Possible MCU Origins for Ultron

As most comic book fans know, Hank Pym (a.k.a. Ant-Man) created Ultron. Since Joss Whedon said Ultron will have an origin without Hank Pym, fans have wondered how they will introduce Ultron. Many have speculated that it would be a damaged JARVIS AI from Iron Man. I have a feeling that we have been given a few clues to the origins.

WARNING - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER SPOILERS AHEAD

Let's start with the first movie that could lead to Ultron, Iron Man 2.  Remember the Senate subcommittee hearing.  Garry Shandling's character requested that Tony Stark turn over the Iron Man armor.

The government eventually gets the Iron Man armor when Rhodey turns it over.  Justin Hammer augments the armor to become War Machine and be operated remotely.

This leads us to Captain America: The Winter Soldier (AGAIN, SPOILERS AHEAD).  Garry Shandling reprises his character of Senator Stern from Iron Man 2 briefly.  He leans into Agent Sitwell and says, "Hail HYDRA," revealing the two of them are HYDRA agents embedded in SHIELD and the US government (also inspiring multiple internet memes).  While his character is taken in by the FBI at the end of the movie, I think he already performed at least one deed to help HYDRA in the future.

We can assume that since HYDRA was embedded in the US government, HYDRA has plans to the Iron Man armor.  Senator Stern was likely tasked with getting the armor turned over to the US government to help HYDRA.

There is only one planned MCU movie between now and Avengers: Age of Ultron, Guardians of the Galaxy.  I don't believe that Guardians will tie to the rest of the MCU outside of a possible end-credits scene.  This means that the world that we left Captain America: The Winter Soldier will be the same world that we see at the beginning of Avengers: Age of Ultron.  SHIELD is disbanded and HYDRA is a threat, and that is all that we will know (outside of episodes of Marvel's Agents of SHIELD) going into Avengers: Age of Ultron.  Many have theorized that it is a malfunctioning JARVIS technology that becomes Ultron.  At the end of Iron Man 3, Tony blew up everything related to Iron Man though.  Having HYDRA create their own Iron Man suit with AI would give Tony reason to recreate Iron Man.  A malfunctioning JARVIS technology is something we might see in an Iron Man 4; however, HYDRA is something that would be big and bad enough to unite the world's greatest heroes together again.

Back After Hiatus!

Having a baby can cause you to have a lot less time for fun things like writing blogs. My apologies to my regular readers! I will attempt to be more regular with my blog postings. 

Nightwing and Sidekicks in Movies

One of the recent rumors that has come through the grapevine this past week is that Nightwing will appear in the Batman vs. Superman.  I'm not a huge fan of this news and I'll state why in a little bit.  I'd like to first address why most sidekicks wouldn't work in movies as they do in the comics and a possible way that they could work.

I watch/listen to AMC Movie Talk and this was a hot question over the weekend on their mail bag over the weekend.  I would agree with John Campea, the host, on his stance that sidekicks are tough to have in movies.  The idea of a kid tagging along with a grown man doesn't really work in a movie outside of comedy.  Even the movies with sidekicks, Batman Forever and Captain America: The First Avenger, introduce the sidekicks, Robin and Bucky, as grown men (at least 18).  Kick Ass manages to introduce a kid as a sidekick, but it's in a humorous way.  They even state in the movie how it's not the right thing to do.

So, can we never see a sidekick in a movie?  Absolutely not.  I'll pose an example of how we could see a Robin in a movie, or at least my ideal story.  Dick Grayson is introduced as a 16 year-old who is part of the circus with his parents.  Despite his acrobatic background, he's not ready to enter street fights with thugs.  Bruce Wayne would probably feel much better about training him and then letting him make his choice at the age of 18.  So, Dick Grayson trains for two years and joins Batman's fight when it wouldn't be endangering a minor.  The name "Robin" could even be used as a term like "grasshopper" during Dick's lessons with either Bruce or Lady Shiva or another trainer.  Using this methodology, Robin is taking a path closer to Batman's, and it removes some of the morality issues that may be encountered with a younger sidekick.

