Quantcast
Channel: Movies
Viewing all 8368 articles
Browse latest View live

'Star Wars 7' May Be Delayed Due To Harrison Ford's On Set Injury

$
0
0

han solo star wars

Just hours after it was rumored that Tom Cruise may have a cameo appearance in Star Wars: Episode VII, due to Harrison Ford's on-set injury earlier this month, a new report reveals that the highly-anticipated sequel's December 2015 release date may be in jeopardy because of the injury.

Jedi News has heard from "a number of sources" that a production meeting was called at Pinewood Studios today, where the possibility of a shooting delay was discussed due to the "severe nature of Harrison Ford's injury." Production may be delayed for "a substantial amount of time," which could affect the December 18, 2015 release date.

Naturally, this has not been confirmed by Disney or LucasFilm yet, but we reported last week that Harrison Ford will be out for eight weeks as he recovers from his surgery to repair a broken leg. Shooting was said to continue in Harrison Ford's absence, but if this new report is true, it seems they could be facing a production shut-down.

Marvel's Iron Man 3 faced a similar scenario in 2012, when star Robert Downey Jr.injured his ankle on the set, sidelining him for two months. Shooting was only shut down for a week, with the production shooting scenes that did not involve Robert Downey Jr. until he was healthy enough to return. It's possible that Star Wars: Episode VII could employ a similar strategy, working around Harrison Ford's absence until he returns, but, of course, nothing has been confirmed yet.

Until we hear anything further, production is still under way on Star Wars: Episode VII, under the direction of J.J. Abrams. We'll keep you posted any any further updates.

Star Wars: Episode VII comes to theaters December 18th, 2015 and stars John BoyegaDaisy RidleyCarrie FisherHarrison FordMark HamillAdam Driver,Domhnall GleesonLupita Nyong'o. The film is directed by J.J. Abrams.

SEE ALSO: Harrison Ford Broke His Leg While Filming ‘Star Wars: Episode VII'

Join the conversation about this story »


Producer Nancy Meyers Cast Her 25-Year-Old Former Assistant For Key Role In 'The Intern'

$
0
0

nancy meyers, robert de niro

In an unusual move, Nancy Meyers has cast her former assistant in a key role in The Intern, the Anne Hathaway-Robert De Niro workplace comedy she is directing for Warner Bros.

The movie began shooting Monday in New York, and the script sees De Niro playing a 70-year-old widower who discovers that retirement isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Wanting to get back in the game, he becomes a senior intern at an online fashion site run by Hathaway’s character. 

Jason OrleyThe movie has a small cadre of actors playing interns — Pitch Perfect’s Adam DeVine is one — but one role proved elusive. After a series of readings and tests failed to turn up suitable candidates (one actor is said to have met with Meyers more than 10 times, according to sources), Meyers turned to her former assistant Jason Orley to fill the part.

Orley worked for Meyers when the writer-director made her 2009 film It’s Complicated. After that stint, he also worked as an assistant to Modern Family director Jason Winer. This will be his first acting role, but it wasn't a slam dunk. Orley put himself on tape and ended up meeting with the notoriously picky Meyers five times before landing the gig.

But it doesn’t look like in-front-of-the-camera work is the end goal for the 25-year-old, who is repped by UTA and Mosaic. The L.A.-based Orley also just had his script Big Time Adolescence optioned by financier StarStream Entertainment (Lee Daniels’ The Butler), which will fully finance the project. The script is a comedy about a 16-year-old who slowly gets corrupted by his older sister's ex-boyfriend.

The Intern is being produced by Meyers with Scott Rudin and Suzanne Farwell.

SEE ALSO: Sting: My Children Won't Inherit My Wealth

Join the conversation about this story »

Daniel Radcliffe Wasn't A Huge 'Harry Potter' Fan When The Book First Came Out

$
0
0

daniel radcliffe casting call for the cripple of inishmaan

Friday afternoon we headed over to Buzzfeed headquarters to hear Daniel Radcliffe speak about his Broadway show “The Cripple of Inishmann” and reminisce about the decade he spent filming the "Harry Potter" movies. 

While the book series by J.K. Rowling has sold more 450 million copies, the actor, who went on to play lead character Harry, said he wasn’t always a big fan of the books. 

“I only read the first two and I wasn't really as into it as everyone else in my class was just because I wasn't really a reader,” said Radcilffe. “I was like oh books, I'm not ready.” 

Radcliffe said his first experience with the books, which first came out in 1997, was with his father reading them to him.  

“I remember he did an excellent voice of the basilisk which used to terrify me,” said Radcliffe. 

That didn’t last long. 

After he landed the part of the young wizard, Radcliffe said he was engulfed in the series. 

He was so into the books, that Radcliffe recalled he used to act out the books in his bedroom pretending he was Harry Potter. 

“I kind of got into it later. And then when I got the part what was interesting …  was that I was reading the fourth book when we started making the first movie and I remember being in my hotel room in Newcastle when we were about to go out and shoot the first scenes on the platform at 9 and three quarters and everything. And I remember being in my room reading passages of the book and getting really excited and pretending to be Harry in character in the books, jumping around my room acting out bits of what I would then be acting out for real like six years later."

Warner Bros. is now working on a new trilogy of "Harry Potter"-related movies based off the book “Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them,” one of Harry's school books.

Radcliffe will not be involved in the films, but he said that's okay after having worked 10 years on his own series of Potter movies.

"I can enjoy watching it grow and go on without feeling like, 'Oh I wish I was there,'" added Radcliffe.

SEE ALSO: Daniel Radcliffe says he'd be 'perfect' to play Robin in new Batman movie

Join the conversation about this story »

Chris Pratt Reveals The Plot For 'Jurassic Park' Sequel Out Next Summer

$
0
0

chris pratt jurassic world

Next summer, the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park will return to the big screen in a new sequel, "Jurassic World."

While we've known about the movie for a while now, we didn't have a good idea of what the film will entail until now.

Tuesday morning on "Today," star Chris Pratt, who has been making a splash this year in "The LEGO Movie" and this summer's future release "Guardians of the Galaxy," revealed the plot for the film. 

"Jurassic World" will take place 22 years after the first film where people are actually visiting a dinosaur theme park.

"Where we're shooting right now is Jurassic World, people from around the world — 20,000 visitors a day — come to see the dinosaurs and see the several attractions," explained Pratt.jurassic world

"It's been along long enough to where attendance starts to fall off a little bit so they decided to come up with a new attraction to bring even more people in. And, you're never going to believe it, but it doesn't go well," joked Pratt.

Pratt stars in the film out next summer alongside Bryce Dallas Howard and Ty Simpkins, the scene-stealing kid from "Iron Man 3." 

The movie will be directed by Colin Trevorrow ("Safety Not Guaranteed"). 

First check out a few photos from the set seen on "Today."

Here's director Trevorrow on set with Pratt.jurassic world setchris pratt jurassic world

And here's Pratt hanging on set.jurassic world chris pratt

Watch the interview below:

SEE ALSO: The 30 most expensive movies ever made

Join the conversation about this story »

Here's Why 1986's 'Transformers: The Movie' Is The Best Of The Series

$
0
0

Transformers The Movie

It makes sense that, for commercial considerations, you'd want to pack yourTransformers movie with human actors. But the earlier film doesn't make the mistake of thinking we can't get enough of Sam Witwicky and his pratfalling parents. 

The Transformers: The Movie IMMEDIATELY sidesteps this option with its gasp-inducing first few moments. One minute, we're on a robot planet called Lithone, which -- much like Cybertron -- is inhabited by innocent, every-day Transformers. The next, the galactically-massive Unicron (voiced with real panache by Orson Welles in his final role) is devouring the world whole, sucking its inhabitants into his gaping maw, destroying this petty planet like an interstellar vacuum.

In fairness to Mr. Bay, his Transformers films stretch to considerable time-lengths, only to feature chaotic, rousing finales. The Transformers: The Movie, by contrast, peaks early and never really recovers from the initial burst of action. The assumption is that no one has the patience to pay much attention to an 84-minute movie where robots become cars. Times have changed, of course, which explains the ass-punishingly 140-minute-plus run times for the Michael Bay Transformers films. 

But this was also a time when children's entertainment didn't need to bow to politicians or concerned mothers to be "educational" or even "moral." As such, that genocidal opening of The Transformers: The Movie segues right to the opening action sequence (with a brief credit sequence detour thanks to Lion's stadium-rattling rendition of the classic Transformers theme). The Autobots are losing a war to the Decepticons, with the enemy Transformers threatening to take over Cybertron. The characters whiz by fast and furiously, and while you don't get a chance to know any of them, the movie's frantic pace forces you to get acquainted in a hurry. No exposition or origin stories here. 

And no "fake outs" when it comes to tragedy, loss and death. Just ask Optimus Prime.

Optimus Prime, Transformers The MovieDiehards, of course, would be wondering where Optimus Prime is in The Transformers: The Movie. Which is when he enters, in a moment that would give even non-fans goosebumps. He looks into the distance, and in Peter Cullen's unforgettable burr, he intones, "Megatron must be stopped... no matter the cost." What happens next is nothing short of movie magic. Optimus transformers in slow motion into a truck and drives off to this confrontation as Stan Bush's "The Touch" wails on the soundtrack. If you've never heard the empowering thrill of "The Touch", you've led an insufficient life. Of course, in one of those movie references that remains inadequately explained to this day, you may have caught the majesty of The Touch in Boogie Nights




There's no transparency in regards to any of the Transformers movies: these were created in order to sell toys. If anything, the earlier picture is more craven, killing characters left and right only to have them unceremoniously replaced by newer models. As such, these are Optimus' final moments: he falls within the first twenty minutes of the movie. His dying words, accompanied by Vince DiCola's mournful Noble-Savage theme, involve him passing on The Matrix Of Leadership. As Ultra Magnus becomes the new leader of the Autobots, Optimus' body turns to gray and his eyes flicker out. As he flat-lines, DiCola's music hammers home the world's saddest crescendo. Michael Bay couldn't even sniff a scene like this. 



What The Transformers: The Movie conveys is that it's paper-thin characters are serious. Their limitations are real, they face tragedy and heartbreak. The movie happens between seasons two and three of the show, and while the program had developed a consistent storytelling formula at that point, the film acts as if this is the first time we're seeing certain plot twists, giving them an added emotional scale and scope that the later movies can't manage. 

At this point, Starscream had attempted several coups against Megatron in the series. But his hubris in The Transformers: The Movie is positively Shakesperean. The villain takes over the Decepticons after leaving Megatron to die, drowning himself in pomp and circumstance during an initiation ceremony. But when Megatron returns, now named Galvatron after a monolith-like encounter with Unicron, his revenge on Starscream swift and unforgiving, instantly turning the pathetic sidekick into rubble. Galvatron wanted that to hurt. 

The picture builds to an action climax, one that happily assumes "female" Transformer Arcee is a key part of the group (she appeared in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen only briefly). But nothing ever lags, thanks to a dynamite soundtrack of hits both welcomed (Stan Bush's Dare should be played before every exam) and unexpected (really, what is Weird Al Yankovic's "Dare To Be Stupid" doing in this movie?). 

But The Transformers: The Movie otherwise provides the sort of chase-heavy thrills that comes from robots that can become cars. Contrast that with Michael Bay's vision, where the robots basically abandon their transforming skills to have endless, violent punch-outs that annihilate cities. Bay's films show the action as a junkyard orgy. The '86 offering slows down to allow for actors like Leonard Nimoy and, yes, even Orson Welles to give actual performances. Fans of Michael Bay's Transformers movies are free to enjoy them. But they'll never top the gravity and excitement of The Transformers: The Movie

SEE ALSO: How Mark Wahlberg Went From High-School Dropout To Hollywood's Top Tough Guy

Join the conversation about this story »

Transformers 4 Reviews: More Of The Same, With A Surprise Ending

$
0
0

Transformers age of extinction poster

Michael Bay's Transformers: Age of Extinction finally arrives in theaters this Friday, June 27th and I'm sure it's actual release will cause a lot of relief for a lot of people. If you're one of the many people who love the franchise, you'll get to see the new edition, and if you're one of the many who hates it, then you won't have to read about it anymore... until Transformers 5 that is.

