Don't Tease Me, Bro!

The State Of Today's Movie Trailers

I had an epiphany about the way our nerd culture works these days ... We are similar to kids who love to rummage through their parents closets before Christmas to find presents.

With just a week to go until my midnight release of "The Dark Knight Rises," I find myself in a conflict of the ages: The never-ending fight against the nefarious spoiler. Typically, summer blockbusters are the cash cows of the movie industry, but it's getting to a point where movie marketing is batardizing the work of a film. Allow me to explain beginning with this video....



That was the trailer to the Liam Neeson 'Taken' meets 'Call of the Wild' film, "The Grey." By the way it's marketed, Liam Neeson is going to go CIA on those mother-flipping wolves to defend his fellow plane-crash comrades who are caught in the same terrible elements that he is. Now, fast-forward two hours later after watching the film, and you'll immediately start to yell at the screen during the credits, "Where's my frickin Wolf-Punching?!?!"

These tools only have a 5 second use to them

If you haven't watched "The Grey," and don't mind me spoiling a few things (this movie came out months ago, seriously, get on it) -- you'll notice a very different film than what was marketed to you, and that's not a knock on the film. After my initial uproar over what had just happened, I settled down for about 10 minutes, and reflected on the film itself, rather than the marketed garbage that was put on TV and the Internet. Sure, I found a movie that was about a group of plane-crash survivors trying to avoid being turned into wolf-shit on the Alaskan mountains, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a very well-acted, thematic film, that touches upon a very core fear many men face: Do you have the will to live when pitted against sure-death? Suffice to say, this film isn't an action fest featuring Liam Neeson ripping the jugulars out of the four-legged beasts, but is instead about how a man at the end of his rope copes with the realization that he wants to live. It's a fantastic film on its own merit, but many people scolded it because of the marketing...and this is what really got me thinking.

I started to analyze the way film's are marketed to us. In the case of "The Grey," audiences were duped into thinking they were going to watch a feral slugfest between Neeson and CGI wolves. WRONG! Many people left the film unhappy, when it was (in my opinion) a very powerful film dealing with the way men deal with their mortality. The point is, Hollywood falsely marketed the film from what it really was. You can't deny it. They show Neeson running up to the wolf, with his cracked mini-vodka bottles taped to his hand like he's a 6'5" Wolverine, and you're expecting to see an epic battle. But it was not to be. And that's not a fault of the film, but rather, the marketing. It led you to believe this was an action set-piece just so they could get your ass into the movie-theater. I understand the need to fill the lines at the box office, but there needs to be a sense of trust between movie-goers and Hollywood. I had the same reaction so many other people had to the film: pissed off that I didn't get my wolf-punching ... but since I'm the type of person who loves to reflect on film I just watched, I was able to come away with the bigger picture and ended up enjoying it. I can't tell you how many people I know who will simply brush off a movie because their initial reaction was simply "it sucked."

Hollywood insists on ruining what will surely be a surprise performance by Tom Hardy as Bane

This leads me to my next point. Hollywood marketing is becoming way too invasive and revealing. Gone are the days where you would watch the trailer, get a taste for what's to come, and wait until the film is released. Instead, we now have four 2-minute trailers, five TV Spots, a full 13-minute behind the scenes featurette, online publication 'set visits,' even entire prologue sequences being released. The only way I can personify the problem is that Hollywood is becoming that douchebag frat guy who is inviting you to the party of the century, but he bombards you with daily, unnecessary, facebook updates.

Wanna know how I got these scars? Watching too many trailers

Going back to my battle now with "The Dark Knight Rises." Ask anyone and they will attest to you how flippin' excited I am about this movie. The Chris Nolan Batman reboot has been astonishing for the past 7 years, and I'll be sad to see it all end on July 20th. However, I ran into a pitfall in my excitement for Nolan's 2nd Bat-outing, "The Dark Knight." There was similar hype to that film, and with it, came the endless churning of new trailers, clips, featurettes, and hell, even the release of an entire 5-minute prologue sequence that featured a tense bank-robbery sequence (which clearly pays homage to Al Pacino's "Heat") revealing Heath Ledger as the Joker. I naively watched all of these things before the film. Unfortunately, I feel it had a negative effect on my movie-watching experience because I don't think I enjoyed "The Dark Knight" as much as I could have....

That's not to say I didn't love the movie. The point is, being inundated with clips, trailers, previews, featurettes, TV Spots, and so on and so forth allows your audience to piece together the major story beats of your film. Here's what I mean (using Dark Knight as an example). Almost everyone watched the Bank-heist prologue...great stuff. Then, watching the trailers, you can start to see the semblance of plot points. Joker says stuff like "Evening Commissioner" so you know Gordon becomes Commissioner somehow. Worse yet, they spoiled his iconic line of "Why So Serious?" Then, if you're someone like me, you start reading the online articles interviewing cast and crew of the film, and they start to talk about the direction, their stunts, and so forth. By the time you get to the TV Spots, you've pretty much got a good chunk of the movie ruined for you. Not to mention as you're in the process of watching your film, you'll have that moment where you say "Oh wait, that part from the trailers hasn't come up yet."

The point of that rant is ... why spoil the fun? Just enjoy the anticipation and go along for the ride. I know that's what happened to me when I watched "Batman Begins" way back in 2005. I maybe only watched the main 3 trailers, and because of that, I was able to overlook some of the film's major shortcomings. (I'm looking at you Katie Holmes and unnecessary Batman horse-voice)

Hulk is actually whispering in Iron-Man's ear

Of course, this marketing fiasco isn't just happening with select films. I'm sure by now you've all seen "Avengers." If you re-watch the trailers, you'll notice clips that didn't even make it into the final cut of the film, or didn't play out the way they were advertised. (Look at the part with RDJ telling Cap "Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist" and it plays out differently) There's also a point in the trailers that spoils how the Hulk saves a free-falling Iron-Man, when in the movie, it was meant to play out as an emotional climax to the New York City battle. As I watched it I knew Hulk was going to save him because I saw it in the trailers.

