rapture and a giant Satan with a lava cock. There were so many actor cameos, so much meta humor, and such an insane amount of fun that I couldn't help falling in love with this film. 

5. The World's End- If we're talking apocalyptic comedies, the Brits got us beat. The final chapter in the Cornetto Trilogy delivers on all fronts, with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's chemistry better than ever in this drunken bromance meets alien invasion piece. In terms of comedy, easily the best film I've seen this year. 

4. Pacific Rim- Guillermo Del Toro promised me giant robots fighting giant monsters. That's what I got, so I was happy. I don't care how simplistic the story was, how underdeveloped the characters were or how many plot holes there were. This was escapist entertainment at its finest, and that's all I really wanted. 

3. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire- The second book of the "Hunger Games" trilogy was my favorite, so this came with great expectations on my end. I wasn't disappointed. This was a perfect adaptation and an excellent follow-up to the first film, with action and characters eclipsing its predecessor and an emotional cliffhanger ending. The Odds were definitely in this one's favor. 

2. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug- Part of me still doubts whether Jackson should have made a trilogy out of a simple children's book, but I was having too much fun with this film to really care. All the changes worked in the confines of Tolkein's world, and any more time devoted to Benedict Cumberbatch's amazing rendition of Smaug the dragon was a plus. 

1. Gravity- Blurring the lines between Oscar bait and blockbuster, this film came out of nowhere to be my number one film of the year. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's acting chops were always on display, but the real star was the cinematography. The plot's a little thin, I admit, but for a solid hour and a half I felt like I was in space. This film defines why we go to movies in the first place- to get lost in another world. Unlike every other film I saw this year, this felt like a genuine cinematic achievement, and for such a memorable experience, it deserves my top spot. 

But like every new year, when we look back we also look with regret. Here are twelve films I regret not having time to see, that I'll hopefully see this year. 

1. Her (Man falls in love with computer. I can relate.)

2. The Wolf of Wall Street (Leo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese never disappoint.)

3. American Hustle (Batman, Hawkeye, Katniss, Lois Lane, and Rocket Raccoon in the '70s.)

4. Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks looks great as ever in this hostage thriller.)

5. Saving Mr. Banks (Tom Hanks again, only now as Walt Disney.)

6. 12 Years A Slave (This dark, brutal take on American slavery looks fascinating.)

7. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (I love the first one. Why not?)

8. Despicable Me 2 (Who doesn't love those minions?)

9. Frozen (The animation looks gorgeous, and the songs I've heard are catchy.)

10. Inside Llewyn Davis (Come on, it's the Coen Brothers! Why wouldn't I?)

11. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (The reviews are bad, yes, but the visuals look stunning.)

12. Fast and Furious 6 (I'll get around to it as soon as I watch Fast Five. R.I.P. Paul Walker.)

And since I'm on the topic of what films I should watch this year, here are a list of 14 films I need to see for 2014, now that the new year is fully in swing. 

1. The Lego Movie- An entire film comprised of LEGOs, with Chris Pratt, Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, and Liam Neeson doing voice work? What's that? The directors of "21 Jump Street" and "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs"? What's that? LEGO versions of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Flash? Ok, I'm sold. 

2. Robocop- As much as I want to hate this film, the presence of Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton and Gary Oldman has me intrigued. Plus, it's an actual update, focusing on our society's current technophobia and the government's love of drones. This could actually be a winner. 

3. Noah- Darren Aronofsky, aka the director of "Black Swan", is making a good old-fashioned Biblical epic about everyone's favorite guy in a boat. And he's played by Russel Crowe. And Emma Watson, Jennifer Connely, Anthony Hopkins, and Ray Winstone are involved. Also, apparently there are six armed angels. That's gotta be worth something. 

4. Captain America: The Winter Soldier- This is really a no-brainer. Adapting the best Captain America comic book arc, focusing on Cap's isolation in modern times, and containing a 70s era conspiracy thriller plot, this is poised to possibly be the best Phase II film yet. 

5. Transcendence- Wally Pfister, the cinematographer who teamed with Nolan for the "Dark Knight" trilogy, directs his first feature, a dark sci-fi thriller starring Johnny Depp about a dying man whose consciousness is transferred into a computer, creating a rogue A.I. Should make for some head-scratching stuff, possibly one of the best original science fiction films in years. 

6. The Amazing Spider-Man 2- My favorite superhero's back! And this time, he's got Electro, Rhino, and Green Goblin to go up against! Oh wait, didn't three villains doom "Spider-Man 3"? Well, having Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and Dane Dehaan play them certainly helps, as does connecting the villains through Oscorp and building towards the Sinister Six. Everything I've seen about this film, from the suit to the action to the new characters, makes it look like it'll be the best Spider-Man yet. 