Ahead of its premiere this weekend, several outlets have received advanced viewings of Michael Bay's latest CGI-filled robot-smashing extravaganza and dropped their reviews online. HitFixVariety and The Hollywood Reporter all covered the movie, and as you can imagine from critics, they all kind of hated it to various degrees. The takeaway from most of the reviews is that essentially Transformers: Age of Extinction is more of the same. It has the same draws of the franchise - massive robots fighting - and the same downsides - terrible human characters, nonsensical story and product placement (although this time a lot of the product placement is Chinese). Here's what HitFix said about that issue:

Ultimately, these are still just vehicles for the sale of more toys, and Hasbro is poised to clean up once again. My own kids have fallen in love with this series, and I can tell you exactly what they love about it: all the goddamn robots. They don't care about anything else. Each new Transformers film could just be two solid hours of new robot characters walking out and introducing themselves, then jumping into an ongoing fist-fight, and my boys would be perfectly happy with it. It feels to me like Transformers is, in many ways, one of the least cynical of the major franchises currently in progress because Bay knows that he's selling a product here, and he sells it with all the slick that he can muster.

Before concluding:

Whatever the case, Transformers: Age Of Extinction more than delivers on whatever promises Bay makes to an audience at this point. Giant robots. Giant mayhem. Destruction on a global scale. You know what you're in for if you buy a ticket, and Bay seems determined to wear you down with the biggest craziest Transformers movie yet.

Although HitFix appeared to realize the Transformers franchise is, and always was, a long toy commercial set against the backdrop of an action blockbuster, The Hollywood Reporter were slightly more scathing in their review. They stated:

Despite boasting an entirely new human cast and many a new onscreen mechanical warrior, plus a half-hour grand finale set in very different Hong Kong locales, Transformers: Age of Extinction isn't the breath of fresh air vitally needed by an aging franchise... Belying its ominous title, Age of Extinction barely skirts the idea that humankind and planet Earth are about to be totally annihilated. What is extinguished is the audience's consciousness after being bombarded for nearly three hours with overwrought emotions ("There's a missile in the living room!" Tessa hollers — twice), bad one-liners and battles that rarely rise above the banal. A trio of editors make a technical marvel out of the fight scenes, but can do little to link the story's multiple threads into something coherent.

Variety echoed much the same sentiments as THR, although they could find some shreds of silver lining, especially when it came to the actual Transformers. They stated:

As the sine qua non of the franchise, it’s the robots — endowed here with character-rich physicality and almost human-scaled facial features — who give the film its emotional heft. Optimus Prime’s charismatic leadership of his team, as well as his unwavering compassion for the humans, again makes him the movie’s moral anchor. Drift, with his samurai getup and Watanabe’s dignified line readings, strikes a neat balance with Goodman’s cigar-chewing, wisecracking Hound. Still, the character most likely to be beloved by audiences, especially tykes, remains Bumblebee, whose mischievous personality brings much-needed comic relief.

Variety also dropped limited praise on Michael Bay's new, but slightly haphazard, use of Chinese locations and characters - which forms the majority of the film's action sequences.

However, some reviews also paid particular attention to the film's ending, which will apparently take the franchise in an entirely new direction. Without giving too much away, HitFix reviewed:

What I'm really curious about is whether or not they're going to pick up the surprising story threads introduced in the film's final moments when they make the next movie, because it suggests a film that would be utterly unlike anything else in the series so far.

SEE ALSO: How Mark Wahlberg Went From High-School Dropout To Hollywood's Top Tough Guy

Join the conversation about this story »

Here’s The Fundamental Problem With DC Comics

$
0
0

Justice League, Superman, Wonder Woman

Recently, I dug in a little into the idea that even though they share prominent creators and have influenced each other back and forth over the course of the last 50 years, the DC and Marvel Universes have some fundamental differences in the way they’re structured. One of the things I really wanted to get across in that column was that neither one is really fundamentally better than the other, they’re just incompatible in a lot of ways, and I touched on how that results in something I call The Problem. Since that’s still pretty fresh in everybody’s mind, and since you were nice enough to set the ball right on the tee and hand me the bat, I might as well elaborate on that now. It’s actually pretty simple.

To put it bluntly, The Problem is that DC wants to be Marvel, and they have for the past 50 years.

I call it The Problem and I think I have a pretty good reason for that, but to be honest, that desire has actually led to some of the best DC stories ever printed — arguably some of the best comics ever printed, so it’s not entirely a bad thing. The thing is, when you look at the history of those two companies and how they’ve fed off each other, you start to see what looks like an inferiority complex that’s driven decisions about the direction of their stories that seems to be there for decades, across multiple creators and editors, and once you notice it, the evidence just keeps on mounting up.

To really understand it, you have to understand what a profound change the arrival of Marvel comics was to the superhero genre, and to do that, you really have to go back to the beginning. DC — or at least, the company that would become DC — is there from the very beginning of superheroes as we know them. For all the scholarly talk about how sequential art goes back to cave paintings and how the early superheroes were just the next step from pulp novels (which is true), the superhero comic as we know it was born with Superman and Action Comics #1. DC is there on day one, and everything that comes after, right up to today, is directly descended from that one comic. And there’s a lot that comes after, too, and it starts right away. Superman’s popularity launches this massive boom in the Golden Age that sees a thousand imitators springing up overnight, creating this huge amount of material, most of which most comics readers have never even heard of, and probably wouldn’t care about if they had, and with good reason. I recently wrote about how modern Siegel and Shuster’s Action #1 story feels, but for every Golden Age story from Jack Cole or Will Eisner that feels like it’s years ahead of its time, there are a dozen that are almost unreadable for how flat they feel — and that’s coming from someone who actually likes a lot of those weird old books.

Now, within a couple of years, Marvel — or at least, the company that would become Marvel — is there too, but not really. Not in the form we’d recognize, even though Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and a couple of characters like Captain America are already in place. They’re laying groundwork for stuff that’s going to come after, but at the time, they’re not really anything DC needs to worry about, and before too long, there won’t really be anything for DC to worry about.

Five or six years after Action Comics #1, the Golden Age boom is in full swing, but ten years after that, there’s nothing that even comes close to challenging DC for dominance in the world of superhero comics. Superman in particular had become an instant American icon, and even though Batman started off as a pretty blatant ripoff of the Shadow, it wasn’t long before creators like Bill Finger, Sheldon Moldoff and Dick Sprang had forged him into his own character. They had that unmistakable aura of being the originals, and that went a long way towards cementing them in pop culture, fueling DC to some pretty incredible heights. That company steamrolled its way through the ’40s and ’50s, knocking out its competition with a ruthless efficiency until it was pretty much the last man standing. This is oversimplifying it a little, but what they couldn’t outsell or outlast, they either bought or just flat out destroyed. When Fawcett’s Captain Marvel was outselling Superman, they sued to put the kibosh on that, claiming he was infringing on Superman, and when EC’s horror comics were toppling superheroes out of dominance, DC (along with MLJ, the company that would become Archie) were the ones pushing for the Comics Code that would effectively neuter EC and put their biggest competition into an early grave in the name of Protecting America’s Youth.

DC Comics, crime SuspenStoriesMore importantly than that, though, they didn’t just eliminate their competition: they absorbed them. When Quality went down for the count in 1956, for example, DC picked up Plastic Man, Blackhawk and a few other characters and dropped them right into their burgeoning universe. This wasn’t limited to the Golden Age, either. They’d eventually get the EC books (and MAD Magazine) too, and the Charlton books (Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and all those) in the ’80s. While it would take them a while to finally acquire Captain Marvel, they got something more important out of it than the character. They got Otto Binder, the writer of those classic Captain Marvel Adventures stories, who would go on to be the definitive Superman writer of the ’50s, and certainly one of the most influential of all time. His tenure at DC saw the creation of some of the most popular elements of Superman, the stuff that’s still in use today. Supergirl, Kandor, Bizarro, the Legion, the concept of the out-of-continuity “imaginary story,” — those are Binder stories. He didn’t create Jimmy Olsen (Jimmy, the Harley Quinn of his day, was an import from the radio show), but he certainly defined his character and with it, the feel of the Silver Age. And he did it by just continuing the style he and CC Beck had been honing on CMA.

The irony of DC suing Captain Marvel because he was too similar to Superman, and then hiring a writer to make Superman more like Captain Marvel is staggering. It’s almost on the level of Archie destroying EC’s popular, lurid horror comics and then doing a zombie comic with incestuous Cheryl Blossom subtext, but at least they waited 60 years for that one.

The point I’m making here is that from the very beginning, this is how DC as a company has dealt with their competition. What they can’t destroy, they absorb. They’re like Dracula (DraCula?), and like Dracula, it often leads to some pretty awesome stuff. I wouldn’t trade those Binder Superman stories for all the Captain Marvel comics in the world, just like I wouldn’t trade some of the other stories that this brought.

While all this was going on, DC was thriving. Huge sales in comics, sure, but also as a pop culture phenomenon. It cannot be understated how much of a cultural impact Superman in particular had — the Superman radio show was the medium used to bring down the Ku Klux Klan by exposing their secrets, for Pete’s sake. That’s a big deal.

And while all that was going on, Marvel (or Atlas, or Timely, you know the drill by this point) was just sort of there, hanging out, trying to get things going. Mostly they stuck with romance comics (a genre Jack Kirby and Joe Simon invented) and monster books that were more or less watered-down versions of the EC formula with proto-kaiju and predictable twist endings, and while I wasn’t there, I almost have to imagine that part of that was because there wasn’t much of a percentage in mixing with DC in terms of superheroes. DC had its own horror comics and romance titles, but then, as now, they weren’t really the key part of the line (though, you know, they at least had them). DC was focused on superheroes, and since they had the most popular superhero ever created, and the second most popular superhero ever created, and the third, and the fourth and the fifth, and Aquaman, what’s the point of even trying to compete with them? How do you even begin to take on Superman?

Well, if you’re Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and you’ve been watching all this go down for the past 20 years, it’s easy. You just sit down one day and reinvent the superhero comic. No big deal.

Which is exactly what they did. I’ve talked about this before, how the Marvel comics are deceptively simple in how they work. They’re undeniably adventure comics, the same kind of superhero stories that DC’s publishing, only they add in the stuff they’d been working on for the past decade. The twists and horrified reactions of the monster comics, the angsty, unrequited yearning of the romance books, and just bundle it all together in a book that doesn’t look like anything else on the stands. That last part is easy, because at this point, the only thing worth mentioning on the stands is DC, and they all have a pretty similar look. Wayne Boring, Al Plastino, Curt Swan and Kurt Schaffenberger are all phenomenal artists (Schaffenberger is probably the most underrated and overlooked Superman artist of all time, and his work is flat-out gorgeous), but to a certain extent, their art all sort of looks the same. There are differences and styles and you can tell them apart, sure, but they’re definitely part of the same school.

Jack Kirby is not.

So in 1961, Kirby and Lee take a gamble and put out Fantastic Four #1, a new kind of superhero comic…

Marvel and DC’s November 1961 offerings. Superman’s toughest day doesn’t seem all that tough by comparison. 

Fantastic Four/Action Comics…and people Lose. Their. S---.

It might not have been an overnight success — there’s that legendary story of Martin Goodman giving up on Marvel and shutting down the offices and Kirby arriving and throwing out ideas like “Let’s bring back the Sub-Mariner! Let’s bring back Captain America!” in a last-ditch effort to strike gold while the workmen are trying to take the furniture out of the building — but it doesn’t take long before Marvel develops a pretty huge fan following. And the way they do it, the way they cultivate it, isn’t just through the books themselves.

Obviously, the books are a big part of it and didn’t really need any help standing out against DC’s Silver Age fare. By all accounts, Mike Sekowsky was a treasure of a man and a consummate professional who could hit a deadline like a prize fighter, but his barrel-chested Justice League looks like a bunch of cardboard cutouts next to Steve Ditko’s weird spindly limbs and twisted grimaces or John Romita’s solid, romance novel cover models running around in Spider-Man. Whether they like it or not, everyone knows Marvel’s doing something different. But that’s only half of how they set themselves apart.

The other half, quite frankly, might be what made all the difference, and you can lay it at the feet of exactly one man: Stan Lee.

