This month's column skips the dreaded sequel for last month's (not much to columnize about me liking Jurassic World, other than summing up lots of hyperboles and superlatives, which makes for a dull read) and instead targets another very predictable topic, that jolly show called Game of Thrones, which had yet again drawn to a season close. Column: We Know Nothing, Jon Snow
We've arrived at that time in the series we knew would come sooner rather than later. Book readers no longer can say with certainty what's to come for the majority of story lines. The series has caught up with the various narratives in the novels in most cases and has even well progressed beyond them in some. Not to mention many of them have also been changed to such an extent they little resemble their literary counterparts. Only a few of the characters' stories are still behind, and a bunch of them involve people we haven't even met yet, and may not ever meet on the show. So what does that mean for the relationship between those who have read all the novels, and those who solely stick to the series? For one thing, the latter party doesn't need to worry so strongly about dodging spoilers, which also means the former can once more open their mouths in public without fear of someone socking a fist in them. It makes for a better balance between both types of fans, now that they all know who, when and what we're talking about and nobody knows for a certainty what's going to happen next (except for Mr. Martin, I should hope). The interchange of theories will now evolve along more equal lines, since both parties know as much, or more aptly speaking, as little.
Of course, book readers still know about the other possibilities certain characters could have had, as they had them in the book, and may take a hint or two from those, though there are no longer any guarantees. The only spoiler threat left for avid viewers/non readers now involves the new characters, like the already announced Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy. However, of these characters the only one whose story line from the novel is left mostly intact is that last name. The other two in the books already appeared much earlier in situations the show can't duplicate anymore, because the narrative of the characters they supported has moved well beyond their original point, requiring novel settings for their appearance, which means there's little tangible left to spoil about them. So even though book readers may know their Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy from the book, they won't know the new incarnations of these characters and as such anything they think they can spoil about them needs to be taken with a grain of salt (or in Greyjoy's case, salt wives).
Book readers and viewers no long need to be at odds, nor do they need to avoid one another socially. Instead, they can embrace in the shared knowledge that nobody knows what's coming any more on their beloved show. So let's go out and celebrate that new equality which formerly could be called adversity. Anyone feel like hosting a lavish feast in some great Lord's hall with lots of wine and song? If not, you've certainly learned your lessons from watching this show.
Hardly a fantastic trailer. Of course many things are still under wraps, so it's by no means a fair representation of the final product, but it simply looks bland at this point. From what I gather, it's supposedly an adaptation of the first few volumes of Ultimate Fantastic Four, which did deserve the moniker more than most FF stories I've read. It just doesn't look nearly as elaborate, grandiose and colourful as the story told in those issues, but more like a darker, grittier take on the previous films. No giant portal to the N-Zone, no fabulous barren universe ravaged by an anti-life overlord, no Mole Man with his monster men annex mushroom manipulations. Just a fancy looking device reminiscent of Captain America's soldier serum chamber slinging our quartet to a retread of Thor's Dark World, and then they get their powers and fight Dr. Doom again and bladiblah. I'm also really skeptical about the casting. Each of these actors has proven themselves on their own, but I'm less comfortable seeing them as this small ensemble. I'm just not feeling the chemistry. I know this is the 21st Century and I shouldn't think in such reactionary terms, but I'm particularly ticked off by the political correctness of casting a coloured guy as Johnny Storm, just for the sake of representation. That wouldn't be so bad per se, if Storm didn't have a sister who has still remained white, thus needing to explain it all away as adopted family. At least they had the guts to make their father black, which isn't the usual order of things (which rather tends to see white people adopting kids of colour). Maybe I'm just biased towards this entire project because it's only been so recently since the previous iteration of the FF. Kinda like what happened to Spider-Man, and look at how that turned out: chaos and mishandling of the character, and an eventual return of sorts to the Marvel fold. If that's what in store for us with the Fantastic Four, I'd say just skip a few steps and let Marvel handle its First Family properly from the get-go.
Sounds intriguing, but also marred by the same flaw that characterized the Prequel Trilogy: we already know the outcome. The mission was a success, the plans were stolen and the Death Star destroyed. Yay rebels, yay Rogues. However, it's not like every story of which we were familiar with the ending made for a dull film. Plenty of examples to prove the opposite, and who knows, Rogue One might be counted among them in the future. Not to mention, we get to enjoy the good ol' days of Imperial rule, when Darth Vader was still the exquisite bad guy we fell in love with in the first Star Wars film. Just no Jedi in this scenario, but that makes for a decent change of Force enhanced fisticuffs. I have no doubt a war movie type of flick set in that galaxy far, far away could make for a smashing picture. Didn't the grimy battles of Yavin and Hoth make for some of the finest moments in the classic trilogy? I'll admit I'm less keen on the opportunities offered (likely not so coincidentally) of a crossover between this film and the story of the new animated Disney show Star Wars Rebels, set roughly around the same time frame. If this is truly a standalone film, as we were promised, make sure it does indeed keep itself from tie-ins to other stories in different media, so the story doesn't become muddled with references to characters and plot lines we may not all have seen. Well, that's just the Disney way and we'll have to live with it, I suppose.
Aaarrrhh! That's right, me mateys! Tie that pirate to th' mast and squeeze 'im of all 'is treasures! Ironic that Disney would debut this particular picture first, as it so blatantly expresses the philosophy of milking the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise dry for every piece of eight the audience has left. Johnny Depp sure looks gloomy reprising the role (though admittedly, he's in character here) and I'm sure some second thoughts must have sailed through his mind when he experienced that injury on set that kept him from filming for a month. From what we know about the plot of Dead Men Tell No Tales, it follows the set formula strictly. A new supernatural pirate threat is let loose, Captain Jack Sparrow must once more team up/deal with the treacherous Barbossa and navigate his crew of butch buccaneers through the dangerous waters of the High Seas and rum abuse on a quest for some legendary artifact to save their sorry skins. Apparently, Dean Men Tell No New Tales, they just regurgitate old ones. Oh heck, it's probably good for a laugh or two, and I doubt anyone thinks this is gonna be inspired stuff beforehand. Javier Bardem gets to play an evil pirate, that's something worth seeing on the big screen at least. But few will deny Sparrow's shenanigans are getting old.
