Thor's Second Outing Offers Fun

Thor: The Dark World is a solid addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one that's better structured than the first Thor, which I still loved. Thor at times tended to feel like it was a bridge to The Avengers, rather than a full-fledged Thor film with its own identity. That being said, director Kenneth Branagh had a lot to juggle with that film. The story-centric stuff works, the characters are good and the tone is handled well enough, it's just that the story does tend to hit some bumps on the road but it all ends nicely and is overall hugely entertaining.

The sequel, directed by Game of Thrones episode director Alan Taylor, fares better in the consistency department as the film does feel like a Thor film, and not an Avengers link. Asgard looks even better this time around, much more vibrant and elaborate. We saw a little bit of Svartalfheim, which looked interesting but we could've seen a little more. The designs of the Dark Elves' ships are great, Malektih's design is also very good (Christopher Eccleston nails the role). The action is better shot and much more exciting, and there are nice little twists along the way. The earthbound scenes are surprisingly delightful too, and the other human characters make a nice welcome return and supply a majority of the comic relief although it does get a little too goofy at times.

What I was also happy to see was that the color scheme was actually nice on the eyes, the trailers and posters (the marketing for this film was pretty bland and by-the-books) mostly implied that this was going to be another boring, desaturated, teal-and-orange spectacle. I especially didn't want another one of those after Man of Steel's washed out quasi-depressing color palette. Thankfully I was wrong, Asgard pops and the action shines. Asgard is a lot more inviting this time, along with other scenes. Give Marvel props for making movies that don't try to be needlessly gritty and "grounded".

Unfortunately, its first hour tends to drag a little too much and the second half is way too fast. The final battle is inconsistent, especially with the technology Jane, Darcy and Selvig are using. Selvig also comes into the picture out of left hand and not much is really done with him, which is a shame considering how good of a character he was in the first film. Even Jane feels a bit underused at times, and Malekith - despite his great menacing looks - is kind of a dull villain. He's basically an obstacle seeking to fulfill a goal that Asgardians prevented him from getting. Not bad, but I expected a little more. On the other hand, Loki steals the show and plays the usual tricks.

The only problem with this film is that it feels rushed, they didn't flesh too many of its ideas out: Thor's relationship with Odin, Loki being something of a good guy, Thor and Jane's relationship, Selvig going nuts after the events of The Avengers, even the death of Frigga. The Warriors Three were underused, too - I loved them in the first film, they made a great team with Thor during the fight with the Destroyer. It just seemed too lean and too fast, maybe it should've been a bit longer (112 minutes is surprisingly short for a Marvel film like this, 130 minutes would've sufficed) and more developed, because there are great ideas in this film. Surprisingly, not much was shown of the dark world itself…

Now the mid-credits scene is great (the credits themselves are lovely to look at), where we get a weird-but-good taste of the craziness that'll be Guardians of the Galaxy. The post-credits scene is an okay stinger, nothing too special. It's about on par with Iron Man 3's final seconds; amusing and brings a good laugh. Speaking of which, it was cool to see a Jotunheim beast appear as well! Also, Marvel Studios' new logo is neat.

If you see the film in 3D or IMAX 3D, you'll get a five-minute sneak peek of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The trailer for this film was great to begin with, this blows it away. The piece promises us that this next Phase 2 chapter will bring intense action, a great plot and high stakes thrills. To be honest, I was really looking more forward to this than this film.

That all being said, Thor: The Dark World delivers a good dose of Asgardian action, humor and fun. It doesn't quite rock the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's an entertaining ride and it at least feels like its own film. Again, I would've liked a much more fleshed out film that wasn't racing its way to the pretty short finale, but it's enjoyable in its own right and a worthy addition to the growing shared cinematic universe. Recommended...

Raising The Stakes... Again

The teaser trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the third installment of Marvel Studios' second phase of their cinematic universe, has surfaced...



It kicks off with a bang and a shred of humor, but then afterwards, it takes on the mood that the great but misleading Iron Man 3 trailers used. The trailer makes it quite obvious that the stakes are being raised, big time. Of course, they would have to do so for this film. Thor: The Dark World, on the other hand, "looks" like the further adventures of Thor with a pinch of darkness. Of course, I'm waiting for the film to prove me wrong, but for now the trailers surprisingly aren't doing a thing for me... And I loved the first Thor, and I guess I may be in the minority for loving it.

Anyways, what they are showing here looks fantastic. The final shot of the titular villain is great, the Helicarrier crashing into the ocean was a nice money shot, plus from the looks of it, the action will be pretty intense. I've heard things about the Comic-Con footage, and how those who attended the presentation felt that the action was on par with The Avengers. That'll probably work very well in its favor, considering that Iron Man 3's action was a mix of big blow-em-up thrills (particularly the third act) and clever, smaller-scale escapades (Stark sneaking into the Mandarin's mansion). Thor: The Dark World's action looks to be Thor's action, but amped up.

They also give us a taste of Rogers' unease with what S.H.I.E.L.D. is planning to do, which was mentioned in the Comic-Con footage descriptions. The glimpses at the Falcon, Cap's new suit and some of the new characters were also great additions. In all, it's a pretty solid teaser. Definitely Iron Man 3-like in a sense, except less "end-times" in its mood.

Iron Man 3's teaser was criticized by some for being more on the Nolan Batman side, since there wasn't a scrap of humor and the whole trailer was accompanied by descending music that suggested despair rather than fun. Personally, I liked that trailer a lot because it wasn't trying to be brooding or dark (everyone called it "The Iron Man Rises"), I thought it was basically saying, "Tony Stark is in big trouble this time!" The second trailer was more thrilling, and it ends with a funny bit.

This teaser, I feel, is like Iron Man 3's teaser except it suggests that the film will be more fun and more of a thrill ride than a bleak film - yet I still feel that things are going to get hairy in this sequel. So far, Cap in the modern world looks like it'll make for a damn good movie. Marvel knows what they're doing...

I'm really looking forward to this installment. What do you think of the teaser?

Marvel's Pieces

Months ago, two Disney/Marvel fanatics and I speculated about Marvel's future. Marvel's much-touted Marvel Cinematic Universe is truly firing on all cylinders, as it took off like a rocket with Iron Man over five years ago. With The Avengers behind them, the second phase is already bursting: More films, a television series, more one-shots and other media that's making this franchise grow rapidly. More and more people are getting enthralled with all of this.

Our Marvelite contributors in question, PJ Campbell (Twitter / Blog) and Tyler Kelson (Twitter / Blog), provided theories on the future of this shared universe. We talked about Sony's Amazing Spider-Man franchise possibly finding itself embedded in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where Fox's Marvel properties (mainly X-Men and Fantastic Four) lie and why Kevin Feige won't mention much about post-Age of Ultron films until next year...

Now, we'll focus on what'll make up Phase 3, how long it'll be, what could be happening with Fox's troubled Fantastic Four reboot, and several other things...

Fantastic Fumbles

Fox announced a reboot of the Fantastic Four series a while back, with Chronicle director Josh Trank at the helm and a spring 2015 release. It's still slated for March 6, 2015 at this very moment... But...

It's gone through multiple writers - a new one has taken over yesterday. No cast and crew have been announced yet, which PJ did point out. Right now, Fox seems focused on X-Men alone, as we have no idea what X-Men film will hit theaters in 2015. All we know is details about next summer's X-Men film, X-Men: Days of Future Past. We also heard rumblings about X-Force and Deadpool movies, but that's pretty much it. If anything, this is not going to make the early 2015 release date. Where will it go? If Fox is dead-set on keeping Fantastic Four, what could happen?

PJ says...

"They have to get it off the ground by next October. So 2016 at the latest. I’m thinking it’s going to revert back..."

He's most likely right, because Fox can't get this off the ground at all and it's better off that they just focus on milking X-Men till it gets stale. Unfortunately though, that doesn't like it'll be the case anymore now that actors are auditioning for the film. It's possible that Fantastic Four doesn't go back to Disney at this rate. But production has not begun, so chances are a little slim right now - it could revert.

