The INSIDER Summary:

• Stakes for the "Finding Nemo" sequel were high.
• Co-director Andrew Stanton kept the movie constantly running to make sure they got the details right.

All Pixar movies are beloved. But even by Pixar standards, "Finding Nemo" is a favorite. Until the release of "Toy Story 3" in 2010, it was the highest-grossing Pixar movie of all time in the United States. It also broke the record for DVD sales in just two weeks and is generally a staple in any childhood home.

The stakes were definitely high when making the sequel, 2016's "Finding Dory." Pixar enlisted Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane, to direct. Stanton's list of bona fides at Pixar are long: he directed the original "Finding Nemo,""Wall-E," and co-directed "A Bug's Life."

MacLane himself has been with Pixar for two decades. He first worked on the 1997 short "Geri's Game" as an animator and worked his way up to directing short films. "Dory" was the first full-length feature he directed.

As a way of honoring "Finding Nemo" and making sure they got every detail right, Stanton was constantly watching the movie while working on the sequel.

"He always had 'Nemo' on his phone, at a moment's notice, to reference," MacLane told INSIDER. "He had an idea about how the characters were, and he always had a different idea of how the characters were than almost everyone else."

The storyline for "Finding Dory" formed when Stanton had a revelation that he understood Dory differently from everyone else. He wanted to show the world the hidden dimensions of Dory's character in a new movie.

"He saw her as a tragic character," MacLane said. "She would always apologize because she felt that she was constantly inconveniencing people with her short term memory loss."

MacLane was the perfect person at Pixar to highlight Dory's character along with Stanton. The two had become close while working on "Wall-E," for which MacLane was the directing animator. Earlier in MacLane's career, he saw Stanton as his mentor.

"He would say he learned to make movies by sitting next to [Pixar founder John Lasseter], when John was making the first films," MacLane said. "So for him, the best way to learn the most you can about directing a film is by being mentored. And Andrew has just been a fantastic mentor to me on this film and other films we've worked on together."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The richest village in China is one of the most mysterious places on earth

The rights holders of the "Rambo" movies are trying to turn it into a "James Bond"-like franchise.

Nu Image/Millennium Films are planning to reboot "Rambo" without Sylvester Stallone, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 

Titled "Rambo: New Blood," the movie will continue the story of John Rambo, the lead character from David Morrell's 1972 novel, "First Blood," which looked at the struggle of a Vietnam Veteran returning from the war. 

The project is currently in development but a new actor will be taking over the role, a la the numerous actors who have carried the James Bond torch over the decades. 

The 1982 film "First Blood," and the sequels, that followed made Stallone an international star. He last played the role in 2008's "Rambo."

"New Blood" will be directed by Ariel Vromen, who found acclaim with the 2012 movie "The Iceman," starring Michael Shannon.

SEE ALSO: An early look at Martin Scorsese's long-awaited "Silence" was stunning and brutal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch the new trailer for 'The Man in the High Castle' season 2

I was around 9 or 10 when I first saw Michael Crichton’s 1973 “Westworld.” The movie was on TV one night and though I didn’t understand what was going on, the ending scared the hell out of me and gave me nightmares for days.

From time to time since, I've remembered that visual of a robotic Yul Brynner roaming around the futuristic amusement park going on a killing spree. But watching the movie again on iTunes earlier this week, I pinpointed what my major fear was back then: helpless isolation.

The main character, Peter Martin (played by Richard Benjamin), after surviving the robot attack, sits by himself as the screen goes to black. What the hell does he do now?

With HBO’s sci-fi hit “Westworld” in full gear, I decided to rewatch the 1973 movie that inspired the show’s creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy along with executive producers J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk (maybe a few of them had nightmares watching the movie, too?) to go deeper into the story than the movie’s writer/director Michael Crichton ever could.

Though the movie does not hold up well at all, there are still some groundbreaking elements to it that certainly inspired many filmmakers/authors who would go on to thrive in the sci-fi genre.

“Westworld” was Crichton’s first feature film and was kind of doomed from the start. The script was turned down by most studios when the author shopped it around, and he finally found a taker in MGM. But the studio squeezed Crichton on the budget and his lead actors, Richard Benjamin and James Brolin, weren’t signed on to the movie until 48 hours before principal photography began. Brynner was so strapped for cash he took the gig for $75,000 and showed up on set wearing the all-black costume he wore in “The Magnificent Seven.” 

Despite all that, the movie, which was made for around $1.5 million, earned $4 million at the box office and was MGM’s biggest release of that year. 

What has drawn viewers to the HBO series likely is the same thing that grabbed the attention of audiences in 1973: the desire to see a thrilling experience that we the viewers will never be able to have ourselves.

Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) and John Blane (James Brolin) are friends who are on board a hovercraft en route to an amusement park called Delos when “Westworld” begins. For $1,000 a day, Delos provides the experience of a lifetime, as you have your choice of three worlds to immerse yourself in: Westworld, Medieval World, or Rome World. All are inhabited by robots who look and act like humans, except their hands are not humanlike (with all that detail, you think they would have mastered the hands).

John is the more confident of the two and has been to Delos before. Peter is shy and reserved. We are basically going through the whole experience from his perspective.

If this sounds familiar to a pair of characters from the HBO series, I’m with you. Though TV's “Westworld” is far more ambitious than the movie, one thing that certainly feels taken from the movie is the duo William (Jimmi Simpson) and Logan (Ben Barnes), though Logan is a lot more of a jerk than John.

Once Peter and John get settled into Westworld, it’s then an hour of cliche after cliche in all the worlds. Peter and John get into bar fights, have sex with the town whores, and shoot people, like the dressed-in-black Gunslinger (Brynner).

There’s also a subplot in Medieval World where a guest has a tryst with the queen and must prepare to fight the Black Knight.

But then things start to go haywire. John gets bitten by a robotic rattle snake (none of the robots is supposed to harm the guests) and a beautiful maiden doesn’t give into the advances of the Medieval World guest (sex robots were created to, well, have sex).

This introduces us to the most comical part of the movie: the staff behind the scenes running Delos. All dressed in white lab coats, they spend their time staring at monitors showing the park, griping about nothing ever working, and fixing robots who have been shot.

One of the most fascinating parts of TV's “Westworld” is watching the characters who pull the strings at the park, but Crichton didn’t seem to worry about that too much. The biggest moment for the staff in white coats is after the rattlesnake bite when they converge and wonder if they should close down the park. It doesn’t take them long to decide to push through and keep it open.

The last 20 minutes or so comprise the best part of the movie. The Gunslinger is back in town and he’s new and improved, now with heightened heat censers for sight. He confronts Peter and John again but when John draws, the Gunslinger shoots and kills him. This begins a cat-and-mouse game between the Gunslinger and Peter throughout all the worlds.