Somebody may have taken the motto 'Never give up, never surrender!' a bit too literally. Sure, Galaxy Quest was a great movie, but its story matter just doesn't seem applicable to a TV-show. It was a one-shot. A story about television veterans haunted by the popularity of that one cancelled TV show, finding the need and strength to embrace its legacy in defense of people in need of the help of their characters, and thus finally embracing the characters themselves. End of story. You can adapt that story into a miniseries for a limited number of episodes if needs be. But a regularly running multiple season show? I don't see that potential in this premise. Besides, it's a spoof of Star Trek. I would find it ironic to say the least a cancelled TV series would spawn a spoof series, almost fifity years after the fact. Though it does say something about the longevity of Star Trek as a popcultural phenomenon. But I can guarantee you, a Galaxy Quest series would suffer a similar fate as the original Trek series sooner rather than later. There's just so many jokes you can distill from Trek before people get it and warp on.
With every little bit of info released, the hype for this film is building. Though so far scepticism reigned supreme in my case, I cannot help but now feel a rising level of optimism as well, against my better judgment. There's only so much iconic imagery of the original Star Wars movies against the backdrop of an intriguing new setting you can give a guy before he breaks. That shot of the downed Star Destroyer just looked too cool to ignore. The first teaser lacked such sweeping images, but now that the release date is approaching, successively splendid shots will be revealed. Still, I'm not too high on some other old cards being played. An aged Han Solo doesn't get me nearly as excited, even though I love(d?) the character. It's just exemplary of the rehasing of old glory that's currently driving Hollywood, usually to lackluster results. Whether it will work for Star Wars is very much the question. At least Ford is still a capable actor we can take serious, but what of the likes of Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill, who've made a career making fun - lovingly, but still - of their characters of old? That's the good thing about Chewbacca or R2-D2, they don't really rely on the people inside them to convince us. So for the moment, I revel more in the visual effects than in the acting, but that's a Star Wars staple anyway. The old stuff aside, what to make of the elements new to the Star Wars series? A mysterious chrome Stormtrooper, a beach ball Droid, novel characters and locations we need to learn to love (or not)... There's still plenty that can go wrong, but I can't help but feel there are definitely things going right.
You gotta admit, this trailer is quick to make the statement most people will when they see it: 'you can't do a slasher as a TV series'. Doesn't stop this show from trying though. Being selfreflexive is of course one of the trademarks of the Scream series of movies, so it's good see this quality wasn't lost on the producers. But it's going to take spectators a little more than that to convince them to bother to watch this show. In all other respects, it doesn't seem to have much going for it, at least nothing the movies didn't show. Teens, murders, humour, that sort of thing. On the big screen, it worked well enough to spawn three sequels over the years, but on a TV show, even for a single season, you risk getting repetitive pretty darn soon. Unless the series still has cards to play this trailer doesn't reveal. Even if it does, as we are currently living in the Golden Age of Television, we have plenty of excellent programs to pick from, and I doubt many would opt for a slasher series based on a worn out series of movies. Unless it's raining very often and hard outside on those dreary afternoons.
Posted above is the actual trailer for Marvel's latest flick, rather than the teaser mentioned in my article. At the moment of posting, I didn't take the different time zones State side into account, so the full trailer wasn't released the next day, but rather a few hours later, making my bit of news redundant even sooner than I had anticipated. But then, redundancy is the key term for teasers of trailers anyway. Other than the true Internet nerds who will end up seeing the movie in theaters anyway, nobody will really bother to watch such teasers, certainly not the paying "general audience" as it has come to be known as. In my mind, there really is little point to crafting trailers into events of their own in this manner, as trailers are a means to an end rather than the end itself, which is the final film. Where will this madness end? Teasers for teasers for teasers for trailers for movies? I'm making a stand to put a stop to this. Give me a teaser, then a trailer or three and then release the damn film. Release a bunch TV spots too, if needs be, but nothing more in the audiovisual department. As for this full lenth trailer for Ant-Man, as is the case for Star Wars I'm progressively liking what I see. It's always a hard blow when one of your favorite directors - Edgar Wright, in this scenario - departs a project, but in this case, the successor took a hint or two in terms of humour, resulting in at least one hilarious Wrightian gag (you'll know it when you see it). Hopefully the final film will echo more Wright, though I wouldn't expect the new director to ignore his own personality entirely, that would be unfair to him. And even if there's little more Wright to discern, it's a Marvel film, how bad can it be? *cough*IronMan3*cough*
And it's not even about Game of Thrones. Though I couldn't escape at least mentioning that show, since it's the first thing on most people's minds when you mention these large wild canines these days. I must admit I exaggerated my experiences with the wolf news a little, as I did my fear for the safety of my friends in that region. It's the Netherlands, what could possibly go wrong? Small country, small catastrophes. And one wolf in 150 years shouldn't exactly cause a witch hunt by mobs in panic (though on a related note, that darn eagle-owl in Purmerend nearly did). Nevertheless, I found all the upheaval in the media and the reactions of the man in the street on the subject most intriguing. And since one of my colleagues already beat me on writing another column on superhero movies this month, I'd thought I'd address this subject instead (so you know what to expect for a column next month). How much difference is there after all in between consuming large quantities of one particular television show and one particular news item over the course of a matter of days? In terms of experience, it can be very much the same thing, as I found it to be. The news might reach the same highs and lows in terms of action and drama as the show, though of course, the news isn't scripted (though the way the media brings it might be doctored to some degree).
Of course, when met with a decent amount of viewer loyalty, the series is eligible for a second season, while the news is limited to actual goings-on of any interest for any follow-ups. Seems this wolf has had his fifteen minutes of fame and the show's over. Unless the wolf acquired a taste of the beautiful and bountiful Dutch landscape and decides to return. Fat chance. Whenever I go gallivanting around in Groningen, I'm always happy to reach home again. I doubt the wolf would feel any different.
