The Year Without Roads Part One: Looking Back Before the Future

Here's a funny story about the future: it tends to catch up with you when you least expect it. You take what you think is a short sabbatical from blogging to focus on schoolwork, then before you know it a whole semester's over. Then when the new year rolls around, it's the year you've literally been associating with "the future" since you were ten. So here we are in 2015, and still no hoverboards. Or Jaws 19. But we do get Jurassic Park 4, Bond 24, Terminator 5, Avengers 2, Mad Max 4, Hunger Games 4, and Star Wars 7 as consolation prizes.

Yes, it seems 2015 is another big year for franchise sequels. Probably the biggest I've seen since 2007 and 2012. But how can I "ring in the new" without celebrating the old? 2014 was, as it is every year, a mixed bag of movies. I think the announcements for future films excited me more than the films we ultimately got. Be that as it may, I must rank every 2014 film release that I had time to see, from worst to best. Because I'm an obsessive movie blogger and it's what I do. Shall we begin?

Numbers 22-18: The Worst

22. Transformers: Age of Extinction- This film was, without a doubt, the worst film I've seen in theaters in the past year. Possibly the worst I've seen in quite a long time. While the first three films (at least 1 and 3) satisfied my primal urge for awesome robot fights, this film was just overkill. Optimus Prime is now the Punisher, Galvatron's a wimp, the new humans are non-entities, and the Dinobots are butchered beyond belief. Not to mention the nearly three hour run time really tested my patience. As long as Bay's at the helm, this franchise will continue to sink to new lows. 

21. Transcendence- Talk about dissapointment. Directed by the cinematographer behind Inception and The Dark Knight. Starring Johnny Depp, Paul Bettany, and Morgan Freeman. With a story about a dying man's mind being uploaded to a computer. All this potential, completely wasted on a weak script with poorly written characters and over-the-top ideas. So much for original sci-fi. 

20. Maleficient- Speaking of dissapointments, how do you take one of the most iconic villains in the Disney canon and completely butcher her? With Angelina Jolie playing her, no less? Trying to make classic Sleeping Beauty villain Maleficient sympathetic, I can get behind. Making her Aurora's surrogate mother??? Inexcusible. The Wicked route could work for a number of fairy tale villains, but for this dark sorceress, it was a resounding failure. Despite Jolie's performance, the film was a textbook example of how NOT to remake a classic.

19. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles- What a mixed bag this turned out to be. I'll admit, this wasn't the worst of the TMNT films (Looking at you, Turtles in Time). But that's no excuse for further damaging this iconic '80s franchise. Yes, the Turtles' personalities were actually perfect. And I'll admit, making them April O'Neal's childhood pets wasn't entirely stupid (just mostly). Also, Megan Fox didn't completely screw up the role. BUT, the Shredder's a human can opener, the Turtles' designs were way too weird, and the entire tone just reeked of Bay. Not even Kraang, Bebop or Rocksteady could salvage this reboot. 

18. The Interview- First off, I want to thank this movie. It's mere existence got North Korea so pissed off they leaked all of Sony's emails over the Internet. I knew Hollywood was screwed up, but man, did Sony drop the ball. But despite all the controversy, The Interview was ultimately a run-of-the-mill political comedy that doesn't back its intriguing ideas. Rogen and Franco were fine, as was our Kim Jong Un. But the predictable, immature laughs didn't make this at all memorable. If anything, the uproar from North Korea and resultant Sony Hacks will be remembered more than the film itself. 

Numbers 17-11: The Decent

17. The Amazing Spider-Man 2- Ah, the other film at the center of the Sony Hacks. I so wanted this film to be good. And to an extent, I still got some entertainment from it. The action was decent, and Garfield, Stone, and Dehaan gave great performances. But just like Spider-Man 3, the film was derailed by too many plots and villains. I'd like to say this was a surprise, but really, it wasn't too shocking (see what I did there?)

16. Lone Survivor- This film didn't at all interest me, but after seeing it with some friends, I was surprised at how impactful it was. And how painful. Every bruise and scrape from Mark Walhberg and his men was felt. The film was a gritty, intense action thriller, but ultimately wasn't memorable enough to rank with some of the best war films out there. 

15. Into the Woods- Wow this film was over the top. It's a broadway musical fairy tale in both the best and worst possible way, with catchy songs, cheesy acting, and too much happening at once. With that said, it was pretty enjoyable. Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt were standouts, Johnny Depp's wasted on a downright creepy performance, and Chris Pine was hilariously bad. It's not a revelation in terms of musicals, but as decent entertainment with a great soundtrack, it'll do. 

14. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One- By all accounts, this film should be higher on my list. The film maintained the momentum from Catching Fire and continued to develop the unique world of Panem. J-Law was brilliant as always, while Julianne Moore and Natalie Dormer shined as newcomers President Coin and Cressida, respectively. So why is this film so low on the list? That pesky "Part One" in the title. This simply felt more like half a story, consisting entirely of set-up with no real climax or payoff. This may be the current trend in Hollywood, but for Mockingjay, one tight three hour film would have sufficed. 

13. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies- For similar reasons, this was an average film that suffered from only telling part of a story. Initially I thought this was my favorite of the Hobbit trilogy, but in hindsight it was probably the weakest. The action was phenomenal, as befitting a Peter Jackson trilogy capper. Seeing the White Council banish Sauron was definitely a fan pleaser. And Bilbo and Thorin's relationsip was by far the strongest element. But ultimately, this film confirmed my suspicions that Tolkien's slim novel can't make for an effective trilogy. Too much filler and too many characters doomed the narrative. When the Extended Edition comes out I'll do a review of the entire trilogy, but until then, this was a bittersweet farewell to Jackson's Middle-Earth Saga.

Numbers 12-6: The Really Good

12. Big Hero 6- Here was a film that, while perfectly charming and vastly entertaining, could have been so much more. When I heard Disney Animation, fresh off of Frozen, was making a film using Marvel characters, I smelled potential. But instead of applying the same postmodern take that Frozen did for fairy tales, or Wreck-It Ralph did for video games, Big Hero 6 was content just to be an average superhero film for kids. The relationship between Hiro and Baymax saved it, since it was the one unique thing this film had, but everything else was the cliche superhero origin story. Still, as an animated film, it's harmless and cute, not to mention gorgeous to look at. I just wanted something a little more original.

11. Snowpiercer- Damn was this movie impressive. Chris "Captain America" Evans as a revolutionary on a post-apocalyptic train? This had no right to be as good as it did. A near perfect mix of action, sci-fi, and philosophy, Snowpiercer was definitely worth a watch.

10. 22 Jump Street- How do you follow up a comedy reboot that no one expected to be good yet everyone loved? Make fun of the very concept of comedy sequels, that's how. The meta jokes were brilliant, especially the proposals for a Jump Street franchise during the credits. Gut busting humor and the chemistry between Tatum and Hill skyrocketed this film, making it, in this humble blogger's opinion, just as good as the original. For a comedy sequel, that's a rare feat.

9. Interstellar- There's always a pedigree with Chris Nolan, especially since his last original sci-fi was Inception. While this was as intellectual as any of his prior flicks, Nolan tried to break new ground here by wrapping his quantum physics heavy space epic in the tale of a father and his daughter. Matthew McCounaughey and Jessica Chastain were great with the material they were given, but despite Nolan's best efforts, the whole affair wasn't as emotional as he probably intended.

Nolan excels with big ideas, and this might be his biggest cache of ideas yet, what with wormwholes, relativity, and time travel all huge elements. As a sci-fi fan, it was great to see these concepts brought to life with both awe and realism. But given Nolan's ultimate intentions, it struck me just how emotionally distant it ended up being. Still, the amount of ambition puts this easily in my top ten, not to mention the breathtaking visuals (especially in IMAX). Objectively, I'd say this is Nolan's worst film. But it's telling that despite all that, this is still one of the best films I've seen this year.

8. Godzilla- When I went to see this film for the third time (yes, really), I chose a drive-in movie theater for the viewing. There's a certain nostalgia, not to mention irony, in seeing a giant monster movie at a drive-in. And make no mistake; as a giant monster movie, this new Godzilla succeeded wildly. I don't care if the Big Z wasn't in it all that much. There's a great Jaws/Jurassic Park vibe going on with the way they treated the monsters. When the big lizard finally confronts his two monstrous foes in San Francisco, it's the stuff fanboy dreams are made of.

What stopped this from being a perfect film was that the time in between the monster fights was taken by completely bland human characters. Why cast Ken Watanabe and Bryan Cranston, only to make the focus a wooden soldier played by Kick-Ass? While the monsters made this movie, the humans still needed work. It didn't affect me too much, though. I was just happy to see the true King of the Monsters back in all his glory.