If Fox ended up giving all of Fantastic Four back to Disney, what could happen?

PJ has a good idea of what will become of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the first Marvel family involved...

"The first thing I can almost guarantee, if the rights revert back to Marvel, is that Galactus and the Silver Surfer will be fully utilized as soon as Marvel can. Remember last year, before Daredevil reverted back, Marvel tried to convince Fox to let go of those two characters in exchange for getting another year to try and get the Daredevil film off the ground. Clearly, this wasn't something Fox was interested in, so they said no. But Marvel wouldn't be asking for the characters for no reason, and I think they're hoping to get them back, for their Phase 4...

Definitely a possibility. He adds...

"With Thanos all but confirmed to be the big bad in Avengers 3, Marvel needs to make sure the next team up film is even bigger. Well, they've said they've outlined to 2021, and I can't think of a more epic story than one that could possibly bring the entire MCU together to fight off the Destroyer of Worlds, Galactus, can you? It would be the magnum opus for them as a studio, and for their entire MCU. It would actually be a great way to end that side of the series, and maybe use it as a time to lapse and relax, creating a transition into wherever the studio decides to go next...

"As for Marvel's first family, I would like to think they'd be used in Phase 3, but I would be more inclined to believe that they'd be used in Phase 4 instead. That way Marvel has time to develop the characters, and figure out their place in this growing universe. But having them does make sense, considering the Fantastic Four are very cosmic-side beings, something that Marvel Studios really, really wants to explore. With Guardians [of the Galaxy] barreling down towards us, Inhumans seemingly being planned, and the obvious inclusion of Thanos, Marvel sees this as a chance to really dig into a side of the comic universe we don't normally see, especially on film."

If anything, Fox ought to give Fantastic Four back to Disney/Marvel. Perhaps Josh Trank could go through with the reboot there, and perhaps get Kevin Feige and other writers to help him move it forward.

Tyler says...

"I believe that Fox should have to give Fantastic Four back to Disney/Marvel since Kevin Feige will want to utilize not only the team, but also the Silver Surfer and Galactus. I could see them putting Fantastic Four in Phase 3 as one of the later movies in that group. Using Silver Surfer in the first would be a good thing because then you could have a post-credits stinger in Avengers 3 having him warn Earth of Galactus' arrival and the impending doomsday."

PJ also mentioned a post-credits scene of Silver Surfer warning Earth of Galactus' impending arrival on his Twitter, he also put...

"Thanos would look like a teddy bear in Avengers 3 if we could get Galactus in Avengers 4."

Having this villain be a part of the MCU would only make things even bigger, and if anything, Disney really does need those two characters. As far I'm concerned, Fox is not going to do the comic book movie world any favors by making their Fantastic Four and possibly tying it to their X-Men film series, and perhaps trying to build their own little MCU. I really don't want Fox to do this because there really isn't much of a point, because Disney/Marvel's MCU is only going to top it over the decade. Audiences might even catch up with Fox, knowing that they are attempting to create their own shared universe just to cash in on the MCU.

Fox, of course, will hold onto X-Men. The franchise isn't stopping any time soon, it's only going to get bigger with X-Men: Days of Future Past. It is possible that the film may even outgross the last string of X-Men films at the domestic box office. PJ likens the upcoming film to Fast and Furious, and how that film opened big and outgrossed its three predecessors, and also propelled the series to an even more successful future. Who would've thought back in 2006 - when The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift hit theaters and bombed - that the fourth film would be the series' biggest at the box office, with the fifth and six outgrossing that? X-Men: Days of Future Past may be the series' box office comeback, it could really shock us in that department as well as being a good quality film.

But if anything, Fox should just stick with that and just let the Fantastic Four go. A post-credits scene with Silver Surfer warning Earth would be a brilliant idea, and one that would get audiences really geared up for the fourth round of The Avengers. Marvel knows this, because fatigue can very well kick in, especially if quality is low. Just keep giving audiences a reason to come back! It's astonishing to see that none of their seven films were critical duds, and have all done well enough. A third Iron Man could've very well lost money because people could've gotten worn out, but it did extremely well. Thor: The Dark World looks to continue that success, though of course it won't score Iron Man 3's massive box office gross.

What's In The Phase?

What will make up Phase 3? (Other than Ant-Man of course, which has been confirmed.) Well, I've been thinking...

Inhumans

Doctor Strange

Black Panther

Thor 3

Captain America 3

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (big maybe)

Here are PJ's theories...

"Many are expecting - as rumors have begun to leak - that Phase 3 will tie all the titles up to that point together in whatever the cap of Phase 3 is. I'm a big believer that it'll be an Avengers/Guardians of the Galaxy crossover, seeing an epic battle between them and Thanos. It'll tie into all the characters we have in the MCU as well, and be something truly cool and fun. I've heard quite a few rumors that encapsulate what I'm talking about, and honestly, it makes the most sense...

Definitely a very ambitious move, and that would make for a great third Avengers film. That's something that would give audiences an incentive to be back the third time around, since the titular Guardians won't be part of the team in The Avengers: Age of Ultron. It'll only raise the stakes and bring even more excitement, which is probably what Marvel Studios would want for the third film. With their streak of films, they don't strike me as a lazy studio that just wants to cash in on their own success... And their films are huge!

Phase 2 is shaping up to be better than Phase 1, with Iron Man 3 kicking things off with a bang. It's definitely the most different of the trilogy and the MCU as a whole that even went as far as taking some pretty daring risks. Risks that yielded mixed reactions, very very mixed reactions. It's even arguable that it's not only the best Iron Man film, but also the best Marvel film. Thor: The Dark World looks to continue this with its bigger story and bigger scope; Alan Taylor's film looks like it's dead-set on besting Kenneth Branagh's Thor in the action and size departments on top of upping the stakes, going a bit darker and expanding the story like a good sequel should, plus - exploration of the other Nine Realms!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is said to be Avengers-sized, based on reactions to the Comic-Con footage and like the other films, it's going to up the stakes and explore new things. (i.e. Cap living in the modern world, political conspiracies.) Guardians of the Galaxy needs no explanation, the whole entire film is a massive risk... One that I think no one would've touched with a 39 1/2-foot pole a decade ago.

If anything, by the time Phase 3 arrives, risk-taking will be the name of the game. An Avengers threequel featuring the Guardians of the Galaxy is definitely something that can happen...

"So what do I expect to see in Phase 3 then? I want to believe that we'll see Guardians 2, but we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure that'll depend on the success of the first film. I think it's safe to assume we'll see a third Captain America and Thor as well, bringing the characters to the cap of their respective trilogies...

As I've been saying in my predictions charts, Thor 3 and Captain America 3 are definitely happening. Without a fourth Iron Man film coming anytime soon, Thor 3 and Captain America 3 are what Marvel should turn to because a string of all-original films would be a little strange, plus like PJ said, their stories need to be expanded and completed in some ways. Both of these sequels will be easy moneymakers to keep things going strong. Guardians 2 is currently up in the air, and an Incredible Hulk sequel does not seem to be in the cards. I firmly believe that we will see a sequel to that 2008 film sometime in the future, maybe for Phase 4...

PJ then discussed Doctor Strange and how he'll fit into the third phase...

"I want to believe we'll see a Doctor Strange film as well, but I'm honestly not sure where, or how, it would fit into what Marvel is doing right now. I know Feige wants to do it, but his character doesn't necessarily fit the grand scheme of things right now, at least from the outside looking in. I won't be surprised if, or when, they announce the film though, because it's been on the studio's mind for quite some time...

The whole Doctor Strange situation is... Well... Strange. They've been talking about it, but at the same time they've been kind of hush-hush about it. It should be a Phase 3 release as far as I'm concerned, but PJ is right... Where will that character and setting fit into the bigger scheme of things? Feige wants the character to appear in some form during Phase 3, but how? Maybe in Thor's threequel, given the more magical and mystical side of that character and his world. Does this mean that a Doctor Strange film won't happen until Phase 4?

