The Rise of Skywalker - Upon Second Viewing

The Rise of Skywalker - Upon Second Viewing

I'm going to say this up front because after rewatching the supposed finale to the epic nonology that was the Star Wars saga, my opinion on this has not changed. In my opinion, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is a complete disaster. 

But not in the way you might think.

Because, much to my genuine surprise and amusement, I actually did enjoy the Rise of Skywalker upon second viewing. If you look to my first review, I said I enjoyed the film despite its massive missteps. In the time since, nearly everyone on the internet has had their say about this film, many of whom believing this is the single worst piece of Star Wars cinema put out to date. And upon further reflection, the problems that I had with the film the first time continued to bother me even more, especially as Lucasfilm tried desperately to backtrack and cover up their mistakes.

Palpatine was a clone you say? Not only was Palpatine a clone in The Rise of Skywalker, but also in Return of Jedi? Not only were they BOTH clones, but Palpatine's son was a FAILED clone of the Emperor? Give me a break. You tried, you failed, Disney, time to move on. 

And yet, after sitting down and seeing the film again for the first time since late December, expecting to dislike this film even more for its horrid plot decisions, I came to the realization that I really didn't. I rather mildly enjoyed the movie, and I will stand by that opinion because just as much as anyone out there is entitled to hate this film and call it an utter piece of garbage, I an entitled to my opinion as well.

But again, let be be clear, to me this film is an utter disaster. This film represents the exact opposite of the prequel films, most namely Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith (we don't talk about Jar Jar and his endeavors in the Phantom Menace). Episodes 2 was a terrible movie by most standards, but I do believe it was a great Star Wars movie. There's a difference. Let me explain.

You see, as a film analyst, I have to look at movies a certain way, through a different lens, if you will, pulling apart structure, story, characters, etc. However, for franchises with the longevity of Star Wars, Pixar, or Marvel, where I have preexisting emotional attachments, it's extremely hard for me to separate the respective films from their predecessors. How does one simply ignore the events of Infinity War when watching Endgame and judge Endgame as a standalone? It's near impossible.

But to the best of my ability, as I look back upon the Rise of Skywalker as a standalone film, it's fine. It's very fine. There are some classic, cliche moments of foreshadowing, such as the force healing of the worm that saves Rey later, there's a nice little redemption arc for Kylo Ren, Rey defeats the Emperor, and good triumphs in the galaxy.

But as a Star Wars fan?

Kylo Ren was REDEEMED?

The mere fact that JJ Abrams so flippantly decided to redeem a character who had killed his father, killed his master, taken over as the dictator of a Nazi-Germany-esque regime,  and tried to kill Rey is absolutely absurd. And before anyone says anything about Darth Vader, let me be quick to point out that Darth Vader's struggle towards the light was apparent. In that final moment, and in fact, all throughout the trilogy, Vader wasn't trying to kill Luke. He was trying to bring him over to his side, however twisted that may be, and what finally got in the way of the dark side for him was his love for his son. Kylo Ren attempts the same thing with Rey, except there is absolutely no tangible emotional connection OTHER than the kiss (oh, the horror) that JJ Abrams decided to add in (which, by the way, I believe to be the single worst scene of "romance" in any Star Wars film, INCLUDING Anakin and Padme in Attack of the Clones). Throughout this entire trilogy, rather than hinting towards a lingering good in Kylo Ren, the filmmakers, namely Rian Johnson in Episode 8 for better or for worse, decided to buckle down and commit Kylo Ren fully to the dark side. He is the SUPREME LEADER.

And force healing? It would've been helpful if Obi-Wan knew how to do that when Qui-Gon was dying. How about Luke when Vader was dying? Where was this knowledge obtained? A simple explanation, a sentence, even a few words saying that Luke had discovered this from Force-Ghost Yoda would have at least helped.

Lest we forget that JJ Abrams resurrected the single biggest villain in the entire galaxy and one of the most iconic characters in movie history and DIDN'T SAY HOW. 

And of course, there's the plot convenience of the dagger happening to line up with debris of a broken Death Star that probably should have moved over the last thirty years, Anakin's lightsaber that was clearly split in two and is now back with no explanation... 

This film is a disaster. 

And yet, it was still enjoyable. Once I was able to sit back and enjoy the numbing action of Star Wars lightsabers swinging at each other, or giant star destroyers fighting the scrappy Resistance, I had a good time. But there is something to be desired when you watch the Anakin v. Obi-Wan fight compared to any battles in this new trilogy. Even if the movies were not nearly as good, you can feel the emotion, the bond, the struggle between those two characters as they fight. 

At the end of the day, I just wish that the people behind the film had the presence of mind to have a plan. To hash out a story that spanned 3 films and THEN go for it. The ONE SCENE would have made this movie infinitely better isn't even a scene in this movie, but a hypothetical scene in Episode 8. If, at the end of Episode 8, there was a cackle coming from an intercom and Palpatine's voice calling out to Kylo Ren saying that he had fulfilled his training in killing Snoke, THAT would have made this movie infinitely better. Now, Palatine's return feels earned, even if it wasn't explained.

But this is what we got instead. And for better or for worse, the Skywalker Saga is now over. 