Based on the idea of the older Batman in Batman vs. Superman, Nightwing makes sense in that world. Dick would be a few years older and had time to disagree with Bruce and step out on his own, no longer taking on the title of "Robin", the apprentice.  But, I think that is way too much back story to include in this movie.  Remember, this is a sequel to Man of Steel.  If they would like to go into that backstory in a standalone Batman movie, that's one thing.  There have been rumors of Nightwing and Wonder Woman, even some others of the Justice League.  I'm fine if there are minor cameos, but let's hope this movie is what it really is about: Batman and Superman.

Perks of Being a Wallflower

I know that this movie came out a while ago, but I saw it on TV a couple of weeks ago and thought it was amazing.  Perks of Being a Wallflower is definitely a must-see.

The movie takes place in the early 1990s and you get some nostalgia (i.e. mix tapes) from seeing it.  This is just one of the things that makes this movie amazing.  The movie touches many different issues that might affect teenagers in different eras.  But, the main story revolves around a kid that struggles with finding his place in high school.  He narrates his thoughts throughout the movie in letters to his friend.

Every young actor in this movie delivers great performances, especially Emma Watson and Logan Lerman.  Logan Lerman was so much better in this movie than his performances in either of the Percy Jackson movies.

The movie does get a little dark and sad, so I would suggest not watching this if you are a little down in the dumps.

+ Logan Lerman and Emma Watson are amazing
+ Nostalgia
+ Good drama with good issues
+/- Not really a good or bad thing, but some parts of the movie are a little depressing and hard to watch

Overall score:  90

Thor: The Dark World

So far, there haven't been too many sequels in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). We've had Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3, but that's about it. You could maybe count Avengers as a sequel, but that's a stretch. So, it was hard to say how the universe would fare in the sequel category outside of movies starring RDJ. Thor: The Dark World is very well done. 

I can't say that I enjoyed it as much as the first (one of my favorite of the MCU movies), but I enjoyed it almost as much. The movie has everything. Love story, humor, a good plot, and characters that are easy to love. The characters are may be why I have enjoyed both Thor movies so much. Thor's fellow Asgardians, Darcy, and Erik Selvig are all very rich supporting characters. Along with Thor, Loki, and Jane, you get to experience these characters perhaps more than the first movie. 

The one downside I saw to this movie was the villains. I honestly didn't care about the dark elves as much. I didn't understand them at all. It was a little disappointing as I felt Christopher Eccleston could do more, and the Marvel movies have had pretty good villains so far. 

This is definitely a movie to go see in theaters. I will likely return to see it again if possible. Make sure you stick around through the credits as there are two post-credits scenes. One is about 5 minutes in and might possibly tease a future movie. The other is both funny and a nice conclusion to the movie. 

+ Action

+ Best supporting cast of any superhero movie

- Lack of intriguing villains

+ Lots of fun

Overall score: 89

Carrie

I don't know that I've ever seen the full movie of the original Carrie. The remake was a good movie to see around Halloween (or any time of year) though. 

The story isn't the best and some of the scenes of gore and self-mutilation bothered me a bit. I had to look away a few times. But, the movie does have it's bright spots. Julianne Moore's acting is superb as always. The message about bullying is pretty good and fits well into present day. 

This is definitely a movie to watch even if you don't see it in theaters. In fact, I would say this is one probably better for a rental. 

+ Julianne Moore

- too much gore (personal preference)

+ good modern day remake

Score: 74

Trailer Park 10/31/2013

It's Halloween!  So, while you snack on all of your goodies or recover from a party, check out these trailers.

The first trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past came out this week.  I have never read this story in the comic books, so I don't know much about it.  I think the trailer looks interesting and there are lots of mutants that look familiar, so comic book geeks are definitely going to be excited about seeing favorite characters they may recognize.  From a general movie-goer point of view, the trailer seems a little confusing.  This is just a teaser trailer, so I'm sure further trailers will detail more of the movie.  It is exciting to see all of the old X-Men cast back alongside the new X-Men: First Class cast.  I look forward to seeing more about this movie.

I saw the trailer for Pompeii last night while watching Carrie.  I don't have high hopes for the movie, but the idea interests me.  Based on the trailer, it more looks like a Showtime television show than a feature length movie.