PJ went on to discuss the mystery character that Vin Diesel will be portraying, in addition to Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy...

"One thing we do know, one of these films will have Vin Diesel in a leading role. That leads me to believe that Inhumans could be the next in the pipeline, and that Diesel could be playing Blackbolt. But if not that, then he could become Vision for Marvel, which I could also see happening. Though, many fans are speculating that the role of Vision will actually be filled by Agent Coulson further down the road, with many believing the character's return in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is as a LMD, or Life Model Decoy, which would eventually evolve into the robotic man. Clark Gregg even hinted as much by retweeting someone who suggested it during the second episode of S.H.I.E.L.D. this past weekend...

"This leads me to my last theory about Diesel's role in the MCU as none other than the Mad Titan himself, Thanos. He has the voice and gravitas for the character, and with the character clearly being CGI, and Diesel already doing mo-cap work for Guardians of the Galaxy as Groot, it wouldn't be too surprising to find out he's really been tapped to be Thanos. Diesel has said that whatever he is involved in is 'A merging of the brands,' and that, 'Marvel wants to show a different sort of love story.' Certainly, the idea of having Thanos in Phase 3 throughout constitutes the idea of merging the brands, and Thanos is in a very different love story with his insatiable love for Death, which he sees as a woman, not as a thing. This really seems like the most solid theory, at least for now, but I wouldn't be too upset or surprised if it turned out to be wrong either."

All very valid theories, especially the Thanos one... It's very likely that he could be Blackbolt, though personally, I think Vision seems a little out of the question given the theories surrounding Coulson. Which of PJ's three theories do you think will be the correct one? Do you have a different theory on the Vin Diesel mystery Marvel character?

Now onto Tyler's theories...

Definitely in Phase 3:
- Ant-Man: We know he is in and he kicks it off.
- Avengers 3

High probability:
- Doctor Strange: Kevin Feige has been hinting at him for a LONG time, I won't be surprised at all if he is in Phase 3.
- Black Panther: This is another character that has been hinted at for a very long time.

Again, I think Doctor Strange and Black Panther will end up making it into Phase 3... Doctor Strange especially...

Strong potential:
- Ms. Marvel: There have been many whispers and rumors about her getting a film and I could see it happening, but if DC gets Wonder Woman off the ground first and it tanks it could kill the possibility of Ms. Marvel.
- Captain America 3: will possibly depend on performance of Winter Soldier and if they want to give him a 3rd solo movie, and Disney may force it in to the roster.
- Thor 3, will depend on performance of The Dark World, whether or not Disney forces it in to the slate, and if they have a 3rd story for him.
- Guardians of the Galaxy 2: will largely depend on how the first movie performs next summer. Guardians is the first MCU film based on characters that are largely unknown to the general populace. That said, the books are wonderful and the test footage from SDCC looks amazing.

Talk of a Ms. Marvel film has happened, but I personally believe that it'll be part of Phase 4 since Phase 3 is kind of packed, but you never know... More on this later.

A Ms. Marvel film is definitely happening sometime though, because of Marvel Studios' willingness to take some major risks, and it's odd that no one has really made a big comic book film with a female lead (let's forget about Catwoman and Elektra, shall we?) yet. Warner Bros. can't seem to get Wonder Woman a suitable film, let alone form their DC cinematic universe, so maybe Marvel can make a real feat here and show that you can make a film like this. Joss Whedon would really love to see a female superhero film, and he's vocally unhappy about the scarcity of such films, so it may as well happen sometime soon. I also don't think that DC's Wonder Woman film coming out first would hurt the planned Ms. Marvel film. If anything, it would show the film world that you can make superhero films that have female leads.

Since PJ mentioned both Thor 3 and Captain America 3, I think they're inevitabilities at this point. Marvel could surprise us though, and only give us one sequel during Phase 3...

A Bigger Phase 3?

Ant-Man

Now Phase 3 is a bit confusing at the moment because of The Avengers 3... Why's that? Well, when will that film come out? Will they basically release it three years after The Avengers: Age of Ultron? Or will they release it whenever it's ready?

Scenario #1: Avengers 3 is a summer 2018 release.

What could we see in this 3-year phase? Ant-Man is the only film that's got a release date set in stone (July 31, 2015) - and there's talk of Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Inhumans being likely candidates. Also, Thor and Captain America's third installments are imminent.

But... There's a dilemma here...

For example...

Ant-Man - July 31, 2015
Doctor Strange - 2016
Black Panther - 2016
Inhumans - 2017
Thor 3 - 2017
Avengers 3 - Summer 2018

One of the aforementioned films won't make it, and I think Phase 3 is going to have to be bigger than both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Now...

Scenario #2: Phase 3 is longer, and The Avengers 3 won't hit cinemas in the summer of 2018...

Here's PJ's idea of what will happen in a longer Phase 3...

"I fully believe Phase 3 will end with an Avengers/Guardians crossover. Whether it'll just be Avengers 3, or titled something else remains to be seen. But expect that third film. There is no way we won't see Thanos as the big bad by the end of Phase 3. In fact, don't be surprised if Thanos has his hand in quite a few of the films in Phase 3... Sort of as the puppet behind the scenes. The idea that he has been behind many of the events in the MCU wouldn't be surprising, especially seeing as he's already recruited Loki before for his purposes. So with all that, I have a feeling the final line up for Phase 3 will be something like this:

Ant-Man

Thor 3

Captain America 3

Inhumans/Guardians 2 (Either or could be interchangeable.)

Doctor Strange

Avengers 3 (Or whatever the capper film will be.)...

Going by Marvel's two-a-year pattern, the capper film will still debut in summer 2018 in PJ's predicted slate. He's left out the Black Panther film - here's why:

"I have a feeling Panther is going to continually be pushed back in favor of other things. We've seen hints that he's coming, like showing where Wakanda is in Iron Man 2, but overall, it doesn't seem like his character necessarily fits into the world building going on in the MCU right now. This isn't to say I'm right, but with Cosmic being what Marvel seems intent on exploring, going into the jungles of Wakanda may not be the way to go. Similar to Doctor Strange, but with Strange, he dabbles in cosmic, as well as the supernatural. I wouldn't be surprised to see Marvel go the supernatural way down the line, in a sub side of the universe, with the characters like Blade and Ghost Rider...

"I really do want to see a Black Panther film sooner rather than later. But it all just sort of depends on where, and how, it'll fall in the MCU. Marvel doesn't just choose random things on a whim, because they're literally building a puzzle, and they have all the pieces and know where they go. Unfortunately, we don't, because we're not standing next to them watching. All we can do is sit back as they hand us pieces one by one, and fit them together ourselves."

Despite some signs pointing to a Black Panther film for Phase 3 (I keep thinking it's going to happen), PJ points out a legitimate problem. There would need to be room for more Guardians and expansion on the cosmic side of things, and a Black Panther film could possibly halt that and slow things down. It is possible, however, that he may get some form of introduction during Phase 3. We may see him make a Hawkeye or Black Widow-like appearance in one of the films. In my opinion, Marvel didn't throw those two characters into Thor and Iron Man 2 respectively just to get them in there - they wanted fans and audiences to know these characters from the get-go. It would've been easy to just have them be introduced in The Avengers, but Marvel did go the extra mile.

As for an Inhumans film and the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel being interchangeable, PJ added...

"I think one may take the other's spot. Just a gut feeling. Or, maybe we'll see both in Phase 2. But I really think that for either to happen, it'll depend on the success of Guardians. This is Marvel's biggest test since Iron Man, and now we have to see if it'll work for casual moviegoers. Everyone knows that I'm a diehard Guardians fan, I have been since the mid 2000s, but my concern is that people are going to be turned off by the sheer bizarreness of the film, which I really hope I'm wrong about. I want people to embrace Star-Lord, Groot, Rocket, Gamora, and Drax. This is a comic that is so cinematic already, I can't wait to see how it turns out as a film. The Guardians footage was some of the most buzzed about after both Comic-Con and D23. As someone who was at both those places to see the footage, it was some of the most beautifully put together footage I'd ever seen. It almost brought a tear to my eye, because James Gunn has nailed the comic so well...

