Disney's Upcoming Slate

Over the last week, media outlets have been speculating as to the titles of future films to come from Disney after the studio released a list of upcoming dates they've reserved for live action films over the next few years. Theme park adaptations, updates of Classic Disney stories and sequels to past live action fare look to fill the spots. Coupled with past announcements Disney's animation branch, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and Pixar, it looks like you can plan on being in theaters to catch the latest Mouse House offering for quite a few of the many weeks to come.

Here is a comprehensive list (so far) of Disney properties coming to theaters for the next 4 years, staring next week with Marvel's Captain America: Civil War:

May 6, 2016: Captain America: Civil War
May 27, 2016: Alice Through the Looking Glass
June 17, 2016: Finding Dory
July 1, 2016: The BFG
August 12, 2016: Pete’s Dragon
November 4, 2016: Dr Strange
November 23, 2016: Moana
December 16, 2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
March 17, 2017: Beauty and the Beast
May 5, 2017: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol II
May 26, 2017: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
June 16, 2017: Cars 3
July 7, 2017: Spider-Man: Homecoming
July 28, 2017: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
November 3, 2017: Thor: Ragnarok
November 22. 2017: Coco
December 15, 2017: Star Wars Episode VIII
February 16, 2018: Black Panther
March 9, 2018: Gigantic
April 4, 2018: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
May 4, 2018: Avengers: Infinity War I
May 25, 2018: Young Han Solo Movie
June 15, 2018: Toy Story 4
July 6, 2018: Ant-Man and the Wasp
August 3, 2018: Untitled Disney Live Action
November 2, 2018: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
December 25, 2018: Untitled Disney Live Action
March 8, 2019: Captain Marvel
March 29, 2019: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
May 3, 2019: Avengers: Infinity War II
June 21, 2019: Incredibles 2
July 19, 2019: Indiana Jones 5
November 8, 2019: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
December 20, 2019: Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy Tale
2019: Star Wars Episode IX
May 1, 2020: Untitled Marvel Movie
June 19, 2020: Untitled Pixar Movie
July 10, 2020: Untitled Marvel Movie
November 6, 2020: Untitled Marvel Movie
November 25, 2020: Untitled Disney Animated Film

Unscheduled: Boba Fett Movie
Unscheduled: Frozen 2
Unscheduled: Inhumans

Spider-Man & Deadpool: Much Ado About Nothing

Crossovers are exciting, what with all the possibilities of fan-favorite characters sharing the screen, so it’s easy to get caught up in media buzz about potential marriages between major franchises. Heck, Men In Black is set to cross over with the 21 Jump Street series, so it might seem that anything is possible. It seems, however, that ideas of future team-ups most often come from the multiple Marvel properties scattered across the different studios of Fox, Sony, and Disney’s Marvel Studios. Despite a slew of blockbusters from all three production houses, Marvel Studios continues to hold the most legitimacy with fans, both due to Disney’s ownership of the source-material comics as well as consistency in quality across their connective film universe. As Spider-Man is set to swing back into Marvel’s grasp in the upcoming Captain America: Civil War, the general attitude seems to be one of celebration as Marvel’s favorite son is set to return home under the company’s umbrella. While this move maintains Sony’s distribution control over future Spider-Man films, the move has prompted continued and widespread speculation that Spider-Man and other Marvel characters could have potential to now crossover with X-Men characters held by Fox.

Potential for one such crossover, between the foul-mouthed X-Men character of Deadpool and the freshly rebooted MCU Spider-Man, came this last week following comments by X-Men producer and writer Simon Kinberg. Deapool director Tim Miller is reportedly “trying to build bridges” with producers over at Marvel Studios, and Kinberg (who has a solid relationship with Disney through his work on different Star Wars properties) has cited his “great love and respect” for Marvel head Kevin Feige as a starting point for conversations about Deadpool sharing the screen with Spider-Man.

