How DC’s Movie Universe Can Avoid Marvel Studio’s Mistakes

It’s taken DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. a few years to get a plan in place, but beginning with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice the studio will be on its way to forming a shared superhero movie universe of its own to rival that of Marvel. As if a film sporting DC’s ‘Big Three’ wasn’t enough, the signed cast for second-tier adaptation Suicide Squad is the first official shot across their competition’s bow. But the two studios’ plans are showing their differences already.

Some may feel that Marvel’s strategy for launching superhero franchises and a shared universe at once is the only way that makes sense – but those overseeing WB’s slate of DC films aren’t among them. Only time will tell which route (if any) proves more successful, but a closer look shows that DC and WB’s thinking isn’t just different; it may succeed in avoiding the biggest problem Marvel is only now encountering.

Marvel’s Plan: One Step At A Time

The sprawling Marvel universe may have begun with Iron Man (2008), but the movie’s post-credits scene (now mandatory for the studio) showed the studio’s hand quite clearly. With Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) publicly revealed as the armored crime-fighter known as Iron Man, he arrived home to find Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) all too eager to inform Stark that he was being recruited for the ‘Avenger Initiative’ (and was far from the only ‘superhero’ around).

Fans squealed in their seats knowing what casual movie-goers soon would: that Stark had taken his first step into a much larger world (apparently run behind the scenes by the government organization S.H.I.E.L.D.) and that Marvel intended to bring the rest of the Avengers to the big screen behind him. And when Stark made an unheard of appearance in the post-credits scene of The Incredible Hulk (2008) just months later, the notion of a ‘shared universe’ solidified – with Tony Stark leading the charge.

As Iron Man is still considered by many to be the best of Marvel’s films, Iron Man 2didn’t go over quite as smoothly. Again, Stark was faced with his own mortality, squabbled with friends, and tackled another armor-clad enemy. But S.H.I.E.L.D. no longer operated in secret, reminding Stark (and the audience) that his problems were nowhere near as grand as he assumed. After all, he was bound for much… greaterthings.

With an Avengers prequel as an Iron Man sequel, the addition of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) showed how little Stark knew about the forces at work (S.H.I.E.L.D. even curing Tony’s near-fatal poisoning with a shrug), and the message became clear for audiences: they were only being shown half the story.

The post-credits scene heralded the arrival of Thor (2011), which further established S.H.I.E.L.D. as the real connective tissue of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe, monitoring Earth’s mightiest heroes for some unknown purpose (while giving a first look at Hawkeye and a ‘cosmic cube’).

At the time, it seemed a brilliant strategy to make even second-tier Marvel heroes certified blockbuster names. Thor and Captain America (‘The First Avenger’) weren’t even as well-known as the Hulk, but linking them to the wildly successful Iron Man – and S.H.I.E.L.D. claiming them to be just as important – made their films essential viewing.

When The First Avenger ended by revealing Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) to be alive and well in the present day – and another victim of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s deception – the final piece of the puzzle fell into place. Now, the challenge was simply to unite The Avengers for whatever threat S.H.I.E.L.D. had collected them. In other words…

-

The Team-Up: What It Was All Building Toward

The culmination of Marvel’s plan came in The Avengers: Earth’s best defenders had been brought together under S.H.I.E.L.D.’s guidance due to their skills or past experiences. Cap was all too familiar with the Cosmic Cube (a.k.a. the Tesseract) being used to threaten Earth; Thor’s own brother was leading the invading forces; Tony Stark and Bruce Banner (now Mark Ruffalo) both had the makings of mighty soldiers, but were apprehensive until the fight became a personal one.

For comic book fans, the appeal of the team-up was obvious, as it finally gave a chance for each member of the classic Avengers team to show their own effectiveness alongside their super-friends. And again, placing these characters physically alongside Marvel’s most bankable stars drove home the fact that they were each – in the eyes of the studio, at least  - on equal footing.

