missmediajunkie

A couple of minor spoilers for "Iron Man 3" ahead.

It was announced a few days ago that Robert Downey Jr. had signed on to reprise the role of Iron Man in the upcoming "Avengers 2" and "Avengers 3." There was no mention of an "Iron Man 4," though that doesn't rule out the possibility that deals for more sequels may happen later. I know that the ending of "Iron Man 3" looked pretty definitive, and if I had my way it would be the last "Iron Man" movie for a long time, but we are talking about a film that has so far made $1.2 billion dollars in ticket sales alone. Disney and Marvel will be make as many more "Iron Man" movies as they can get away with.

But what if Downey doesn't sign on for any more "Iron Man" installments? Well, right now what this new deal means practically, is that Downey is going still to be Tony Stark through at least 2018, when "Avengers 3" is most likely to hit the big screen. My guess is that "Avengers 3" may be Downey's last appearance as the cinematic Iron Man, even if there is an "Iron Man 4." I don't know if Joss Whedon is going to still be involved at that point, but I expect that we're going to see him permanently retired in some manner (I doubt Disney would allow him to be killed off in traditional Whedon fashion) that sends him off with a bang. At that point Downey will be 53 years old - not too old for another few rounds as a superhero, but old enough that Disney and Marvel should be seriously entertaining the notion of rebooting "Iron Man." There was a five year gap between the two "Spider-Man" movie franchises, and assuming that window keeps shrinking, I don't think it's unlikely that we'll get a new actor playing Tony Stark as early as 2022, four years after "Avengers 3" and fourteen years after the first "Iron Man" movie.

The more important question for audiences is whether this is a good thing. Do we want more Iron Man? And is "Avengers 2," "Avengers 3," and a possible fourth and even fifth "Iron Man" movie how we want him? Well, looking at the four appearances of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark onscreen so far (not counting cameos), I have serious doubts. If you treat the existing "Iron Man" trilogy as a finished series, it's pretty mediocre. Great first film, lackluster second film, and an okay third film. Both the second and third film offer some character development, where Tony has to pull himself out of existential funks, but he doesn't make any major advances, and the status quo is unchanged until the very, very end of "Iron Man 3," where the ending isn't convincing. We already know Tony's going to be back for another "Avengers." Also, the sequels have been relentlessly safe, avoiding the hard partying reprobate Tony we were first introduced to, and staying far, far away from the comic book version who battled alcoholism and other personal demons. It's no secret that Shane Black wanted to adapt the "Demon in a Bottle" arc, but Disney nixed the idea as too dark and kid-unfriendly.

I'm not saying that we need "Iron Man" to get R-rated, but it's been depressing to see a character with so much potential wasted in so many disposable, lukewarm adventures. If we get an "Iron Man 4" and "Iron Man 5," it's only going to get worse, the way that the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies have. I'd actually prefer seeing an "Iron Man" prequel without the superhero elements, because we would actually be able to see more of the major milestones in his life - Tony meeting Pepper, Tony becoming friends with Rhodey, and maybe even Tony having to deal with the aftermath of his father's early demise. These are the kinds of things that I can't help feeling that the "Iron Man" films should have made time to explore by now, but they haven't. "Iron Man 2" was a particularly egregious example of the franchise treading water and shamelessly taking advantage of the audience's goodwill.

I find I'm more interested in the next "Thor" and "Captain America" movies. "Thor: The Dark World" is at least getting a good villain in Loki, and Thor's long-distance relationship with Jane Foster will be a focal point. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" moves storylines with Black Widow and Bucky Barnes forward, and we should see more of Cap's fish-out-of-water experiences living in the modern day world. I can buy that these superheroes still have a lot of major battles ahead of them that could support big films. I'm sure an "Iron Man 4" could drum up some dire new threat for Tony Stark to tackle, but by nixing most of his usual personality flaws It feels like all of his biggest challenges have already been met. He got the girl. He's faced the demons of his past multiple times. The bad boy was tamed, though mostly offscreen. He's become a better person and has his happy ending.

Too bad Marvel and Disney aren't going to be able to leave well enough alone.
---

If you're a fan of superhero media, chances are you've run across the issue of characters from the same universe having their various movie and print rights owned by different companies. This is particularly true of Marvel characters, where rights to make movies for some of their biggest headliners were sold to companies like Twentieth Century FOX and Sony in the days before Marvel got into the business of making movies itself.

Now that superhero properties have turned into a hot commodity, those rights are more valuable than ever, and have spurred a lot of the decisionmaking about what films are getting made and how. Sony currently owns the rights to Spider-man, but those rights revert back to Marvel if a new Spidey film isn't made every few years. That's why we got the rebooted "Amazing Spider-man" so quick, and a second film is already being fast-tracked. Even if the movie franchise isn't as successful as it once was, it's worth it to Sony to hold on to those Spider-man rights. Over at FOX, the X-men and Fantastic Four franchises are getting new movies, but the studio let the Daredevil rights revert back to Marvel a few months ago, because they weren't ready to commit to a new reboot.

There are a couple of places where these rights might overlap. The exact language of who owns what isn't public, but fans have long pointed out that there are two significant characters associated with both the X-men, controlled by FOX, and the Avengers, controlled by Marvel. These are the Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, a brother and sister pair with mutant powers who were also occasionally Avengers in the comics. He can run really, really fast. She's kind of witchy and causes chaos wherever she goes. And now both the "X-men" and "Avengers" movie series are laying claim to them. Joss Whedon has confirmed that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are going to be in " Avengers 2," and Bryan Singer not only announced that both characters will appear in next year's "X-men: Days of Future Past," but he's cast "American Horror Story" heartthrob Evan Peters as Quicksilver.

Now the details of how this is going to work are only a matter of speculation, and "Avengers 2" is still firmly in the pre-production phase. Some hopeful Marvel Universe fans are wondering if this could be a chance for an official cross-over between the two universes. If these two characters can be shared, maybe that will open the door to more collaborations in the future. Big studios certainly can play nice on occasion – "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" wouldn't exist otherwise. The cynics, including yours truly, are worried that the two movie studios aren't interested in playing nice, and may be on the verge of embarking on an epic legal battle to decide whether "X-men" or "Avengers" has dibs on Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. The worst case scenario is that we end up with disrupted productions, compromised quality, and possibly delays in these films reaching theaters.

Personally, I don't like these two characters much from what I've seen of them in other media. The "X-men" always seemed to turn into more of a soap opera whenever they were around, so I find it ironic that they seem to have a similar ability to stir up drama in the real world. Still, they do have a lot of potential as characters. The reason they're in this unique position in the Marvel Universe is because they've traditionally gone back and forth between hero and villain roles. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, also known as Pietro and Wanda Maximoff, started out as villains in the "X-men" series and were eventually redeemed. However, their father is the villain Magneto, and because of his influence they never manage to stay on the side of angels entirely.

If it were up to me, I'd rather see them in "The Avengers 2." "X-men: Days of Future Past" is already going to be a very crowded movie, juggling multiple versions of many familiar characters and introducing a gaggle of new ones into the mix. I don't see how Singer is going to be able to fit in Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch for more than cameos, and I suspect that is exactly what we're going to get. In "Avengers 2," however, Joss Whedon seems to want the pair to be front and center, and I think he's in a better position to do something interesting with them.

Keep in mind that however this turns out, both movies are going to be massive, and make oodles and oodles of money. This is a fight that's mainly of interest to the comic book nerds and the studios. Nobody else knows who these characters are, and if it all goes south, and things get so contentious that they get dropped from both movies (it could happen!) then I doubt most people will care too much that they're gone.
---

The trailers for "Iron Man 3" were darker in tone, showing the dramatic destruction of Tony Stark's home, and Tony himself being put in grave peril. Gone were the jokes and the snark, suggesting that this sequel was going to be a much more serious film than the others. Well, that's not the case. "Iron Man 3" is just as light-hearted and irreverent as the "Iron Man" films have ever been, though the stakes are pretty high this time out, and director Shane Black does manage to make the peril suitably impressive. However, if you're one of those fans hoping to watch Tony Stark really face his inner demons, his alcoholism, and his psychological baggage in an adult way, this is not the movie for you. And we're probably never to see that movie because Marvel is now owned Disney. However, if you're in the mood for a light, fun action movie with whole lot of shiny special effects, this one should do the trick. There's a little bit of Tony Stark facing his demons too. Not much, but enough to keep things interesting.

So when last we saw Tony Stark, played as always by Robert Downey Jr., he had just helped save the world from certain doom in "The Avengers." Now it's been a couple of months, and we find that Stark hasn't been dealing well with the aftermath. He's become a workaholic, staying up for days at a time, and has built dozens of new Iron Man suits. The latest can be controlled remotely, and the individual pieces summoned to form the full suit wherever Stark happens to be. Girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), still CEO of Stark Industries, has moved in with him, and she's worried about him. Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, Stark's best friend and current owner of the War Machine suit, recently rebranded by the government as the Iron Patriot, is also worried about him. Even Stark's former bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), recently promoted to Head of Security of Stark Industries, is worried about him. He calls up Tony when Pepper takes a meeting with handsome scientist and think-tank founder Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), to voice his suspicions. Stark and Killian have a past, as it turns out, stemming from a bad encounter during Tony Stark's less altruistic days.