Speculation based on these and similar comments is all well and good, especially considering the chummy relationship Spider-Man and Deadpool enjoy in both their comics and animated television shows. However, a blending of their cinematic properties seems highly unlikely due to one simple dynamic: ratings. Deadpool is an R-rated movie. Deadpool is an R-rated movie for many, many, many reasons, and those reasons are often pointed to as aspects that allowed the film to stand apart and above the suffocating conglomerate of other superhero and comic book movies currently dominating the box-office. While it’s thoroughly inaccurate to assume that the movie is good simply because it is rated R, Deadpool is still the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time., which shows that it has a pretty solid audience with rather adult tastes.

The upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming, on the other hand, is set to star the youngest on-screen Spider-Man yet. Described as a “coming of age story” by Marvel Studio execs, the simple setting of the film will be drastically different from the nudity and profanity-laced venues of Deadpool. In fact, Peter Parker will not even be old enough to have seen Deadpool in theaters without an accompanying adult. According to director Jon Watts, “we’re really going to see Peter in high school and get deeper into that side of it. He’s just 15 now.”  Tack onto all of this that Disney chief Bob Iger has declared that Disney doesn’t “have any plans to make an R-rated Marvel movie” and the possibility of a collaborative effort on a future Deadpool/Spider-Man film seems slim. This is not to say that any such effort is impossible. There’s plenty of room for growth or change if both series continue to produce films for the foreseeable future, but any crossover would have to feature very different versions of the current characters and probably wouldn’t be in the production pipeline for several years to come.

On a side-note, similar arguments could be made as to why the Netflix corner of the MCU will also remain separate from the Disney-owned heroes who battle across the silver screen, even if Charlie Cox really wants it to happen.

"Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" Review: No Spoilers, Pleasant Suprises

Batman V Superman is not a bad film (it's an 'ok' film). There are many good things in the film that I would love to see more of, such as Ben Affleck's Batman along side Jeremy Iron's Alfred, Gal Godot as an incredible Wonder Woman, and even some of the lighter moments from Henry Cavill's scenes as Clark Kent. I would love to see this movie's Batman in the Batman film that could have come before this one. I'm excited to see him more in the films that are to come after this one. I'm now also very excited to see the Wonder Woman film, which I kind of wish I could have seen before this one so that her cool character could have carried more weight in BvS. I'm still not sure how I feel about Jesse Eisenberg, but if you can think of his Lex as an entirely new Lex Luthor, I think he's kind of alright. Maybe. His motivations and machinations to engineer the whole 'verses' element of the title are one of the more incoherent elements of the plot.

The opening of the film is great. I became excited to see the rest of the film as soon as the (actual Jeep commercial starring Bruce Wayne) scene rolled by, but from there, the movie got a bit overwhelming. To call the film something like 'bloated' or 'overstuffed' would probably miss the point of what the movie is. The movie is HUGE in scope, but finds little time to settle into one thing over another; it's almost like it's 4 or 5 good movies repackaged into one giant film that undersells each individual narrative. Filled with Sucker Punch-like dream sequences (or scenes from the future/past? There are definitely plenty of elements left totally unclear that may rely entirely on future films in the series), overly dramatic speeches where all subtext is read out-loud, snd slow motion scenes beautifully painted with all the vaguely-religious iconography you could ask for, the film was firmly a Zack Snyder affair. It made me excited to see more of this DC Universe, but the small tastes it gave me of the new elements of this universe also left me wanting. You can tell that Snyder loves comics, but its hard to tell if comics fans will love his film. It's almost like it was a midseason finale of a big-budget TV series. I'm glad to have seen it, but, like a complicated piece of a larger puzzle, I would love to see more of what the picture is on the front of this particular puzzle's box.

Apocalypse: End of Worlds

Nerd moment here. Let's get technical:

The latest entry in the larger X-Men series is coming this summer in the form of X-Men: Apocalypse. Like its predecessor, X-Men: Days of Future Past, the upcoming film was directed by Bryan Singer, an indication, by all accounts, that this next one will be a good X-Men movie.

The title comes from the film's chief villain, longtime X-Men comic antagonist Apocalypse. Named for his earth-shattering powers by which he claims and conquers his way from Ancient Egypt through current events in X-Men storylines, Apocalypse sounds like a pretty intimidating name.

