Battle of the Franchises: Which Superhero 'Verse Will Win?

There's been a lot of talk recently about Edgar Wright's untimely departure from Marvel's "Ant-Man". Not to mention the various reactions to the latest Spider-Man and X-Men films. And we can't forget that Bat-fleck picture. So much superhero content, so little time, right? The point is, we as fans now have a better idea of not only Marvel's direction, but Warner Brothers', Sony's, and Fox's as well. Which got me thinking: which shared superhero universe will come out on top? Marvel seems like the only true instigator, since "The Avengers" got the ball rolling for the other studio universes.

But with four separate film series now established, which one is doing the best, which is destined to fail, and which has the most potential? One could just say Marvel Studios and leave it at that. But as great as Marvel is, if any comic book fan were asked which superheroes got them hooked on the genre, it'd probably be a character from any of the other three studios. Spider-Man, Wolverine, Superman, and Batman are the most iconic superheroes on the face of the Earth, after all. If done right, their franchises could rival Marvel's. Or could they? That's what I'm here to find out. Let's take a look, shall we?

Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)

Content: 9 films, 1 television show, and 5 short films released, 4 films and 6 TV shows in various stages of production. (June 10, 2014 UPDATE: Doctor Strange film confirmed due to director announcement, meaning 5 films in active development)

Strengths: A now fully established shared universe and brand name. Access to thousands of characters. Seemingly limitless ideas for films and shows, across multiple genres (sci-fi, fantasy, noir, adventure, space opera, etc. etc.) Faithfulness to comic book source material. Semi-consistent quality, ranging from fantastic at best to simply mediocre at worst. Having an entire studio set up in-house devoted to superhero content. Inspired casting choices, including the recently announced Charlie Cox as Daredevil and Josh Brolin as Thanos.

Weaknesses: Attempting to maintain a consistent continuity means the audience could suffer from continuity lockout. Recasting for major actors could be a problem in trying to maintain said continuity. Overabundance of shows and films could eventually lead to superhero fatigue and over saturation. In setting a specific brand and tone in place, majority of films lack individual identity. Most of these films rely on inorganic humor that negates serious dramatic impact. Some films may exist purely to advertise/forward the shared universe, in place of telling standalone stories.

Final Word: This franchise is by far the best of the four in terms of where it is now and where it's going. Despite a few rough patches (most of the Phase I solo films, the first half of Agents of SHIELD), the MCU is turning out consistent, entertaining products that are only improving (read: The Winter Soldier, second half of Agents of SHIELD). However, the above weaknesses could be a huge problem down the line. Edgar Wright's departure from "Ant-Man", heavily rumored to be due to script arguments, is troublesome. This isn't the first time the studio has fallen out with a director over creative issues (Thor 2's Patty Jenkins, Iron Man 2's Jon Favraeu).

It shows that the executive vision trumps the director's vision, and what once was a passion project could turn into another cog in the machine. The first "Iron Man", which got the MCU rolling, succeeded due to a strong directorial vision. Another B-lister like Ant-Man needs that if it's to find success, so it can find its own identity within the Marvel brand. A strong director like Edgar Wright could have provided that, but his leaving only calls into doubt Marvel's relationships with its directors. (June 10, 2014 UPDATE: Horror director Scott Derickson being handed Doctor Strange is promising, but the recent announcement of "Yes Man" director Peyton Reed replacing Edgar Wright still calls into question the overall quality of the final product, since the Ant-Man project was largely Edgar Wright's vision.)

Marvel's biggest road block is compromising between honoring the director's vision and keeping it consistent with the larger universe. If this compromise can be struck, the studio will continue to find success. Ultimately, as long as the studio has a plan and keeps the films of a consistent quality, this shouldn't be much of an issue. Definitely the best of the four 'verses in terms of consistent entertainment, especially now that they're expanding into television and Netflix to realize its lesser properties. Unless people grow tired of the Marvel brand, I expect this franchise to continue for a good long while.

Sony's Spider-Man Cinematic Universe (SCU)

Content: 2 films released, 2 main films and 2 spinoff films in production. (Disregarding both the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and both Nicolas Cage "Ghost Rider" films).

Strengths: Access to one of the most iconic superhero characters of all time, as well as his huge roster of villains and supporting players. 50 years worth of comic stories to draw inspiration from. A talented lead actor and cast. Interesting set-up with lots of storytelling potential.

Weaknesses: Heavy executive meddling over directorial vision. A less-than-stellar critical and box office reaction to the latest film. Possible franchise fatigue coupled with diminishing box office returns. Lack of any connection to wider superhero universe beyond the characters they own. Inconsistent tone and storytelling focused on copying other known successes instead of finding own unique path. Focus on re-visiting story beats from the previous trilogy instead of exploring other, unseen story arcs. New developments exist simply to differentiate from previous trilogy, and are not done to organically develop a new take. Entire franchise's existence is to maintain character rights, when ironically it's attempting to mimic the competition they hope to keep their characters away from.

Final Word: Despite the fact that Spider-Man is one of the most interesting superhero characters (and my personal favorite), he's really hurt here by not being connected to the wider Marvel Universe. As stated in the weaknesses, the studio fast-tracked this franchise to maintain the rights, and after mimicking the formula of "Batman Begins", they are now switching to the tone and world-building of the MCU. Not only is this tonally inconsistent, but the widely different direction reeks of desperation on the studio's part to capitalize on what is popular. Venom is the only character who could realistically maintain a spinoff, despite the fact that the two films so far haven't even hinted at that story line. The one they have, "Sinister Six" is only haphazardly set up.

At the rate they're going, future films will once again be stuffed with underdeveloped characters and story arcs with no room for proper development. If Sony stays on this path, their struggling franchise will plummet. There are three courses of action to take. One: bite the bullet and sell Spidey back to Marvel. Two: put the franchise on hiatus for a few years to build up a proper demand for Spidey's return, so the studio has time to do it properly. Three: mix up the production staff and turn out a truly great Spider-Man film, that gives Peter a consistent arc, a simple yet thrilling story, and a truly evil and complex villain to hate (my vote's for Kraven the Hunter, but that's just me). Cancel the spinoffs until you're able to prove to the audience you can get the core Spider-Man films right. While there is a lot of potential here just with the stories and characters they have access to, Sony's latest film doesn't inspire confidence that they know what they're doing.

Twentieth Century Fox's X-Men Cinematic Universe (XCU)

Content: 7 X-Men films released, 2 more X films confirmed in development, 2 Fantastic Four films confirmed in development, 3 X films rumored but not confirmed. (Disregarding the "Daredevil" and "Elektra" films as well as both previous FF movies).

Strengths: Access to huge chunk of Marvel's iconic characters. Over a decade of films with an already established tone and brand. A very talented cast of actors. Lots of promise for future films.

Weaknesses: A less-than-stellar track record with adapting Marvel characters to film. A muddled continuity between the X films that needed time travel to clear up (and even then with continuing plot holes). Lack of iconic crossover stories to adapt between X-Men and Fantastic Four. Continuing controversy surrounding the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot. Legal controversy surrounding X-Men director Bryan Singer makes for an unsure return to the franchise.

Final Word: While Fox nearly rivals Marvel Studios in terms of the quantity of Marvel-based films they've put out, only a handful of them have been any good. The "Daredevil" and "Elektra" rights have reverted to Disney, but Fox still has access to "X-Men" and "Fantastic Four." Somewhat like Sony, they could be hurt by not co-existing with the MCU. However, since X-Men and FF have dozens of iconic characters and stories to either still adapt or re-do (given past mistakes), there's no immediate need to sell the rights back. The critical and commercial success of the last three X films, "Days of Future Past" in particular, has created increased confidence in Fox's ability to honor its comic book characters. "X-Men" now has an exciting new direction, but the wild card here is Fantastic Four.

Fox has yet to prove it can do Marvel's First Family properly. The first order of business is nailing the reboot. If they can't, sell it back to Marvel. If they can, capitalize on that and find a way to connect to the now continuity-light X-Men. While the X-Men and FF don't normally intersect, seeing the two teams unite to take on a proper Doctor Doom, Onslaught, Apocalypse, or even Galactus would be enormously satisfying. There have been mistakes in the past, but in light of Fox proving they can learn from them, there is hope here. Even without the Fantastic Four, the X-Men alone have enough stories and characters to keep the franchise afloat for another decade (if there's any truth to those Gambit, Deadpool, Mystique, and X-Force spinoff rumors, that is).