Behind the scenes, the dimwitted staff are confused by what has happened to their creations as all the robots in all the words are killing the guests (yes, the Medieval World guest is killed by the Black Knight). In a panic, the staff shuts down the power to the park. But that also causes all the doors in their control room to automatically lock as well. And I guess those doors were pretty tightly sealed because they all suffocate to death.

Meanwhile, Peter is running from the Gunslinger, who can track his footprints thanks to his heat sensor-powered sight.

Finding his way into the control area of the park, Peter gets the drop on the Gunslinger and after throwing acid on him, the Gunslinger finally stops operating.

Peter ends up in Medieval World, hearing the cries of a woman locked in a dungeon. When he unlocks the chains and tries to give her water she begins to spark. She’s a robot, too.

Peter is alive, but alone (let the nightmares begin).

Yes, “Westworld” sounds cheesy, but there are some very important takeaways.

Once the Gunslinger is given the heat sensor, the movie suddenly has a lot of POV shots from the perspective of the Gunslinger, a pixelated view that was a groundbreaking work of visual effects for the early 1970s.

Then there’s the unstoppable Gunslinger played by Brynner, who today you can’t help but compare to James Cameron’s Terminator.

And then there’s Crichton himself. “Westworld” is in many ways a test balloon for the 1990 novel in which he once more highlights a unique amusement park that goes awry, “Jurassic Park.”

But this time, without the restrictions of a Hollywood budget, through the written word, Crichton creates a world that he could have only dreamed while making “Westworld.”

His work once more became responsible for elevating VFX, as Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of the book in 1993 proved that Hollywood had caught up to Crichton’s imagination.

Because of the success of “Westworld,” a sequel was made, “Futureworld,” in 1976. Crichton had no involvement and Brynner makes a small cameo. It’s awful.

There was also a short-lived TV series, “Beyond Westworld,” on CBS. It's awful, too.

It took over 40 years, but a worthy companion to “Westworld” has finally been made with the HBO series. I highly doubt the series will end with Dr. Ford and Bernard suffocating in a control room. But it is important to recognize the significance the movie has had on the sci-fi genre, and in many ways the work of Crichton.

Would he have written “Jurassic Park” if he made “Westworld” the way he wanted to?

SEE ALSO: The history of Donald Trump and NBC's love-hate relationship that made him a star

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Media rigging the election!': Trump slams SNL for mocking his debate performance

It's October, the perfect time for scaring yourself with a spooky film.

Some people adore the rush they get from watching a horror flick; others can't stand how filmmakers somehow worm their way into your consciousness, building up tension and then striking that moment of terror with a jump scare or with some creepy moment that seems to burn itself into your brain.

Using images and sound, the best horror directors are able to tap into a part of your brain that operates purely on instinct.

When you sit down to watch "The Witch" or "The Ring," you know that the movie obviously isn't real. And yet somehow, the best scary films put you on the edge of your seat, ready to jump — sometime actually eliciting a yelp or a gasp.

That's a powerful effect.

"Usually when we're watching something we've shut down the motor regions of the brain, and yet those stimuli [from a shocking scene] are so strong that they overcome the inhibition to the motor system," says Michael Grabowski, an associate professor of communication at Manhattan College and the editor of the textbook "Neuroscience and Media: New Understandings and Representations."

We jump or yell because a film bypasses our tranquilized state and taps into a primal instinct, which is to react immediately to protect ourselves and warn others — before taking time to process what scared us.

"The scream is a way to alert others in your social group and scare off attackers," says Grabowski.

These scary moments supersede our rational thought process that knows they aren't real.

Neurocinematics

Grabowski's background is in filmmaking, but his research now is focused on an emerging field called "neurocinematics," which focuses on the connection between the mind and the experience of cinema.

While filmmakers have been able to evoke emotional responses in viewers for more than a century, it's only now that modern neuroscience can show us what's happening in someone's brain.

This goes beyond horror, too. Think of the last time that you felt emotion while watching any film, whether you laughed or suddenly felt tears welling up in your eyes during "Inside Out." Despite knowing that what you're watching isn't real, you feel real emotion.

But as Uri Hasson, a researcher and professor who focuses on neuroscience and psychology at Princeton, discovered when conducting the study that first coined the term"neurocinematics," people watching something scary or suspenseful tend to have particularly similar responses in their brain.

For now, that insight is mostly helping us understand what that fear looks like in the brain. But some researchers think that modern filmmaking, with an updated understanding of neuroscience and psychology, is actually better able to tap into emotion than it used to be.

As Dutch media studies professor Patricia Pisters wrote in a recent essay for Aeon, "in contemporary thrillers, the spectator knows just as little as the characters, and is immediately drawn into the subjective emotional word of the protagonists. As spectators, we indeed experience the world increasingly 'inside out' and have direct access to the drama of the neural mechanisms of emotion. We are taken on a neuronal rollercoaster that will eventually give us the story."

In the future, says Grabowski, it's possible that filmmakers will be able to use even more precise insights to directly stimulate certain emotions, to control when their audiences jump and what they feel.

When you combine that with powerful technologies like virtual reality, something that makes it even harder for us to tell reality from fiction, the possibilities are fascinating and even a little scary. (If you have a Cardboard headset, check out the terrifying short film "Catatonic"— the future of interactive media is somewhat terrifying.)

It's like the dream of Alfred Hitchcock that Pisters cites in her essay, quoted from Donald Spoto's biography of the filmmaker.

"The audience is like a giant organ that you and I are playing," Hitchcock reportedly told scriptwriter Ernest Lehman. "At one moment we play this note, and get this reaction, and then we play that chord and they react. And someday we won't even have to make a movie — there'll be electrodes implanted in their brains, as we'll just press different buttons and they'll go 'oooh' and 'aaah' and we'll frighten them, and make them laugh. Won't that be wonderful?"

SEE ALSO: Technology is eroding our ability to understand what's real and what's just an illusion

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What 2,000 calories of your favorite foods looks like may shock you

Man, did this quickly become the franchise no one wanted!

With an estimated $15 million over the weekend, according to Exhibitor Relations, "Inferno" the third screen adaptation of a Dan Brown novel, which started with "The Da Vinci Code" in 2006, crashed and burned at the box office this weekend.

"Inferno" is the lowest opening of the three movies ($77 million for "The Da Vinci Code;"$46.2 million for "Angels & Demons") and is more than a 60% drop from the opening "Angels & Demons" had in 2009.

It's also below the $20 million projection made for the movie this weekend.

Released by Sony, the adult-catered franchise starring Tom Hanks has certainly disinterested audiences since Brown's best-selling novel "The Da Vinci Code" hit shelves in 2003.

But the same can't be said for the long-standing Madea franchise.