I cannot wait to see The Wolf of Wall Street.  The second trailer looks as great as the first...if not better.  I can sense multiple awards and nominations for this movie.

Movie Boycotts

Occassionally, you'll hear about a boycott of a movie for one reason or another.  The latest boycott is for a movie that is being released this week, Ender's Game.  It is a sci-fi story that is like Starship Troopers meets Hunger Games and Harry Potter.  Sounds good, right? 

The story comes from a book by Orson Scott Card written in 1985.  Since Card wrote the books, he has expressed his own views on politics, homosexuality and other issues and caused a good amount of controversy.  He recently was taken off a Superman comic book project due to the amount of backlash received from Superman fans and comic book store owners.  The boycott of the Ender's Game movie is also due to his views on these issues.

It is worth noting that Card is a member of the LDS Church and that most of his views are likely based on his religious upbringing.  I will also note that I do not agree with Card on any of his views.

While DC Comics eventually caved to public pressure I will agree with DC Comics' original statement regarding Card:

As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.

Fiction has always been about freedom of expression.  I have never agreed with the boycotting of books or movies due to their content or even the artists involved with those projects.  If I don't agree with the content and views within, I will likely not enjoy the movie; however, I will likely challenge myself and my personal views.

That being said, I have read Ender's Game.  The book was great.  I read the book prior to hearing about Orson Scott Card's personal views.  His views are not revealed in the book.  In fact, there are emotionally intimate relationships between Ender and his schoolmates.  I wonder if any of the boycotters have read the book.

Tom Cruise is a great actor.  I disagree with a lot of his views over the past several years.  Have I stopped viewing his movies because of this?  No.  Like I said, he is a great actor and I am able to separate his personal views from his work.

By supporting a movie, you may be financially supporting that person's views.  This is true, but how many things do you purchase in a day?  It would become exhausting to research the personal views of everything that you support.  Does every actor in a movie have your same views?  Do the writers?  Do the producers?  What about the editors?  All performers from the soundtrack?  Key grip?  Stunt men and women?  They receive money from their job the same as you do.  They can spend this money to support whatever programs they deem important to them, whether you agree with them or not.

Ultimately, the choice is yours to see a movie or not.  Let's face it, we all set priorities with movies and the personal views of actors, directors, writers or even the original work's creator may affect that priority.  Thor: The Dark World comes out the week after Ender's Game.  If given the choice, I would rather see Thor.  I want to see Ender's Game, but I'll be out of town this weekend and I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to see it.  If it doesn't last long in theatres, there is a likelihood that I will not be supporting it's box office numbers.  That's just the choice I'm making and it is not based on any reasons other than priorities and time.

Captain Phillips

I've heard a lot of great things about Captain Phillips and I had to see it for myself.  You would have a hard time going wrong by seeing a Tom Hanks movie anyways.  He's an amazing actor and this movie gives him a lot of room to show his talent.

If you don't know much about the true story upon which this movie is based, that's fine.  Honestly, I didn't know much about this story beforehand.  Outside of the movie being about Somali pirates, I had very little knowledge of the story.  Did all of the crew survive?  Did they catch the pirates?  I had no clue.

Every minute of this movie had me guessing what was going to happen next.  It was like living the situation in real time.  If you're looking for action though, this movie isn't for you.  This is more about the drama of the moments.

One thing that I found odd is that you don't necessarily feel bad for the pirates, but the movie does a good job of humanizing them.  You can see their pain and their struggle in the situation.  Their acting made me very surprised that this was their first movie (first acting job for all per IMDB).

Tom Hanks' performance is the one that took the cake.  The last ten minutes of the movie deserve a best actor nomination for Tom Hanks.  I won't spoil the movie for you, but the entire movie is worth it for those last ten minutes.

The movie won't win a Best Picture award, nor will it likely deserve it.  However, this is a must-see movie.  You will probably be okay waiting until video for this one, but it's definitely worth seeing.

+ Tom Hanks acting
+ Suspense
+ Unknown actors performing well

Overall score: 90

Trailer Park 10/24/2013

It's time for a round-up of some of the movies I'm looking forward to based on trailers I've seen.