Warner Brothers' DC Cinematic Universe (DCU or DCCU)

Content: 1 film released, 2 more in development, possibly further sequels and spinoffs to come. (No previous attempts at Batman, Superman, or Green Lantern films count, nor apparently do the Green Arrow, Flash, Gotham, and Constantine shows).

Strengths: The only studio with full access to an entire universe of superheroes. Potential to rival or even outdo the other three studios in terms of the amount of stories and characters they possess. Upcoming film heralds the first meeting between the two most iconic superheroes in popular culture. Following film heralds the first cinematic appearance of the world's most famous superhero team.

Weaknesses: Largely mixed reception to both their only canon film and previous attempts at non-Batman superhero films. Seeming lack of faith in any superheroes that aren't Superman or Batman. A tone that so far is heavily based on Chris Nolan when not all DC superheroes function as such. Huge controversies surrounding choice of director, writer, and cast. Cynicism over heavily marketed title, date change, direct competition with Marvel's "Captain America 3", and belief that film will suffer from "Marvel Phase One/Iron Man 2 syndrome" and overstuff film with characters for future team-ups. Too much of a case of following Marvel's lead instead of forging own path. No connection to large output of live action TV shows currently out or in development, which could greatly expand the established canon.

Final Word: Simply put, if WB got their act together and actually capitalized on the potential gold mine they have, they could easily give Marvel a run for their money. What this baby franchise needs is proper direction. A Batman/Superman team-up leading into Justice League is admirable, but too many people are worried that the films will do what Sony is currently doing and Marvel used to do. That being stuff an abundance of characters into one film for the sake of world-building. If developed organically, with characters introduced gradually, this could prove huge for WB and DC. It could herald more well-made films for heroes other than Supes and Bats, a re-do of Green Lantern, and the long-awaited solo projects for Wonder Woman and Flash, maybe even Aquaman (laugh all you want, it could be awesome.)

DC's various animated shows and Direct-to-DVD films, not to mention their recent success with "Arrow", shows there are those in the company who know these characters. If the same attention to detail can be brought to the films, WB will have success. They've lost Chris Nolan, but it's not the end of the world. Zach Snyder is an accomplished director if given a good script, and if the new film can make up for the mistakes of "Man of Steel", successfully reboot Batman, and introduce Wonder Woman as a teaser for Justice League, then there is hope. It's going to be tough, but not impossible.

The cast they've put together has a lot of unproven variables, but there is true talent among them, and these bold casting choices inspire a sense of cautious optimism. The Bat-fleck picture, if nothing else, shows Ben Affleck will at least fill out the Bat-suit well. What DC needs to focus on is nailing this film, as a proper Bats/Supes team-up can establish both sides of the superhero spectrum that the rest of the Justice League can fill out. Not only do they need to make sure the story is great, but it would also do WB good to shift the release date, so as not to cannibalize box office with Marvel.

Because WB cannot simply sell character rights to another studio, they're gambling a lot on these upcoming films. They have a lot to gain, and everything to lose. The dream of a realized live action shared DC universe is a long time coming, and this close to happening. For all DC can do, all we as fans can do is be patient and hope for the best. And at least be thankful that, for better or worse, we'll still have the Nolan trilogy, Arkham games, and the DCAU to re-visit should things go south.

Canon Crashing: Fixing the X-Men Continuity

It is a problem that has plagued many a fan for ages. Why oh why is the "X-Men" film series timeline so screwed up? We got multiple versions of the same characters, gratuitous retcons, convenient plot devices, etc. etc. It all seems a little too much. But after seeing "Days of Future Past", most fans breathed a sigh of relief, since everything post-1973 in this timeline was chucked out the window. But even then, there are those fans who complained the timeline was still screwed up even before time travel got involved.

Their rationale is that in order to properly buy the cause-and-effect nature of the plot, we have to believe all the films exist in a coherent timeline. And despite the film's clever attempts to at least make it appear so, the timeline just doesn't shake out. Or does it? Taking into account every line of dialogue, most of the period captions (barring "The Not Too Distant Future"), and the internal rules of the universe, I've decided to take a crack at reconciling the series' many continuity errors to create a cohesive timeline.

Some of my explanations may require a little suspension of disbelief, but nothing is unbelievable in terms of what the films already give us. I'm also using the majority of the dates from the above (so-called "official") Empire Magazine infographic, but some dates will change to reconcile lines of dialogue from the films. (For example, In X1, Xavier says Logan lost his memory 15 years ago; in X:O, Logan gets his procedure six years after leaving Team X; and X3's caption shows Xavier recruited Jean 20 years before that film's events.) I've also color coded the various films, to make sense of what info comes from where.

So, with that in mind, let's explore this supposedly screwed up timeline, and see if we can find order within the chaos. Keep in mind, this involves heavy SPOILERS for all seven X-films. Also, I'm structuring this as the timeline leading up to the Sentinel future, before going backwards and explaining the altered timeline. Think how Doc Brown laid out timeline changes in "Back to the Future Part II", and it'll all make sense. Hopefully.

Original Timeline

App. 5,000 B.C.- En Sabbah Nur, the first mutant, telekinetically builds the Great Pyramids of Ancient Egypt and is worshiped as a God. His four Horsemen watch in the background (post-credits scene of Days of Future Past)

1845- Young James Howlett manifests bone claws and a healing factor, accidentally killing his biological father Thomas Logan. He runs away with his mutant brother Victor Logan. As they grow up, James adopts the names "Jimmy" and "Logan" as aliases, while Victor changes his last name to "Creed." ("X-Men Origins: Wolverine," or X:O)

1861- Logan and Victor fight in the Civil War (X:O)

1917- Logan and Victor fight in World War I (X:O)

1941- Nine year old Charles Xavier begins hearing voices in his head, unaware it's his mutant telepathy developing. It'll take him three years before he realizes this and masters his power (Dialogue from "Days of Future Past")

1944- Raven Darkholme's biological family tries to kill her (dialogue from X3). She runs away and sneaks into the Xavier Mansion. Charles finds her and offers her a place to stay, eventually convincing his parents to let her stay permanently as an adopted sister (First Class). Meanwhile, Logan and Victor storm the beaches of Normandy during D-Day (X:O). In Poland, a young Erik Lensherr is separated from his parents, manifesting his magnetic powers. He's taken in by Klaus Schmidt, who kills Erik's mother (First Class).

1945- Logan is relocated to the Pacific Theater, where he ends up a POW in Nagasaki. He saves the life of a soldier named Yashida when the Americans drop a nuclear bomb on the city. (The Wolverine.)

1949- Charles Xavier is now 17. Erik Lensherr, free from Schmidt, arrives in America and sees the Statue of Liberty. He unknowingly runs into Xavier, but doesn't remember the encounter. Xavier does, but says nothing. (Dialogue from X1).

1962- Erik Lensherr, now an adult, is hunting Nazis while trying to track down Schmidt. In the period between 1949 and 1962, Erik met a girl named Maximoff, and unknowingly impregnated her with at least one child (Peter) or a pair of twins (inferred in DOFP). Xavier becomes a Professor and publishes a thesis on mutation. He and Raven are recruited by Moira McTaggert and the CIA to stop Schmidt, now Sebastian Shaw, from starting nuclear war.

Erik joins the cause, along with Hank McCoy/Beast, Alex Summers/Havok, Angel Salvador, Banshee, and Darwin. They prevent nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Erik kills Shaw, takes his anti-telepathy helmet, and becomes Magneto, forming the first version of the Brotherhood out of the Hellfire Club. Xavier is crippled, and decides to re-configure his mansion into a school for mutants. (First Class).

1965- Erik has trained Raven to become the skilled agent Mystique. Xavier closes down the school after most of his students and teachers are drafted. Beast invents a serum that regulates his appearance and grants Charles his legs, at the cost of his telepathy. Most of the Brotherhood are captured by Trask Industries. It is possible Mystique could have been seeing Azazel at this time and given birth to Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler, who she then gives away to a traveling circus (speculation). Erik tries to prevent the assassination of JFK, who's secretly a mutant. He curves the bullet, but is captured on the grassy knoll and imprisoned in the Pentagon. (Dialogue from DOFP).