7. Edge of Tomorrow- This film came out of nowhere to be one of the best sci-fi/action hybrids I've seen in a while. Tom Cruise delivered a great performance, but the real star was Emily Blunt. If any movie proved her action star potential, it was this. The time loop element was superbly executed, while the designs for the aliens were some of the most original I've seen in years. Most of all, the film was thrilling, enjoyable, and damn good fun.

6. How to Train Your Dragon 2- THIS is how you make a great sequel. Take the characters and themes of the first film, and build off them in an organic way. From the action and animation to the story and emotion, this film was simply fantastic. Bring on Dragon 3. 

Top Five: The Awesome

5. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes- While we're on the subject of great sequels, Dawn was simply a phenomenal follow-up to Rise of the Apes. Mo-cap master Andy Serkis made Ceasar entirely human, and his new role as ape leader bordered on Shakespearean tragedy at times. Surprisingly enough, Ceasar was not the real star here. Toby Kebbel's Koba easily stole the show, challenging Ceasar's authority and growing increasingly violent throughout the film. I was going bannanas (super lame pun intended) after seeing this film, and I sincerely hope the franchise maintains this level of quality in the future.

4. X-Men: Days of Future Past- Thank you Bryan Singer, from the bottom of my heart. While First Class and The Wolverine began redeeming the X-franchise, DOFP brought its true redemption. The masterful time travel premise not only rebooted the series, but allowed for young Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique to grow as characters. The action was fantastic (future Sentinels! Quicksilver's kitchen scene!), the characters were great, and the overall film was an X-cellent addition to the franchise. X-Men: Apocalypse can't come soon enough.

3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier- From the minute I read the "Winter Soldier" comics arc, I knew this would make a kick-ass film. My faith was well rewarded. The Winter Soldier was a superb spy thriller, a throwback to the political films of the '70s, while still delivering all the superhero action expected of a Marvel flick. Chris Evans IS Captain America, and this film proved it. Easily the best plotted Marvel film since the first Iron Man, this flick made it abundantly clear that Captain America is one of the best heroes in Marvel's arsenal.

2. Guardians of the Galaxy- It's hard to believe that Marvel topped themselves twice in the same year, and yet they did. While Guardians may have a somewhat derivative story compared to Winter Soldier, I ultimately found it better for its sheer entertainment value. If you don't walk away from Guardians smiling at the '70s pop tunes, laughing at the characters, or enjoying the pulpy retro space opera tone, then you might be dead inside.

1. The Lego Movie- I was internally debating whether this or Guardians should be number one, but then I remembered Chris Pratt is the lead in both and decided it didn't really matter. Both are outrageously funny. Both subvert a lot of recent Hollywood movie tropes. And both were thought to be enormous risks before proving everyone wrong. Ultimately though, I gave the spot to Lego for its masterful use of nostalgia. Not just in tugging on my heartstrings, but using it in-universe to show the central conflict between normality and creativity. It was funny, it was emotional, it was meta, and it was just so. well. done. Here is definitive proof that animation can be just as groundbreaking as any live action film. There's nothing I can complain about regarding this movie. To put it simply, Everything is Awesome!

You may notice a severe lack of any "Oscar bait" films on this list. No Babadook, Birdman, Boyhood, Foxcatcher, or Theory of Everything. I made the grave mistake of not paying attention to these films last year, when Frozen, Her, and The Wolf of Wall Street all escaped my initial grasp. While I'd love to review any and all of these films, we're already ten days into 2015 and I am very behind schedule in terms of blogging. These are the films released last year that I saw, ranked according to my tastes.

Many of these films defied my expectations, either being better or worse than I anticipated. With the new year bringing sequels to some of my favorite films, my expectations will only get higher. But if movies about Legos and talking raccoons can top my list this year, I can only imagine what will top the list next year. So now that I've sent 2014 off in (long belated) style, it's time to fire up the Flux Capacitor and look to the future. Where we're going, we don't need roads. 

Super Hero Saturation and Speculation

I apologize once again for the lateness of my response here. But this is something that must be said. Sony, Disney, and Warner Brothers recently revealed their scheduled release dates for all their superhero movies entering production. The only thing is, we don't know what any of the films are. So, using some personal preferences, Internet rumors, and some estimated guessing based on what we do know, I've decided to fill out every one of these empty slots, along with a short blurb on what I'd like to see from these films and what chance, if any, do I have of being right. I will also comment on the release dates we do know, basically making predictions for the next six years in superhero film. Let us begin. 

2015

5/1/15- Avengers: Age of Ultron- So this is obviously set in stone. But what do we know about it? Hulkbuster. The Twins. Vision. And of course Ultron himself. My hope is that the mad android pushes the Avengers team to their absolute limits (and based on Cap's broken shield prop, I'm probably right). Since we know the Twins start with HYDRA, who have Loki's staff, there'll probably be a tie-in with Thanos to further the Infinity arc. There may be some roster changes, with Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye possible candidates to leave the team. That last part is just speculation, but anything could happen. We'll know next May. 

6/19/15- The Fantastic Four- My expectations for this are low, but here's my best guess. The film will be a lot more down-to-earth, maybe incorporating some of the found footage genre director Josh Trank is known for. This could be next year's dark horse or a giant flop. But after "Dawn of the Apes", I'm sure Toby Kebbel will kill it as Dr. Doom. I also have high hopes for Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. I don't care about the race issue, only if he can pull of Johnny's arrogant personality. Again, we'll know in a few months. 

7/17/15- Ant-Man- This is honestly the MCU film I'm worried the most about. It's not the changes to the canon, as I find the idea of doing Scott Lang's arc with Pym as the mentor a fascinating angle. Ditto for Yellowjacket as the villain and the heist genre influences. What I'm really worried about is if Peyton Reed can make this film his own, instead of simply being a hired gun to execute what was once Edgar Wright's passion project. Since it's Marvel, I'm sure it'll be entertaining, but I'm pulling for another "Guardians" or "Winter Soldier", not "Thor 2". 

2016

3/25/16- Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice- I'm cautiously optimistic about this, for obvious reasons. My main worry right now isn't Bat-Fleck or WonderGal, but if the story is becoming too packed with heroes to stand on its own. The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg are all rumored to be here. I don't want another "Amazing Spider-Man 2" or "Iron Man 2", and I'm sure millions of other fans agree with me. But the released photos are great (WW looks perfect) and the Comic-Con trailer was promising. For better or worse, I'll be there opening day, but I'm still weary. 

5/6/16- Captain America 3- Subtitle unknown, but release date confirmed. Speculation? Cap will continue his search for Bucky, and end up fighting either HYDRA with a returned Red Skull or Baron Zemo at the head, or a re-purposed AIM led by MODOK. At any rate, "Winter Soldier" was fantastic, and this has the same writers and directors, so I'm not worried. 

5/27/16- X-Men Apocalypse- Thank God "Days of Future Past" was amazing. I would have no interest in this film if its predecessor didn't completely redeem the franchise, but it did. Hopefully Bryan Singer can work through his charges and come back, but even if he doesn't, I'm sure Fox realize they've put too much effort into making the series great again to throw it away. I expect full-on Apocalypse fighting 1980s X-Men, with the Four Horseman grabbed from the X-Men and Brotherhood ranks. Mystique/Magneto, Gambit, Wolverine, and a young Angel/Archangel would be perfect. 

7/8/16- Untitled MCU film (Doctor Strange)- We technically don't know what this film is, but most of the major websites have pegged it as Doc Strange, and I'm pretty sure they're right. For one, we know it's in production because it has a script and director. Also, we know Scarlet Witch's "Ultron" intro will probably herald our first look at real magic. Strange will probably blow that wide open, and explore fantasy elements the MCU really haven't done before. An origin, either told straight or in flashbacks, would be preferable, with Baron Mordo and Dormannu as villains. I'm psyched for this film, so bring on the good doctor. 

8/5/16- Untitled DC film (Shazaam)- Here's why I'm sure this'll be Shazaam. Aside from the ironic fact that Marvel and DC would have competing magic movies, we know that Dwayne Johnson has all but revealed he's playing Shazaam or Black Adam. Maybe both? (Hey, it worked for Austin Powers). Shazaam was included as a founding Justice League member in this year's animated film "Justice League: War", and the New 52 comics have rebooted his origin. 

This film could be Wonder Woman, but I'm inclined to think Shazaam because the other option would mean Gal Gadot would have to film two movies at once. If her WW role in BvS is just supporting, we probably won't go into her Greek Gods origin. Doing Shazaam first will get audiences acquainted with magic in the DCU, so a WW solo film could then dive right into the Greek myth elements without it feeling weird. 

11/11/16- Sinister Six- Sony's handling of the Spider-Man franchise has left much to be desired. But if this is really the route they're going, allow me to offer some story advice. Make the film about Harry/Green Goblin, Felicia/Black Cat, and either Eddie Brock or Flash Thompson as Venom (the symbiote will be an Oscorp experiment like the Ultimate books). With the help of the Gentleman, they recruit Rhino, Vulture, and Doctor Octopus (they're tech's already at Oscorp). 