However, the more obvious threat to Tony is The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), an elusive terrorist who has been behind several deadly bombing incidents, and claims the credit through sinister video broadcasts that promise worse to come. Nobody can figure out how he's executing the bombings, because there's no evidence of bombs left behind. The Mandarin is a considerably better villain in conception and execution than anyone else Tony Stark has faced onscreen, though as usual he's no match for Stark himself, who will always been his own worst enemy. This time out Stark has mostly cleaned up his act and is refraining from bad behavior, but he's still battling personal doubts that have escalated to the point where he's having anxiety attacks. It's Robert Downey Jr. who sells this, and it's a notion that pretty hard to swallow given what we know about Tony Stark, but this franchise's biggest asset has always been its leading man. Despite all the fancy CGI visuals, in the end it's Downey Jr.'s performance that's the biggest attraction.

Now there are some decent twists and turns in the bigger plot, but the real fun is in the little incidental moments, when Stark is interacting with new characters and in situations that are very different than the ones we've seen him in before. At times "Iron Man 3" feels like a cop or detective movie, as Tony Stark tries to sort out his foes' big master plan with very limited resources. Some of the later scenes where he and Don Cheadle join forces have the DNA of an old buddy action caper, the kind that Shane Black is best known for. Black was a great choice to replace Jon Favreau in the director's chair this time out, because his ironic, self-aware sense of humor is a great match for the Tony Stark character, and he's not shy about taking Iron Man in some risky directions. For instance, there are a couple of scenes involving Stark and a cute kid, and I was bracing myself for all the usual clichés involving cute kids and superheroes. I shouldn't have worried. The clichés all get subverted in about ten minutes flat.

"Iron Man 3" is not anywhere near as good as the first Iron Man movie – it's third act is far too predictable, and several good characters get shortchanged – but still a vast improvement over the second. If I had my way it would be the last "Iron Man" movie, because the direction they're taking the Tony Stark character is one that's going to be difficult to maintain in any subsequent sequels. And it goes out with enough closure and on a big enough bang that it's going to be very hard to top.
---

And we're back.

The Incredibles (2004) - Up until PIXAR put out "The Incredibles," there was a sense that they were still gingerly testing the CGI animation waters with each new film. With "Monsters Inc" they could do furry creatures. With "Finding Nemo" they could do fish. And then finally, in "The Incredibles," they were doing people, and not just any people, but superheroes. And they were superheroes in a spy adventure spoof, where the main character was a family man having a mid-life crisis. And suddenly, PIXAR could tell any kind of story it wanted.

"The Incredibles" does a great job of playing with a lot of different superhero tropes deconstructing some and commenting on others, while embodying the genre's best qualities at the same time. Rewatching it again lately, I was struck by how mature and how dark it gets at times, implying a gut-wrenching number of deaths and putting the kids in real peril. Brad Bird and the PIXAR crew created this world a lot of thought and care that really comes through. It has a certain integrity about it that is extremely appealing, and I know I'm not alone in hoping they revisit "The Incredibles" universe someday.

Iron Man (2008) - This is one of my favorite films of 2008, nay, the entire first decade of this century. It was a perfect casting decision to put Robert Downey Jr., with his history and his persona, into the Iron Man suit and let Jon Favreau just run with the idea. The result was a superhero with an unstoppable personality, a new movie icon defined not by his design (though it's a hell of a design), but by his brains and his attitude. With Tony Stark and Iron Man became a superhero for the new millennium: wealthy industrialist, brilliant inventor, master of the witty comeback, with an ego to dwarf all the rest.

I can't stress enough how much fun it is to watch Tony Stark snark like a villain, but fight like a hero. He breaks a lot of the biggest rules of superhero-dom, right up to his last line of dialogue, but not the most important ones. He saves the day, gets the girl, and defeats his foes on his own terms. However, Tony Stark's biggest foes aren't the bad guys, but his own vices, and there's always a sense that he's completely responsible for a lot of the troubles that befall him, thanks to his own hubris and carelessness. But in some ways, that makes watching him battle his way back to the top all the more satisfying.

The Dark Knight (2008) – I'm not going to beat around the bush. The reason why this is my favorite Batman movie is because it nails the Joker, and it nails the relationship of Joker and the Batman. Joker was never one of my favorite villains, but the way that Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger chose to reinvent him for "The Dark Knight" universe was just perfect. Gone are the jokes and the puns and the themed gadgets. Instead, there's just a man in grimy clown makeup who unleashes anarchy wherever he goes. He may have plots and schemes, but there's only one real goal: to watch the world burn.

A hero is only as good as his villain, and here Christian Bale's Batman was never better. Heck, everyone the Joker interacts with, from Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes (a great improvement over Katie Holmes) to Harvey Dent, to Commissioner Gordon are all made more interesting and compelling because they're going up against someone who is completely unpredictable. I don’t think that "The Dark Knight" is perfect – it runs a little long, the action's too often incomprehensible, and if you look close, there are logic gaps all over the place. However, it's the film that I think best embodies what Nolan was so good at bringing to the Batman mythos: a grander scale and new way of looking at familiar characters.

X-men: First Class (2011) – I was not expecting anything from this movie. It's a prequel to a franchise that had gone terribly off the rails with "The Last Stand" and "Wolverine." There were reports of the director being saddled with a reduced budget and schedule. The marketing was memorably horrible. However, somehow Matthew Vaughn managed to make the best film of the whole series. He cast the right people in key roles, he presented the core ideas of the "X-men" concept better than any of his predecessors, and he somehow pulled off a really sweet homage to 1960s action films too.

Parts of the film are a mess, and there and things that don't work at all, but mostly the technical business that probably would have been corrected with a little more time and money. However, all the vital bits, all the important relationships and themes are rock solid. And I don’t think I'm exaggerating when I say that "First Class" has performances on an entirely different level than any other "X-men" film. We get James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence, all working at the top of their game. I'm now looking forward to the next "X-men" sequel more than any other superhero film that's been announced.

Chronicle (2012) – And finally, a little reminder that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the most cutting-edge effects technology in order to make a spectacular superhero film. You just need a couple of good actors, a killer script, and a director who knows how to stretch a dollar. The found footage trend collided with the superhero trend last year, producing one of the most surprising and effect movies to have come out of either genre. "Chronicle" took the simple idea of giving a trio of teenage boys super powers, and turned it into something timely and resonant and really, really cool.

I've grown to enjoy the immediacy of the found footage style, and the way it can make less-than-stellar effects look convincing. The flying sequences in this film are among the best I've ever seen, and the big climax sequences have more visceral impact than anything that I've seen Hollywood put out lately. More importantly, this is the only film on this list where I had no idea how the events were going to play out, that really did something original and challenging with the concept of super powers. The sequel currently appears to be in limbo and much of the talent has scattered to other projects, including director Josh Trank getting the new "Fantastic Four" reboot. However, this is one of those films that I don't think needs a sequel. In fact, I'll quite happy if it doesn't become a franchise, because not every superhero property should be.
---

We've got quite a few new entries to the superhero genre headed our way this summer, so I thought it was time to take stock of where I stand and compose my own list of favorites. Picks are arranged by date and unranked. I previously devoted a list to non-superhero comic book movies over here.

Superman (1978) - Richard Donner's "Superman" was famous for making a star of Christopher Reeves, but I always remember Clark Kent as Jeff East, who plays the teenage version of him in all the early scenes. My mother only liked the movie up to the point where Clark fully becomes Superman, and had a habit of turning it off after that. So it wasn't until well into my teenage years that I got to see the whole story unfold as intended. It remains my favorite Superman film by a wide margin.

This was the template for many superhero films that followed. You can see the origins of so many colorful villains in Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, and so many plucky heroines in Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Superman himself, of course, was embodied wonderfully by Christopher Reeves as a larger than life ideal, the kind of inspirational classic hero figure that we've mostly moved away from. When I was a kid, even if I didn't know the particulars of his story very well, Superman was the greatest guy who ever put on a cape and tights, and "Superman" was the only superhero movie that mattered. And yes, I believed a man could fly.

Batman Returns (1992) - The superhero genre took a long time to get going, not for want of good material, but because the genre was treated as kids' stuff. Superheroes were synonymous with comic books, cartoons, and action figures. "Batman Returns," one of the first superhero films to really stretch that PG-13 rating and tackle some mature themes, raised a lot of eyebrows when it was first released. Sure, it had all the Tim Burton funhouse visuals, but the Penguin played by Danny DeVito was more gruesome than funny, and the violence was much more intense than anything in the first "Batman."

And then there was Michelle Pfeiffer in that latex cat suit. Prurient scolds focused on her sexuality, but I adored Catwoman for her angry feminist vibes and really twisted voyage of self-discovery. "Batman Returns" was the first take on the Batman character to point out exactly how screwed up its characters were, though obliquely enough that it could still pass as summer blockbuster fare. It had a lot of fun with Freudian symbolism, double entendres, and one of the most fascinating romances to ever appear in a superhero movie. When people scoff at Tim Burton's talents, I always remind myself he was responsible for this one.

The Crow (1994) - My fondness for "The Crow" probably stems from seeing the film so often during my angsty teenage years. It's a lot cheesier than you remember, but the gloomy visuals are still gorgeous, thanks to work of director Alex Proyas. The film is best known for the accident on set that cost us emerging star Brandon Lee, and there were significant debates at the time about whether it was appropriate to even release the film. I'm glad that audiences got to see it, not just because of Proyas and Lee's excellent work, but because it felt like a truly fitting goodbye.