1973- Most of Xavier's original first class are dead, either killed in Vietnam or experimented on by Trask Industries courtesy of William Stryker. Havok is the only exception. He and a team of mutants, including a young Toad, are rescued by Mystique in Saigon. She investigates Trask's operations and discovers the Sentinel Program. After killing Bolivar Trask at the Paris Peace Accords, Mystique is captured and spends a few years being experimented on. Trask Industries uses her DNA to secretly build a new fleet of shapeshifting Sentinels, taking at least 40 years to perfect them. (DOFP, pre-time travel).

1975- While American involvement in Vietnam has ended, Logan and Victor join a special ops unit that continues to perform missions in 'Nam. After Victor tries to rape a local woman and Logan defends him, they are executed by firing squad. Since they survive, they come to the attention of William Stryker, former Major turned Colonel. He invites them to join a mutant black ops unit of his called Team X. (X:O).

1979- After four years with Team X, Logan quits following a mission in Africa to retrieve an Adamantium deposit. He's disgusted by the slaughtering of innocents, and walks out on the team. In doing so, he ends his relationship with Victor. Following Logan's departure, Stryker sets up shop on Three Mile Island, following the famous nuclear meltdown there (he believes the incident will make people scared enough not to come close). Stryker has Team X capture mutants, which he then experiments on at the Island (X:O).

1982- At this point, Erik is out of the Pentagon, either released or escaped. He forms a truce with Charles, and together the two rebuild the school and invent a new version of Cerebro. They go together to recruit a young Jean Grey. Xavier uses Beast's serum to walk, deciding to convince her parents without telepathy. What appears to be Xavier reading Jean is actually Jean reading him. After realizing her incredible power, Xavier begins creating psychic barriers to isolate Jean from her gifts, unknowingly creating a split personality called the Phoenix. At this time, Charles also accepts William Stryker's son Jason, who leaves after realizing his illusion casting powers can't be removed. Jason kills his mother, prompting Stryker to freeze his son for study and pool mutant DNA into a creature that can kill other mutants. (X2, X3, X:O).

1985- Logan is now living a quiet life in Canada as a lumberjack with his girlfriend, Kayla Silverfox. Victor arrives and supposedly kills Kayla, leading Logan to swear revenge. He volunteers for Stryker's Adamantium procedure and gets his skeleton and claws grafted with the indestructible metal. Escaping, he learns of Stryker and Victor's alliance and Stryker's plans to create Weapon XI, aka Deadpool.

Thanks to escaped prisoner Gambit, Logan arrives at the Island and kills Deadpool, although the creature unknowingly survives. A cooling tower collapses, and Victor escapes. Stryker gives Logan amnesia through the use of Adamantium bullets. A still alive Silverfox dies for real, but orders Stryker to walk away. He's arrested by military police in connection with a general's murder, but is cleared and released. Stryker then continues his work on mutants, eventually lobotomizing his son and using his brain fluid as a mind control serum. (X2 dialogue).

Before getting amnesia, Logan frees a number of Stryker's prisoners, including a young Scott Summers and Kayla's sister Emma. (Speculation: Kayla and Emma are the daughters of Emma Frost, conceived before her death, or they are completely unrelated and the Emma we see just has a similar diamond power). Cyclops, Emma, and the other prisoners are picked up by Charles Xavier. He uses his telepathy to create the illusion of walking. Logan leaves the Island to become a drifter, wandering for 15 years. (X:O, X1 dialogue).

1997- A young Warren Worthington III develops angel-like wings, prompting his father to begin work on a mutant cure. (X3). Also around this time, Magneto splits from Xavier. He reverse engineers his anti-telepathy helmet so his lair shields him and his new Brotherhood from Cerebro, unbeknownst to Xavier. Erik locates Mystique, who's escaped from Trask Industries. He also recruits Toad and Sabretooth. (Speculation: Sabretooth is either a separate mutant from Victor or Victor after rapidly mutating, possibly from radiation exposure at the Island, prior experimentation from Stryker, or Magneto's early experiments with his mutation machine.)

It is at this time that mutants step out of the limelight and become a worldwide phenomenon, known to the public and not just by the government. Xavier completely gives up using his serum and confines himself permanently to a wheelchair. He trains Cyclops, Jean, and a young Storm as his first graduating class at the newly opened Xavier's School for the Gifted. They become his first official X-Men, and fight the Brotherhood in secret. (Implied in dialogue from X1).

2000- Anna Marie manifests her absorption powers, adopts the name Rouge, and runs away. She meets Logan, now a cage fighter up in Canada. They are picked up by Cyclops and Storm after being attacked by Sabretooth. Magneto captures Rogue as part of his plan to use a radiation-emitting machine to mutate world leaders at a New York summit. He has Mystique capture Senator Robert Kelly, who is proposing Mutant Registration, to prove his machine works.

Kelly informs the X-Men, who leave to fight the Brotherhood. Xavier is rendered comatose by Mystique, who at this point is so far gone after being experimented on by Trask that Xavier is all but dead to her. The X-Men defeat the Brotherhood, Magneto is imprisoned, and Mystique impersonates Kelly. Unknowingly, the machine increases Jean's telekinetic powers. (X1).

2001- William Stryker manipulates Nightcrawler into attacking the President, giving him the precedence to attack the X-Mansion. He manipulates Magneto into explaining how the new Cerebro works. At the Mansion, Stryker takes what he needs to build a new Cerebro, while the students flee. Stryker captures Xavier, and using Jason, manipulates him into using the new Cerebro to wipe out all of mutantkind.

Mystique orchestrates Magneto's prison break, and the two team up with the X-Men to stop Stryker. The X-Men succeed and Stryker dies, but his facility at Alkali Lake collapses and floods. To save the X-Men, Jean sacrifices herself. Magneto and Mystique leave with young student Pyro. Nightcrawler eventually leaves the X-Men to lead his own life. (Confirmed by video game tie-in). Note: Hank McCoy still takes his appearance regulating serum, as evidenced by his interview on TV. (X2).

2002- On Alcatraz Island, Worthington Labs unveils a mutant cure using the DNA of Leech. With a new President in office following the X-Men's visit, Hank McCoy (now off the serum) becomes Secretary of Mutant Affairs. Magneto forms an army of mutants to kill Leech and cut off the cure's source. He recruits the Morlocks, Multiple Man, and Juggernaut, before finding a resurrected Jean Grey who's fully embraced the Phoenix. Jean kills Cyclops and disintegrates Xavier's body, apparently killing him. Magneto, Rouge, and Mystique are cured, either willingly or forcefully.

Warren III/Angel saves his father on Alcatraz Island, while Kitty Pryde saves Leech from Juggernaut. Logan kills Jean after she begs for him to kill her. A depowered Magneto realizes the cure isn't permanent and feels his powers returning. Xavier transfers his consciousness into his brain-dead twin brother, who was born without a mind due to Xavier's growing powers in the womb. (X3 Commentary) The body's legs are crippled due to muscle atrophy from being in bed for so long. Xavier is greeted by Moria McTaggert, the daughter (or niece) of his friend from the '60s. Also, the Secretary Trask we see here has no relation to Bolivar Trask or Trask Industries. (X3).

2013- Years later, Xavier's School has shut down and Logan is wandering Canada, traumatized after killing Jean. He is taken to Japan by Yukio to meet a dying Yashida, who offers to transfer Logan's healing powers into him so Logan can be mortal. When Logan refuses, Yashida's associate Viper injects him with nanobots that negate his healing, so he can be captured. Logan gets involved in a Yakuza plot to kill Yashida's granddaughter Mariko, and ends up being captured by Viper. Logan is taken to Yashida, now encased in mech armor modeled after his family's ancestral guardian, the Silver Samurai. Yashida cuts off Logan's Adamantium claws, and he regrows his bone claws to kill Yashida. (The Wolverine).

2015- Xavier and Magneto recruit Logan at an airport following Trask's unveiling of the Mark X Sentinels. The Sentinel program has been given new life by the recent war following the mutant cure. Sometime afterward, Magneto manipulates Adamantium (either from the rest of Logan's skeleton, the Samurai armor remains, or the Alkali Lake facility) to give Logan his metal claws back. (The Wolverine).

2023- The Mark X Sentinels have decimated the Earth's mutant population, either outright killing them or rounding them up in concentration camps. Human allies and humans that carry a dormant X gene are hunted as well. One of the few surviving X-Men, Kitty Pryde, has developed a secondary mutation allowing her to phase a person's consciousness through time into their younger body.