The Six prepare to hunt down Spider-Man and rule New York's criminal underworld. But they're too busy bickering to work as a team. It'd basically be a superhero movie from the villain's perspective, with Spidey in a supporting role seen only as the villain. After their battle with Spidey goes horribly, Eddie/Flash and Felicia decide to leave the team. A post-credits scene shows Harry and Ock recruiting Kraven the Hunter and Mysterio as replacements, setting up "Amazing SM 3".

2017

TBA 2017- Venom vs. Carnage- The only Spidey spinoff I'm actually excited for, I expect whoever wears the Venom suit to be an anti-hero, tracking down the serial killer Kassady who bonds with a symbiote fragment to become Carnage. Whether Kassady lives to the credits or not isn't important. I expect the Carnage symbiote to live, if without Kassady then to take a new host for "ASM 3". 

TBA 2017- Untitled Female Hero SpiderVerse Film (Black Cat)- Sony recently announced a Spider-Man spinoff starring a female hero. Black Cat or Spider-Woman seem like the logical choices, but I'm going with the former just because Felicia was in "ASM 2". With her origin covered in my hypothetical S6 movie, this film will flesh out her back-story more. If the S6 took on the mob in their own film, with Felicia helping them, I'd like this film to have the mob retaliate against her. Characters like Shocker, the Enforcers, and Tombstone could act as villains, while Felicia tries to find a new life away from Harry and the S6 and become a hero. 

3/3/17- Wolverine 3- We know we're getting a third solo Wolverine flick on this date, but we know nothing of the plot. With the timeline reset, we could see a (proper) re-do of the Weapon X origin, but that may not seem fresh enough. And if Logan gets adamantium in "Apocalypse", it'll make it even more redundant. Should Apocalypse time travel, this film could be an adaptation of "Old Man Logan" with some Age of Apocalypse elements thrown in to replace the other Marvel characters. 

Or it could be from the original timeline, set in the two years between "The Wolverine" and its credits scene. The idea of Logan and Mariko in, say, Russia fighting Omega Red, maybe with assistance from a failed Weapon X clone called X-23, would be fantastic. Either way, I expect this to be the last solo Wolverine film from Hugh Jackman, if not his last X-Men role. Come 2017, we'll know for sure. 

5/5/17- Untitled MCU film (Thor 3)- If Doc Strange is coming in 2016, I think May 2017 is perfect for a third Thor. The original dropped in May, and Thor is the last of Marvel's Big 3 to round out his own trilogy. Obviously we need closure on Loki disguising himself as Odin, which could easily tie back into Thanos and the Infinity arc. 

With "Guardians" showing you can have a film entirely off-planet, and "Doc Strange" introducing real magic I'd like this film to be just Nine Realms focused. A visit to Hela's realm Nifleheim (maybe to rescue the real Odin?) and Surter's fiery realm Muspelheim would be preferable. Enchantress and Executioner would not be unwelcome. Beta Ray Bill would be spectacular. Mostly though, I just want Jane and Darcy out the way, so Thor can focus on Sif. 

6/23/17- Untitled DC film (Justice League)- We know it's coming, and we know Zach Snyder is directing it. We know BvS sets up for it, otherwise why the "Dawn of Justice" subtitle? Face it: "Justice League" is most likely set for this date. As the rumors say, Snyder will film BvS and JL back-to-back, to release it the following year. With either the "Shazaam" or WW movie introducing magic, the plot could be anything. Lex could create Doomsday or team with Brainiac. Darkseid could descend. Aquaman and Atlantis could attack the surface. The Legion of Doom could be created. White Martians could invade. Take your pick. Anything could work. I just want a good "Justice League" film. 

7/14/17- Fantastic Four 2- Fox must be confident if they already set a release date for the sequel, but I'm still skeptical. Should the first film tank, this film will go under too. But if that doesn't happen, I'd like a trip to the Negative Zone here, with Annhialus as the villain. Some confirmation these F4 exist in the same world as the X-Men would also be nice. 

7/28/17- Guardians of the Galaxy 2- The lovable bunch of A-holes are definitely coming back, thanks to the Comic-Con announcement. But what could it be? First things first, let's find out who Peter Quill's dad really is, since it sure as hell ain't J'Son, Emperor of Spartax. The revelation of Peter's dad will probably tie into the plot, which will in turn probably advance Thanos and the Infinity arc. Another stone? Probably too repetitive. 

But Adam Warlock, Starhawk, Cosmo talking, and Richard Rider joining the Nova Corps are good guesses. Nebula should return, and further exploration of the Kree (Supreme Intelligence? Captain Mar-Vehl?) would be nice. At this point, Marvel has so many cosmic elements to draw from they could make six "Guardians" films. I'd be happy just to know what's on Awesome Mix Vol. 2.

11/3/17- Untitled MCU film (Inhumans)- Here are the facts. Marvel CEO Kevin Feige says he wants to make an Inhumans movie. Vin Diesel teased he has another role with Marvel, which could be the Inhuman king Black Bolt. The Inhumans tie in to the Kree, introduced in "Guardians". "Guardians 2" could very well tease them. It's a new franchise to counteract "Guardians 2" and probably "Thor 3". It has cosmic ties so we can work in the Infinity arc. And given the hints in "Agents of SHIELD", not to mention the mysterious source of "Ultron's" Twins' powers, the Inhumans seem like a logical direction. Basically, make the Inhumans movie already. 

11/17/17- Untitled DC film (Wonder Woman)- Now it could be the WW solo movie comes in the 2016 slot I guessed for Shazaam, but I think this makes more sense for Gadot's schedule. "Justice League" will have come out, giving WW more exposure. "Shazaam" will have explored magic so you can do the full on Greek God origin. Now is the perfect time for Wonder Woman to shine in her own film. 

2018

TBA 2018- The Amazing Spider-Man 3- The release date's been postponed for four years, so I expect this to be good. Given we're getting three spinoffs in between, I expect those to feed into this. In my headcanon, Spider-Man will team up with Black Cat and Venom to take on a new Sinister Six, ending with Spidey taking on Harry or Doc Ock, now possessed by the Carnage symbiote (or not, whichever works). Peter should be in college or taking his first steps into adulthood, with Mary Jane and Jameson being new additions to the cast. And yes, I'd prefer J.K. Simmons come back for Jonah, but that's just the ramblings of an angry fanboy. Personally I'd continue the series through the multiverse route or finally teaming Spidey with the Avengers, but again, just angry fanboy ranting. 

3/23/18- Untitled DC film (Aquaman)- As silly as it sounds, Aquaman is coming to the silver screen. Whether in BvS or JL doesn't matter. Jason Momoa is probably playing him. And Zach Snyder defended his honor, meaning WB is interested. An Aquaman film based on Geoff Johns' New 52 run, maybe adapting "Throne of Atlantis", would be killer. It's already happening in animation, so live action may not be that far behind. Regardless of if he's popular at this point, Aquaman may benefit from a spring release, so it's not positioned as a summer blockbuster and expectations can be adjusted. 

5/4/18- Untitled MCU film (Captain Marvel)- Kevin Feige has said he's been listening to fan complaints about wanting films with more diversity. What better way than to give Carol Danvers her own film? The MCU needs a solo, kick-ass, superhuman female, and Carol is the woman to do it. Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, the film (hypothetically) would have Carol as a hotshot pilot who befriends Kree Captain Mar-Vehl. Marvel dies and gives his powers to Carol, who takes up the mantle of Captain Marvel to continue his legacy. It'd be a cosmic tie-in, but more Earthbound, with continued exploration of Kree (and possibly Inhuman) culture. I strongly argue this film is needed, and a prime May release date is the perfect way to get maximum exposure. 

7/6/18- Untitled MCU film (Black Panther)- Right on the heels of Marvel's first female superhero film, we have our first minority film. T'Challa is the perfect hero to do it, and his story is so cinematic it'd be a crime if not told. After all the cosmic stuff, it'd be good to have another Earth-based film, where our young African prince takes up his father's mantle as the Black Panther to defend his nation. The quest for Wakanda's Vibranium mines should obviously play a huge role, for the inevitable Captain America tie-in. When Thanos comes, T'Challa needs to be with the Avengers, so the sooner he gets his time to shine, the better. 

7/13/18- Untitled Fox Superhero Film (X-Men/F4 Team-Up)- I'd imagine "Apocalypse" and "Wolverine 3" would end their respective trilogies, so to continue the X-franchise, an F4 crossover would be ideal. The premise could be anything. A re-do of Silver Surfer and Galactus. Doctor Doom returns. Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner (he's a mutant and in love with Sue Storm). Onslaught. I'd take any and all of them. But should the initial F4 reboot fail, this slot could be another X film, a spinoff I'd wager. Maybe the X-Force movie that's been discussed? Personally, I'd ask Fox to get off their asses and make Deadpool. But that's just me. 