For casual audiences, the draw was just as potent. Not only was there the chance to now see FOUR superheroes leave their respective franchises and join forces, but The Avengers was quite literally the final act of every hero’s story (as Marvel made clear in their array of post-credits stingers). Each hero was given their moment in the spotlight – for both action and character development – facing off against stronger opposition than they tended to encounter on their own.

In the end, the Avengers saved the day, proving that Nick Fury had been right all along: these heroes really were meant for something greater than themselves. Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, the Hulk, and their S.H.I.E.L.D. colleagues all came to view their place in the world differently, forging friendships (and friendly rivalries) in the process. And audiences weren’t disappointed.

The Problem: Now What?

Unfortunately, that sounds like the ending to a lengthy story more than the start of a new one (unless the Avengers remain united going forward). Nick Fury promised that the heroes would return “when we need them,” but for Marvel, audiences were getting these heroes whether they needed them or not.

And there’s the rub: how do you top a film that had nearly a half-dozen movies all building toward it, introducing and developing MacGuffins and villains along the way? The simple answer is you can’t; not without continuously escalating the stakes. Marvel attempted to repeat the same trick in yet another credits scene teasing the real threat yet to be encountered: Thanos, the Mad Titan.

To a comic book fan already versed in the source material, the tease was simply a continuation of Marvel’s strategy (linking what audiences had just seen to a larger, ever-progressing story). For the uninitiated, the scene was mostly meaningless. Looking back, it was the first sign that the plan Marvel followed to launch their shared cinematic universe was a double-edged sword.

To even casual fans, the inherent ‘turn-off’ of the Avengers tease should be clear: having been told that Red Skull, the Frost Giants, the US Army, and armored-suit-wearing maniacs were merely appetizers to Loki and his Chitauri forces, audiences were stunned to find the film’s villains were… another appetizer?

The move is understandable, since it laid out the plan for Marvel’s next slate of films (introducing each of the ‘Infinity Stones’ that would matter down the road). But it was the message sent by the films that preceded the team-up, not those that followed, that came to cost the studio. Simply put: you can’t spend years belittling a hero’s problems, and then build films around them all over again after a team-up. At least, not without risk.

It’s a narrative challenge, if nothing else. The first two Iron Man films gave billionaire inventor Tony Stark a social conscience and personal stake in global threats. Thortaught its hero humility and true strength (while fleshing out Loki’s motivations). The Incredible Hulk showed a Bruce Banner ready to harness the green beast inside him, and Captain America had Steve Rogers learning to lead the hard way.

After The Avengers delivered the payoff for those plot threads and left individual arcs up in the air, the directors and writers hired by Marvel had some problems to overcome. Iron Man 3 found Tony Stark suffering with PTSD from the Battle of New York and forced to realize that he was the hero, and not his suit. Thor: The Dark World took a loved one from the god of thunder and… well, the shortage of character development was one of our criticisms of the film as a whole.

Yet being Marvel movies, the expectation of action had to be served – and it was. Unfortunately, as Tony Stark was fighting to rescue the American President from terrorist super soldiers, and Thor was taking on a Dark Elf as his forces swarmed England, one question was raised by those watching: “why are S.H.I.E.L.D. or the Avengers not dealing with any of this?”

The need to up the ‘action quotient’ meant new threats that would clearly demand the attention of the super-team forces; after all, The Avengers established an ensemble cast bonded by friendship and duty – a film not building on that doesn’t make any sense.

Perhaps it was unsurprising, then, that Iron Man 3 proved highly divisive among audiences, and The Dark World also disappointed (while both were commercially successful). In hindsight, Thor might have been better off tackling a purely Asgardian threat only he could fight – as we fully expected – and to have Tony Stark battle a foe that fans had been begging to see adapted for years: alcoholism. Instead, Marvel kept to their formula of planting seeds for the future, arguably at the cost of these individual chapters.

Luckily, Captain America: The Winter Soldier managed far better by keeping the team-up’s momentum moving forward. Cap’s role within S.H.I.E.L.D. continued beyond Avengers (with Black Widow and Fury at his side) and the titular villain was revealed to be a deeply personal one that, as we alluded to earlier, was a foe only he could hope to stop. To satisfy the action quota, Marvel gave the go-ahead to blow S.H.I.E.L.D. to bits.