Through her, Xavier and Magneto send Logan back to 1973 to prevent Mystique from killing Trask and getting captured, so her DNA can't be harvested to create the Mark X Sentinels. While Logan possesses his younger body, the Sentinels locate the X-Men in a tomb in China. Iceman, Storm, Magneto, Collosus, Sunspot, Warpath, Bishop, and Blink are all killed defending Xavier, Kitty, and Logan. (Days of Future Past)

Altered Timeline

5,000 B.C.-1973- Timeline plays out the same as in the original timeline. (X:O opening, The Wolverine opening, First Class)

1973- 2023 Logan wakes up in his younger body. He recruits Xavier, Beast, and Quicksilver to break Magneto out of the Pentagon, so they can stop Raven from killing Trask. They succeed, but Erik tries to kill Raven so Trask doesn't get her DNA. Mutants are publicly revealed to the world. Nixon fast tracks the Sentinel program to let the people know they're safe. Magneto takes control of the Mark I Sentinels and causes havoc. 

Erik drops the RFK Stadium around the White House and prepares to publicly execute Nixon on live TV. Erik also puts steel bars into Logan and throws him into the Potomac River to drown. Mystique saves Nixon and shoots Magneto. Xavier convinces her not to kill Trask. Mystique and Magneto go their separate ways. The Sentinel program is shut down and Trask is arrested. Mystique, disguised as Stryker, fishes Logan out of the river. (DOFP)

1980s- The events of the future film "X-Men: Apocalypse" happen. (Confirmed in interviews). Presumably, En Sabbah Nur awakens to fight the X-Men, possibly sensing Logan manipulated the timestream. Either he or Mystique is responsible for Logan getting his Adamantium, as Apocalypse could make Logan into one of his Four Horsemen. Quicksilver may return, possibly alongside his sister the Scarlet Witch. Gambit will be introduced, along with younger versions of Cyclops, Jean, Storm, and Nightcrawler (Confirmed in interviews). Actual events pending.  

2023- Logan returns to his older body, now in a changed timeline. Xavier, Kitty, Collosus, Storm, Rouge, Iceman, Beast, Jean, and Scott are all alive. Logan asks Xavier to catch him up on the last 50 years of history. (DOFP)

Unknown: How do the events of 2017's "The Wolverine 3" fit into this? If an Old Man Logan adaptation, it could take place in a potential Apocalypse-ruled future. If a Weapon X re-do, it'd be set sometime after DOFP (assuming he doesn't undergo a procedure in Apocalypse). If exploring the two-year period after defeating the Samurai but before Xavier recruits him, it could take place in the original timeline.

Additional Speculation Notes: My theories on the different versions of Trask, Moira, Sabretooth, and Emma come from how they're named either in the film itself or the credits, along with a little logic to justify both versions. I have no idea if Nightcrawler in either timelines is Mystique and Azazel's son, and am only going off comic canon. The existence of the Scarlet Witch is also comics-based, but hopefully it's true. The amnesiac Logan remembers Nagasaki in "The Wolverine" either because his memory's finally healing, or Xavier's mental tampering in the Original Trilogy allowed Logan greater access.

As Mystique got older, she matured herself to resemble Rebecca Romijin instead of Jennifer Lawrence (as shown briefly in First Class). This is why she turns into Rebecca instead of J-Law after being cured in X3. Old Magneto hates guns, unlike young Magneto, because a curved bullet was what got him locked up in the Pentagon for years. He probably came to see guns as evil human weapons, and swore off them to show he's above humanity. As for the relationship between Havok and Cyclops, either Havok is a really older brother, a cousin, or Cyclops's father/uncle. This is assuming they are even related in this timeline, and don't simply share a common last name and similar powers.

The 1949 entry is pure fan speculation, as a way to rectify Xavier's X1 dialogue of first meeting Erik at age 17. A more forgiving fan could write it off as a fluke, but I'm trying to take it into account. Regarding the "Not Too Distant Future" captions for X1-3, X1 could take place a few months after its real-world theatrical release. I got nothing for my X2-3 dates, which is the only real flaw I have for my timeline, but I've caught it up to the present by "The Wolverine", which is something.

So, that's my take on the X-Men film timeline. Hopefully it makes sense. If it doesn't, just remember the majority of this timeline's been erased anyway. And if that still riles you, consider this: as muddled as the film canon is, the X-Men's comic canon is ten times more confusing. Remember that the next time you crack open an X-book. It'll make the films' problems tame by comparison. 

From X-Men to Future Past: Reviewing the X-Francise

What is there to say about Fox's "X-Men" films? To the more cynical fans, they are X-Men in Name Only, giving Wolverine the spotlight while not even bothering with continuity. To the more forgiving fans, the films (at least the better ones) expertly capture the mature themes of the comics, despite not being direct adaptations. For better or worse, we often forget that the "X-Men" franchise has been going continuously for the last 14 years, making it by far the longest-running superhero film franchise without a reboot.

If not for Bryan Singer's two original "X" films, the genre might not have the credibility it currently enjoys. These films inspired Sam Raimi and Chris Nolan to make their Spider-Man and Batman trilogies, which in turn legitimized the genre as both a critical and commercial powerhouse. For all the mistakes the "X" franchise has made, it gets more right than it does wrong.

After seeing the latest film, "X-Men: Days of Future Past" in theaters, I found it to be among the best, if not THE best, of the entire series. But part of the reason it works so well is because of the storied history of the franchise. For "Future Past" to work, it needs the other X films. Therefore, I'm dedicating this rant to reviewing the X franchise as a whole.

In the beginning, there was "X-Men". Bryan Singer's original film dealt with Wolverine and Rouge joining the long-standing fight between Charles "Professor X" Xavier and Erik "Magneto" Lensherr. Boasting a dark and sophisticated tone, magnificent performances from Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellan, and an intelligent socio-political subtext about racism and homophobia, the original "X-Men" was a great start to the franchise.

A simple yet effective plot keeps things interesting, and balances its multiple characters throughout the run-time. If there are any flaws, it's that the effects and action are pretty tame by today's standards, and some of the dialogue is cringe-worthy (Do you know what happens to a Toad that's struck by lightning?) While a little dated, the first "X-Men" still has staying power for nailing the mutant plight in such a human fashion.

The sequel, "X2", ups the ante in every way. From the opening White House scene with Nightcrawler (which made him my favorite X-Man) all the way to the tearful cliffhanger ending, this film doesn't let up. It's a textbook example of a sequel improving on the original in every way. Brian Cox's William Stryker makes for a fantastic human villain, the insights into Wolverine's past are exciting, and the teases for the Dark Phoenix Saga would make any comic fan swoon. The action, story, and characters are all top notch, cementing "X2" as not only a franchise best, but one of the best films in the superhero genre.

And then there's "The Last Stand." In my 3-part rant about trilogies and franchises, I balked about how the first three "X" films could have been one of the best superhero film trilogies ever, if they just nailed this flick. While there are some standout action scenes and a few noteworthy new characters (Beast and Kitty Pryde anyone?), "The Last Stand" ultimately fumbles by trying to pull off too much at once. Just like "Spider-Man 3", there are too many undercooked characters and plotlines jumping around, and none of them are fleshed out.

The brilliant Dark Phoenix set up is brushed to the side for a mutant cure storyline (ironically adapted from a story by future "Avengers" director Joss Whedon). Either the mutant cure or the Dark Phoenix could have been worthwhile stories, but by trying to combine them, neither has the desired effect. Mercilessly killing or depowering Xavier, Cyclops, Rouge, Mystique, Jean Grey, and Magneto was a low blow, and other new additions like Angel, Juggernaut, and Collosus failed to have an impact. To the film's credit, it's certainly ambitious, but with Brett Ratner replacing Singer, the smart plotting, deft character work, and brilliant subtext are replaced by what amounts to a discount Michael Bay film.

It's no wonder Fox decided to move backwards instead of forwards when it came to future films. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" followed, and did the impossible. It made "The Last Stand" look Oscar worthy. Despite a thrilling opening act (especially the pre-credits scene) and some genuinely good performances, "Origins" devolved into a video game by the time Logan gets his iconic adamantium claws. Don't believe me? They turned Deadpool, a cult favorite, into a Mortal Kombat Baraka ripoff. Not to mention giving Gambit, another fan-favorite, next to no screentime. The greatest sin, however, is taking Wolverine and turning him into an utter joke, complete with obviously fake CGI claws and a weakness to adamantium bullets. Many fans, myself included, wished we could be like Logan and have our memories wiped by film's end.