Tyler Perry's latest, "Boo! A Madea Halloween," played spoiler last week by taking the number one spot at the box office over the Tom Cruise-starrer "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" and this week it took down Hanks.

"Boo!" won the weekend box office for the second time in a row, taking in an estimated $16.6 million, according to Exhibitor Relations.

A strong 71% spike in ticket sales for "Boo!" on Saturday from the $4.6 million it made on Friday proved to give the Perry comedy the edge.

Though none of these figures are ground-breaking, business at the box office will certainly pick up next week as Marvel's "Doctor Strange" hits theaters.  

SEE ALSO: Why the movie that HBO's "Westworld" is based on was way ahead of its time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Media rigging the election!': Trump slams SNL for mocking his debate performance

November is almost here, so it's time to say bye to some titles on Netflix.

A whole lot of classics are leaving the streaming giant.

Movies we're sad to see go include "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,""Deliverance,""Fatal Attraction," and "Major League," and there are only a few weeks left to watch the teen classic "Can't Hardly Wait" (you know you'll miss it).

Here's the full list of everything leaving Netflix in November. We've highlighted some of the titles you should check out one more time before they disappear.

SEE ALSO: The 23 scariest horror movies on Netflix you need to watch for Halloween

Leaving November 1

“The Addams Family”
“Almost Famous”
“Angel Heart”
“Barnyard” “Bratz: The Movie”
“The 'Burbs”
“Can't Hardly Wait”
“Chuck” (Seasons 1-5)
“The Core”
“Deliverance”
“E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”
“Echelon Conspiracy”
“Eight Crazy Nights”
“Empire State”
“Equilibrium”
“Escape to Witch Mountain”
“The Family Man”
“Fatal Attraction”
“Fresh”
“Get Rich or Die Tryin’”
“The Holiday”
“Into the Wild”
”Kangaroo Jack”
“Legally Blonde”
“Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde”
“Major League”
“Mansfield Park”
“Meet Joe Black”
“Mel Brooks: Make a Noise”
“Open Season”
“Open Season 2”
“Open Season 3”
“Patton Oswalt: My Weakness Is Strong”
“Powerpuff Girls” (Seasons 1-6)
“Rounders”
“Scream 2”
“Sex: My British Job”
“Shameless” (Seasons 1-10)
“Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”
“Something's Gotta Give”
“The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie”
“Spy Game”
“The Sum of All Fears”
“Total Drama World Tour”
“Underground: The Julian Assange Story”
“Urban Cowboy”
“Varsity Blues”
“What Women Want”

Leaving November 2

“The English Teacher”

Leaving November 4

“Gigli”

Miles Teller has zero regrets about not being part of the "Star Wars" saga.

Before newcomer Alden Ehrenreich was chosen to play young Han Solo in the upcoming standalone movie on one of the franchise's most beloved characters, Teller was one of the better-known names who auditioned and was shortlisted for the role late last year.

Though Teller admits, he never knew how far his name got in consideration for the role until he read reports about the casting.

"I didn't know that I was on a shortlist for that role," Teller told Business Insider while promoting his upcoming movie "Bleed for This" (opening in theaters November 18). "I actually did find out about that through the press. I didn't know that the list was narrowed down and I was a part of it."

But thinking back on it, Teller is relieved he didn't get the young Solo role.

"Having done a huge movie with 'Fantastic Four' with a built-in audience and reviving it in a way, I knew what that would be so I think for me it wasn't just like, 'Oh my God, this is so amazing.' There's also some caution there and some hesitation because I know how passionate the 'Star Wars' fans are," Teller said. "I just went through an experience where the fans were very pissed off, apparently, at what we did with their beloved franchise."

With "Bleed for This"— a biopic in which he plays boxing champ Vinny Pazienza, whose career was jeopardized after a near-fatal car crash — Teller returns to the dramatic work that got him attention in Hollywood, like "The Spectacular Now" and "Whiplash."

But he maintains he also has no regrets about making "Fantastic Four" or being a part of the "Divergent" franchise.

"I felt I got to do a lot of different things before the age of 30," he said. "Those big films, yeah, it's a lot of your life, but they also play all around the world and you get to connect to audiences that maybe smaller American independent films don't, so I have savored all the experiences and I've learned a lot from them."

After a breath, he added, "I'm cool right now not being attached to a franchise."

SEE ALSO: Why the movie that HBO's "Westworld" is based on was way ahead of its time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Alec Baldwin mock Trump's mic issues on 'Saturday Night Live'

The INSIDER Summary

• Warner Bros. released a new trailer for the extended edition of "Suicide Squad" via Amazon.
• The trailer teases off several new deleted scenes with Jared Leto's Joker that weren't seen in theaters.

If you were displeased "Suicide Squad" cut out a bunch of Joker footage from the final film, the extended cut will feature a bunch of deleted scenes featuring the Clown Prince of Crime.

What scenes will we see more of? We've done a bit of a breakdown of rumored deleted Joker scenes, which you can check out here, but a new trailer for the extended edition of "Suicide Squad" shows off a few more Joker scenes.

Honestly, it's still nuts to me that anyone would cut the Joker out of a movie. He was one of the few characters that the marketing for the movie heavily revolved around and he's one of the most iconic characters in the DC Universe. It's like cutting Batman scenes out of a Batman movie. 

His deletion from the film felt like one giant slap in the face to fans who were eager to see what Jared Leto brought to the character after Heath Ledger's Oscar-worthy performance in "The Dark Knight."

The new trailer, which was released on the Amazon product page for the film, was noticed by Batman-News.com. 

The new shots with the Joker include extensions of scenes that are already in the film. There's a new moment of him right before he shocks Dr. Harleen Quinzel and another when the the two are seen together in a large acid vat.

Another deleted scene between him and Harley shows the doctor holding a gun to his head. The Joker tells her to pull the trigger. 

The extended edition Blu-ray and DVD will be released December 13. It will be available on Digital HD November 15.

Check out the trailer below:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists have discovered why American honey bees are turning into zombies

Even before "Avatar" became the highest-grossing movie of all time thanks in large part to its incredible technological advances in 3D, director James Cameron was always looking to use groundbreaking equipment that would make audiences more immersed in the stories he was telling.

As he's moving forward on multiple sequels to "Avatar," Cameron also plans to give fans an experience that will be light years beyond the 2009 original.

“I’m going to push," Cameron said while accepting honorary membership into the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers on Friday night, according to Indiewire. “I’m still very bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen — with no glasses. We’ll get there.”

Cameron is likely keeping a close eye on the reactions people have from watching Ang Lee's new movie "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk," which is the first film ever to be shot in 3D in 120 frames per second (the standard is 24 frames per second).