You Cannot Have a Good Film Without Good Music (Editorial)

You Cannot Have a Good Film Without Good Music (Editorial)

Name one feature length film that you absolutely adore that you remember having bad music. Chances are, either your favorite films have music so amazing that you can't help but think about it OR you simply forgot about the music altogether. And the fact that the vast majority of us don't even notice the orchestral movie score 90 percent of the time shows that we, as a society, have taken film scores for granted. You don't remember when it's bad because you simply don't remember it being there at all.

If you disagree with the title of this article, chances are it's because you simply don't remember the music. If you find yourself thinking of your favorite film and try to think about the music in it, you just don't remember. And that has nothing to do with the music itself but rather the fact that we just don't pay attention as much as we should.

The fact that films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Jurassic Park (coincidentally, or not, composed by the same person...) have such iconic, recognizable music is because John Williams is able to transcend the human consciousness and elevate any scene that is put in front of him. Recently, Avengers: Endgame, whose score was composed by Alan Silvestri, was much the same.

In order to fully illustrate my point, I feel the only way to do so is to think of your favorite movie, or even movie scene, and imagine that there is no music there. Perhaps it is a scene that does not have music underscoring it at all, but more likely than not, there's a bombastic, or perhaps quiet orchestral score that highlights the emotions of the character and the mood and tone of the film. 

Think of the epic Portals scene in Avengers: Endgame. Think about all the Avengers assembling together, appearing out of the portals, returning from their momentary deaths. Think of Captain America saying "Avengers Assemble" and the entirety of the MCU charging at Thanos and his army. Think about all the raw emotion that that scene conjures up within you. Now imagine it without music. Perhaps you don't even remember what the music was. In which case, you truly have been taking the music for granted. But the score from that scene has become synonymous with the scene that chances are, you at least vaguely remember the music. Imagine if that bombastic, energizing, high-octane orchestra had been replaced by something mediocre. Something that was just noticeable, but just barely. 

The reason that John Williams has become so iconic among the film composers is not just because he composes wonderful music (which of course, he does). It is rather because he is able to infuse his music so seamlessly into the scene, but then elevate it and take it to the next level. Perhaps we also have Williams to blame for taking music in film for granted. Because his seamless integration allows to experience the scene holistically while also appreciating the music.

Music is integral. it permeates our culture, it reaches our souls. It has the power to change how we feel on a dime. There is no doubt that music is one of the most powerful tools in the hands of a director. And how the director and composer decide to utilize it can make or break a scene, or even an entire film.

The next time you watch a film, I would challenge you to listen for the music and see how it integrates itself into the movie. Is it so mediocre that you barely notice it? Have you heard that "musical phrase" thousands of times before? Or perhaps do you begin to realize that you feel a certain way because of the musical notes playing underneath.

Either way, whether or not you realize it, music in film is manipulating you to feel a certain way. And that is why film cannot exist without music. 

Avengers: Endgame - How Many Predictions Did I Get Right?

Avengers: Endgame - How Many Predictions Did I Get Right?

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS: ENDGAME LIE AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**

It's fair to say that many of us had plenty of predictions going into Avengers: Endgame, myself included. I made a list of ten predictions that I thought would come true in Avengers: Endgame, which you can check out HERE. But now that the film has been out for awhile, it's time to revisit how many of these predictions I got right and wrong.

RIGHT: Present-Day Thanos Is In Less Than 30 Minutes of the Movie: Bingo. My prediction came true in about fifteen minutes, as the Avengers head to Titan 2, or the Garden as they call it, and Thor promptly cuts of Thanos' head. I knew that the Thanos we were seeing in Endgame wasn't going to be the same one that we saw in Infinity War, and by the time the "5 years later" title card came up, this prediction had already come to pass. 

RIGHT: Steve Wields a Form of Mjolnir: Wouldn't you know it, but this became one of the highlight moments of the entire film. When the hammer lifts into the air, I knew immediately where it was going. What's interesting is that the image shown above was almost directly replicated in the film to a certain extent, which made me extremely happy. The MCU had been hinting at Cap's worthiness before, and Endgame only proved the point. 

WRONG: Steve Dies: I think my misguided senses were telling me that because of the sacrifices that Captain America had to make in the previous films, that this would be his big moment. But it turned out that Iron Man would be the one to bite the dust because of a big sacrifice play. All the sacrifices prior in the MCU were actually leading up to Steve living a happy, healthy life with Peggy in the past, almost the exact opposite of what I had thought would come to pass.

WRONG: (A Version of) The Young Avengers: I would give myself half credit on this, depending on where the MCU goes. True, we didn't see the actual Young Avengers in Endgame. But I still believe they were heavily hinting at a version of the team. I think that with the inclusion of Morgan Stark, Cassie Lang, and Harley Keener, I think there were some hints into the future of MCU Avengers. 

WRONG: Thor Goes to Hel: I'll admit, this was based on some wishful thinking and some speculation that really had no foundation to them. There were some rumors earlier that Thor would be heading to Hel in the new film and that's where he would get Loki and Hela to come to the final battle. I admit that was completely wrong, and I whiffed badly on that one. 

HALF-RIGHT: The Avengers Fight Thanos (from the past) on Xandar: The Avengers do indeed fight Thanos from the past. Just not on Xandar. I had mistaken that ashen wasteland to be part of Xandar, when in reality, it was the Avengers HQ. But I still did call that that was a past version of Thanos. 