7/27/18- Untitled DC film (The Batman)- It's a year after "Justice League". Ben Affleck's been around long enough for fans to adjust. That means it's time. Another solo Batman film is imminent. It's the end of July, where the last two Nolan films found success. To me, it just makes sense. The plot? Who cares, it's Batman. In all seriousness, a re-do of Riddler or Mr. Freeze would sit right with me. But an adaptation of "Death in the Family", "Hush", or "Court of Owls" would be killer. 

11/2/18- Untitled MCU film (Planet Hulk)- This is honestly pure speculation, since it's a popular rumor that Feige and James Gunn have all but denied. But I think Hulk deserves another shot at a solo film, and what better way than to send him to space? The Sakaarans, natives of the planet Hulk ends up on, were already in "Guardians". It'd be a great way to have Hulk team up with the Guardians, or even the Inhumans, Nova, or Captain Marvel should they all be introduced at this point. More importantly, it'd provide an ironclad link between the Avengers and Guardians' worlds, so they can unite against Thanos when he finally wields the Infinity Gauntlet. Make it happen. 

2019

4/5/19- Untitled DC film (The Sandman)- Technically, Sandman is a Vertigo imprint, not a main DC Universe title, but this slot could very well be for this. Sandman's been a hot property for years, and a film version is a long time coming. Joseph-Gordon Levitt wants to direct and star, we know that much. And if they really wanted to, this could tie in to the wider DCU and expand the magic/cosmic side of it. Alternatively, it could be that "Justice League Dark" film Guillermo Del Toro wants to make so much, with Constantine, Zatanna, Swamp Thing, and others. I'd be fine with either. 

5/3/19- Untitled MCU film (Avengers/Guardians 3: Infinity)- The last release date Marvel has set is for May 2019. I see this as the only possibility. The culmination of a longer than usual Phase 3, this film will be the third in the Avengers and Guardians' franchises, a full-blown crossover. Both teams will have expanded to include the other heroes introduced, ready to take down a god-like Thanos. Eleven years will have built to this moment, and it better be the definition of epic, or I'll be thoroughly dissapointed. 

6/14/19- Untitled DC film (Man of Steel 2)- I'm going off the rumored production slate here, but I don't doubt that eventually we'll see another solo Superman movie. If BvS and JL don't do Brainiac and/or Doomsday, they'd be prime candidates here. If they did, maybe Darkseid. But a proper MoS sequel is owed us, and it should completely make up for the original's flaws. 

2020

4/3/20- Untitled DC film (Flash/Green Lantern Team-Up)- I'm also going off the rumored production slate, but the very idea of this is so tantalizing I had to put it down. Since Supes, Bats, WW, Shazaam, and Aquaman get solo films, GL and Flash should get a buddy cop style team-up movie. Flash has his own show, and GL a failed film, so if they want more exposure, a film of this nature can do it. 

6/19/20- Untitled DC film (Justice League 2)- So after all those solo films spinning out of the first "Justice League", a proper sequel must hit the screens. It's two years after the first, so that's more than enough time to get it made. Any of the options I offered for the first film can apply here. Personally a Legion of Doom film mixed with "Tower of Babel" elements would be great, but really it could be anything. 

Those are my predictions for this HUGE film slate. Many will be wrong. Hopefully some will be right. At the end of the day, just knowing all these films are coming is exciting, no matter what they are. I just hope they're done with enough care that the over saturation of the superhero genre won't come to pass. 

Guardians of the Galaxy Review: Everything is Awesome

Before I start this review, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Yes, this rant is almost three weeks too late. My most sincere apologies, work got in the way. And on that note, I realize A LOT has happened in that intervening three weeks. We lost one of the best comedians of our generation (R.I.P. Robin Williams). Warner Brothers announced nine additional DC films. Star Wars VII rumors ran amok across the wilds of the Internet. And the dreaded Ninja Turtles reboot was surprisingly not awful. All this and more I plan to address, but first, the latest addition to the MCU must undergo my thorough inspection.

To put it mildly, "Guardians of the Galaxy" was spectacular. Ten films in, and you'd think that Marvel had nothing new to shake up the formula. Who knew after all this time, they'd release one of the most original and entertaining superhero films in years? Scratch that, one of the most original and entertaining blockbuster films in years, and a pulpy space opera to boot. The fact that this film even exists simply boggles the mind. So how good is this film? Well, let's put it this way. Our main hero opens the film blasting '70s pop hits from a Walkman while scouring for an alien artifact. Prior to this, we get a prologue on Earth. The only time we even get to see our native planet, a first for a cosmic superhero film.

The opening seems to set an entirely different tone, more a deadly serious drama than a space-set action comedy. Our aforementioned hero, Peter Quill/Star-Lord, runs away after his mother dies from cancer. It's an emotionally gripping scene, but somewhat off putting given what the advertising promised. Then Peter is abducted by a wandering spacecraft (no, really) and the ride begins. Cut to an adult Quill, now a space pirate, dancing to "Come and Get Your Love", and the film really kicks into high gear. The title and opening credits play out over this dance sequence, channeling those feel-good movies of the '70s and '80s. Back when pop cinema was creative, engrossing, and above all entertaining just for the sake of it. From there, "Guardians" grabs you and never lets go.

Seriously, I've seen this film twice now and both times I was gushing with joy over it. As a comic adaptation, it's brilliant, but as a well-made film it's even better. Chris Pratt plays Quill as a cross between Mal Reynolds, Captain Kirk, Han Solo, and Marty McFly, and is having so much fun with the role you can't help but fall in love with him. But with all due respect, his fellow Guardians are the real stars here. In particular, Vin Diesel's Groot and Bradley Cooper's Rocket. Not only are they a pristine example of meshing CGI with human actors, but both are fully fleshed out characters.

I don't know how they made a walking tree who only says "I Am Groot" into a complex, fully realized person, but by god they did. And don't even get me started on Rocket. He nearly runs away with the film, not only in his Han Solo-Chewbacca dynamic with Groot but as the team's comic relief as well. The best part, though, is that he is never a cartoon character. A scene where a drunken Rocket bemoans how people treat him and his wish to have never been experimented on is heartbreaking. He is by far the film's best character, a marvel (no pun intended) of CGI, voice work, and superior writing.

The team is rounded out by Dave Bautista's Drax and Zoe Saldana's Gamora. These two are definitely the more straight-laced of the group, but while Gamora's hardened warrior never really gets a chance to shine character-wise, Drax is a pleasant surprise. His inability to understand metaphors means everything he says is literal, which makes for a hilarious running gag and some surprisingly heartfelt moments. There's no doubt, though, that together these wayward Guardians make for an incredible team, with their chemistry the beating heart of the film.

And really, it's the passion and heart that makes this film so great. But while this film wears its heart on its sleeve with pride, there are some niggling flaws that could be improved. If our heroes are the film's greatest strength, its villains are the weakness. I can't fault the performances, as Lee Pace's Ronan, Karen Gillian's Nebula, and Djimon Hounsou's Korath are all imposing and evil to the core. Their designs are perfection, their scenes are great, and they're all endowed with genuine menace. The problem is they aren't given enough screen time to breath.

While Ronan's religious fanaticism is a great motive and puts him a notch above the worst MCU villains like Malekith, he isn't explored enough to be truly effective. Nebula's sister relationship with Gamora should have been explored more, but they only get two short scenes to play off each other. Poor Korath is barely there, but makes use of what little time he does have. Ditto for the supporting players, like Glenn Close's Nova Prime and John C. Reilley's Rhomann Dey. Michael Rooker is a blast as Quill's adoptive father Yondu; his only crime is not being around enough. The real crime is under-using Benicio Del Toro as the Collector, who despite providing key exposition is in the film for under five minutes.

The big takeaway from these actors though is that each one manages to be memorable with what little screen time they have. They're really there to provide flavor to this universe and give more fodder for the Guardians to bounce off of. There's only one actor I didn't have a problem with in terms of screen time, despite having so little. Yes, we all knew it was coming. "Guardians" gives us our first clear look at the Mad Titan Thanos, along with a speaking part courtesy of Josh Brolin. And by god, he is PERFECT. The Emperor Palpatine to the film's "Empire Strikes Back", Brolin completely sells Thanos as the ultimate evil of the Marvel Universe. I can't wait for the Infinity Gauntlet to get here, so Thanos can appear in his full glory. This was just a tease, but it was more than enough to let you know that Thanos is out there and up to no good.

Speaking of the Gauntlet, that key exposition the Collector provides reveals more back story on the Infinity Stones. Our macguffin here is the Power Stone, contained in a metallic orb, and endowed with the ability to disintegrate any organic matter it touches. As a comic fan, it's a delight to have a third Stone pop up after the Tesseract and the Aether, but to casual film goers it may seem tiresome. Thank god Quill rattles on about the Orb's "Ark of the Covenant, Maltese Falcon" vibe. Self-awareness is the name of the game here, and the other key to the film's success. While there's an overwhelming emphasis on character here, the action and humor are always present.