"As I said though, the buzz train seems to have already started, and I think even the most causal of filmgoers may have heard the inklings of what Marvel showed at Comic-Con. The Marvel Studios brand has given moviegoers a reason to trust them. So hopefully, that means they're trusting enough to give this ragtag band of misfits a chance. I think the fate of cosmic Marvel really hinges on this film working. It's the lynchpin, if you will. So things like 'Inhumans' won't get announced probably until we've seen how 'Guardians' fares with audiences."

If they don't make a Black Panther film and/or an Inhumans film for a Phase 3 release, then I at least expect these characters to make appearances. Maybe even in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. or a One Shot. Can they start putting the One Shots in theaters? The theatrical short film is something Disney should specialize in, and Honor Hunter of Blue Sky Disney did point this out recently.

Tyler hopes that the third Avengers ends up coming out in 2019 or 2020, rather than 2018 (following the one every three years pattern), allowing Marvel to make Phase 3 bigger than both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

"I love how much they are making, but I crave more with each one that comes out. Interestingly enough, I love that since Phase 1 started with Iron Man in 2008, Marvel has already made 7 movies, launched a TV series with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and they are in final post-production mode on Thor: The Dark World, in post-production on Captain America: The Winter Soldier, filming Guardians of the Galaxy, and in pre-production of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man... And in the 8 years that will have passed by the time Ant-Man kicks off Phase 3, all DC will have made is 4 movies, thats only 1/3 of what Marvel has delivered."

Tyler also suggests that Marvel should go big and release three films in a calendar year. Now that would be great if they can maintain a high level of quality for each film, but at the same time it's incredibly risky. Perhaps a little too risky, unless this is a once in a while thing. (i.e. 3 films in 2017, 3 films in 2020.)

For instance, Marvel can put out two originals in a year like 2017 and a sequel sometime during that year as well. I just hope that audiences don't think that's too much, or that they're just cranking them out for the bucks. Would it kill the momentum? Or will it only drum up more excitement?

Maybe the 3-a-year thing can avert any problems they have with getting a Black Panther film off the ground, or the Ms. Marvel film or whatever property they are eying for a movie adaptation. You can also add more cameos or early-bird appearances, whether it's in the films themselves or the post-credits sequences.

With that, they can definitely get more films in there before the third Avengers... And maybe even try things that they haven't considered before...

On a closing note, here's what PJ thinks of the MCU in its current and future state...

"It's a great time to be a Marvel fan, and there is a ton to look forward to over the next few years. I really can't wait to see how Marvel ties these first three Phases together, and it really makes me wonder if WB/DC will ever get their game together. They're already so many steps behind. Here's hoping they can fully get their act together as well, because right now, 'Batman vs. Superman' is already on shaky ground at best."

~

What are your theories on Marvel's future? Do you think that Fantastic Four will ultimately revert back to Disney/Marvel and that Fox won't make their planned reboot? Or do you think Fox will hold onto the series? Do you think Doctor Strange and Black Panther will part of Phase 3? Inhumans? Do you think Phase 3 will be longer than usual? Or not?

Sound off below!

Focusing On The Now

Kevin Feige, President of Production of Marvel Studios, recently said that any more announcements concerning the third phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe won't be made until next year at the earliest...

To me, I think Feige is simply saying, "Let's focus on what's going on now. Phase 3? We'll save all of that for later." So far, all we know about Phase 3 is that Ant-Man (from the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy director Edgar Wright) is penciled in for a November 6, 2015 release. We also know that three more projects are scheduled for May 6, 2016, July 8, 2016 and May 5, 2017. Doctor Strange is certainly in the cards, Black Panther may be as well. Everything else is up in the air at the moment, though Marvel has expressed interest in characters like Vision, Cable, Iron Fist, Nighthawk and a few others for solo films.

I have my theories as well, but nothing for Phase 3 is really set in stone yet. In fact, Ant-Man is probably going to be moved to the May 2016 date that Marvel secured over a month ago because Sony is planning to open Bond 24 the same day. There's nowhere else for Ant-Man to move, really. I can't see Disney moving it a week back, because more competition such as the final Hunger Games film stands in its way. I'd say 90% chance it moves, which would also make sense since Phase 2 kicked off nearly a year after The Avengers opened. It gives audiences a little time to breathe.

Phase 2's ambitions, I believe, are part of the reason why Marvel won't make any more big Phase 3 announcements. Feige probably feels that people should focus on the 2nd Phase, so no one really plans ahead. We may make predictions for what will come after The Avengers 3, but I think they don't even have an idea of what's coming after Ant-Man... Yet... Either that, or they do know and they just won't tell us, which could very well be the case. In the meantime, Marvel probably wants us to just focus on the Phase 2 films. But I like to predict the future, and many others do too, so...

My other theory is that Marvel and Feige might be planning (or at least thinking about) bigger things... Bigger things as in Sony collaborating with Disney/Marvel to fully bring Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe!

At Comic-Con, Andrew Garfield (who plays Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man) said that he'd love to see Spider-Man with the Avengers. A lot of us do, since he was an Avenger... But for the longest time, Sony seemed to want no part in any of the MCU, hoping to keep making billions off of future Spider-Man films. After all, they announced that a third and a fourth installment in this series are already planned for release in 2016 and 2018 respectively.

After discussing the studio's future with a fellow Marvel and Disney fan, PJ Campell (Twitter / Blog), it now seems likely to me that the web-slinger might be fighting alongside Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk and the like. He said...

"I fully believe that Marvel and Sony have already taken meetings to try and cross their universes. Attempting to add Oscorp Tower in The Avengers proves that there is a solid working relationship between the two, and that they’re at least open to the idea of them wanting it to happen. I think it's more a matter of when, not if."

It's very possible that Marvel and Sony are already discussing this, despite the fact that they have two more Spider-Man films planned after The Amazing Spider-Man 2. He also thinks that director Marc Webb's recent comments about the fourth film being more than a Spider-Man film definitely has something to do with the MCU... Perhaps it'll feature MCU characters in it? Or it'll be what some others are predicting, perhaps the Sinister Six? PJ also adds...

"... If Marvel and Sony strike a deal, Phase 3 will see Spider-Man’s full reveal in that universe. Either that, or a dimension crossing Spider-Man, like in Spider-Men, the Marvel comics crossover. Either way, I see him finding his way into Phase 3 of the MCU, maybe before his encounter with the Sinister Six."

Another fellow Disney and Marvel enthusiast, Tyler Kelso (Twitter / Podcast / Blog), thinks the fourth film will deal with the Sinister Six. He also had this say about Feige's recent comments and Marvel's plans...

"He's working on something BIG, many have said (I disagree) that DC knocked out Marvel with Batman/Superman at SDCC. But I think Feige won the whole of SDCC film-wise. For a year everyone thought the main baddy in Avengers 2 would be Thanos, then Joss announced Ultron, 

which proved to me that they've been planning out 5 steps ahead of where they are all along, making Thanos be like a puppet master sending pawns to Earth (first Loki w/ Chitauri, now Ultron)..."

"I think he might be waiting to confirm anything for Phase 3 beyond Ant-Man to see how the Fantastic 4 reboot goes because being a little over a month from shooting and NO confirmed casting. I think that the rights should go back to Marvel so that he'll [Feige] want to put Fantastic 4 in Phase 3. As far as the potential to add in Wolverine/X-Men & Spidey... Those are trickier to call. If you believe John Campea the odds of it are slim to none... I think if any characters currently owned by Fox and Sony were to make it in to the film it would be Wolverine and Spidey. As long as it's Hugh Jackman and Andrew Garfield, I'm happy. But I think what is more likely to happen in regard to that potential is seeing nods to those characters like having the Daily Bugle in a city scene, same with Mr. Fantastic's home in a city scape... (Like how the one for S.H.I.E.L.D. has Stark Tower in it.)