WRONG: Dimension Hopping: We all knew that there would be some sort of reality/time/dimension altering that would be going on in order to save the universe. I just always assumed that Time Travel would be way too obvious. It was due to the fact that it was my first thought that I dismissed it. But, they did indeed utilize time travel. 

WRONG: Hulk Goes BESERK: Out of all the predictions I got wrong, this one hurts me the most. I still deeply and truly wish that this had happened, and to be quite honest, I have no idea why it didn't. I guess Marvel has more plans for Hulk; it's just that it seemed as though the Russos were directly setting up a HUGE rematch between Hulk and Thanos. But we'll never get to see it. 

RIGHT: The Dusted Return (By the Beginning of the Third Act): Boom. They actually return during the second act, if you think about it, but they SHOW UP in the third act. Regardless, they do return, thanks to Bruce, and they come to join the battle at the very beginning of the third act. 

RIGHT: Avengers Assemble: If Marvel had not fulfilled this wish in the film that promised us everything that we had ever hoped and dreamed for from the 21 films previous, I think there would have been outrage. But, they did it; Marvel delivered on one of the most famous comic book lines in history, uttered by none other than Steve Rogers. 

Avengers: Endgame is in theaters now. 

Avengers: Endgame - How Does *SPOILER* Work?

Avengers: Endgame - How Does *SPOILER* Work?

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS: ENDGAME LIE AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**

Avengers: Endgame left little to be desired when the credits began to roll. We had satisfying conclusions to the two main characters' arcs, as Tony finally got the opportunity to rest and Steve got to live the life that he deserved. And the final hour and a half of the film will probably be remembered in history as one of the greatest parts of any comic book movie ever. But one question has arisen from the ashes of Endgame; how does the time travel actually work? 

To be completely transparent, I personally believe the Russos and Markus and McFeely (screenwriters for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame) don't quite understand their own mechanics either. They've gone on record in interviews and have contradicted each other. And to be fair to them, time travel is one of the messiest plot devices ever in film. It's been tried before, and what we've come to realize is that in order to make time travel work, you should essentially follow two principles: 1) make it as simple as possible so the audience can understand it, and 2) follow your own rules.

It turns out, though, that Avengers: Endgame doesn't follow either account. Now, with that mind, I would like to personally interject and say that I think that the payoff and the rewards for fudging the rules and finding loopholes was well worth it. Without bending their own rules, Steve Rogers wouldn't have gotten his happy ending, and while, yes, I think it should have been done a different way, there was no other way to end Captain America's story. 

Examining the intricacies of the story and what the characters explain throughout the movie, this is what I believe the Russos were intending for the rules of time travel to be.

• Traveling to the past does not affect your PRESENT self. When you travel to the past, you affect that "reality" but not your own, meaning you could essentially mess up that reality but not affect your own.
• However, as the Ancient One explains, once a major event is tampered with, that reality that is affected (ie, 2012 New York) will branch off and become an alternate reality
• Meaning, when Loki took the Tesseract, the reality no longer became in the same streamlined reality as the 2023 Avengers (more on this later)
• So in order to maintain that reality, Steve Rogers would have had to give all the stones back in the moment they were taken as to avert suspicion and thus keep the flow of time

These assumptions are all explained by various characters throughout the film (Tony, Bruce, and the Ancient One). But, going back to what I said earlier, in order to make time travel effective, you have to follow your own rules.

And while a few these points that I'm about to make don't blatantly break the rules, they leave the door open a little too widely. Absolutely, they can be explained later, and I believe they will be, but the fact remains that as of right now, they don't fit.

When the Avengers (Tony, Scott, Bruce, and Steve) fail to get the Tesseract, it turns out that Loki grabs it and runs. Which is fine and well, except the Avengers return to their present timeline, and all of a sudden, none of this makes sense. Let's assume Loki grabbing the Tesseract opens up a branch reality. The only way to close that is for Steve to go and get the Tesseract from him, take him back to the Avengers without being seen, and have him delivered back to Asgard so the events of Thor: The Dark World can play out. Again, this technically isn't breaking the rules, but it opens up a whole wormhole of possible explanations, which I'm sure Disney will be explaining in the Loki series.

But then that complicates things further. At the end of the film, Steve goes back in time to deliver the stones back to where they found them. There are actually quite a few problems with this. One of them being, the stones were taken from different points in time and in different locations, and there is no indication that Steve had multiple Pym particles and knew exactly how to get to each location. And even if he did, the fact of the matter is that he would have to go to 2014, 2013, and 2012 before heading back to the 1940s with Peggy. This doesn't line up with Bruce's comment of "He blew right by his time stamp". What does that mean? Does that mean Bruce sent him to a particular time in the past and as time went on he just continued right past where he was supposed to go? Again that opens an entire new can of worms.

But let's assume everything went swimmingly and Steve went back to 2012 to give the Tesseract back. Well, it turns out that there are now two realities existing; one in which loki has the Tesseract, and another in which the Tesseract was never lost in the first place. Because Loki didn't alter the current reality (since the events remained the same in the current timeline). So in essence, instead of Steve jumping back in time, he actually jumped into a different reality.