It's so advanced most movie projectors can't play the movie in that format when it opens nationwide November 11 (only one theater in New York City and one in LA will be able to), but those who have watched it say the visuals are incredible.

"Avatar 2" opens in theaters in 2018. It will be interesting to see if Cameron will push for the industry to make movies in 120 fps available in more theaters or if he'll work on evolving 3D in a lower frame rate.

SEE ALSO: Miles Teller says he's relieved he didn't get the Han Solo role: 'I'm cool right now not being attached to a franchise'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's everything we know about 'Westworld' — HBO's mysterious new sci-fi series

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics on Metacritic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Animated map shows where your bottled water actually comes from

Eric Heisserer was leaving a meeting with the production company 21 Laps in 2010 when he was asked one last question: “Is there anything you would want us to get the rights to?”

Heisserer turned and gave the pitch he’d been giving and which had been turned down for the last five years, but he thought, “Why not?”

He told 21 Laps producers Dan Cohen and Dan Levine about a short story he was obsessed with, “Story of Your Life.” Written by sci-fi writer Ted Chiang, it follows a linguist named Louise who is recruited by the military to help understand the language of aliens who have just landed on earth.

To Heisserer’s surprise, Cohen and Levine were interested, and suddenly the movie that would become known as “Arrival,” the highly anticipated sci-fi drama starring Amy Adams in the Louise role, had life.

Though Heisserer, 46, is best known in Hollywood for his horror scripts — which include this year’s surprise box-office hit “Lights Out” and 2010’s “A Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot — he’s always been looking to branch out into other genres. A script that he wrote on spec seems to be the one that’s going to do it.

Around 2005, Heisserer read “Story of Your Life” and was completely taken by Chiang’s touching story of life and loss.

“The end of the story just had me bawling and I knew at that point I wanted to share that feeling with the world,” Heisserer said to Business Insider. “And I didn't worry so much about the fact that it wasn't inherently cinematic in its original form.”

That’s the biggest reason why it took so long for Heisserer to find producers who were interested. He was told meeting after meeting that he either needed a star or a name director to move forward, and he had neither.

But with 21 Laps on his side after their meeting in 2010, he was a step closer. The company, founded by director Shawn Levy (“Night at the Museum”), was beginning to come into its own and would soon get behind two unknown filmmakers with a project called “Stranger Things,” which would go on to become one of Netflix’s biggest hits.

When Heisserer teamed up with 21 Laps for a new round of pitches of his story idea, studios rejected it again. So Heisserer was content to put the project aside and move on.

Or he thought he was.

"The next morning, I called the Dans and I said, ‘It's too close to my heart. This is a story that's in my bones. I will write this on spec,’” he said.

Heisserer spent all of 2011 writing the script, which then got on the coveted Black List, an annual list of the best unproduced scripts in the business. That led to independent financiers FilmNation and LavaBear offering the money to finance the film in 2012 (Heisserer received the Writers Guild of America minimum fee, which at the time was around $100,000). 

Along with screenwriter credit, Heisserer also negotiated an executive producer credit on the film.

“It was an insurance policy to make sure I would have a seat at the table and help answer questions,” Heisserer said of pushing for the EP credit. “Every page had a reason for being there. It was a script that was very purposely constructed and it’s like a Jenga game. If anyone took something out it was important for me to be there and say, ‘Hang on!’”

This systematic adaptation of Chiang’s story started out with two simple elements: a cork board and magazines.

Heisserer used the board to separate the story into two sections. One column of the board was dedicated to the story’s core structure while on the other side he posted images from magazines that evoked something from the story — like visuals for locations, dreams, even the cast.

“I find this so amazing, but the picture I put up on the board for the character of Louise was an Amy Adams photo,” Heisserer said.

And as he suspected when he first read the story, Heisserer had to change a few elements from Chiang’s story to make it more cinematic. A big shift was having the aliens come to earth.

In Chiang’s story, the aliens communicate with Louise light years away via a video screen, and they never do come to the planet.

“It was the first major change from the original material,” he said. “Have the aliens right there next to us.”

That then led to the idea of multiple alien ships landing across the globe, which then caused Heisserer to think up how the world would react to them landing. Turns out not well.

“The more I thought about how our population would react to this, the more I realized this is just going to get worse the longer the aliens stay around,” Heisserer said. “The longer these are parked here and no real answers are forthcoming, the more our population is going to freak out.”

But outside of the tricks a screenwriter uses to build drama and thrills in a movie, by the end, Heisserer wanted to stay true to Chiang’s story.

“That emotional reaction to the ending when you realize Louise’s journey, that’s all Ted,” Heisserer said. “I don’t get to take credit for that, nor would I want to.”

That pull at the heartstrings has led audiences at the Venice, Telluride, and Toronto film festivals to fall in love with — and generate Oscar buzz for — “Arrival,” thanks greatly to the vision of director Denis Villeneuve ("Sicario"), who didn’t take the job until he met with Heisserer (six meetings later he signed on to do it).

Looking back on the project, Heisserer said the best thing that happened to the movie was that a studio didn’t nab it early on (it was eventually acquired by Paramount). Independent financing meant there was little interference in the making of it.

“This was like a breath of fresh air,” said Heisserer, who is very familiar with top executives flexing their muscles for creative change.

Heisserer will likely go back to the horror/thriller genre, but there’s one more takeaway from writing “Arrival.”

“I couldn't need any bigger proof that it's important for me to write what I'm passionate about on spec,” he said, as “Arrival” and “Lights Out” were both done on spec. “It has reaffirmed my commitment that no matter what is going on in my career I will write one spec a year regardless.” 

“Arrival” opens in theaters November 11.

SEE ALSO: How the man behind Netflix hit "Stranger Things" is taking over Hollywood

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Alec Baldwin mock Trump's mic issues on 'Saturday Night Live'

Cinema as a whole is alive and well, but if there is one aspect of the movies that seems to have died in 2016, it’s sequels. Or if not died, they’ve hit the endangered species list. The funny thing is that the highest-grossing movie of the year in the US is the Finding Nemo sequel Finding Dory, and the highest-grossing movie of the year worldwide is the Marvel sequel Captain America: Civil War.

Other global top sellers include installments in the DC Extended Universe, X-Men, and Kung Fu Panda franchises, and the upcoming additions to the Harry Potter and Star Wars brands are sure to be huge hits, as well. But then, we expected the latest Robert Langdon movie, Inferno, to be a success, and it’s not. Over the weekend, the third Dan Brown adaptation directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks opened to only $15m domestic.

That’s a huge drop from the $101m debut (adjusted for inflation) of the original movie, The Da Vinci Code, and even a major decline from the $53m of Angels & Demons. If there’s any hope for the future of the franchise, it’s in the international take for Inferno being $148m after two weeks. That’s not amazing, but the much-higher appeal overseas of this property could keep it afloat. So maybe the Robert Langdon series is not one of this year’s corpses.