"Plus it's possible that Feige wants to wait to make Phase 3 announcements until he can potentially iron out some rights agreements with Fox... Plus to be fair, we didn't know what Phase 2 would look like until the year before Avengers, yeah we knew about Iron Man 3 (we know about Ant-Man) but we didn't know it would have Thor and Cap sequels until those movies came out and I don't remember hearing about Guardians until SDCC '12, so it seems right that we'd hear more next summer. I definitely like where they are going..."

Tyler brings up a very good point. Fox surprised some at this year's Comic-Con with no hints on The Fantastic Four, which is shooting soon with no cast (Jurassic Park IV's most recent delay, anyone?) and it's set for a March 6, 2015 release.

Perhaps Feige is waiting to see how things will turn out with this somewhat-promising reboot (Chronicle director Josh Trank is at the helm, for starters), but Tyler thinks that the rights should revert back to Marvel, so that the team will be part of Phase 3. Maybe that's what Feige might be planning, since The Fantastic Four doesn't seem to show any big box office potential just yet... Plus, what if it's a rush-job? If a delay happens, we may have a new set of theories concerning this one film.

As for X-Men, PJ had this to add...

"I want to believe that Fox would want the crossover, but honestly, after this whole Quicksilver incident, I think they made their stance very clear: They want nothing to do with Marvel. They think they can exist without them. No matter how badly fans, or even Hugh Jackman want it to happen, the events of the last month scream Fox has thrown down the gauntlet, severing chances of a crossover.

Unless, somehow at the last minute, they come to terms and use the same Quicksilver from Days of Future Past in Avengers 2, but I honestly won’t hold my breath. Down the line, maybe? But for the foreseeable future, I don’t think there’s a chance of it happening."

I'd have to agree with him on Fox's current X-Men franchise not crossing over with Marvel's because the continuity of that series will contradict the MCU since the first X-Men film debuted eight years before Iron Man. That franchise and its established universe was already set in stone, with two sequels and a prequel in development before 2008. It's simply in another cinematic universe, so I can't see Fox merging that one with the MCU... Though it would be cool to see Hugh Jackman as Wolverine with the Avengers... But that would only mix things up if you ask me.

Since Fox having their X-Men film series cross over with the MCU is out of the question, what will happen if the X-Men rights eventually revert back to Marvel? PJ had this to say...

"If Marvel ever gets the rights back, the universe will be rebooted, I can almost guarantee it. I think Fox’s franchise may be waining once Jackman leaves. Without him as the face, I’m not sure their series will last."

To add to that, a full reboot would probably not occur until 2020 at the least. Fox is gung-ho with their X-Men plans, especially since X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine have gotten better reception. They're gearing up for X-Men: Days of Future Past, big time. An X-Force film and a Deadpool film are also in the cards, so they'll be making X-Men films until the franchise fatigue kicks in. The question is... When will that be? When will Hugh Jackman finally call it quits? Also, will Marvel reboot it for the MCU 5-10 years after the original Fox series wraps up? Or will it be seen as unnecessary since the X-Men film series was already big?

For the sake of comparison, the original Spider-Man film series was just a trilogy, the planned fourth film became the reboot. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is its own special entity, but audiences probably won't mind a new Batman in the Man of Steel sequel (or is it really a sequel to that film?), because Batman has been rebooted several times with different actors. X-Men on the other hand is one big franchise that's been firing on all cylinders for nearly 13 years with one trilogy, a potential second one and two spin-offs about Wolverine... And perhaps more! So far (counting Days), we have 7 films! I'm not sure how a reboot would work out for this series since it's already so big! What do you think?

What are your theories on Marvel's plans? Do you think Sony will bring Spider-Man into the MCU? Or not? Do you think the Fantastic Four will eventually become part of the MCU? Sound off below!

Rebooting and Rehashing

It seems like Disney is planning on re-imagining a lot of stories that they have already adapted for their animated classics in the past... As big budget live action tentpoles...

Alice in Wonderland happened to be the first in this new trend, which happened to come out during what many people called the perfect storm. Everyone got a real taste of 3D with Avatar, a film they kept going back to see for the sheer experience. This film being in 3D was already a guarantee for success, then you add in excellent marketing (I mean, excellent marketing) and decent word of mouth. I mean, this film looked great. It was Tim Burton making Alice in Wonderland, I mean come on... Who didn't want to see that? Even if the film didn't look good, the novelty was there: A big budget Alice in Wonderland. The marketing really did its job! The film grossed an enormous $334 million domestically and $1 billion all across the world. Did anyone see that coming? Did Disney even see that coming?

Three years later, Disney scored a good-sized success with a similar film. Oz The Great and Powerful has taken in $234 million here so far and $491 million worldwide, but before that film opened, we saw other classic stories and fairy tales getting big adaptations that were geared more towards teenagers than family audiences: Snow White and the Huntsman and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. In addition to that, we also got television shows such as Once Upon a Time.

Disney has more coming. Maleficent opens next summer on July 2nd, followed by a Kenneth Branagh-directed Cinderella film in March 2015. A Beauty and the Beast live action film titled The Beast is currently in development as we speak, which should be out by 2017 or 2018. Alice and Oz are getting sequels, but no dates have been picked yet.

So today, Disney announced that a live action film based on Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book is in the works.

It's a pretty odd choice considering that Disney already did a live action Jungle Book adaptation. Titled Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, the rather well-received film opened in 1994 and didn't really make much of a mark at the domestic box office.

Anyways, screenwriter Justin Marks will pen this adaptation... The Justin Marks who wrote Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, but he also wrote some short films so Disney must've brought him on board for a reason. Right now, I'm just not feeling it. Then again, I'm frustrated with this new direction Disney has been taking for their non-Marvel/Lucasfilm live action slate.

I mean, I can understand Cinderella and The Beast, but now they're going to adapt more stories that were already the basis for their animated classics. What's next? A live action The Little Mermaid? A live action The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Alright I'll stop there, because I'm probably giving them ideas. Anyways, while the slate includes some original stuff (Brad Bird's Tomorrowland and the enigmatic Terra Incognita) and properties that Disney has never touched before (such as Matched and Alexander and the Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Day), there's also...

- Peter and the Starcatchers (based on a prequel novel series to Peter Pan)
- Pete's Dragon
- Flight of the Navigator
- The Rocketeer

Why is Disney rebooting/remaking/re-imagining stories they've tackled before? Do we really need a remake of Pete's Dragon? Or Flight of the Navigator? Did we really even need to live action Cinderella and Beast films that are coming out?

Meanwhile, Disney suffers a loss with The Lone Ranger and The Wrap puts this boneheaded article up...

First of all, John Carter and The Lone Ranger weren't "original". The former is based on a series of novels by the legendary Edgar Rice Burroughs and the other is based on a multi-media series that dates back to the 1930s.

Second of all, why should Disney stick to the tried and true? Why should they only rely on Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm? Why should they "forget" trying something different? By that, I mean something they have never adapted or tried out before. Case in point, John Carter and The Lone Ranger. This year's Oz did very well, and the article actually acknowledges that. Walt always said, "You can't top pigs with pigs".

Third... John Carter was backed by terrible marketing and a terrible title all due to a Chairman who just didn't care and many other things. How many times do we have to go over this?! On the flip side of that coin, The Lone Ranger's trailers didn't give you an idea of what the film was even about. The trailers, to me, showed something convoluted that just happened to have a lot of wild west action. Also, aren't people getting sick of quasi-Jack Sparrow characters played by Johnny Depp? Especially in films from the same people who made those films? Everyone was saying it... It's Pirates in the West!

And of course, the article pretty much says that Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm (notice how they conveniently leave out Walt Disney Animation Studios) are all what Disney needs. They really don't, because their live action division gave them a hit this year. That's right, a hit. Outside of Pirates, you also had hits like the first Narnia, the National Treasure films and smaller-scale films that turned a profit. Sure, Disney might've had losses with a couple live action films (aside from Carter and Ranger, Prince of Persia underwhelmed and The Sorcerer's Apprentice was a dud) as of late, but that's no reason to give up hope.