Which then begs the question - how did Steve live out his entire life and end up BACK IN THE CURRENT REALITY? That really undoes all of the explanations that were given earlier by the Ancient One and by Bruce in Avengers Headquarters. The writers have said that Peggy's husband all along was Steve Rogers, and that Cap was just completing a loop; that's fine, except that loop would have been completed in an ALTERNATE reality. Which is also fine (It really isn't, but we'll pretend it is) except then old-man Cap would never have been able to show up to the present, "Earth-616" reality. 

What I'm trying to say, in all of this, is that time travel rarely makes sense. Avengers: Endgame tried hard to make it work, but ultimately it failed. And that's okay. If you're going into a time travel movie, you need to have some suspension of disbelief. The fact of the matter is that the payoff was well worth it. And so, while Avengers: Endgame failed in this one regard, it succeeded in so many more.

Avengers: Endgame is in theaters now.

The Rise of Skywalker - Who Does the Title Reference?

The Rise of Skywalker - Who Does the Title Reference?

Star Wars finally has a title for the ninth episode, and it's The Rise of Skywalker. And with it, comes eight months of speculation; what does it mean? We're going to break down a few possibilities of who/what the title references.

Kylo (Ben Solo/Ben Skywalker): Ben Solo is really is a Skywalker. The Skywalker blood flows through him, and even Snoke acknowledges this in Episode 8, referencing his grandfather Darth Vader. It's entirely possible that Episode 9 insinuates Kylo Ren's rise to power and him taking up the mantle of his grandfather, Skywalker. Maybe rise is just referring to the First Order's rise to power underneath Supreme Leader Skywalker. 

Rey?: While Episode 8 clearly debunked the theory that Rey was a Skywalker, I'm just putting this in there as an obligatory theory. There's always a chance, however small, that Rey actually is a Skywalker. Fans have been predicting this since Episode 7. But I personally think this is the theory with the least credibility. 

Anakin: This is personally the one that I want to happen the most. I think that Anakin Skywalker has remained very, very quiet in the sequel trilogy. His counterpart, Darth Vader, has remained a looming presence, but Anakin himself has been quiet. And I think it's time to give Hayden his due. I thought all along that Hayden was coming back in the sequel trilogy in some way, shape or form, but since he hasn't appeared in the previous two films, I think it's time for his return. 

Palpatine?: Is there something the Emperor wasn't telling us? It has been confirmed through canon that he was the one who initiated Anakin's birth through the force. Perhaps he's somehow connected to all of this in this mess of a family tree. It's not very likely either, but I think it's more likely than Rey being a Skywalker. 

Luke: One of the most obvious picks is Luke. He just had his big movie, but he also died before really getting a huge action scene, which a lot of fans seemed to want. So perhaps this is it; perhaps Luke, as a Force Ghost, is going to get his due and wreck some shop in the final act. Perhaps this really is the rise of Luke. 

Leia: On a more plausible side, Leia is still alive. And Episode 9 was always meant to be her film, and even though Carrie Fisher sadly passed away a couple years ago, JJ insists that there's enough footage to give her a role in the movie. Perhaps Leia will finally take the mantle of Skywalker and be the hope that the Galaxy needs. 

A New Order: This is an interesting theory that could have some plausibility. Perhaps Skywalker will become the new "Jedi" or "Sith": a new branch of Force users. This is interesting because it means Rey could take the mantle of Skywalker without actually being one. She could end the film by training the next generation of "Jedi" now known as "Skywalkers". Then again, if this really is the end of the Skywalker saga, I don't think it would be smart to end off the film with a new WAVE of Skywalkers. 

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker hits theaters on December 20th, 2019.

The Rise of Skywalker - What Role Could Palpatine Have?

The Rise of Skywalker - What Role Could Palpatine Have?

Perhaps the biggest reveal from the first teaser for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker and perhaps the entirety of Star Wars Celebration was the fact that Emperor Palpatine will return in the last film of the Skywalker saga. But what does this mean for the film? What kind of a role is he going to have in the upcoming film?

It's important to note that none of the footage or the interviews seemed to indicate that Palpatine was actually alive. In a world were ghosts do exist, it's entirely possible that Sheev will be returning, but from the spiritual/ghost world, not as a physical reincarnation. While we don't know that the Sith have the power to return as Force Ghosts, JJ could introduce a whole slew of new Sith powers if he so chose, and it could be retconned that Sith can appear as a Force Ghost of some sort. Maybe he will be haunting Kylo the entire film.

But then again, it seems like Palpatine will really have a more substantial role than just a ghost. Let's look back at Revenge of the Sith. Sidious tells Anakin about the story of Darth Plagueis the Wise, who was able to defeat death allegedly, but was killed by his apprentice. It is alluded to that his apprentice was actually Palpatine himself. BUT, what if Palpatine actually was able to unlock the secret to eternal life before he killed his master. Perhaps that is how he's able to survive. 

There's the other possibility that he simply survived the fall down the elevator shaft and got into a fighter, leaving the Death Star before it exploded, where he bided his time in the Outer Rim. I would not be surprised in the slightest if it was revealed that Palpatine and Snoke were associated in some way, whether it was a master, apprentice relationship or something of the sort.