We generally use the term 'apocalypse' to refer to the end of the world and final judgement day. The original meaning of this Greek word is actually closer to the meaning of the word 'revelation,' as in, 'the unveiling' of something, or 'uncovering' of some hidden truth. The word actually came to mean 'end of the world' because of its association with the Biblical book "Revelation," the final book in the Bible. The book actually is 'apocalyptic,' as its author, the Apostle John, describes the unveiling of both the heavens and God's final chapter for creation. It is this unveiling that makes "Revelation" an example of apocalyptic literature, not because the text details an account of the end of the world (not inconsequentially, the word 'armageddon' is also founded in this particular text, coming from a Hebrew phrase naming a location where God's final judgement takes place). It was within 19th century English that the term 'apocalypse' was used to refer to the subject matter of "Revelation" rather then the genre of the book. Despite this, words become what we all agree they mean and they mean what the way we use them says they mean. Language is fluid and strange, giving and taking power depending on how we use it.

For the X-Men, it could very well be that the arrival of Apocalypse in their cinematic universe signals some sort of ending to their world. Actors contracts are in flux, and who knows if Singer still wants to make movies about Marvel's mutants. It's probably a safe bet that X-Men: Apocalypse will make a fat stack of cash for Fox at the box office, so the studio will certainly want to keep making movies in the series, but there's always room for shifts and change. Hugh Jackman says his next Wolverine movie is his last, and Deadpool just broke in to shake things up for superhero movies everywhere. Apocalypse could just be an entry to start unveiling these new changes.

Check out the newest trailer for X-Men: Apocalypse below:

X-Men Origin: Deadpool

Pool approves.

It's been out for a month now. Everyone who wanted to see it has probably already gone, to the tune of $335 million domestically. The main point that might broadcast is that people are ready for and the market needs more R rated superheroes. Fox is looking to take the third Wolverine spin-off in that direction, and Zack Snyder is lauding the R rated cut of his Batman v Superman. Sure, the fringes of superhero/comic book movies have had their run of R rated flicks with offerings from filmmakers like Snyder, Frank Miller, Mark Millar's work with Mathew Vaughn, but Deadpool filled in a slot in the X-Men series, not only one of the main superhero series gracing the silver screen, but the first. For all its faults in cohesive storytelling across the series, Fox's X-Men is still one of the leaders of the pack. That makes Deadpool stand out. It's not family friendly, but it is a part of the family.

While R rated supers may start trending soon, its important to note that reducing the film to its rating doesn't capture what makes it good. In terms of reacting to and seeking to copy the Deadpool formula, James Gunn (who himself made R rated Super) already said best what could be said: "Deadpool was its own thing, THAT'S what people are reacting to. It's original, it's damn good, it was made with love by the filmmakers, and it wasn't afraid to take risks." Deadpool, despite its out of sequence narrative, was actually a pretty straightforward origin story for a superhero (or in Wade's case, antihero). It's a good film, even great, despite being kind of formulaic, especially as it acknowledged its own place within the genre. It's alright to acknowledge this, but don't treat Deadpool like he's something special. He's good, but he's no hero.

Picking Sides in Marvel's Civil War

With the upcoming release of Captain America: Civil War, either the third installment of Cap's franchise, a third Avengers film or even fourth Iron Man jaunt, people are being asked to pick a side. Will they go with Captain America, the faithful son of patriotism and justice incarnate, or Iron Man, the self-conscious embodiment of America's 20th century ego and id, rolled into one with the power to down the Hulk in single combat? Agent Carter just finished her second go-around on ABC, and there's probably no doubt that she'd back her old crush Steve Rogers, but the rest of the growing cast of Marvel's expansive universe (who are not in the upcoming film) have been chiming in over the last week:

Batman V Superman: Yawn of Justice

No SPOILER ALERTS here; zero. We all know what's coming.