What if their 2014 live action crop does well? What if everything from Maleficent to Tomorrowland to Into The Woods all do well and make a profit?

You can't just say Disney should stop with fresh new things for live action tentpoles. Carter and Ranger were killed by marketing, ditto Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice (and both of those Bruckheimer films were duds). Had Disney opted for a campaign for The Lone Ranger that said more about the story and the characters, perhaps it would've done solid business over the last week instead of missing the $50 million mark for the five-day opening.

Then you also got to think of quality and what you're giving an audience that consists of all ages. Films with lazy storytelling that happen to have spectacle and action aren't going to cut it, it only works for things like Transformers... But not films like Battleship. Audiences won't eat up every big budget special effects spectacle you throw at them. Family audiences are also paying for films with the Disney name on them in addition to many moviegoing adults. Having not seen the film yet, I've heard that it's a bore with a convoluted, messy story that's surprisingly very dark. With today's ultra-high ticket prices, Disney needs to give the crowds what they need. Something that doesn't miss the mark. Apparently The Lone Ranger was not just that. Neither was Prince of Persia or The Sorcerer's Apprentice. John Carter's length and convoluted storyline (I think the film is good, though) might've been too much for audiences as well. Also note that I don't think that Disney should pander to audiences, at all. I am very much against that, but they're a big corporation and they have to hit it right with each film. Something like The Lone Ranger and John Carter (the way they are) would probably be more suitable under something else.

Which leads me to ask this - and I had discussed this topic with a few others weeks ago - should Disney save PG-13 tentpole films for their Touchstone banner?

From what I've heard, The Lone Ranger is pretty damn violent for a PG-13 film. I also hear that it takes a Dudley Do-Right character (I'm not familiar with anything that has to do with The Lone Ranger) and turns him into a rather dark one, one that's not a hero who does the right thing. I'm not a "think of the children!" type of person, but I assume that many parents took their young 'uns to see this film over the weekend and might've been offended by the violence and/or gritty tone. When something from Disney sports violence that's said to be borderline R-rating level, that's not good. That can severely hurt the film's performance, but having the Disney name attached to this PG-13 tentpole might've done no favors.

The fact is, many people have an idea of what Disney entertainment should be. The Lone Ranger doesn't seem to fit the bill, which brings up the question: What if The Lone Ranger was a Touchstone film? The Touchstone name may not be easily recognizable though, since everyone (even those who live under a proverbial rock) knows what Disney is. Then again, without the Disney name, perhaps the film could've attracted more teenagers and adults because some of them might sneer at the idea of Disney making PG-13 live action films... Unless they're Pirates sequels, then that's totally okay, but anything else? "Why is Disney trying to be badass?! Laaaaaaame!"

In fact, it's the PG-13 films that are usually not doing well for them these days. Prince of Persia, John Carter and this film were all PG-13. Oz wasn't, neither were the National Treasure films, the first Narnia film (Prince Caspian's PG rating was always questioned), TRON: Legacy or anything else besides the Pirates films. The Pirates films are just rare exceptions, but nothing else that comes from the Mouse House seems to be when it comes to that rating.

But back to The Lone Ranger. Suppose it was a Touchstone release and Disney didn't spend $215 million on it. Let's just say that the film we got the other day cost $140 million to make and opened with the Touchstone logo, backed with marketing that still said "From the team that brought you Pirates of the Caribbean". I think it would've done better, as it didn't cost as much and the film would've performed a bit better. $50 million so far this kind of film isn't too bad, actually... It just happens to be a $215 million tentpole from mega-empire Disney! Seriously, this film could've been made for $140 million. I've seen $50-100 million films that look just as good!

Had it a been a bit smaller-scale (same great effects, but no towering budget) and released by Touchstone, Disney could have made a profit since it's already bound to make at least $100 million domestically and over $300 million worldwide. That, to me, would've really covered losses. It would've been perfect timing too, since Westerns have made a comeback at the box office. Just look at True Grit, Rango and Django Unchained. This could've rode on the coattails of those successes.

This could've worked for John Carter as well: $150 million budget, original John Carter of Mars title, better marketing and the Touchstone banner. Could've been less of a disaster or better yet, a profitable title. Bad marketing and all, John Carter still grossed $280 million worldwide. That's not horrible, you know. It could've made even less given the toxic buzz...

No, Disney shouldn't just give up on fresh new things for their live action tentpoles. Instead, they should seek solutions: Don't spend a crapload of money on the films (The Lone Ranger did not need to cost $215 million, or $250 million!) and release them through another outlet, which could ensure a small success. Other tentpoles from other studios based on books are going to do well (for the most part) because of familiarity. Disney happened to lose money with two films based on properties that are a little out of reach. What casual moviegoer who is under the age of 30 will be familiar with anything that has to do with Barsoom? The Lone Ranger? That's something their grandparents might've told them about years ago. I applaud Disney for at least trying with John Carter and The Lone Ranger, but the studio went about both the wrong way, from the ballooning budgets to the poor marketing.

Also, John Carter and The Lone Ranger shouldn't be used an excuse to state "Disney should give this original film thing up". Let's take a look at next year's slate of live action films that aren't Marvel, nor are they reboots of things they already did (i.e. Maleficent). We got...

Need for Speed - I get it, this is Touchstone, but there's one question: How much will be spent on this film? Hopefully not too, too much. I expect a budget of under $150 million, or maybe they'll go small-scale.

Alexander and the Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Day - This small film reminds me of The Odd Life of Timothy Green, which was actually a film that was based on an original story rather than a children's book or whatever. That film cost $25 million to make, not bad... With very little marketing, it opened with $10 million. Now, its critical reception was very divided. Some thought it was mediocre, others really loved it. The film scored the rare 5x multiplier... Not many family films these days get that during the spring and summer. Family audiences must've loved it that much. The film took in $51 million overall and doubled the budget.

This film, on the other hand, is based on a book. I suspect that Disney didn't market Timothy Green that much because it was a leftover from the Rich Ross era (though it was greenlit when Dick Cook was still Chairman) and they just wanted to get it out of the way, knowing it would still do okay at the box office... And that it did! Anyways, Disney will probably put the same effort into marketing this... Or more. In any case, it'll do fine.

Tomorrowland - A Brad Bird film that's not based on a well-known and/or existing story? An original film? You don't say! Anyways, Disney needs to play their cards right here. Big time! This is opening against crazy competition and it's original. When I think of this film's box office chances, I think of Inception: Not based on anything, different, interesting and directed by a well-known force. Warner Bros. was incredibly smart to put "From the director of The Dark Knight" in the Inception trailers, and it ensured a big opening. Word of mouth was incredibly strong, carrying the film past $290 million domestically. I remember a time when $300 million predictions for this film were shot down for being too optimistic.

Anyways, Disney better market this right. The previews must make you say "I want to see that!" Trailers must mention Brad Bird's achievements if it's a PG-rated film. If it's PG-13, they might have to omit any references to Bird's Pixar films since Disney avoided mentioning Finding Nemo and WALL-E in the John Carter trailers, because, you know... A lot of people still look down on animation. Or, it could work because I notice a lot of people really love Brad Bird. To the point where they wanted him to direct Episode VII! I don't ever hear that same love directed at Pete Docter or Andrew Stanton or any other animation directors, really. Sadly, a lot of animation directors seem to be relatively unknown. Bird is a borderline household name like Spielberg and Lucas.

If the film flops, it won't be because it's original or risky. It'll be because Disney did something wrong: Either the marketing was bad or the budget was ridiculously high, or maybe the film was just bad. Maybe it'll be the filmmakers fault, but I highly doubt it since Brad Bird shouldn't ever really be doubted.

Into The Woods - I think this one has holiday hit written all over. To explain, it's the kind of film that opens small, gets a boatload of buzz and climbs it way up the charts at the box office. Again, Disney needs to do things right. By that, I mean not spend too much on it and also market it correctly! Again, it could be a big big hit if they do things right.