Here’s one franchise we have identified as being delivered to the morgue: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In a new Collider interview, producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller addressed the surprisingly low numbers for the second movie, Out of the Shadow, this past summer, and when prompted Form said, “I don’t think there’s Turtles 3, but I wouldn’t say there’s never going to be another Turtles movie.”

Basically, he’s saying this particular run is done, but obviously TMNT is a huge property and will be resurrected again on the big screen. (As the father of a child too young for the movies and most of the cartoons, comics, etc. yet who is still a huge fan of the Ninja Turtles as characters, I can say that’s a certainty.) And sure, someday there will also be a Langdon reboot. And a second reboot each of Bourne, Star Trek, and Ghostbusters.

Are all of those 2016 casualties? Jason Bourne is the lowest-grossing of the Matt Damon-led installments of the franchise in the US, but it also made up for its domestic disappointment with a decent international showing. Star Trek Beyond was the first of the rebooted run not to reach $200m at home, and it also underperformed overseas, though not by much. Still, a fourth movie has already been announced.

Ghostbusters is definitely dead, though, and while it’s not a sequel it did take the place of a third movie and killed all possibility of that continuity moving forward while also stopping an expected new Ghost Corps mega-franchise in its tracks before it got going. Another property that seemed to have big plans and now may be set for a funeral is Independence Day. Roland Emmerich told ComingSoon.net this month he was meeting with Fox to discuss its future but in the video interview he doesn’t seem hopeful for a third movie.

What other movie franchises died this year? It’s hard to tell for sure, as you never know what Hollywood will milk to the bone. Last week, we heard there’s going to be another sequel to Olympus Has Fallen called Angel Has Fallen, the title referencing the code name for Air Force One. This year’s installment, London Has Fallen, made much less than the original in the States but it made more then the first film overseas. Enough for another.

Then there’s Ride Along, the sequel to which performed lower than the original in every way but still made enough for its budget to warrant the in-the-works Ride Along 3. And Now You See Me 2 took in less than part one in every way, though the sequel made more of its money from international markets than the US. There’s a third movie being made, but it’s going to be sort of a spinoff specifically focused on the Chinese box office.

Finally there’s the bizarre exception of The Divergent Series, which is kind of in a walking dead state. The last installment, Ascendant, is expected to conclude the franchise as a TV movie yet that would be without star Shailene Woodley. There’s actually a chance it will never happen, but the studio is going to at least keep it on life support for a while longer. Regardless, as a movie franchise, we’re declaring it a goner.

Here are 15 franchises we’re pretty sure have been or will be pronounced deceased after this year (all domestic box office adjusted for inflation):

Alice in Wonderland (2010–2016)

Alice in Wonderland (2010) — $126m open / $362m US / $1.1b W
Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) — $27m open / $77m US / $299m W

Barbershop (2002–2016)

Barbershop (2002) — $31m open / $112m US / $113m W
Barbershop 2: Back in Business (2004) — $34m open / $90m US / $91m W
Beauty Shop (2005) — $17m open / $49m US / $50m W
Barbershop: The Next Cut (2016) — $20m open / $54m US / $55m W

Blair Witch (1999–2016)

The Blair Witch Project (1999) — $3m open / $238m US / $346m W
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000) — $21m open / $42m US / $64m W
Blair Witch (2016) — $10m open / $21m US / $43m W

Bridget Jones (2001–2016)

Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) — $16m open / $109m US / $319m W
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004) — $12m open / $56m US / $278m W
Bridget Jones’s Baby (2016) — $9m open / $24m US / $149m W

The Divergent Series (2014–2016)

Divergent (2014) — $59m open / $159m US / $297m W
The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015) — $55m open / $134m US / $301m W
The Divergent Series: Allegiant (2016) — $29m open / $66m US / $179m W

Ghostbusters (2016–2016)

Ghostbusters (2016) — $46m open / $128m US / $229m W

The Huntsman (2012–2016)

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) — $60m open / $165m US / $407m W
The Huntsman: Winter’s War (2016) — $19m open / $48m US / $164m W

Ice Age (2002–2016)

Ice Age (2002) — $69m open / $261m US / $468m W
Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006) — $89m open / $257m US / $723m W
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009) — $48m open / $227m US / $917m W
Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012) — $52m open / $178m US / $894m W
Ice Age: Collision Course (2016) — $21m open / $64m US / $407m W

Independence Day (1996–2016)

Independence Day (1996) — $97m open / $596m US / $1.1b W
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) — $41m open / $103m US / $390m W

Jack Reacher (2012–2016)

Jack Reacher (2012) — $16m US / $86m US / $225m W
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) — $23m open / $40m US / $94m W

The Mechanic (2011–2016)

The Mechanic (2011) — $13m open / $32m US / $79m W
Mechanic: Resurrection (2016) — $7m open / $21 m US / $90m W

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002–2016)

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) — $1m open / $357m US / $484m W
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 (2016) — $18m open / $60m US / $89m W

Neighbors (2014–2016)

Neighbors (2014) — $51m open / $155m US / $276m W
Neighbors: Sorority Rising (2016) — $22m open / $55m US / $108 m W

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014–2016)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) — $70m open / $204m US / $506m Int’l
TMNT: Out of the Shadows (2016) — $35m open / $82m US / $246m Int’l

Zoolander (2001–2016)

Zoolander (2001) — $24m open / $69m US / $85m W
Zoolander 2 (2016) — $14m open / $29m US / $56m W

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics on Metacritic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A hacker reveals a simple way to come up with a strong password that's easy to remember

The INSIDER Summary:

• Many famous actors have started their careers by first starring in horror films. 
• A-list actors and Oscar winners, including Paul Rudd, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jennifer Aniston, grace this list of 16 actors who have starred in horror movies.

For whatever reason, a lot of Hollywood actors get their start by starring in horror films. Maybe it's because films of this genre are generally low budget, don't rely on star power to sell tickets, and, if I'm being honest, aren't generally known for featuring the best acting performances. And since it is October, AKA the spookiest time of the year, now seems like the perfect time to take a look back at some great Halloween movies that starred actors before they were famous.

Now some of these films are bona fide classics of the genre; especially when it comes to those '80s monster slasher films that used to dominate the horror landscape. Others are more cult favorites that aren't as universally-known but still have significant followings. And the rest, I have to admit, you probably have never heard of (I know I haven't). But every single one of these movies helped propel some major stars along in their careers; many of whom have gone on to win Oscar gold. So if you'd like a bit of history to go along with your scares this Halloween movie season, check out these 16 horror films featuring stars before they made it big.

1. Leprechaun - Jennifer Aniston

One year before landing her Friends gig, Aniston played the lead in this campy cult favorite.