Perhaps even a bigger crime was committed with movie trailers in recent days. I just watched the trailer to the new Judge Dredd movie and while it looks interesting, it looks like they gave away a major plot point with the possible killing of the film's alleged central-villain. See below for yourself...



Hollywood needs to stop harassing audiences to watch their movies. Advertisement is necessary, but you don't want to over-saturate us with your product to the point we're sick of it. Also, can we PLEASE stop revealing major plot points and action set pieces. If we can't come to a compromise, then I'll need to continue adopting my simple method of preparing for a film. Watch the film's official teaser trailer ... and THAT'S IT! Avoid online articles, turn your head when you see a TV spot, and flip the bird to any online trolls who want to spoil the film to you, which may or may not include clips of the film.

You just got trolled America

Surprises are not always bad. Many can be good, just look at the Batman Begins reveal of the real Ra's Al Ghul. It was a sucker punch for the ages, and no one was the wiser, and damn it if anyone is going to ruin Dark Knight Rises for me...

It's A Bird, It's A Plane...No, It's Super-HYPE

Flurry Of Pics Surfacing From Upcoming DC Movies

Set pictures. You either love 'em or hate 'em. The upcoming and overly anticipated films Superman: Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises have been releasing some exciting pictures as of late. Today was a big bombshell, with the first pic released of British actor Henry Cavill in full garb as Kal-el, or as he's better known to the world...Superman. Take a look-see...

So Mr. Kent...Will you be making a withdrawal today sir?

Refreshing isn't it? The costume looks somewhat reminiscent of Bryan Singer's take of Superman back in 2006 with the damper, less vibrant colors. There are some big differences when you look closer though. First, the iconic "S" symbol is a little higher up on the chest, and the cape is a lot longer than we're used to. Anyone reminded of "300?" A film which was no-so coincidentally directed by Zack Snyder, the same man behind the helm of this new Superman. 

The costume also shows a big difference in the texture. It's loaded with fish-like scales, similar to Spider-Man, which is sure to pop-out at people once the film is released in HD formats, and most likely 3D. But look a little bit closer at the costume, specifically at the testes-satchel area. No, I'm not admiring Cavill's bulge, but you can make out that the red underwear is gone. The producers of the film, one of which is my cinema king Christopher Nolan, said they were going to make the costume a little more solid and unique by taking out the red-over underwear. A minor gripe for devoted fanboys, but maybe it's for the better. It just makes the character look too cartoonish.

God my undies are sexy

My first impression of the picture was a little jarring. I guess I've been itching for a great Superman live-action movie since part II way back in the 80's, but I'm growing to like it. I love the primal look in Cavill's posture and pose. If you remember the first pic released back for Superman Returns, it showed Brandon Routh in the more usual iconic pose, resting his arms on his waist; very stoic. But now Warner Brothers is throwing a curve-ball. "Superman looks like he's in a Wolverine pose?" "Nooooooo!?!?" Relax everyone, this is what we need.

For too long Superman has been behaving very Dog Whisperer-like: calm and submissive. The man is faster than a speeding bullet, can punch through steel walls, and can take a beating. Go back and watch Superman Returns, and count the amount of punches he threw on-screen. That's right ... there were zero. Now, go watch any of the animated films of Superman and you'll notice the big difference in his portrayal. Fist-fly faster than E. Honda from Street Fighter, and he's always getting thrown around by baddies like Metallo, Darkseid, and even a robot-riding Lex Luthor; who I'm ecstatic is NOT making an appearance in this upcoming film. It finally seems like we're going to get a brutal take on the man who represents truth, justice, and the American way. That's not to say we won't get our typical portrayal of the Man of Steel. Cavill is after all British, which if James Bond taught us anything, means he must have some kind of charm about him. And how can you deny that beautifully stone-chiseled jaw-line? 


It looks like Snyder and company are on the right track so far. The only thing that sucks is that we'll have to wait until Summer 2013 to watch it.

Moving on now to the other 500 lb. gorilla in the DC room: Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is easily the more anticipated of the two films, considering it's already established itself as a worthy film franchise. New pics rose from the narrows of Gotham City last week, showing Tom Hardy in his full Bane costume. Don't let this pic BREAK YOU...

A lot of people, including myself, were a bit baffled when it was announced Bane was the main villain in the film. But once it sank in that Tom Hardy was playing the intellectually muscled threat...I was at ease. It looks to me that Nolan has again found a way to stay grounded in his realistic take on the comics. Hardy definitely beefed up for the role, but he's not the massive, luchador-mask-wearing wrecking ball we're accustomed to. Instead, he's got a fur jacket, a bullet-proof (maybe batarang-proof?) vest, with his combat pants topped off with that S&M mask, which is likely the source of his Venom serum. 