See where I'm going with this? This applies to all other future tentpoles that aren't based on anything they did before. Disney ultimately has to do it right: No super-high budgets, marketing that makes the films look like they're worth seeing (i.e. films that'll easily make $50 million over the weekend), and better handling of the films. Oh, and good quality films because word of mouth speaks volumes.

Pixar, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Marvel and Lucasfilm shouldn't be the only things keeping the company afloat. Rehashes of things they've done before (that scene from Ratatouille immediately comes to mind) shouldn't be the only things keeping Disney's live action studio afloat. Walt Disney ventured into live action filmmaking for a reason. Disney needs to get their act together and do their live action film division justice!

Disney Slate Update: Marvel, Muppets, Planes & More!

Disney has once again changed their upcoming slate, but this change doesn't affect releases from Walt Disney Animation Studios or Pixar. The details are here thanks to Box Office Mojo and /Film...

The big news here is that two untitled Marvel productions have been slated for May 6, 2016 and May 5, 2017. Marvel usually takes the first Friday of May for most of their films (the Iron Man films, The Avengers and its sequel, Thor), and I guess Star Wars spin-offs are opening in theaters in both May 2016 and May 2017.

What will be ready? For the May 2016 film, probably Doctor Strange, though in my recent set of predictions, I thought that the film would come a month early since Marvel has locked the early April 2014 spot for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was thinking that Disney would release Marvel movies in April to distance them from any Lucasfilm productions (i.e the Star Wars spin-offs, since Disney wants at least one Star Wars film a year), but it looks like Disney is okay with releasing both a Marvel film and a Lucasfilm production in the same month. That is, if Lucasfilm follows the mid-May tradition for everything they release.

Oddly enough, no other Marvel production is slated for a 2016 release. This implies that Marvel may produce one film a year after 2015, but maybe we'll hear more in the coming months. I can't see Marvel ditching the 2-film-a-year strategy anytime soon since the momentum is still there. Speaking of Lucasfilm, no date for Star Wars: Episode VII yet! But I think we all know what it will be...

Yep, Ricky Gervais is going to be in this.

Some minor changes were made to one 2013 release and two 2014 releases...

Brad Bird's Tomorrowland has been moved a week forward. The film will now open on December 12, 2014... Good. The only thing that stands in its way is the finale to Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, but something tells me that this Bird-directed sci-fi will overshadow the hobbits since the first one did very well, but didn't perform like a titan. In addition to George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Raffey Cassiday, Thomas Robinson has now been cast. It'll be fun to track this one, since the marketing will be decidedly enigmatic!

The Muppets... Again! is now Muppets Most Wanted. Not really sure about that title, to be honest. It may fit in with the plot, but I think it sounds a bit awkward. What do you think of it? The release date is still the same: March 21, 2014.

This December's Disney film, Saving Mr. Banks, has also been moved a week forward. The film opens on December 13, 2013.

More films have been scheduled for release in 2014...

The first of which is Planes: Fire and Rescue, which opens on July 18th... I was hoping that this spin-off franchise wouldn't be a theatrical thing. I was already not to thrilled with the fact that Planes was getting a theatrical release, this will only cause more confusion since a lot of people assume that the series was made by Pixar. Like I need to hear any more "Planes? What are you doing, Pixar?!" complaints. Anyways, Disney is apparently very confident in the first film. After all, it probably didn't cost much to make being a DisneyToon Studios production, but I'll be surprised if it makes much more than $100 million at the domestic box office.

Opening on August 8th is a project I've never heard of before: The Hundred-Foot Journey. A Touchstone/DreamWorks production, the film is based on a book by Richard C. Morais. It's about an Indian boy living in Paris who becomes the apprentice for a chef that's a rival to his father.

This one was announced last year: Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. An adaptation of the children's book of the same name where a boy's family has a bad day thanks to him wishing they'd experience his daily problems, this might go the way of The Odd Life of Timothy Green... It just screams unspectacular to me. However, The Jim Henson Company is working on it so there might be something interesting about it. Steve Carrell and Jennifer Garner will be in it, and Cedar Rapids director Miguel Arteta will direct. The film is set to open on October 10, 2014.

Into The Woods will arrive on Christmas Day. I had initially predicted that it would be Disney's March 2015 release, but apparently it'll be ready by the end of next year. The Rob Marshall-directed production stars quite the cast, too: Johnny Depp, Chris Pine, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep. This ought to be a big success for Disney, though it's being released a little too close to Tomorrowland.

A total of 13 films from the Mouse House (including Marvel and Touchstone/DreamWorks films) will now be coming to theaters in 2014! I guess Disney really does want to bang 14-15 films out a year! Now I'll have to update my predictions...

What's your on this news? What do you think of Planes' sequel getting a theatrical release? Are you interested in any of the live action films that Disney has planned for 2014? Or not? What do you of think the new title for the Muppets sequel?

Sound off below!

Going Big

Surprise, surprise! A first look at Walt Disney Animation Studios' Big Hero 6 has arrived...

Disney seems gung ho about getting the word out on Walt Disney Animation Studios' adaptation of Marvel's Big Hero 6, which is not due out until next autumn. We got word on the project last summer, as it was in development and we knew that Don Hall (Winnie the Pooh) was directing. It was also interesting to note that this was Walt Disney Animation Studios' first ever collaboration with another studio, which made me all the more excited because it shows that the rejuvenated studio is willing to branch out and take some real risks, rather than treading the same old ground.

Wreck-It Ralph, I believe, was the first in this experimental new period. Disney spent the last couple of years making a good films with familiar concepts (talking animals, fairy tales) in order to get audiences back in the theaters for their films. Frozen, from the looks of it, won't be your typical Disney fairy tale adaptation and the two untitled projects (one from Tangled co-director Byron Howard and the other from dream team Ron Clements & John Musker) also sound quirky. The studio, as I've said many times before, is in a better state now than they ever were in the last two decades: No nosy executives interfering with the creative process, a brain trust that approves of good ideas and a healthy balance of heart, humor and drama goes into each story and screenplay. On top of that, they are willing to take big risks... It's exactly what Walt would've wanted.

Big Hero 6 is coming to theaters on November 7, 2014; sure it may have been officially announced today, but we knew it for months. Given their reluctance to really market Frozen (aside from the leaked footage that was supposedly shown on the Disney Channel in Greece), who would've thought that Disney would show us footage from this film so soon?!

Listen carefully, you'll hear something familiar...

Yes, it looks fantastic. The film's San Fransokyo setting is bursting with creativity and color. Marvel CCO Joe Quesada unveiled some details on the plot and again, it sounds like something totally different and new from the studio. This is what Walt Disney Animation Studios should've been like a decade ago, because they did experiment after the Renaissance. Films like Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet definitely went against the grain in terms of storytelling and creativity. In addition to that, a lot of these ideas were original and not adaptations (sans Treasure Planet). But, they were produced at a time when suits had too much power over what went into these films and what had to go (Atlantis is great example of this)... Thus the results were mostly mixed and a majority of the films did poorly at the box office.

Since Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, it seemed logical for them to have their animation studio adapt one of their comics. For a while, it was rumored that Pixar would make an animated Marvel film, but of course they wouldn't since they don't do adaptations. Disney Animation, on the other hand, is the perfect studio to bring Marvel into the theatrical animation world. The current and ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe is proof that Marvel is in good hands right now, so Big Hero 6 sounds like it'll certainly live up to its ambitions plus the last string of Disney animated films were strong... Walt Disney Animation Studios, again, is headed for a bright future.

As for the film itself? Well, it seems like we're going to get a visually amazing, action-packed spectacle that'll feel like a Disney classic but at the same time it'll be quite different. They'll stick to the good traditions, but they'll also embrace great new ideas. The last couple of films proved this, especially Wreck-It Ralph. It paid off, greatly. It has definitely encouraged the studio to go big or go home. Walt did the same during the Golden Age...

With all that said, why is Disney still hiding Frozen from us?