Batman and Superman are going to meet. They'll disagree about something regarding might making right and pay lip service to the wanton destruction leveled upon Metropolis and the wider world by the previous film's climactic battle between General Zod and our titular boy in blue. They're going to suit up in their armor, as is required in every post-Homeric tale, and then have at each other, trading titanic blows back and forth before relenting just in time to see that they can stand on some common ground. Their bludgeoning will then be directed toward a monstrously CGI version of the villain Doomsday, a character that will require little investment from the audience and provide little to no narrative of his own beyond demonstrating a future need for a league that might one day promote and protect justice. Shoehorned in and around these details will be introductions of fan-favorite characters like Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor and Bat Family members such as Alfred Pennyworth, providing hints at a broader 'cinematic universe' yet to be explored. Even if the film does address the significant destruction that has become a staple to the genre in some meaningful way, cities will still burn and countless offscreen lives ended as the heroes and villains clash in and above the streets. There will be plenty of slow motion to highlight impossible feats of strength, and the lighting will be turned down to 'brooding'; it is, after all, a Zack Snyder film.

The spectacle will be spectacular, and the action will be exciting, but don't confuse dangerous situations for actual peril; whatever takes place, our heroes will unite and the end of the film and get ready to join up again for a series of sequels. The studio demands it be so.

I hope that I'm surprised by this film, that Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent show a compellingly human side in their god-like struggle or flip the script in their classic story to show something new. However, at this time, I find myself weary of the marketing and much more excited to see Marvel's take on super v super, where I have grown to care for those relationships, or even (and especially) for Warner Brother's offering later this year in Suicide Squad. That one, at least, looks very excitingly and unpredictably new.

Not Too Fast: We Can Handle Two Quicksilvers

Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Evan Peters both in 2010s Kick Ass

A myriad of movie news websites, blogs. vlogs and billboards sport headlines that offer to explain end-credit scenes, easter eggs, cinematic universe connections and comic references in the ever-present, ever-expanding world of superhero movies. One such  element is the simultaneous roles of Aaron Taylor-Johnson in the new Avengers: Age of Ultron and Evan Peters in X-Men: Days of Future Past as the Marvel speedster Quicksilver. Both actors play different versions of the character in the two very separate movie franchises based on Marvel comics, and many internet sources continue to frame the situation as though it were one that might cause great levels of confusion to the casual movie goer or Marvel movie fan.

I think this disrespects those fans to a certain degree. The two characters are clearly different, with distinct origins in their respective films along with the very distinct styles of special effects to show off their super-speed. The characters are not even dressed in a similar way, set in specific cultures and decades based on the plots of their movies. The only confusion I could potentially see would be for overly-excited fanboys who might hope that the character's doubling performances could indicate a coming crossover between the Disney-owned MCU and Fox's Marvel film series. Heck, the movies hardly even call either character 'Quicksilver,' so please, give movie goers more credit that thinking this one thing could be even a bit confusing.

Stop Wondering: We're Ready for Female Superheroes

Ask anybody paying attention to trends in Hollywood and they'll point to the rising wave of inter-connected film universes (distinct somehow from film series, the definition is a bit ambiguous). Chief among these is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one of the many series contributing to the abundance of Superhero movies that have come to take over all blockbuster competitions and grown to infect a wide range of television and streaming services, leaving many to wonder how much longer caped-crusaders can remain a hot commodity before audience fatigue sets in.

In the midst of this conversation lie questions concerning representation of heroes who are female, especially following the announcements of the upcoming Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel films. Some question the viability of a female-led superhero film, wondering at possible audiences or box-office bankability of a superhero without a Y chromosome. It's possible to consistently point to past examples of female-led superhero films, such as Elektra, Catwoman, and Supergirl, wondering if these critical failures point to the doomed prospects of any such project. Such comparisons though are inappropriate; just because there have been very bad female-led superhero movies made does not mean that such films cannot be good. All we're waiting for is a good female led superhero film, just like we're receptive to good films helmed by male characters. Hunger Games films works, so why can't Black Widow?

We're ready for them, so let's change the conversation and stop wondering whether it'll work or not, instead actively and excitedly anticipating when the studios finally decide to deliver.