It just seems too coincidental

Other than his mask, there's nothing that really stands out with Bane's costume, but this is a good thing. Once you get too flashy with a villain's costume it distracts the audience from the performance of the actor. Hardy is a great actor. I know it's cliche, but he was meant for this role. Don't believe me? March your nerdy butt to your nearest NETFLIX instant queue and devote an hour and a half of your time to watch "Bronson." Hardy plays Britain's most notorious prisoner Charlie Bronson with a meticulous portrayal that pushes the limits of the character to insanity. Bronson was a bald-headed, handlebar mustachioed bulky prisoner, who loved to cause trouble for prison guards by holding them hostage, psychologically torturing them, and then buttering his naked body up so that when he'd fight them, he'd be harder to get under control. Sounds a bit like Bane right? Except for the whole mustache, naked butter thing. Whatever, you get the point.


Hardy is going to own this role. He's a fearless actor, who's not afraid to step up to the plate and deliver a notoriously villainous role in the Nolan inspired Batman universe. He's spoken on countless occasions of his displeasure of Schumacher's version of Bane in "Batman and Robin," who served merely as a henchmen who loved to mutter the word "BOOOOMMMMBBBB." He also admitted to sharing a great deal of respect to Heath Ledger's take on the Joker, but says he's not daunted by the task of following the performance, saying "Brilliant actor, brilliant work – that's it. I've got a job to do. ... It's the same with Mad Max and Mel Gibson. I'm not here to engage in a competition with their talent. It's to play the character that I've been given."(Little asterisk here, Hardy is playing the title role in the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road)

Heath Ledger raised the bar when it comes to memoriable villain portrayals; now, Tom Hardy is ready to power clean it over his head, and hopefully break its sorry ass back. July 20th, 2012 is indeed much too far away.

I'm watching you July 20th, 2012 -- Watch your back (cue drum snare)

    

Nathan Drake is Already Spinning in His Future Digital Grave

Marky Mark and The Funky Drake 

I'm not "feelin it, feelin it"

Let me begin this post by admitting I am in utter disappointment in some recent Hollywood casting. Today, it was revealed that Mark "I'm a Star" Wahlberg will in fact be playing the iconic, fast talking, charming video game character Nathan Drake in the upcoming movie adaptation of the Uncharted series. To anyone who hasn't played the game, Uncharted can be best described as an action-adventure game about a fast-lipped treasure hunter named Nathan Drake. His bravado is contagious, yet his charm and compassion is utterly human and lovable. Uncharted takes a page from the original Indiana Jones trilogy, which weaves together impressive dialogue, realistic characters, and fascinating exploration set pieces that make me feel like I'm 10 years old again watching 'Raiders of the Last Ark' at my grandmother's house. Nathan Drake is a future inductee into the video game hall of fame...if such a thing existed. He's one of the most memorable characters to grace our gaming consoles, and thanks to the mindless imbeciles behind the movie version...they've ruined much of the anticipation I've had for this film.

David O. Russell, the man behind such films as "Three Kings," and "I ♥ Huckabees," is taking directorial and writing responsibilities for the Uncharted film. I never really had a problem with Russell signing on until today's boneheaded move. His relationship with Wahlberg is very well publicized. Both are good friends, and for the most part, work on great films together. I enjoyed both Kings and Huckabees, but I was really hoping Russell would think outside of the box on this project.

The first Uncharted game didn't release on the PS3 until 2007, with the second game blasting expectations, and our minds, in 2009. The series has a very humble and devoted following (myself included), so the source material is pretty fresh in everyone's mind. With that said, everyone has their expectations on what kind of person should play the titular hero, and only two plausible names come to mind. With much confidence that the internet trolls would agree with me, the two men who should be in Drake's shoes rather than Wahlberg are Nolan North, and Nathan Fillion. Here's why.

Nolan North

Nolan North isn't very well known to non-gamers. North is the voice behind Nathan Drake, as well as the body...sort of. Uncharted uses full-body motion capture in all of its cut scenes, with North providing the voice, facial expressions, and body movements. North would clearly be the top guy for the job, however regardless of the video game magic he brings, the guy isn't in what you would call tip-top shape. North is responsible for creating such a lovable character in the firts place, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt if the CIA didn't have him pushing too many pencils. As for Nathan Fillion, it's a crime pass on him for what seems like a prophetic role for him. First off, Fillion bears almost a twin-like resemblance to Nathan Drake. Second, Fillion has the perfect personality to compliment Drake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the folks at Naughty Dog (the creators of Uncharted) wrote the character of Nathan Drake in homage to Fillion.  To anyone who's seen Fillion as Captain Mal in either the Firefly series or Serenity, you'll know he has the swagger, charm, and swashbuckling attitude that encompasses Drake. Thirdly, and probably the most important, Fillion wants the role...badly. He launched his own Twitter campaign last month in order to get him signed on for the movie. Fillion has a deep respect for the source material, and won't have to familiarize himself with the games the way Wahlberg will have to. Plus the guy's name IS Nathan. It seems too easy. It really is a shame Russell was so narrow-minded...almost to a Tim Burton resemblance of "hey, lemme just cast Johnny Depp in everything."

Why the hell can't David O. Russell see what I see in Fillion?

I can complain all I want about this casting choice...the fact of the matter is Marky Mark (yes..I will still call him that) WILL play Nathan Drake, and no one can do anything about...unless they give him a bad case of the shits by sneaking a large quantity of Maalox into his alcohol, which may or may not rupture his digestive tract. One can only dream right? Still, the only thing to look forward to at this point is the supporting cast. Rumor has it that Robert De Niro will play Drake's senior-aged crisis partner Victor "Sully" Sullivan, which is a solid pick in my eyes. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the same guy who bombed as a video game character, (Max Payne) and was atrocious in "The Happening," will be playing such a lovable role. And I'm sorry, Wahlberg isn't lovable. All we can hope for at this point is that he doesn't talk to animals mid firefight and tell them to "say hi to your mother for me."

