How to Put Magic into the Harry Potter Spinoffs

Yes, it's amazing! I'm actually writing more rants within days of each other! This one concerns a subject that's very dear to me. I've made no attempt to hide my love of "Harry Potter" in the past, but I've never actually dedicated a full rant to it. I think now is the proper time, given the recent announcement that J.K. Rowling's "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" adaptation will be turned into a trilogy. Now while I think the tale of Newt Scamander, the world's foremost magizoologist (that's someone who studies magical creatures for you muggles) could make for an interesting film, I highly doubt you'd be able to milk a trilogy out of it.

"The Hobbit" is barely working as a trilogy, so why would this? The thing is, Harry Potter himself had a wonderful character arc that could be carried across eight films. Newt doesn't have that, even if Rowling is writing the screenplay and has all the details mapped out in her head. But if WB truly wants to create a series of "Harry Potter" spinoffs that make the Wizarding World into a shared universe, then allow me to map out that universe for them. Who better to resurrect the "Potter" franchise and make it worthy competition for "The Avengers" and "Star Wars" then a die-hard Potter fan?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's say that WB wants eight more films, to mirror the eight Potter films they already have. Ludicrous, you might say. And normally I'd agree with you. But luckily, the "Harry Potter" books are so packed with detail, that you could actually mine another eight films out of them, and Rowling could still write the screenplays if she wanted to better map out the stories. Here is my proposal for an eight-part spinoff franchise to "Harry Potter." Not all of them are tightly connected, the only thread being a shared universe in the Wizarding Wold. The main Potter series already provides all the connective tissue needed.

1. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them- so believe it or not, I'm actually on board with the trilogy idea. But not the idea of "Fantastic Beasts" taking up all three films. "Beasts" should be the first of this trilogy, and like the description Rowling gave, should be about Newt Scamander traveling the world studying magical creatures. I like the idea of him starting in New York 70 years before Harry's journey. We actually haven't explored the Wizarding World of America yet, and to see that unfold could be incredibly cinematic. But we shouldn't linger there too long. For Newt, his journey should involve traveling around the world to seek out the rarest of all magical creatures.

I could see him backpacking through Europe to find rare dragon species in the mountains, or scrounging the forests for his mysterious Crumple-Horned Snorkack. In fact, since Rowling said Newt's grandson ultimately marries Luna Lovegood, maybe the film should open with the two of them, with Rolf Scamander then telling Luna about his grandfather's life. It'd automatically provide some nice connective tissue without shoving in too many cameos from the main series, and give us a reason to care about Newt's exploits. I think Newt's search for one elusive creature should be the driving force for the film, fueling his obsession as he travels the world. All the while, he's gathering information on other creatures and begins work on his book, which becomes a standard Hogwarts textbook later on. It'd be a lighter story set in the Wizarding World, but if this is truly to become a film, those are my wishes for it.

2. Quidditch Through the Ages- my idea for the loose trilogy that forms the first three of my eight films is to base each installment off of one of Rowling's spinoff books. As such, the next film would be "Quidditch Through the Ages." Now since the book in question basically covers the history of the sport and the different teams, a narrative will have to be invented. I don't think exploring the actual history would make for an exciting film. But Quidditch was always one of the most exciting things about the books, and the few matches that made it into the films were expertly staged.

Since the latter half of the film series cut out the Quidditch matches, it'd be cool to actually devote a whole film to them. I would simply treat the film as a magical sports drama. Focus on one of the big Quidditch teams, like Ron's favorite the Chudly Cannons or the Hollyhead Harpies. Have a main character, who's read the original book and loves the sport, sign up with the team and go through several matches to work their way up to the Quidditch World Cup. It's your basic sports film, yeah, but I think the Quidditch aspect, itself iconic in the "Potter" franchise, would make it unique enough that people would get behind it. I know I would.

3. The Tales of Beedle the Bard- the third and final spinoff book rounds out the first trilogy of my eight-part plan. Now this one is a little more difficult to pull off as a full-length film. I'd approach it kind of like "The Princess Bride", maybe with Harry and Ginny or Ron and Hermione (why not both?) reading the stories to their young children (this'd be before the Deathly Hallows epilogue). Or if not that route, have Mrs. Weasley reading to all the Weasley kids. Either way, once the bedtime story aspect begins, it'd basically turn into an anthology film.

