How A Dragon Ball GT Saga Can Help Dragon Ball Super

By Brandon T. McClure

Before series creator Akira Toriyama envisioned a tournament saga, Dragon Ball followed Goku and friends searching for the magical Dragon Balls. When brought together, the Dragon Balls can summon the mystical dragon Shenron who would grant one wish. Since then, the Dragon Balls have been used countless times to grant all kinds of wishes, from unlocking Piccolo’s latent potential, to, most recently, turning the Z fighters into kids. But more times than not the balls have been used to bring characters back from the dead. This specific use has caused the Dragon Ball franchise to develop a stakes issue in recent years. Luckily, the franchise had already dealt with this very issue once before.

Dragon Balls

When Dragon Ball Z was coming to an end in 1996, Toei animation had already developed a new follow up, titled Dragon Ball GT. This series would not be based on material created by Akira Toriyama, although he did provide character designs. Instead Dragon Ball GT was the brainchild of the writers and artists at Toei Animation, the animation company responsible for producing the Dragon Ball anime’s. The show was set after the epilogue of Dragon Ball Z and, in an attempt to recapture the feeling of adventure from the early Dragon Ball episodes, would introduce the Black Star Dragon Balls. These Dragon Balls would summon a massive red version of Shenron, called Ultimate Shenron, and would disperse across the universe after being used, which set off a galactic adventure (a Grand Tour some could say). The series would go on to introduce new villains like Baby, reintroduce old villains like Android 17, and of course introduce the famous Super Saiyan 4 transformation.

Arguably, Dragon Ball GT’s greatest contribution to the franchise was the final arc, dubbed The Shadow Dragon Saga. Due to the Dragon Balls' continued use over the decades, the Dragon Balls began to crack due to the massive amount of dark energy that had been stored in them. When Goku and his friends attempted to summon Shenron, smoke came from the balls and the Black Smoke Dragon rose in Shenron’s place. After refusing to grant any more wishes he split his essence into seven powerful shadow dragons representing the most selfish wishes ever made in the franchise. Goku and his friends had to track down and defeat each dragon before being able to cleanse the Dragon Balls. Now able to summon Shenron, the dragon explains that the Dragon Balls were never intended to be used as frequently as they had been; they were to be revered in a world where their power was unnecessary. At the end of the series, Shenron, Goku, and the Dragon Balls leave the Earth for 100 years in order to purge the balls of all the built-up negative energy. The final episode of Dragon Ball GT, titled "Goodbye, Goku… Until the Day We Meet Again" is often considered the best part of a much maligned series.

While the Shadow Dragon saga was meant as an ending for the franchise and Goku, that doesn’t have to be the case here. It’s not unreasonable to say that Dragon Ball Super has a stakes issue it inherited from Dragon Ball Z. As the rules of the Dragon Balls kept changing (remember when you couldn’t be brought back to life more than once?) they became more of a crutch than a benefit. Toriyama himself seemed to be aware of this since he wrote that Bulma almost exclusively uses the balls to make herself look younger. Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero even explains that she keeps the Balls all the time in order to prevent anyone who isn’t a main character from making any wishes. Sure, that means a supervillain couldn’t find them and wish for immortality, but it also takes the Dragon Balls away from being a serious plot element in the show. No matter what happens in the story, the Dragon Balls will always be there to fix it once the threat has been defeated.

While this problem is very prevalent in Dragon Ball Super, Dragon Ball Z had it as well. Throughout the various arcs of the show, Toriyama had to find ways to take the Dragon Balls off the table or limit their power. Krillin’s death at the hands of Frieza wouldn’t have felt nearly as impactful if he could be wished back with the Dragon Balls, which would have lessened the impact of the show's most iconic moment, Goku’s first Super Saiyan transformation. There are many moments like this in Dragon Ball Z that provided suspense for the audience because they weren’t sure if the Dragon Balls could be used. Fast forward to Dragon Ball Super, and while the battles are epic, there’s no real sense of danger to any of the characters. Shenron’s power has been greatly enhanced and he’s practically part of the family.

Dragon Ball Super: Broly left the door open to see more stories reinvented through Dragon Ball Super. In the original non-canon Dragon Ball Z films, Broly was an evil Saiyan who was motivated to kill Goku due to being stuck next to his pod as a baby. Toriyama was able to take the concept of the Legendary Super Saiyan and reimagine it in a more compelling way, which led to one of the most successful Dragon Ball films of all time. Like those original movies, it’s clear that Dragon Ball GT can no longer be canon, but the Shadow Dragons could be reinterpreted for a future arc within Dragon Ball Super. With two new sets of Dragon Balls introduced in Dragon Ball Super (one in the manga that hasn’t been adapted yet), and a new set introduced in Dragon Ball Daima, the franchise just keeps creating more powerful “get out of jail free” cards.

With, now six, sets of Dragon Balls (counting the Black Star Dragon Balls) known to the franchise, maybe making it harder for Goku and friends to use the Earth's Dragon Balls wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The abuse and overuse of the Dragon Balls are already in the text of the series so there’s no need to change that aspect of the story. Since Toriyama designed the Shadow Dragons himself, it would be easy to reuse the designs. The only difference would be the ending. Instead of Goku and Shenron going off for 100 years, perhaps defeating the Shadow Dragons causes the Z warriors to think twice before using the balls. Or maybe they won’t be able to use them for a certain number of years. Either way, this would be a fun way to take the Dragon Balls off the table for a bit and actually help the franchise bring back some stakes that are not just about which form Goku and Vegeta are going to reach next.