I'm Nathan Drake...Say Hi to Your Mother For Me!

The Netflix Nix

The Blockbuster Video Killers Jack Up Their Prices

A bit of upsetting news was announced today by the notorious, red logo company that single handedly slayed the media giant once known as Blockbuster. Netflix says it is increasing subscription fees by $1 in response to the growing demand of online streaming. A subscription that allows customers to rent out one DVD at a time and stream unlimited content from the internet will now run about $9.99 a month instead of $8.99. Current Netflix customers won't see the increase until January, while new customers will penny up the new cost immediately. Other packages are available for those who fear sunlight and don't wish to walk out of their homes to pick up DVD's from the mailbox, as customers can sign up for an internet streaming only monthly deal, which will go for about $7.99. Announcements like this aren't new. Big name companies jacking up their rates is the way the capitalism game is played, but I have a minor gripe with Netflix's logic in the decision.

We know who won this bout

According to Netflix, the company is catering to it's slow, blob-like growing online streaming market. The popularity of streaming content online has skyrocketed over the past couple years, considering anyone with a Netflix account can stream movies and TV shows through their computer, DVD/Blu-Ray players, TV's, XBOX, PS3, Nintendo Wii, and most recently the I-phone. While it sounds logical to increase their prices, I have to point out the obvious key point to the price increase...HOW WILL THEY MAKE IT BETTER?!?! For anyone who's scrolled through Netflix's online library, at least 60-70% of what you find is garbage. I'm sure someone out in the cornfields of Nebraska would love to pay an extra $1 a month to see glorious titles like "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" or "Paranormal Entity," (not activity) -- but not me. If Netflix wants to justify this price increase, they need to expand or refine their online service.

One of the big problems that comes with the online service is the control, or lack thereof, customers have. Customers can browse movies, set up a queue and all the jazz, but we still can't control things like audio/subtitle tracks, or check out things like commentaries or behind the scenes footage that comes standard with many DVD's. I can't tell you how grateful I am to have subtitles whenever I watch a film that was shot overseas. You try watching a great film like "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" the first time without subtitles ya wankers! Not only that, movie nerds like myself love to listen to commentary tracks. I thrive on learning everything that went into making a particular film/show that I thoroughly enjoyed. Plus, many Asian film lovers enjoy watching their movies with the Japanese audio track. I personally don't, but the market is still there.

This is Oscar gold compared to some films on Netflix online

Besides the lack of technical control, many movies/tv shows on Netflix streaming market are obscure. Over the past couple months, I have noticed an increase in A-List Hollywood titles, but the ratio is still not in our favor. For every solid movie you find, you'll also come across 5 other campy films that not even SyFy channel would air at 3 in the afternoon. Plus, the justification of a growing online market contradicts the recent deal Netflix made with several Hollywood studios to release DVD's to subscribers 30 days later in exchange for more copies. How do you justify a price increase when you're not adding anything new to the online market, and you're making even more money through your DVDs?

DVD's, a bane to many capitalists

Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about online streaming. It's convenient, easy to use, and you avoid the clutter that comes with opening the DVD packaging slip. I, like so many others in this shaky economy, want to make sure we're getting what we're paying for. Maybe some new improvements are in fact coming to Netflix online market, but right now they're evidently not there. It's almost like going to the supermarket, and being told you have to pay more for bananas because people really like them, even though there's no shortage of them. I understand it's just business, but at least give me a better tasting banana if you're going to charge me extra for it.

Riddle Me NOT Batfans

The Dark Knight Rises

SWEAR TO ME!!!!!

In case you Bat-fans haven't heard already, there's some interesting news that hit the airwaves this week concerning the third installment of the beloved Bat franchise helmed by Chris Nolan. The bat-tacular director announced the title of his third Batman film, will be aptly called "The Dark Knight Rises." I'll get into my thoughts on the new title in a second, but the biggest news, and most surprising to many speculators out there, is that Nolan himself handed a little golden ticket by saying that the Riddler will NOT be the villain of the new film. Hmm, do I hear an uproar of green suited fanboys ready to overthrow Nolan for cerebral control of Gotham? I hope not...here's why.

If Nolan has taught us anything with his Bat-films, is to never expect the obvious. Over the course of the first two Bat-films, Nolan has redefined the comic book film genre each and every time. With Batman Begins, he taught us that even the most obscure villains can be taken seriously, and with the Dark Knight, well, Nolan showed us that an iconic villain can be made even more menacing than before, but that's due to the excellent casting choice of Heath Ledger. So how will Nolan up the ante from the Joker's reign of chaos? In all honesty, the Riddler wouldn't have been the answer. I've always been hesitant about the idea of Edward Nygma tearing Gotham apart with his narcissistic ways because Nygma was never a physical match for Batman, or cerebral one at that. On top of that, the only way I could see Riddler working in Nolan's universe is if he held Gotham ransom where only Batman could save the city by deciphering an all-too complex puzzle. We already saw something like this in the Dark Knight with the ferry-bomb scene, and it would be too similar in format. Plus Jim Carrey may have left a bad taste in all our mouths after that spectacularly awful performance in Batman Forever. I may have loved it as a kid, but I also loved Power Rangers...you do the math of my incompetence.

So here's where the crazy speculation begins of which villain will appear in the next Bat film. In order to calm the tidal wave of theories, I figured in honor of the world's greatest detectives, I'd do some detective work of my own in zeroing in on just who will go toe-to-toe with the Dark Knight. So here are the clues we have so far....