First of all, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is coming out next Spring.  The trailer just hit earlier today and I have to say it looks AWESOME!  I love a good comic book movie.  Iron Man 3 was good, but nowhere near Avengers.  I'm looking forward to Thor: The Dark World in a few weeks, but the trailer for the next Captain America movie gives me some goosebumps.  It gives you just enough to give the basic direction of where they are taking the movie, but not enough to spoil it.  The action in it looks amazing.

Next, another trailer for Anchorman 2 came out this week.  The first trailer made me think that this would be a great sequel.  The second trailer keeps me thinking that.  It gives us a few more plot points than the first trailer and a few funny moments including Brick with a green screen.  Love it!  My biggest fear is that all of the funny parts are going to be in the trailers.  "Say whaaaat?"

Lastly, the trailers for That Awkward Moment took me by surprise.  Zac Efron, Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan combine for what looks like a great "guy" movie that the girls may enjoy as well.  It looks like it has some of that Old School and Wedding Crashers type of humor, but it might hide some "chick flick" tendencies under it all.  I heard this movie mentioned last week, but the trailer sold me.  This might have to be a date night movie with the wife.  Here's a couple of different versions for you.
The Safer-for-Work Version:

Red Band (NSFW):

DC Universe Movies vs. TV

If you haven't heard, Fox has picked up a new show based on the Gotham City police department. The show will likely take place in a Gotham pre-Batman.  This show joins a growing list of television properties of DC Comics characters on the small-screen.  Last week, Constantine was announced as a developing project for NBC.  You may remember John Constantine from the Keanu Reeves movie.  Arrow is a wonderful show on the CW.  While it doesn't hit the viewership levels of shows on the major networks, it is still widely popular.  This year, they are introducing new characters to the show including Barry Allen, a.k.a. Flash.  The hope is for a Flash spin-off series.  That's currently four small-screen shows possible in the next year.  I could probably talk about all of these shows in length in a blog of it's own, but this is movie talk, not television talk.

What does this growth of small-screen franchises mean for the big-screen franchises?  Will we see the Green Arrow and Flash of Arrow in a Justice League movie?  Will the Gotham City police show tie into the Batman of Man of Steel 2?

We're starting to see the crossover potential of the comic book movies as Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. debuted last week, taking key elements of Avengers and Iron Man 3.  Will Marvel's crossover test be successful?  Or will it ultimately muddy the waters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

I've already shared my thoughts that the Marvel Cinematic Universe waters may be a little muddy.  Honestly, I'm not fully on board for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  The show is decent, but so far I haven't seen consistency to the S.H.I.E.L.D. that we've seen in the movies.  It bothers me a little bit that the characters are supposed to be on the same level as Black Widow or Hawkeye, yet so far we haven't seen those characters on the same level as them (although the second episode improved a lot over the pilot).  It makes it hard to see S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Avengers movie and believe the organization is the same.  Either it's going to make the show fail or begin a collapse in the movies.  I hope I'm wrong, but that's just my thoughts on a shared universe there.

This brings me to the DC Cinematic Universe and television.  Will we see Stephen Amell playing Green Arrow in a Justice League movie?  Will we see the Barry Allen from television as Flash in a Justice League movie?  Is the back story from the Gotham City Police Department show going to lead into the next Batman movie?  I HOPE NOT.  These shows do, however, pave the way for these characters to gain a bigger following.  This increases the chances for each character to have successful films and a Justice League movie to be more successful.  Let's look at a possible timeline (not including all TV shows):

2012 - Arrow television premiere (Green Arrow - less popular character introduced)
2013 - Man of Steel released in theatres (Superman rebooted)
2014 - The Flash, after being introduced in Arrow, stars in his own show (introducing another character outside the big three)
2015 - Man of Steel 2 (Batman introduced to the DC Cinematic universe)

If we have a Justice League movie in 2016 or 2017, you don't have to waste time introducing a back story for Flash (because of the TV show), Green Lantern (because of the Ryan Reynolds movie...even as failed as that was), or Green Arrow (if he's included).  This means that the only back story that you have to build is one for Wonder Woman.  The other characters may have different back stories than their other incarnations in television or movies, but you don't have to re-hash that in a movie.