"The Wizard and the Hopping Pot", "Babbity Rabbity and her Cackling Stump", "The Fountain of Fair Fortune", and "The Warlock's Hairy Heart" are all quirky tales that would make for interesting stories in live action, especially since they explore the Middle Ages period of this world. I'd also prefer that each story have its own director, like the "Twilight Zone" movie from the '80s. This way, each segment has its own identity and allows each director to bring their own personal flare to the film. It'd be similar to how the main series was passed between four directors with their own views on the material.

The only real difficulty here is "The Tale of the Three Brothers" since it was already told so brilliantly in "Deathly Hallows Part One" with animation. I'd either recycle that short, or maybe re-do and expand on the tale using live action. If that's the case, the brothers would have to be characterized better and their individual stories given more depth. The Brothers' tale could potentially make for a film unto itself, but I think an expanded take on the animated version we've seen, mixed with all the other stories, would make it unique.

If the frame story was live action and the stories animated, then the anthology parts should adopt the format of "The Animatrix" or "Batman: Gotham Knight" (I wouldn't go the anime route though, maybe one segment tops.) If the stories are being read by the adult versions of our beloved heroes, this could also be a perfect opportunity to explain how the third brother, Ignotus Perverell, is Harry's ancestor, with his Invisiblity Cloak being one of the Deathly Hallows. This is something that the films never got around to explaining, and I think it'd justify the re-telling of the tale and reinforce how significant it is to Harry's history.

4. Hogwarts: A History- this is just a tentative title (not all of my proposed films are based on magical textbooks), but this does explain my intentions with this film. I'd like to explore the fascinating time period of the Hogwarts' Founders. This not only provides a proper origin tale for the beloved school, but also can be an intense character drama focusing on the relationships between the Founders. Seeing Godric Gryffindor obtain his sword, Helga Hufflepuff her cup, and Rowena Ravenclaw her diadem would be great, if only to emphasize how the cup and diadem will one day become Horcruxes.

Slytherin, of course, would have his locket and ring, which he ingrained with the Resurrection Stone. All of that, of course, is just in the background. The main story is how the Four Founders met and started the school, and how Slytherin fell out with them. Slytherin really needs to show off his anti-Muggle/Mudblood beliefs, and how this drives him to leave the school and build the Chamber of Secrets beneath it. This provides so much set up for the conflict to come in the main series, but could serve as a standalone drama in its own right. There'd be a few time jumps to show the creation of the school and Slytherin's falling out, but I still think it could work as one tight film.

5. The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore- seriously, I'm not intending for them all to be based on fictional books. Think of these as tentative titles. Either way, I would like to devote an entire film to Dumbledore, if only because the "Deathly Hallows" films kind of glossed over his backstory. The final book weaved a fascinating backstory for Albus, including his relationships with his siblings and his friend Gellert Grindewald. The film could brush on Albus's feelings for Grindewald, maybe imply they have something, but it doesn't have to be in-your-face about it in case people get offended. Personally, I'd like to explore how the two had a relationship that was more than friends, so it's more tragic when Grindewald becomes a Dark Wizard.

An extensive prologue (or maybe interspersed flashbacks) would show Albus's childhood, including his father killing three muggle boys who traumatized Ariana and caused her to lose control of her magic. One of Ariana's magical rages kills their mother, leaving Albus in charge of Ariana and Aberforth. Albus then meets Grindelwald, and they start obsessing over the Deathly Hallows. This search intensifies when a duel between Albus, Grindelwald, and Aberforth leads to Ariana's death. Albus would then obsess over finding the Deathly Hallows, especially the Resurrection Stone so he could apologize to Ariana.

Their quest for the Hallows seems fruitless, until Grindewald manages to locate and steal the Elder Wand. He then uses it to become a major Dark Wizard, and influences World War II. The climax of the film would be Dumbledore dueling Grindelwald and winning the Elder Wand. His career as a Hogwarts teacher could be mentioned, but I don't want it to take up the main story. I think his personal life and relationship with Grindelwald and his siblings is all that's needed, since it turns Albus into a flawed character who is easily relatable.