It's no great surprise, then, that by the time "X-Men: First Class" was announced, I had next to no enthusiasm for it. The choice of B and C-list mutants was weak, the prequel or reboot confusion was noticeable, and the photoshopped posters were laughable. It's a miracle, then, that the film turned out as well as it did. "First Class" was on par with the first two X films as the best in the franchise, wisely focusing on the friendship of Xavier and Erik.

The '60s period setting and Cuban Missile Crisis backdrop gave it a spy-thriller type vibe, while Michael Fassbender's Magneto completely stole the show. Just thinking about the bar scene with the Nazis gives me chills. The only thing that kept me from completely enjoying the movie, ironically enough, was the continuity errors with the rest of the franchise. From Xavier's crippling to Cerebro's creation, these little nagging plot points left me wondering how connected this film was to the original X trilogy. But plot holes aside, the film itself was fantastic, and got the franchise back to basics.

When "The Wolverine" was announced as being based on the Japanese Saga, I prayed Fox learned from "First Class" and delivered a hit. What I got was a solid, entertaining solo film that captured Logan's character effortlessly, and made up entirely for Origins. I won't go too much into this film, since I already reviewed it, but suffice to say it still holds up on repeat viewings, especially the R-rated extended edition. "The Wolverine" was a gritty, character-based drama that wisely focused on Logan's inner turmoil rather than video-game fight scenes. The one real flaw is the ending, where the hard-edged Japanese film noir turns into a standard superhero slug fest. But third act aside, "The Wolverine" was a welcome addition to the X-Franchise.

And now, at long last, we come to "Days of Future Past." It was important for me to review the entire series because this film really honors it. While it doesn't wrap up every single continuity error, the film does make you believe every other film fits into a single timeline. The more nagging plot holes can be rationalized if one thinks hard enough, but this film never focuses on that for too long. It's more focused instead on uniting the original X trilogy cast and the "First Class" cast in a way that's both organic and exciting. In this regard, "Future Past" doesn't disappoint.

The time travel elements are integrated in a clever way and are never confusing. It's to the film's credit that the plot moves as swiftly as it does, while never getting bogged down by time travel paradoxes. The future segments are fleeting, but returning director Bryan Singer does a great job of not only setting the hopeless atmosphere of these scenes, but establishing the desperation the X-Men feel. New characters like Bishop, Blink, Warpath and Sunspot don't get much in terms of characterization, but their powers are well utilized and they all serve a purpose. Kitty, Iceman, Storm, Collosus, and Old Magneto likewise don't get much, but they too get standout moments. It is only Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart who really shine in the future, but that's due more to their links to the past.

At heart, "Future Past" is a "First Class" sequel bookended by the future scenes. It's great that these future segments are not only an extension of the action in the past, but also of the events of the original X trilogy and both "Wolverine" films. We buy that everything we've seen in the franchise up to this point extends out of what happens here, and the severity of the future makes the mission to the past that much more crucial. This is highlighted chiefly through the future Sentinels. While sporting a T-100-esque look that's a far cry from the comics, these Sentinels are delightfully creepy and crazy effective against mutants. When the X-Men fall twice while fighting them, you know these robots aren't to be messed with. The past designs work too, but got nothing on the brutality of their future counterparts.

But while the plot is something to be praised, what makes this film a real winner is the characters. With the master Bryan Singer returning, so too does the focus on an ensemble we want to root for. Mcavoy, Fassbender, Lawrence, Hoult, Peter Dinklage, and Hugh Jackman are all standouts, with the main arc going to Lawrence's Mystique as she is caught between Xavier and Magneto's dueling ideologies. But Xavier gets a hefty amount of development too, as the time traveling Wolverine helps him go from drug addicted shut in to embracing his destiny as Professor X. A mental meeting with his future self makes young Xavier's too human flaws all the more apparent, and emphasizes the X-Men's ever present ideals of hope.

It's also worth noting that while Wolverine is a treat to watch here and in many ways drives the plot, he is not the focus, allowing the younger cast around him to really flex their acting muscles. Among that younger cast is newcomer Quicksilver, who despite limited screentime gets what is easily the film's best scene. Him zipping through the Pentagon kitchen at super speed, redirecting bullets while time slows to a still, is breathtaking, not to mention hilarious. A sly nod to his connection with Magneto also had me smiling, as it should any comic fan. The true brilliance of this scene is showing the film still wants to have fun even with the threat of a dark future looming.

Not to knock Aaron Taylor Johnston or Joss Whedon, but they've got their work cut out for them if they want their Quicksilver to top this one. But while they could learn from "Future Past", it's clear this film also learned from them, given its greater attention to comic mythology. The future X-Men fighting the Sentinels easily delivers the best action of the franchise, ripped straight from a comic book. The use of time travel to make massive timeline retcons also feels delightfully comic book-like. And boy, are these some retcons.

By film's end, Logan wakes up in a new future where the Sentinels never happened and Xavier heeded his warnings. Not only do we see all the future X-Men alive again, but also Anna Paquin's Rouge, Kelsey Grammer's old Beast, and a very alive Jean Grey and Cyclops. At long last, "X-Men: The Last Stand" is erased from canon, creating a truly better future. But the best part is that there are now 50 years of history to fill in and completely rewrite, including re-doing "Origins" properly. Mystique impersonating Stryker and getting hold of past Logan is a great development, and leaves the film with a great cliffhanger.

Most fans would be content with just that, but the film outdoes itself again with the credits scene. In what amounts to a full on nerdgasm, we see a young En Sabbah Nur, aka ultimate X-Men villain Apocalypse, telekinetically building the pyramids in Ancient Egypt, with his Four Horsemen watching. A new direction has been set for the X films, the old canon stripped away, and past mistakes forgotten. But while the old films (barring "First Class" and the pre-credits scenes of "Origins" and "The Wolverine") no longer technically exist, their memories are still in Logan, and are the reason he had to go back and start this new timeline in the first place. In other words, they pulled a "Star Trek" and rebooted the franchise without actually rebooting it. It's nothing short of brilliant.

By combining just the right amount of action, story, character, and attention to movie and comic mythology, Bryan Singer has crafted the ultimate X-Men film. I personally rank it the best of the franchise, but it's at the very least on par with "X2" and "First Class". A great continuation of the "First Class" story and an emotional send off for most of the old crew, this film honors everything that's great about the X-Men, both the films and the comics. Despite a few set backs like "Last Stand" and "Origins", and the still annoying plot holes, the "X-Men" franchise is among the finest superhero film series when looked at as a whole. "Days of Future Past" only cements how ground-breaking, emotional, and ambitious the series is. I can't wait to see what Fox has in store, now that I know the studio can honor the past and look to the future.

The Knife That Takes Its Time: A Godzilla, SHIELD, and Bats/Supes Title Review

At the climax of "The Dark Knight Rises," Talia Al Ghul preaches to Batman about the effectiveness of the slow knife. "The knife that takes its time," she says. "The knife that waits for years, then slips between the bones. That's the knife that cuts deepest." Wise words for a psychopath. For in this monologue rests a philosophy that I believe all fans of genre fiction can abide by. It's a philosophy we as audience members used to embrace, but has been sadly forgotten in this Internet Age. A philosophy that reared its magnificent head when "Godzilla" launched last week, which played out for the freshman season of "Agents of SHIELD", and which Warner Brothers is using, aptly enough, with its next superhero film.

Let me explain. I had the extreme fortune of seeing the new "Godzilla" twice last week. Here's my concentrated review. The Big G himself is fantastic, from his massive frame, earth-shattering roar, and iconic nuclear breath. The final half hour is pure, unadulterated geek joy, as Godzilla faces down with two titanic creatures in a kaiju battle that puts Pacific Rim to shame. This fight alone makes the new "Godzilla" an extremely entertaining flick, harkening back to Godzilla's glory days while wiping away the memory of that awful 1998 film.

With that said, the human story was a little lacking. The beginning was fantastic, as Brian Cranston's character chews the scenery and makes the most out of his tortured conspiracy theorist. Sadly, he dies by the end of the first act, leaving his son, Kick-Ass aka Quicksilver aka Aaron Taylor Johnston, to fill the void. Johnston's story of trying to reunite with his family is simple yet touching, but compared to Cranston, his story just doesn't measure up. Ken Watanabe's monster expert is great, but with Johnston taking up so much of the focus, he's doesn't register enough. I only comment so much on the human story because it takes up a good chunk of the run-time. And here is where I reach my point.