7. Godzilla- The '90s film was a let down, yes, but the trailer for this film has me beyond pumped. A darker tone, great actors in Elizabeth Olson, Aaron Taylor Johnson and Bryan Cranston, and a more faithful rendition of the giant lizard makes this look very promising. Plus, the rumors of Godzilla going up against other monsters has me even more excited. 

8. X-Men: Days of Future Past- "The Wolverine" was a step in the right direction, and now that Bryan Singer is back in the director's chair, I expect a lot from this new outing. Crossing over all the previous films using time travel, retconning timeline mistakes, introducing the Sentinels, and teasing uber-villain Apocalypse are exciting enough, but just having the A-list actors from "First Class" and the previous X-trilogy together takes the cake. 

9. How To Train Your Dragon 2- I adored the first film, and the sequel looks like a worthy follow-up in addition to being visually stunning. 

10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes- The first film was a pleasant surprise, and the return of Andy Serkis as Ceasar in an all-out war between humans and apes makes this an automatic must-see. 

11. Guardians of the Galaxy- The Marvel Cinematic Universe's biggest risk since the first "Iron Man", testing out a D-list superhero property and seeing if it has legs. With Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Lee Pace, Karen Gillian, and John C. Reilly on board, I don't see how this could fail. It's a full-blown, "Star Wars"-esque space opera set in the Marvel Universe! Plus, it has Vin Deisel as a talking tree and Bradley Cooper as a gun-toting raccoon. Sure, it could fail. But there's so much potential here it can't not make my list. 

12. Interstellar- Chris Nolan. Science fiction film. About people on a devastated Earth, traveling across the galaxy through wormholes to seek out new resources. Exactly how could I let this slide off my radar?

13. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One- Even though it's based on the first half of the weakest book, Hollywood's treatment of the series thus far has been fantastic. And with two films to devote to the finale, I'm hoping that some of the more controversial elements can be changed to make a better cinematic experience. Here's hoping. 

14. The Hobbit: There and Back Again- Finally, we'll see if Peter Jackson's choice to make "The Hobbit" into a trilogy pays off. No matter what happens, it'll be great to see Smaug destroying Lake Town, Gandalf expelling Sauron from Dol Goldur and the epic Battle of Five Armies. It's the last film set in Middle Earth, and I'm content to enjoy it while it lasts. 

But just so I cover all my bases, here are some other films that look interesting that I'll probably end up seeing, one way or another. 

1. Transformers: Age of Extinction (Mark Walburg and Dinobots. Might as well give it a try.)

2. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I'm intrigued, Megan Fox as April O' Neal aside.)

3. The Monuments Men (George Clooney, John Goodman and Bill Murray in World War II, natch.)

4. 300: Rise of an Empire (It has no Gerard Butler, but stylized Spartan action sounds good.)

5. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (The first was great, ready for round two.)

6. Exodus (Another Biblical epic, only now it's Christian Bale as Moses with Ridley Scott directing.)

7.  A Million Ways to Die in the West (Seth McFarlane doing a western. Could be funny.)

8. 22 Jump Street (The first one was hilarious. Now they're in college? I gotta see this.)

9. Big Hero 6 (The first animated Disney film using Marvel characters, with a Japanese influence.)

10. Jupiter Ascending (A new sci-fi from the "Matrix" directors. It'll be great to look at, at least.)

11. Edge of Tomorrow (Tom Cruise's new sci-fi looks like "Groundhog Day" mixed with aliens.)

12. Muppets Most Wanted (The Muppets are back, and in Europe this time!)

Hollywood Faces the Avengers Effect

I realize it's been a long time since I've updated this blog. Personally, I haven't felt very motivated lately to do much of anything, even schoolwork. But now that the semester has ended, I've had time to watch a couple of films in theaters that I've been greatly looking forward to. Namely, "Thor: The Dark World," "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," and "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." I heavily enjoyed all three of these films, all of whom have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

"Thor: The Dark World" was a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a good continuation of both "Thor," "The Avengers" and Phase II. It had more of Asgard, more emotion, a unique if somewhat familiar plot, and some great easter eggs for the wider universe. The appearance of the Collector and mention of the Infinity Stones drove me into a frenzy. Tom Hiddleston was fantastic once again as Loki, and at this point it's clear to me that the emotional anchor of these films is the sibling rivalry between him and Thor.

With that said, I felt that sometimes the darker tone was sacrificed for more comedy, the humans once again felt extraneous, and the main villain, Malekith, was utterly wasted in favor of more screentime for Loki. I understand that he's popular, and enjoyed his presence, but the absence of Malekith undercut his effectiveness as a villain, therefore calling into question exactly why a Thor-Loki alliance was needed.

But enough of Thor. "Catching Fire" was an improvement in every way over its predecessor. Jennifer Lawrence kills it again as Katniss, and this time Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are given greater roles as Peeta and Gale. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Sam Claflin are excellent additions to the cast as Plutarch Heavensbee and Finnick Odair, respectively. The cinematography is better, and in terms of adaptation the film is perfect in replicating the source novel. The action is simply incredible as well, with the new arena a delight with all the obstacles it presents.