An effective overarching conflict, but one that can only really be played once (and since the organization’s impact on the other Avengers wasn’t witnessed at all in their follow-up films, its collapse can only be seen to impact Cap thus far).

So, where do we go from here? It’s no surprise movie fans are eagerly awaiting The Avengers: Age of Ultron, centering on the ensemble cast they were told were meant to act as one – as well as Captain America: Civil War, now set to also include Tony Stark. While it’s thrilling to think what a live-action “Civil War” series will bring, it also means the ‘big bad’ pulling the strings behind Marvel’s Phase 1 – teased in The Avengers, Thor 2, and Guardians of the Galaxy - won’t emerge until 2018.

Has Marvel painted themselves into a corner by building a universe on the idea that solo superhero films must always be building towards something greater? The jarring pace changes from crossover events to standalone stories may be faithful to the comics, but the studio’s recent announcement of several new characters and franchises may show the only real solution. And with Civil War presenting an opportunity (or excuse) to restart their heroes at square one, the premise of the first phase will be undone before its ‘real’ villain arrives.

It’s a problem that may prove unavoidable in establishing a ‘shared movie universe’ of standalone blockbusters, but so far, Marvel’s competition seems to be taking a different route – while still turning to the comics for the inspiration.

DC’s Start: Something Completely Different…?

Now that WB has shown they’re not going to follow Marvel’s formula – with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice introducing multiple Justice League characters immediately – it seems possible to avoid some of the same growing pains. Beginning with the fact that the film’s title heroes aren’t being ‘recruited’ for some grander purpose at all.

Many scoffed at the idea that DC and WB wouldn’t follow directly in Marvel’s footsteps by giving each hero an introduction origin film, all leading to a team-up (actors Armie Hammer and even Henry Cavill among them). But at the time, all parties involved were assuming that Man of Steel would give way to a titled and marketed Justice League story – essentially taking a shortcut to Marvel’s ‘payoff’ film. Now, we know that is far, far from the case.

Despite the rumors and skepticism, WB has gone ahead with their less predictable plan, shrugging off the pyramid-shaped structure used by Marvel and introducing (at the very least) Ben Affleck’s new Batman alongside Henry Cavill’s Superman, with a new Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) in the mix as well. Don’t call this a team-up, however: the title confirms Bats and Supes will be opposed, with Wonder Woman’s role a total mystery.

The reasons why Ben Affleck’s Batman would take issue with Superman can be deduced by all who witnessed Man of Steel‘s fallout on Metropolis, and is the first sign that WB may be letting their characters guide their universe, not simply following a marketing strategy that was successful for another studio. At present, it seems that Batman’s immediate role in Dawn of Justice is holding Superman accountable for the events in his standalone film; a refreshing twist, and one that the most devoted DC Comics fans know is 100% faithful to their respective histories.

But what any other heroes have to do with the story is a complete unknown. Long before Man of Steel even hit theatres, we offered an explanation of why a team-up film (then thought to be Justice League) would allow WB to draw attention to heroes capable of sustaining a solo franchise, but not popular enough to warrant one financially. Now, it seems the studio has found a way of eating their cake and having it too.

In short: a film that calls on multiple DC Comics heroes, but is not – in terms of story or marketing – intended to introduce the superhero alliance known as ‘The Justice League of America’ (at least not as most know it). Instead, audiences are set to meetan Amazonian princess in disguise (and potentially an Atlantean King) before unlocking the secrets and origins of each character in later films. In some ways, a more traditional approach to movie-making when beginning with an ensemble cast.

Mysteries abound (including whether or not one particular cast member will become a cyborg superhero over the course of the film) about how large a role – if any – the rest of the future League members may play. But when it comes to justifying team-ups and departures, a bit of mystery is a good thing. Plausible deniability, if nothing else.