You can argue for hours, days even, about Lee’s proper place in history, about whether he deserves the starry eyed admiration of the general public who think he’s the sole creator of everything there was in the Marvel Universe and whose shoulders bore the monumental, nearly unthinkable task of scripting every single classic of the early days of Marvel, or whether he deserves the scorn of the Kirby and Ditko partisans who see him as a funky flash-man who attached himself like a parasite to more talented artists and then used them to catapult himself (and only himself) into the spotlight every chance he got. I think the truth of that is somewhere in the middle, but there’s one thing you can say about Lee that I don’t think anyone’s going to dispute: He’s the ultimate salesman. Lee is, to this day, a self-promoter of unfathomable skill, and in those early days of Marvel, he was in his prime.

He was not there to make friends. He was, in fact, there to make enemies.

Lee realized, just like everyone else, that Marvel was doing something different from the competition, so he used the soapbox of letter columns to set up the idea that it was time to take sides, laying out that Marvel and DC were engaged in open conflict for the readers, and the Marvel books were constantly telling you that you were smart for reading Marvel books instead of Brand Ecch. If you go back and read those “Fantastic 4 Fan Pages” from the early years, they’re like these bombastic diss tracks, and Stan’s writing “Ether” every single month. It’s actually kind of hilarious: At one point, it gets so bad that people who like Marvel and DC write in to ask Stan to please stop insulting them at the end of every issue. Stan, in true huckster fashion, puts this issue to the readers with a poll: Should they keep talking about how much DC sucks, or focus instead on how much Marvel rules?

Incidentally, DC’s letter columns at the time would occasionally feature Robert Kanigher just straight up being a dick to people who wrote in nitpicking stories, basically telling readers to get a life. They are also hilarious, but it’s not really difficult to see why Stan didn’t have much of a hard time getting this adversarial relationship going.

The key point of Stan’s argument is that Marvel’s offering a more “sophisticated” choice, and to be fair, that’s fairly accurate — but only in the way that DC’s making comics for kids, and Marvel’s trying to corner the teen market. This, it’s worth noting, was the dawn of the teenager as an economic powerhouse, and that made a huge difference to the evolution of comics as much as it did to everything else. You can see that reflected across all of pop culture as everyone tries to capitalize on it, whether it’s Marvel comics and their soap operatic angst or, you know, the best song ever written. It all happens at once, and it was inevitable that it was going to happen in comics — Marvel just got there first, because DC had no real reason to change just yet.

So Marvel becomes a success. Even more than that, Marvel becomes a success with the exact crowd that DC was losing anyway as they aged out. This was a fact of the industry for a long time, too — Gold Key, one of the other comics publishers at the time (though not one that ever really made any headway in superheroes) used to actually have a policy of just reprinting the same ten or twelve stories over and over again, because they figured they only had a two-year window of readership. Kids would get into M.A.R.S. Patrol or Brothers of the Spear when they were twelve, and by the time they were fourteen, their interest would inevitably turn to, I don’t know, baseball. Since you only had them for two years, why bother making more than two years worth of stories? Just cycle through them, because by the time you hit the next round of reprints, everyone who read them last time has discovered making out and is no longer interested.

Brothers of the SpearIt strikes me as a pretty defeatist attitude, and is probably the reason I’m not writing about the key differences between DC, Marvel and Gold Key, but, you know, whatever works for you.

Marvel changed all that by the simple act of catering to a slightly older audience. Instead of the average comics reader getting to the point where they were no longer being served by DC and therefore no longer being served by comics, period, there was now something that was designed to stretch that interest for a few more years. As a bonus — another trick picked up from soap operas — Marvel’s stories weren’t the concise, self-contained eight-pagers that ran in DC books. They were one continuing epic where each installment was fully built on the last, where nothing ever ended back at the status quo. There was always a cliffhanger to keep the reader coming back, even when it seems weird not to finish something. A while back I wrote about Fantastic Four #50, and how the most surprising thing about it was that after raging for two issues, the Galactus story ends halfway through the book, and then it’s off to visit Johnny at college to start up the next thing.

Again, even while Marvel became a success, DC was not exactly hurting at the time. Far from it, in fact — while the FF were fighting Galactus, Batman was in prime time in a show that was wildly popular. There’s a weird desire in certain parts of comics fandom to minimize the Batman show, but it was a massive hit, to the point where “Batman, the Beatles and Bond” were considered to be the “three Bs of the ’60s.” That’s pretty great company to be in, folks. It was also, despite another annoyingly persistent myth, actually pretty faithful to the comics of the time — this January, DC’s actually acknowledging that after 48 years by putting out a collection of the stories that were used as episodes. I could not be more excited about that.

Point being, DC’s formula was still more or less working for them. Obviously styles were evolving, but that’s going on all the time. The thing is, after a few years, it becomes pretty apparent to everyone that Marvel’s not going anywhere, and DC finally has an opponent it can’t outlast and is starting to have a hell of a lot of trouble outselling. So they go with the tactic that they, as a company, always go to when they can’t afford to ignore something.

They try to absorb it.

The degree to which they succeed really depends on where you set the goalposts, but I’d argue that they didn’t quite get what they wanted. The universes are too fundamentally different to really do the job the way they want to do it. It’s easy to graft Captain Marvel onto Superman, but by the time DC decides they need to do something about Marvel, those radically different styles are already crystallized in ways that don’t fit together that smoothly. But they keep trying, for the next 42 years.

And like I said, it’s not all bad by any means. It’s actually something of a renaissance for DC, and it starts in ’71 with the most logical move DC could possibly make if they wanted to capture Marvel’s success: They hire Jack Kirby, which, with all due respect, is basically hiring Marvel. But see, this is the other part of The Problem: They know they want to be more like Marvel, but they don’t really understand how to get there, so instead of unleashing Kirby on the DC Universe (which, to be honest, probably would’ve been more jarring than anything else), they put him in this weird little box. For the most part, they let Kirby do what Kirby does, which is create new concepts, and from that we get a ton of amazing stuff added into the DC Universe: Darkseid and the New Gods, Etrigan the Demon, OMAC, Kamandi, far futures and distant pasts, cosmic and magical, and it’s all great. But they don’t do the one thing you’d expect them to do. They don’t put him on Action Comics and have him usher in a bold new era of weird cosmic Superman stories in the flagship book. They put him on Jimmy Olsen. 

Superman, Jimmy OlsenAgain, I love Kirby’s Jimmy Olsen, but it’s such a weird book to put him on, and it shows how little faith they had in Kirby while at the same time wanting him to give their universe a touch of that Marvel magic. It’s a little early for a lot of people, but I’m of the mind that you can mark the end of the Silver Age and the start of the Bronze Age from the exact day that Jimmy Olsen #133 hits the stands. Jimmy was such a product of the Silver Age that he couldn’t have existed as he did at any other time in comics history, but the second Kirby’s on that book, there’s no going back. The Silver Age is over. Which, of course, is exactly what DC wanted, to have their books feel more modern and to appeal to the teens, to blunt the backlash of fans who thought Batman ’66 had been making fun of them.

And yet, they send in Silver Age mainstay Al Plastino to re-draw Superman’s face so that things don’t get out of hand.

What follows is a decade of DC trying to play catch-up. Peter Parker deals with campus riots over housing for low-income students, goes through hard economic times and watches Harry Osborn take acid in Amazing Spider-Man, so DC sends a space cop with a magic wishing ring and a Robin Hood cosplayer on a trip across the country because one of them didn’t know racism existed and the other didn’t know drugs existed, and the result is one of DC’s most highly regarded stories. The same team that did that one, Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams (who had worked together before at, surprise, Marvel) would also produce some amazing Batman stories, but O’Neil would be given the assignment to reduce Superman’s power, bringing him more in line with these flawed Marvel heroes. He teamed up with Curt Swan to do it, but in another sign of DC being skittish and not quite knowing what they want, the changes are reversed in record time. Late in the decade, they lure Amazing Spider-Man writer Gerry Conway over from Marvel, and he and Al Milgrom (another Marvel mainstay) create Firestorm, who is exactly what you’d expect from a DC attempt to do a Spider-Man story in the ’70s. You can see it happening all over the era.

And then you hit the ’80s, and Operation Make DC More Like Marvel goes nuclear.

It starts with New Teen Titans, which is maybe the most blatant attempt at playing catch-up to Marvel by giving them a team book that would be comparable to the endlessly popular X-Men, created by two guys who had made their names across the street at — surprise! — Marvel Comics. Wolfman in particular hadn’t just written six years of Tomb of Dracula over there, he had a cup of coffee as editor-in-chief. That’s how much of a Marvel guy Wolfman was at the time, and Perez had worked with Roy Thomas and Jim Shooter on Fantastic Four and Avengers. As a sidenote, in the same way that I mark the end of the Silver Age by Kirby’s arrival on Jimmy Olsen, I have a friend who mars the end of the Bronze Age by Perez’s arrival at DC, stepping in to draw Justice League when long-time DC artist Dick Dillin died in the middle of an arc. It’s a huge departure in style that’s almost as jarring, and when you consider what comes after, it makes a lot of sense.

New Teen Titans was a smashing success in building a book with the mix of action, adventure, romance and drama that Marvel had revolutionized superhero comics with, but for the purposes of this story, it pales in comparison to what comes next. When DC sees the success they can have by actually committing to becoming more like Marvel, they decide to go all in on a scale that no other publisher has really done since (although they’ve done it a couple more times themselves, to varying degrees of diminishing returns): they scrap the entire universe altogether in Crisis On Infinite Earths and build one that’s more like Marvel.

One interesting note about Crisis that underscores it all is that one of Wolfman’s ideas for the new DC Universe that would result was actually going as far as renaming the company from “DC” (short for “Detective Comics,” the piece of trivia everyone knows) to Action Comics, but it was shot down because “DC” had the name recognition. Personally, I think Wolfman was absolutely right. It has the same connection to the history of the company and actually makes more sense given that it’s the book that launched everything, and perhaps more importantly, “Action” is exactly the kind of intriguing, enticing brand name for something that “DC” isn’t, and that “Marvel” is.

This is the key point, and it’s the one that’s glossed over to an almost maddening degree. The reason they always state in the company line is that the Pre-Crisis was just too darn complicated for “new and occasional readers” — that’s how they phrase it in the recent Superman 75th Anniversary hardcover — and it makes a certain kind of sense when you consider that stuff like knowing the difference between Earth-2, Earth-X and Earth-C was considered the arcane realm of annoyingly detail-oriented True Fans™. Really, though? It’s one of the biggest and most persistent lies in the history of DC Comics, albeit one that ranks significantly lower than “Batman Created By Bob Kane.”

It’s complete bulls**t, and we know that for a variety of reasons. First, the DC Multiverse wasn’t actually used that often. It showed up once a year in Justice League for their annual crossover, but beyond that, it wasn’t really used any more than any other plot device, unless you were, you know, Rascally Roy Thomas (another Marvel import who’d been EiC at the House of Ideas), who really, really loves the Golden Age characters. Second, and probably most damning for the “it’s too confusing” line, I can assure you that if you actually read a comic about Earth-2, they were not going to let you forget it. They would go out of their way to let you know what you were dealing with and the idea of parallel worlds was explained WITH DIAGRAMS virtually every time it showed up. You were about as in danger of being confused by Earth-2 as you were by Superman putting on glasses and this Clark Kent guy showing up out of nowhere. Third, if the multiverse was so deucedly complicated, they prrrroooobbbbably wouldn’t have almost the exact same multiverse in place now.

And yet, that lie persists, and ironically, it’s often brought up by Marvel partisans to explain why Marvel was so much better than DC, as though “there’s another Earth with another Superman, only he’s older” is in any way even remotely as complex as, say, any two-year stretch of X-Men comics between 1989 and the present.

Looking back, there’s only one logical reason to want to throw it out: Because Marvel didn’t have a multiverse. Well, except that they did, but they kept it confined to one book hosted by some creepy bald voyeur that nobody actually liked, other than that one about Conan being stranded in the present and walking around with a pet leopard, but we’re getting sidetracked. The sole reason for it is that they wanted to be more like Marvel — they even did it as a twelve-part world-shaking event because that’s what Marvel had done a year earlier with Secret Wars — and all the evidence you need to know that’s true is in how they rebuilt. 