6. Magicke Most Evil- ok, another book title. I guess the titles just fit the stories I want to tell. This book is the one that Tom Riddle sought out for information about Horcruxes. Basically, this film is to be the dark mirror to Dumbledore's film, by acting as a biopic for Voldemort. While the "Chamber of Secrets" and "Half-Blood Prince" went into Riddle's childhood, I'd like to explore more of the "Half-Blood Prince" flashbacks that were cut from the movie, as well as Riddle's first steps toward becoming Voldemort, his first Horcruxes, and the formation of the Death Eaters and the start of the first Wizarding War. Not only would the film cover all the "Prince" flashbacks, but include the actual first conflicts of the War, to show Voldemort gaining power and earning his reputation as the most feared Dark Wizard of all time.

The film would not end with Voldemort seeking out the Potters, but instead show the first Wizarding War beginning, as fear over Riddle's power spreads worldwide. While Tom is obviously supposed to be an evil person who we can't root for, I think if the Founders' film works out with Slytherin, you could show just how similar Riddle is to his ancestor, and get into his motivations for doing what he does. If nothing else, the film could be structured around Dumbledore collecting memories for the Pensieve as the First War begins, or maybe have the film take place from the perspective of one of Voldemort's followers as he learns of his master's past and rise to power. Either way, there's a lot of potential for a neat story here.

7. The Marauders- told you they weren't all titled off books! This one is, obviously, based on the Marauders. It will actually be the first of a two-parter focusing on James, Lilly, Remus, Sirius, Peter, and Snape during their Hogwarts careers. It would have more of Snape and Lilly meeting as kids, but a lot on James befriending Sirius, Remus, and Peter. The film would have several time jumps to cover their entire seven-year career, because let's face it, despite their hilarious hijinks, the Marauders' years weren't as interesting as Harry's. However, this will give an opportunity to compare James's time at school with Harry's, to see how similar and different they were.

What I would focus on is the love triangle between James, Lilly, and Snape. However, Sirius's relationship with his family (and brother Regulus) and Remus's coping with his werewolf condition would also be major subplots. A good chunk of the film would be devoted to the four making the Marauder's Map and becoming Animagi to accompany Remus, and the pranks they pull on the student body. The incident described in the "Azkaban" book with the prank pulled on Snape would be included, and it would also expand on James's bullying of Snape, including the incident in their fifth year that Harry briefly saw in the film (it'd play out in full like in the books, including the aftermath where Lilly confronts Snape). Snape's growing fascination with the Dark Arts will also be highlighted, including his adopting of the "Half-Blood Prince" persona.

Ultimately, after Snape's falling out with Lilly, the rest of the film would focus on James courting Lilly and them becoming a couple, before they all graduate (an event we never really get to see with Harry, so I'd love to see how the ceremony works). This film would also run concurrently with the back end of the Voldemort film, with his rise to power as another subplot. This would only be alluded to, since the focus is on the relationships between the Marauders. To make the Voldemort plot more relevant, it may be a good idea to have Snape consider joining the cause, with a final (short) duel between him and James right before or after graduation. I'd almost compare this film tonally with  the darker yet still comedic antics of "Half Blood Prince", but the segments when they're kids will obviously mirror the child-like tone of the first few films.

8. The Wizarding War- my final film will explain the rest of the First Wizarding War, having seen it's beginnings in the Voldemort film. I think a good opening scene would be the events described in Rowling's prequel short story, where a muggle policeman witnesses James and Sirius battling Death Eaters. We'd see Dumbledore forming the Order of the Phoenix, as well as the circumstances behind Snape, Peter, and Regulus joining the Death Eaters. Bellatrix Lestrange and Barty Crouch's torturing of the Longbottoms would be a major turning point of the film.

Another big scene would be Snape eavesdropping on Dumbledore and Trelawney's meeting where the Prophecy is first made. This will of course lead to Voldemort seeking out the Potters, and Snape to defect to the Order. The Potters will go into hiding, and Peter will betray their location to Voldemort. We will get to see Voldemort actually killing the Potters and Harry getting scarred. Regulus stealing Voldemort's locket Horcrux and dying in the cave will also be included. The film would end with Sirius confronting Peter, who blows up the street to cover his transformation into Scabbers. Sirius is sent to Azkaban, and the world lies in wait for young Harry Potter to come of age, while celebrating Voldemort's supposed defeat.

Now before I end this rant, you're probably wondering why I don't suggest a film describing the lives of an adult Harry, Ron, and Hermione, or the adventures of their kids as they go to Hogwarts. Quite frankly, it's because I don't think there's an interesting story there. The epilogue was enough of a look into Harry's post-Hogwarts life. If I were to revisit that in the "Tales of Beedle the Bard" film, it'd only be as Harry telling stories to his kids. Once Voldemort is killed, the story ends.