Clue #1 The Title of the Film

"The Dark Knight Rises" -- A title like this should evoke the greatest emotions out of comic book fans. When we last saw our Dark Knight in shining military flex-armor, he was branded a criminal in Gotham. Now the entire Gotham police force is after Batman, and the whole city probably hates his guts. With a title like the Dark Knight Rises, Batman must be beat down to a pulp and rise out of the ashes as the savior of Gotham, meaning it is not going to be a walk in the park. He must be thrown into the proverbial societal blender, mixing it up with the dregs of society, and becoming his own one man army against Gotham's underworld.

Clue #2 Casting Tom Hardy

The Forger from Inception was hand picked by Nolan to play an unspecified villain role in the upcoming film. If anyone saw Hardy's earlier performances that weren't Inception, such as Layer Cake, and even Star Trek: Nemesis, you'll clearly see a talented Brit with a knack for playing dark characters. Hardy has many qualities to his advantage as a villain: He is young, not a chick (sorry Poison Ivy & Harley Quinn), not fat (sorry Penguin), and not a skinny wimp (sorry Ventriloquist). I could be wrong and he does end up playing one of the characters above (I hope he's not a cross dressing Ivy) but because of this we can probably narrow down the list of possible villainous candidates.

Clue #3 Nolan's Believable World of Batman

Sounds like a good theme park name. Seriously though, the world of Gotham City that Nolan has created is something to treasure. Gotham City is a crime-ridden, dark, gritty world that looks like Chicago. I kid, I kid, it IS Chicago. The world of Gotham isn't what we were used to seeing in Burton-Schumacher land. No more are our villains characatures that would make even their animated series counterparts weep in dismay. No, these are villains that could be considered believable by today's degenerate standards. They are methodical, twisted, and anarchists by nature. So with that being said, you can rule out a couple villains just by this clue alone. While Riddler could've been translated successfully, Nolan hammered the final nail in the coffin with his latest announcement. (Which I called by the way...Don't believe me...check out my earlier blogs ya doubters)

Clue #4 Other Sources

Batman in the Bayou?

I added this clue because I overheard through the reliable friend of a friend scenario that some of the production on The Dark Knight Rises is scheduled to film in New Orleans. At his point everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but it does peak my interest. Why? Well, one of the more notorious villains in the Bat-Universe who has some deep comic book connections with the bayou city is none other than Killer Croc aka Waylon Jones. I know, I know, the inclusion of Killer Croc is hard to imagine within the confines of Nolan's realistic Bat-universe, but still, you gotta admit it would be an unexpected, yet welcome curve ball if that's who our villain turns out to be.

Hypothesis of Possible Villains

So with the clues that we have, we can start to pinpoint closer to who our villain could be, and here are my guesses beginning with the most likely:

Hush

If it were up to me, Hush would be the perfect villain for this movie. 'The Dark Knight Rises' will be a film about the struggle Batman will go through in order to win back the people of Gotham. In order to portray this film in the grandest of fashions, Nolan will need to introduce a villain that knows every move Batman will make, and that's where Hush comes in. Hush, aka Thomas Elliot, was a childhood friend of Bruce Wayne who grew up under similar circumstances with wealthy parents. However in Elliot's case, he hated his parents, and was jealous of Bruce. Nolan and crew could play with this relationship in a number of ways on screen, which could allow for furthur character development for Bruce Wayne. Elliot is also a master strategist, and according to the comics, he's known to have been an equal to Batman in both physical and mental prowess, and is a superb marksman. One of Hush's story arcs even had him manipulating some of Gotham's most vile criminals for his own purpose of ridding Batman, including Riddler, Joker, and even Killer Croc (wink wink). Plus Tom Hardy has the same charming looks as Christian Bale, and can easily be identified by audiences as the anti-Bruce Wayne.

Black Mask

Black Mask could be a major possibility within the context of Nolan's universe. Roman Sionis was another rich kid but his story is sadder than Hush. He was hated by his parents and he was bad from the get-go. A failed businessman, Sionis later turns to a life of crime, becoming a mob leader of the "False Face Society," where every member must wear a mask of their choosing, and he subsequently becomes the Black Mask after an incident with Batman, where his face was melted onto his Black mask...duh. I can see Black Mask in a Nolan film, especially with Hardy's casting, however the only problem I see with this is the whole mob connection. It's been done already in the first two films with Falcone and Joker, and I don't really see a chance for Nolan to add onto the emotional development of Wayne.

Ra's Al Ghul/Talia Al Ghul

If Liam Neeson makes a surprise appearance, I will officially s**t myself. If anyone analyzed the ending of 'Batman Begins' the way I did, you'll notice how Ra's peacefully closed his eyes before the train derailed, as if to say, "this will be merely a flesh wound!" Ra's al Ghul is immortal in the comics due to the mystical powers of the Lazarus pits. If Nolan wanted to up the ante of this film he could bring Neeson back, and maybe introduce Ra's daughter, Talia al Ghul as the new love interest because remember, Rachel went boom-boom in The Dark Knight. It would be nice, but that leaves the casting of Tom Hardy a mystery, unless he of course plays someone else we don't expect.

Killer Croc

As cool as Croc is in Batman lore, I am only including him based on clue # 4. It would be really difficult to include a character like this, mostly because it would either require an unbelievable amount of prosthetics or CGI to create, and I know Nolan won't be too keen on that. Plus, it doesn't really fit well in the believable realm of Nolan but hey, you never know.