Man of steel, BatmanWhen it came time to redefine their major characters, here’s who DC got: John Byrne on Superman and Frank Miller on Batman. Perez would come in a few years later to rebuild Wonder Woman, but in 86, those were the guys, and they could not have been more Marvel Comics. It should be noted that Byrne in particular had wanted to do Superman forever. There was a time during the Shooter era when Marvel actually came really close to just buying, or at least getting the publishing rights to the DC characters from Warner Bros., and when Byrne heard about it, he had his pitch ready within about nineteen seconds. It fell through, obviously, but Byrne got the job after Crisis, largely because of the massive success he’d had on X-Men (of course) and Fantastic Four, the most Marvel title of ‘em all.

Miller’s a much more interesting case in a lot of ways. What always gets glossed over about Miller and Batman is how little there actually is, and when you get right down to it, there are really only eight issues. Okay, no, there’s actually about 20ish if you count penciling “Santa Claus: Wanted Dead Or Alive” (which I do) or the recent stuff like Dark Knight Strikes Again and All Star Batman (which I don’t), but really, those endlessly influential building blocks of modern Batman? Eight issues. Two stories. Two incredibly influential, monumentally great stories, but two stories. I’m not sure if I buy it, but you can make a case that just by sheer volume, the Frank Miller comic that influenced Batman most wasn’t a Batman comic at all. It was Daredevil. That’s certainly the book that got him and David Mazzucchelli the job redefining a vigilante for a crime-ridden urban sprawl.

The weird thing about these two stories in particular is that they get these guys that are so strongly identified with Marvel titles and, with Miller, they get a story that feels undeniably like a DC title, albeit one with the same grim elements that you find in Daredevil. Everyone remembers the grittier parts of Year One with the crooked cops, Catwoman as a dominatrix and the hard-boiled narrative, but at the end of the day (and the end of the fourth issue), that’s a book that’s steeped in optimism, where One Man Can Make A Difference and where Batman jumps off a bridge and catches a baby and survives. In Marvel comics, people tend to have a much harder time with being thrown off of bridges.

Byrne probably comes the closest to doing a Superman that fits that Marvel aesthetic, if only by virtue of drastically reducing Superman’s (ugh) canonical power level and then capping off his run with a story where Superman executes three pocket universe Kryptonians and then leaving the other writers of the book to deal with all the baggage that brings along, but he did a lot to preserve what was there at the core of Superman. Man of Steel (the comic, not the movie) is still my standard for Superman origins for exactly that reason, although it’s worth noting that his major, lasting contribution to the universe was recasting Lex Luthor as a sinister industrialist rather than a professional mad scientist supervillain — which is a very Marvel Comics way of doing things.

Incidentally, did you catch “pocket universe” in that last paragraph? Two years, folks. That’s how long the death of the DC Multiverse, the entire stated reason for Crisis, managed to last.

If that wasn’t enough of a sign that DC was trying to hammer itself into something more similar to the Marvel Universe, there are other signs all over the place. The Justice League, for instance, was recast without the big-name heroes into a team book built on contrasting personalities that felt more like the ’80s Avengers, and when you hit the ’90s and Marvel rolls out with stuff like X-Force, you get DC hopping on the bandwagon with Extreme Justice, but the exclamation point on the whole era was probably INVASION!, a comic that actually had an exclamation point in the title. It’s my favorite event ever, partially because it’s so quick (three 80-page giants illustrated by Todd McFarlane before he jumped ship and started drawing Spider-Man) and partially because there are so many good tie-ins, but when you get right down to it, INVASION! is almost hilarious in how much it’s attempting to be Marvel. For one thing, it’s the only DC story written by Bill Mantlo, one of the key writers of Marvel’s Bronze Age (and one of the most tragic stories in comics, please help if you can), but then there’s the consequences. The big result of the whole thing? Invading aliens drop a “gene bomb” on the population, triggering latent “meta-genes” in the population and activating super-powers in a small percentage.

Battleground Eath 

In other words, it brought mutants to the DC Universe.

It’s worth noting that this led to another creative renaissance for DC, and that despite the desire to compete with Marvel on their own terms, the ’90s DCU was defined in a way that was uniquely its own. This is something else I’ve written about before, and it’s the reason Mark Waid and Mike Wieringo’s Flash is arguably the most important DC Comic of the ’90s, because it’s the comic that was firmly rooted in the idea that would distinguish DC from its competition: The idea of Legacy.

When they collapsed their alternate universes into one, they did the one thing those multiple Earths were explicitly designed to prevent: they put everything on a timeline that dated back to the actual creation of those comics. It took a little massaging over the years, but eventually that came to work in its favor, by establishing that the DC Universe was built on this tradition of heroism that stretched back to 1939, with superheroes from World War II, where the heroes of past eras could pass their titles down to a current generation. There are obvious problems with this, of course, because it forces you to choose between having a Superman who’s current and “young” and a Superman in his rightful place as the first superhero, but you know, there were ways around it. Heck, they’d already created characters like Etrigan who dated back thousands of years, so the “Superman is the first” ship had already sailed. The idea they settled on was that there were heroes for a while, and then there weren’t, and then Superman comes along and ushers us into a new age of heroes that’s bigger and better than anything before.

It’s a great idea, and it’s what led to books like Flash, where it was a primary theme, and in Green Lantern, a book that had die-hard fans who apparently weren’t aware that having 3600 versions of a character means that he can be replaced, and even in the Batman titles, where Robin was the role that progressed as time went on. It was a good idea that led to great stories, and best of all, if you’re trying to distinguish yourself from your rival, it was something Marvel didn’t have.

Marvel, for better or worse, has always been about what’s going on now, and a lot less eager to look back at its own past. That’s the spirit of Kirby running through those books, I think, but the result is that if it’s always now, it was never really then. Peter Parker never was Spider-Man, he is Spider-Man, and while there are often attempts to shake things up by putting a new character into a role, it never really lasts. While DC was building the idea of a progression — from Jay to Barry to Wally, from Alan to Hal to John to Guy To Kyle, from Dick to Jason to Tim, etc. — Marvel’s standard method was to bring someone in for a while and then have them graduate to the new character to their own role when the original version came back. Rhodey fills in as Iron Man, then becomes War Machine. Eric Masterson fills in as Thor and then becomes Thunderstrike. Ben Reilly fills in as Spider-Man and then the angry shrieking gets so loud that we just stuff him in a metaphorical woodchipper until enough time passes that we miss him. It’s the circle of life. And it’s also the policy that DC adopted when they hit the reset button again in 2011, restoring the likes of Barry Allen and Hal Jordan to their previous roles.

For a while, that was the way things were, and weirdly enough, this is also the part of history where Marvel straight up goes bankrupt, and DC, for the very first time since 1961, is perfectly cool with not being Marvel anymore. But it didn’t last, largely because of The Other Problem, which is — and I swear I’ll keep this one short — that DC got it into their collective head that they needed to be Very Serious. This is an extension of The Problem that goes back to the days when DC Comics were for kids and Marvel Comics were for teens, and DC raged like a little brother because it didn’t want to be for kids, it wanted to be for grown-ups. At the same time that they’re restructuring their universe to be more like Marvel, they’re also publishing the comics that will get them the most critical success that they will ever have, the ones that I don’t even really need to identify by name because you all know where this is going, but I will anyway: Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen, Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns and, just as importantly, Moore and Steven Bisette’s Swamp Thing, among others. 

WatchmenAnd once again, people Lose. Their. S---.

Biff! Pow! Comics aren’t just for kids! They’re not even comics anymore, they’re Graphic Novels so put it in the suck it bucket, Adam West! And the thing is, they’re not just mature readers comics, they’re actually really good, and so are a lot of the others that spring up around this time, whether they’re coming from the Indie Boom of the ’80s or winning Pulitzer Prizes like Maus. And DC, the collective entity that is DC as a company, the one I’ve been personifying for the entire column, sees this and has a revelation.

“Aha!” says this imaginary version of DC, “I get it now! The reason they liked Marvel, which was going for a slightly older audience, the reason I had competition that cut into my sales after bestriding the Earth like a mighty colossus for three solid decades, was that they wanted things that were mature. All that stuff that I used to do that was for kids, about cartoon characters with superpowers facing down weird situations, that wasn’t mature. They want violence and blood and cusswords and crying and moping and boy howdy they definitely want a whole lot of rapes. And since I can only do one kind of thing, that is what I must do.” Seriously, they have been chasing that dragon so hard that they actually did more Watchmen comics in an effort to drum up past glory. It creates this weird corporate schizophrenia where they want to look back at the high points of their past, but want them to be more Very Serious than they actually were. This is The Other Problem, and it’s why we have Identity Crisis and a Superman movie with no bright colors that ends with death.

And then DC slowly begins the process of trying to make that vision a reality. In the mid 2000s, Marvel has come back from bankruptcy and it gets so bad that DC does two comics — Identity Crisis and Justice League: Cry For Justice — that are so hellaciously ruinous that they pretty much have no choice but to throw the baby out with that foul tub of bathwater and start over again. And this time, they hire yet another former Marvel Editor-In-Chief, Bob Harras, to run the show. And that pretty much brings you up to today.

And again, it’s worth saying that there’s good, even great work coming out of DC this time around, too, even if the overall mood of the universe, if such a thing even exists, feels like a relentless grind to get through sometimes. But that, in turn, raises the question of why, if there are so many amazing comics that result from this, from The New Gods in ’71 to Hard Traveling Heroes to Batman: Year One to Flash to Zero Year, is this The Problem? If there’s that much good that results from it, then shouldn’t it be, at worst, The Curious Affectation?

The reason that it’s The Problem is because of how it makes them look at their characters with this eternal inferiority complex that can never really be resolved. That fundamental difference between the universes that I mentioned above and wrote about at length last week means that if they want to be Marvel, they’re never actually going to get there. They’re just going to keep tying new ways to get there and resetting when they realize that they’ve only complicated matters, and it’s all so unnecessary. Superman doesn’t need to be anything else, he’s already Superman, and the same goes for Batman, Wonder Woman, and the rest of those characters. They can be better, sure, but the way you make them better is by sitting down and asking “how can this be better,” not by asking “how can this be more like that other thing?” You get good stuff out of that, yes, but you also get Superman executing criminals and Extreme Justice, and that’s the kind of thing we can do without.

For their part, Marvel pretty much seems like they could give a d---.

SEE ALSO: Warner Bros. Is Reportedly Working On A Bunch Of Superhero Movies To Catch Up To Disney

Join the conversation about this story »

First Teaser Trailer For 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I’ Is A Huge Warning Shot Towards Katniss

$
0
0

hunger games president snowThe first teaser trailer for "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I" is here, and fans of the series will be left reeling for more.

The teaser opens as an address by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) to the people of Panem; however, it's clear the intent of the video is a huge warning shot directly at Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence).

The final shots of the trailer hit like a punch to the gut. 

"If you resist the system, you starve yourself," says Snow. "If you fight against it, it is you who will bleed. I know you will stand with me, with us, with all of us, together as one."

As President Snow utters the following words, the video slowly pans out to show the fate of Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) who was captured by the Capitol at the end of the last film.the hunger games peeta mellark

Those who watched "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" were left to wonder what became of Katniss' onscreen "boyfriend." Fans of the books know this is the setup for a huge turn in Peeta's character *spoilers* as he becomes a brainwashed pawn of the Capitol *spoilers.*

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I" is in theaters November 21.

SEE ALSO: See the first trailer for Brad Pitt's next movie "Fury"

Join the conversation about this story »


John Cleese: New James Bond Movies Have One Fatal Flaw

$
0
0

daniel craig james bond skyfall

It’s hard to look back on Skyfall and not consider the film a raging success. The reviews were among the best the James Bond series has ever received. The box office netted more than one billion dollars in worldwide grosses, and the majority of fans seem to think the franchise is in better shape now than at any point since Sean Connery was leading the charge in the early to mid 1960s. The majority of fans, however, does not include everyone, and for a reminder of that, I now bring you Monty Python co-founder and beloved actor John Cleese. 

John CleeseThe seventy-four-year-old Englishman famously worked with 007 on The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, first as the assistant to Desmond Llewelyn’s Q and later as Q himself. When the series rebooted with Daniel Craig as James Bond, however, he was not asked to return, and if John Cleese himself is to be believed, it’s because Asian people don’t understand the British sense of humor. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s not. Either way, the comedian thinks the new tone is dragging the franchise down. 