As for "The Hobbit," which I saw just last night in IMAX 3D, it was astounding. Improving on "An Unexpected Journey," the film had a darker, more consistent tone and a livelier pace. More happens here than the first film, what with Beorn, the Mirkwood spiders, the elves, Lake Town, Gandalf visiting the Necromancer, and finally Smaug himself. He makes the film by sheer presence alone. Benedict Cumberbatch should be commended for bringing this iconic dragon to life, and presenting him on the biggest scale possible.

Die hard Tolkien fans may wine at the inclusion of new character Tauriel, her relationship with Killi, or the added Smaug battle in the mountain. Personally, I felt they were necessary additions to both make the story more cinematic and to flesh it out from the source, so we care more about the the events that happen in the third film. It also provides better connective tissue to the first trilogy, so at the end of the day we can watch a six-film marathon of LOTR and The Hobbit back to back.

But despite my praise for all these films, there is one thing I found inherent in all of them. Something I've noticed has to do with the recent mindset of Hollywood filmmaking ever since "The Avengers" banked over a billion worldwide last year. "Thor," "Hunger Games" and "The Hobbit" all end on massive cliffhangers. Loki now sits on Odin's throne, Thor unaware. Katniss wakes up to find her home district destroyed, with Peeta captured by the Capitol. Bilbo watches in horror as Smaug descends upon Lake Town, ready to raze it for the dwarves' actions in the mountain. All good cliffhangers, no doubt. Audiences will swarm to see the sequels when they're released. But that's what Hollywood has become. New films are not single, satisfactory experiences anymore. Instead, they exist as placeholders, meant only to build up hype for the sequel.

Now frankly, this is nothing new. "Star Wars," "The Matrix," "Lord of the Rings," "Back to the Future," and "Pirates of the Caribbean" all mastered the art of making placeholder films for the big finale. I've argued before on the pros and cons of trilogies, and franchises in general. But it's important to note that not all big Hollywood films used to come with a sequel hook. Sequels came in after the fact, with original films working just as well as standalones as they do in a larger series.

The examples I've listed above actually do this quite well, as do others like "The Godfather" and each "Dark Knight" film. But nowadays every major film has to be part of a franchise, always getting bigger and bigger to service future films. Since "The Avengers", this has become the paradigm. I've written an entire blog post predicting that this would happen (4). We have gotten into the mindset of the mega-franchise, giant crossovers that focus more on using multiple, interconnected films for world-building instead of continuing a focused story or character arc.

Look at the recent film and TV news that's come out in the last few months, specifically the last few weeks. Disney owns Lucasfilm, both Star Wars and now Indiana Jones. While new Indy films may be a while off, Disney has confirmed "Star Wars Episode VII" is coming in Christmas 2015, the first of a new trilogy of sequel films. In addition, spinoffs released in between the main episodes will expand the universe similar to how the MCU handles the "Avengers" characters. Harry Potter is getting into the spinoff game as well, with a film based on "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" scripted by J.K. Rowling on the horizon.

James Cameron is taking a page out of Peter Jackson's book, and expanding his "Avatar" universe over a trilogy of sequel films meant to be released from 2016-2018. And while the death of Paul Walker has stalled production until April 2015, "Fast and Furious 7" is very much happening, meant to combine stories and characters from all six previous films, including "Tokyo Drift," into one mega movie.

But we haven't even looked at what "The Avengers" is doing to every other comic book franchise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is still expanding. "Thor 2" revealed the Infinity Gauntlet as the end game, and we know Ultron, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, and the Guardians of the Galaxy are all coming in the near future. Not only that, but more crossovers await with the new TV properties. "Agents of SHIELD", honestly a mixed bag in terms of content, nevertheless has great synergy with the films, what with the mystery of Coulson's resurrection, the return of Extremis, and an episode packed with Asgardian mythology. And more TV tie-ins to the films will come, now that we know of Netflix's deal with Disney to bring Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and the Defenders to life through individual miniseries.

But then there's the other, non-Disney Marvel properties. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is crossing over the old and new casts, building its own mega movie using all the previous X films. And now Bryan Singer has confirmed the follow-up as "X-Men: Apocalypse", based on the biggest X-Men villain of all time. Apocalypse could be Fox's Thanos, through which an even bigger crossover event can be planned using a rebooted Fantastic Four, an X-Force film, a Deadpool solo film, and more Wolverine movies, as rumored. Fox wants its own Marvel Cinematic Universe, as does Sony.

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" trailer confirmed Rhino, Electro and Green Goblin, as well as teasing Doctor Octopus, The Vulture, and the Sinister Six. And then Sony confirmed not only a Sinister Six spinoff film, but a Venom movie as well. With a third and fourth "Spider-Man" movie also in the cards, it's clear that Sony wants its own shared universe to compete with Disney's. If I may make a prediction, I see the second and third films setting up the symbiote and Sinister Six, which then get their own films to develop, before Venom and Spidey team up to take the Six down in the fourth film. Other characters like Carnage and Black Cat can easily be added to the mix, for an even wider universe.