I can't remember a blockbuster movie being this funny in years. The humor is oddball, to be sure, but director James Gunn is the perfect man to do it. Almost every joke is a winner, and makes for some of the best one-liners in a blockbuster film in a good long while. "You're making me kick grass", "Pelvic sorcery", and "Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast" are only some of the many instantly quotable lines to be found here. But the real humor lies in the dynamic between our characters, and the situations they find themselves in.

You'll find no RDJ improv or Cap/Thor fish-out-of-water jokes here. You'd think that Quill, being an Earthman (sorry, "Terran") would stick out, but he was raised in space, so he's just another space-faring citizen. Such organic humor makes the film hilarious, but the relentless onslaught of jokes also makes the quieter, more serious moments stand out. The aforementioned Rocket scene, Drax's heartfelt friend speech, Star-Lord taking command, and our last lines from Groot come to mind.

The tender mix of comedy and seriousness also plays into the action, which works with the pulpy, cartoon-ish tone but also gives off a sense of awe and wonder. The tone is really set by the music, all '70s hits from Peter's Walkman, that not only sell the overtly "Star Wars/Flash Gordon" vibe but also act as Quill's only remaining ties to Earth and his mother. You really get the sense that every joke, action scene, music montage, and character beat is planned out. There's a reason for everything, and seeing it all gel on screen is movie magic at its finest.

So as a movie, it's pretty much brilliant, even with a few flaws like underdeveloped villains. One could argue that the intense universe building is also a minor weakness, since the upbeat pacing never gives us a chance to breath and take in all the cosmic weirdness around us. But one could also argue (as I do) that the heartfelt tone, fresh character dynamics, and wholly organic humor makes up for it. Everything draws you in and makes for such a good time, that the few genuine flaws come off more as nitpicks than anything else. There is, after all, a confirmed sequel for 2017 that can iron out these few mistakes.

Besides Thanos and the Infinity Stone references, this film succeeds as a comic adaptation due to all the in-jokes for fans of Marvel Cosmic. Celestials. Kree. Sakaarans. The Nova Corps. Cameos from the Chitauri, Dark Elves, Cosmo the Space Dog, and (in a credits scene that came out of nowhere) Howard the Duck. All add to the rich flavor of this unique universe, and do more to set up potential MCU films than most of the other standalone movies. Ironically enough, besides the Thanos and Infinity threads, this film is actually the most standalone out of all the other MCU additions since the original "Iron Man".

Its cosmic setting and focus means the central story and characters come first. It just so happens that the playground here is so vast that it probably sets up twelve other films as an added bonus. It's a brilliant move, solidifying "Guardians" as one of the best films so far in the Disney/Marvel canon. The greatest triumph here, however, is that the premise and characters are so out there, and were pulled off with such success, that Marvel shouldn't be afraid to do anything now. In many ways this was a bigger risk than "Avengers", executing a D-List comic book property for a mainstream audience. And since this worked, it hails a landmark moment for the comic book genre.

It says that any property can be successful if brought to the screen with care and passion. And that's exactly what's happened here. If I were to rank "Guardians of the Galaxy", it'd probably tie with "Winter Soldier" as my fave standalone film, and is definitely one of the best up there with the original "Iron Man" and the first "Avengers". In one fell stroke, "Guardians" has laid the foundation for all things cosmic in the MCU, making this universe a whole lot bigger. The thoughts on where Marvel can go from here are mind-blowing. But what's really mind-blowing isn't just the future, but what we have right now. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is a triumph, and should be hailed as such. Gear up for 2017, people. I'm already drooling over what potential songs will be on Awesome Mix Volume 2.

The Legend of the Batman: 75 Years in the Making

Another year, another Comic-Con come and gone. And with it, many huge announcements about many nerdy things. One of which, to everyone's delight, was the first footage for "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice", including Batman and Superman facing off and the first photo of Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. I'd love to say that a more surprising revelation occurred at the convention. But we didn't really get anything we didn't already know or could guess ourselves.

The Batman/Superman panel was the biggest thing to a surprise we got. But what a surprise it was. Batman's wearing "Dark Knight Returns" style armor! He and Superman are definitely going at it! Wonder Woman looks fantastic! Quite simply, we nerds went nuts. But more than just nerds went gaga over the footage. It seems the entire Internet broke in half over this. Even with footage from Avengers 2 premiering, the big talk was about the Batman/Superman film. This got me thinking, which got me ranting. Batman turns 75 this year in the comic books, an event that's being celebrated the world over. More than any other super hero, Batman has grafted himself into the very center of our popular culture.

He has almost a dozen live action films, several animated shows and movies, some incredibly popular video games, and a rouges gallery of villains just as popular (if not more so) than he is. Batman is more than just a man. He's a full-blown phenomenon. And then that got me thinking about a little film called "The Dark Knight Rises." I've analyzed it before, of course. In the two years since its release, who hasn't? But with the Bat's 75th anniversary approaching, it felt like as good a time as ever to revisit the film. A film many praised upon release, and then almost immediately decried as being inferior to its predecessors.

In many ways, "Rises" is indeed the weak link of Chris Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy. The eight year time gap means half the plot points are set up by exposition, violating the film medium's sacred "show, don't tell" rule. There are several leaps in logic in the film itself, defying the realism of the last two movies. And while the epic, ambitious scope is to be admired, the wealth of characters makes it hard sometimes to narrow the film's focus. These are problems only several repeat viewings turn up, as on the surface "Rises" is still an entertaining experience. Entertaining, yes, but flawed as well.

But unlike "Spider-Man 3" or "X-Men: The Last Stand", this third chapter feels like an integral part of the series, and doesn't dishonor what came before. And upon my latest viewing, a thought occurred to me that completely changed my outlook on the film. A thought that, funnily enough, coincided with Batman's 75th anniversary, which feeds into what WB is doing with the Bats/Supes crossover. In order for this thought to make sense, a little background is in order. And don't worry, I won't take up ten paragraphs explaining it.

There are a lot of people who theorize that superheroes are a modern mythology. Our modern day heroes have taken the place of the Greek gods and demigods we once idolized in eons past. Just look at the parallels between the stories of Moses and Jesus compared to Superman, and you'll see there's some justification here. But while Superman may have the most mythic of backgrounds (and indeed, his has been built into a sort of American mythology), Batman's enduring popularity has given him a greater opportunity to become a modern legend. That derives from the fact that, unlike most other heroes, Batman is 100% mortal.

Joseph Campbell's monomyth, or Hero's Journey, outlines a basic story that all mythic heroes go on. Moses, Jesus, Osiris, Odysseus, Achilles, Perseus-all of them go on this basic hero's quest. They start from humble beginnings but have a part of the divine in them. They have an interesting relationship with their fathers, who are often absent yet come to define them. They go on a great quest, often of a spiritual nature, that involves slaying, taming, or resisting literal or symbolic monsters. In order to do so, they must confront some form of innate evil, descending into the underworld and reaching their lowest point. They will then emerge triumphantly from this trial, obtain a form of divine wisdom, and return to save their world, becoming a true hero.

The reason this basic quest is so fundamentally effective is because it outlines a sort of wish fulfillment we all want to achieve. We want to believe we have some sort of innate power, that will allow us to conquer the demons we all have and save those we love. All these heroes posses those traits, but what makes them so great is that, despite their superhuman natures, they are all innately human. While Superman often has this mythic aspect due to his human upbringing, modern society often focuses on his alien heritage and powers, saying no one can relate to him.

Batman, on the other hand, despite his billionaire status, saw his parents gunned down from a young age (a very real fear) and sought to master his rage by becoming fear personified. He's a self-made man, with abilities born from physical and mental training. It's no wonder he's more popular and relatable in our cultural mindset. So on a fundamental level, Batman fits the criteria of the Hero's Journey better, since he's a man who goes on a great quest to become more than human to defeat his opponents. It's about a man so dedicated to an ideal that he becomes superhuman, despite his still present mortality.

It is this aspect that Chris Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy captures so well. "Batman Begins" captures the essence of the Hero's Journey, with Bruce leaving Gotham, questing to gain knowledge, and returning to save his city. "The Dark Knight" continues that theme by showing Batman's rise to become a demonic figure to the mob, even inspiring imitators. But it is "The Dark Knight Rises" that cements Batman's legendary in-universe status. And by doing so, celebrates Batman's iconic standing in popular culture, both in the past and future.

Think about the film's plot for a minute. Bruce begins the film a crippled shut-in. Batman has been vilified by Gotham City, while Harvey Dent made a martyr. Bane comes in as this mythic figure, spouting "no one cared who I was until I put on the mask", and talking of how he was born and molded in darkness. Bruce tries becoming Batman again, hoping to recapture his legendary status, but secretly wishing for death as he is without a true purpose. Then Bane utterly breaks him, stuffs him in a literal pit, and proceeds to dismantle all of Batman's good work by demystifying the legend of Harvey Dent, exposing his corruption.