The plot is a fairly typical revenge story, about a man who is brought back from the dead in order to find his killers. There is a lot of violence, but there are just as many quiet, elegiac moments about love and loss. Okay, the pop-psychology and the rocker clichés are laid on pretty thick, but it dos a great job of capturing a certain mood and outlook on life that few have matched. Understandably, "The Crow" is often seen as a Goth film or as part of the alternative rock culture, because of its influential soundtrack, but I think its appeal is far wider than that.

Unbreakable (2000) - Oh yes, this one definitely counts. "The Sixth Sense" may have been the most successful M. Night Shyamalan film, but I think this is the movie that cemented for many people that he was a director to keep an eye on. Superheroes by definition are people with special powers or abilities who decide to use these gifts to fight evil and do good - though not always for entirely altruistic reasons. There have been many origin stories that have dramatized the big decision, but none quite like "Unbreakable."

I love the way the plot unfolds, as a character study of an ordinary man in the present day, played by Bruce Willis, who survives a terrible train crash and simply wants to put it behind him and get on with his life. However, he gradually comes to understand that he survived for a reason, because he is someone extraordinary. It's a father son bonding story and a slow burning thriller and yet it's still a superhero movie. It even has its own supervillain, the memorable Mr. Glass, played by Nick Fury himself, Samuel L. Jackson. "Unbreakable" is in many ways even more surprising than "The Sixth Sense," and probably Shyamalan's best film.

Hellboy (2004) - Guillermo Del Toro is known for being a fan of creature features, and his "Hellboy" movies have some of the best monsters. Our good guy looks like a giant red devil, but talks like the average joe down the street. He hangs out with a man with gills who needs a reverse-scuba suit to walk around on land, and is head over heels for a troubled young woman who can summon fire with her mind, but can't always control it. And then they fight evil Nazis who are trying to unleash an ultimate evil that looks like it came out of an H.P. Lovecraft story.

The prosthetics and make-up used to transform Ron Perlman and Doug Jones into Hellboy and Abe Sapien got all the press, and of course they did. They look fantastic, and go a long way towards selling the outlandish premise. However, what I appreciate the movie for is its sense of humor and its total commitment to this fantastic universe. The whole movie has this air of richness and history about it, and the characters are old-fashioned romantic types under their colorful exteriors. My favorite part of the movie is actually Hellboy's complicated relationship with Liz Sherman, and how that plays out. And also, the bit with the Russian corpse.

Hmmm, this turned into a much longer post than I anticipated. I'll be back with the other half of the list tomorrow.
---

The 2013 summer movie season looks to be on the quieter side this year, with only about five or six titles that I'm really curious about. I figured it was a good time to look ahead to other film projects that have been quietly coming together over the past few months. I've wanted to write about several of them individually, but it never felt like I had enough material, so I'm going to use this post to geek out about everything coming up in the near future that I'm really getting excited about. As usual for me, there's a lot of science fiction on the list. I'm a nerd. I admit it.

2014

In March we're getting Darren Aronofsky's long-awaited "Noah" project, starring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly. Then shortly after comes "Transcendance," the directing debut of cinematographer Wally Pfister, who is best known for working with Christopher Nolan. It's been described as a science-fiction neo-noir that will star Johnny Depp and Paul Bettany. Nolan will be helming his own original science-fiction movie, "Interstellar," which has something to do with time travel and will star Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway. That one's currently dated for November. And a month later, we're finally going to see what Brad Bird's secret "Tomorrowland" project with George Clooney is all about.

Summer currently looks a little dire for original projects, but the Wachowski siblings will be returning with "Jupiter Ascending" in July, with Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis. We're finally learning a little more about it this week since filming has begun, and it sounds like a promisingly crazy space opera in the same vein as the Korean segment of "Cloud Atlas." And a week later, Disney and Marvel will be unleashing "The Guardians of the Galaxy," one of the pivotal Marvel Universe Phase 2 films. Everything I've read about this goofy-sounding tale of intergalactic space cops sounds ridiculous (alien raccoons?!) and I can't wait to see how they're going to pull this off. Will this finally break the curse of the movies with the word "Guardians" in the title? Either way, this is going to be a big one.

Most of 2014' s sequels don't interest me (Amazing Spidey 2, Jurassic Park 4, Fast and Furious 7, Transformers 4), and others are too sketchy to say much about yet (Apes prequel #2, Hunger Games 3, Captain America 2, 21 Jump Street 2, Hobbit 3), but one that I'm definitely looking forward to is "X-Men: Days of Future Past" that will be coming in July. Brian Singer is back as director, and will be combining the various X-men movie canons with the franchise's most famous time travel storyline. Matthew Vaughn, who did such a fantastic job with "First Class," is contributing to the screenplay. The press has been full of announcements about returning castmembers, and we're getting Peter Dinklage and Omar Sy to boot. Bring it on!

On the animation front, there are a couple of potentially interesting titles: "The Good Dinosaur" form PIXAR, "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" and "Happy Smekday!" from Dreamworks, and "The Boxtrolls" from Laika. We'll also be getting the highly anticipated sequel to "How to Train Your Dragon," which Dreamworks is counting on to become its next major franchise, so expect a lot of push behind that one.

Finally, some smaller movies with no set dates that we can only speculate are going to arrive in 2014 include Wes Anderson's "Grand Budapest Hotel," Terrence Malick's "Knight of Cups," Paul Thomas Anderson's "Inherent Vice," and the "Veronica Mars" movie. Note to self: go watch "Veronica Mars."

2015

Only the really big studio productions get scheduled this far out in advance, mostly animated films and superhero movies. But by any measure, 2015 is going to be a big movie year. The main events, of course, will be "Avengers 2" and "Star Wars VII," but PIXAR also recently announced that their mysterious November, 2015 release was "Finding Dory." The fact that Disney is behind all three of these movies points to the strength of the studio's brand acquisition strategy over the last few years.

On top of that, we've got the final "Hunger Games" movie, the "Avatar" sequel, Edgar Wright's "Ant-Man," and an original PIXAR movie called "Inside Out." Probably only of interest to me are the just-announced "Pitch Perfect" sequel and "Kung-Fu Panda 3." I like "Dragons" very much, but I don't think the "Panda" franchise gets nearly enough credit.

The most intriguing "maybe" of the year, however, is still only in the planning stages: Warners' potential "Justice League" movie. Depending on how "Man of Steel" does, this project may or may not happen, and we may or may not be getting a superhero team showdown with "The Avengers 2," and it may or may not be a complete disaster for Warners.

And that may or may not be the best entertainment of all.

Happy watching!
---

I went back and forth about whether or not to write these posts this year, but I figured that they do have some value, the same way that my "Least Anticipated" lists do. I like going back at the end of the year and seeing what met expectations and what didn't. And it's always good to take a good, hard look at where my movie-watching priorities are, and what's going into the decision making process when picking and choosing among new titles. The big question I suppose you're asking right now is, why wait until the beginning of March? Why didn't you write these lists two months ago when everyone else did? Well, because January and February are crap for new releases. Sure, I'll probably rent "Warm Bodies" and "Side Effects," but these aren't priorities. Also, the full year's release schedule still isn't close to being finalized - there was another round of date swapping just yesterday, but now everything through the summer is pretty much set, and it's after Sundance, so at least we've got a better picture of what's coming down the pipe.

I'm going to split these up into two posts, one for the big mainstream blockbusters, and one for the more highbrow pictures. Ten entries apiece. Here we go!

"Iron Man 3" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" - So much of my anticipation for these two sequels is pure hype and I know it. "Iron Man 2" was a disappointment, and there's no guarantee that "Iron Man 3" won't be more of the same. However, Shane Black is directing this time and he's got an awfully good track record, going all the way back to "Lethal Weapon." As for the new "Star Trek," there is the distinct possibility that the baddie that Benedict Cumberbatch is playing is actually Khan. Do I really need any other reason to be excited?

"Man of Steel" - I'm rooting for DC to finally get a Superman reboot right. They've got a lot of factors on their side, but a lot of others against them too. Their biggest liability is director Zack Snyder, whose films have been on a definite downward trajectory as of late. However, the cast looks solid, Christopher Nolan is heavily involved, and the trailers suggest that the filmmakers have a good angle on the origin story. The performance of "Man of Steel" is going to decide the fate of "Justice League," so this is a big one, one way or another.

"This is the End" and "The World's End" - The idea of spoofing the apocalypse appeals to me a lot after so many years of self-serious doom and gloom disaster epics. This year we're getting them in two different flavors. First, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, James Franco, and their cohorts will be playing themselves getting into celebrity-cameo-studded hijinks during the end times in Los Angeles. Then in the fall, Edgar Wright will reteam with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost for "The World's End," described as a pub crawl that coincides with a global apocalypse.

"Pacific Rim" - Guillermo Del Toro's back! And he's brought what looks an awful lot like a Japanese kaiju monster movie with him, involving giant mecha suits. Visions of "Godzilla" and "Neon Genesis Evangelion" are dancing through my head after that teaser trailer. There are a lot of potentially interesting science fiction coming out this year, and I'm hoping that this one in particular will do well enough to raise some interest in other thematically related projects. And that it'll give Del Toro enough clout to finally make the projects he actually wants to make.