And then of course there's DC. Marvel has three cinematic universes developing, but DC only has one. Luckily, "Man of Steel" has a sequel with both Batman and Wonder Woman in it, played by Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot, respectively. Rumors of a Flash cameo keep spinning, and since Flash was already introduced in the "Arrow" TV show, it wouldn't surprise me if DC just put both "Arrow" and its upcoming "Flash" spinoff into the film continuity to get to "Justice League" faster. They clearly want the "Avengers Effect" to happen to them. Even if they don't combine the TV and film worlds, both already have multiple superheroes existing, so the team-up concept is still in effect.

While the superheroes are all experiencing "Avengers" envy, older properties that have already used the crossover gimmick are reusing it to greater effect, now that they know it's popular once again. Case in point, "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who." Multiple captains and Doctors have teamed up before, and now the reboots are doing it too. Leonard Nimoy's Spock was used to bridge the new films to the old canon, just like how William Shatner's Kirk bridged the old show to the Next Generation in the seventh film. And while we've had five Doctors team up before, this year's 50th Anniversary Special had David Tennant, Matt Smith and John Hurt team up, before stock footage united all 13 incarnations of the Doctor to unite the old show with the new.

Of course this brings up an interesting point. "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who" began as television shows. TV has always had better success with both world-building and character development. Spinoffs are commonplace, in everything from "Torchwood" to "Angel" to the upcoming "Walking Dead" and "Breaking Bad" spinoffs. Television, by its very nature, is serialized, but since there are so many episodes, there's more time to both expand the world and develop the characters within it. But films don't have that opportunity. They're expensive to make, run two to three hours at a time, and take years to release. Some cinematic worlds are ripe for expansion, as I've explained in my trilogy/franchise articles (1, 2, 3). "Star Wars," "Harry Potter," "The Marvel Cinematic Universe," and "Lord of the Rings" are excellent examples of multi-film franchises that can tell intimate character pieces in the context of larger worlds. But the problem is that not every franchise deserves this type of rigorous expansion, even if it seems like it might.

Critics are already claiming that the future of quality entertainment lies in television instead of film. Peter Jackson is already getting flak for expanding "The Hobbit" into three movies, with the first film getting the brunt of the criticism. The second film, while better, still suffers from "middle chapter in a trilogy" syndrome, in a story that some argue shouldn't have been a trilogy. Jackson has used the extra time to expand the world and characters, to the delight of diehard fans, but still people complain of unnecessary length. "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" expanded their final books into multiple parts, and now "The Hunger Games" is set to do it with "Mockingjay," all for the sake of creating a larger franchise.

World-building, if done right like the Disney-Marvel model, can effectively create a fully realized world that engages fans and non-fans alike, with characters anyone can cheer for. But too much expansion makes the crossover aspect a gimmick, replacing story and character with empty spectacle. Another article I made spoke of how the films released in 2015 and beyond may oversaturate the market with mega blockbusters, alienating people with the Hollywood obsession for sequels and crossovers (5). This obsession has, in a way, been around in both the TV and film mediums for years, but never to the extent we're seeing now.

Sequels became trilogies, trilogies franchises, and franchises shared universes, with spinoffs increasingly more prominent. If done correctly, all these announced projects could be successes. They could herald huge box office returns, while delighting audiences with unique characters interacting for a better sense of continuity. But the minute people start questioning why all these extra sequels and spinoffs are needed, the entire model is doomed. Hollywood, in its current form, will fall, just as many have predicted. But if this succeeds, it will herald an interesting change. The success of this model will see Hollywood return to its serialistic roots, once so popular in the early days of cinema.

The fact that many people think of TV as the better medium right now may help Hollywood if it approaches films like extended TV episodes, or in Marvel's case, issues of a comic book. This new model does indeed look promising, but we must be weary of its side effects. Whether a success or failure, we must recognize that this is indeed happening, and by doing so we can decide whether the shared universe model is the correct course for Hollywood to take as it moves into this new cinematic era.

Below are the links to my previous articles, numbered for quick reference in the text above.

(1) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-i-three-movie.html

(2) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-ii-good-trilogies.html

(3) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-iii-franchise.html

(4) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-avengers-effect.html

(5) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2013/07/blockbuster-burnout-how-hollywood-is.html

.

In The Shadow of the Bat: What Ben Affleck Means for Batman vs. Superman

Where were you when Ben Affleck was cast? Last week, news broke that Ben Affleck, the guy who wrote and directed "The Town" and "Argo" and, yes, starred in "Gigli" and "Daredevil," had been cast as the next iteration of the Dark Knight. Affleck is now set to star opposite Henry Cavill as Superman in 2015's still untitled "Man of Steel" sequel, widely speculated to be called "Batman vs. Superman." The Internet, to put it mildly, did not take this lightly. It seems Affleck's former reputation as a talentless pretty boy has refused to die, considering the millions of nerds attempting to usurp Affleck from the cowl with idiotic rants and pointless petitions to the White House. To these so-called "fans" I ask-where do you get off?