Television is a great way to establish a fan base for the characters outside of the comics.  You don't have to spend a couple of years of development and marketing for a movie that may or may not succeed.  If a television show is cancelled, it's not a big deal.  If a movie does badly, you've lost millions of dollars and it could take years to re-establish that character.  We may get the characters we love on the big screen much sooner than expected.

In theory, a shared universe between television and movies is a great idea.  It will be interesting to see if Marvel can succeed with it.  I hope that someday we have television shows that flow into the movies seamlessly.  For now, let's just view the DC Universe properties (outside the movies) as all separate entities on Infinite Earth's.

Kick Ass 2

I really enjoyed Kick Ass, the first movie.  So, I really looked forward to the sequel.  It had Jim Carrey and most of the original cast.  However, the more I found out about the movie, the less interested I was.  I found out that Matthew Vaughn, the director of the first one, was not directing the second one.  Jim Carrey refused to promote it.  Every now and then, there would be something that would make me less excited for the movie.  So, by the time I saw this movie, I had low expectations.

I would say it met those expectations.  I enjoyed the movie, but it was not nearly as fun as the first.  I hate when movies tend to up the violence when doing a sequel.  It usually means that the story is not that good.  I'll admit the first movie was very violent, but I didn't enjoy the violence in this one as much.  I think it was because it lacked the story behind the violence.

There is an extra scene after the credits, so if you see this, make sure you stick around (maybe).  It leaves it open for a possible sequel; however, I don't think I would want to see another sequel.

+ Hit Girl
- No story
+ Jim Carrey
- would have liked to see more Jim Carrey

Total Score: 62

Is There a Need for a Batman Reboot?

I had a friend ask me the other day about Affleck being announced as Batman. He said, "I feel like they should be waiting a few years before rebooting Batman again." I think that's a fair comment, but let's consider it.  We've actually known there was going to be a Batman reboot for a month or more now, but now that there is an actor cast, it's become real.

While Batman is being rebooted, we're not really seeing him in a Batman movie. Let's remember, this is Man of Steel 2. It probably won't be called that, but that's what it is. Batman is the antagonist in the next Superman movie. We also still aren't sure how big of a role Batman will have in the movie.

Still, it is a Batman reboot, however you put it in perspective. Let's look at the quickest superhero reboot. Spider-man 3 opened in 2007. I didn't like that movie for so many reasons, so I was glad they rebooted it in 2012 (five years difference). Still, it was a very quick turnaround. Dark Knight Rises closed out an amazing trilogy in 2012. While it wasn't as strong as the first two movies, it still was so much better than Spider-man 3. Man of Steel 2 is expected to release in 2015 (three years difference). The Amazing Spider-man was mainly a reaction to Sony about to lose the rights to a profitable movie franchise. If they could have had a fourth Tobey Maguire movie, they may have gone that way.  The reboot of Batman is a reaction to WB needing a competition to Avengers. 

The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy is one of the only superhero movie series to end on a popular note. I think that's the reason there is backlash against Ben Affleck as Batman. There would be backlash against anybody other than Christian Bale. But, ending on a high note and having a director and actors that are done with the series is exactly the reason for a reboot. Movie companies want to capitalize on popularity. How can they do that with nothing to continue with? Reboot!

Additionally, Nolan's Batman wouldn't work in the Man of Steel world. In order to have it work, reboot! Why do you need Batman though? WB wants something to compete with Avengers 2 in 2015. Man of Steel 2 alone will not do that. There is absolutely no way to do a Justice League movie in that short of a time. However, they can continue the success of Man of Steel and then boost it more with the success of the previous Batman franchise. 

I think the reboot and announcements of Batman are coming at a perfect time. They have stolen any thunder from Marvel character movies. Very few people are talking about Amazing Spider-man 2 (opening in 2014) or even Avengers 2 (opening in the same summer in 2015). Both have teased big things (casting and future movie plot lines) the past couple of weeks. Now all we can do is talk about the movie possibilities for 2 years, waiting for more news (can't wait to find out who Lex is).