"Elysium" - Neill Blomkamp's follow-up to "District 9" will star Matt Damon and Jodie Foster in a science-fiction story we don't know very many details about, and hopefully it will stay that way. The preview images that have been released so far suggest another gritty, dystopian world and more pointed social commentary, but beyond that it's hard to say. I've also skimmed a plot synopsis that makes it sound a bit like "Battle Angel Alita," and if that turns out to be true then James Cameron has only himself to blame for dragging his feet on that project.

"Ender's Game" - Another possible disaster in the making. The novel is one of those science-fiction holy cows that was on every nerd's wish list to be turned into a feature film for several decades, and the potential for dashed hopes and major disappointment is considerable. There's already been some griping about how the child soldiers, lead by Asa Butterfield and Hailee Steinfeld, have been aged up significantly to lessen the shock of the combat. However, "Ender's Game" tells one hell of a story, and maybe - just maybe - they'll actually get it right.

"Frozen" - It's not shaping up to be a very good year for animated films, and the current slate is mostly dominated by spinoffs and sequels (I'm looking at you, PIXAR). The one feature I'm interested in is "Frozen," Disney's "Snow Queen" project that has been in development for decades. They're going to be following the template of "Tangled" and from what I've seen of the marketing materials so far, "Frozen" is going to be a major departure from the original fairy tale. That doesn't mean it can't still be a lot of fun, though, if all those changes work out.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - Oh yes. I may not have been thrilled with how "An Unexpected Journey" turned out, but I have been waiting to see the dragon Smaug on the big screen for as long as I can remember, as least as far back as when the original "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was in production and Peter Jackson first teased the possibility of doing a "Hobbit" movie. Also, most of the big action set pieces of "The Hobbit" will take place in "Desolation," which hopefully means less of the padding and the call-backs that made "Journey" such a slog.
---

When J.J. Abrams was announced as the director of the next "Star Wars," there was a nice sense of relief. Finally the fanboys could stop speculating and we would get a break from some of the wilder "Star Wars" rumors that were circulating. But this week, Harry Knowles went and started up the rumors about a possible Yoda spin-off movie. We've known for a while that Disney was considering more stand-alone "Star Wars" films apart from the upcoming trilogy, but the newest round of conjecture got Disney CEO Bob Iger to confirm that there was active development going on, and that writers Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg were working on them. Today there were more rumors that stand-alone movies about Boba Fett and the young Han Solo were in the works, according to Entertainment Weekly.

Meanwhile, over at Marvel, their cinematic universe is expanding at a furious rate. The post-"Avengers" "Phase Two" films are all pretty much locked. Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are getting their new sequels, and "Guardians of the Galaxy" just landed a leading man. These will lead up to "Avengers 2" in 2015. Most of the current speculation and rumor mongering has been about "Phase Three," which currently has only one confirmed project: Edgar Wright's long-awaited "Ant-Man." "Doctor Strange" is a major candidate to get his own movie after that. This week, there's been a lot of buzz about the possibility of a new "Hulk" movie, possibly an adaptation of the beloved comics storyline "Planet Hulk." There's already a furious debate going on in various corners of the internet about potential directors.

Since the success of "The Avengers" and the conclusion of "Harry Potter," planning out these massive, multi-film series years and years in advance has become the new normal. Nobody's worried about that first 2015 "Star Wars" film being a flop, or the potential failure of an "Avengers 2," which might shutter all the follow-up films, because those properties are so well insulated by their brands. Barring monumental catastrophes, we're going to have at least eleven connected Marvel films by the time we're done with Phase Two in 2015, and potentially many, many more if Marvel can manage the tricky transitions to new characters and the inevitable replacement of aging actors. And if the "Star Wars" prequels have taught us anything, it's that fans will show up to any "Star Wars" movie, hoping it will live up to the originals, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That should get Disney through at least three new "Star Wars" films, even if they turn out to be terrible. However, J.J. Abrams is not in the habit of making terrible films, so I think it's safe to push that number up to four or five.

And now the fan speculation is free to get weirder and wilder than it ever has before. For years, "Star Wars" fans have idolized the bounty hunter Boba Fett, a minor villain in the original trilogy. Now there's a pretty distinct possibility that the powers-that-be are considering giving him his own spin-off movie. Who could be next? Mace Windu? Jabba the Hut? Admiral Ackbar? And if the fairly obscure Marvel superhero Ant-Man can have his own feature, why not Luke Cage? Or Wasp? Or the Power Pack? The ideas that would have been dismissed as wild fantasizing a few years ago have all suddenly become much more plausible. It's really tempting to want to join in the fun and think about the possibilities of more daring storylines and crazy cross-overs. Why not Avengers vs. X-men? Or if Warners really gets desperate a few years down the line, why not Avengers vs. Justice League? You could do a whole trilogy on that one alone.

However, I'm trying my best not to get carried away. Even though it looks like the sky's the limit right now for these franchises, the risks are still considerable. For Marvel, the longer the series goes on, the more difficult it is for newcomers to find an entry point, and tackling the less popular, more fringe characters means the later films may grow increasingly niche. Also, with two Marvel films being released each year for the next three years, I worry that we're going to hit a saturation point eventually. With "Star Wars," it's even harder to predict what's going to happen. The earliest we'll see the next film is 2015, and how well it does is going to determine how risky the other films are going to get. It's not easy to get these big action franchises off the ground, and Disney has stumbled multiple times trying to launch new ones - most recently with "John Carter" - and ended up buying its way into "Star Wars" and the Marvel Universe.

There's no question that Disney has the ambition, but living up to those ambitions is another matter entirely. Right now, I'm more interested with what's going on with the films already pretty far along in the pipeline. Is swapping out Kenneth Branagh and Joe Johnston for the much less experienced Alan Taylor and the Russo brothers as directors going to hurt the next Thor and Captain America films? And how on earth are they going to pull off something as mad as "Guardians of the Galaxy"? As for "Star Wars," J.J. Abrams should do a competent job, though the idea of cross-contamination with the "Star Trek" universe is a concern. Take heed from one of the rare fans who enjoys both equally - these are universes you do not want colliding. And then there's Abrams' penchant for trying to do everything. The latest is that he's apparently been talking to Valve about a possible "Half-Life" or "Portal" movie on top of everything else.

Yeah, these franchises are going to be crazy enough enough without all the speculation. Hang on tight everybody.
---

No, you read that right. In light of all the articles that have been circulating about the most anticipated films of 2013, I was going to spend today's post comparing my happy thoughts about my most highly anticipated films of 2012, written up a year ago, with how they actually turned out. And then I stumbled across a list I had written of my most anticipated films at the beginning of 2009, which presents me with a much more interesting opportunity. 2009 was only three years ago, and yet our memories of the movies that came out that year have receded fairly quickly. Most have already started appearing on cable television, and exited "New Release" status in our DVD and streaming queues. In some cases, people's attitudes towards certain films have shifted very quickly, and in interesting ways. Consider this a "where are they now" retrospective of sorts.

Avatar - The biggest film of 2009 in so many ways. It is still the highest grossing film of all time, still constantly referenced in all discussions of 3D presentations and new projection technology, and emblematic of a certain type of CGI-heavy event film that the studios are depending more and more heavily on. However, "Avatar" has faded from the public consciousness pretty quickly. It's apparent from the lack of a lasting fandom, minimal interest in the upcoming sequels, and a certain degree of derision in certain circles about its "Dances With Smurfs" storyline, that "Avatar" was just a passing fad. James Cameron disappeared back into the ether, perhaps for another decade, and poor leading man Sam Worthington still barely registers in the mainstream consciousness. However, the raised ticket prices and 3D conversions "Avatar" propelled remain with us.

Watchmen - Remember when this was the most anticipated film for every comic book fan, the movie that was supposed to usher in a new era of adult-oriented superhero films at last? Yeah, that didn't turn out so well. Director Zack Snyder won over some fans with his faithful visuals and willingness to embrace darker themes and adult content. However, just as many viewers were repulsed, confused, or just underwhelmed. "Watchmen" failed to cross over to general audiences, and its underperformance at the box office severely curtailed the studios' appetite for more R-rated comic book films. Zack Snyder would go on to make another costly fanboy-oriented bomb, "Sucker Punch," and was then recruited to helm the "Superman" reboot. Superhero films are still very popular, but Snyder will have to learn to love the PG-13 rating.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - It's amazing how fast the "Harry Potter" franchise is becoming part of the past. Currently "Twilight" clones dot the 2013 landscape, while the biggest remaining "Potter" contribution seems to be the higher and higher numbered sequels. "The Half-Blood Prince" was highly anticipated at the time because of a lengthy delay due to the writers' strike, and the beginning of the ramp-up to the series' end. However, reactions to the film were mixed, especially regarding its big reveal, which was handled with inexplicable clumsiness. Speeding along the series passage into oblivion was that these later installments became more and more kid-unfriendly, and harder to market to anyone but existing "Harry Potter" fans.