As great as the kaiju battles were, many people complained that Godzilla wasn't in the film enough. Too much focus on bland human characters dragged down what should have been a balls-to-the-wall creature feature. At least, that's what some reviewers say. But did no one catch how Cranston and Johnston's character names were "Brody", as a reference to the family from "Jaws"? Did no one get the intentions? Director Gareth Edwards wanted to evoke that Spielbergian sense of awe, the techniques that made "Jaws", "Jurassic Park", and "Close Encounters" so successful. Not to mention other landmark films like "Alien" and, wouldn't you know it, the original 1954 "Godzilla."

Yes, the somewhat bland human story is a legitimate concern. But it was simple and powerful enough to anchor an already massive film, and give the monster fights a sense of scale. These aren't men in rubber suits, but full on CGI monstrosities that dwarf buildings. When Godzilla first appears, he creates a tsunami just from the swell of rising out of the ocean. Not only do you need these human characters as an anchor, but they also allow for the mounting tension to reach critical by the time the monsters do show up.

Just like the examples I've listed, this film draws power not from putting the monsters front and center, but by teasing them slowly before the big reveal. In other words, using Talia's "slow knife" approach. The build-up is fantastic, as is the payoff, so at the end of the day, this new Godzilla is worthy of our adoration and attention. It's no wonder it's getting a sequel (I expect Mothra and King Ghidorah at some point).

And yet despite the film's noble intentions and brilliant film-making, there are people de-crying it for not having enough action. I'm sorry, I thought we wanted genre films with more intelligence than just mindless fighting. We do have a new "Transformers" coming out for that sort of thing. So why is it that people complained we didn't get enough Godzilla, when the film treated him with the respect he deserves?

As I mentioned before, it all has to do with the Internet Age. We live in a world where information is spoon fed to us. We know everything about a movie before it even comes out. I'll actually be getting to that in a moment, but the point is that people nowadays are too spoiled when it comes to genre fiction. They want more, and they want it now.

When "Agents of SHIELD" first came out last Fall, people immediately decried it for not tying more closely to the Avengers franchise, and seemingly not building towards anything. And I'm not gonna lie, I was among those people. I watched the show, sure, but there was a good long while before it developed any sense of purpose. But then it did, and how. The minute everything tied into "The Winter Soldier", the show got ten times better. I already reviewed the majority of the first season, but as an add-on, the last four episodes were astounding.

More insight into Coulson's love-life, confirmation of Maria Hill's work with Stark (and a Man-Thing shout out!), Ward's backstory, and a hilarious, heartfelt, and action-packed season finale eliminated any lingering doubts I had about this show's potential. I saw the potential all the way back in the pilot, but it took a while to see that come to fruition. The point is, I was rewarded for my patience.

My theories on the reason behind Coulson's return were right, the Clairvoyant/Centipede/Deathlok arc was wrapped up, and now they have a clear direction for the future. Coulson's going to rebuild SHIELD from the ground up, Skye's parents are super humans, and Coulson himself may be connected to a larger, cosmic conspiracy. Not to mention there are still super villains left over from the breakout, and guys like Graviton and Blizzard to deal with.

All in all, a great way to end a season and an awesome way to set up season 2. It seems Kree/Inhuman mythology will be addressed, and given "Guardians of the Galaxy" is coming, it wouldn't surprise me. At any rate, that ending was good enough to get me seriously ranting about this show. A show people had no faith in initially. All because of the slow knife, the knife that takes its time.

New television shows almost always start out rocky, as they need time to nail their tone and direction. It took "SHIELD" half a season, but they finally nailed what they wanted to be. And without the build-up in the uneven first half, the show wouldn't be nearly as effective. Just like "Godzilla", all the seemingly useless build up led to an epic payoff. And now we're not only getting a second season, but an "Agent Carter" miniseries bridging the fall and spring halves! Thanks to the great build-up from "Agents of SHIELD", the MCU can thrive on television now. All because fans realized they'd be rewarded for their patience.

Which brings me to my final point. As I mentioned earlier, fans today want to know everything about a film before its release. With most superhero films, studios have been happy to oblige. We knew the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises were building towards Sinister Six and Apocalypse endgames before the new films even came out.

Thanks to set photos and insider info, we know "Avengers: Age of Ultron" will have Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Vision added to the roster. Not only that, we know Tony will bankroll the team out of Avengers Tower after SHIELD's collapse, and Tony will rebuild the Iron Legion, including the Hulkbuster suit. We know so much, we feel entitled to it. And if we don't know, then we speculate, and riot, and demand more info.

Cue the recent Star Wars and Batman/Superman reveals. After months of speculation, we finally know the principal cast of Episode VII. But aside from a video of J.J. Abrams filming in Abu Dabi with an adorable (and practical!) alien, we know nothing of the story, or even the subtitle. Contrast that with the new DC film, now officially subtitled "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice." What do you think THAT implies?

Not only is Batman basically the challenger and antagonist of Superman here, but it's also building towards Justice League. That's probably why Wonder Woman and Cyborg are here. But did we really need the official title and logo to know what's already been speculated for months? It's just a title, and yet fans are trying to pick it apart for clues, desperate to know more. It doesn't help that the first official picture of Ben Affleck's Batman, complete with Batmobile, was unveiled last week as well.

Now from this photo, we clearly see a still militarized yet sleeker Batmobile, almost a cross of Nolan and Burton. For the Batsuit itself, it has a very Jim Lee meets Frank Miller vibe, by which I mean Dark Knight Returns. Well, we already knew the film was drawing from that since the Comic-Con reveal. If anything, the photo put aside people's doubts that Ben Affleck would look awesome in the suit.

But with this and the title reveal, fans want more. They demand Wonder Woman's suit. They demand seeing Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. They demand Supes and Bats back to back. Does no one realize these announcements are being spaced out? The film doesn't release for another two years. There's plenty of time for more big reveals. Star Wars has something similar, since it doesn't hit until next winter, and is being led by one of the most secretive directors of all time.

Just like Godzilla and SHIELD, hell, just like the previous Batman film, the marketing for "Bats v. Supes" is happening slowly, creating an intense build up for maximum payoff. Yes, many of these huge blockbuster films have a lot of hype built into them that may not always result in payoff for fans, but it does box-office wise for studios (unless you're the under-performing "Amazing Spider-Man 2", unfortunately). I can speculate all I want about these new developments. They are incredibly tantalizing, I have to admit. But ultimately, they are just pieces of a giant puzzle. I'd rather learn about a film gradually, through snippets of info and footage, than learn more than half the plot months in advance (which is probably what doomed Spidey 2's box office).

I understand fans are incredibly excited (or cautiously optimistic) about most of these films, since I myself am one of them. But we as fans need to learn that being patient yields greater rewards. By delaying our gratification for nerd news, we can be that much more surprised going in, and when a big piece of info is revealed months in advance, we can geek out to it appropriately, knowing it may be all we get for months. So fellow fans, in the future, please remember the importance of the slow knife. Savor the new Batsuit, the new "Guardians of the Galaxy" trailer, or Godzilla's precious moments in his latest film. They are the knife that cuts deepest, and a reward for your patience.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

I'm going to be perfectly honest: this is a REALLY hard film to review for me. Spider-Man is my absolute favorite superhero, my gateway drug to the wonders of comic books. Seeing him star in anything less than a spectacular film tears me apart. That's why when I first saw "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man", I enjoyed them heavily and wouldn't listen to any complaints. It was only on repeat viewings that the flaws began slipping through the cracks.

"SM3" is easily the worst of the bunch, that much is certain. The first "Amazing", while not terrible, suffers from replicating the same beats as the original Raimi film. So going into the sequel, I was initially weary that the film upped its villain quotient from one to three, the same number that doomed the last series. Lo and behold, this film wasn't as "amazing" as I had hoped. But what's so hard to review about it isn't my Spider-Bias. It's that there are some truly amazing scenes in here, but they're buried underneath a narrative as tangled as Spider-Man's webs.

There's a scene in the film where Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is talking to Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborn about her on-again off-again relationship with Peter Parker. "Everything's always complicated with Peter", Harry tells her. No kidding. This film suffers from a mix of "Spider-Man 3" and "Iron Man 2" syndrome, with too many plot threads spinning at a rapid-fire pace. There's Peter's relationship with Gwen, his reuniting with childhood friend Harry, Harry taking over Oscorp from his dead father, low level employee Max Dillon becoming Electro, Peter looking into his parents' deaths, and LOTS of Sinister Six set-up. It's too much to take in, and while the film tries to service everything in favor of the world-building made so popular by Marvel/Disney, it just doesn't manage it.