Did none of you see "The Town" or "Argo?" Did none of you see Affleck's nuanced performances in "State of Play" or "Hollywoodland," where he played, respectively, a billionaire and an actor-turned-media superhero? Affleck's come a long way from the guy who played Daredevil, having reshaped himself into an Oscar winning screenwriter, actor and director. To put it simply, this guy knows his stuff. Not only is he now a major Hollywood player, but his longtime friendship with Kevin Smith and childhood love of comic books have given him a unique understanding of the superhero mindset. Affleck's past roles have practically primed him for Bruce Wayne, both the playboy persona by day and the brooding vigilante by night.

But this also begs the question- what exactly does Ben Affleck's casting bode for the Superman/Batman film? Ever since the announcement that "Man of Steel" would be followed up by this crossover film, various thoughts have crossed my mind. Does Warner Brothers really have no faith in Superman, to the point they think casting Batman will get more people to go? Is this all an attempt to compete with "The Avengers," and if so is anything about this film really sincere? If there is more to this than a gimmick, how will the film successfully build on the story and character arcs of the previous film while introducing a new, rebooted version of Batman, especially one so soon after the previous trilogy? In short, how the hell is this going to work, Ben Affleck or otherwise?

Well, let's take into account what WB hopes to get out of Ben Affleck as Batman that they didn't get out of Christian Bale. First off, Bale was a more realistic Batman, one who had military grade equipment, sought to take down organized crime, and ultimately wanted to give up his persona to live a normal life. As celebrated as Bale was, there are still many hardcore fans who decry this version as not representing the Batman of the comics. That Batman was the World's Greatest Detective, who had a strategy for everything, resources to take down every superhero, and an uncompromising spirit that refused to quit the cowl. Zach Snyder already confirmed with Affleck's casting that he is meant to play an older, more experienced version of Bruce Wayne. This is supposedly to counter the younger, inexperienced Cavill as Superman. The fact that Snyder wishes to have an older Batman speaks volumes of what we should hope to get out of this movie.

When "Batman vs. Superman" (I seriously hope that isn't the final title) was announced, Snyder had Christopher Meloni read a quote from "The Dark Knight Returns," which features a veteran Batman fighting a Superman who had become a lapdog of the government. While by no means will this film be a straight adaptation (it is a "Man of Steel" sequel first after all), it is obvious that the filmmakers are looking to that comic for inspiration. Namely, the idea of an older Batman putting Superman in his place, so to speak. So, knowing that Affleck is set to play an elder Batman against a rookie Superman, in a plot that both follows "Man of Steel" and takes inspiration from "Dark Knight Returns," we (meaning I) can venture a guess as to how this whole thing will shake out.

David Goyer, the writer of "Man of Steel" and its upcoming sequel, said in an interview that Superman will have to deal with the repercussions of all the destruction wreaked upon Metropolis. Just like "The Dark Knight," this sequel will deal with the themes of escalation and the consequences of the previous film. For Superman, that would ultimately mean owning up to his rookie mistakes of nearly destroying a city and killing a fellow Kryptonian. Since the military still doesn't trust him, it could be that come this film, the public is still having a hard time adjusting to Supes and believing he is a savior.

The voice of the people will be Lex Luthor (Lex Corp was set up too much in the previous film and is too good a foil to both Bats and Supes not to be included here). Through his company, possibly with help from Wayne Enterprises, Luthor rebuilds Metropolis and begins a smear campaign against Superman. He proclaims that this god-like being looks human but is not, and proves it through Superman's inability to own up to the mistakes he has so far made.

While Supes doesn't like justifying killing, he truly believes he did what he had to do for the greater good. He knows he was fighting beings capable to devastating destruction and couldn't stand to see even more life taken, given his inability to use his powers publicly in adolescence. Superman continues to fly around the world, saving as many people as possible from various natural disasters and maybe even interfering in military conflicts. He is literally putting the weight of the world on his shoulders, trying desperately to gain the trust of his adopted people.

Batman, meanwhile, is introduced as a hero several years into his career. He has been watching Superman closely since his first appearance, deeply worried about Superman's allegiances. While his actions in Metropolis at the very least show he intends to do good, Batman sees a man who relies too much on raw power and doesn't take time to think before he uses them. He wants to save humanity, but every time he uses his powers he unwittingly puts more people in danger. If he keeps this up, Luthor will have even more ammunition against him, and the people will completely turn on him. Bruce decides Superman must be humbled in some way, to show that he is just as vulnerable as those he protects so as to make him think properly about the use of his powers.