=============

So those are my 2 cents on the possible direction of the new Batman film. I am thrilled that production is finally taking off with this film after a two and half year wait since the release of The Dark Knight. As great as Joker was, he should be left out entirely in the new film due to the tragic passing of Heath Ledger, and if anything, only be mentioned in an off manner. Maybe something like "Holy Shit, Joker escaped Arkham. We'll never find him." Maybe not exactly word for word how I put it, but you get the idea. Whatever the case may be, we're still a year and a half away until the Summer 2012 release date of The Dark Knight Rises, and anything could happen between now and then. Still, all the elements are starting to come together, and I know Nolan will make this a worthy third entry into a mainstream series. I wish I could say the same thing for Spider Man 3. I was seriously going into cardiac arrest when I saw Peter Parker dancing down the sidewalk. Hopefully Alfred won't bust out with a konga line.

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's Super Snyder!!!

Zack Snyder Taking the Helm for Man of Steel

Zack Snyder ready to tackle the greatest comic book icon of all time

A glorious bit of news seeped out into the media this week, and it's good enough to make comic book fans feel really Super about themselves. According to an Deadline magazine, Zack Sndyer (300, Watchmen) has been given the daunting task to direct the upcoming Superman Reboot "Man of Steel." Hold up your glasses boys and girls, because this is a good thing. For years, Superman has not quite gotten the motion picture treatment he's deserved for this generation. The last great Supe movie came with Superman II, and suffice to say the man faster than a speeding bullet hasn't really been up to speed by today's superhero film standards. Recent comic book film successes like Iron Man and The Dark Knight have proven to moviegoers that it IS possible to make any superhero relevant in today's society, and right now I think it's time the most iconic superhero in comic book history gets his 15 minutes of fame.

Why should you be excited? Given the track record of Superman's big screen appearances, it's tough to imagine a good Superman film these days. Fortunately, the puzzle to creating a good Superman film is beginning to come together, and the pivotal first piece came when Christopher Nolan announced he was going to produce the film. If you can't appreciate what Nolan did for the Batman franchise, then close this blog, because you're probably 50 years old and hate children. Before Nolan became the powerhouse director that he is, Batman was in dire times with all the Nipple Suits and Joel Schumacher raping. Thankfully, Nolan took the source material very seriously, and decided to go in a direction where comic book fans would be taken seriously. Enter "Batman Begins," which presented us with a beautifully gritty, violent, and realistic take on the Caped Crusader, and well, the rest is history. The key...Nolan recognized what made Batman such an appealing character to comic fans, and if I were to put my money on it, he knows what makes Superman so appealing, and that's where Zack Snyder fits right in.

Snyder's signature action, in action...One can only hope Superman gets the same treatment

If you haven't seen any of Snyder's work, you might as well not have watched The Wizard of Oz. Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen, and the upcoming film Sucker Punch, are havens for nerds. Each of these films contain an obscene amount of action, but it's not mindless explosive action a-la Expendables. The action sequences are stylistic, using a combination of High Speed Cameras, CGI, prosthetics, and of course, lots and lots of violence. And this my friends, is what Superman has been missing all these years. Looking back at Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," I think we can all agree it wasn't necessarily a bad film. The problem however, was that it wasn't a great film. A superhero like Superman, who can fly, use heat ray, frost breath, and has super strength, needs to have an explosive presence on camera. Throughout all of Superman Returns, we never really saw The Man of Steel do much of that. He never got into a fist fight, and the climax of the film was that he lifted a Kryptonite continent into space. I felt like a kid who just watched a lousy fireworks show, because I left the movie asking myself "That's It?" Superman is all about the fights, and if the film is going to connect with audiences today, I need to see Superman down in the trenches, bleeding, battered, with his suit ripped and shred to pieces, and he's still ready to take more. On top of that, as iconic a villain as he may be, Lex Luthor no longer cuts it. I am a firm believer that a hero is only as good as his villain, and for this next film they need to bring a person that can go toe-to-toe in a fight with Superman, and if the rumors are true, that man's name could be General Zod

You can never really trust the internet once big news like this comes out, but one of the bigger rumors going around the web is that General Zod will be the villain of the film. Zod, who was so notoriously played by Terrance Stamp in Superman II, was a worthy adversary to Superman (considering both men came from Krypton and had the same powers here on Earth). Of course, the internet trolls are clamoring for baddies like Brainiac or even Metallo, but I think General Zod would be a good start. You can tackle some of the Krypton Origin story, and bring a nasty villain to the table. Ultimately, that decision will rest on writer David Goyer, who is handling script duties on The Man of Steel. Goyer is probably best known for his work on Batman Begins, but his credits also include the Blade Trilogy and Dark City, so the man has his comic book roots in check. That, multiplied with his  Nolan and Snyder team-up, and we should have a recipe for Super success.

As for the casting, no one knows just yet. And for the life of me, I can't think of a proper casting choice at the moment. I hope Nolan and crew don't bank their film on a Triple A Hollywood star, because once that happens, the film's substance gets thrown out the window and everyone is interested in the star attached to it. Given Nolan's track record with casting Christian Bale as Batman, and Heath Ledger as Joker, he has a good eye for these things, however, the casting also shouldn't be a complete unknown. Brandon Routh donned the red cape in 2006 with varying success, ultimately lacking any kind of emotional depth with his performance. Plus, I always envision Superman as a guy in his early 30's, and Routh's look just didn't cut it for me. Instead, the casting should rely on an emerging Hollywood talent, preferably small screen, with enough credibility to tackle a big project like this. Think about it, we already know whomever gets selected to play Kal-el will see his film career launch, so I see no point in picking a well known actor.

Whatever the case may be, I proudly ride the "In Nolan We Trust" bandwagon and hope for the best. Superman: Man of Steel is expected to come out sometime in 2012, and until then, the sky is NOT the limit for the possibilities with this film. Nolan and company will have to think beyond the big blue sky, and maybe hang a hard left around the Sun if they're going to give the Son of Krypton his due justice on the silver screen.