Ant-Man's Hank Pym: Abuse Free

Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas in Marvel's upcoming Ant-Man

      The complicated and contrived history of comic-book characters through their multiple iterations and issues makes for an interesting process when those characters are adapted for films. There seems to be an attitude toward big cinematic events that treats those adaptations to the big screen as the sort of definitive version of those stories and characters, a somewhat disturbing and thoughtless attitude when applied to Biblical adaptations, even when those, like comic-book adaptations, come in multiple retellings. When adapting a title like Ant-Man, a character like Hank Pym is an interesting one. Due to the comic-book medium, there are several versions of Pym, some more memorable than others. Ant-Man comes from a form of story-telling that achieves success from continually selling serialized issues, and so comic books tell and retell versions of the same stories, killing off and bringing back the same characters, over and over. This has carried over to the films, draining some expected suspense for future films, but as far as the source material goes, it really means that there is no definitive source for the character. Ant-Man is also less definable than main-stream heroes such as Spider-Man or Superman whose brand-recognition brings certain plot-expectations.
      One of Hank Pym's more memorable moments comes from a story-line that involves Pym abusing his wife Janet, slapping her across the face during an argument; the gravity of the subject matter presented in such colorful panels makes it hardly a forgettable episode. Domestic violence is an obviously serious and sensitive subject, which is why it's no surprise that the producers at Marvel decided to not include that facet of Hank Pym's character in the film version. The Marvel films' enjoy a wide age-range in their audience that could be tempered by such an inclusion, so it's easy to assume they wouldn't want to impact box-office numbers by limiting the film's palatability. It's also simply easier to tell a story without that complication because it's easier to tell the good guys from bad if the good guys don't beat their families. Domestic violence and spousal abuse would (and should) make the story harder to tell. The exclusion of that particular plot is totally understandable, but it makes me wonder what the film could do if it did include it. Could a film tell the story of a brilliantly helpful character like Hank Pym who also does horrendous things? I would not want any sort of story that would validate or glorify abusive conduct in any way, but I wonder if it is possible to show a character that is sympathetic and also so fundamentally flawed. It's important to say that inclusion of elements such as an abusive protagonist would not mean sanctioning or endorsing that protagonist's abusive conduct; it could just mean that someone is willing to explore what it means to start talking about the realities of how domestic violence and other difficult subjects impact people. That is a story I'd be interested in seeing, especially in a medium like superhero movies where so much already feels overdone.

Guardians of the Galaxy: First Trailer

Somehow, this all fits into the world of The Avengers...somehow. Welcome to the weird side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe!

Pacific Rim: Gipsy Danger's Sword

Everyone knows that Pacific Rim was a bit over the top. Less plot-driven than it was giant-freaking-robot driven, the film is a bit more spectacle than substance. Still, that spectacle was something to behold, and Guillermo del Toro certainly delivered on how awesome a giant robot movie could look. Compared to, say, Transformers.

When examining the film, many viewers noted a number of plot holes, not the least of which was Gipsy's sword arm which wasn't utilized until near the end of the film. It seems like a major oversight that the operators of the Earth-saving robot would forget they had the sword until the climactic battle required a plot-saving device.
I however think that it's not as big a plot hole as people think it is. Mind you, it is a plot hole, but I thought of an explanation that makes it a smaller one. If the sword was an addition to Gipsy after it was moved to Hong Kong, and was part of repairs/upgrades that might have been done while preparing the older robot for fighting, then the sword would have not been there in the first half of the film and also, Charlie Hunnam's character wouldn't have known to use it.
Just a thought I had, not that it was at all hinted at in the movie or that it fixes any of the other ridiculousness the movie had. Just a thought.