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

Several years ago, I went to see Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.  While it wasn't a great movie, it was fun and I enjoyed it enough to start reading the book series from which it was based.  The first book was different than the movie, but I was willing to forgive the movie because movies are rarely like the books.  If you are interested in the books, they are like Harry Potter based on Greek & Roman mythology.  I love mythology.

I thought, due to the differences between book and movie, it would be hard to continue the series based on the books.  Then, they announced a sequel.  I even heard that it stayed true to the books.  It did right the course of where the first movie strayed from the books.  Unfortunately, it just wasn't fun.

About halfway through the movie, I wondered how much of the movie was left.  That's a bad sign.  Luckily and unluckily, they left out some of my favorite parts of the book.  Luckily because it made the movie shorter.  Unluckily, it may have made the movie more enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong.  I enjoyed some parts of the movie.  Nathan Fillion's role as Hermes was enjoyable, but not enough to save the movie.

I would recommend this more for children, but it's one you may want to wait until DVD to rent.  Don't worry about waiting through the credits; there isn't anything at the end.

+ Nathan Fillion
- Lack of the star power from the first movie (Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman and more)
- Lack of the fun from the first movie
- I got a little bored.

Grade: 52 (Not terrible, but I'm not interested in seeing it again)

The New Batman

Ben Affleck has been named as the new Batman to appear in the Man of Steel sequel.  After delivering hits for Warner Bros. like The Town and Argo, I thought that it was likely Ben Affleck would be one of the members of the Justice League.  I expected it to be Green Lantern, but Batman would be the only other character he could really play.

I think that some people may instantly think of Ben Affleck as Daredevil in that failure of a movie.  The director's cut is actually a little bit better, and honestly, I don't think the acting was the issue in that movie.  Let us also not forget that before Chris Evans was Captain America, he was the Human Torch in lackluster Fantastic Four films.  You can't judge an actor only by the movies that they work.  There are great actors that perform in bad movies and terrible actors that perform in good movies.

Zack Snyder believes in him (as he should), stating,

Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry’s Superman.  He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne.  I can’t wait to work with him.

While Affleck wasn't my first choice for the role, he also wouldn't be my last.  It may all come down to the writing.  The character has to be written and directed a certain way.

There have been many times in the past that Warner Bros. have put somebody in a role that most said was a bad choice at the time of the announcement.  This includes the casting of Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Since his performance, people will unlikely support anybody else playing the Joker (until the next one turns out great too).  There have also been times that WB has picked somebody for a role and people loved the idea.  I think people really liked the idea of Jonah Hex being played by Josh Brolin.  Anybody that saw that movie would gladly take anybody else for that role.

Honestly, I'm excited.  Casting Ben Affleck helps the star power of this film.  It also means that we will soon start to see other announcements (like Lex Luthor) and then production will begin shortly.  I'm looking forward to hearing more about Man of Steel 2.

X-Men & Fantastic Four Team Up

SFX Magazine had an interview with Mark Millar, comic book writer and the overseer of Fox's comic book movie properties.  Joe Steiner asked, "Will the upcoming reboot of the Fantastic Four share a universe with the future X-Men films?"  The following is Millar's response:

Without question I think you have to see some of these guys showing up in each other’s movies. I think the most exciting thing in superhero movies, until The Avengers came along, was when Nick Fury showed up in Iron Man. Even though it was a guy with an eye patch it was really cool – and I expect we will see more of that.

Mark Millar (@mrmarkmillar, unverified) then followed with two tweets stating,

I keep seeing 'news' that X-men & FF movies are crossing over.  No, they're not.  They exist in same universe but movies stand alone.

Note to the web journos: FF & X-men are NOT crossing over.  Existing in a shared universe does NOT mean a crossover movie, excitable ones...

What can we discern from all of Mr. Millar's comments?  The Fantastic Four reboot will be a stand-alone movie.  X-men: Days of Future Past will be a stand-alone movie.  So, how is it a shared universe?