We have three supervillains here, although only two have any real bearing on the plot. Paul Giamatti bookends the film as Russian thug Aleksei Sytesvich, who becomes Rhino in the film's final scene for some Sinister Six set-up. Giamatti is a straight up Saturday morning cartoon villain here, and he's having a ball with it. It may not be the best villain performance, but it's completely harmless and a nice extended cameo for fans like me.

Jaime Foxx's Electro is the principal threat for most of the run-time. As Max Dillon, obsessive Spider-Fan, he starts off as Jim Carrey's Riddler before gene-altered electric eels turn him into a pissed off Doctor Manhattan. Despite the comparisons, Foxx is considerably creepy as Electro and gives the character genuine menace. He's more than just a visual effect, even though his powers are incredibly cinematic and make for two stand-out action scenes. As Max Dillon, Foxx flounders, as he's more caricature than character, but his full-on supervillain mode is a treat to watch thanks to Foxx's genuinely threatening performance.

Our third villain is Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborn, who bypasses his late father and becomes the Green Goblin. Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn is only in one scene, which he shares with Harry. The scene is chilling and well acted, with Cooper a good if underused Norman. Dehaan is fantastic throughout, equally sympathetic and snobby and even full-blown insane when the time comes. Unlike the revenge-driven Harry of the Raimi films, this Harry needs Spider-Man's blood to cure the genetic disease he inherited from Norman. An injection of spider-venom, mixed with his disease and a high-tech suit, turns Harry into the cackling Goblin.

A better Harry (and Goblin) than James Franco but not quite as menacing as Willem Dafoe (although the appearance is an improvement), Dehaan shines with the screen time he's given. His problem, like Electro's, is that his descent into villainy is too rushed to come off as genuine.There's a scene between Harry and Electro that highlights their sense of rejection and betrayal, along with Harry's desperation and Electro's isolation. It's the only time where I felt truly sorry for either of them, but also could see how mentally psychotic they are. While a great scene, both men aren't given anything else to justify their full-on transformation into villains. They're too sympathetic to start off, and while there's an inkling in both of them as to their villainous potential, it's not allowed to grow as organically as it could.

Despite their alliance being one of the most convincing villain team-ups I've seen in a recent superhero film (take THAT Sandman and Venom!), the story would have been better serviced with only one of them as the main villain. Electro is this for most of the film, but his reduction to Harry's henchmen towards the end ultimately nullifies this. Electro's story is sacrificed to introduce both the Goblin and Sinister Six arcs, and if the latter is really the direction for this franchise, then maybe it should have taken the forefront and Electro removed altogether. As it is, the villain stories are decent and connect better than in "Spider-Man 3", but are hampered by a lack of development.

A major theme in this film is time, and not having enough of it. Ironically, the filmmakers couldn't devote enough time to any of the arcs they tackle here. The under-cooked villains are a huge problem, but another setback is Peter dealing with his parents. This film finally answers the mystery set up in the first. The Parkers ran away after Oscorp framed them for selling their genetics research to terrorists to make bio-weapons. It's an interesting development robbed of any impact by being revealed a film too late.

Peter's father also reveals that the super spiders were made with his DNA, so the regenerative spider venom can only work on a Parker, hence why Peter is a perfect human/animal hybrid. While this impacts Harry's story, it would make more sense if Peter knew this in the first film. Not only would it have delivered on the promise of "The Untold Story" and set it apart more from the first Raimi film, but it would also tie neatly into the Lizard storyline. Here, the parents arc is given too much emphasis for something that has a weak payoff. Not to mention, it completely undercuts the importance of Uncle Ben in the first film, as Ben is barely paid lip service here.

The lingering thread of the mysterious shadow man from the last film's credit scene is also resolved, again with a weak payoff. It's not Norman, Mysterio, Vulture, or Chameleon like some suggested, but rather Gustav Fiers, the Gentleman. He's a small villain in the comics who put together his own version of the Sinister Six. Here, he's an Oscorp employee who begins helping Harry put the Six together at the end. At this point, the film was more concerned with wrapping up its predecessor's plot threads and setting up sequel threads than focusing on the core narrative. But with all these loose threads, what exactly is the core narrative?

In all honesty, Peter and Gwen's relationship is the real story here. Their relationship is easily the film's strongest asset, and ultimately what gives it emotional resonance. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's chemistry is worthy of the title amazing, since it carries the film through its more rocky story beats. This is probably the only modern superhero film where the romance is integral to the story, and not just a side plot. While Peter and Gwen are at the forefront, Garfield shines no matter who he's interacting with. A scene with Sally Field's Aunt May is downright tear-inducing, showing just how emotional this film can get. Less developed is Garfield's friendship with Dehaan's Harry. The two have a good rapport that sells their shared history. But since Harry is only being introduced, their childhood friendship is never seen and thus not as poignant.

Which is a real shame, since it would add an extra layer of tragedy to the climax. Since I followed both the comics and the extensive marketing campaign, it came as no surprise to me when the Spider-Man/Goblin fight ended with Gwen Stacy's death. Her end came in a clock tower instead of a bridge, but the manner of her death was the same, and it was just as brutal and emotional as ever. The death was handled extraordinarily well, made all the more tragic by how electric (no pun intended) Peter and Gwen were together.

There was a lot of foreshadowing throughout the film, but even that couldn't prepare for how gut-wrenching the death was. The impact was just right, even more so after a brilliant seasonal montage of Peter spending months by Gwen's grave. As great as it was, though, Gwen's death could have had even more of an impact. There should have been a great tragedy in Peter's childhood friend killing his true love. But since not enough time is devoted to the Peter/Harry dynamic, it's not as impactful. Peter makes no attempt to visit Harry or try redeeming him afterwards, their friendship now more of an afterthought. Hopefully this is corrected in "Amazing 3", but it could have been so much more here.

What ultimately undercuts Gwen's death is how Peter gets over it. In a lot of ways, this is the key to my love-hate reaction to this film. After five months of grieving and not being Spider-Man, Peter decides to don the webs again to take down Rhino, deciding he needs to move on from Gwen's death. I love this scene because it is exactly who Spider-Man is, and what he should represent. Spider-Man is, at his core, a hopeful character, one who never gives up despite the odds and always puts others before his personal tragedies.

Garfield really sells this aspect of Peter. From web-slinging between buildings, to helping a kid against bullies, to using his brains and wit against Electro in Times Square, Garfield represents everything I find so endearing about Spidey as a superhero. I'm glad Marc Webb wanted to emphasize this. But since Gwen's death was handled so well, and the seasonal grave montage so powerful, I almost wish the film ended there instead of continuing. The message of Peter moving on could have been the focal point of the next film, showing his ultimate recovery. It was shoved in here because Sony didn't want a downer ending.

Even though they chose to go with the very adult subject matter of coping with death, Sony felt Peter needed a more optimistic ending. An ending which simultaneously set up their direction for the franchise with Sinister Six. It was an ending true to Spider-Man's character, but one we didn't need to see immediately to be invested in future films. While Sony was being true to the comics, they sacrificed a potentially great cinematic ending for the sake of directly setting up sequels.

That's really the biggest complaint I have with this film. Sony is doing this to prolong the franchise, keeping the rights away from Disney while ironically imitating their formula. The first film was cynical enough, but I bought into it thanks to the top notch cast. There's a similar feeling here, as the cast is the saving grace in an otherwise disjointed film filled with too many stories. These multiple plot strands are a problem, but they don't doom the film like "Spider-Man 3."

That film suffered from introducing multiple threads and trying to wrap them up in one film. "Amazing 2", however, has multiple strands primarily for world building. Like "Iron Man 2" it makes the narrative uneven, but I'd rather all these characters exist to build to something greater rather than tease the potential before snuffing it out. Case in point: "Amazing 2's" Goblin and "SM3's" Venom don't get much screen time, but Harry survives to form the Sinister Six, while Venom dies. That alone guarantees this film's rank over "Spider-Man 3."