Meanwhile, the government is also worried about Superman's behavior, and go to Luthor to come up with a deterrent against him. At this point in the franchise, I think it's only right that Kryptonite finally be introduced. Personally, I'd like to think this will either lead to power armor or Metallo, possibly both. Let's say John Corben is introduced as a government liaison to Luthor, who synthesizes kryptonite to power an experimental exoskeleton that could take down Supes. Since Bruce wants to humble Superman, he teams with Luthor and the military to create this exo suit. When another heroic act from Superman unwittingly causes more destruction,  Bruce strong arms Luthor into giving him the suit as Batman so he can use it against Supes, saying no military man is as qualified to take down the alien.

Bats, who has been operating in the shadows for years and is only known by the criminal underworld and certain factions of police, publicly unveils himself. Superman is immediately turned off by the idea of a vigilante operating in Gotham, especially one who uses fear as a weapon. Since Batman seems to represent everything Superman hates (pessimism against optimism, dark against light, fear against hope, etc.), Superman decides to go to Gotham to deal with him. He thinks that if he publicly brings Batman in, he can win the hope of the people. When Supes arrives, Batman engages him with the exoskeleton, using its increased strength, its effects on Superman, and his own analysis of Supes' powers and personality to bring him down. We could also learn here that Batman has even deduced Superman's identity, and here we could get that famous line from "The Dark Knight Returns" that was recited at Comic-Con. In fact, I'd like this entire fight to be a homage to that comic, except for the outcome.

Batman ultimately chooses to spare Clark, saying it was his intention to humble him, not to kill him. He explains that there's a difference between having power and knowing how to use it, and that a man with gifts like his should endeavor to actually help people more than show off brute force. It is only through this can Clark actually succeed in becoming the symbol of hope Jor-El wanted for him. We see that this battle is just as much an ideological one as it is a physical one, with the two heroes seething with hatred as well as envy for one another. Clark secretly admires how an ordinary man could find the willpower to reinvent himself like he has, while Bruce admires how, despite his flaws, that this man could have easily conquered the Earth but chooses to use his powers for good. He secretly wishes he did not have to utilize fear, but instead wants to give people hope the way Superman wants to. In this way, both men have something the other wants, and thus learn and grow from each other. Like good opposites, they attract.

While this is just speculation, I'm guessing that from here we'll have the standard heroes become allies after fighting. Luthor will find a way to replicate the exoskeleton and give it to Corben, and then using the media he will defame Batman as well, trying to make him Superman's accomplice. Corben, now Metallo, can lead the military to bring the two in. Supes and Bats are then forced to go on the run together (like in the first arc of the Superman/Batman comics), and it is here that they realize they each have something the other admires. They gain a grudging respect for each other and come to see the other as a friend. In the end, they work together to take down Metallo, maybe even Luthor if he chooses to climb into a mech suit (possibly a larger, more complete one).

The end result is Luthor defeated and embittered against both men, while Superman and Batman have put aside their differences to become the World's Finest. Batman has humbled Superman in a way that he comes to realize his mistakes, atone for them, and finally become the optimistic, loving hero we all know. In doing this, Superman has realized his full potential, and has given hope not only to the people of Earth, but to Batman as well.

I admit, this is all 100% speculation. But the reason I believe strongly that we will get something close to this or at least thematically similar is because it makes sense given where this film seems to be going. We know Superman, still a rookie in the first film, needs to fully grow into his savior status, meaning he needs to own up to the destruction he caused and learn from it. He'll need to be humbled in some way and learn what it means to be vulnerable, so that he may be smarter in using his powers. This is where having a crossover with Batman could actually add to the story and characters, instead of coming off as a gimmick.

A dark character like Batman will be someone Superman at first despises for being so different from him, but in time he will become a trusted ally. This is because an older Batman will help Clark understand what it means to be truly human, since the underlying element of Bats is his humanity. Given a great script, the meeting of Superman and Batman will advance the characters, story and themes of "Man of Steel" while continuing to expand this new universe to not only create a more comic accurate Batman, but a foundation that "Justice League" can build on. If the filmmakers play their cards right, this movie can be exactly what they need to establish an ongoing DC franchise and compete with Marvel.

This is why the casting of Ben Affleck is actually key to all of this. Since we know he's playing an older Batman, it makes perfect sense for WB to go for this type of storyline. In essence, Batman will at first fight Superman (that will be the main draw for audiences) before mentoring him in how to be a better hero. By helping Superman realize his own potential, Batman will then gain a trusted friend in the war against crime and hope that his mission will someday come true. Affleck has reached the point in his career that he can pull off a compelling portrait of a tortured billionaire turned vigilante, and with his star power he can easily stack up to Cavill while teaching him the ropes. There could even be a meta twist to all this, since the seasoned Affleck, fresh off an Oscar, is the perfect person to help the inexperienced Cavill literally take off. It practically writes itself.