The Princess and the Frog - A real heartbreaker in more ways than one. This was supposed to be the big return of Disney to the traditionally animated musicals of the 1990s. It had an all star team of animators and a big marketing push behind it. Alas, the box office returns were only so-so. "Princess and the Frog" was much beloved by some audiences, but failed to connect more widely. It wouldn't be until 2010's CGI "Tangled," that Disney Animation would have a real hit on its hands again, and traditional animation has largely been abandoned as economically unfeasible. Nowadays, you'll still find the heroine Tiana on Disney Princess merchandise, and at the theme parks, but it feels like she doesn't get nearly as much love as she should.

Public Enemies - Remember when Michael Mann making a movie about gangster John Dillinger, starring Johnny Depp, sounded like a good idea? This remains one of the most inexplicable films of 2009, a sparse period drama with little exposition, shot on handheld digital camera. The style was so distracting and the narrative so inaccessible, it detracted from the good work being done by the strong cast. "Public Enemies" eventually turned a profit, but it was a major disappointment for those grown-up viewers who were hoping for something with a little more charm and substance in a fairly lackluster summer. Michael Mann hasn't directed another movie since, though he did contribute the pilot episode of the terribly unlucky HBO series "Luck."

Star Trek - Of course, 2009 did have its bright spots. One of the brightest was the resurrection of one of the most beloved science-fiction geek franchises, "Star Trek." J.J. Abrams assembled a perfect cast, took the Enterprise out of storage, shined up his lens flares, and sent us all on a rip-roaring space adventure. Sure, the plot was kind of flimsy and there was a notable lack of plausible science in the science-fiction, but the 2009 "Star Trek" reboot was exactly the kind of enjoyable romp that the series needed to get back on its feet. It proved popular with newbies and old school Trekkers alike. "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is one of the most highly anticipated 2013 summer films as a result.
---

Tis the season. Christmas is coming, and with it the first trailers for some of next summer's biggest movies, including "Star Trek: Into Darkness," Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," and the new Superman movie, "Man of Steel." It's "Man of Steel" that's been on my mind lately. The recently released teaser posters have provoked a storm of discussion, and I've been faced with a familiar dilemma.

One part of me, the skeptic, the cynic, the Dana Scully in me, wants to reject the hype. Zack Snyder has directing duties, and I consider his work pretty shaky at best. Writer David S. Goyer isn't much better, responsible for some of the best recent comic book adaptations and some I'd rather forget about. I'm not against Warners making another attempt to launch a "Superman" franchise after the underperformance of "Superman Returns," but I'm not sure that this is the right creative team to do it with. The involvement of Christopher Nolan as a producer has been touted as a plus, but I'm not convinced that the darker and grittier sensibilities he brought to his Batman movie would translate well to a more idealistic, more fantastic superhero like Superman.

But then there's the Fox Mulder part of me, who wants so very badly to believe. I loved Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman" film as a kid, and was always a little disappointed that nobody got him right since, not in the cartoons, not in the television shows, and not in the modern movies. I look at that new teaser poster, and the possibility of "Man of Steel" being the Superman film I've been waiting for gets me terribly excited. Looking at the cast list, I'm not too familiar with Henry Cavill, the new man in the cape, but Amy Adams should make a great Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon is resurrecting one of the most entertaining villains from the older movies – General Zod. Remember General Zod? If the rumors about the return of Khan Noonien Singh to the "Star Trek" universe turn out to be false, we're still going to be getting some prime sci-fi villain ham next summer.

Then again, the choice of Zod seems a little desperate. It's worth nothing that "Man of Steel" wasn't greenlit because someone had a brilliant new take on the Superman mythos that roused Warners to action. No, it was a court case decided in 2009, the one that gave Superman creator Jerry Siegel's heirs the rights to Superman's characters and origins. The decision stated that if Warners didn't begin production on a Superman film by 2011, they could be sued for lost revenue on an unproduced film. That was the impetus for the new reboot, and it's not one that inspires much confidence. Considering all the false starts and dead ends over the years, Superman has proven to be a tough character to modernize. People are still passing around those awful costume test photos from the scrapped Tim Burton "Superman Lives" that would have starred Nicolas Cage.

But I did like that first teaser trailer that played with "The Dark Knight Rises," showing Clark Kent travelling the world and seeking answers. I liked that it looked different from any other take on Superman I've seen in a long time, and that the filmmakers are clearly not afraid to strike out in a new direction. And maybe getting a little darker and more serious wouldn't hurt, considering that the last time Warners tried to do something lighter and more fantasy-oriented with one of their superheroes, we ended up with "The Green Lantern." The trailer did show off some great visuals, and if the studios can reign in Zack Snyder's worst impulses and bad habits, we could get something really interesting.

Of course that's a big if, and Warners has had a lot more failures than successes lately with its DC superhero franchises that aren't about Batman. They're so far behind the Marvel films, it's no contest.

Considering how much Warners has riding on the film, though, including a potential future "Justice League" franchise, I'm sure they'll spare no expense and take all necessary steps to ensure success.

But Russell Crowe is playing Jor-El. We're not too keen on Russell Crowe.

But Laurence Fishburne is playing Perry White. We like Laurence Fishburne!

So here I sit, debating back and forth with myself, and instead of an angel and devil, I have Mulder and Scully from "The X-files" sitting on my shoulders, and both of them are somehow film nerds who have read too many film articles and comic-book geek discussions. And I haven't decided yet if I'm anticipating "Man of Steel" or if I'm dreading it, if I'm rooting for its success or hoping for minimal embarrassment.

All I know is that next year, whether it's a success or a failure, it's going to be big.
---

The new James Bond film "Skyfall" has been very well received, and is cleaning up at box offices around the world. However, there's one particular breed of James Bond fan that hasn't been reacting well to the movie. These are the viewers with a certain amount of investment in the James Bond franchise, and who have a particular interest in the series' continuity. There's been a popular theory that all the Bond films could happen in the same universe if "James Bond" is a code name the way "007" is, and passes along to each new agent who comes along. This would mean that James Bond is not just one man, but several, which explains how six different actors could play the part across twenty-three movies over fifty years without contradictions. The 1967 "Casino Royale" spoof subscribed to this theory. Up until now, the series has been coy about confirming whether it's true or not, but "Skyfall" finally provided a definitive answer. If you want to avoid spoilers for the film, please skip the next paragraph.

We get confirmation that the real name of the secret agent played by Daniel Craig is actually James Bond, thanks to a couple of thoughtfully placed tombstones. However, the confounding continuity doesn't end there. "Skyfall," along with the 2006 "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace," have been reboot films, reinterpreting the classic franchise for the modern age. "Skyfall" in many ways works as a prequel to the older Bond stories, since it depicts his first meetings with familiar Bond characters like Q and Miss Moneypenny. However, there are also numerous indications that the current Bond may have had some of the past Bond's adventures, with the references to exploding pens, and the reappearance of the Aston Martin DB5 from "Goldfinger," with all its weaponry in good working order. We see the death of M, played by Judi Dench, the only member of the cast to have carried over from the Pierce Brosnan era. However, she's replaced by a male M, played by Ralph Fiennes, in a final scene that shows Bond receiving his orders in the office of the original M, played by Bernard Lee, from the 60s films. Clearly the references were fanservice for the benefit of longtime Bond fans, but it gave the more literal-minded ones a royal headache.

The answer to all the continuity issues is that the James Bond franchise is a multiverse, meaning the action takes place in multiple universes that feature different versions of the same character, but some things remain immutable like the iconic Aston Martin. This is how many of the big franchises have decided to operate nowadays. Perhaps the most prominent multiverse aside from Bond is currently the "Star Trek" universe. The 2009 "Star Trek" film reboot tells the audience outright that the adventures of the new crew of the Starship Enterprise happen in a different timeline from the original television series and its many, many sequels. They even get a nice sendoff from the original Mr. Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy, who has briefly slipped into their universe. You can see the appeal of this approach. It allows the filmmakers to use all the old characters and concepts and removes all the potential continuity problems with the older material.

Multiverses are becoming much more common since franchise films have become so prominent over the last few years, and studio executives are leaning harder than ever on the ability to reboot popular characters. Comic book characters like the Punisher, the Incredible Hulk, and Spider-man have run through several onscreen versions apiece over the last few years. It doesn't matter that "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "X-Men: First Class" had contradictory scenes, since they probably weren't part of the same continuity. It's been announced that Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to be playing Conan the Barbarian again, and the filmmakers will have the option of picking up where "Conan the Destroyer" left off, or starting over with a new stand-alone film. I'm pretty sure they'll be ignoring last year's less-than-stellar "Conan the Barbarian" reboot with Jason Momoa.

There's a big downside to multiverses, which is that they can be confusing and alienate segments of the potential audience. It's harder to get invested in the continuing adventures of the Incredible Hulk if the details of his Hulkhood and the actor playing him keep changing with every new movie. Keeping some continuity with older installments of a franchise may also be an indication of other problems. Multiverses often result when reboots are only half-hearted, made by filmmakers who are relying too much on nostalgia and are not bold enough to give us a totally new reinvention of a familiar story. There is a lot less room for creativity when a filmmaker is still beholden to the formula or the template of the original version. This is the biggest criticism I've seen of "Skyfall" in some discussions, especially among fans of the recent "Casino Royale." They argue that resurrecting so many elements of the old Bond mythology amounts to the franchise backsliding into tired old habits.