Is there a point to this? Sure, the movie is 20 years old by now and thus it's totally time for a remake, reboot or whatever, by Hollywood standards. But why make a series out of a two hour movie? And not even a miniseries at that, but what the network hopes will develop into a regular running show. I simply don't see that happen, it seems there's far too little source material available for that. Plus, the strong climax of the movie is not something you can hold off indefinitely episode after episode, while revealing it would mean the emotional core of the story is done and over with and there are no more surprises left. Maybe the writers have thought of ways to flesh out characters and situations, but even then it just doesn't seem to offer much more than its premise. And of course it has to live up to its forebear, a movie many people already have seen so they know how it ends and what it's basically all about. Then of course it must survive being compared to the original movie in terms of visuals, which is also a tough act to follow (it was one of them wacky Terry Gilliam movies, remember?). There's just too many elements working against the series from its inception. I'm surprised it was ever made into a series in the first place. No offense, monkeys. but I just don't see this running for more than a season.
Looks like a charming indie-comedy. As a cat owner, I can sure understand the protagonist's plight. I would find it quite abhorrent, disturbing and emotionally scarring to find my cat shot with an arrow - though that is not a likely scenario in my area, you can never rule it out entirely - and the police not taking it seriously because it's "just a cat". And I know full well the natural duplicity of cats, their tendency to have relational affairs around the neighbourhood with whomever is willing to stroke their fur and give them a bite. So I can definitely relate to this. Otherwise it seems like a fairly trite but true concept: a socially awkward guy is shaken out of his cocoon by unfortunate circumstances that brings him into contact with a nice girl. Not particularly original, the stuff of many indie-comedies in fact, but sympathetic enough. I'm glad to know Fran Kranz is still actively acting, I haven't heard or seen a thing from him since his delightful performance in the brilliantly unpredictable horror flick The Cabin in the Woods. Sure, he's playing a nerd again, but that suited him last time, so I see no reason why it shouldn't now. Nerds, also a thing I can definitely relate to. *sighs*
Here's another thing most of us don't need, except for the people who'll just swallow anything containing blood & gore around Halloween. It's not like the previous Texas Chainsaw Massacre prequel was any good or worth remembering. I don't see why it would this time, as the notion of a teenage Leatherface doesn't intrigue me at all. In fact, I'm much averse to the idea of prequels exploring the origins of great villains in the first place, as it tends to demystify them more than benefits their persona. How often have we seen a film like this where delving into his younger psyche made the evil in question even more sinister? Why do we constantly need to be reminded that the monster was once just a guy like the rest of us, telling us we could all go down that route if we're unlucky? We have history to remind us of such distressing facts. I can think of no horror prequel where exploring the background of the menace helped sustain its sense of dread and frightfulness to the same degree it would have done without such a background. Darth Vader, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Hannibal Lecter, Dracula, all of their reputations as phenomenal villians suffered from telling too much about their past. And since Leatherface already underwent such a treatment, I don't see the need to make things even worse. Now that's the true evil only money hungry studio executives can cause.
Another production of which the validity can be questioned. Especially as a separate entity, rather than a retelling of the long story that preceded it. Now any comparison with the two Odyssey movies - one an undying classic, the other one, not so much - is inescapable. After all, this will basically serve as the conclusion of a tale unfinished for 30 years. Wouldn't it have made more sense to start from scratch? I guess the thought of actually remaking 2001: A Space Odyssey first would be too sacriligious even for Hollywood. That's a good thing, but it does make it harder for audiences to get a grip on the story, as I doubt that many are familiar with the sequel 2010 (1984). Rightly so, as it simply wasn't a very good film. But since there's no new material introducing this new miniseries, we dive right into a deep story that's been laying dormant for decades. We'll either to have to brush up on prior events by our own accord, or just roll with it. And I bet most spectators will go for the second option, just because they're lazy and they can't be bothered to check out old films. I think it's gutsy to produce this show, particularly so late in the game, but whether it's a smart move remains to be seen. No matter what talent attached to it (Sir Ridley!!), I wouldn't hold my breath on too stellar a result just to be on the safe side. But hey, if its fails, at least it's a miniseries rather than a regular one, so it won't leave us hanging in the dark of space as its predecessors did (and as the 12 Monkeys series is likely to end up doing, except for the space bit).
Wow, that was fast. Usually it takes actors quite a bit longer to admit to themselves they're not right for a part and drop out. It's both a blessing and a curse Bale left when he did. This Steve Jobs film is still early in production, so there's time as yet to find a suitable replacement. However, a solid actor like Bale leaving is simply a negative thing in the eyes of most people, there's no denying. Then again, the project survived both David Fincher and Leonardo DiCaprio calling it quits, and their replacements turned out alright. I doubt Danny Boyle is gonna depart simply because Bale just did. Maybe all these stars dropping out is a good sign to the studio they need to find someone less picky for the part. How about a talented but relatively unknown actor instead? It would sure help the budget. Looking at it in such a fashion, this is not a loss, but a great opportunity instead. And at least they still have Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak. Unless he drops out, too. And even if the project now fails entirely, we'll always have that lovely jOBS movie with Ashton Kutcher.
The situation remains unchanged. I have time to post news on MovieScene on a (more or less) daily basis, but the same cannot be said for my blog. Of course, you can question the validity of commenting on (old) news on a blog with only six followers to begin with, but my obsessive-compulsive mind won't let me do so. So I continue to struggle on this quest to catch up with myself, seemingly doomed from its inception. Whatever. I ain't the giving-up type.
Yup, that's a teaser alright. It offers only a glimpse into the story of this movie, focusing on the pin as a means of interdimensional(?) travel. We'll have to fill in the rest for ourselves, including the (intellectual) nature of the relationship between the young girl and the middle-aged inventor. It's Disney, so it will be pretty harmless on the surface no doubt. Then again, there already is a theme of juvenile delinquency present here, and I'm curious as to how far this will be taken. It's probably an 'unlikely heroine' case, where the world simply isn't ready for the misunderstood protagonist, while the oddbal inventor, also undoubtedly a social outcast, proves not all grown-ups are like that. And so they bond and have wonderful adventures in a weird and wacky wonderland beyond the reach of us ordinary mortals who pay to witness them. Not much of a 'wow' factor as of yet: as this is a teaser and most of the many expensive and complex VFX shots are still a work in progress, we have to make do with only a shot or two. Unless you consider a field of wheat a spectacular sight.