2. A Nightmare On Elm Street - Johnny Depp

Depp performed perhaps one of the most most famous on-screen deaths in film history in his acting debut.

3. Children Of The Corn V - Eva Mendes

This direct-to-video sequel marked the screen debut of the then 24-year-old Mendes.

Michael Douglas' superstar film career, as both an actor and a producer, has netted him a pair of Oscars, not to mention a big pile of cash.

But in a recent interview, the 72-year-old said he was considering moving back to TV. One big reason: Netflix.

Douglas' career first started to take off in the 1970s thanks to a TV show, "The Streets of San Francisco," but he then moved to the greener pastures of Hollywood films.

Lately, however, Douglas says, he has been "considering looking at a series,"according to The Herald. This is something he told the Scottish newspaper he "never, never" thought he would do.

So why is he thinking about it? The main issue is that Douglas feels limited by movies in a way he doesn't when contemplating working in TV.

"The quality of the work going on in television now, and the limited number of my kind of movies that I made in the '70s and the '80s, that are so difficult to do now,"he said. "But when I do them I get paid nothing, and the minimalist, tiny audience in the theatrical area."

The audience for the kind of movies he wants to do just isn't there in the traditional theatrical space anymore. That's not the case in TV, especially with the emerging streaming players like Netflix, which will spend $6 billion on content in 2017.

"Whereas in the streaming or this independent Netflix or HBO,"Douglas continued. "It's a real opportunity to do good work."

Stagnant films

Douglas' sentiments are a horrible sign for Hollywood films, and they echo something to which Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently pointed.

Last month, Hastings said that the state of film was a "real tragedy" and that movie theaters were "strangling the movie business." Hastings came down hard on theater owners, saying there had been no innovation in the movie-theater business in recent years, even as TV has been shaped by the rise of cable and internet networks. "Money" and "innovation" has flooded to the TV industry, Hastings said. Not so with film.

But Netflix has a long history of clashing with movie theaters, particularly over Netflix's commitment to making its movies available to stream on the same day they appear on the big screen. So when you hear these sentiments from Hastings, it’s good to take them with a grain of salt.

When you start to hear it from one of the most respected movie stars in Hollywood, however, that's a different story.

SEE ALSO: This hot podcast company's new shows promise crime, psychological thrills, and controversy

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China flexes its military might by unveiling a new stealth fighter jet

After years of trying, John Turturro is making his "The Big Lebowski" spin-off.

The 1998 Coen brothers classic gave us countless one-liners and a new appreciation for area rugs, but one of the biggest highlights was the character Jesus Quintata, played by John Turturro.

Talk of a sequel or spin-off for "Big Lebowski" has circulated ever since it became a cult classic.

One of those helping the rumors along has been Turturro, who has always wanted to flesh out his character more, and he's currently doing that now with the movie "Going Places." Though the Coens are not involved with it, they did give their blessings for Turturro to make the movie. Now we have the first image for the film.

Along with starring, Turturro is writer and director. Here's the official synopsis:

"John Turturro plays Jesus Quintana in 'Going Places,' a film about a trio of misfits whose irreverent, sexually charged dynamic evolves into a surprising love story as their spontaneous and flippant attitude towards the past or future backfires time and again, even as they inadvertently perform good deeds. When they make enemies with a gun-toting hairdresser, their journey becomes one of constant escape from the law, from society and from the hairdresser, all while the bonds of their outsider family strengthen."

The film also stars Susan Sarandon, Audrey Tautou, Bobby Cannavale, and J.B. Smoove.

Here's the first image released for the movie:

There's currently no word yet about whether Jeff Bridges will make a cameo as The Dude from the original movie. But he did tell us earlier this year that he thinks the spin-off is a "great idea."

The film is currently seeking distribution.

SEE ALSO: Bryan Cranston says he'll move to Canada if Donald Trump becomes president

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: LL COOL J: The biggest workout mistakes people make at the gym

No matter how peppy you are or how much you love life, there are days when you are just over everything.

I'm not talking about your average bad day, or days when you have a serious case of the blues. I'm talking about those days when you're so done that you start channeling Michel from Gilmore Girls. Those days are when the thought of interacting with another person sounds as plausible as Santa Claus falling out of your chimney with a plane ticket to Hawaii in his big red sack. When you're feeling like this and are simply over all the things, Netflix has your back.

When you are indulging your inner misanthrope, you don't want to watch any feel good movies that are trying to make you feel better about humanity. You can watch those the next day when the dunzo blahs have left you to return to your normal sunny self. When you are over your work drama, waiting in line at the grocery store, and the way too noisy neighbor next door, you need movies that revel in the bad behavior you are way too civilized to condone in real life. You need teens who don't care what anyone thinks and absurd humor that highlights the silliness of it all.

You need these 17 movies on Netflix for when you are just over everything.

SEE ALSO: Acting legend Michael Douglas made some comments that should terrify Hollywood — and thrill Netflix

1. Wet Hot American Summer

Camp Firewood is a place where there is a talking can of beans, space debris falling from the sky, and Amy Poehler being a total boss. Sit back and let the absurd humor soothe what ails you.

2. Heathers

Between the acidic insults flying between the Heathers and the twisted love story, this movie is the dose of '80s schadenfreude you need.

3. In Bruges

This darkly funny movie about a hit man and his babysitter is completely underrated, and a reminder that even your worst day is nowhere near as bad as the ones Colin Farrell's character is having.

In 2014, photographs taken by Asher Svidensky of a 13-year-old Mongolian girl named Aisholpan attempting to be the first-ever female eagle hunter in her country instantly went viral.

Eagle hunting is predominantly taught only to males, and involves first building a connection with a golden eagle and then going out with it and hunting foxes and hares.

Aisholpan, whose father is a prominent eagle hunter, gained international notoriety thanks to Svidensky's photos as she set forth to break the mold and bring the art of eagle hunting to modernity. 

Basically, the story was just waiting to be made into a movie.

Director Otto Bell was transfixed by Svidensky's photos and quickly got the life rights of Aisholpan three months after her story went viral. He immediately began shooting in Mongolia as she continued her apprenticeship, which included her being part of the annual eagle festival.

Returning home, Bell realized he was completely broke. Having spent his life savings of $80,000 and getting a loan from the bank of $12,000, he was struck with fear as he realized he still didn't have enough money to finish his feature debut.

"I learned that Aisholpan had to achieve one more task before she could be declared an eagle huntress by the elders, I had to go back and film that," Bell told Business Insider while the film played at the Toronto International Film Festival. "That was a really dark time, a lot of sleepless nights."

He dug up the contact info of documentary titan Morgan Spurlock ("Super Size Me"), which Bell had done commercial work for years earlier, and cold called Spurlock to see if he'd come onboard the film as an executive producer.