Fox will no doubt want to capitalize on the success that Marvel has had with The Avengers.  I see both movies having stand-alone films and then the movies will start bleeding into eachother.  We may even see a teaser scene for Fantastic Four in the X-men: Days of Future Past credits.  Or we may see a teaser for the next X-men movie in the Fantastic Four reboot. 

I don't think that you can have a "shared universe" without having some crossover at some point.  It would take away from the story if you included X-men characters in the Fantastic Four reboot.  You have to introduce the characters first.  You can't just say that it is a shared universe without showing that somehow.

I think that we may see these characters showing up in the other's movies someday.  It would be in Fox's best interest to make the most with what they have, especially as we see changes in actors for some of the main X-men characters.  Plus, I just want to see a Fastball Special with Thing and Wolverine.

Jennifer Lawrence Gets it...

Understanding Katniss in the book is the key to portraying Katniss in the movie

During the 2013 Comic Con convention, the stars and director of Hunger Games: Catching Fire held a panel to discuss their upcoming movie. There were some interesting answers to some of the questions asked, but a few responses gave me a good feeling about how I can expect Jennifer Lawrence to portray Katniss Everdeen in this installment of the Hunger Games trilogy. 

Responses from the questions from the Comic con convention

Here is Lawrence's response to her view of Katniss in this movie.

"She's struggling with post-traumatic stress from the Games," Lawrence said, "and she has this new life now where she never has to worry about food. She's living in the Victors Village, and that kind of leaves her feeling useless."

Absolutely! 

In the first third of the book, Katniss is trying to find her place in District 12. She's different, everything is different. While she desperately trys to live her past life hunting the woods with Gale. She knows deep down that everything is different. Gale is now in the mines. Peeta hasn't spoken to her in six months. Now that she is a Victor, Katniss will never have to worry about food and now lives in the Victor's Village. 

As for the post-traumatic stress, we can see this too. Katniss can't sleep. Her only joy in winning the Hunger Games is the once a month shipment of food for the rest of District 12. Who can blame her. This hits upon one of the main overall themes of the entire trilogy and that is the concept that war changes people. Often times on the most basic, emotional, and psychological level. The book is more graphic and bloody than the stylized vision of past director Gary Ross.

  
Discussing Katniss's love triangle with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth), she continued: "She has to adapt to this new life. She's now experienced something with Peeta that only the two of them can understand.

"So with Gale, who she's known most of her life and who she always felt understood certain parts of her, now really Peeta understands a part of her that Gale never will."

Exactly!

While I scoff at the notion that this love triangle storyline is just a Twilight knockoff, the relationship Katniss has with Gale and Peeta becomes clearer in that there is a better focus at juxtaposing their relationships. Since Peeta is also a Victor, he is the only person who understands Katniss' emotions and experiences. For anyone who has read the book, the only time Katniss can ever get a good night sleep is in the arms of Peeta. On the Victory Tour, Katniss and Peeta sleep together a lot. No, literally sleep together a lot. Both finding comfort in each other. 

I'll be curious to see if the movie will address this facet. Only because it succinctly portrays Katniss' post-tramatic stress and her very rational response to want to be close to Peeta because only he knows what she went through. As for Peeta, well, he's always been in love with Katniss,  their relationship grows deeper throughout the entire book.

What I find interesting is seeing the difference in the relationship between Katniss and Peeta as it relates to the Hunger Games. Outside the Hunger Games and Capitol, Peeta and Katniss are distant. They didn't talk during the six months after the Hunger Games. It's weird, but on purpose. I can't think everything is wonderful and perfect after going through the trauma of the Hunger Games. At their core, both Katniss and Peeta are different people. He has blond hair and blue eyes, she has olive skin and gray eyes. He is part of the better off merchant class of District 12, she is a part of the working class, poor Seam. She is an outdoor hunter, he is NOT and outdoorsy type of guy. However, in the context of the Hunger Games and Capitol, both Katniss and Peeta grow closer. I look forward to seeing how this relates and is portrayed in the movie.  