Well, duh! Seydoux, to my mind, is the quintessential type of actress to assume the mantle of the Bondgirl: sultry, sexy, undeniably talented, a hint of sexual danger behind her eyes and a succinctly European attitude. I am not surprised she's up for a part in Bond 24. I considered it only a matter of time. Just remember how well she performed in a similar genre movie like Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. I do find it interesting that her part was originally intended to be filled by a Scandinavian actress. Of course she is enough of a chameleon to play a Northern-European broad, I even have faith in her ability to pull off the accent convincingly (which is not an attribute I normally credit persons of a French descent with). It just seems a shame for all the Scandinavian actresses who didn't make the cut because Seydoux beat them to it. Could it be another example of Americans generalizing all European nationalities as interchangeable (as us Europeans often tend to do with Americans from different states)? I doubt that, considering the diversity in nationalities from the people behind this picture. The director for example is British, as is most of the main cast. And the director of photography is a Dutchman. There's a little bit of pride in me for that, I'll admit. As I feel for Mademoiselle Seydoux, who happens to be the granddaughter of my highest ranking international boss. So yeah, her intense performance in La Vie d'Adele was quite an eye-opener for me, and if you have seen that film (which you should have) you bloody well know what I'm referring to. That's not gonna happen in Bond 24, I'm sure.
I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. The LEGO Batman character seemed to work fine bouncing off of other characters in witty repartees, but could the arrogant superhero toy actually carry his own movie? And would that be a smart move, considering a new version of the Dark Knight in the flesh is currently also developed, played by an actor many consider to be wrongly cast? It appears to be a case of bad timing and it may backfire on Warner/DC. Or maybe the exact opposite will happen, because both takes on the same character are so stupendously different (at least, we assume they will be at this point). However, I'm quite convinced the sequel to The LEGO Movie should take precedence over this spin-off and ought to star the brick version of the Caped Crusader as a side character yet again, to see whether the joke's still funny then. There's something gratuitous to famous characters, real or fictional, being LEGO-ized. It's simply an easy gag, has been for decades (remember this one, from the days LEGO movie tie-ins were still a spanking new phenomenon?). Even now that we learned to get used to LEGO making brick versions of many a major movie franchise, those minifigure versions of the real deals are not supposed to be the stuff of major motion pictures themselves. I guess it's up to LEGO Batman to prove whether that sentiment still holds true, or whether LEGO itself has finally been widely socially accepted as an 'artificial actor' playing different characters itself, even performing roles that have been and still are played many times before.
Hardly a novel subject nor a novel approach. The 'reluctant buddy' team-up could definitely be called a staple this day and age, especially when one is gruff, rude and experienced (and male) and the other is young, rash and ideologically motivated (though not always necessarily female). The black/white motif is age-old as well. As for series based around the premise of superpowered individuals and their place in society, if any, we've also seen our fair share of those (The 4400, Heroes, Alphas). Gritty, grounded in reality, both room for cynicism aimed at and hope for the general human condition, check, check, check. Likely to be cancelled after a season or two, definite check. So what would make us watch this show? I like the casting choice of Sharlto Copley, he's not the most obvious actor for the part. Though he's best known for his comedic touch, he too often dabbles in distressing real-world scenarios mixed with a fantastic element (e.g. District 9). Plus, he has done grimy, dislikable characters before (e.g. Elysium, nevermind his overacting). So his involvement is a big pro. But is it enough to beat all the apparent cons? That remains to be seen.
Did two reports on the deluge of Hobbit posters in my previous post, don't really feel the need to get repetitive here. Especially since these four new posters are equally dull as their predecessors, and don't do justice to the epicness that is in store for us (supposedly). I like the characters and the actors portraying them, but I don't need their sweat, blood and tears so in-my-face. Unlike the trailers, these posters don't get me pumped for this final Middle-Earth movie.
Sure, considering all the fabulous quality series currently on television, let's explore franchises that failed to find an audience on the big screen for regurgitating on the small screen. Then again, there has proven to be a definite audience for the Resident Evil films, as the sixth is currently in pre-production. None of them are serious blockbuster movies though, they all carry a B-movie stigma. They're totally the stuff of guilty pleasure and everybody knows it; they don't have good FX, good stories or good acting, but the fanbase keeps watching nonetheless. Probably because of all the hot women involved, like star Milla Jovovich. I doubt the series' budget could afford her though, which means there's one less succesful ingredient present in the series. They can find another 'hawt' action babe of course, but the audience needs time to get to appreciate her kicking ass. And poor Mortal Instruments doesn't even have the hot chick element in its favour, but since it's aimed at teenage girls, a few hot guys will suffice. Apparently demon slaying Jamie Campbell Bower didn't fit that bill, since the movie flopped so bad (though there were many other reasons for that, too). I think this franchise has a better chance at finding a new life on telly though, considering there's plenty of source material from the books to mine, plus most people obviously never bothered watching the film, so it might feel more 'new' than it actually is. And the young adult genre is still going strong at the movies, so maybe there's still a chance the failed flicks among them find an audience on television after all. So we can "look forward" to series based on the likes of Beautiful Creatures and The Host as well, possibly. Yay...