Speaking on the Radio Times, he called the decrease in jokes a "fundamental flaw". Here’s an excerpt, courtesy of The Telegraph… 

"I believe that they decided that the tone they needed was that of the Bourne action movies, which are very gritty and humourless. Also, the big money was coming from Asia, from the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, where the audiences go to watch the action sequences, and that’s why in my opinion the action sequences go on for too long."

Skyfall has a few jokes that really work, but the cheesy one-liner James Bond who is effortlessly in control at all times and excited about making little cracks here or there is definitely gone. In a way, that is sad for hardcore 007 fans too. The Roger Moore era might have its share of detractors, but all of those films are fun, breezy watches. They’re the type of things to put on during a relaxing Sunday afternoon with family members. Say what you will about Skyfall, but it’s not that type of movie. 

It all comes down to expectations. If the goal here is to make the most emotionally affecting and dramatic movie possible, then the franchise is on the right track. If the idea is to evolve with the times and keep James Bond modern, we’re all good. If the idea is to keep the secret agent with his classic tone as a throwback relic, then John Cleese is right. 

SEE ALSO: James Bond Drank About Six Cocktails A Day

Join the conversation about this story »

How A Failed ‘Wizard of Oz’ Remake Became A $100 Million Investor Nightmare

$
0
0

Yellow brick road, dorothy's return wizard of oz

Last month the animated movie “Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return” became one of the biggest computer graphic box office flops of all time, and was yanked from most theaters almost immediately.

Last weekend, it made just $36,408.

But according to an investigation by TheWrap, the movie's producers and fundraisers fared far better than the film's investors, who may have collectively lost up to $100 million, while the producers and fundraisers earned tens of millions of dollars, according to SEC filings.

Alpine Productions, which produced the film, told investors that the film could have massive returns, according to one of those investors, court documents and investment documents obtained by TheWrap. Instead, it grossed $8.8 million worldwide on what the producers told investors was a $70 million production budget.

“Legends of Oz” is based on a book by Roger S. Baum, a descendant of original “Wizard of Oz” author L. Frank Baum, and features a cast of voice actors led by A-list names like Lea MichelePatrick StewartKelsey Grammer and Hugh Dancy. Directed by animation veterans Dan St. Pierre and Will Finn, and produced by DreamWorks Animation vet Bonne Radford, the movie seems like a conventional Hollywood effort.

Yet an investigation of how the movie was made reveals a far more compelling back story focused on two brothers who have often run into legal troubles. No fewer than six states issued “cease and desist” letters to companies connected to Ryan and Roland Carroll in an attempt to shut down its fundraising for the film in each state.

California fined the Carrolls and Alpine Pictures $100,000 in 2011 and required the company to refund investors $589,000, according to state documents.

“Their business model is based on raising money and taking a percentage. They never show anything to anybody,” an insider who worked on the production said, speaking of Ryan and Roland Carroll, now operating respectively as the president and CEO of Summertime Entertainment. “Money just shifts around and they write things up. They line their pockets, they think they're businessmen.”

But in an interview with TheWrap Ryan Carroll said: “I'm not responsible for bringing investors aboard, and I never was. It's an independently made movie that was privately financed with a great deal of effort and a project that I'm very proud of.”

When the Carrolls began raising money for the film in 2006, they were running a company called Alpine Productions, which had previously made several low budget films. The brothers already had a history of questionable fundraising activities dating back to at least 1993, when the state of Oregon sent them a cease and desist letter that accused the Carrolls of selling unregistered securities while operating a company called Carroll Media, Inc. Their next decade was littered with cease and desist orders and fines, in states such as California, WisconsinUtahMichigan, andIllinois.

One of their earlier films, “Lord Protector,” was investigated by the SEC in 1997 for allegedly misrepresenting the budget in order to pay actors the SAG minimum.

The brothers initially sought $20 million to produce an animated sequel to “The Wizard of Oz,” Ryan Carroll told TheWrap. Operating under the name Dorothy of Oz, LLC. with a man named Neil Kaufman serving as the managing partner, they sold stock for $1 a share, requiring a minimum $20,000 investment.

Originally, the film was intended to be a straight-to-DVD movie, but Ryan Carroll told TheWrap that the company decided that their best chance to compete with other animated films was to release it in theaters across the country.

Ryan Carroll said fundraising is “not really what I do. I option the books and I oversaw the production. It wasn't my responsibility to put the funding together, that's a separate entity. We're a production company. There's an LLC [Limited Liability Company] which is Emerald City of Oz, and that was their responsibility to put the funding together, but that wasn't what I worked on.”

Also readThe Most and Least Liked Summer Movie Actresses – Jennifer Lawrence, Angelina Jolie, Mila Kunis, Shailene Woodley

However, multiple investment documents and state cease and desist orders link the Carrolls to companies fund-raising for the film.

Neil Kaufman, the managing member of Dorothy of Oz LLC, is listed as an executive producer at Summertime Entertainment, Carroll's company, on his own LinkedIn page. In court documentsfrom California, Kaufman was listed as a salesperson for Alpine in addition to his role at Dorothy of Oz LLC. In addition, Dorothy of Oz LLC headquarters were at the same address of the former headquarters of Summertime (then Alpine) in Burbank. Emerald City of Oz LLC succeeded Dorothy as the main fundraising vehicle, according to the production insider.

Though they claimed to only sell stock to accredited investors, some shares in the Dorothy of Oz LLC were sold to investors who did not satisfy these requirements through cold call solicitation, according to government records from multiple states issuing cease and desist orders. Under exceptions to the typical regulations applicable to fundraising, individuals with liquid assets above a defined threshold and with experience in investing in expensive and risky ventures may be solicited as investors in what are known as private placements.

Also readThe Most and Least Liked Summer Movie Actors – Tom Cruise, Vin Diesel, Morgan Freeman, Channing Tatum

In 2010 the fundraisers began pitching under the name Emerald City of Oz LLC, which was registered in Delaware.

Florida businessman Greg Centineo, who had owned a coffee shop and previously worked in real estate, became heavily involved in fundraising for “Legends of Oz” in 2007. According to the insider involved with the production and a source with knowledge of the fundraising, Centineo began throwing fundraising parties to solicit investors. According to multiple sources, many of these investors were unaccredited.

In an interview with TheWrap, Centineo denied that his investors were unaccredited.

At the parties and other presentations, a PowerPoint was shown to potential investors, which TheWrap has obtained.

In the presentation, they projected anywhere from $720 million to $2.04 billion gross revenue on film content alone (theatrical, home video and cable), and for the franchise, which included merchandising and sequels, to have a return on investment from 324 percent on the low end to a high of 1,180 percent.

Only in a small margin at the bottom of the final page of the presentation's projection section was there any acknowledgment of the riskiness of the venture, and the individuals close to the project told TheWrap that many investors had little grasp of the risk that they were taking, statements backed by court documents.

See photos27 Summer Movie Actors Ranked by Popularity (Photos)

According to the cease and desist from Washington State, “at least one Washington investor received profit projections forecasting a minimum return on investment of 162 percent,” and “also received materials featuring the covers of DVDs of highly successful animated films such as ‘Toy Story,’ ‘Finding Nemo,’ and ‘The Incredibles.'”

This story is repeated in many other court orders and legal filings, including in the states ofTexasAlabama, and California, where Alpine was found to be violating a 2009 cease and desist in 2011. The state filings note that the securities were unregistered, as were the salespeople.

Centineo, however, says that he was very clear with the people he was pitching that they could lose their entire investments, and that projections were based on a formula that he declined to specify.

See photos23 Summer Movie Actresses Ranked by Popularity (Photos)

Wizard of Oz, rainbow, returnPotential investors were encouraged to send money via personal check, wire transfer, or even investing through their 401K and retirement plans, according to the Washington legal documents.

Others, including those that Centineo signed up, came through referrals.

Despite the Carroll's denial of “Oz” fundraising, the brothers are also operators of the First National Information Network, an investor lead and phone solicitation company that maintained an office at 3500 West Magnolia Blvd. in Burbank, the same place where Dorothy of Oz LLC was once located.

Also readHollywood Dumps Diversity (Again): White Men Directed 90 Percent of This Year's Summer Movies

That number was cited as the one calling potential investors.

Based on SEC filings, the fundraisers ultimately raised $103 million from solicitations and road show presentations for the proposed franchise by two companies, Dorothy of Oz, LLC and Emerald City of Oz LLC.

See videoPink Sings ‘Somewhere Over The Rainbow’ in ‘Wizard of Oz’ Tribute

SEC filings show that a “management fee” of $5.28 million (22 percent on $33 million raised) was taken by the managers of Dorothy of Oz, LLC; another SEC filing shows Emerald City of Oz, LLC nearly at its goal of $77 million, with $17 million (22 percent) already being taken for the company in those management fees. Of that 22 percent taken from both Dorothy and Emerald City, 15 percent went to commissions for people who found and sold to investors; one percent went to the managing partner; and the rest was taken for LLC expenses.

Scarecrow, wizard of oz, dorothy's returnIn addition, another 20 percent in production fees was claimed from each LLC by company executives on top of the 22 percent, which Ryan Carroll said was used “to keep the lights on.”

The movie opened May 9, playing in 2,658 theaters. Its distributor, Clarius Entertainment, projected that it would make somewhere in the low teen millions that opening weekend; instead, it earned roundly negative reviews — it sits at 16 percent on Rotten Tomatoes right now — and set the all-time record for worst opening weekend for a wide-release animated movie, making just $3.7 million.

In the weeks since, the film has taken in just $8.8 million worldwide, and played in only 52 American theaters last weekend.

Going forward, Carroll says that they will continue to pursue the virtual world and various phone apps — releasing one every two months starting in September, he promised — and plan to try to turn the “Legends of Oz” franchise into a television series.

Despite the dismal box office, Carroll continued to sell the virtues of his project.

“It may be a longer, more difficult road, and we still have a lot of challenges in front of us,” he said, “but nothing is lost.”

Michael Rich and Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.

SEE ALSO: Inside The Weird, Sad Family Feud Over Walt Disney's $400 Million Fortune

Join the conversation about this story »

Brad Pitt Returns To Killing Nazis In First Trailer For Movie 'Fury'

$
0
0

fury brad pitt

"I started this war killing Germans in Africa, now I'm killing Germans in Germany."

After 2009's "Inglourious Basterds," Brad Pitt is back to killing Nazis in new movie "Fury," except this time it's a much more serious film in tone.

Here's the official synopsis from Sony Pictures: 

"April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened army sergeant named Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) commands a Sherman tank and her five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, and with a rookie soldier thrust into their platoon, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany."

Don't expect Pitt to necessarily be the main star of the film. Director David Ayer ("End of Watch") previously told People Magazine he "set out to make the ultimate tank movie."

Ayer told People an authentic German Tiger tank was loaned from a museum for use in the film.

Here's an idea of what one of those looks like:

german tiger tank

The film also stars Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña, Jon Bernthal ("The Walking Dead"), and Scott Eastwood.

"Fury" is in theaters November 14.

SEE ALSO: Chris Pratt reveals the plot for "Jurassic World"

Join the conversation about this story »

Mark Wahlberg's Stunt Double Explains Why He Loved Working On The New 'Transformers'

$
0
0

Dan Mast action shot

"Transformers: Age of Extinction" is in theaters Friday, but how does the sequel pull off all of its action intensive scenes?

Well, it helps to have a great stuntman like Dan Mast.

The 26-year-old, based in California, has been doing stunt work for the past five years on films including "Battleship,""After Earth," and "Divergent."

His latest film will be the fourth installment of the popular "Transformers" series, "Transformers: Age of Extinction," in which Mast will double for the film's star, Mark Wahlberg.

Business Insider recently spoke with Mast about his experiences on the film.

Dan Mast, Transformers: Age of ExtinctionMast says one of his first issues on the movie wasn't leaping off a tall building or doing an intricate stunt, but rather finding a place to work out.

"It was hard finding a gym close enough because we were living out of hotels," said Mast. "And hotel gyms are awful."

Once Mast found a location to bulk up, his regime included following strict workouts of intense weight lifting (his goal was an hour a day, 5-6 days a week) and a steady diet of protein shakes.