As for Gale, he is now 18 and working in the mines. Their only interactions is on Sunday when they both go into the woods to hunt. It is clear that Gale is also in love with Katniss. (Remember at the beginning of the Hunger Games, when Gale asks Katniss to just run away with him) Game even sneaks in a kiss one day while he and Katniss were done with hunting. Katniss spends some time trying to internalize the kiss. It's meaning. Her reactions. This relationship comes to a head when Katniss attempts to ask Gale to run away with her. Her reactions, when Gale tells her he loves her, is not what Gale expected.

As a fan, its good to know that the main actor, Jennifer Lawrence, understands her character. It shows that she respects the book and story. Having won an Oscar, I have no doubt Ms. Lawrence will be able to handle the emotional heavy lifting the role of Katniss Everdeen comes with. 

And thats not even addressing the craziness of Mockingjay...

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will be released on November 21 in the UK, and November 22 in the US. 

Hello Flick Nerd Universe

A couple of weeks ago I was sitting on my couch watching Tron:Legacy when my phone rang. It was the Flick Nerd Home Office asking if I could give my insight into the world of movies. I said, "My opinions are not free." Bossman Bob, then said "I will pay you $0". I said "I'll take it." I'm doing this for the love of the Movies.

The Bossman Bob gave me instructions as a new contributor to the Flick Nerd Universe:
1. Continue to be awesome
2. Write insightful commentary
3. I look forward to hearing EVERYTHING you know about the Hunger Games trilogy
4. Don't screw it up

So with my newly given instructions, I will proudly take the opportunity to give you in the Flick Nerd Universe the highest quality reviews/insights/opinions I can muster. Sci/fi, Hunger Games, Comic book movies, Hunger Games:Catching Fire, Action will be my main focus. However, I do love the comedies so you might hear from me on that.

I'm glad to now be a part in the Flick Nerd Universe.

We're the Millers

This was definitely a movie I was looking forward to this summer, one of the few comedies that I was excited to see this summer.

I'm very happy I went to see it. I laughed a lot. Jason Sudekis is becoming one of my favorite comedic actors. I was glad that it was a solid performance in his first lead. I enjoyed seeing Emma Roberts in a slightly different role than she's played. Jennifer Aniston has found her niche in these comedies. Like Horrible Bosses, she delivers. In fact, if you enjoyed Horrible Bosses, this is right up the same alley. 

This isn't a movie that I'm going to run out and buy, but it is definitely one I'll watch over and over on TV. If you're looking for a funny movie to see in the theatre, this is it. But if you're just looking for a good summer movie, I might wait until video and see one of the blockbusters instead. 

+ Jason Sudekis

+ Jennifer Aniston

- the plot seemed a bit off from what I was expecting after they crossed the border

- they crossed the border too soon

Score: 82

Older Batman?

Some of the recent rumors regarding the Batman vs. Superman movie suggest we might be seeing an older Batman in the movie. If true, is this a wise move?

We haven't seen much of Batman's preparation for becoming Batman in movies. There was Batman Begins which shows Bruce training with the League of Shadows. In the comic books, Batman trained in martial arts, escapism (I think that's the right word), and various other skills that make Batman such a threat. Assuming that Bruce begins his training at 18 when he graduates from college, it could take him years to master these skills. I think the youngest Batman could possibly be is around 30. 

I like the idea that Batman has operated in Gotham for a few years. He may still be just an urban legend. This would lead to Superman truly being the first public superhero even if Batman has been operating for years. 

For Batman to be believable in the Man of Steel universe, he has to be able to do amazing things. You can't have the Batman that we've seen in most movies so far. He has to be able to turn his neck and move fluidly. 

Jackie Chan has performed amazing moves well into his 50s. I honestly don't think most actors could do this though. I don't want to see Bruce Willis or Sly Stallone as Batman. Heaven forbid we see George Clooney back in the role. It gives me nightmares just thinking about it. Could I see a 40 year-old like Ben Affleck in the role? Absolutely. Would somebody like that be my first choice? Absolutely not. 

Honestly, my ideal Batman has always been around 35 or maybe a little older. If this is what they mean by an "older Batman," I'm all for it. I don't want to see some 20-something don the cape and cowl. I also don't want to see the Batman of The Dark Knight Returns, gray hair and old enough to be a grandpa. These are all just rumors though. I won't believe anything until I see it.