So as we begin the film, Batman is made profoundly mortal while Bane and a post-mortem Harvey Dent are like modern myths. But over the course of the film, Dent is brought down to humanity again thanks to Bane, who also cripples Bruce to utterly remind him of his mortality. Bruce then rebuilds himself in prison, learning of Bane's mythic origins, and then ascends the Pit and returns to Gotham to save it. This is 100% Joseph Campbell in its execution, building Bruce back up from a man to a myth. It also fulfills the promise of "Batman Begins", where Ras Al Ghul told Bruce he'd become legend if he devoted himself to an ideal.

Bruce returns to Gotham, now fully Batman again, and utterly destroys Bane. He damages Bane's mask, exposing him to pain, and giving him a weakness. With this, Bane can now taste the mortality he gave Bruce. He is simply a man, not a myth. And then Talia comes in, revealing Bane never climbed out of the Pit. Many fans hated this revelation, as it removed Bane's "cool" factor and seemingly made him subservient. First of all, Bane's final actions defied Talia's direct orders, meaning he was never a lackey.

Second of all, Bane's demystification is the entire point. As Bruce ascends from man to myth, Bane is knocked down from myth to man. He's made a mortal with mortal feelings, in this case love for Talia. And once he's defeated by Batman and his myth unmade, he's rendered fully mortal. Cue Catwoman and her mounted guns, to give Bane a swift end after he's served his purpose. Anti-climactic? Maybe. But earned nonetheless, especially since Bane's ultimate demise came at the hands of the very woman who betrayed Bruce to him.

And then we approach the end of the film, where Batman cements his own mythic status by sacrificing himself for Gotham. As Batman dies, Bruce gets to live, emerging once again as a man who can now find peace. But Bruce can only emerge a man because he's fulfilled his purpose with Batman. He's made him an undying symbol, a concept that's larger than life. He's become a true mythical figure. Don't believe me? Explain the statue immortalizing Batman, followed by Robin taking up the mantle at the end. That entire sequence wasn't a direct sequel set-up. It was signifying that Batman is now an idea, that can transcend one man because it's larger than that now.

As if that wasn't enough, think about all the apparent logic gaps people like to complain about. The back-healing rope. The flaming Bat symbol on the bridge. Bruce's mysterious re-entry into Gotham. His survival of the bomb blast. All these actions only succeed in cementing Batman's status as a mythic figure. Just listen to those actions and tell me that's not something a mythical hero would do. Or better yet, a comic book hero. Because despite the Nolan series' penchant for realism, what Nolan is doing here is ditching the logic for mythology building.

The eight year time gap, despite a new reliance on exposition, is key to this. It allows for a new generation to grow up seeing Batman as a legend, personified in Robin John Blake, who is ultimately chosen to carry that legend forward. All those logic gaps may piss people off, but it only serves to cement that Batman is now a mysterious, mythical, god-like figure who can achieve the impossible. In other words, you know that persistent meme that Batman can do anything just because "he's Batman"? Well, "Rises" is just creating a situation where that's true. Bane's takeover of Gotham leaves the people so desperate, they need a mythic figure to save them. Batman is that figure, and save them he does.

But the real key here is that ending, where Robin takes over the mantle of the Bat. This is actually where Nolan got meta, in the best way imaginable. That final scene is Nolan stating that Batman comes in many forms, with many faces. How many actors have stepped behind the cowl? Between Adam West, Michael Keaton, George Clooney, and the voice of Kevin Conroy, a fair few. And as we now know, the legacy will continue, good or bad, with Ben Affleck. And even if Affleck is terrible, the history of the Bat proves he will survive, and return in a new form, as all myths do.

The ending of "The Dark Knight Rises" proved both in-universe and in a meta sense that Batman will always survive. He has 75 years worth of comic books, games, shows, and movies to prove it, all with different tones, styles, and even characters. But if the revelation of "Rises" wasn't enough to cement Batman's mythic status in our culture, the upcoming "Batman v. Superman" film definitely will. The Comic-Con teaser showed an armored Batman lighting the Bat-signal on a stormy night. The signal illuminates a flying Superman, who turns on his heat vision to begin their fight. More than anything, this footage shows Batman as a mythic figure because he now has the means to take on a literal demigod.

As I've said before, Superman has his roots in Judeo-Christian myths, and the latest film, "Man of Steel", tried to emphasize this mythological subtext. But "Man of Steel" failed where "The Dark Knight" trilogy succeeded because it didn't emphasize its protagonist's human core. Clark Kent's entire human upbringing was glossed over in flashbacks, whereas his Kryptonian background was given a 20 minute opening prologue. Zach Snyder tried to make us care for Clark when he had him kill Zod to protect a human family.

Obviously the intention was to show Clark putting his adopted race over his mother race. But if the Zod fight just destroyed a city, and Clark made no attempt to even show concern, can we really buy he's on our side? Snyder was so focused on making Superman's powers and alien background cool that he forgot it's the human side of him that gives him his power. He realized it too late, and forgot to reinforce it. Thus while both MoS and TDK focused on their hero's legendary status, "Rises" succeeded by showing Bruce's human failings, while "Man of Steel" did not. Nolan gave us the man so when he was made a myth, it was earned. Snyder tried giving us the myth we all wanted, but without showing us the man first, it felt hollow.

So how can this be corrected in the sequel? Well, if you want to truly mystify Superman, you have to do the same thing that Nolan did to Batman. And I don't mean make his mythos dark and gritty. I mean focus on the human element first, for in that lies the key to creating a myth. Mythic heroes come from emphasizing their humanity, so people can root for them when they do something heroic. Now that Superman (in-universe and in a meta context) is hated for the Zod fight, Batman will come in to knock him down a peg. To prove gods can bleed. A mortal going against an immortal, to prove he can be hurt. That's the stuff that myths are made of.

Now that "Rises" proved and celebrated Batman's mythic status, "BvS" will cement it and further it by having these two titans of comic book culture square off. In doing so, Batman will show he's worthy of being superhuman despite his mortality, while Superman will prove his own humanity despite his alien gifts. As for Wonder Woman and the inevitable Justice League? Diana literally comes from Greek mythology. She'll be there to help Superman and Batman form a modern Greek pantheon, that being the League. And with Batman proving his worth to this pantheon, he'll be made a literal demigod, proving without a doubt his new mythic status.

If done right, "BvS" will not only continue elevating Batman's mythos, but prove DC characters in general are worthy of their god-like status as well, in more ways than just showing off their powers. But even if the film fails, we at least know that Batman himself will endure. He's endured for 75 years, and will continue to do so. The comics proved that. The films have now proved that. And the legacy of the Bat will still prove it, another 75 years from now and for decades thereafter.

Comics To Film: The Downside of Synergy

San Diego Comic Con 2014 is only one week away. And yet, this past week has seen a huge upsurge in comic book news. News that's come through the most unlikely of avenues. If I told you ten years ago that major comic and comic movie news would come through The View, the Colbert Report, and Entertainment Weekly, you'd probably haul me away in a straight jacket. And yet this week alone, we not only got our first official photos and plot points for Avengers: Age of Ultron, but major comic announcements that Thor will now be a woman and the Falcon will become the new Captain America.

Now keep in mind, shake-ups to the status quo happen in mainstream comics all the time. In fact, they happen pretty much every few months, as a way to gain new readers. But what's so perplexing about these latest announcements are that Marvel, and their parent company Disney, are using major talk shows to break the news. That means they want an audience, one that spreads far beyond your typical Tuesday afternoon comic shop crowd. In short: Disney/Marvel want casual readers and moviegoers to pay attention to these new developments. But what's the point, especially since we know these changes won't last in the long run? The point, true believers, is that there's an ulterior motive here.

Let's consider what we know about the current state of the Marvel and DC films and their comic book counterparts. DC rebooted their entire line up a few years back with the New 52, creating changes not only to superhero costumes but their personal histories as well. Compare Henry Cavill's Man of Steel suit to the Superman suit from the New 52. Then take into account how the direct-to-DVD animated films DC are making are now adapting New 52 story arcs (Justice League War and the upcoming Throne of Atlantis). Look at the few real announcements we know about Batman v. Superman, and you'll see how Cyborg and Aquaman, two of the founding New 52 Justice Leaguers, are set to appear. From where I'm standing, it sounds like DC's New 52 reboot was a way to streamline their continuity, not so much for new readers, but to have a readily available source to draw from for animated and live action films.

But that's nothing compared to the synergy between Marvel films and comics, since no one can question they pretty much run the superhero film genre right now. The Spider-Man comics had a year long arc where arch foe Doctor Octopus swapped brains with Peter Parker, taking over his body. While there was a fan outcry at first, readers generally warmed up to Spider-Ock and found some of the best told Spider-Man comics in years. Then when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 hit theaters, Peter got his body back. Coincidence? More like an attempt to create synergy with the films to draw in new readers. Peter even fights Electro upon returning, with the villain now revamped to look like his film counterpart.