No One Puts Nolan in a Corner

Warner Brothers Pushing for Batman 3-D

Wanna Know how I got these scars? Because of misuse of 3D that's how.

Some new reports are circulating that Warner Brothers Studios is pegging acclaimed director Christopher Nolan to film his next Batman film in 3D. Given the obvious success of Avatar, Warner Brothers hopes to put the best of a great narrative, cohesive action sequences, and 3D technology into one bundle of a batarang film in Batman 3D. According to several reports, Warner Brothers says it is also planning on converting Nolan's latest masterpiece "Inception" into 3D, in a joint deal with a new on demand 3D channel HBO is planning to release next year. Although Nolan has flirted with the idea of filming in 3D, the Batman helmer admits that he doesn't think the timing is right, and I ride the "in Nolan we trust" bandwagon.

My problems with 3D films are plenty. For starters, many films hoping to duplicate the success of Avatar are adding the 3D label as a gimmick. (See 'The Last Airbender' if you don't believe me) Films like 'Clash of the Titans' and 'Alice in Wonderland' used a post production conversion process to create their 3D effects, and the end result was a sloppy mess of fake depth. In both of these films, I never felt like I could 'Last Action Hero' my way into the movie like I felt with Avatar. The best way I could compare it was like the first time I read a pop-up book, it was fun for a while, but you eventually put it away in your repressed childhood memories. I think in order to make a successful 3D film, you need to have the right technology, the right direction and camera work, and the proper post production time to add the finishing touches. Case in point, Avatar did all of these things. It took something like 4 years just for the actual filming process. 

IMAX at its finest...3D not necessary

So what's Nolan's take on 3D? Straight from the man's mouth, Nolan spoke at a press conference in the UK before the release of Inception saying "3D is something we’re looking at, but I see at the moment significant technical limitations to the presentation format, mostly with the dimness of the image and the fact that you have to wear the glasses. The post-conversion process can be done very effectively, actually - we did tests for this film, but decided we didn’t have enough time to get it to the standard that we wanted." So besides some of the technical jargon involving color and lighting effects on film, Nolan believes that 3D CAN be done with the right technology and production time. I think the idea of an on demand HBO 3D service is great idea that will pave the way for 3D TV's in the future. However in the case of Batman 3D, Warner Brothers is hoping to release the film by summer 2012, and the film is only in the early script stages...Meaning no time for love Dr. Jones!

Unless Warner Brothers intends to rush the 3D conversion process, then Batman 3D will be laughable. As is the case with all these 3D wannabe movies, the studios are looking to make money. But you don't have to tack on a lame 3D conversion process to reel in the big bucks. The Dark Knight was able to haul in more than $1 billion because of many reasons, but most significantly was the use of IMAX. Many scenes in The Dark Knight were shot in IMAX very effectively. Nolan used at least 4 IMAX cameras to film The Dark Knight, and had to re-invent the wheel when it came to filming many of the action sequences. The same was said when James Cameron filmed Avatar. If you want to create a successful product, you need to go the extra mile when creating your films. The Joker chase scene in The Dark Knight re-imagined the way IMAX can be used in films, just like how Avatar changed the way 3D technology can be used in films. I'm not against 3D movies, I just don't want a half-assed product that'll ruin such a beloved franchise similar to what Spider-Man 3 did. Otherwise, Warner Brothers will have to listen to fanboys screaming their lungs out as to "Why do we fall down?" And besides, all this talk of Batman 3D is premature. How about Warner Brothers and Nolan figure out who's going to be their next villain already.

Farewell to Ye Blockbuster Video

A Look Back at a Dubious Media Empire

Looks Like We Won't Be Making it a Blockbuster Night Anymore

In case you may not have heard, a little company called Blockbuster Video officially filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy this morning. The move towards demise was long predicted since last spring, and is due to the ever changing media market. Thanks to companies like Netflix and Redbox changing the way people watch and rent movies, Blockbuster Video, once the premier movie-rental company, is no more. The company says it plans to continue operating its more than 3,000 stores nationwide, but says all stores will be evaluated for profits. At this point it's honestly only a matter of time before the company is liquidated. Blockbuster has been around since the mid 1980's, which is pretty much as long as I've been on this earth. I have fond memories of going to Blockbuster as a kid, mostly for the video games, but I refuse to let nostalgia make me feel bad for this company.

Redbox, a seemingly deceptive entertainment powerhouse

First off, Blockbuster has refused to adapt. When Netflix started way back in 2002, Blockbuster shunned the company off as a mere fad. Coinstar saw the value in offering a cheaper DVD-Video renting service, and began placing its Redbox kiosks across malls, supermarkets, and even fast-food joints nationwide. Once the subscription base for Netflix started to skyrocket, and the popularity of Redbox's $1 a day rental fees took off, Blockbuster tried to ride the bandwagon and begin a mail-service and kiosk plan of its own, but it was too little, too late. I think the final nail in the coffin came when Netflix started its online streaming service. It just came down to ease of access for consumer, and Blockbuster was far from it. All Blockbuster really had going for it was that it could hold new release films on the first day they were released. Netflix recently inked a deal with some movie studios like Universal, Fox, and Warner Bros. to not hold new releases for 30 days in exchange for receiving more copies of the films for availability.