Boy, am I glad that is over and done with. And not because it was so dismally bad as some would have you believe, though the finale did leave a lot to be desired. But so did the rest of the season, so at least there is some inner consistency. There's a lot to be said against this last season in terms of story, but there were still several plot lines and especially characters I continued to enjoy and appreciate. And in that case, True Blood at least can boast a genuine ending, unlike most other shows that suffer increasing deteriorating ratings and heavy fan critique. The greatest thing about this finale is that it does indeed feel quite final and the show was permitted a decent send-off in that regard, rather than face cancellation and leave us all in the dark as happened to so many shows (and a lot of them deserved better). We can now all close the Sookie Stackhouse chapter of our lives peacefully, as to my mind any show should be ended. Of course, there were a few story threads that didn't feel wholly resolved and more of those that I felt should have been handled entirely different, but there's few shows that even get to this point without screwing a thing or two up. Only two recent examples of shows that were granted a final farewell sprung to mind, Breaking Bad and Spartacus. Admittedly, both of those ended on a superior note, but they were much more coherent in their quality throughout their run, while True Blood from the get-go tended to meander between well executed plot threads and those less so, featuring both wonderfully charismatic characters and their barely watchable counterparts. We'll have to make do without both, from now on. No more Maenad orgies, conniving witch covens and endless droning about who Sookie will jump into bed with this time, but also no more shrewd vampire politics, stupendously supernatural situations and Eric Northman. Not every blood type variety of Tru-Blood proved as delectable, but I still regret having to return to strictly human beverages again after seven years.
Westworld's cast keeps growing ever more impressive. That is to be expected, as talent draws talent and when you've got Sir Anthony Hopkins on your cast list you can get basically everyone. Ed Harris for example. Good choice. He's had experience in both westerns and Sci-Fi, and has played major villains before, so why not combine the three for him? I am worried about this 'Man in Black' character, who's supposed to be the definition of utter villainy. Aside from the fact that I don't recognize such a character decision from the original Michael Crichton movie, I know this exact same concept didn't pan out so good on another J.J. Abrams produced TV show, which 'lost' its quality the moment this aspect started to dominate the series. Westworld does deal with the philosophical rhetoric of good and evil in distinguishing artificial morality from our own and reflect our all too human flaws in the process, but why make it so literally black and white by adding a purely evil character into the mix? And what part does he play narratively? If he's dressed in black, my first bet would be the infamous Gunslinger (Harris does look a bit like Yul Brynner after all). But he's not intended to be purely evil; he's just driven by his original programming after shortcircuiting, doing what he was designed to do (shooting folks), but without the convenient security of an off-switch. Or will this series maybe also delve with the poor sequel Futureworld, in which there was a silly sinister ploy of replacing world leaders with robotic replicas? Could this Man in Black be behind a similar scheme? Many questions abound, but the quality of acting won't be in dispute. It's the writing we may have to worry about. Still human work, you can't hire robots for that.
Ten seconds of footage, that's what I call teasing. And we learn nothing new about plot or characters from this clip. Basically, it only confirms Saul Goodman is once again played by the impeccable Bob Odenkirk, who perfectly balances charming and conniving for the part. So far so good. Reading the basic plot description makes me a little hesitant though. There's more than just a few major parallels between this series and its glorious parent, Breaking Bad. Both follow the rise of small-time everymen who turn their respective talents into a way to make money, but find their humanity degraded in the process, hurting those around them for personal gain. And both shows co-star Jonathan Banks. Big difference is there's no clock ticking here, as the main character isn't dying. In fact, knowing he won't risk kicking the bucket before long (or better yet, at all) might also form an obstacle for being sucked into this story as much as we were into its predecessor. However, it's too soon to let cynicism run rampant and state Vince Gilligan is just repeating the success of Breaking Bad by merely tweaking its premise for Better Call Saul. I bet he has a few surprises in store for us yet. And if he doesn't, I won't go so far as to sue him for not living up to my expectations.
Seems Guardians of the Galaxy hit the right accords in terms of connecting with the audience, considering its swift and immense success. No wonder Marvel seeks to expand the cosmic part of the comic book universe for expanding its cinematic equivalent. Inhumans might work out just right for them. It's a whole other thing from the merry, rogueish Guardians, these ancient super powered Terran outcasts opting for self-imposed exile from their home planet in order to keep them from butting heads with humanity which would lead to great loss of life on both sides. It's basically 'X-Men on the moon', which is a good thing for Marvel as they're not allowed to introduce the term 'mutant' due to potential copyright infringement. Inhumans is the next best thing, different enough from similar premises. It's a more serious, darker corner of the Marvel universe though, so that might not sit well with the folks who were drawn in by Guardians. Or it will, just because of its differences. Personally, I was never a big fan of the Inhumans, they're a little too ethereal and devoid of humour for my taste. Their long history and ties with both terrestrial and extraterrestrial life seems hard to tell in a two-hour movie in a way that makes you really care about their plight. We're gonna have to wait and see whether Marvel can overcome such hindrances and make Inhumans work a good as they did the Guardians.
News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.
Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?
The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.
Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.
Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.
I struggled for a while coming up with a decent topic (as those who are in the business of writing columns are prone to do), but when I had it, it quickly proved to be easy writing. Of course, I made situations appear more poignant and heartwrenching than they actually are in real life, for dramatic effect and poetic license, reflecting the plight of the many unfortunates who are forced into social silence just for knowing more than others. You might read my column as me saying people who cannot take spoilers are a danger to freedom of speech, but that would maybe be reading a little too much into things (then again... perhaps they are!). I don't have as many friends so highly suspectible to spoilers as you would be inclined to believe from this piece, just one or two who make my case for me. And even though I would love to just let it go and throw the truth all out right at them - these characters are all gonna die, yo! - I know better than to jeopardize friendships like that. Just as people who, unlike myself, are not spoiler proof have to learn to live with their disabilities by accepting that in these digital times they are often unavoidable, the rest of us has to learn to accomodate their shortcomings into our everyday lives and simply take such blatant personality flaws for granted. Pity them for their wilful lack of ignorance, I say.