If global events or catastrophes are important enough to draw the attention of new peoples, new kingdoms, or even new realms of magic existing secretly alongside our world, leaving details to be fleshed out later pays off. No overarching villain pulling the strings behind the scene means no deadline for when or how these heroes must unite. We know that they will appear in a film called Justice League in 2017, but the two-part nature of the team-up also leaves plenty of doors open for the solo films set to follow it (without the jarring departures seen in Marvel’s stable post-Avengers).

It may not be as easy to predict, but with DC’s ‘Trinity’ taking center stage as independent, enigmatic figures – before heading their separate ways unguided by some master hand – Warner Bros. has allowed creative freedom for years to come. By introducing the heroes together, the audience can’t take exception with the idea that they’ve got ‘other things to worry about’ (another distinction from Marvel). And launching the shared universe with a battle between two of DC’s biggest heroes sends a clear message that in this fiction, heroes who work together most certainly do not need to stay together.

-

Conclusion

We won’t make the case that WB will take full advantage of these differences, or handle the problems and pressures Marvel is now facing any better. For all we know, the League cast may be manipulated by some cosmic villain into uniting forces – leaving them in the same boat as their competition. But at this point, it’s worth acknowledging the restrictions and boundaries Marvel put into place to bring their universe together – and what benefits may lie in doing things another way.

What do you think of our points? Are you eager to see a DC movie universe that is free to twist, turn, or simply wander as the story demands it? Or would you prefer a more rigid structure like that of Marvel? Be sure to share your thoughts or concerns in the comments below.

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice will be in theaters on May 6, 2016. Justice League: Part One opens in U.S. theaters on November 12th, 2017

Community

‘Avengers 2′ Promo Art Reveals Ultron & Vision’s Revised Origins

Kicking off the summer blockbuster season next year is one the most anticipated films of the year – The Avengers: Age of Ultron. And where last time it was Loki and his Chitauri army that united these heroes, next year it’ll be an enemy of their own making.

As its name so obviously suggests, The Avengers will be facing off against Ultron – a robot of Tony Stark’s creation that goes haywire and becomes hellbent on humanity’s destruction. Beyond being one tough opponent, Ultron will cause rifts between The Avengers, and if they can’t all work together they have no hope of defeating him.

Ultron was first revealed in the Age of Ultron trailer, and very quickly became our new nightmare thanks to his imposing design and absolutely terrifying voice work fromJames Spader. Yet, other than what we could infer from the trailer and our knowledge of the Ultron character in the comics, we’re still in the dark about the MCU Ultron’s true origin and motives.

However, now there’s new promotional material (via SHH) that may give a clearer indication as to how this Ultron came to be. In addition, this new promo art also features another look at and additional details about Age of Ultron‘s newest Avenger, Vision.

Check out Ultron and Vision in the new Age of Ultron promotional material below (viaReddit), and see more Age of Ultron‘s promo art on CBM.

-

MILD SPOILERS for Avengers: Age of Ultron ahead!

-

-

For the most part, Vision’s biography doesn’t have a whole lot of new information beyond stating he’s a product of both Stark and Bruce Banner’s genius (not a creation of Ultron as we had previously thought). And surprisingly, there’s no allusion to whether or not Vision is in fact Stark’s in-home A.I., JARVIS in android form, as many have speculated due to Paul Bettany’s casting and the two’s uncanny resemblance.

Ultron’s biography, however, includes the enlightening tidbit that he began as a hidden program found within Chitauri technology after the Battle of New York. This program was latter experimented upon by Stark and transformed into the highly sophisticated A.I. known as Ultron. And knowing his true origin lies in alien tech could hint at a larger, master plan at work. Even Thanos, perhaps?

Marvel has also gone ahead and released a new official screenshot from the Age of Ultron scene shown in the film’s extended teaser trailer. Check out all The Avengers standing in shock as Ultron makes his unnerving appearance, below.

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE VERSION:

And if Ultron can frighten all these heroes, then you know he’s going to be their toughest adversary yet.

What other information can you glean from Ultron and Vision’s biographies? Do you think there’s some significance to Ultron’s Chitauri connection? Let us know what you think in comments below!

The Avengers: Age of Ultron will open on May 1, 2015.