Film multiverses are a fairly recent phenomenon, really only made possible by lengthy series like the Bond films. It's become part of the Bond formula to reinvent itself every few years, a trick very few others have mastered. There are still many franchises like "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" where fans have too much invested in the original versions to accept reboots. So even though the promise of a new "Star Wars" movie on the horizon would be a perfect chance to start over, I think we're probably going to end up with some kind of sequel instead, because of the likelihood that filmgoers are not yet ready to accept a new Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia. "Star Trek" was easier to let go of, since that film series had already transitioned once to the "Star Trek: the Next Generation" crew, and killed off William Shatner's Captain Kirk back in 1996.

I really liked what "Skyfall" did, putting bits and pieces of the franchise's past together in interesting combinations, and contributing a little of its own mythology to the mix. I don't think there's any other franchise that could get away with flaunting so much continuity so blatantly, multiverse theory or not. And yet it does work, so James Bond might as well enjoy it, especially on his birthday. After all, having survived six lead actors, eleven directors, the Cold War, and an epically awful Madonna title song, I think he's deserved it.
---

Spoilers Ahead.

I was worried about the second season of "Alphas" after the series changed showrunners. The first season had built up to this wonderful game-changer finale, where Dr. Rosen (David Strathairn) revealed the existence of Alphas to the world, and I wasn't sure where it would go from there. Would the show break from its superhero procedural formula, or find some way of hiding the existence of Alphas from the general public again to maintain the status quo? And what about the show's new Big Bad, Stanton Parish (John Pyper-Ferguson)? And the revelation that Dr. Rosen's daughter Dani (Kathleen Munroe) was also an Alpha - and on the wrong side?

Well, as I expected, the second season of "Alphas" took a step back. The existence of Alphas stayed public knowledge, and Dr. Rosen suffered some consequences for his actions, but all the regular characters wound up back together on the same team eventually, using their powers to fight the Alpha antagonist of the week. However, stopping Stanton Parrish became a bigger and bigger concern. Two newcomers were added to the regular cast: the team's new government liaison Nathan Clay (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), and a spunky blonde named Kat (Erin Way), a young woman who can quickly pick up any skill, but can't remember events further than a month back in time. The story also got more serialized, as Dani hooked up with Hicks (Warren Christie), and Rachel (Azita Ghanizada) got a new love interest in government analyst John Bennett (Steve Byers). Meanwhile, Gary (Ryan Cartwright) moved into the office to deal with some ongoing traumas, while Nina (Laura Mennell) had a massive relapse into bad behavior that kept her out of the action until nearly halfway through the season.

In short, while "Alphas" didn't break out of the constraints of its usual formula, it continued to do a good job with the character building and the more personal stories that made the first season so strong. The level of the writing did not drop off at all, and remained fairly ambitious. The status quo did change and arcs did progress, but in a slow and steady fashion. Dr. Rosen was at the center of most of the year's big events, and we saw him become more morally compromised and ethically fallible through his interactions with his daughter. Nina had a fantastic run of episodes where we learned about her troubled past, which also helped to downplay some of the more problematic aspects of her character. I wasn't thrilled with the romances, particularly Rachel's awkward courtship with John, but they didn't do anything to detract from everything else that was going on. Poor Bill (Malik Yoba) didn't get much attention this year except as Kat's mentor figure and sparring buddy. And I wanted more Gary, but then I always want more Gary. However, the important thing was that all these characters worked together as an ensemble, even improving a bit on last year.

And that's why the second season of "Alphas" worked while the second season of "Heroes" fell apart. Several new characters were introduced in this set of "Alphas" episodes, but they had very specific purposes, and the time was taken to properly integrate them into the show's existing dynamics. There was a big, complicated season-spanning story, but few wild stunts and major twists that would have detracted from the show's careful character-building. The pace moved along briskly, so issues were resolved and questions were answered on a regular basis, but there were never the abrupt course corrections that "Heroes" leaned on so heavily to keep its energy up. Instead, "Alphas" maintains this great balance between its heavier and lighter stories, going to some very dark places while being careful to maintain its adventurous, often playful atmosphere. I'm a sucker for good banter, and "Alphas" frequently delivers. I might not be especially fond of the direction the writers have decided to take with some characters like Hicks, but at least the execution's been solid, and it doesn't feel like those choices were made lightly.

I really appreciate that "Alphas" has been kept much more grounded in reality, careful to show that every amazing superpower comes with a down side. Those powers have gotten more outlandish over time, no longer purely extensions of real world phenomena, but they still have clear limitations. The government's oversight of the team is always a source of tensions, not as prominent as they were last season, but still simmering in the background and sure to be the source of more trouble in the future. Initially I was a little disappointed that the series hadn't delved too much into the public reaction to the existence of Alphas, which plays out offscreen during the break between seasons. However, they've left the door open to revisit the issue in the future too, and it's not like the characters weren't given enough to deal with.

"Alphas" has become one of the best action series on television, a little bit darker, a little bit smarter this time out, but still very, very easy watching. Some ideas and developments didn't work for me, but an awful lot of them did, and I can't wait to see where "Alphas" is going next season.

---

Most of what I know about the DC superhero Green Arrow I know from the "Justice League" and "Young Justice" animated series, which is to say, not a whole lot. Green Arrow is really a rich industrialist named Oliver Queen who fights injustice with a bow and arrow, dresses in a green Robin Hood themed outfit, and has a kid sidekick named Speedy. He always seemed like a bit of a Batman knockoff, except with a sillier gimmick.

The new WB series immediately provides much more to chew on. This version of Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) starts out as a feckless playboy who is shipwrecked on an island in the North China Sea for five years after a terrible accident kills his father (Jamey Sheridan) and the girl Ollie was seeing at the time, Sarah (Jacqueline MacInnes Wood). He returns home to a worried mother, Moira (Susanna Thompson), who has remarried to the shady-looking businessman Walter Steele (Colin Salmon). She immediately saddles Ollie with a new bodyguard, John Diggle (David Ramsey). Warmer welcomes come from the family maid, Raisa (Kathleen Gati), Ollie's teenage sister Thea (Willa Holland), and his best friend Tommy Merlyn (Colin Donnell), who is eager to facilitate a return to a life of hedonism. Ollie has other plans. First, he seeks out Sarah's sister Laurel Lance (Katie Cassidy), a legal aid crusader and another of Ollie's former girlfriends. She sees that he's changed, but isn't ready to reconcile. Maybe she'd change her mind if she knew that five years on the island has given Oliver Queen a new goal in life - to bring down the corrupt ne'er-do-wells who control the city and may have caused his father's death. And boy does he have some interesting ideas about how to go about playing vigilante.

So instead of altruism and comic book capers, we've got a Green Arrow whose primary motivation is revenge. Plus, we have those five years on the island presenting a big series mystery, and some hints of brewing family drama. Established Green Arrow fans should take note that Ollie's little sister is nicknamed Speedy, and Laurel Lance is the alter ego of another DC superhero, Black Canary. I'm glad that she's in the show, but not so thrilled about the way she's been rewritten as an uptight, self-righteous lawyer type. Some of the other changes are more promising, like setting up Ollie's mother as a major Big Bad and the unexplored backstory with his father. "Arrow" has learned from the mistakes of other superhero themed shows and downplays the traditional comic book elements. We get a few quick training and fight scenes, nothing too out of the ordinary for a regular action show aside from the use of archery. The main feature of the crimefighting costume is a green hood instead of a feathered cap, and Ollie uses a few streaks of face paint instead of a mask. It doesn't look great, but at least it doesn't look silly or campy. I don't think anyone even says the name "Green Arrow" anywhere in the pilot.

It's not a bad approach to the material, but I'm not sure the about the execution. The acting is the biggest headache so far. Arnell's dialogue delivery is awfully stiff, and the minute I heard his voice-over supplying a few lines of exposition to set the scene, I knew we were in trouble. He's good looking and charismatic, but I do not buy that this guy is wrestling with any kind of inner demons, or that he's being driven by some kind of great moral cause all of a sudden. The other characters read as easy stereotypes so far. Slightly weaselly best friend. Social justice-minded love interest. Pretty younger sister surrounded by bad influences. Untrustworthy authority figures you just know are up to no good. The one character with any real ambiguity to him was the bodyguard, whose interactions with Ollie were the only source of comic relief in the whole hour. I know this is only the pilot and we're still dealing with introductions, but the core cast so far is exceptionally bland.

At least "Arrow" looks pretty good. The fight scenes are fun. We get several exciting flashbacks to the shipwreck and the picturesque island, with the promise of more to come. The Queen family's opulence is established without coming across like it's trying too hard. I like that they're not relying on too many visual gimmicks or gadgetry too, as the CGI isn't too bad, but not helping either. The premiere is fast-paced and manages to convey a lot of information very quickly, and it did manage to hold my interest. I'm not sure what's going to happen when it slows down, though, if the writing and the performances are going to improve enough to keep the show afloat.

Put this in the wait and see category.
---

I've already reviewed a couple of the television pilots for the new network television fall season and you can expect reviews of a few more before the month is up. However, I'll be honest. There's not a lot this year that I see myself getting very excited about. I've been watching less and less network television in general since I cut the cord, and I find myself more interested in the return of shows like "Person of Interest" and "Community," and catching up on others that I've missed, than sorting through the latest crop of new hopefuls. However, there are a couple of titles that I'm keeping an eye on.