Then we have the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Several websites have run a rumor that Marvel is "disowning" the FF due to their rivalry with Fox. While this doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, we do know that the Fantastic Four books are being cancelled in favor of properties that Disney can directly adapt. Look at the image at the top of the page, and you'll find no Fantastic Four anywhere (no, the flaming guy is not the Human Torch). We don't even see fan favorite Wolverine. That could have something to do with Marvel's heavily publicized Death of Wolverine story arc, which is posed to finally kill off the character.

Barring the fact that this probably won't last long (what superhero death ever does?), this not only removes Logan from Marvel's roster for a while, but conveniently provides a story that Fox could potentially adapt into their X-Men films. Face it, Hugh Jackman won't be around forever. He's already played the character seven times, and is poised to do it again for another X film and solo Wolverine film. Could Wolverine 3 adapt this Death story, to write Jackman out of the pictures? It's a strong possibility.

And while this move on Marvel's part doesn't really impact what Fox does creatively with X-Men and FF, it seems like Disney is strategically positioning the characters it owns film rights to in favor of those it doesn't. Spider-Man is the exception, since Spidey is still the face of Marvel and Disney has a favorable relationship with Sony. Marvel's upcoming comic event Spider-Verse unites every version of Spidey from parallel dimensions. Sony could end up using this in future films if they are indeed putting their Spidey series in limbo, after ASM2's under performance. Opening up multiple Spider-Men would be an easy way to recast and reboot the character on film, while not exactly disavowing what came before.

So if Marvel is indeed pushing X-Men and FF aside in favor of their other characters, then this new initiative exists to give consumers a taste of what's coming in the films. Why else use the View, Colbert, and Entertainment Weekly to highly publicize changes to the comic book canon? The fact of the matter is, MCU mainstays like Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth won't be around forever. If the franchise is to continue without them but keep their continuity going forward, others must take up the mantle. So how do you reboot Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor without actually rebooting them? Well, if you've highly publicized that comics Thor will now be a woman, and Cap will now be Falcon (just introduced in the Winter Soldier film) then it's easy to assume these characters are being pitched as replacements for the films.

As for the still Tony Stark Iron Man? The upcoming Superior Iron Man comics mention Tony will be going in a darker, more cynical direction. That doesn't sound like somewhere RDJ would like to go, should he continue playing the character. And yet, in Entertainment Weekly's Age of Ultron scoop, they mention how Ultron is the corrupted leader of Tony's Iron Legion drone army. Ultron has a personality modeled after Stark's, specifically his cynicism. Could the events of Age of Ultron lead Tony on a path to becoming the Superior Iron Man they're now pushing in the comics? I don't want to say "never", but given the amount of publicity, it could very well happen.

"But wait!" you cry. "Isn't this all just circumstantial? Where's the real proof?" Well, look again at the top image. What do you notice? Aside from the changes to the Big 3, we have Winter Soldier and Deathlok, both inducted into the MCU this year. Then we have Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, and Ant-Man, all set to make their cinematic debuts in the next few years. That leaves Angela, Thor's new sister, and the Inhumans Medusa and Inferno. The Inhumans are heavily rumored to be a property the MCU wants to adapt, and given their cosmic ties and the ongoing Thanos arc, they could easily squeeze their way into one of the now six empty slots in the Phase 3 release schedule. And if Angela is getting this much exposure, she could find her way into a new Thor film, maybe as a way to shake up the Thor/Loki dynamic. Also, keep in mind that should FemThor and FalconCap catch on, it would expand the MCU's diversity, drawing in an even wider film-going audience.

So it seems that mainstream comics now exist to provide synergy with their films. Why is that a big deal? People always seem to get angry at bad adaptations. But good or bad, the people making these adaptations realize they're drawing from a different medium. In this case, comic books. And while comics and films thrive off visuals, their mediums are still different. Films are meant, in their most basic function, to be mainstream, so they can entertain a wide audience. Comics may have a stigma of only catering to teenage boys, but the best can deliver sophisticated stories that are specifically anti-mainstream. There's a reason that some of the greatest comic stories ever made came from the counterculture movement of the '60s and '70s, at a time when mainstream media (like the Adam West Batman TV show) was largely schlock catering to the masses.

Comic book adaptations started getting good when filmmakers saw the innovative stories comics were willing to publish. Stories some film producers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Recall the decade long battle to get a dark and gothic Batman film made, after mainstream culture had written the character off as campy due to Adam West. None of them read the then current Batman comics, where Frank Miller's Year One and Dark Knight Returns made him a dark avenger of the night. Those comics inspired the tone of Tim Burton's first Batman film, and then years later, the story of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Comics have always been at their best when they go against the grain, and if the stories are written well enough and become popular, Hollywood will come knocking. The problem now is that since comics and comic fandom has entered the cultural zeitgeist, comics (at least the mainstream Marvel and DC) don't get opportunities to tell innovative stories anymore. Comics have gone from anti-mainstream to mainstream itself, all because of the popularity of the movies. So to cater to that mainstream audience, publishers are using comics as either tie-ins or pitches for adaptations.

Now I admit, sometimes a popular adaptation can be a boon to comics. Look at the exposure the D-List Guardians of the Galaxy title is getting now. Look at the upcoming animated Big Hero 6 movie. Remember what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man, or how Bruce Timm and Paul Dini canonized Harley Quinn, a creation for an animated Batman show. But while that's all well and good, the sheer wealth of superhero films means the very concept has now transcended the comic medium. It's now a film genre, one that's bringing in millions at a time. So to keep the film genre going, comics are tying in, hoping for more exposure and more readership. While I understand this need, especially from a business standpoint, it's not going to help comics grow as a medium.

Like I said before, films and comics are two entirely different mediums of entertainment. And as such, they play by different rules. These rules may constrict both mediums at times, but they give each one their own distinct identity. To force the rules of cinema on a print medium like comics will only limit them, not find them more exposure. You can look at making Thor a woman or Captain America black as a risk, but it's a gimmick meant for increased readership, not an innovative story. As controversial as the Spider-Man/Doc Ock swap was, that was an interesting, comic-based story that allowed the franchise to explore brand new territory. And it wasn't meant as a movie tie-in, given that the minute a new film came out, the series reverted to status quo.

It's not wrong to make comics that cater to a wide audience. But that doesn't mean their stories should exist only as gimmicks. Because while retailers might sell a lot of first issues, casual fans won't suddenly become hard core comic geeks. They go to the movies or watch the shows for a superhero fix. Wikipedia will fill in the gaps if they're that curious about the source. History has proven that comics thrive when the mainstream isn't paying attention to them.

We look at how Netflix and HBO have given birth to niche audiences for unique genre shows. Comics work the same way. It's great to have comics accepted and embraced by the mainstream, but once they start catering to just casual fans instead of real comics fans, the stories wind up short. Comics may exist to sell, but if, like movies, they're treated as merely products, then they'll suffer from the same creative drought everyone believes Hollywood is currently stuck in.

Just look at the comics of the '90s, with their shiny variant covers and uber-violent pandering to the grunge era. The Death of Superman arc makes news headlines, everyone thinks comics can sell to casual audiences, and then the industry nearly goes bankrupt. Before you know it Marvel has to sell their characters' film rights to keep themselves afloat, and you have the situation we're in now where we can't have a true Marvel Cinematic Universe. The point is, no one benefits when publishers try to make comics appealing to the lowest common denominator. The superhero genre may have gone mainstream, but the comics medium itself is still for a niche audience. Making announcements on the View will not change that.

Now does this mean I think comics should only cater to uber nerds? Far from it. As I've said, comics provide a medium where a lot of sophisticated stories can be told, for anyone of any age group. And if a publisher wants to heavily promote a comic they think is a game changer, I say full speed ahead. I applaud attempts to introduce casual fans to the wonders of comics. I myself got into them through the movies, with Sam Raimi and Chris Nolan showing me the wonders of Spider-Man and Batman.

But a good comic should stand on its own, and be appealing enough that casual and long-time readers can get into it. A good story has that power. A story made as a marketing gimmick, solely to tie in to a popular film, doesn't have that effect. And that doesn't mean licensed comics, like Dark Horse's Star Wars books, are complete crap too. It just means the best comics should focus simply on good storytelling, instead of specifically manufacturing books for an audience that probably won't even care to read them.

Comic adaptations may be the "it" genre right now, but they won't be forever. They'll fade just as any other genre has. But the comics themselves will go on, and keep finding new ways to push storytelling forward with its unique medium. This year's 75th anniversary for Batman comics is proof of that. Synergy between comics and film can be a wonderful thing, but it can also lead to ruin for one or both mediums. But if nothing else, at least we get San Diego Comic Con out of it next week.