A Great Start

Bare with me here, it's been a little while since I've written and during that time, some news came about and I also happened to catch a little movie... What movie was that you ask? I'll give you a hint... It involves some guy who happens to be a... Yeah it's obviously Iron Man 3!

... And it's also spoilerific, so you've been warned! If you haven't seen it, read no further!

Okay?

Alright, so...

~

Iron Man 3 officially kicks off Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which will of course culminate with another team up of Earth's mightiest heroes in The Avengers 2, slated for a May 1, 2015 release. Iron Man 3 indicates that Marvel is willing to go all out and take some real risks, even before getting started on a film like Guardians of the Galaxy. The Avengers alone was risky enough, but they don't want to follow that up in an unceremonious manner... They want to keep going big, they want to experiment, they want to do what they haven't done before. All of the exciting news on the upcoming Phase 2 films more than proves this...

Shane Black is the director of Iron Man 3, as he infuses his style in that the Marvel realm and crafts a film that not only functions as a great start to Phase 2, a great follow-up to The Avengers and a great Iron Man film... But it also works as a great standalone superhero film, one that's very unique to many others out there.

This is more than a good start for Marvel's second phase of films, and it only hints that the likes of Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy will surprise in similar ways and give us superhero films that others aren't giving us. Iron Man 3 is a different breed of superhero film. One that the marketing masterfully hid; it really is a unique and exciting film.

So what happens to the armored superhero in this installment of the series? It's a few days before Christmas and Tony Stark isn't the same man after the events of The Avengers, he has anxiety attacks about the big battle and his near-death experience when he sent a nuke to stop the Chitauri mothership whilst ending up in outer space. He spends his time building several Iron Man suits and testing a new prototype suit (Mark 42) that he can summon part by part. This makes for some clever moments and gags, as seen in the opening ten minutes or so. His obsession with building these suits greatly affects his relationship with Pepper Potts, who is very involved in the story this time around, going as far as actually fighting and suiting up! As Tony and Pepper's problems comes to a head, a new and powerful threat is after the United States: The Mandarin.

The character and writing taps into post-9/11 fears, particularly with the Mandarin's use of videos used to scare and shock the American people. The Mandarin has all the makings of an extremist, using the past atrocities that occurred in the country to justify his actions while also denouncing American "knock offs" such as fortune cookies on the side. The Mandarin is the leader of the Ten Rings, the terrorist group that captured Stark in the first film. From the trailers, it seems as if the man is out to personally destroy Tony Stark while also teaching the country and the world a series of lessons... Well, that was well-hidden by the marketing.

Our real antagonist is the bitter and vengeful Aldrich Killian. We first see him as a disabled and seemingly strange super-fan of Stark attending a New Year's Eve party in Switzerland back in 1999 where Stark and botanist Maya Hansen happen to be. Stark narrates, basically telling us that a big mistake he made at that party came back to haunt him... Big time. Aldrich Killian is essentially Buddy Pine from The Incredibles (all roads lead to Pixar!), he met a man he admired only to be turned down by him, but in this case Stark was a genuine prick to him. He offered to pitch to Stark and Hansen while also presenting them with work for his company, Advanced Idea Mechanics. At the party, we see Hansen's invention Extremis, which helps those with disabilities and regenerates body parts. It's very similar to what Dr. Curt Connors uses in The Amazing Spider-Man, but it's a small similarity.

Tony never sees Killian again until the events of this film, and the man is dead set on ruining Stark inside and out. The Mandarin is a mere decoy he's using to fool the country and his mysterious attacks - one of which severely injures now-security chief Happy Hogan - drive Stark to publicly warn the Mandarin while also foolishly giving him his address. Stark only realizes his fatal error after Killian's Extremis-injected henchmen nearly kill him, Pepper Potts and a visiting Hansen whilst destroying his Malibu home. Without JARVIS working and all of his tech locked away, he must use his wits to find the people responsible for everything... What ensues makes for a very exciting and sometimes even unpredictable film that goes for a different direction whilst still feeling like a genuine Iron Man film.

This is where Black uses comedy where it works while also upping the stakes. The Mandarin twist has already gotten on some nerves, but having not read the comics, I thought the twist was brilliant. The early sequences where we believe he's the main baddie are really effective and I do wonder what the film would've been like had there not been any twist. As some have speculated, maybe the real Mandarin is out there and that Killian or no one else aren't aware of his existence. That all being said, the sequence where we see who he really is came as a shock but it was a funny, well-done part. Ben Kingsley has a load of fun here.

But back to Killian, he's a real jerk and the screenplay gets you to really hate him. Guy Pearce gives him a suitably menacing demeanor while also making him come off as slimy and just plain repulsive. What was also really cool was how they handled the henchmen, the people injected with Extremis. They have strange fiery powers and they are almost invincible, as we see in the fight sequences. James Badge Dale plays henchman Eric Savin (who is Coldblood in the comics) and he's also good, along with Stephanie Szostak. The soldiers are convincing, and they function as pretty tough obstacles for Tony and later Rhodes.

James Rhodes, surprisingly, doesn't really take any names as War Machine/Iron Patriot. I would've liked to have seen more of that, especially in the climax, but since they use the suit for other things in the story, I can't really complain. Maybe in The Avengers 2, if he's in it, or a fourth Iron Man if they get around to making one. Don Cheadle is great in this, and the reason why he wasn't so good in the last one was because... Well, let's face it. Iron Man 2 had a weak script. Here, he's working with better stuff! This what Rhodes should've been in the last film so if he's in Avengers 2, we'll get to see how awesome he can be. One thing I loved about his scenes was why War Machine was renamed Iron Patriot, the jab at focus groups and political correctness was priceless.

Another new character is a 10-year-old boy named Harley, who Stark meets and trusts after his life's work is taken away. When I first saw that Stark would be teaming up with a kid in a behind-the-scenes look, I was a bit worried but Black handles it perfectly. Harley is a likable character and you immediately feel bad for the lonely kid. He makes for a great companion rather than an annoying comic relief device (though at times he can be a bit of a brat, such as in the scene where he triggers Stark's anxiety attacks after Stark tells him to stop), the dialogue between him and Stark works very very well.

What else did I like very much? I like how the story was handled. Everything was wrapped in enigma, making this Iron Man more of a mystery/detective film. This is good because, again, Marvel is branching out and not repeating what made everything else work. Iron Man 2 seemed grounded even though the first's ending implied that the sky was the limit, Iron Man 3 takes to the skies and does what the first and the other MCU films don't do. After all, what would Stark do without his suits and tech? How it's handled is brilliant, from his construction of makeshift weapons to his work inside of a news van. The way he fights without tech, particularly in a sequence in a small town in Tennessee, is also pulled off in inventive ways. Lots of unexpected surprises and twists make it a real winner. There's also a great amount of build-up that leads to two exciting climaxes that manage to throw more surprises at you.

The film is not without depth, as the story is extending upon Steve Rogers' criticisms of the man in The Avengers. Tony's selfishness and the events of this film come to change him for the better, making for a suitable ending and also adding more strong development to a character that we've seen in three feature-length films. This could've been another "Iron Man saves the day" adventure, but instead it's a great redemption film and one that actually wants to develop the character rather than not do anything with him rather than just having him fly around and stopping bad guys. The Avengers got praise because of this, and I feel that Iron Man 3 builds upon that and makes for a great character arc. I hope Thor and Captain America's sequel do the same.

Other than that, the film delivers the goods. The action is very exciting, how everything unfolds adds to that excitement. The acting is great from everyone involved, and Black's style works well despite the fact that he was essentially directing a PG-13 Marvel film that's to be viewed by family audiences. But as he put it, he was making a film that was suitable for the under 17 crowd while still keeping the edge. This may sound ridiculous, but I'd love to see him do that for a PG-rated Disney or Pixar film... Crazy dream, I know!

Iron Man 3 satisfies in many ways and opens up new doors for Marvel's ever-growing cinematic universe. Exciting possibilities are coming, and this film already showing what plans the studio has for audiences around the world. As a film on its own, it's a great action film that mixes in mystery and lots of twists.