A funny thing concerns the last paragraph of this column, in which I state that I might stumble unto wholly new plot lines not as yet addressed in Martin's novels at some point in the next season. Boy, did the writers of the show prove me wrong! Mere days after penning this column they already seriously digressed from the source material in wholly unpredictable ways which very likely will leave their marks on the act of reading the upcoming novel(s). Not only did the fourth episode of the fourth season change quite a few things on already existing plot lines, the show's ending was either completely made up by the episode's writer, or contained potentially massive book spoilers. Apparently the showrunners deduced that after the shocking events of last season, the majority of the show's fans would have taken to the books already by now, because they could not take 'not knowing' anymore when a written alternative was within their grasp, so they decided to start surprising that, probably fairly considerable, chunk of the audience sooner than anticipated by adding some true 'terra incognita' to the show. Personally I hope they won't continue that process too often over the course of this season: after all, even if only 10% of the next book is covered this way, I still prefer not to know what's coming my way in the pages of Martin's writing, even though I proved less concerned by such thoughts in the case of the TV show. I guess I'm not as spoiler proof as I initially considered myself to be. It's just the question to what medium these spoilers refer to. Televison spoilers? Whatever. Book spoilers? Shut the fuck up and get out of here!
An X-Men TV-show, why the heck not? In fact, why not try this years ago? There's so many characters, locales, powers and motives in the many decades of X-comics, the movies have barely even scratched the surface. Plus, the film franchise insists on a small ensemble of characters as the core team, while most other mutants presented are relegated to bit parts instead. A TV-show would be able to flesh such underused characters out neatly, while also keeping the franchise from becoming overly convoluted to the general audience, as the film series tends to risk just that in the next few years due to Fox's insistence on copying Marvel proper via excessive crossovering. That said, I agree with Kinberg that a show revolving around superpowered individuals is in danger of breaching budget limitations which always plague the realm of television. But these powers don't have to be so in-your-face as seen in the source material. It's not the first superhuman TV-series after all. Just consider the likes of The 4400, Heroes and Alphas, who in many ways incorporated everything X-Men would have to do, except they were lacking the big X-Men name to draw audiences in initially. Granted, FX on these shows weren't always convincing (Heroes far from it in fact), but the technology keeps pushing the limits and grandiose effects are getting ever more affordable. Of course, at its heart, X-Men isn't at all about the superpowers and the cool visuals, it's about the characters and the social commentary. We are living in the golden age of television, where such ingredients are almost a given, so that also need not be an issue. However, as with Marvel's current series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., audience expectations in terms of characters might be an obstacle to overcome. These days, thanks to the X-movies, the term 'X-Men' will immediately bring to mind associations with a very select group of characters, including but not necessarily limited to Wolverine, Professor Xavier, Magneto and Mystique. Considering the high profile actors, if not outright Hollywood stars, playing these parts, it's not likely these hugely popular characters will make an appearance, unless recasting is in order (which won't sit well with many fans no doubt). To me, Xavier is the only true must-have, as he's the guy responsible for all the X-ing about. Other than that, there's plenty of personas, protagonists and antagonists alike, to pick from. You just need to convince the audience quickly of the quality of the show and the characters involved before they start to miss those X-characters they've come to love. Of course, if the TV-show is running alongside the movies, things are different, and probably only more difficult to pull off in terms of making the show stand on its own instead of being a mere appendix of the movies. As you can see, there's many elements to take into consideration in creating this show, which is undoubtedly why Fox hasn't greenlighted anything yet. I think it's harder to make a TV-show based off a film series work than the other way around. But then, if Fox had started the franchise on television instead of on the big screen in 2000, it's unlikely the superhero movie (especially those carrying the Marvel brand) would have been as popular as it is today.
As for Magneto, I highly doubt we'll see either Sir Ian McKellen or Michael Fassbender in that role on telly. We will be seeing Fassbender in other capacities though, most notably as the popular titular assassin from Assassin's Creed, in the upcoming big budget movie adaptation of the video game. The project will reunite him with director Justin Kurzel, with whom he recently worked on an adaptation of that Scottish play, MacBeth. Considering Fassbender is also producing Assassin's Creed, he'll probably have had a hand in hiring his director. Such loyalty is a good sign the relationship between star and director is strong and effective and will likely spawn positive results for Assassin's Creed. Good thing too, as expectations for this video game movie are no doubt high considering its success on the game market and its recognizable name. Even though the "curse" on video game adaptations has softened somewhat over recent years, it sure as hell hasn't been lifted wholly, and any movie based on a game is still met with quite a lot of initial scepticism accordingly. At least the movie will star a solid actor we know can play any part including this one easily.
Here's another first for me at MovieScene: the review of a whole first season of a television series.
It took me a while to sift through all 20 episodes plus a bunch of bonus features found on this set, and the fact it wasn't a great watch didn't help much. Writing a review based on 20 episodes is quite a challenge, and don't be surprised if you find my review a bit short accordingly (I agree it is, but there are word limits to uphold, which is why reviewing a whole season can be called a questionable endeavour at best).
The show in question is called Revolution, an action/adventure programme easily recognizable as a J.J.
Abrams production . It cannibalizes Lost's
format of overarching mysteries set in a world where bands of people
prove unable to peacefully coexist in a fairly primitive environment,
coupled with flashbacks to what their lives were like before the events that brought about the new status quo and their involvement in
causing said situation, mixed with a bit of Walking Dead in terms of
stakes of survival and violence, though of course never as gory as that
show. Most characters appear like archetypal repeats of Lost too (there's even a fat nerd who used to be rich), though many of them aren't nearly as compelling as on that show. Revolution is passable television at best, but far from a quality show. Too
bad for its hopes of continuous existence, since there's many a more appealing series on the air
that ensures it won't be as enduring as Lost. I give it three seasons at
best before its own plug gets pulled. Still, nice to see quality actors like Elizabeth Mitchell and Giancarlo Esposito are
not lacking for work on telly.