I would also put this film a notch above its predecessor. Even though "Amazing 1" did have a more coherent story, it only did so because it duplicated the exact same plot as "SM1." The more confident direction, memorable action scenes and villains, stronger love story, and emotional ending already make this more entertaining than the first. But sadly, the uneven story does make this come up short to the first two Raimi films, even though this one does capture Spidey's personality better. Like I said, this is a very difficult film to review. Like its titular character, "Amazing 2" struggles to balance too much in its run time, and only succeeds in some areas. What it gets right, it REALLY gets right, while everything else is more disappointing than terrible. There's still a lot of potential in this franchise's future. I only wish Sony would view it less like a franchise and more like a genuine story.

Cast of Characters: The Case for Ensembles

I am shocked. Well and truly shocked. But not for the reasons you might expect. Yes, the official announcement of the Star Wars casting is brilliant and something I've been waiting all my life to hear. Yes, having confirmation that the original cast is back, along with ANDY FREAKING SERKIS and MAX VON SYDOW, is glorious. But what shocks me is the picture above. Why? Because I count at least 10 major cast members at this reading, and no one has complained that the film is "overstuffed" with characters. I hear Twitter blew up because Lando Calrissian isn't pictured. That means people are complaining that there aren't ENOUGH characters, when this cast is already pretty stacked.

Why do I say this? Because it seems people have a double standard when it comes to casting for these big blockbuster films. Recently another major nerd casting was announced, to far less excitement. Ray Fisher, a theater actor, was cast as Victor Stone aka Cyborg in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman film, with further confirmation that the film would lead into a Justice League movie. People seem to be rather angry about this. And it's solely because they feel BvS is basically a JL prequel, stuffing numerous characters into its run-time just to service a future story. So what, then, is Star Wars doing?

Last time I checked, both previous Star Wars trilogies had enormous casts, anchored by a trio (yes, that's THREE) lead characters. And guess what? They were all developed. That didn't mean each one had equal screen time, mind you. We so often forget that Han Solo doesn't immediately show up in Episode IV, or Anakin in Episode I. But it worked, and oftentimes in both trilogies, characters and stories existed just for the sake of setting up future films. It's debatable how successful this worked with the prequels, but the best Star Wars film, Empire Strikes Back, introduced a slew of new characters and ended on a massive cliffhanger.

And yet, nowadays people feel that if you stuff a superhero film full of characters, they're shortchanged. The Avengers was an exception because each hero got their own film beforehand. Now I'm not knocking Marvel's formula. Far from it. I've praised Marvel's innovative success enough on this blog as it is. But people are under the impression that each character in an ensemble piece needs equivalent screen time or their own freaking movie just to justify them being there.

Maybe it's just me being a film buff, but where is it written that The Avengers invented the ensemble, and therefore gets to dictate what makes a good one? Star Wars did just fine for six whole films as an ensemble cast. Regardless of the prequels' quality, I don't think people were complaining because it had a lot of characters. What I'm trying to say here, is that just because a huge film casts numerous characters does not automatically mean it'll go horribly wrong.

I sort of get how superhero films get a lot of flak for this. Since they're adapted from comics and often using popular characters, there's pressure to make sure all the included heroes and villains get their due. But like any good film, characters should exist in a way that makes sense for the story. You don't include a character just to please fanboys. That's why Spider-Man 3 and the latter X-Men films failed, and why the Marvel films circumvented this by giving each hero their own film. But often we forget how great X-Men, X2, and First Class were, or the Dark Knight trilogy. Successful films with lots of comic book characters, that didn't need five films of backstory to make us care for them, or make them relevant.

Those films worked because the filmmakers remembered they were making FILMS, and gave each character the screen time necessary to propel the story. Star Wars has done this, as have Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Ocean's Eleven (to name a few). Fans look at superhero movies too much as adaptations, and not as films. True, some filmmakers do this as well, hence the Spider-Man and X-Men failures. And yes, Marvel found success with the shared universe route. But people forget exactly WHY Marvel chose this formula.

It nets them money, sure. Okay, it nets them A LOT of money. But the reality is that the Avengers were B-list superheroes, who no one knew outside of comic books. They weren't Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-Men, and thus had no guarantee of success. The reason solo films were made was to transform B-list heroes into A-listers, and make people care enough that the Avengers could be a true event film. You don't need that with other, more well-known heroes because their films already are events. The Avengers, and indeed the entire MCU, is a special case because we're dealing with B, C, and D-list properties. A-list movies and characters don't need that kind of build-up.

So when someone like Cyborg, already a popular Teen Titan who's gotten a major marketing push recently as a founding Justice Leaguer, is cast in a movie, people know who that is. People know Wonder Woman, Batman, Superman, Lex Luthor, etc. etc. Most importantly, people know the Justice League. Those heroes need no introduction, since pop culture has kept them in the public eye for decades. When all these heroes show up in Batman vs. Superman and Justice League, people will know who they are because they're already iconic.

The problem is whether they will be written well enough to make the film engaging. Notice, however, that written well doesn't mean "give each hero equal screen time and their own film beforehand." Let me clarify something before I go any further. Disney wants to adapt the Marvel formula to Star Wars, as does WB with DC and Harry Potter. Sony will do it with Spider-Man, and Fox with X-Men. I've written three rants about how a potential Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Middle Earth spinoff series can work. I see the potential for expansive universes. But what I posted beforehand were fun hypotheticals. Not every franchise deserves such rigorous expansion. To paraphrase the great Ian Malcolm, filmmakers are focusing so hard on whether they could do spinoffs that they aren't stopping to wonder if they should.

With WB and DC, they want the money Marvel has, and so want a shared universe. But they're going about it in a different way than Marvel. That doesn't mean "bad" or "destined for failure", just different. Instead of solo films leading to a crossover flick, they're introducing their main players in team-up sequels, with the team-ups getting bigger and bigger. If successful, then solo films can come, but only if the characters test well with audiences. As great as Marvel is, most of their untested properties are risks. This summer's Guardians of the Galaxy is the best example, but it's also ironic that, pass or fail, it's an ensemble piece with characters we've never even seen before. If Guardians does work, isn't that just further proof that not every character needs a solo flick before a team-up film?

With WB, it makes more sense financially to introduce Wonder Woman and Cyborg in a Superman/Batman team-up instead of making solo films which might flop. And since Green Lantern did flop, I can see WB's concern. Unlike Marvel, WB is a large film studio that makes a variety of films, not just superheroes. They can only afford several hero movies at a time. For them, it's not about quantity. So to catch up with Marvel, their best bet is rolling out ensemble films. Complain all you want about the direction DC's taking, but what they're doing here is no different than any other blockbuster doing an ensemble. The key is in the writing. If the writing and story is good, then it doesn't matter how many characters there are, as WB's own Dark Knight trilogy shows.

We shouldn't let the Marvel films spoil us into thinking every fictional character under the sun deserves their own movie. I can theorize about Han Solo and Boba Fett movies all I want, but if we never get them I wouldn't bat an eye. There's more than enough character development for Han over the first trilogy, not to mention the upcoming films, that he doesn't need an "origins" movie. In fact, I think we've had so many origins films now that it's become a cliche.

When Batman was rebooted, he needed an origins story because he'd never had a proper one on film before. But the previous four Batman films didn't have an origin, and neither will the upcoming Batfleck. Even Wolverine and the X-Men didn't get origins films until four or five films in. Sometimes it's just unnecessary. Often, not knowing a character's background makes them more interesting. Cue the complaints about Boba Fett's origins in Episode II ruining his mystique.

The point is, we shouldn't be so quick to deride a film just because it has a bunch of well-known characters. Yes, I admit that the more characters you take on, the harder it is to balance a film. Again, it's all in the writing. It separates your Spider-Man 3's from your Dark Knight's. Hell, for all the flack Zack Snyder's getting for Man of Steel and BvS, he did direct a near perfect superhero ensemble in Watchmen. That didn't need five films of build-up. Why does BvS just because it's heroes are more well-known? I could go even further, since Watchmen got a series of prequel comics that were absolutely terrible. But I think, or at least hope, that I've made my point here.

In a lot of ways, I get why people are being so negative about Batman vs. Superman. But adding a few extra heroes shouldn't be one of those complaints. In the MCU we had Iron Man 2 fail because of all the characters and world-building, but then Captain America 2 proved a solo film could balance multiple heroes and still be great. It has nothing to do with the amount of characters and everything to do with how they're written. Personally, I'm psyched for Batman vs. Superman just as much as I am for Star Wars VII. They both have massive potential, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt before deriding them. Both franchises have been through worse, so it can't be that bad.