But what does all this imply for the story? Let's just assume that he's going to be alive in some capacity in a physical form. There is the possibility that he and Kylo go after Rey, but I personally don't believe that's the case. I think what would be more narratively interesting was if he was the binding force that temporarily brought Kylo and Rey together to fight a greater evil. 

The higher-ups at Lucasfilm have been saying that this film will wrap the entire saga together, and I presume that this includes the maligned prequel trilogy. So it would be very, very interesting if Palpatine really was the "big-bad" of all NINE films rather the first six. 

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker hits theaters on December 20th, 2019. 

My Statistical Predictions for Avengers: Endgame

My Statistical Predictions for Avengers: Endgame

I love putting together predictions for films and seeing how accurate, or not, they are going to be. And with the biggest film in recent memory coming out this week, and one of the most anticipated films of all time for me personally, I wanted to make some quick predictions before the film opens. I've already made 10 predictions that are more story and content-based, but this time, these predictions revolve around numbers (box office, critical reception, etc.). I'll revisit both sets of predictions after the film comes out to see how well I did; without further ado, let's jump in.

Domestic Opening Weekend Gross: $287 Million

Worldwide Opening Weekend Gross: $850 Million

Total Domestic Box Office: $840 Million

Total Worldwide Box Office: $2.35 Billion

Cinemascore: A

Rotten Tomatoes Percentage: 91 Percent

Avengers: Endgame hits theaters on April 26th, 2019.

Shazam! - What do the Credits Scenes Mean?

Shazam! - What do the Credits Scenes Mean?

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SHAZAM! LIE AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**

Shazam! was a delightful film in the DCEU, and easily one of the best out of the bunch. And, like other comic book films, it has a couple of credits scenes. Let's break them down, looking at what they mean for the future of the DCEU.

Mid-Credits Scene

In the mid-credits scenes, we see Doctor Sivana in prison, writing the ancient runes to get his power back. His writings cover the entirety of the cell, and he's frantically writing until his pencil snaps and he screams in frustration.

We then hear a metallic, robotic voice coming from a corner of the room. The voice laughs and says something along the lines of "We're going to have a lot of fun", before the screen goes to black. When the camera pans up, we see a worm or a caterpillar or some sort, with a device around his neck. 

While I, along with many, were extremely confused with his appearance at first, this is a famous Shazam arch-nemesis known as Mister Mind. The villain has appeared previously in comics and is associated with Black Adam, who will be played by none other than Dwayne Johnson. Now, with the massive success of the film, there is little doubt that a sequel will head into development very soon. Dwayne Johnson has been saying that he's signed on to play Black Adam, but now it looks like he actually will be.

It's also interesting to note that Doctor Sivana has been kept alive - will Mister Mind be the next major villain with Black Adam and Doctor Sivana? Mister Mind would be a stretch for the DCEU to adapt, but then again, we've seen weird before.

Post-Credits Scene

The post-credits scene is a gag scene that was seen in parts of the trailers. It was probably cut and put in the post-credits after the success of Aquaman. We see Shazam and Freddy discussing his powers, probably during the second act of the film. The two are discussing whether or not Shazam can talk to fish, to which he responds that it's a stupid power, before remembering Aquaman.

It's a cute little gag that pokes fun at the most recent DCEU film, but really has no significance to the larger story. Still, it's nice to see references to both Superman, Batman, and Aquaman in a more "self-contained" film.

Shazam! is in theaters now. 

Shazam! - Breaking Down the Shocking Surprise

Shazam! - Breaking Down the Shocking Surprise

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SHAZAM! AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED**

Shazam! contained some wonderful surprises as well as many unexpected twists and turns. But perhaps there was none more surprisingly than what happened in the lats scene of the film. Again, this is your last chance to leave before one of the best scenes in the entire film is spoiled for you.

In the last scene of the film, Shazam heads to lunch with Freddy Freeman, like he had promised he would earlier. He plays it off, and it's a nice pay-off to what happened earlier in the film, where Freddy needed Shazam the most. However, Shazam's not alone, ""I hope it's okay, I brought a friend," he says dryly as none other than the Man os Steel, Superman, steps onto the screen. He sits down next to Freddy who lets out a scream and the film ends.

It's great to see Superman back on the big screen again. HOWEVER, it doesn't actually mean much when looking deeper into it. There's a reason that Superman wasn't shown from the head-up. Henry Cavill and Warner Bros. were having some disputes over the role and his contract, and after recent reports that Cavill was out as Superman, it looks like he won't be playing the Man of Steel anymore. That's why we don't get to see him in the actual scene. 

But it's important to note that Superman is THE main player of the Justice League. And Shazam being included in the same scene as him shows that Warner Bros. may not be done with the shared-universe idea after all. Then again, who knows? This could have just been a nice wink-and-a-nod, and nothing more than that. We'll have to see where this scene takes Billy Batson in the future as we move towards the next slate of DCEU films. 

What Does James Gunn's Rehiring Mean for GOTG 3 and the MCU?

What Does James Gunn's Rehiring Mean for GOTG 3 and the MCU?

James Gunn is back! Marvel fans rejoice as the director, who had been previously booted by Disney due to comments he made on Twitter many years previous. But he's back now, and is set to direct Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3. What does this mean for the MCU going forward? Are we set to see some changes?