All good things must come to an end, even Game of Thrones, like it or not. Setting a limit is probably for the best, considering milking it out indefinitely can only lead to a downfall in terms of quality. That said, with no more than four seasons remaining, there's still quite a lot of ground to cover. As the latest trailer reveals, the next season will already deal with a fair amount of chapters from the fourth book (and therefore also the fifth book, as those two coincide storywise). This sadly means a lot of material from the books will be excised for reasons of time, and that's a damn shame considering the many wonderful minor plot lines A Song of Ice and Fire that make up the rich realms of the Seven Kingdoms. Now that the show is rapidly catching up with the books, this also means that for a change the series might soon actually start to spoil the books by omitting story that ultimately proves omittable, even though we haven't yet come to believe that from reading the novels. That seems inescapable. Even though Martin insists he won't let the series overtake his work, fact is with a maximum of eight seasons the date is set: we can expect the ending four years from now. However, Martin still needs to finish two books, and from his track record we can assume he will need quite a while longer to complete those. Unless we're closer to the ending than anticipiated and the last two novels will turn out a fair bit thinner than their predecessors, which I'm hoping is not the case. I would prefer already knowing the end of the books from the show, but still staying able to get a rewarding reading experience thanks to everything the series doesn't tackle. If Benioff and Weiss get their way, at least it will safeguard the series from unneccessary milking and most likely the ever dreaded cancellation too. I was kinda hoping the show would have to resort to a break somewhere down the line because the story had yet to be finished, at which point a spin-off/prequel series of sorts would temporarily takes its place. There's plenty of material to cover after all: Robert's Rebellion, the Targaryen conquest, Dunk and Egg, etc. It seems that won't happen now, thanks to the showrunners' creative integrity. You don't see that every day in TV. Who knows, HBO execs might still overrule them. I doubt they care much about the notion of milking a show this successful out for every cent they can get out of it. And otherwise they can still do a spin-off later on. Wouldn't be the only contemporary hit series to do so, just look at Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead.
In the meantime, the new trailer continues to whet our appettite for Season 4 even more. The battle for Meereen and the unexpected shot of Braavos - I thought the latter would be kept for the Fifth Season - let us know we can expect quite some exotic new locales, while the intrigue between the many characters remains as strong and compelling as ever. And if this isn't enough marketing material, there's the Vanity Fair photoshoot, which is... something else entirely. All the actors dressed as their characters looking uncomfortably cheerful while standing at a beautiful rocky coastline: why do these fashion photoshoots always utilize such an odd look that seems woefully out of touch with the series or films they cover? Judging from the semi-hilarious behind-the-scenes video, the cast proves a bit uneasy over the photoshoot themselves. As long as the characters refrain from engaging in overly concordial behavior in the series, I don't mind. After all, we want to see them stabbing each other in the back and screwing everybody over, not happily holding hands!
Valar Morghulis: all series must die. But not today.
I hadn't heard of this new series yet, but I must admit it looks rather interesting. The beauty and squalor of Victorian era England, a time of refined culture, daring exploration and unapologetic conquest, the dark nature of literary characters from that period like Dorian Gray and Dracula, games of psychological misconduct and sexual manipulation, and a few good actors and writers/producers to make it all seemlessly come to life... what's not to like here? Maybe for some, the fact it sounds like an adult version of the film adaptation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which is a movie I, unlike most others, hold little umbrage against). As opposed to getting into fisticuffs with each other, in this upcoming Penny Dreadful they seem to jump into bed together and do the nasty instead. Or so it would appear, but as always, trailers can be highly deceiving. Just what these personae are up to and what the role of characters specifically written for this show might be all remains somewhat obscure from just this trailer. The show aims to be a mystery thriller serial (not unlike, say, HBO's Carnivale, which it appears to resemble in tone and mood), and in that regard the trailer delivers that aspect just sublimely. Whether the show itself will be any good is far too early to tell, but I like to think there's room for a gritty unusual terror/noir piece like this on contemporary television. And I have faith in the writers/producers, who have delivered mostly good stuff before (I'll forgive showrunner John Logan for his involvement in Star Trek: Nemesis, as he has redeemed himself with grand movies like Skyfall, Hugo and The Aviator). As for the actors bringing the characters and their strengths and flaws to life, they seem to be a mixed bag. Though I'm always pleased seeing sultry dame Eva Green, suffering Josh Hartnett's blank apathic stare on the small screen for hours on end is not something I hunger for, but I can live with it if needs be. And ah, Timothy Dalton... I sincerely hope this show will turn out as fascinating as the trailer suggests it will be, as the subject matter certainly has potential. In fact, it may just render that announced LXG TV-series redundant.
Good television series continue to be made due to ever growing public demand, and so the search for potentially profitable properties also drones on. While Game of Thrones is currently at the height of its popularity - despite its fabulous quality, you know in terms of success it can only go down at a certain point, and I think that's not far off, as there's little new audiences to be reached (except for paying ones instead of them dirty freeloadin' downloaders!) - rival studios won't sit still, looking for that next piece of audiovisual entertainment that grips spectators by the eyeballs and won't let go until the season is over, at which point it has proven so addictive that stopping the show would be nothing less than a crime against humanity. I doubt Barbarella will be that next hit. That is, if they stick to the campy, Sixties' tone of love and permissiveness established by both the original comics and the 1968 movie, which just seems to outdated. It's basically soft-erotic Sci-Fi escapism with a touch of surreal comedy mixed in. There's nothing wrong with that (far from it!), but would audiences be waiting for such fare in these darker, grittier times of crisis and misery, where serious and bloody shows like Game of Thrones reign supreme? Maybe I'm wrong and Barbarella will prove popular amongst mature audiences (certainly won't be a kids' show!) just because it's so cheerful and positive and silly, so it will be a great addition to the existing fantasy shows due to its different style. That is, if they indeed stick to the Barbarella of old instead of needlessly adapting her to the present times, which I hope they won't. With someone like Nicolas Winding Refn, a connoisseur of classic (or less so) movies if ever I saw one, at the helm, I doubt Barbarella will undergo many changes to her promiscuous personality, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Nor would the HBO-saturated audience that expects a fair amount of bare skin these days. But Amazon is not HBO, and would do well not to gratuitously copy HBO. Better the studio develops its own distinct personality, just like Barbarella has. If you want HBO, stick to Game of Thrones. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm as pumped for Season 4 as the next man, and I have already scoured this seductive little video for any new revelations it might insidiously offer. Not much of those, except for a first glimpse at Mace Tyrell, and the continuing promise of a badass Red Viper. Just ten more weeks until Season 4 premieres, sit tight! And HBO, please keep these videos coming to help us get over any signs of withdrawal...