"I cut together ten minutes from the eagle festival and I sent it to Morgan," he said. "He called me back that day and said, 'I've never seen anything like this, how can I help?'"

With the added financing from Spurlock, Bell went back to Mongolia, got the footage that he needed, and returned ready to edit the film. What he didn't realize was this film that would be titled "The Eagle Huntress" would eventually get the attention of some major players in the entertainment world.

Finding a Jedi

Before Spurlock came on, Bell already had an idea how to make his documentary stand out amongst the countless others that are made every year.

Highlighting the journey of the first female in twelve generations of her family to be an eagle hunter, Bell decided to tell the story not like a fly-on-the-wall non-fiction but as an action movie. With breathtaking photography of Mongolian landscapes where Aisholpan and her father gallop on horses to slow-motion shots of her eagle gracefully tracking its prey (cut over fast-paced music), Bell creates a movie that feels more Jerry Bruckheimer than the Maysles brothers.

But the movie also has a strong theme of female empowerment, and to drive that home Bell and Spurlock knew they needed to do something that would give the movie attention beyond its genre-busting feel. 

After wowing audiences at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, where the film was bought by Sony Pictures Classics, Bell had the fortune of signing on with talent agency CAA, who also has Daisy Ridley, star of the latest "Star Wars" movies, as its client.

The film was sent to Ridley, and the night before he flew to Sundance, Bell got a call from her wanting to be involved.

"It was clear that she had been moved by it," said Bell. "She talked about how she cried on the phone to her mother when she watched it."

Ridley agreed to come on as an Executive Producer before the film's world premiere at the festival. Then, following the film's reception at Sundance and being bought by Sony Classics, the decision was made to add narration to the movie, and Ridley agreed to do it.

Bell flew to London and recorded in one day the narration Ridley delivers in the movie (which is around five minutes of the 87-minute movie).

This allowed Bell to eliminate the numerous title cards that were present in the opening of the cut that was shown at Sundance and replace it with gorgeous drone shots of the Mongolian mountains over the narration by Ridley introducing us to Aisholpan.

"We want a G rating, we want this to be a family documentary," said Bell, "so with Daisy's narration it's a hand-hold through the film. Though there are subtitles, her narration is going to help young kids."

Landing a pop star

But perhaps even more powerful than the movie nabbing a Jedi is the original song they got from a chart-topping artist.

While in postproduction on the movie, and with its Sundance premiere drawing closer, Spurlock came up with the idea to include pop songs in the movie. Bell admits he wasn't a fan at first.

"With the music I wanted it to be more impressionistic and he wanted it to be more commercial," said Bell. "We fought a bunch during post production — but in a very constructive way."

Bell and Spurlock could never agree on the same music until finally, according to Bell, Spurlock asked, "Who do you want?'" and Bell answered, "Sia! F---ing get me Sia!"

"And sure enough he did," said Bell with a laugh.

As post production pushed on, Bell said Spurlock would give matter-of-fact mentions that he was talking to Sia's manager. Then a few weeks before Sundance began, Bell got a call from Spurlock to come to his office.

"I was like, 'S--t, now what?" said Bell.

Bell arrived at Spurlock's office, and Spurlock told him he wanted to play him something.

"He pressed play on his laptop and I swear to god we both cried," said Bell.

Sia had written and recorded the song "Angel By The Wings" for the movie in a matter of days. Bell would place it at the end of the movie moments before the screen goes black and the end credits roll. The powerful pop girl power anthem matches the message and tone of the movie perfectly and gives audiences an uplifting feeling when they leave the theater.

Bell has experienced on numerous occasions the reaction of audiences at that moment when Sia's song comes, and he said it's the most effective when the movie has been shown to kids.

"Those are our best screenings," he said. "Middle schoolers, high schoolers, that music plays at the end and then I'll be with Aishoplan and she comes on stage and kids just start cheering."

Bell admits there were many nights while making the movie when he wondered if people would be as moved as he was by the story of Aishoplan. But the journey the film has taken since filming wrapped has given him confirmation.

"With Daisy and Sia, when they saw it and were moved by it, that was a real validation to have those ladies come on board," said Bell. "It's not just me who loves it, it's these incredibly powerful women as well."

"The Eagle Huntress" opens in theaters November 2.

SEE ALSO: A new documentary investigates murder allegations against John McAfee and finds chilling answers

Join the conversation about this story »

If you've been waiting patiently for hard-to-find movies from Stanley Kubrick and Akira Kurosawa to finally be available to stream, wait no more — FilmStruck is here!

The new streaming service developed and managed by the cinephiles at Turner Classic Movies, FilmStruck will provide hundreds of classic Hollywood, indie, foreign, and cult hits on a subscription basis. Available titles include Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush," Kurosawa's "Rashomon," Kubrick's "The Killing," and Robert Altman's "The Player." 

It will also provide the largest streaming selection of Criterion Collection titles (and the company's incredible special features). 

FilmStruck just went live Tuesday. Prices vary: $6.99 per month for FilmStruck; $10.99 per month for FilmStruck and Criterion Channel; $99 per year for the annual subscription to FilmStruck and Criterion Channel.

Here are 15 classic titles that you can stream right now (with the FilmStruck/Criterion Channel package):

SEE ALSO: The 50 best TV shows of all time, according to critics

1. "The 400 Blows" (1959)

Director François Truffaut's semi-autobiographical look at his childhood in Paris is a pillar of the French New Wave, which still inspires filmmakers to this day. In it, then-unknown 14-year-old Jean-Pierre Léaud plays Antoine Doinel, a misfit running around Paris whose troublemaking often goes unpunished.

2. "Blood Simple" (1984)

The directorial debut of the Coen brothers ("The Big Lebowski,""No Country for Old Men") is a gritty neo-noir that showcases many of the hallmarks the duo would master in their movies to come. From the camerawork to the writing, there's a lot to love about this movie.

3. "Breathless" (1960)

A year after the release of "The 400 Blows," Jean-Luc Godard would add to the French New Wave with his classic debut. Following a thief who is wanted by the police and the American girl he tries to run away to Italy with, the movie's use of dramatic jump cuts was revolutionary for the 1960s.

Finnish artist Jirka Väätäinen has an ongoing illustration series titled "Real Life Disney." From Princess Jasmine to an incredible rendering of Ariel, Väätäinen has captured the best human qualities of dozens of Disney characters. 

"The project actually started back in 2011 and I've been adding to the series ever since," Väätäinen told INSIDER in an email. "And for this new set, I thought Halloween and this time of the year was a good excuse to find time for it again."

Scroll down for a look at five spooky Disney villains reimagined as real people. 

An excellent new addition was Hans — the arch nemesis in "Frozen."