Community

‘The Good Dinosaur’: More Concept Art & Official Logo Unveiled

This year was the first year since 2005 that Pixar didn’t release a film. This was largely due to the studio pushing back the release date of The Good Dinosaur, which was originally slated for a May 2014 premiere. However, after Pixar removed the original director Bob Peterson (Up), the movie’s original co-director Peter Sohn took on The Good Dinosaur and it was rescheduled for a 2015 release.

Since the director switch, The Good Dinosaur has undergone some changes to its story, though Sohn said he tried to “keep the original vision of this film intact.”Now, new art for the film offers a look at this dinosaur and his boy story.

Disney/Pixar have released new concept art for The Good Dinosaur along with the animated feature’s official logo (see below), which is a slight redesign to the original concept. Unlike previously released artwork for the movie, the new image provides a better look at the world in which Arlo the Apatosaurus and his human friend Spot will inhabit.

Lucas Neff (Raising Hope) is lending his voice to Good Dinosaur’s prehistoric main character. The voice cast for the Pixar film also includes Bill Hader (Inside Out), Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother), John Lithgow (Interstellar), Frances McDormand (Olive Kitteridge), and Judy Greer (Married). An official synopsis also provides insight into the story of The Good Dinosaur, though it primarily solidifies details about the feature that had been previously known:

“‘The Good Dinosaur’ asks the generations-old question: What if the asteroid that forever changed life on Earth missed the planet completely and giant dinosaurs never became extinct? In theaters November 25, 2015, the film is a humorous and exciting original story about Arlo, a lively Apatosaurus with a big heart. After a traumatic event unsettles Arlo’s family, he sets out on a remarkable journey, gaining an unlikely companion along the way – a human boy. ‘The Good Dinosaur’ is an extraordinary journey of self-discovery full of thrilling adventure, hilarious characters and poignant heart.”

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE:

With Inside Out slated to debut in June 2015, The Good Dinosaur will be the second of Pixar’s original releases next year. Perhaps that is why all the concept art and information around The Good Dinosaur has largely rehashed the central premise: a twist on the boy and his dog story. While the newest piece of concept art depicts more of the world in which humans and dinosaurs coexist, it offers little insight into how that world will look different than what is already known about prehistoric Earth.

Of course, Pixar is only just starting to market The Good Dinosaur so more images and footage from the film are sure to be released in the coming months. Hopefully new promotional material will offer more about the intricacies of The Good Dinosaur and differentiate it from previous films that have also explored the concept of humans living with dinosaurs.

The Good Dinosaur will debut in theaters on November 25th, 2015.

Community

‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Voted Most Anticipated 2015 Film

While 2014 had its fair share of hits, many spent the past year looking ahead to what’s in store for 2015. For a while, fans have known that franchises such as Star Wars, The Avengers, and Jurassic Park are returning to the big screen with new installments next year, which is one of the reasons why there’s so much excitement circling the approaching 12 months in film.

As such, creating a “most anticipated” list of titles viewers are desperately waiting to see shouldn’t be much of an issue. Fandango polled 1,000 fans on its site to unveil one of the first of many similar lists we’ll see popping up around the web in the coming days. According to the results, the movie Fandango users are most excited for is the return journey to the galaxy far, far away, with The Avengers: Age of Ultron in second place.

While the sequel to the most financially-successful superhero movie of all-time is worth getting jazzed about, Star Wars is an entirely different animal. Ever since the original film debuted in 1977, it has been a fixture of popular culture, earning multiple generations of fans. It’s easy to see why The Force Awakens would top the poll, since it will mark the first new Star Wars movie in 10 years and launch a new wave of films hoping to reinvigorate the brand.

If the reaction to the Force Awakens teaser was any indication, moviegoers will be showing up en masse. The Age of Ultron trailer was quite enthusiastically received as well, so these two topping Fandango’s poll is good news for Disney, which owns both Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. It’s a very distinct possibility that these two event films will gross in excess of $1 billion globally, so studio executives are probably loving the fact that the Mouse House is poised to dominate the box office in 2015.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, which serves as the followup to last year’s most anticipated movie (based on Fandango’s 2014 poll), ranked third amongst 2015 releases (hat tip Variety). As the finale to one of the most popular franchises in recent memory, it stands reason to believe it will be a major hit when it plays in theaters, especially after the cliffhanger ending from Part 1. Its “low” ranking on this particular list is merely an indication of its standing in the Hollywood franchise hierarchy, which is still quite high.