"666 Park Avenue" - ABC's newest supernatural series about a young couple who take up residence in a too-good-to-be-true apartment building that may be owned by agents of the devil. Terry O'Quinn and Vanessa Williams will be headlining as the show's baddies. I'm hoping for more of a toothy fantasy anthology show here and less of a prime time soap, but my guess is that it's probably going to follow in the footsteps of their previous hit, "Once Upon a Time," which is a little of both. However, this one's in the 10PM hour, so it'll probably at least be a little darker and sexier.

"Last Resort" - One of the most interesting concepts of the year: a US nuclear submarine refuses to follow orders to fire on its intended target and is declared a rogue vessel. The crew set up base on a nearby island and declare themselves a sovereign nation until they can figure out who betrayed them. The cast is full of familiar names including Scott Speedman, Robert Patrick, Dichen Lachman, with Andrew Braugher as the captain of the boat. Even if the rest of the series is a wash, the pilot looks like it's going to be pretty spectacular. "The Shield" creator Shawn Ryan is responsible for this one, which is a good sign.

"Arrow" - Warner Bros, having had no luck bringing the superhero Green Arrow to the big screen, will try him out on television in "Arrow." Oliver Queen, played by Stephen Amell, is a billionaire business man by day and a crime fighter by night. The good news is that the show's creators are toning down the superhero elements and going with something more down-to-earth. The bad news is that those creators are Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, who were behind the less than stellar "No Ordinary Family." The CW's genre shows can be very hit or miss, but I've always liked Green Arrow, so I want to give "Arrow" a chance.

"Elementary" - I've already reviewed the pilot over here. The concept is none too original, but the talent is right, the approach is sound, and there's every indication that this could be a solid performer for NBC. I like Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu as Holmes and Watson, I like that they seem to be going with a platonic friendship angle for now, even though I doubt that's going to last if the show survives more than two seasons. Still, I see no reason why the popular culture doesn't have room for yet another "Sherlock Holmes" adaptation, especially one as self-assured as this.

"Vegas" - At first glance this 60s era cops and mobsters series seems to be a leftover from last year, which saw several similar period dramas try their luck at landing a network audience. However, "Vegas" has the benefit of veteran filmmakers James Mangold and Nicholas Pileggi in the mix, along with actors Dennis Quaid, Michael Chiklis, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Jason O'Mara back for another round after "Terra Nova" and the American version of "Life on Mars." Maybe he'll have better luck in a supporting role, as Quaid will be taking the lead as the Nevada sheriff clashing with a newly transplanted Chicago mobster, played by Chiklis.

And finally we come to the comedies, which I can never tell anything about from their synopses and always take me a while to warm up to anyway . I make no promises as to which of these I'm actually going to watch and review, but on my radar are NBC's "Go On" with Matthew Perry and "The New Normal" from "Glee" creator Ryan Murphy. Over on ABC, "The Neighbors" looks like it's trying very hard to be "3rd Rock from the Sun," in reverse, and then there's the extremely timely "How to Live with Your Parents (for the Rest of Your Life)." Also, the "Will & Grace" creators are back with "Partners," which is all about the bromance between a gay guy and a straight guy who both find themselves in new relationships.

In addition, I've already said my piece about Revolution and The Mindy Project, neither of which I expect I'll be revisiting.
---

Hello! If you don't know the drill by now, what follows are links to previous blog posts I've written, along with updates and further thoughts that I wanted to put down, but I didn't feel warranted an entire new post by themselves. Lots of television and superhero related stuff this time. Here we go.

Can We Talk About the Justice League? - After the success of "The Avengers," there's been a lot of chatter about an upcoming "Justice League" film that would skip the individual introductory films and just go straight into a big team adventure. Will Beall was hired for scripting duties, release dates have been rumored, and Ben Affleck was offered the chance to direct, which he declined. The most interesting wrinkle here is that it Warners is going to fast track this movie, they're not going to wait for a Batman reboot, opting instead to introduce the new version of the character in the "Justice League." Also, it's not clear if the film will have any direct connection to "Green Lantern" or the upcoming Zack Snyder "Superman."

Where Are the Female Directors? In Television! - Alas, only one Emmy nominee to add to the list this year, Lena Dunham for "Girls" in the Direction for a Comedy Series category. Good luck Lena!

Keeping Up the Theatrical Habit and The New Dominant Media - As we're slogging through the post-summer doldrums, financial analysts keep charting further declines in the fortunes of the movie studios. This past weekend, theaters had the lowest attendance numbers in over a decade, and there appears to be no relief in sight. There has been another round of studio soul-searching as a result. Gavin Polone wrote this great piece about the comparative quality of current television and the movies, detailing the dysfunctional movie development process that that favors unoriginal concepts and franchise properties. This is the reason why it feels like you've seen everything playing at your local multiplex already.

My Second Annual Holiday Wishlist - I've been pretty happy so far. "Akira" has been put on the back burner at Warners. "Twilight" is giving way to "The Hunger Games." Nobody spoiled anything too important about "The Dark Knight Rises" or "The Avenger" for me, and Josh Larsen is doing a pretty good job so far at filling the shoes of Matty Robinson on the Filmspotting podcast. On the other hand, that last "Doctor Who" Christmas special was only so-so and the fourth season of "Community" remains a giant question mark.

A "Munsters" Reboot? Really? - Bryan Fuller's "Munsters" reboot is now "Mockingbird Lane," starring Portia de Rossi and Jerry O'Conell as Lily and Herman, with Eddie Izzard as Grandpa. A four minute trailer for the pilot was shown at Comic-Con over the summer. There was some talk of the series being a prequel focusing on the courtship of Lily and Herman in their younger days, but the current version has newcomers Mason Grant and Charity Wakefield in the roles of Eddie and Marilyn, so it looks to be a pretty straightforward update of the original series.

Evil Queen Ascendant - After seeing all of their movies, I wasn't too impressed with most of the villainesses I discussed. Julia Roberts in "Mirror, Mirror" was pretty mediocre. Charlize Theron's role as Meredith Vickers in "Prometheus" showed some potential, but it was completely squandered. Her nasty evil queen in "Show White and the Huntsman" was much more fun, but the movie was pretty blah. As for Catwoman, I have no complaints about the Anne Hathaway performance, but I wasn't all that enamored with her either. To date, my favorite villainess of the year is Marge Nugent from "Bernie," played by Shirley MacLaine.

Thundercats" Ho! - After twenty-six episodes on the Cartoon Network, it does not appear likely that the new "Thundercats" reboot is going to get a chance to come back and finish its story, which ended on a cliffhanger. The ratings sank after the premiere, and the show's creators are starting to scatter to other projects. It's a real shame, because I've recently caught up with some of the later episodes, and the quality of the animation and the worldbuilding and character development stayed pretty stellar throughout the whole run. The worst part is that this will probably discourage studios from doing similarly ambitious shows in the future. Oh well. At least I've still got "Korra."

I Gotta Talk About "Wonder Woman" - Finally, last week Vulture reported that the CW is going to try and crack the "Wonder Woman" reboot after David E. Kelley's version went down in flames last year. It's currently only in the earliest scripting stages, with the working title "Amazon," and will likely be an origin story skewing to a much younger audience than the last one. Note that there's also supposed to be a "Wonder Woman" feature film in development, which might complicate things.
---

It's been a couple weeks since the Aurora shootings, and I think it's okay now to add my two cents. I don't want to talk about the tragedy itself in any detail, because I'm not qualified in any way for that. Instead, I want to try to sort out some thoughts and ponder the question that's been on my mind since I heard about what happened in Aurora - what does it mean?

Looking at the response to the tragedy, very little it seems. Security was briefly beefed up at theaters, but I don't think that's going to last. There was some discussion of gun control policies and mental health access, but most of the pieces I saw were cynical op/eds, predicting that nothing would actually change. There were also a few thoughtful ones about the terrible nature of the media coverage, and I generally agree with the theory that mass shootings are all about attention seeking, and no good can come of the media furor around the gunman involved. I got a look at a few minutes of the local news coverage of the shootings, where a hyperbolic reporter made reference to the fact that they were going to follow the story for days, weeks, and perhaps months and years to come. I stopped watching after that.

What about the impact on the movies themselves? Well, it was interesting to see how Hollywood responded. The "Gangster Squad" trailer was pulled, and the film itself delayed to January so that a potentially offending scene could be excised. Warner Brothers cancelled premieres and press, donated money, and did everything in their power to show their sensitivity to the victims, short of pulling "The Dark Knight Rises" from theaters. Box office tallies of the opening weekend of were not officially reported, a symbolic gesture since most of the usual bean counters got the estimates out to us anyway. The assumption is that the shooting played a part in the opening weekend grosses of "The Dark Knight Rises" falling below initial estimates, but nobody can say for sure. It's still a monster hit around the world, so any financial impact was limited.

The shooting in Aurora was a terrible tragedy, and in the immediate aftermath there were specters of all kinds of horrible fears, about movie theaters suddenly being less safe, about these highly anticipated blockbuster film premieres being a magnet for attention-seeking maniacs, about our whole film culture suddenly somehow being complicit. But after a few weeks and with the benefit of some distance, the more it feels like this was just another random act of violence perpetrated by a highly disturbed individual. It could have happened in a post office, a school, or any other public place where a crowd of people had gathered. I don't want to suggest that these mass killings are not deeply shocking and awful every times that they happen, and perhaps indicators of some deeper systemic problems, but they happen for reasons that are usually extremely personal and limited the particular perpetrator involved.