Netflix, this generation's Blockbuster Video

Besides the obvious fact that Blockbuster refused to adapt, it was just a hassle to make a trip to the video store. Sure, everyone had a Blockbuster around their block, but once the company began its decline in the late 90's, many stores were getting the big axe, making it more difficult to make the trip. Not only that, everyone had the same experience of going to Blockbuster to rent either a video game or a movie, and find that what you were looking for wasn't available (even after checking with the front desk, which you knew was a complete waste of time). Even if by the crapshoot chance you DID come across the product you wanted, you had to deal with an $8 rental fee that got you about 2-5 days, and that;s NOT including the likely chance of paying late fees. One would also think that with Netflix offering an $8 a month subscription base, Blockbuster would at least reduce the rental fees of its movies. But nay, new release rentals still cost about $6 after taxes. Why would a consumer pay $6 for one movie, when they could easily get at least 6 movies in a month for that same price. Whatever the case may be, Blockbuster is a victim of its own success.

All right! Yet another game not in my queue's Top 15

Although I am all for the demise of Blockbuster, I do admit my heart goes out to the thousands of employees who are most likely about to lose their jobs. It's an unfortunate side effect of today's economy but when you make as many mistakes as Blockbuster has, it was really destined for failure. I'm not saying Netflix, Redbox, or even Gamefly are perfect. I personally have a gripe with Gamefly over its supposed promise to deliver the games you want, when you want, but that's for another blog entry. The point is you have to evolve as a company, and hopefully Blockbuster's failure will reflect that.

Make it Happen Cap'n

First Look at Captain America Movie...Meh

Man, that Super Soldier Serum must've had an allergic reaction.

Easily one of the most anticipated movies of next summer has to be "First Avenger: Captain America." Based on the legendary patriotic comic book icon, the film chronicles the World War II beginnings of the man who bleeds red, white, and blue, Steve Rogers. The film, starring Chris Evans and directed by Joe Johnston, has been kept under wraps throughout its production, with very little hints given about what the direction and style of the film will be. But alas, this week we are finally getting a glimpse at the film, and I gotta admit I'm feeling a little underwhelmed.

Some of the pics that are circulating show Chris Evans' stunt double riding around on a WWII era motorcycle, seemingly being chased by Red Skull's HYDRA agents. Now, before these pics popped up online, all we were shown was concept art of the Captain America outfit, and to be honest, I was pretty excited for it. I enjoyed the realistic take on the uniform, and loved how they were able to implement certain details and colors of the comic book version. Basically, it looked like a practical uniform that drew heavily from the color scheme of the comic...and I was ok with that. But until I saw these pics I'm not too sure if the practicality of the uniform looks like it'll work. I know its premature to say so, but still, I gotta question it.

This leather is making my nuts sweat.

For lack of a better word, there's no apparent "buffness" to the costume. I know the guy on the bike isn't Chris Evans and is just a stunt double, but still, I'm left wondering if this is how Evans' outfit will look. I know that Hollywood stunt doubles are used for fast, short action takes, but I'm just hoping the final product will look more impressive on screen. Still, I do like the way the HYDRA agents look. The futuristic bikes they're on look neat and if you look closer, you can see their arm patches that have what looks like the Red Skull logo. Hopefully, once the final touches are made in the post production process things will look more polished and worthy of a big budget comic-book movie, but time will only tell.

Mr. Anderson welcome back.

Going a little off topic and more in depth about the film, I believe there are two things that will prove pivotal on whether this film will be a success. First, just how will Captain America's shield look in action, and second, how will director Joe Johnston approach the character of Red Skull? The iconic deformed Nazi baddie is being played by Matrix alum Hugo Weaving (a great pick in my opinion), and I think Weaving has the chops to bring a dark and sinister take on the villain. I mean, the guy's a freaking Nazi! In terms of his appearance on screen, I basically want a similar take on how Christopher Nolan approached Harvey "Two-Face" Dent in The Dark Knight. I want the scars and make-up to have a realistic, charred, bubbled, grotesque look to it, and hopefully it's all done with practical effects and not CGI. As for the character himself, well that's another issue.

The infamous concept art for First Avenger: Captain America

The ultimate obstacle in a film like this is making sure the iconic hero receives a great portrayal, and that will ultimately fall on the villain. I want Red Skull to basically scare the shit out of the audience every time he's on screen. He needs to commit atrocities on screen and be feared by his fellow Nazi comrades. In comics, a hero is only as good as his villain, and in this case, we're dealing with the Superman of the Marvel universe. Captain America needs to stand out as the ultimate, selfless hero that he is, and the only way you can portray that is with a ruthless, menacing villain who stands for everything that your hero doesn't. It's why the Batman/Joker rivalry works so well. The Joker is the exact opposite of how Batman thinks and acts. He doesn't care for humanity, and works to establish a world where chaos reigns supreme. Another big concern for many fans was the selection of Evans to play the titular hero. Personally, I think I've gotten over the fact that Evans, who's already played a hero in the Marvel comics universe (Human Torch), is playing Captain America. Evans' casting works well in terms of the context of the film, which will detail the early youthful beginnings of Steve Rogers from WWII soldier to super-hero.

Despite my trepidation with the production photos, I'm still excited for the movie. I am really interested in seeing how Captain America will be portrayed in terms of his leadership capabilities, which will lead to his role as the Avengers leader. Besides the obvious physical demands of the role, Chris Evans will really have to bring it in terms of his acting credibility. He has to emanate the confidence and leadership qualities that define Captain America, similar to how a starting Quarterback has the confidence to lead his football team. It's a big role to take, and hopefully the fanboys and girls across the world, including myself, will be pleased with the final product next summer. I think we can all agree that Captain America is due for the faithful big screen adaptation he deserves. God Bless the United States of Marvel Comics.