Rounding out Fandango’s top five are Fifty Shades of Grey and Jurassic World. The latter is another instance where a long-dormant franchise (the third film came out in 2001) will be trying to make the old new again; and even if the reaction to the first trailer was somewhat mixed, moviegoers love getting the chance to see 2014′s box office star Chris Pratt take the lead in another tentpole project.

Fifty Shades is the only non-sequel on the list, and that can be attributed to the overwhelming popularity of the source material book. It’s the same aspect that helped David Fincher’s Gone Girl become one of fall 2014′s most anticipated releases. Even though no household names are starring in Fifty Shades, it should find a large audience when it is released on Valentine’s Day.

And just because you don’t see your most anticipated 2015 movie on here doesn’t mean it won’t be a hit. 2014′s big winner at the box office, Guardians of the Galaxy, was not featured on Fandango’s previous most anticipated list, after all. So for those of you hoping, say, Tomorrowland or Ant-Man can make it big, there’s plenty hope for you yet. 1,000 votes is a small sample size, after all.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens will be in theaters December 18, 2015.

Community

‘Rambo 5′ Title ‘Last Blood’ Confirmed by Stallone; Will Film After ‘Creed’

There have been rumblings about Rambo 5 for years now, even after 2008′s Ramboseemed to conclude the 1980s-born action franchise. Most recently, there were rumors that the film would begin production in Fall 2014 but obviously, that didn’t happen. And now, Sylvester Stallone is set up to reprise his other iconic role as Rocky Balboa in Rocky spinoff Creed (opposite Michael B. Jordan as Apollo Creed’s grandson), which is slated to begin production in Philadelphia next month.

Sly is now saying that he shall, in fact, reprise as John Rambo sometime after finishingCreed (he may already be in training), in a movie that he’s confirmed will be titledLast Blood (or Rambo: Last Blood, perhaps). Stallone also indicated the fifth Ramboinstallment will happen before he stars in the mob enforcer biopic Scarpa, which he is currently attached to.

Scarpa already has a director in Brad Furman (The Lincoln Lawyer) and a screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi (Goodfellas, Casino), though Last Blood is a project that Sly is expected to direct based on his (already finished) script. The next Rambo film has also shown more signs of forward momentum this year; hence, Sly’s recent comment on Twitter (see below) doesn’t come as a huge surprise.

Last Blood, once rumored to be titled Last Stand and based on the Hunter sci-fi novel (which Sly owned the film rights to), is currently expected to follow John Rambo as he takes on drug cartels based close to Arizona (near the U.S. and Mexico border). One of the central themes of the story, according to Stallone, will be what it means to not just realize “the final culmination of your life,” but act on it. And in John Rambo’s case, that means going out fighting.

Rambo, for many fans of the title character, ended on a note that offered a satisfying conclusion to the violent tale of John Rambo. Nonetheless, the idea that Last Blood will be the No Country for Old Men of Stallone’s career, suggests the film could actually be a proper, final, farewell to the character. At the least, here is to hoping that Creed andLast Blood finish Sly’s time with the respective franchises on a high note.

We’ll bring you more information on Last Blood/Rambo: Last Blood when we have it.

Community

‘Ghostbusters’ Reboot Director Paul Feig on Lady Ghostbusters & Scary Comedy

After languishing in development hell for decades, Ghostbusters 3 finally saw a turning point a few months ago when The Heat team of director Paul Feig and writer Katie Dippold came onboard the project and shook things up, making it a reboot instead of a sequel and making plans for an all-female team of Ghostbusters. Since Feig became involved there’s been a sense of greater momentum for the project, with leaked e-mails from Sony indicating that casting is already underway.