Disney Marvel's at Star Wars Properties; Dark Horse Out of Race

Disney and Lucasfilm announced yesterday that starting in 2015, Dark Horse Comics will no longer publish Star Wars titles, a property they have held since the early 90's. I hope this doesn't lead to a decrease in quality or quantity of the title that Dark Horse had been handling very well. THR broke down the implications of this seemingly inevitable change: http://goo.gl/G4qASe

Paul Rudd as Ant-Man

The comic-book-movie news side of the internet was abuzz (pun intended, sorry) with news that actor Paul Rudd has reportedly been cast to play Hank Pym in Marvel Sudios' upcoming movie Ant-Man, due out July 2015. The film would kick-off the third phase of Marvel movies following Avengers: Age of Ultron. Rumors have Rashida Jones, known for her roles on Parks and Recreation and The Office, slated to play the role of Pym's on and off lover and fellow Avenger, the Wasp, although those rumors are far from confirmed. Rudd can currently be seen reprising his role of Brain Fantana in Anchorman 2.

#SherlockLives and that's definitely a good thing

Sherlock season three is due to broadcast in the US starting in January on PBS.

 

Go Catch that Fire: Hunger Games 2

The second addition to the film series adaptation of Susan Collins' Hunger Games trilogy was well executed and worth watching on the big screen. Stronger than the first installment, the film was bolstered by more mature acting, better directing and a bigger budget. All around it was a good film, but it is the middle chapter of a book trilogy (although they are making two films out of the third book- should that be called 'Pottering' because of Deathly Hallows or 'Hobbiting' because of the egregious expansion that book went through in coming to the screen in three parts?) so the ending does not provide much closure to the broader narrative. Jennifer Lawrence delivers a great performance along with the rest of the cast. I'm excited to see more from this series.
On a scale of muffins to Monkeys, A-.

On a related note, if you missed Ms. Lawrence on The Daily Show, it's also worth seeing. Jon Stewart makes a great point about Ms. Lawrence's acting ability and depth and about how her talent and many projects have helped her form a career not defined by the Hunger Games series. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is a joy to see doing pretty much anything, so you should watch the interview.

Marvel/Pulp Fiction Mashup

What was in Marcellus' case

Thor 2: Dark World Worth Visiting

Thor 2 was pretty good. Definitely worth watching, although it was perfectly fine in only 2 dimensions, so I wouldn't spend the extra on 3D. While the movie had issues that many critics have pointed out, the film felt cohesive, epic and exciting. It was a good addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Tom Hiddleston really did as good a job as everyone is saying. Chris Hemsworth plays a more mature role, Natalie Portman looks good in her role, and great actors like Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba get more screen time than the previous Thor iteration. Overall, things get darker and more perilous while the movie stays fun and entertaining throughout. On a scale of 6 to Beyonce, B+.

Iron Man 3: Why Tony Stark destroyed his suits.

(SPOILER ALERT from here out for Iron Man 3)

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man

Iron Man 3 came out on DVD, Blu-ray and every other digital whichever this week, rocketing from theaters into people's homes and movie collections. While there were some elements of the film that were controversial to fans, the largest of those was based in interpretation of the source material. One other, the destruction of Tony Stark's amassed army of Iron Man armors (which some refer to as 'The Iron Legion') along with the removal of the shrapnel from his heart, made some fans wonder how he could be Iron Man any longer, lacking both his chest-embedded power source and the suits it powered. Despite fan criticism, and personal uncertainty, I would posit that the destruction was not just a silly means to a Merry-Christmas-Pepper-fireworks-display, but something that was very much in character and a predictable move for Tony Stark. 

#CoulsonLives, But That's Not Necessarily a Good Thing

Clark Gregg (left) as Phil Coulson in The Avengers

As the excitement builds for Marvel's TV show Agents of SHIELD which premiers this Tuesday, I think it's important to really grasp onto one thing: Coulson Lives.

It's not really news that Agent Coulson survived his apparent death in The Avengers. #CoulsonLives has been the hook and tagline of the new ABC TV series for quite some time now, which has Clark Gregg playing leading man for the super-secret team and serving as the chief character tie-in to the Marvel movies. He's appeared in many of the Marvel films, so using him makes sense; he's very recognizable. With the show's aim to look at the human side of the super-human universe, it makes sense to use one of the film franchises main non-super humans.