So the shooting, in spite of the shooter's apparent obsession with Batman, has nothing to do with the movies. It reflects absolutely nothing about the Batman franchise, or superhero films, or onscreen violence or anything else you want to try and tie it to. The urge to do do, however, is a strong one. We want to find an easy explanation and we want the shooting to mean something. And it's too easy to speculate and draw conclusions that there really are no bases for. As much as we want them, there aren't ever going to be simple answers in cases like this. I've seen a couple of people try to blame the content, and predictably there's some yahoo trying to sue Warners for releasing the film, but it can't possibly stick. The shooter hadn't even seen the film, remember.

And related to that, it's very tempting to want to use the tragedy as a bludgeon for the moral or political issue of your choice. I caught myself wanting to tell off someone online for being enthusiastic about the Bobcat Goldthwait comedy "God Bless America" because it contains a scene where there's a shooting in a movie theater that's played for laughs. After Aurora, how could you champion a movie like that? But of course, that movie came out months ago and has nothing to do with Aurora. In light of recent events it was insensitive and unfunny, maybe, but that didn't somehow make the movie bad. "God Bless America" was rotten all by itself.

I'm glad that "Gangster Squad" was moved, because it is in very poor taste to evoke the shooting so close in time, even if the scheduling of the film was a coincidence. I think the film's fortunes have probably been irreparably damaged though. And I was relieved that "The Dark Knight Rises" had very little content in it that could be connected with what happened that would give any conspiracy theorists more ammunition.

It feels small and petty to feel protective of the films in this situation, but I am a media junkie after all, and the media is what I obsess over. I really enjoy Nolan's Batman films, and no matter how they're regarded in the future, it's sad that they're always going to be associated with this tragedy.
---

Has it really been twenty years since "Batman: The Animated Series" premiered? Good grief, it's true. Time for a little nostalgia, boys and girls.

"Batman: The Animated Series" premiered on FOX Kids back on September 6, 1992, when I was young enough to still be genuinely frightened by some of the episodes. Before this, I only knew Batman from the campy 60s series with all the Bat puns, and a few glimpses of the Tim Burton's "Batman" movies that I wouldn't watch until I was older. It was my first introduction to characters like Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, Bane, Killer Croc, Ra's Al Ghul, Clayface, and Two-Face. And it was, I suppose, my first real exposure to the noir genre, through the wrenching tragic tales of villains like Harvey Dent and Mr. Freeze. Throughout the 90s I kept telling myself that I had to stop watching cartoons and grow up, but how was I supposed to give up a show that was telling me such dark and interesting stories, that it hardly seemed like a cartoon at all? I was glued to the television set every weekday at 4:30PM for years.( Read more... )
---

This is your final spoiler warning. Here goes.
( Read more... )

Here's how we're going to do this. Review posted today will be a spoiler free as I can possibly keep it. Review posted tomorrow will go into all the analysis of the things that you shouldn't know about before watching the latest Christopher Nolan Batman film. Got it? Great. Onward!
( Read more... )

There's a Slate article that was posted yesterday about Before Watchmen, a series of prequel comics about the origins of the major players in Alan Moore's "Watchmen" universe. Alan Moore has made it clear that he does not approve of this, and while some fans are rejecting the new stories sight unseen, most have been fairly ambivalent. Everyone agrees that the move is a cash grab by DC, meant to capitalize on the higher profile of "Watchmen" after the recent movie version. Not many particularly care.

What caught my eye were the comments about fanfiction, first comparing a "Before Watchmen" cover image to "fan fiction detritus," and then suggesting that fanfiction was a more suitable avenue for this brand of derivative works than the "official" comics, and noting that Moore essentially wrote fanfiction himself with "Lost Girls." Cue multiple comments in the discussion section arguing the proper use of the term fanfiction, which I'm not going to reiterate here, because I've already had that argument and written those posts. Instead, I'm going to try to answer the question nobody quite managed to ask here - what makes a derivative work, a piece of intellectual property based off of a previous piece of intellectual property, a legitimate extension of the original? Where is the border between the canon work and the fanfiction? And what is the mechanism for granting that authority?

Well, you start with the original author first as the prime authority on their own work. If J.K. Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, even though it was never stated anywhere in the "Harry Potter" books, then Dumbledore is gay. If she decides to anoint a new author to continue the adventures of the Potter kids, her word carries more weight than anyone else's. Film and television series, which are more collaborative mediums, often depend on a creator incorporating the work of others. There are only a handful television creators, for instance, who will write every episode of a show themselves, but if they retain creative oversight over the finished product, the show is still considered their work to a large degree.

However, you can't call something a derivative work until the original author is out of the picture. These days that's very common, as many creators of popular media don't have the rights to their creations. Legally, whoever controls the rights to the property controls the official canon, the right to add or change a story as their see fit. So DC can hire other creative talent to write "Before Watchmen" comics without paying any attention to the wishes of Alan Moore. When Bryan Singer made "Superman Returns," he chose to ignore the third and fourth theatrical "Superman" films and pick up the story after "Superman II," with Warner Bros' backing. In the case of comic book characters, they’re often passed around between so many different writers and artists, each making their own contribution, it’s hard to say who really was really the primary creator.

When most people think of fan fiction, they think of the amateur stories passed around online by hobbyists. However, what professional writers do when they work in one of these existing universes isn't any different, except for the money and the legalities. They're using existing characters and concepts to tell new stories. However, what the money and the legalities give them is immediate legitimacy because they also get the right to profit by the work's association with he original. Anything written for profit is taken more seriously than the stuff written for fun and self-indulgence, and the involvement of whoever is holding the rights, even if it's as licensor for a bad tie-in novel, will at least give the appearance of oversight. Something "official" suggests that there's quality control at work somewhere, that there is a protective gatekeeper acting in the best interest of your favorite franchise, Of course, most of the time it's really about exploiting a piece of IP to the fullest extent possible. Do you really think most "Spider-man" fans are all that excited about the new reboot?

Now when the rights holder and the original author clash over the canon, who wins? It depends in each case. J.K. Rowling’s reputation is such that she’d easily win out in the court of public opinion over any company that managed to wrest the “Potter” rights away from her, and try to launch additional sequels with a different writer. Her writing is so integral to those books, she is irreplaceable. However, there's hardly any fuss when Marvel plays musical chairs with the writers and directors of its "Avengers" universe movies, or make decisions about their content that any previous creative talent would disagree with. In the television world, fans raised a fuss when Dan Harmon was fired from "Community," but nobody blinked an eye when "Whitney" got a new showrunner.

The final arbiter is really the audience. They're the ones who draw a lot of the lines between what is considered canon and what isn't, who will challenge the authority of the people who control a beloved media property, and sometimes even the original authors. They're the ones who ignore lesser movie sequels, who pretend that "After MASH" and the third season of "Gargoyles" never happened, and are quick to remind you that Han Solo shot first, despite what George Lucas thinks. No amount of hype or marketing was enough to convince them that George Lazenby was meant to be James Bond, or that Halle Berry was Catwoman. The fans are the ones who care the most about what is and isn't canon, so it makes sense that they often have the most say over the matter in the end.

There are very few instances of something originating purely from the fans being incorporated into canon, because the amateurs and the professionals exist in separate universes to everyone's benefit. but it does happen once in a while. There's Derpy from the "My Little Pony" cartoon, "Figwit" in "Lord of the Rings," and Lt Uhura's first name. And of course that's not counting the number of fans who ended up writing for "Dr. Who" or "Batman" or "Star Trek" officially, with all the money and the legalities. You'll hear writers for many of these properties touting fan credentials these days, and for good reason. If the original author is out of the picture, and the motives of the rights holders are suspect, sometimes a derivative work can still be good and worthwhile if the new creator is significantly invested in it.

In the case of "Before Watchman," DC did one thing right. They put some of their best talent on the project, including J. Michael Straczynski and Brian Azzarello. You can argue that DC is disrespecting Alan Moore and that they're only doing this for the money, but nobody can say whether or not the miniseries are actually going to be any good. If the quality is up to par, and they're accepted by the fans, they'll become a part of the "Watchmen" canon whether Moore likes it or not. And if they're terrible, then the fans will reject them, like the "Psycho" sequels no one remembers, or "The Blues Brothers 2000," and we can all move on.
---

Profile

missmediajunkie

May 2014

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Cinnamon Cream for Crossroads by branchandroot
Resources: Vintage Christmas 6

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 03:17 am

Entries tagged with superhero

The Future of the "Iron Man" Movies?

A Superhero Turf War

About That Third "Iron Man" Movie

My Top Ten Superhero Movies Continued

My Top Ten Superhero Movies

2014 and 2015 Movies I Wanna See

My Most Anticipated Films of 2013, Part I

Onboard the Disney-Star Wars-Marvel Crazy Train

Whatever Happened to the Films of 2009?

Mulder, Scully, Superman, and Me

Multiverse Matters

"Alphas" Season Wrap-Up

"Arrow" Sure is Green

About the New Fall TV Season

A September Follow-up Post

800 Words on the Aurora Shootings

"Batman: The Animated Series" Turns Twenty

TJE 7/24 – The Dark Knight Rises (With Spoilers)

TJE 7/23 – The Dark Knight Rises (No Spoilers)

Canon v. Fanfiction