But of course, since this is all the ramblings of one nerd, I could be completely off base. Perhaps WB just wants Affleck for the recognition, to put some much needed star power opposite the still relatively unknown Superman, in hopes of increasing his box office. And that's most likely true in some way. But WB is not what it was in the '90s. Batman and Superman are now their biggest moneymakers, and after Chris Nolan helped make both heroes respectable again, I don't think they're stupid enough to throw all of that away. They casted Affleck for a reason.

After "Argo" and "The Town," Affleck has shown some serious potential not only as an actor, but as a writer and director as well. Whose to say he might come in and revise Goyer's script, maybe even down the line write and direct "Justice League" or a new solo Batman series? The casting of Affleck, while in many ways a gamble, is also WB's safest bet to make sure this crossover flick is more than just a gimmick to compete with Marvel. I'm hoping by 2015 my theories will have some merit, and if they don't, that's just WB's loss for once again squandering some serious potential. Here's to Ben Affleck, our new Batman, and the promise he brings to what could very well be THE comic book event of 2015.

The Kick-Ass Summer of 2013

"Try to have fun," Colonel Stars and Stripes tells Kick-Ass towards the beginning of "Kick-Ass 2." "Otherwise, what's the point?" Words to live by indeed, Colonel. The movies I've seen this past summer are fueled by the desire to have fun. While many try to aim higher than mere entertainment, they mostly just end up as decent popcorn flicks. I guess in that aspect, this summer was disappointing for movies. And yet, I still had a hell of a time seeing all these different films this summer.

Some of them escaped my grasp, I admit. "Fast & Furious 6," "Despicable Me 2," "The Great Gatsby," "The Lone Ranger" and "World War Z" all eluded me. But I still found time to see ten very different, very entertaining films in theaters, the most recent of which was "Kick-Ass 2." With my return to college imminent, I've decided to review "Kick-Ass 2" in the context of the other films I've seen this summer, ranking them all from worst to best in accordance with how much I enjoyed them. This will not only allow me to review the films I didn't get a chance to blog about, but also look back at summer 2013 as a whole and return to the films I did review. So with that said, let us begin.

10. Now You See Me- Jesse Eisenberg. Woody Harrelson. Morgan Freeman. Mark Ruffalo. Michael Caine. All in a movie about magic. This film intrigued me when I first heard about it, and upon seeing it I delighted at the magic tricks displayed by the main cast, who use their shows to steel from the rich and give back to the audience.

The entire endeavor came across as something akin to a modern day "The Prestige" crossed with a heist flick, and was vastly entertaining from the first scene to the last reel.  It all looks great, but while the A list cast is a joy to watch, we have no time to really get to know them. Just as in the film itself, the best magic only serves to distract the audience from something else. In this case, it's all a marvelous distraction from the underdeveloped characters.

9. Elysium- I've already elaborated on how much of a disappointment this film was, so there's really no need to go into detail here. While Neil Blonkamp has created a fully realized sci-fi world, he never goes in depth about the politics or intricacies that define his characters. The potential themes about rich vs. poor are lost amid all the cool sci-fi action, hampering what could have been a heady science fiction flick that was just as much about themes as it was about action.

8. Kick-Ass 2- While being this low on the list seems demeaning, "Kick-Ass 2" was in fact a fun return to the world set up in the first film. Aaron Taylor Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz and Christopher Mintz- Plasse all return to play their respective characters. The film does a masterful job of setting up the parallels between Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl, and the newly christened Motherf*cker as they begin maturing and figuring out who they are and what they want to do with their lives. Hit-Girl's arc is especially emotional, giving her a "Mean Girls" style subplot as she learns to be a "normal girl" before embracing her destiny as a superhero.

Donald Faison and Jim Carrey give hilarious, if brief, turns as new heroes Doctor Gravity and Colonel Stars and Stripes, but the real breakout star was Olga Kurkulina as new villain Mother Russia. The action is great, the humor still works, and the characters are still as interesting as the last film. However, while this works as both a continuation of the first film and an adaptation of the comics (a controversial scene from the book is changed to great humorous effect here), the film never quite reaches the hilarious heights of the original. A worthy sequel, to be sure, but it fails to surpass the uniqueness of its predecessor.

7. This Is The End- I don't usually go see comedy films in theaters, but for this one I had to make an exception. The premise was just too good to pass up. A deliciously meta film about Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and other celebrities as they try to survive the Biblical Apocalypse, "This Is The End" was a treat to watch.

Not only did I get to see all these actors basically poke fun at themselves and their egos for an hour and a half, but I was treated to some hilarious jokes about celebrity culture mixed in with a decent plot about the world ending. One scene in particular, where James Franco and Danny McBride go at it, had me laughing so hard I couldn't breath. I wouldn't say this is the best comedy in recent years, but it gets props for its creativity and its showcase of both the arrogance and humility of some of today's top actors.