Here's Väätäinen's take on the evil prince:

"[The villains] are such over-the-top characters so it's interesting to try and portray their larger-than-life personalities in a still image, and try to make it somewhat realistic," Väätäinen says.

The INSIDER Summary:

• "Doctor Strange" is Marvel’s trippiest and biggest visual feat to date.
• If you see the film, see it on the biggest screen possible, and in 3D.
• It’s a little fast-paced and formulaic. Strange appears to become a master of the Mystic Arts a little too conveniently.

From the moment "Doctor Strange" begins, you're propelled into an immersive, trippy, kaleidoscope spectacle. 

The film feels like it's a series of M.C. Escher drawings brought to life as it dives into the mystical world of Marvel's magical arts. 

If you were puzzled by the dream-building of worlds in Christopher Nolan's 2010 film, "Inception," you'll be spellbound by the cities folding in within themselves in "Strange," and rightfully so.

If you've read any of the original "Doctor Strange" comics from the late '60s, they too take you on a hallucinogenic and trippy ride. It's one that director Scott Derrickson ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose") wanted to bring to life and succeeded ten-fold in doing on the big screen using real-life inspiration from coral, collapsed buildings, desert landscapes, and more.

There's no question that the visuals will bowl you over. In fact, they're such scene stealers that they may deter you from what's actually going on in a given scene at any time.

For instance, you'll be too busy staring at walls becoming floors, spinning around in ways they shouldn't be, that you may forget that Tilda Swinton is having an important conversation with Mads Mikkelsen, the film's antagonist, Kaecilius. You'll wish you could go back and rewind the film's opening sequence to relisten to their conversation, but also to witness London dissolving into their own magical playground of confounding perplexities. 

That London scene is just the start of a wild thrill ride. The film also transforms and distorts New York City and Hong Kong while taking fans to other unearthly dimensions of the cosmos and Marvel multiverse. 

The film itself follows Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Stephen Strange, an egotistical and brilliant neurosurgeon who injures his prized hands beyond use in a car crash.

He spends every last dollar of his vast fortune trying to mend his broken hands to return to his life as a surgeon. In his travels, he finds himself in Nepal seeking out the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who introduces him to the world of the Mystic Arts and to several alternate dimensions co-existing within our own.

Those who master the arts protect the world against mystical threats, unlike the Avengers who protect the Earth from physical dangers. 

If this was one of the first movies made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I think "Strange" would have been a tough sell. 14 movies in, and after 2014's successful "Guardians of the Galaxy," this seems like the next logical step to take in the ever-expanding Marvel universe.

Fans of Cumberbatch will eat up every moment the "Sherlock" actor is on screen. The actor, who makes a dead ringer for the comic-book hero, has earned quite the reputation online as the internet's boyfriend over the past few years. According to Marvel, the studio couldn't even film in Nepal without a crowd chanting his name. I await the many memes and GIFs to come out of this movie. 

One moment in particular between Cumberbatch's Strange and Mikkelsen's Kaecilius is sure to become a fan favorite. Mikkelsen is best known for his role in NBC's "Hannibal," which has gained it's own massive online following. A scene between the two, which can be seen in one of the film's many TV spots, appears to nod at Mikkelsen's previous role.

It's a perfect wink toward the fandoms and one can only imagine that Marvel knows exactly what it's doing. (You can currently see the clip here.)

It's also refreshing to see Rachel McAdam's character Christine Palmer isn't being reduced to a simple love interest. There are romantic sparks between the two and Strange is clearly pining after this woman throughout parts of the film; however, their relationship is not strictly romantic. 

Given how Marvel has recently written out other love interests (see Gwyneth Paltrow in the "Iron Man" and "Avengers" series and Natalie Portman in the "Thor" films) quite flimsily, it would be a waste to see talent like McAdams be discarded when it's time for all of the heroes to get together and save the world in the next big "Avengers" film years down the road.

Palmer, however, appears as if she could become as intricate and central to the marvel Cinematic Universe as actress Rosario Dawson has become to Netflix's Marvel series.

The most unexpected joy of the film is a humorous relationship between Strange and his cape, the Cloak of Levitation. Reminiscent of the relationship between Aladdin and his magic carpet in the animated movie, it's sure to be one that fans will latch onto.

As entrancing as the film is, "Doctor Strange" ultimately feels like an entry-level beginner's guide to the character. Maybe that's the point for such an obscure character, but there isn't much more that you learn about Strange that you don't learn in the film's trailers. I could probably sum up most of what you need to know about Strange in a few short sentences. 

The point was to probably introduce one of Marvel's strangest (no pun intended) characters to the big screen in the most digestible way possible for general audiences, but as someone who has read some of the older comics from the '60s, I felt like I didn't learn too much more about the character.

And, that's fine. Still, not all of the film's awesome visuals can distract you from a few holes.

"Strange" feels a bit rushed and formulaic in the set up of how Strange goes from being a neurotic surgeon to a slightly cocky superhero. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but it's easy to be reminded how each of Marvel's movies are pieces in a larger moving puzzle. There are definitely scenes from the trailers that have been cut down or out from the final film. 

For example, Strange appears to go from being a mere student to a genius in the Mystic Arts in a matter of minutes. (Hours?)

I know he's been studying at the temple in Kamar-Taj, but one minute he's practicing alongside the Ancient One and Mordo and being reprimanded for breaking rules and the next he's kind of in charge of everything. How does that work? Wouldn't someone else have been in charge? It seems like he was conveniently made the "chosen one" without suffering any real repercussions for his actions. At points in the film different magical items just flock to him. It seems like a lot of luck for some man who was very arrogant and egotistical to begin with.

And how exactly does all the magic work? Yes, yes. I know we hear about the Mystic Arts, but it just seems like Strange reads a bunch of books (à la "Harry Potter") and becomes a grand wizard through insane memorization and his photographic memory.

Since you'll probably be so wound up in the spectacle of it all, you might leave the theater quite satisfied without thinking about the movie's finer details until much later or upon a second viewing. 

Ultimately, after a year with some disappointing superhero movies, "Doctor Strange" was a welcome and refreshing experience.

Just like "Guardians," Marvel has taken another obscure comic hero and has translated his story onto the big screen in a way that stands out among a seemingly expanding list of never-ending superhero adaptations.

It's nice to know that comic fans can at least rely on Marvel to make a capable and enjoyable superhero film which won't let you down.

And if you head out to see "Doctor Strange," make sure to see it on the biggest screen possible, and in 3D. While it's not necessary in scenes where surgery is being performed, it truly works in the film's many visually trippy sequences. It would be a disservice to see those in 2D.

"Doctor Strange" is in theaters November 4.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: There are a lot of impressive wire stunts in 'Doctor Strange'