It's important to note that first, before James Gunn was fired from Disney, he was one of the most important figures in the Marvel hierarchy. He and Kevin Feige worked closely with directors such as the Russo Brothers to craft the overall narrative of the MCU, and he was specifically in charge of the cosmic side. So it's interesting that since he has now returned, we have a leader and a visionary who will be dealing with the space elements moving forward.

Kevin Feige has said that the MCU moving forward will be dealing a lot with cosmic elements, which makes sense with characters like Captain Marvel entering the fray. Could James Gunn be overseeing, or even directing a Captain Marvel 2 sometime in the future? It's possible. What could be even more likely is Captain Marvel joining forces with the Guardians of the Galaxy at a certain point.

What we do know is that James Gunn's script was going to be used no matter who was going to direct the film. And so, his ideas and visions for the film were always going to be included. This means that Adam Warlock, who was teased at the end of volume 2, would or would not have been in the film regardless of who was directing. The more important impacts of Gunn returning lie not in the story implications, but rather the behind-the-scenes implications.

It's hard to know, especially with the film not being released yet, how much influence Gunn had over Avengers: Endgame and his Guardian character. We know the dusted will mostly return, and that probably means Quill, Drax, Mantis, and Groot. What adds an even more interesting wrinkle into this fold is that Dave Bautista, who plays Drax, wanted out of his role as soon as he heard Gunn was not going to be returning. That's why I put him as my most likely to die in Endgame. But now that Gunn is back, I think Bautista is actually one of the least likely to die. For all the headaches that he's given Disney and Marvel, Gunn is the reason that Bautista enjoys being in these films, and I think that now he's back, Bautista would quit if he WASN'T in GOTG 3.

Aside from that, not much is being said about Gunn's involvement at the present. He still has to direct The Suicide Squad, and that will remain his priority for the time being, but when he gets back to GOTG 3, we will be looking forward to that in great anticipation. 

Captain Marvel - What Do the Post-Credits Scenes Mean?

Captain Marvel - What Do the Post-Credits Scenes Mean?

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR CAPTAIN MARVEL LIE AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED **

Captain Marvel is making news at the box office, mashing all kinds of records, as we head closer and closer to Avengers: Endgame. And, as with all Marvel films, Captain Marvel has a couple of credits scenes following the ending of the film. Let's break them down, looking at what they each mean for the MCU moving forward as well as for Captain Marvel. 

Mid-Credits Scene

This could quite possibly be one of the best credits scenes in the entirety of the MCU. We open the scene with the Avengers staring at some monitors. We see Steve, Banner, and Natasha, as they look at the number of the dead increasing by the second. Rhodey comes in from another room and tells them that they have to see something. They go to the room and we see Nick Fury's pager, first seen in the end-credits scene of Avengers: Infinity War. It's shut off. They begin discussing how to reboot the pager, with Natasha responding that if Fury thought it was important, then it must be important. She turns around and boom, Carol Danvers is standing right in front of her. "Where's Fury?" she says coldly, and the screen fades to black.

There are a few interesting notes and points to be taken from this quick scene. Does it take place during Avengers: Endgame? Or before? It would be an interesting move if this scene took place before Avengers: Endgame. What would the reaction be of those who hadn't seen Captain Marvel and have no idea who she is? Would they be able to accept her quickly? It's hard to say. I could easily see this being one of the first scenes of the film as well.

But there are a few other things that throw the timeline off - Steve Rogers still has his beard. As far as I know, this is the only time in any of the marketing material for Avengers: Endgame that Steve has his beard. This lends to the theory that this scene takes place before Endgame. Natasha also has her blonde hair. So regardless of when this takes place, we know that Carol Danvers will be in most of Endgame UNLESS the Russos are taking liberties and using CGI to throw us off again. This isn't that likely though, because the Avengers are shown counting the dead. It looks like it would take place right after Avengers: Infinity War.

It's also interesting to note that Carol Danvers looks older. Her suit is different, with a few more gold streaks lining the outside of the suit. Her hair is straight now, and she has tis maturity about her. It could be a sign of her adventures that she went on. 

And how did the Avengers get the pager? This probably isn't important, but it's interesting to note that the Avengers returned to New York and found the pager between Infinity War and Endgame.

Regardless, seeing the Avengers with Captain Marvel is only helping to increase the excitement for the upcoming film. All questions will be answered in just a couple weeks. 

Post Credits Scene

This scene is not much of anything. We see Goose, back in Fury's office. It looks like Fury's office relatively close to the events of Captain Marvel, with a 90's style monitor on the desk. He pauses for a moment, before beginning to choke, as most cats often do with hairballs. But instead of coughing up a hairball, Goose coughs up the Tesseract. 

So what does this mean? Not much. It ties up a couple of loose ends. How did the Tesseract get from Goose's stomach to Project Pegasus again at the beginning of The Avengers? Goose spit it up at some point and gave it to Fury. 

Now this does bring up another interesting point; assuming that this scene takes place a little after Captain Marvel and not knowing the lifespan of a Flerken, what if Goose shows up in Avengers: Endgame? It's an abstract theory, but what if Carol goes back to look for Fury and she finds Goose? Who knows? Anything's possible. 