The great thing about the films I've outlined is that, barring "Beasts" and "Quidditch" (probably the only true spin-offs), they're all connected, and introduce plot threads that are concluded in the main series. But these films all come with their own standalone narratives and cast of characters. Plus, they'd satisfy those die hard fans (like myself) who were annoyed at all the subplots and backstory that was cut out of the main series' adaptations. "Beedle the Bard's" expansion of the Three Brothers feeds into the Founders, Dumbledore, and Voldemort films, which in turn feeds into the Marauders' films, which then culminates in the main series.

"Beasts" and "Quidditch" are just there to act as fun romps through different parts of the Wizarding World, to warm audiences up to the idea of exploring parts of this world without Harry. At the end of the day, this spinoff franchise would satisfy all the Potter fanatics while reaping huge rewards for WB, while also capitalizing on the shared universe model that's now so popular. And speaking of shared universes, expect a lot of rants about the MCU coming soon. I plan on properly reviewing "Thor: The Dark World" and "Agents of SHIELD" before the new "Captain America" comes out, so I can complete my MCU coverage that goes back all the way to when I started this blog. But for now, Mischief Managed.

Animation Domination

So I realize it's been almost two months since I last posted anything. What can I say, except the semester kind of caught up with me. Of course, as with every time I write one of these rants, a lot's happened. I originally created this blog to rant about all things nerdy. But with the hype machine ramping up for the Captain America and Spider-Man sequels, new trailers hitting for Godzilla, Ninja Turtles, Transformers 4, X-Men, and Guardians of the Galaxy, and concept art and set footage leaking for Avengers 2 (HULKBUSTER!!!!!!!) there's really too many nerdy things to thoroughly talk about.

I've noticed recently that my rants have a habit of only focusing on superhero, sci-fi, and fantasy flicks. Well, they are the very definition of nerdy, I'll admit. But I like movies in all their forms, even if I like to focus on a specific genre. I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, concerning a genre I feel is too often overlooked. Well, I"m using the term "genre" very loosely. It's more like a medium. A medium that is at once incredibly cinematic, but a lot of people ignore it as not being as "serious" as other films. I'm speaking, of course, about animation.

Now it's not that I don't like animation. Far from it. Like many who grew up in the '90s, Disney was my first exposure to the wonders of film. "Toy Story" was my first theatrical experience. I obsessed over films like "Alladin" and "The Lion King." And as I got older, the Pixar films, more recent Disney films like "Lilo & Stitch", and other films like "Shrek", "Jimmy Neutron", and "The Iron Giant" became my favorites. But foolishly, I convinced myself that these were mere children's films, and that I needed to grow up and move on.

"Star Wars", "Harry Potter", "Lord of the Rings", and every superhero under the sun became my new obsession. They still are, obviously. Even when new, more mature animated fare like "Up", "Wall-E", "Toy Story 3", "Kung Fu Panda", and "How to Train Your Dragon" came out, I still thought of them as "lesser" films. As great as they were, I never put them on the same pedestal as my favorite live action films. Even the Japanese anime films I'd seen, like "Akira" or the Miyazaki films, came with this stigma of being merely animation. I respected them all for doing something fantastic and worthwhile with the medium, but I did not obsess over them like in my youth.

That was, until the one-two punch of "Frozen" and "The Lego Movie." I already talked a little about "Frozen" in my last article, about how Queen Elsa is a perfect role model for young girls. But there was something else about that film that led to my obsessing over it. An obsession so great, I'm still thinking about it months after seeing it. And no, it's not just the insanely catchy songs. More than anything, it's the characters and the story.

Rather than just being a simple princess film, "Frozen" sought to do something unique and subversive. There are so many layers to it that I can still find something new every time I watch it. Anna's naivety about love is born from her isolation from her sister, just as Elsa's intense anxiety comes from her traumatic past. There's a lot of depth going into this film, and despite the cute sidekick characters and addictive songs, I'd say this is some of the darkest material Disney's worked with.

Ultimately, what was really great about "Frozen" was how it deconstructed the image of the Disney princess genre. The princesses here are independent, relying on their own cleverness instead of their relationship to a man. Anna's characterization gives a realistic reason as to why a princess would want to marry so quickly, but the film just as easily subverts this.