And what could this seminal moment in the original 1984 Terminator movie from which this TV-series is intended to spring be? No specific hints have been dropped so it's all open to speculation. Personally I haven't got a clue. The sex scene maybe? Unlikely, as the new series isn't likely to be picked up by HBO. Maybe it's the scene where Kyle Reese gets killed, in which case he isn't this time around. You never know. Or maybe the Terminator succeeds in his mission and does manage to kill Sarah Connor, resulting in another alternate timeline. Doesn't sound so farfetched. Another thing: will Arnold Schwarzenegger be involved? He's said to join the cast of the new movie, but you'd think the TV medium is sort of "beneath" him (despite the changed social perceptions regarding quality television series). Either way, I hope he's not joining the fun. For some reason people can't separate the Austrian Oak from this franchise, even though The Sarah Connor Chronicles - and to a lesser extent, Terminator Salvation - revealed you can have compelling story telling in the Terminator universe (no matter which timeline) without the signature character that started it all. It's about time we were reminded of that fact again, since the Terminator franchise has so much more to offer than that guy going around chasing and killing people again. I'm okay with the Terminator being back, but let's stop dragging poor Arnold into this all the time.
A Sin City TV-show? Seems like the comic book craze moving from the silver screen to the small screen is already getting overdone, now "more prestigious" comics (or graphic novels, depending on your definition of the latter) are also under consideration for TV projects, after the news of more Marvel shows and a Gotham TV series broke. A Sin City TV show doesn't actually sound like a bad idea, considering the episodic nature of the original works, loosely linked to one another. However, there's only so many of them, and I definitely can't see this as a running show. A miniseries, yes, 10 to 13 episodes max. That could work. But beyond that, the visual film noir gimmick that drives it would feel exhausted and what remains would be mostly gratuitous sex and violence (HBO maybe?). Plus, what about the movies? Producing a TV-show on the heels of a movie implies a connection between the two. Will there be, other than Rodriguez and Miller also being involved somehow? It's too soon to tell. However, considering the success of the first film - already eight years ago, can you believe it... - and the anticipation for the upcoming A Dame to Kill/Die For (title depending on what territory you live in), it's hard to believe audiences will swallow a second Sin Cityverse so soon. This whole notion of Weinstein's to further exploit films that need not be exploited (The Mist, which is excellent) or that have already been fully exploited (Scream, milked dry after four movies) reeks of rampant sucking money out of past glory. Though any or all of these proposed projects might result in good television, there's no need for them other than studio execs wanting more money. Which is how the movie/TV business works anyway, so in that regard this news comes as no surprise. If we look at Dimension's repertoire, there's no doubt the possibility of series based on the likes of Piranha, Mimic, Equilibrium and Spy Kids too.
So basically, what Marvel did on the big screen is being redone on the small screen. Though the originality has worn off, giving several TV shows the same treatment, simultaneously setting up a larger universe that leads to a new (mini)series is quite a novelty, not to matter risky business. But hey, the same thigng was said about Netflix itself, so it comes as no surprise that particular "network" opted to engage in this joint venture. At the same time, Marvel is still cooperating with a regular television network (ABC) on the currently running Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a new show which has still to be revealed (but is probably that Agent Carter show which was suggested earlier these past few months). So Marvel is branching out on all platforms, being visibly active in theaters, on home cinemas and online. It's gonna be hard to miss the company it seems.
But will these TV shows be compelling enough for audiences? I foresee a few potential obstacles. First, there is name recognition. Daredevil people may be aware of, most likely through the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, which isn't a good thing since it wasn't a very good movie. But how many people outside the world of comic book readers are familiar with Iron Fist, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage? Getting people to embrace these could prove quite a challenge, so hopefully that Marvel brand alone is enough to pull in an audience for their shows. Secondly, there's the background of the characters, which in all four cases is rather similar. All four series will take place in the New York neighbourhood of Hell's Kitchen, so instead of battling outlandish super villains these heroes will fight more basic everyday evil, like drugs, corruption, organized crime and such. What's more, in terms of powers these characters aren't all that different either. Though there are some noticeable unique abilities, they mostly feature superhuman strength, speed and reflexes. At least their origins are rather different, but otherwise four shows dealing with the same subject matter seems somewhat redundant. Of course, the final Defenders climax could herald the end of one or more of these shows to balance things out more neatly, but so far it remains to be seen just how far Marvel and Netflix plan to take these shows. Each character gets 13 episodes, after that we'll have to wait and see where they go from there.
Though story and power diversity may not be as strong, at least the characters are fairly different in make-up, which could appeal to a broader audience. You have your heroine to appeal to a female demographic, a black character and a character dabbling in Asian mysticism (but who's not actually Asian!) to get racial minorities interested and a blind guy to engage disabled folk (okay, that last one may be highly debatable, but you never know). In this regard, The Defenders would be far different from The Avengers, which is basically all white males. True, there's Black Widow as a female role model, but she still hasn't gotten a movie of her own, while Samuel L. Jackson's black Nick Fury is only a supporting character that isn't on the Avengers roster proper but mostly overseeing stuff and letting the white people do all the real work (kind of an reverse Black Pete, for Dutch people). The core members with their own films, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America, are all white. Except for the Hulk occasionally, but there's no actual green people to be represented as far as I'm aware. In this light, the four Defenders can make quite a difference, even though they're otherwise not so different. Nice metaphor for humanity me thinks.
And if it doesn't work, Marvel can simply change the Defenders' roster and introduce new characters as they like. After all, the team went through quite a few iterations over the years, just like the Avengers did. As you can see on the picture above, none of the four Defenders you'll see on Netflix appeared in the original first issue. However, the Hulk did, so there's you first potential Defenders/Avengers crossover (even though using the Hulk as a character would probably be too expensive in terms of FX). And then there's the Sub-Mariner and Doctor Strange, both of which have been rumoured to get their own movies. Introducing them in these shows could be explained as testing the waters for a potential movie, or yet another TV series or miniseries. So many characters, so many possibilities and opportunities. One thing's for sure: whether on TV, in theaters or online, the future is gonna be marvelous.