Consider the Fourquel

Independence Day may have come and gone, but Fourth of July weekend continues. So in honor of all things "four", I'm asking myself a grueling question. Why oh why do movie four-quels suck? Let's backtrack for a bit. Many moons ago, I made a three-part rant about film trilogies. Specifically, the studio obsession with making them. Studios seem to love the number 3. So what on God's green Earth would ever possess them to make a fourth? Most trilogy closers aren't even done right, and yet filmmakers add more on anyway.

In my past rant, I did talk about franchises going beyond trilogies. I talked of the filmmakers thinking, for whatever reason, that their series still had potential for further stories. Ultimately, that's the reasoning behind most four-quels (besides the obvious money). I'm not here to talk about exactly WHY four-quels are made, so much as HOW. And by that I mean, how does one approach a fourth chapter in a film series? To be honest, there's no right way to do a four-quel. There are plenty of wrong ways, as history's proven. Exactly why is that? What is it about trying to execute a fourth chapter that almost universally leads to suckage? If we look at the four-quels we actually have, we may find the answer.

Now when I say "four-quel", I don't necessarily mean it's the fourth film in the series chronologically. I'm talking the fourth film released, meaning reboots and prequels aren't off the table. This is important to understand, because it's key to the thinking that goes into four-quels. Even when a four-quel is a sequel to prior films, it functions similarly to a soft reboot. That is the key to most four-quels sucking. Still don't follow? Allow me to explain.

Consider the trilogy. As outlined in my three-part rant, there's something appealing about franchises that come in 3 to filmmakers. It ultimately comes down to the fact that a good trilogy functions as one long movie. The reason for this is because individual films often have a three-act structure. Act One introduces the characters and the world. Act Two puts the characters in some kind of conflict. Act Three resolves the conflict and shows the characters going through a profound change.

If one approaches a trilogy like one long movie, then each film is like one of three acts. Hence, Movie One is the intro, Movie Two the rising conflict, and Movie Three the climax/conclusion. It's appealing to studios because it allows maximum franchise potential while (if done correctly) providing emotional heft. The three act structure as outlined is like a simplified form of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey, a theory where all myths and legends can be boiled down to a basic formula. It's reused so much because it appeals to our basic human nature, to undergo a challenge and emerge the better for it. This is why trilogies like Lord of the Rings and the original Star Wars are so powerful, because they tell a basic hero's journey over the natural course of three films.

So, by the end of part 3, we have an airtight conclusion to our conflict. Audiences feel they've gone on this great journey with these characters, and have gotten a proper goodbye. But because everyone's gone to see the finale, studios look at the money rolling in and decide a fourth film is "required". Except that in terms of story, it often isn't. This is because the story naturally came to an end in part 3. Or even worse, a standalone story was stretched into a trilogy, and by the end it's been creatively milked to near-death (cough cough *Matrix/Pirates* cough). If a trilogy is a single entity told in three parts, then if a fourth film is attempted, it's the equivalent of making a follow-up after a logical conclusion.

It's why most people feel a fourth film is when a franchise "milks it" or "jumps the shark". Or, in Indiana Jones's case, "nukes the fridge." A fourth film isn't natural, often an unnecessary add-on to an already great (or at least semi-decent) trilogy. Filmmakers are often aware of this, so they come up with multiple options. Option one: your "trilogy" is really a series of loosely connected standalone stories. As such, it's relatively easy to make a fourth film that's a direct sequel, because the series doesn't have an over-arcing narrative.

Examples include Lethal Weapon, Shrek, Jaws, the original Superman and Batman films, Rambo, Indiana Jones, and any horror franchise ever made. The problem here is that a loosely connected film series often adheres to a story formula. Indy goes after a magical artifact. John McClane fights terrorists in X location. After four films this formula gets tired, especially since each film often expands said formula.

Think of the backlash to the nuked fridge in Indy. After rolling boulders, crashing planes, and falling tanks, Spielberg tops this basic formula by having Indy survive a nuke inside a lead-lined fridge. The basic formula, in an attempt to top itself, has gotten so silly it alienates the audience. As such, no one can get into it. For a more recent example, see Transformers: Age of Extinction, although that gets into another four-quel option.

This option follows a trilogy with an over-arcing narrative, ending with part 3. So for part 4, the filmmakers try to justify its existence by engineering a brand new story arc, often to start a new (what else?) trilogy. Filmmakers love the trilogy structure so much that if more films are made, they'll often either come as a trilogy or with the intention of making one. Examples include the aforementioned Age of Extinction, The Bourne Legacy, Alien: Resurrection, Terminator: Salvation, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Pirates 4, Star Wars Episode I, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

Star Wars and the Hobbit managed to spark actual trilogies, and Transformers 4 likely will as well. Pirates has yet to be seen, but could happen. Alien continued and Terminator will, but not as direct follow-ups. This is because the new arcs were too different, alienating the core audience with a cloned Ripley, future Skynet war, or a Bourne film without Bourne. So while the franchise is profitable enough to continue, the series will now go in a different direction. See how Wolverine Origins was so bad that the franchise was retooled afterwards into First Class, followed soon after by a proper solo Wolverine flick.

Star Wars and Hobbit managed to succeed due to the strength of their franchises. However, it's telling that their follow-up arcs were NOT direct continuations of the original trilogies. They were instead prequels, with arcs that lead directly into their predecessors. Star Wars is planning to buck the trend with a new trilogy coming out soon, but even that will have a new story arc and new characters to focus on. Often when a new follow-up arc is made, it will either scale back the budget to be more affordable (Pirates 4) or blow up the budget to outdo part 3 (Transformers 4). This will either give the new arc lower stakes and thus not seem as important, or make the stakes so high there's no human connection (again, Pirates vs. Transformers).

This is why most four-quels often become prequels. It allows filmmakers to work around the problem by literally going back to the beginning, or focus on new characters with new problems. But unless those characters are as compelling as the original crew, people won't care for them. See the Star Wars prequels for proof. The prequels also show that just because it's set chronologically earlier, there's still a temptation to make the stakes "bigger". As such, the lightsaber battles go from tense duels in closed quarters to wide open, acrobatic set pieces (compare the Vader duels in V and VI to the Darth Maul duel in I).

So, knowing this, some filmmakers decide that it's toxic to even attempt another film in that canon, sequel or prequel. This is where we get the reboot. Amazing Spider-Man, this year's Robocop, and the upcoming Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice are the best examples here. After a conclusive trilogy, filmmakers decided the character's next film appearance will be a reboot, because a sequel'd be too anti-climactic and a prequel unappealing. Thus while it's technically the fourth film in the franchise, it's not a true four-quel. This can either work wonders or backfire heavily. But if a franchise must continue, odds are a reboot will do better at injecting new life into it, while keeping the original trilogy standalone for those purists out there.

This however begs the question: "can an in-canon four-quel actually succeed?" It doesn't happen very often, but it can. And this is where our final four-quel options come in. Either the films are serialized enough that the formula won't tire out, or there's an over-arcing narrative that naturally extends beyond a trilogy. What do I mean by this? Think about Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Live Free or Die Hard, Rocky IV, 007 Thunderball, Fast & Furious, Star Trek IV, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

The majority of those films were part of series that didn't have over-arcing stories. Their success lay in their formula, which was so popular it kept people coming back in droves. Thus, unlike other in-canon four-quels, these films can adhere to formula without tiring out . But at this point, the series either had to refresh the formula and make it seem new again (M: I: IV, Star Trek IV), or offer entries that started an over-arcing plot (Fast and Furious). Bond is the exception, since it has the magic formula that keeps people coming back even 50 years later.

Harry Potter is the case of an over-arcing plot that goes beyond a trilogy, so part 4 is simply the next chapter rather than an unnecessary entry. It works for Harry, but only because it's based on literature. Most Hollywood sagas begin as trilogies. And for most of them, they stay trilogies until years later. Notice for Die Hard's case (and Rambo, Indy, Star Wars, and The Hobbit) the four-quel came at least a decade after the original trilogy ended, to build up demand for a follow-up entry. This is the case for next year's Jurassic World and Mad Max: Fury Road. Like the in-canon four-quels I've mentioned, they too are trying to set off a new story arc, bolstered by an entirely new cast. But because it's years later, the formula that seemed tired is now heavily missed, enough to send people flocking to theaters for part 4.

While an in-canon four-quel can work, it often doesn't. This is because, as I've stated, the four-quel either continues a now stale formula or starts an entirely different, often anti-climactic story arc. Four-quels are often made entirely for money, which is apparent in the way filmmakers construct them. Creative success comes from either embracing or refreshing the formula so it's not stale, or building a new, organic story arc that actually works. It's a lot harder than it looks, mostly because of Hollywood's trilogy obsession. And too often, successful trilogies breed terrible four-quels. There are some franchises that I'd love to see further adventures from. But until Hollywood knows how to get four-quels right, films are better off in threes.