Capturing Wahlberg's look, on the other hand, didn't require the same effort.

"All we had to do was match the hair color and after that, that was it," said Mast. "There was no wigs, no prosthetics, and no makeup other than the occasional dirty blood."

For Mast, working on "Transformers" was very different from anything he had done before because of the fast pace of the film's director, Michael Bay.

"It was very fast paced," Mast explained about the film's production. "From the minute Bay walks on set to the minute he walks off we're going, going, going 100 miles per hour. Personally I like it like that."

The film's lack of down time did keep Mast on his toes, but it also didn't give him a lot of time to get to know the man he doubled for on set.

"We didn't have a lot of hanging out ... but he was very cool," Mast said of Wahlberg.

Dan Mast, on set of TransformersWhen there were breaks, Wahlberg took the time to say hello and was very humble, which is something that isn't always a standard in the industry.

"I hear stories of other actors that just show up to set and leave, sometimes their doubles don't even get to interact with them," Mast added. "It was nice to work with someone who wasn't like that."

While many will head out to see "Transformers" this weekend for the special effects and CGI Autobots, Mast hopes audiences don't lose sight of how much realistic stunt work went into the making of the film.

"The great thing about working with Michael Bay is that if he wants to blow something up, he's going to blow it up," said Mast. "We're not pretending to run away from things. We're not faking reactions... a lot of this is very real, the only thing they're adding in later are the robots."

For example, many of the Michael Bay signature pyrotechnics that Mast had to flee from on set weren't put together in the editing room. transformers 4 explosions

"I hope they [the audience] don't think that a lot of these explosions were just computer graphics because they weren't," Mast added. "I hope people realize the reality of it."

SEE ALSO: The 12 Most Sought-After Stunt Doubles In Hollywood

Join the conversation about this story »

Another 'Star Wars: Episode VII' Actor May Be Getting A Bigger Role Because Of Harrison Ford's Injury

$
0
0

Oscar Isaac, Star Wars: Episode VII

Since Disney hasn't released any official statement about how the production on Star Wars: Episode VII will be affected after Harrison Ford's on-set injury, a number of rumors have been circulating, including yesterday's report that Disney and LucasFilm are considering a production shut-down until the actor can get back on his feet.

Today, we have a new report from Page Six, which includes unconfirmed details that Oscar Isaac may have an expanded role in the sequel because of this injury, although Disney and other sources contradict these claims.

While it still hasn't been confirmed who exactly Oscar Isaac is playing, there are rumors that he is playing a descendant of Harrison Ford's Han Solo. Regardless of who he is playing, one source claims that Oscar Isaac's role will be "beefed up" due to the injury.

"They are now beefing up Oscar's role to be bigger with Harrison injured."

However, a second source said that no roles are being expanded, although the shooting order for certain characters may be shifted in Harrison Ford's absence. This source also claims that it would be impossible to shut the whole movie down, contrary to yesterday's report.

"Shutting down the movie is impossible. The basic story line will not change that much. The order of filming scenes could be shifted."

A representative for Disney also shot down the allegations of Oscar Isaac's expanded role.

"This is categorically not true."

All we do know is that production on Star Wars: Episode VII is still under way in London, under the direction of J.J. Abrams, that is, until the next unconfirmed rumor tells us otherwise.

Star Wars: Episode VII comes to theaters December 18th, 2015 and stars John BoyegaDaisy RidleyCarrie FisherHarrison FordMark HamillAdam Driver,Domhnall GleesonLupita Nyong'o. The film is directed by J.J. Abrams.

SEE ALSO: Harrison Ford Broke His Leg While Filming ‘Star Wars: Episode VII'

Join the conversation about this story »

Why It Took So Long For X-Men To Become Popular

$
0
0

X-Men: Days Of Future Past Poster

I think most comics readers are well aware of that piece of trivia about how the X-Men were about to get the axe before Giant Size X-Men #1 breathed new life into the franchise and set them on the path of becoming what was probably the single most popular and influential franchise of the ’80s and ’90s, and that’s not really how things usually work. In comics, you tend to either come out of the gate to massive, enduring popularity (like Batman or Spider-Man), come out strong and then fade away for whatever reason (like, sadly, Shazam!), or just sort of flounder in the midcard. It’s rare that something sticks around on the edge of being canceled for a solid decade before it finds its footing, and nobody bounced back harder than Marvel’s Merry Mutants.

But really, what you’re asking here is two separate questions: Why didn’t the X-Men take off in 1963, and why did they in 1975? So let’s look at the history and see if we can’t figure it out.

X-men comic bookIn a lot of ways, X-Men was clearly the odd man out in that original Marvel lineup. I’ve been through this a lot before, but it’s impossible to understate how much of a revolution those books were. Fantastic Four and Spider-Man were basically instant hits, and while Iron Man and Thor weren’t really A+ players, they were a solid foundation for the universe that led to Avengers and the return of Captain America, which was a huge deal. Hulk might’ve been canceled after six issues, but that’s such a great concept that it never really left, he just kicked around the midcard in Tales of Suspense with the Sub-Mariner for a while until the audience was there — and even that happened pretty quickly, all things considered.

X-Men, meanwhile, was just sort of there.

In retrospect, that seems weird, not just because of their later success, but because it’s such an easy concept, both for readers and creators. The emergence of a race of mutants provides the writers with an easy way to skip over complicated origin stories and get right to the action, which seems like the perfect medium for people like Jack Kirby, who had a million ideas a minute that could be dropped right onto the page with that simple explanation. Making them teenagers who are ostracized by the outside world and dropping it into that school setting gives the teenage readers something that they can relate to while at the same time giving them that escapist fantasy that comics have been built on for as long as they’ve existed. It even seems like it was perfectly timed, coming out right when the teenager was truly emerging as a social construct and an economic powerhouse.

On paper, that’s one of the best ideas those guys ever had, and that’s saying something. But in practice, it just falls flat right out of the gate. That’s not to say that there aren’t great ideas there. If you read that first issue, you can see the foundation of almost everything that would come later right there, from Magneto to the X-Men getting involved in a military situation, the cold war nuclear paranoia that was so prevalent in that age to the point where mutants themselves are said to be the result of atomic fallout, human WMDs left in the wake of World War II. It’s just that the execution doesn’t live up to it.

I’ve said before that X-Men just doesn’t feel like Lee and Kirby have their hearts in it, but I don’t think that’s quite right. I think the problem is that it was really their first attempt at building on what they’d already done. It’s a refinement rather than an innovation, pieced together from bits and pieces that worked in their other hits. The problem is that those other hits were themselves still being refined as an ongoing process, and they were way more interesting, which made X-Men redundant.

It had the hook of ostracized and isolated teens, but that was done way better in Spider-Man, the book that laid the foundation of the modern superhero. The team bickered while showing off their super-powers and had Angel and Cyclops competing for Marvel Girl’s affections, but that was nowhere near as good as the strained family relationship in Fantastic Four. They were outsiders in a world that didn’t understand if they were heroes or villains, but, you know, that’s the Hulk’s entire deal. X-Men was the first comic that tried to mash all that up — it’s the first real product of the Marvel Age — but it didn’t do anything better.

Before we move on, it’s worth noting that there’s another Marvel title that’s the same way, that also took a long time to ramp up and find its footing: Daredevil, which was really just Spider-Man Has A Grown-Up Job Now. It’s not a “bad” comic by any means, but when it’s in a crowd alongside “This Man, This Monster” or “The Final Chapter” or even that story where Hawkeye decides he’s going to wear a purple miniskirt from now on, it doesn’t measure up. It’s just Good Enough To Not Get Canceled, which is probably why they didn’t mind handing it off to an artist who had never written a monthly title before, which is how Frank Miller ended up doing the other most influential superhero comic of the ’80s.

Also, can we talk about that cover for a second? It’s dynamic as hell, but what is happening there. You’ve got a dude with wings trying to throw a metal pipe at a guy dressed up like the Devil, a snowman straight up throwing snowballs, and a girl doing the twist, all taking place in a blank white void while they stand on a fuchsia triangle. I love Kirby, but that is weird, and aside from Cyclops blasting laser beams out of his face, it’s not a particularly enticing image. Also, “what is Beast swinging from” is up there with “who the hell brought the ropes to tie up Mr. Fantastic” on the list of Questions Jack Kirby Covers Raise That They Never Answer.

There’s one other major factor about those early X-Men issues that makes them feel so bland, and that’s that the single most important aspect of that comic, the thing that in retrospect came to define it and keep it as a viable, thriving storytelling tool, is also completely absent from those early issues: The civil rights metaphor. It’s there in bits and pieces — the Sentinels, the prime example of the government repressing and hunting mutants, show up pretty early on in 1965 — but it’s certainly not the focus. Despite Marvel’s (pretty well-earned) reputation for being counterculture that was rooted in real-world struggles, they were still mainstream superhero comics, and those were a few years away from tackling bigotry with anything that had more layers than Superman and Batman showing up in a PSA to tell you racism was bad. 

Batman, Robin comic

Don’t get me wrong, I love that PSA, but it ain’t exactly God Loves, Man Kills, you know?

To be fair, I’m basing all of this on the earliest Lee/Kirby issues. I’ve never read the stuff that came after. Then again, neither did anyone else; that was sort of the problem. By the early ’70s, X-Men existed only as a bimonthly reprint title, presumably because “X-Men” is such a great title that Marvel didn’t want to take the chance of letting the copyright lapse. Then, in the part of the story that everyone knows by heart, Len Wein, Dave Cockrum relaunched it with Giant Size X-Men #1 and handed it off to Claremont and eventually John Byrne, and it became the most popular thing that has ever been held together with two staples and a cover.

X-men second genesis comic

I don’t think it’s exaggerating at all to say this is the most successful reboot of all time. The only thing I can think of that even arguably tops it is Flash in 1954, which kicked off the Silver Age and paved the way for so much of what still sits at the core of the DC Universe, but when you look at what came from that single issue of X-Men, it’s a tough call. Launching Wolverine alone changed comics as we know them, influencing the direction of countless characters and a sprawling media empire and that’s a small piece of the influence. The New Teen Titans, Crisis, the way team books changed forever, everything we think of as “The ’90s,” all of that has its roots one way or another in that comic. I don’t even think we’d have the Batman that we have today if we hadn’t gone through Wolverine to get there.

So why was it this book? It’s tough to say — no comic, even one that’s this influential, exists in a vacuum, and it’s hard to piece together a the complex web of influences, even if you’re pretty sure you’re starting from solid ground. But the most obvious reason is that it’s really good.

The “All-New X-Men” era is one of those rare lightning-in-a-bottle moments in comics when everyone involved just clicked right into place. Cockrum was an incredible designer who took some Legion of Super-Heroes ideas he’d been working on and dropped them right into a team that was in dire need of a new roster with international flair, Claremont’s operatic storytelling was perfect for juggling a complicated web of relationships and longing, and Byrne? Forget it, man. That dude was putting out G.O.A.T. stuff for a solid decade.

X-men comics panel

That’s before you throw Orzechowski into the mix, too. It’s A-game all around.

One interesting thing about how X-Men was relaunched is that, as a run, Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne’s stories feel very modern, but in a lot of ways, Wein and Cockrum’s Giant Size reads like a throwback. It’s very old school, to the point where you’ve got a nod back to the pre-Fantstic Four days with KRAKOA, THE ISLAND THAT WALKS LIKE A MAN! Even the story that it leads into features the X-Men duking it out with Count Nefaria, a villain from the early days of the Avengers with a name that sounds like someone the Shadow and Doc Savage would’ve fought. In retrospect, it makes a strange bridge between these two distinct eras of Marvel comics.

The first and most important thing it does in that respect is that it rebuilds the team almost from the ground up. Cyclops, much to my dismay, sticks around to connect the team to its past, but everyone else is either gone or radically changed. Iceman and Angel head off to California to join the Champions (which, for those of you who haven’t read it, is to Defenders what Defenders is to the rest of the Marvel Universe), Beast went to the Avengers, and Marvel Girl became the Phoenix — a pretty huge change for a character whose powers were defined in 1963 as “can lift and read a book.”