Names that have been thrown into the mix include Melissa McCarthy, Emma Stone, Lizzy Caplan and Jennifer Lawrence, with other actors like Gillian Anderson, Ryan Gosling and Channing Tatum also taking an interest. Not everyone is happy with the idea of an all-female team (to quote one of our commenters, “Who the hell wants to watch 4 women make sandwiches for ghosts and clean the house for an hour and a half?!“) but the box office profits for Feig’s last two female-led comedies give Sony plenty of reason to be confident.

Speaking in an interview in the latest issue of Empire, Feig reiterates that the idea of having an all-female team was what really sparked his interest in Ghostbusters in the first place.

“A lot of people accused it of being a gimmick. I guess I can see the cynics’ view of it, but for me I just love working with funny women. People said, ‘Why don’t you do a mix?’ I’m just more interested in the idea of lady Ghostbusters. It’s the way my brain works.
“It won’t be called Lady Ghostbusters! Certainly not…Ghostbustieres is the way to go.”

‘The Interview’ star Lizzy Caplan is reportedly interested in ‘Ghostbusters’

After directing two successful feature films with female-led casts, Feig is used to facing down detractors who dismiss the idea that women can be funny. The director faced similar questions in an interview with EW earlier this year and responded, “I just don’t understand why it’s ever an issue anymore… why is a movie starring women considered a gimmick and a movie starring men is just a normal movie?”

Another gripe that has come up in response to the (very few) details that are available about Ghostbusters is the idea of making it a reboot instead of a sequel. Since Bill Murray has repeatedly insisted that he would never star in another Ghostbustersmovie and Harold Ramis sadly passed away in February 2014, it wouldn’t really be possible to get the old gang back together. And Feig says that he’d rather reveal ghosts to the world all over again.

“I have too much respect for the original one [to do a sequel]. There’s also the feeling that once the world knows ghosts and has seen them busted on such a large scale, they run the risk of becoming pedestrian. There’s something fun about introducing our world, which has never seen ghosts, to the phenomenon of ghosts. I love origin stories and to introduce new characters.”

Feig has also said in the past that he and Dippold are working to make theGhostbusters reboot as scary as possible, despite the fact that it will carry a PG-13 rating instead of an R rating. Both The Heat and Bridesmaids were R rated, but that was mainly due to the amount of profanity, which Feig says won’t be an issue this time.

“The Ghostbusters world doesn’t need that level of swearing. We’ll have to be PG-13 with this one. I would like to make it R-Rated, but I won’t. You want the biggest number of people to watch it and not be put off by it.”

We’ll keep you updated on the Ghostbusters reboot as more information becomes available.

Community

‘Into the Woods’ Review

Into the Woods struggles in fine tuning prior iterations for the big screen, and finding its own identity as a film, but it’s still an overall enchanting and entertaining musical experience for all ages.

Into the Woods tells the story of iconic fairy tale characters whose lives become entangled thanks to the plotting of a malevolent witch. Hoping to lift a spell that stole her youth and beauty, the Witch (Meryl Streep) manipulates a humble baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) into stealing a series of notable items (the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold). If the couple succeeds in their quest within three days, the witch promises to remove a curse from the baker’s house – a curse that has prevented his wife from bearing children.

While the Baker and his wife traverse the forest in search of the witch’s shopping list, familiar Grimm characters, including Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), and Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) of Beanstalk fame, face their own perilous adventures, not to mention charming princes (Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen) in the woods. However, as each character comes face-to-face with their story book destinies – some discover that their dreams are not quite as magical as they might have previously imagined.

Emily Blunt and James Corden as the baker and his wife in ‘Into the Woods’

While the big screen adaptation of Into the Woods is based heavily on Stephen Sondheim’s hit musical, it was actually the musical book’s author, James Lapine, who wrote the film script - with director Rob Marshall (Chicago) sitting in the director’s chair. As a result, the movie benefits from the playfulness and meta-story moments of the book and musical adaptation, while fans of Lapine’s and Sondheim’s broadway show (not to mention film musicals in general) will find plenty to enjoy in Marshall’s version.