Captain Marvel is in theaters right now. Avengers: Endgame will hit theaters on April 26th, 2019. 

Captain Marvel - What Does the Film Mean for Avengers: Endgame?

Captain Marvel - What Does the Film Mean for Avengers: Endgame?

**MAJOR SPOILERS FOR CAPTAIN MARVEL LIE AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED**

Captain Marvel was not one of the quieter MCU in terms of connections to the larger universe. The film had many tie-ins and easter eggs that cemented its status to the 20 films preceding it. But what do the events of the movie mean for the next film, and the last one of Phase 3, Avengers: Endgame?

As we saw in the film, the main energy source that was powering Dr. Lawson's/Mar-vell's engine was indeed the Space Stone itself, the Tesseract. None of us really expected that an infinity stone to show up, especially since the film took place years before Infinity War and all the infinity stones had been revealed. But the space stone, as it turns out, is the key to Carol Danver's powers.

This provides some interesting possibilities for Endgame. There is another super powerful MCU character whose powers are derived from an infinity stone; Scarlet Witch (another one if you count Vision, but I think he's pretty firmly dead). Perhaps this can be a key to defeating Thanos; we saw Scarlet Witch single-handedly fend off the Mad Titan while blasting the mind stone at the same time. Maybe with both characters on screen fighting, the Avengers will stand a chance.

Or, perhaps, on the other side of the spectrum, perhaps this will be what Thanos will use against them. Perhaps there's a way that Thanos can manipulate Carol because her powers come from an infinity stone. This could potentially neutralize one of the most powerful characters in the MCU, leaving the Avengers with their backs against a wall again.

Other than that, Captain Marvel remains relatively self-contained. There is a slight possibility that Monica Rambeau, daughter of Maria Rambeau and superhero in the comics, may appear in Endgame. She is going to be older at the time of Endgame, and assuming she doesn't get dusted, she could play an integral role in Carol's presumably short re-assimilation to earth when she meets the Avengers. 

Of course, there's always the possibility that Goose the Cat is the one that kills Thanos. Wouldn't that be something.

Avengers: Endgame hits theaters on April 26th, 2019. 

Oscars 2019 - My Predictions

Oscars 2019 - My Predictions

The day has come once again. The biggest night in Hollywood; the 91st Academy Awards. And as is custom for me, I make predictions on which actors and crews I think will win the major awards. So, to put it on record for the very first time before the show begins, here are my picks to win the Oscars for the biggest categories. Keep in mind that I have omitted some of the more obscure categories simply because I don't know enough about any of the nominees. Before sure to come back just before 5 PM PST right here to read the live blog of the Oscars. My picks are: 

Best Picture: Roma

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Roma)

Best Actor: Viggo Mortensen (Green Book)

Best Actress: Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) 

Best Adapted Screenplay: If Beale Street Could Talk

Best Original Screenplay: Green Book

Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Green Book)

Best Supporting Actress: Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk)

Best Original Song: Shallow (A Star is Born)

Best Animated Picture: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Best Original Score: Mary Poppins Returns

Best Cinematography: Roma 

Best Costume Design: Black Panther

Best Sound Editing: A Quiet Place

Best Sound Mixing: Bohemian Rhapsody

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Mary: Queen of Scots

Best Visual Effects: Ready: Player One

Best Film Editing: Green Book

Best Production Design: Mary Poppins Returns

Enjoy the show everyone!

(Merry Christmas!) What Constitutes a Christmas Movie?

(Merry Christmas!) What Constitutes a Christmas Movie? 

Merry Christmas! May you be blessed on this wonderful day and have time to reflect on the blessings given to you this holiday season! In honor of Christmas, I wanted to settle a debate, or at least give my own opinion on the matter. What qualifies a movie as a "Christmas movie"?

The debate has raged long and hard. This really began when a member of my family reminded me of a particular case. Is Diehard a Christmas movie? 

Many people seem to think so. But I am on the opposite side of that coin. I don't think Diehard should be considered a "Christmas movie".

Now, I understand that at this point, we're really just arguing semantics. I completely know what I'm getting myself in, but please indulge me in this. I think that saying a "Christmas movie" is equivalent to saying a "Robert Downey Jr." movie. What does it mean when we say "Oh, that's a 'Robert Downey Jr.' movie"? In my opinion, simply this - that the film headlines and showcases Robert Downey Jr. for the majority of the runtime and highlights him because he's integral to the film. So for example, Iron Man 1, 2, and 3 are "Robert Downey Jr." films. Spider-Man: Homecoming is not a "Robert Downey Jr. movie" under this definition because, yes, he is in the movie and he has a role that you could consider important, but it really is "Tom Holland's movie". I think even calling Captain America: Civil War a "Robert Downey Jr." film is incorrect in this case because the film is headlined by Chris Evans. 

I think essentially the same definition applies. If the film doesn't highlight Christmas, and if Christmas isn't integral to the plot, I cannot, in good faith, consider it a "Christmas movie". Again, there are varying degrees of this. For example, Diehard does utilize the Christmas setting, indeed, but it is not integral to the storyline, at least not in a truly, truly meaningful way. I would equate Diehard to Captain America: Civil War in this case. Robert Downey Jr. is a very, very important part of Captain America: Civil War, but I would argue that it's not a "Robert Downey Jr." film. 