The rest of the team was, of course, filled out with an international roster, and that’s one of the most brilliant things that the relaunch did. Since they were situated out in Westchester rather than being in New York City proper, the X-Men had always been slightly apart from the Marvel Universe. It’s only about 30 miles, sure, but Spider-Man wasn’t exactly going to be swinging by on his way to the Bugle like he could in the background of Daredevil. By throwing in characters from Africa, Europe and even Canada, Wein and Cockrum gave the team a global scale that set them apart from neighborhood heroes. It was something they’d already had, but now there was a personal investment in it.

It also brought that civil rights metaphor right to the forefront, on a very basic visual level. These were people who looked different from each other — the gigantic wide-eyed Russian, the African goddess, the weird blue elf with the accent — but they all had something in common. They were united as members of a race despite their differences in appearance, and that also meant that they had a common enemy in the forces that were out to oppress and destroy them because of their differences from “normal people.” Compare that to the five white kids in suits from the original lineup. One of them has large feet. That’s about as much visual variety as you get, and it doesn’t exactly underscore what you’re dealing with.

Right away, you’re dealing with something that has a much stronger hook, with creators who are far more invested and devoted to what they’re doing. But more than that, everything that works against X-Men in 1963 ends up working for it in 1975.

In the early days, Spider-Man had been the book about an outcast, but by the ’70s, that wasn’t really the case anymore. Peter Parker had stopped being Steve Ditko’s spindly, picked-on nerd once John Romita Sr. showed up to shove him through puberty and turn him into the strapping young man who was dating a pair of gorgeous go-go dancers with a lot of bad luck around bridges. He still had his problems at bargain rates, but they were covering different ground than what you saw with the X-Men. Peter Parker was a guy with a lousy job who had to worry about paying the bills and providing for the woman who raised him and who was perpetually two seconds away from keeling over, but he didn’t have to worry about fighting for equality or being rounded up and sent to a labor camp. The X-Men, on the other hand, were hitting that exact note, filling a metaphorical role in the way that nobody else was — and once Kitty Pryde showed up to allow a shift in focus from the grown-up, graduated X-Men (and the just-out-of-college Spider-Man), they had that teenage POV market cornered too.

The Fantastic Four had the market cornered on bickering teammates in ’63, but ten years later, the book (which, sadly, suffered the worst for Kirby’s departure from Marvel in 1971 and wouldn’t really recover until John Byrne took the reigns in the ’80s) didn’t have anything like the love triangle that was going on between Cyclops, Phoenix and Wolverine, let alone the interpersonal web of relationships between the rest of the ever-expanding cast. It’s almost not fair, in a way — X-Men starts with twice as many characters as Fantastic Four had, with a cast that’s meeting each other and developing their relationships right there on the page, rather than starting fully formed.

Hulk was a hero in a monster’s body, but Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne made Magneto a villain you could actually root for. In fact, it’s hard not to see his point, even when he’s driven to extremes, because you’ve seen the X-Men being assaulted by the Government and have to deal with exactly the sort of problems that are keeping Magneto up at night. The flipside is that they get lumped in with him, so that it’s not their actions that are getting them labeled as monsters, but the actions of a member of their race. It all comes back to that central metaphor, supporting it, leading to interesting and complicated storytelling. Which is exactly what the book did. 

Nightcrawler, X-men comicsAll of that gave this second iteration of the X-Men something that the first version didn’t have: direction. It had a clear mission, its parameters were defined and could be expanded and contracted as the story needed, whether it was to accommodate a cosmic adventure out into space to deal with the Phoenix, or whether it was something as small as Kitty Pryde having to choose between schools. People knew what the X-Men were about, and because of that, what they were about could change and evolve over time, returning to that base as needed. The first version was just more superheroes, but the second told you why you should care, and that made all the difference.

SEE ALSO: Here’s The Fundamental Problem With DC Comics

Join the conversation about this story »

Next Season's 'Game Of Thrones' Might Omit A Major Character From The Show

$
0
0

The Red WeddingMost Game of Thrones fans know of the online furor that arose after the credits rolled on the show’s fourth season finale.  For book readers, there had been an omission: a character who makes an appearance in A Storm of Swords’ Epilogue.  From there, there was much discussion back and forth within the fandom and in a variety of media outlets over whether the omission was a good thing, to the point of whether the character should be eliminated from the storytelling altogether.  Hit the jump for a recent interview that could clear some of this speculation up, but warning, there will be MAJOR book spoilers about who the character is.

The character in question is of course Lady Stoneheart, who is essentially the resurrected body of Catelyn Stark.  After the Red Wedding, when Catelyn’s throat was slit and she was thrown into the river, she was then rescued by The Brotherhood Without Banners, whose leader, Beric Dondarrion, gave his life for hers. From that point, Lady Stoneheart takes over command of the Brotherhood, roaming the land in order to exact vengeance for her family’s suffering.

There are several things to say about this.  First of all, if Stoneheart was going to appear in Game of Thrones, the backstory necessary to remind viewers not only exactly what happened to her at the Red Wedding, but the significance of Beric (who has been re-cast at least once) and the Brotherhood would have been too much for Season Four.  The reveal would be far more likely to take place in the next season (if at all).

On the other hand, there are many who think the story of Stoneheart is patently ridiculous, and doesn’t need to exist (to some, it also lessens the effect of the Red Wedding).  In A Dance With Dragons, Stoneheart’s story intersects with Brienne’s, but if show decides to eliminate Stoneheart, it would potentially show a very different direction for Brienne’s future.

EW recently spoke to Catelyn Stark actress Michelle Fairley about her role on 24: Live Another Day, but also a lot about Stoneheart.  After saying she wasn’t aware of the online discussions after the finale, the interviewer asks about what she does know about the character’s fate:

There was a lot of online conversation. I heard third-hand that you were basically told that it’s not likely to ever happen. Is that accurate?

Fairley: Yeah, the character’s dead. She’s dead. 

Do you have a preference at all—do you think Catelyn’s arc should end where it ended, or would you be into the resurrection idea?

Fairley: You respect the writers’ decision. I knew the arc, and that was it. They can’t stick to the books 100 percent. It’s impossible—they only have 10 hours per season. They have got to keep it dramatic and exciting, and extraneous stuff along the way gets lost in order to maintain the quality of brilliant show. 

So this seems to be cut and dry.  Still, given showrunners Dan Weiss and David Benioff‘s penchant for zombies on the show (they’ve added several scenes, or moved up things regarding things happening North of the Wall), it’s quite surprising that they would pass up an opportunity for such a shocking moment.  On the other hand, these comments have not been confirmed, so perhaps Lady Stoneheart will still appear at some point as a surprise for everyone.  After all, Lena Heady did post that heart made of stones on Instagram before the finale (though later claimed she was just drunk and thought it looked cool … ok).

SEE ALSO: 'Game Of Thrones' Finale Leaves Out A Huge Storyline From The Books

Join the conversation about this story »


Here's The Staggering Work That Goes Into The Masterful Special Effects In 'Transformers: Age Of Extinction'

$
0
0

grimlock dinobot transformers 4

Michael Bay’s Transformers 4: Age of Extinction is the most technologically ambitious film in the franchise. Working again with Industrial Light and Magic, Age of Extinction showcases astonishingly fluid, realistic robotic shape-shifting—somehow they’ve managed to make robots transforming into vehicles and back again into a kind of visual poetry. Age of Extinction, which will be released in 2D, 3D, and Imax 3D, is the work of hundreds of people, with every scene, every moment and every frame bearing the fingerprint of dozens of artists working together.

There’s a scene in Extinction in which Autobot’s alpha-male, Optimus Prime, rides a massive Dinobot T-Rex, called Grimlock, and the two rampage through Hong Kong on their way to battle some new, very bad machines. Let’s do a brief, truncated tally of some of the departments that worked on this one sequence: You’ve got your practical effects (Michael Bay and his crew filming actual explosions, the use of actors and stunt people, and location shooting in Hong Kong and China), animated effects (the animators who create and place Prime and Grimlock inside the scene Bay’s team shot), rigid dynamic effects (the large scale destruction of buildings crumbling, cars flipping, etc.), particle effects (any particulate matter created by the destruction, which includes dust, sparks, smoke, rubble and fire) and, the subject of this article, the lighting and rendering department (the manipulation of light and the way it reacts with the characters on screen).

The lighting and rendering department is headed up by supervisor David Meny, who had to make sure that the way the light moves and changes, the way it reflects off of Prime’s blue and red metal or Grimlock’s scarred, dark metal haunches, looks both plausible in the actual environment that Michael Bay shot, and, looks aesthetically pleasing enough to satisfy the director.

So how does he do it? He starts with the plate.

transformers age of extinction autobotsThe Plate

The practical photography that is shot out there in the real world and is given to Industrial Light & Magic to work on is referred to as ‘the plate’ or ‘plates.’ “The plate is the shot,” Meny says, “It’s the context of that beat of the movie.”

So Meny starts with a series of 2D images captured in the real world and then helps build the 3D scene around that in the computer. “The animators add the characters and apply the motions, then we build up around the animated scene and add the light, the shadows, and make you believe that that transformer is actually there on location.”

“Often Michael [Bay] tries to film as many practical explosions and gorgeous plates as possible, and we try to match our characters into those environment,” Meny says. This means when Bay and his team film exterior shots during an overcast day in Hong Kong, it’s up to Meny to make sure that when Prime or Bumblebee or one of the new villains is placed into the scene, the light reflecting off their massive metal shoulders matches the real environment that was shot on that day. They mostly deal with plates shot by the first and second units, and use high dynamic range panoramas of those shots to match their lighting accordingly. Meny also has references for how light reacts with the various Transformers in different settings, whether it’s how a bright sun in a clear sky would play off Bumblebee’s black and yellow armor or how a cloudy day might look on Crosshairs green and silver cast.

Meny says that Bay asks his artists to take inspiration from the photography plate, but to make it look as cool as possible. This might mean bringing in lighting layers that weren’t a part of the actual shot, using mirror boards, or snaking a glint or a shadow along a character’s body to draw the audience’s eye. Drawing the eye is a huge part of how Bay and his team get you to focus on a specific point in an otherwise chaotic, busy scene.

Transformers age of extinction poster

Drawing Their Eye

“When Optimus Prime is transforming, we’re trying to find a balance between complexity and clarity,” Meny says. “These characters have so much geometry to them, they rotate, move, and disappear within each other, so in lighting we’re trying to highlight and draw your eye to their richness.”

What Meny and his team do is take a very simple shot, say, Prime in repose, and add lighting layers, shadows, creating complexity in the image. When Prime transfoms from semi-trailer truck to his robot form, that’s a whole lot of dark metal moving, shifting, sliding and slotting—in short, it’s confusing. So Meny uses what’s around Prime’s transformation, be it water or sun glinting off a building or a farm house, or the patterns created by nearby foliage, to make the moment both more beautiful and much clearer. “In one particular sequence in at a national park in China, it’s raining, so we added water drifts on Prime’s metal surfaces during transformation,” Meny says. Often Bay will ask Meny for specific lighting cues, say, a glimmer that shines on Prime’s truck window, which will then draw the eye to something reflected there that Bay wants the audience to see. “We’re constantly adding visual complexity in this way.”

transformers 4 optimus prime dinobotBreaking down a Scene Shot by Shot

Back to the scene of Prime riding Grimlock—they come through this lush green valley in China, between large hills, and destroy an arched wall with a forest beyond it. This scene isn’t purely CG, in fact, it started out as a practical plate that was filmed in Detroit.

“It was shot in an open field with a practical wall that the production designer built,” Meny says. “It had a partial arch, then in CG we created a pagoda to go on top of that arch, so we’re extending the set piece. Then Grimlock crashes through it.”

Pat Tubach, ILM’s visual effects supervisor, worked directly with Bay’s team on set, taking reference photography for reconstructing the scene in 3D. “He’s taking measurements of key props, checking the camera tilt and height, getting the lens info, and capturing our lighting reference in high definition panorama of the entire location,” Meny says. “That gives us the right intensity of sun and the color temperature of the ground relative to sky.”