Still, in navigating the original tone of Lapine and Sondheim’s iteration, Into the Woods presents a more mature (and downright lengthy) narrative than casual filmgoers might be anticipating – especially considering Disney’s kid-friendly marketing of the movie. Unlike the stories that inspired it, Into the Woods does not feature the same “happily ever after” storylines of Brothers Grimm tales - meaning that many of the boldest divergencies might actually be off-putting for younger viewers and moviegoers who wanted a light-hearted (and straightforward) re-creation of classic fairy tales. That said, Lapine’s screenplay still makes noticeable adjustments to the larger Into the Woods canon, in the interest of a more PG-rated version of events, producing some downright awkward tonal and pacing change-ups.

Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood in ‘Into the Woods’

Whereas the stage show’s central pivot is punctuated by an audience intermission, the film does not provide its viewers with the same breathing room. For that reason, dramatic reversals in character arcs (and individual desires) turn once-relatable protagonists into fickle and unlikable plot devices – all for the purpose of communicating a shrewd message about fantasy love and happiness. On the stage, with room to reflect between chapters/acts, this grey morality works; but on the big screen, as a 124 minute film, some viewers may find that Marshall’s direction of an adaptation (Lapine’s script) of Sondheim’s musical, creates several abrupt and underdeveloped shifts – not to mention a few outright abandoned plot threads (read: Rapunzel).

Whereas Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables utilized raw audio from the set, Marshall did not record his cast singling live on-stage – choosing to add polished (and poppy) vocals into the mix separate from filmed footage. For that reason, the lip-synced musical numbers and kid-friendly alterations to the story could lead die-hard Into the Woods fans to feel that Disney’s version sacrifices the stage show’s raw energy (along with the book’s darker developments) in order to repackage the core storyline as a glossy and energetic adventure for a much broader (and younger) audience. The movie is mostly faithful to previous Into the Woods projects, providing the same fun twists on fairy tale tropes, but there’s no question that Marshall has polished away some of the core story’s more interesting and impactful elements.

Meryl Streep as the Witch in ‘Into the Woods’

Yet, even when the narrative labors under the weight of Into the Woods’ franchise history, the film is full of great performances as well as beautiful visuals and choreography that enhance Sondheim’s Tony Award-winning musical foundation. Viewers who are fond of Anna Kendrick’s work in Pitch Perfect will, without question, enjoy seeing the actress singing onscreen again and, in addition to catchy crooning, Kendrick’s Cinderella is also given one of the more engaging arcs of the film. James Corden (Doctor Who) is equally strong as the Baker providing a lovable but desperate performance that serves as a key emotional anchor in Marshall’s adaptation.

Similarly, Meryl Streep is a scene-stealer as the Witch – injecting a complicated charisma into a role that was already made famous by Broadway starlet Bernadette Peters. Ultimately, the Witch is sometimes underserved by the film adaptation process (especially in her relationship with Mackenzie Mauzy’s Rapunzel) but Streep manages to make each of her songs and dramatic moments memorable. Additionally, Into the Woods features an expansive roster of top-tier talent in supporting roles – with solid turns (and musical numbers) from Emily Blunt, Lilla Crawford, Daniel Huttlestone, Christine Baranski, Tracy Ullman, and Johnny Depp (whose Big Bad Wolf isn’t actually onscreen very long), among others.

Johnny Depp as the Wolf in ‘Into the Woods’

The “Agony” duet between Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen is a good indicator that Marshall’s version has the potential to please both fans and newcomers alike – with fun riffs on familiar fairy tales and their cliches. Even when the movie stumbles in tying together all of its plot lines and thematic juxtapositions, there is still plenty of fun to be had moment to moment. Into the Woods struggles in fine tuning prior iterations for the big screen, and finding its own identity as a film, but it’s still an overall enchanting and entertaining musical experience for all ages.

_____________________________________________________________

Into the Woods runs 124 minutes and is Rated PG for thematic elements, fantasy action and peril, and some suggestive material. Now playing in theaters.

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below.

Community

Our Rating:

3.5 out of 5
(Very Good)