Elsa becoming a queen is also a hallmark moment, if only to show young women that they can aspire to be much more than just a princess. But the film not only deconstructs the princess image, but reconstructs it as well. True love is still a main theme, as it is in all of the Princess films. But after deconstructing the image of romantic love at first sight, the film emphasizes the importance of familial love. The power of love is still a strong virtue, only it is a different kind of love that wins the day here.

But Frozen is not the only animated film that deconstructs and reconstructs a genre. I had the honor of seeing "The Lego Movie" in theaters twice over the past two months, and it completely blew me away. I laughed at all the jokes, got emotional at the character moments, and was wowed by the action. And then there were all those awesome cameos! (I died when Batman stole the Hyperdrive off the Millenium Falcon.) Not only was the animation gorgeous and the characters both heartfelt and hilarious, but the story itself was brilliant. Even more so when one realizes this could have easily turned into a giant toy commercial.

Just as "Frozen" deconstructed the Disney Princess genre, "The Lego Movie" deconstructed the modern blockbuster. Think about it. Our hero is an average joe who becomes the subject of a prophecy (cough cough *Matrix Star Wars Harry Potter* cough) and gets a love interest, a mentor, and a villain to fight. A more cynical viewer could say this film just copied and pasted plot points and archetypes from every other major blockbuster. But then the mentor character, Vitruvius, says he made the prophecy up.

The whole point was that a prophecy wasn't needed to make our hero Emmett special; he merely had to believe he was special. Add on the fact that the entire narrative was the imagination of a ten year old boy, who of course would create stories off the films he'd seen, and it all makes sense in a meta-sort of way. I loved every minute of it. It completely deconstructs our society's consumerism and film franchise mentality, but at the same time reconstructs it by emphasizing how individualism can save the day.

I kind of got ahead of myself here gushing over these two films, but that's precisely the point. There's something about "Frozen" and "Lego" that affected me on a deeply personal level. The Disney films of my past that I had once tried to neglect now seem more inviting and nostalgic, thanks to "Frozen's" reminder of the magic of those films. "Lego" reminded me of playing around with the tiny yellow bricks as a kid, taking minifigures of Harry Potter and Han Solo and Spider-Man and having them interact. These movies managed to both make fun of and embrace everything I loved about childhood, and about the films that helped define mine. The real kicker here, is that no live action film in recent memory has been able to do this.

Animation holds a potential that not even the greatest live action film can hope to muster. Animated films can unite generations, bringing kids and adults together to create memories that last a lifetime. How else do films like "Snow White" and "Bambi" get remembered decades later, when other films fall into obscurity? Yes, animation can be dark and mature when it wants to be. And if done well, animation can tackle heady themes a lot better than other films can.

I think everyone knows the "Up has a better love story in five minutes than all five Twilight films" argument, which really helps my case. At its base level, animation can just entertain the children. And that's perfectly fine; how else will kids get exposed to film and TV? But I think the best animated films and shows are those that all ages can enjoy, with so many layers that adults are as fascinated as the kids. For these adults, myself included, such animation works on multiple levels. Not only do they have mature themes and developed characters that could rival any live action film, but they're presented in a way that makes adults pine for their childhoods. Animation can make one feel old and young at the same time, and that in itself is a gift.

It was my mistake to see "Up", "Wall-E", "Toy Story 3", or "How to Train Your Dragon" as "lesser" films just because they were animated. In truth, they are as powerful a film going experience as any modern blockbuster or Oscar winner. Simply put, "Frozen" and "The Lego Movie" were my wake-up call to not underestimate what animated movies can do. I look forward to hyping up and covering more animated movies and shows as they come out, now that I can treat animation with the respect it deserves.

So to all those cynical adults who think animation is "beneath" them, or not as good as live action, I have a message for you. Please, for the love of God, go watch some cartoons. If the new "Ninja Turtles" trailer, based on a kids cartoon from the '80s, had a passionate reaction from a very adult fanbase, then cartoons must be doing something right. I know I'm not going to underestimate animation again.

Case in point: how awesome is it we're finally getting Incredibles 2? That'll easily blow every modern superhero film out of the water. And no, that's not an exaggeration. Jack Jack would hand Superman, Batman, and the Avengers' asses to them on a silver platter. In fact, I bet Hiccup and Toothless could bitch slap Smaug. And the Iron Giant could go a few rounds with Optimus Prime. And...you know what? I'm getting ahead of myself. You get the idea.

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

.