Tubach’s panorama is then taken by ILM’s animation team, who provides motion, and then the rigid dynamics team creates the destruction (the science behind what the rigid dynamics team is doing, Meny says, is “taking actual pieces of geometry and colliding them against each other and shattering them.”) Then the particle effects team augments that destruction, adding smoke, fire, dust, sparks, particulates and all the finer remnants of destruction, and once all that is done, Meny comes in and lights it all.

transformers 4 age of extinctionThe hills in the background while Prime rides Grimlock were added digitally. Because the practical scene was shot in Detroit, where the production had reproduced a section of Hong Kong in a parking lot, there was a lot of sun, but when ILM added those hills, they essentially took the sun away. “Now it’s darker and greener, and you’ve also got Prime, who is dark and blue, and you’ve got Grimlock, whose a dark color, so now you have to make your character pop visually,” Meny says.  “So with lighting we can add kick, shaping and shadowing, as well as movement by using mirror boards [mirror boards are basically huge sheets that they crinkle up, which the light then reflects off of in a thousand different directions]. So as he’s moving, it’s the motion of the light, and the change of the light on their bodies, that really draws your eye to what you should be looking at.”

“We’ve learned a lot of lessons over the past three films,” Meny says. “We asked ourselves, ‘How far can the animation team push the intensity of the emotion, finding the right balance of weight and gravity?’ That’s where you start. Then we’ve taken our rendering approach, how we visualize that action, and brought that into the modern age, more controls and leveraging the raw computing potential behind that. We’ve drifted away from brute force approaches and shifted it towards to giving the artists more tools to achieve the look they want, and the cost of that is a lot more computing power. It’s the right recipe, you want your artists to be creative, and you want your computers to do as much heavy lifting as they can.”

Meny says that this Transformers required more work, in a shorter amount of time, than any of the previous films had. “You have to be focused on what’s the next visual step, what’s this moment in the film about, rather than, ‘If you take this software and plug it into this, you’ll get this result.’ We’re seeing a trend to getting back to becoming more contributors and artists to he filmmaking process, rather than techs behind the scene in a lab. It’s the constant iterations that bring out the best work in everybody. We’re all fans at heart.”

SEE ALSO: Transformers 4 Reviews: More Of The Same, With A Surprise Ending

Join the conversation about this story »

Forget 'Transformers' — This Bizarro Flick Is The Best Movie Coming Out This Weekend

$
0
0

snow1

There's no need to rush and see the new-and-improved, Marky Mark-infused “Transformers: Age of Extinction” opening this weekend.

Michael Bay’s latest opus is sure to be another bloated, overlong example of excess, and its fate as a franchise is already sealed — Paramount recently confirmed “Transformers 5” for a 2016 release.

While “Age of Extinction” makes mincemeat out of the box office this weekend, a much better, original property sneaks into theaters as well — Bong Joon Ho’s English-language debut “Snowpiercer.”

The film is a rare example of bizarro genre filmmaking and I can’t recommend it enough.

“Snowpiercer” is set seventeen years in the future where all that remains of humanity has been packed onto an impossibly long train navigating an otherwise uninhabitable Earth.

The passengers aboard this train have established a class system where all groups are represented, from the impoverished to the extremely wealthy. As you might expect, this system doesn’t fly for very long, and an uprising (led by Captain America himself) begins to take hold. The plot may read like your standard piece of allegorical science fiction, but with talented director Bong Joon Ho at the helm, “Snowpiercer” is unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.

SnowpiercerThe film is always engaging in a “where is this insanity going” kind of way. It masterfully fuses contrasting tones throughout and there is literally never a dull moment. I want to stress just how ambitious and batshit crazy “Snowpiercer” is, but any further details would ruin the magic of watching it unfold naturally before your eyes. Take my word for it — “Snowpiercer” goes places you don’t expect.

The production value and action sequences are top-notch and are only elevated by the fantastic performances from A-listers like Chris Evans, Ed Harris, John Hurt and Tilda Swinton, in what may be her most fun and depraved role yet.  

The film’s budget is estimated to be around $40 million and has already doubled it since opening in foreign markets all the way back in late 2013. That money goes a long way, as “Snowpiercer” easily bests every mega-budget blockbuster released this summer thus far.

tn 1000_hr_snowpiercer_1As I mentioned earlier, the film is all over the place thematically and while one scene may be darkly humorous, the next is just plain twisted. This can be attributed to Bong Joon Ho’s impeccable direction and unique style, and fans of his work (Korea’s ‘The Host, “Mother”) will feel right at home as they laugh, cringe and otherwise marvel at the crazy choices made throughout.

Yesterday, Bong Joon Ho took to Reddit’s AMA section where he eloquently answered fan questions. When asked if the comedy in his otherwise dark films “comes about naturally or if it’s a more conscious decision”, Joon Ho responded:

“Just the idea of whether it be a comedy or a thriller or a sad film, to maintain one tone throughout is very hard to accomplish and feels MORE artificial. I think that in life, comedy and drama and terrifying moments are all mixed together, don't you agree? That's how life is, so it's not like I deliberately or consciously calculates these types of contrasts, it happens naturally. And it's more challenging to do a scene or movie in one tone.

The main cast of SnowpiercerLike with very serious moments in life, if you take one step back, it could be very funny if you look at it with a cynical point of view, or very very happy moments in life, you take a few steps back and it could be very sad. It's really all about distance, how far away you are can change the way you see it drastically.”

Bong Joon Ho also took a moment during the AMA to explain the purported different cuts of the film, stating:

“There was the test of a different version and we tried different things with the editing, but the Weinstein Company decided to release the director's cut, and we have released the same version everywhere. And in the 27th, this Friday it will be in theaters as the director's cut, and I am very happy and I hope you all enjoy it. Just because it's a director's cut does not mean the movie is very long. If you take out the credits it is 1 hour and 59 minutes. I heard the new Transformers movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes long.”

“Snowpiercer” will likely gross mere fractions of “Transformers” intake this weekend, but money made is certainly not indicative of quality. I walked out of both the second and third “Transformers” movies (don’t ask me why I even bothered to walk in), and despite the occasional glorious action set-piece, the films are bland, wholly unoriginal, offensively stupid and, worst of all, incredibly boring. “Snowpiercer” is what happens when a great director has a great script that isn’t motivated by marketing a new line of children’s toys.

Check out the trailer:

SEE ALSO: Millennials Are Old News — Here’s Everything You Should Know About Generation Z

Join the conversation about this story »

'Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes' Actors Had To Learn Ape Vocalizations For Sequel

$
0
0

andy serkis conan dawn of the planet of the apes

While appearing on “Conan” Wednesday night, actor Andy Serkis told the late-night host he had to learn ape vocalization for his role in “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.”

Serkis reprises his role of an ape, Caesar, in the sequel to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Unlike the 2011 film, this movie includes talking apes.

Serkis then proceeded to act out a few of the different vocalizations he had to learn for his part.

According to Serkis, here’s what apes do when asking if the other is all right:andy serkis planet of the apes

He also had to learn how to do the ubiquitous chimp pant-hoot call which starts with low-pitched hoots before gradually building up to faster, higher-pitched pants.

serkis planet of the apes

After the actor invited both Conan and Andy Richter to do their best impressions, Serkis followed with an impromptu hypothetical conversation between his current character, Caesar, and his previous roles of Gollum and Sméagol from “The Lord of the Rings” series. 

It’s great to watch. 

SEE ALSO: Gary Oldman gave an emotional apology for his Playboy interview

Join the conversation about this story »

Here Is What A $1,350 Gamecube Looks Like

$
0
0

expensive gamecube

A gamer in the Netherlands decided to make a portable GameCube using parts from another discontinued game system. The result is much better than you'd expect. 

The body of the portable GameCube is from an Atari Lynx. The Lynx was Atari's ill-fated attempt to enter the handheld gaming market. It was released in the same year as the GameBoy, which swiftly dominated the market. 

One of the reasons the Lynx didn't catch on was its long, bulky frame. The size of the chassis made it ideal for a portable GameCube, though. The creator was able to fit all of the innards from the GC inside. The handheld also features the original controls from the GameCube as well. Here are all the technical details:

  • Case made out of an Atari Lynx 2 console, shape preserved as much as possible
  • Retro GameCube blue/purple look paint job with glossy finish
  • GameCube pal motherboard inside
  • Very silent IBM fan, heavily modified for optimal airflow
  • All original Nintendo controls and sticks
  • Full analog trigger (L and R buttons)
  • 4.3 Inch widescreen VGA Screen 480 x 272 Resolution
  • Original Nintendo Component video chip wired to produce VGA out
  • Shielded Composite video wire to reduce interference.
  • Wiikey Fusion modchip flashed with Swiss Autoboot firmware
  • 6400 mAH batteries, 3 hours gameplay
  • Battery Indicator with 5 leds to see how much power is left
  • 128 MB Memorycard soldered directly onto the motherboard (GameCube slot-A)
  • SD Gecko adapter to run homebrew and emulators through Swiss (GameCube slot-B)
  • Stereo sound speakers, Used 2x iPhone 4 speakers for very clear sound
  • Switching Stereo headphone jack
  • Analog volume control
  • Video controls to access display menu and switch between AV (composite) and VGA Display
  • System can play from wall socket while being charged (comes with charger and power adapter
  • Weight about 700 gram
  • Size (w) 235mm x (h)114mm x (d)50mm or 9.25"(w) x 4.5"(h) x 2"(d)
  • Comes with 1 x 64GB SD card for GameCube games (wasp fusion slot) and 1 x 32GB for Homebrew, Games and Emulators (GameCube Slot-B)

The portable GameCube's creator is currently auctioning the device on eBay. The minimum bid is 1000 euros, or roughly $1,359.65. The immediate buyout price is 1,500 euros or $2,039.48. There have been no bids so far, though a few customers are tracking it. 

The price is too high for anyone other than a GameCube fanatic. To be fair to the creator, though, he worked on it over the course of two years. Also, the GameCube/Lynx hybrid looks fantastic. It's exactly what you'd expect a portable GameCube released by Nintendo to look like. Also, judging from the making-of video below, it runs GC games pretty well. 

SEE ALSO: Nintendo's 5 Ideas To Save The Company

Join the conversation about this story »

This Is The Shot Michael Bay Uses In All Of His Movies

$
0
0

michael bay CES 2014

When "Transformers: Age of Extinction" hits theaters this weekend, it's bound to be another hit in Michael Bay's explosive filmography. 

While Bay's films are hits with audiences grossing more than $4.6 billion dollars worldwide, they're not always loved by critics.

Yet, some do see a method in Bay's madness. 

“I think that the critical revulsion that Michael Bay inspires actually is itself a kind of proof of his distinctiveness," film critic Justin Chang told Variety. "There are a million hacks in Hollywood but there’s only one Michael Bay.”

Fast-cuts, slow motion, and pyrotechnics have all been trademarks of Bay's style. However, one hallmark stands above the rest: the 360 spin shot.

Bay utilizes a 360 shot that has the camera slowly spin around one or more characters (usually the protagonists) as they come up from below frame.

One of the first uses of it was in 1995's "Bad Boys" starring Will Smith and Martin Lawrence.Bad Boys, spinning shot

Bay used it again a year later with Nicholas Cage in 1996's "The Rock."The Rock, spin shot

Smith and Lawrence returned in 2003's "Bad Boys II" along with another 360 spin.Bad Boys 2 360 Shot

In 2001, Bay changed it up a bit and didn't focus on an important character but rather used it to show fighter planes flying in for an attack in "Pearl Harbor."Pearl Harbor spin shot

In 2007, Bay combined the CGI transformation of Autobot Optimus Prime with his signature shot for "Transformers."Optimus Prime 360 shot

Bay expanded the shot further in a shootout in "Bad Boys 2." Instead of focusing on a single actor, Bay used spinning to wrap around an action scene that occurs in two completely different rooms.

Bad Boys 2 shoot out spin

According to a behind the scenes featurette for the film, Bay used the spinning shot to attempt to show both sides of the shootout without cutting away.

Bay spun the cameras around the different rooms and then digitally added in the doors.

The shot has been noticed online by many (YouTube channel ScreenJunkies compiled a supercut of the shots), and while some don't find his work to be anything special, Bay isn't too worried about what the critics have to say.

"I really, really don't care," Bay told Mother Jones. "I make movies for people. I make movies for audiences to enjoy. A few sour apples are not going to spoil my fun."

Bay's next film, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" hits theaters Friday.

SEE ALSO: How Mark Wahlberg Went From High-School Dropout To Hollywood's Top Tough Guy

Join the conversation about this story »

Viewing all 8368 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images