Let's cross over the two ideas. Iron Man 3 takes place during Christmas. Would I consider it a "Christmas movie" then because it does? I don't think so. Because it's not important - it's not integral to the plot.

So - here's my bottom line: in order for me (and this is my opinion) to consider a film a "Christmas movie", it has to have Christmas highlight and heavily featured, as well as have Christmas be absolutely integral to the plot. 

Anyways, there's a little opinion piece to wrap up Christmas day. Enjoy the holidays! More posts will come through the rest of the winter - Happy Holidays! :)

Aquaman - What Does this Mean for the DCEU?

Aquaman - What Does this Mean for the DCEU?

**WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AQUAMAN LIE AHEAD. READER DISCRETION ADVISED. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED**

It's no secret that the DCEU has had its problems in the past. All of its films, save Wonder Woman, have been divisive at best, if not maligned. But fans have been holding out hope for Aquaman to set the DCEU straight. It looks as if DC is heading in a lighter, less brooding direction with films like Aquaman and Shazam. So now that Aquaman has hit theaters, what does this mean for the DCEU at large?

Well, to be quite honest, it does basically nothing.

Let's go back a few years. DC and Warner Bros had released a film called Man of Steel starring their crown jewel, Superman, with Zack Snyder at the helm. And, yes while the film was not the most unifying among the fans, it did well enough that Warner Bros felt they had enough reason to green-light Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and subsequently Suicide Squad.

Let's fast forward to right before Wonder Woman, and things are not looking so good. Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad were maligned by both critics and most audience members.  Wonder Woman was not looking so good. Everyone thought that it would be buried under the divisive nature of the DC fandom and general audience members.

Surprise, surprise, Wonder Woman grossed more than Batman v. Superman and EASILY was the best received film critically. So now we head into Justice League, and again DC hit a bump in the road. Justice League, while not hated nearly to the extent of BvS and Suicide Squad, was not loved by everyone either. Mixed in with the drama of Joss Whedon, Zack Snyder, and Ben Affleck wanting to leave the franchise, and the film slumped to a mere 600 million dollars, less than HALF of what the film was thought to have made only a couple years ago. Everyone was looking forward to a Justice League film as much as they were for The Avengers before the DCEU took off. 

So really, at this point, Aquaman was on its own. The film was shot around the same time as Justice League was being filmed, and was being directed by a great director, James Wan, but was mostly left under warps. 

Why is this important? Because Aquaman, as it existed then and as it exists now, does not matter and will not do anything to DC. If Aquaman makes 10 bucks or a billion, I don't believe that it means anything for the DCEU because DC is hell-bent on pushing forward and not rebooting despite all of their struggles. And because Aquaman was being filmed and made around the same time as Justice League, it really doesn't have any affect on how DC will choose to move forward. I don't even think Shazam will have that much of an effect either. I believe that what happens AFTER Shazam will give us a big clue to what's going on in the offices of Warner Bros. Although, one thing that was interesting is that Aquaman only mentions the rest of the DCEU once, when Mera mentions Steppenwolf. It looks like Shazam will not connect much to the larger DCEU either. We'll have to wait and see. 

Aquaman is in theaters now

Avengers 4 - What Does Endgame Mean?

Avengers 4 - What Does Endgame Mean?

The title for the fourth installment in the Avengers franchise has been revealed to be Endgame. But what does this mean? What are the implications of the title based on the trailer and the past MCU films? 

Endgame is a reference to a part of the game of chess. The end of the match brings the "endgame", where each side begins to make strategic sacrifices to capture and checkmate the opponent's king. So right away, there is a direct reference to the story. I think the theme of Endgame, as heavily hinted in Infinity War is going to be sacrifice.

"We don't trade lives, Captain." I don't think Vision realized just how wrong he was. 

I think the entirety of the plot will hinge upon the Avengers making sacrifices to checkmate Thanos and destroy the stones. I actually believe that Thanos' endgame has already been completed, or so he thinks. He already sacrificed his favorite daughter, Gamora, as well as four of his children (let's not forget that the Black Order were also his children), in order to achieve his goal, a goal that he believed to be noble and righteous. 

But now, the Avengers retaliate. And they're going to have to make sacrifices of their own. Does this mean Cap? Tony? Who knows, but there is no denying that sacrifices will be made. 

But there's another deeper meaning, I think. I think that, while endgame does reference the game of chess, it's more important to understand its context and where it came from in the MCU. 

Tony Stark (Avengers: Age of Ultron): "We're the Avengers. We can bust arms dealers all the live long day, but that out there. That's the endgame. How you were planning on beating that?"

Steve: "Together."

Tony: "We'll lose."

Steve: "Then we'll do that together, too."

I think that that's what Steve was referencing. Even though he and Tony didn't have any shared screen time in Infinity War, we do see this come to fruition. They both lost. And they lost together. In that scene, Tony is referencing Thanos and the greater threats, and Steve was right; they both lost on different fronts, one on Titan and one on Wakanda. So I think that the endgame may actually have already been set in motion before Stephen Strange uttered the words, "We're in the endgame now".

What does this mean for our heroes? We'll have to wait four short months to find out, but the future looks grim for Earth's Mightiest Heroes.