6. Star Trek Into Darkness- This movie should have been higher on this list. It was an absolute blast to watch in theaters, both as a continuation of the first "Star Trek" film and as a character study of the growing friendship between Kirk and Spock. Not to mention some great parallels to the way our government runs covert ops in a post 9/11 world. Abrams crafted a damn near perfect "Star Trek" film that serves as an action-packed, yet still heartfelt, science fiction film. What ruins it is an ending that, while still entertaining, is a complete do over of "Wrath of Khan."

It's no secret that Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison is Khan Noonien Sign. While he easily gave the best performance, his character was somewhat wasted in a retread of the classic Khan stories. It did not lessen my enjoyment of the film, but I do wish Abrams and crew were a little more original with their story, as they were with the first film. This is a parallel universe, after all. At least the film promises that future endeavors will take the Enterprise crew to where no man has gone before. And hopefully, the franchise with it.

5. Iron Man 3- I've already discussed this at length, but it bears repeating: I liked the Mandarin twist. While I'm as diehard of a Marvel fan as it gets, I appreciate the risk the filmmakers took in taking Iron Man's outdated archenemy and putting a hilarious, but ingenious twist on him. The film largely works, both as a continuation of "The Avengers" and a capper to the solo "Iron Man" trilogy.

But its greatest strength is being a largely standalone feature, one that perfectly captures the essence of Tony Stark and how it's his genius, not his technology, that makes him special. While it beats "Iron Man 2" by a wide mile, its occasional over reliance on comedy puts it a step below the original, which had a better balance of comedy and seriousness. Still, RDJ is great as ever, and the film thrives as pure popcorn entertainment.

4. The Wolverine- This is, by a wide margin, the best film to feature Hugh Jackman as everyone's favorite feral mutant. Unlike "X-Men Origins" and "X3," "The Wolverine" is first and foremost a character study of Logan, and what it means to have purpose when he's essentially immortal. By losing his healing factor, and at the end fighting an enemy who can cut through his claws, Logan comes to understand what it means to be vulnerable, and through this finds his purpose again when he falls in love with the daughter of a Japanese warlord.

There's a jarring tonal shift towards the end when the Japanese noir/samurai epic suddenly becomes another superhero slugfest, but the action is still personal and the stakes still high for Logan. Plus, that end credits scene was fan service at its finest. All in all, "The Wolverine" makes up for some of the biggest mistakes of its predecessors and proves that even the X-Men franchise can heal.

3. Monsters University- For a film that had no right to exist, "Monsters University" was an impressive prequel that not only stands on its own but also adds more depth to the characters and world of the first film. The focus here is on Mike, and the film is all the better for it. As Mike makes rivals with Sully over who will become the top scarer in school, we are treated to some hilarious college-themed jokes that manage not to gross out the kiddies. This is basically a child oriented "Revenge of the Nerds," and not the Pixar Animal House some were expecting.

The college setting is really an ingenious set up for Mike and Sully to truly bond, all the while learning the importance of teamwork and the powerful lesson of how sometimes, childhood dreams don't come true. A bold take for Disney, to be sure, but then again Pixar has always been bolder than its parent company. While not as emotional as the first, or for that matter many of Pixar's finest of recent years, this still had more effort put into it than either "Cars 2" or "Brave," and signals the return to form for Pixar that I have been craving.

2. Man of Steel- For all the flak this film has gotten from fans and critics about how this isn't the Superman they grew up with, I give this movie props for making me truly care about the invincible man from Krypton. While the action and scale are undeniably impressive, what really sold me was Henry Cavill's performance, which truly sells the identity crisis of Clark Kent as he tries to resolve his human and alien halves.

Yes, there's a lot of destruction, some would say senseless. Yes, Superman does the big no no and kills Zod at the end. But by the time the credits roll, you see the potential that this new series has as Clark greets Lois and gives her that gigantic grin. For all the darkness, the filmmakers still understand that Superman, at his core, is a hopeful character. Dark this picture may be, but in time this new Superman will bask in the sun, and hopefully the fans will follow. Now bring on Batman and Lex Luthor, so we can truly see how optimistic Kal-El is meant to be.

1. Pacific Rim- The level on which this film works is beyond impressive. It's not only a homage to mecha anime and kaiju flicks, it's also a throwback to the feel good summer blockbusters of the '80s and '90s, when characters were underdog archetypes that actually had fun while saving the world. The robot-monster battles are worth the price of admission alone, but Guillermo Del Toro never forgets the beating human heart at the center of all the colossal set pieces. This film is pure, unadulterated, uncompromising, summer entertainment at its finest, and for that it deserves the top spot as my favorite film of summer 2013.

With summer gone and school beginning, I know not how much time I'll get to update this blog. But the geek world keeps spinning, and I'll always have an opinion on the goings on in this vast sphere of pop culture. School may take up most of my time, but the need to talk about nerdy news will never cease. Look out for my continuing rants, as there's no chance of me stopping anytime soon.