Now, mind you, death isn’t the only way to add stakes to a story but Dragon Ball Super has had a lot of fake-outs when it comes to death specifically, most recently Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero tried to make the audience feel like Piccolo could die at the hands of Cell Max. A move that ultimately felt emotionally hollow. While Master Roshi wasn’t revived with the Dragon Balls in the final arc of Dragon Ball Super, no one really felt he could actually be gone forever, even though his relevance in the series has long passed. All the universes that were destroyed in the final Dragon Ball Super arc were all wished back by the Super Dragon Balls. While it’s nice that those characters weren’t lost forever, a common complaint about the ending of the arc was that this move ultimately made the arc feel hollow. Admittedly, that’s the point of the arc, so whether you agree or disagree with the decision, it’s clear that fans are growing tired of the Dragon Balls being used as a crutch. 

There are five canon sets of Dragon Balls in the franchise now, not including the non-canon Black Star Dragon Balls. The Granolah Arc of the Dragon Ball Super manga makes the claim that any planet where a Namekian had settled could have its own set of Dragon Balls, meaning there could be any number of them out there in the universe. The dragon balls began as hard-to-find mystical orbs that often took a whole season to collect, but now they're so commonplace that Shenron feels like one of the gang. Dragon Ball Daima almost solidifies this by explaining Shenron will grant more wishes to his “regulars.” It makes it easy for Goku and friends to get crazy wishes like bringing back the dead or making yourself look five years younger. Hell, sometimes they just summon Shenron to ask him a question. If something is beyond his power Dende can just upgrade him at will. It’s not the only way to fix this but using a version of the Shadow Dragon Saga in Dragon Ball Super could create a fun way to put some weight behind the Dragon Balls again.

Is a New Harry Potter Show the Right Move for Fans?

By Brandon T. McClure

When Game of Thrones was first adapted into a TV series, Harry Potter fans began wondering about the possibility of a series adaptation of Harry Potter. But a lot has changed in the 13 (going on 14) years since. Now it might not be such a great idea. 

In April 2023, 12 years after the final movie was released and 1 year since the end of the Fantastic Beasts trilogy, Warner Bros. Discovery announced that it had greenlit a series adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s world-famous novels. While there were certainly some excited voices, the temperature of the announcement was lukewarm at best, and due to Rowling's increasing unpopularity, this may prove to be another miscalculation from the struggling film studio.

The first Harry Potter movie came out in 2001 and launched an unbelievable phenomenon the likes of which have only been rivaled by the MCU. Adapted from the 1997 book of the same name Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, this marked the beginning of one of the most successful motion picture franchises of all time. Through 8 films in 10 years, not to mention the seven books, there was an entire generation that grew up with the franchise, characters, and actors. The hold the franchise has on the millennial generation cannot be understated. Warner Bros. was eager to continue the franchise beyond the books through a stage show, theme park experiences, and series of prequel movies, all under the “Wizarding World” brand and overseen by J.K. Rowling herself.

In 2013, Warner Bros. announced that they would be moving forward with a prequel film centered around the fictional author of the in-universe book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, which would also be the title of the film. Fans were, of course, excited by the prospect of more within the Wizarding World, especially since it was going to explore the American wizarding community in the 1920s. The film would mark the screenwriting debut of J.K. Rowling herself! The film was released in 2016 to fairly good reviews from both critics and audiences (74% and 79% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively) and went on to gross $814 million. Sure it wasn’t the $1.3 billion that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 went on to make, but it would have been silly to expect it to. Warner Bros. had a hit on their hands and immediately greenlit the sequel.

A month before the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, J.K. Rowling told fans at a Fantastic Beasts event that there are five films planned in this prequel series. Two years later, in 2018, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was released, but did not receive the same success its predecessor had. With only $654 million at the box office and a Rotten Tomatoes score of 36% (Critics) and 53% (Audience), things were not looking good for the sophomore outing of this prequel series. Then four years later, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore was released which would signal the end of J.K. Rowling’s prequel series.

In the time between the release of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling became a very unpopular figure. Beginning in 2018 she began down a “pipeline” that would reveal herself to be deeply, and viciously, transphobic. Millennials are often considered, with few exceptions, to be a mildly progressive generation. The reason for this is cited to be the media that they grew up with. Everything, including Harry Potter, taught lessons of inclusion and acceptance of other people's identities. So it was beyond disheartening when J.K. Rowling began spouting the belief that trans people don’t exist and are just “confused.” A timeline of her descent into transphobia was put together by theweek.com.

Many of the stars of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts movies, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Eddie Redmayne, and Katherine Waterston (who was written out of the third film likely for speaking out), immediately spoke out in support of trans people’s rights to exist and began to distance themselves from her (which she has taken very poorly). Many Harry Potter fan communities, such as MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, denounced Rowling’s views and tried to distance themselves from her as best they could. Melissa Anelli, of The Leaky Cauldron, told Variety that the reason why they haven’t updated their podcast was because “Every time we sit down to have a fun conversation about Harry Potter, the conversation becomes angry and depressing, and so we end up not publishing.” She continues by echoing the feelings many millennials have towards the Harry Potter creator: “It’s made it less pure and exciting and fun the way it used to be. All of that now has this layer of, ‘Right, but the person at the center of it all believes a certain faction of the population isn’t real.’” Any ethical consumption of the franchise is made difficult due to the amount of control she has over the franchise.

Her ravings and the poor quality of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald no doubt contributed to the general disinterest of audiences towards Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore. Making only $400 million at the box office, the lowest in the franchise’s history, and reaching only a 46% critics score (in fairness it does have an 83% audience score). After the release of the film, Warner Bros. Discovery decided to abandon their plans for five films and settled for three. However, many reasons can be attributed to the failure of the film. 2022 was still a pandemic year, and audiences might have still been hesitant to go to the theater (even though three films hit $1 billion). The main characters of the prequel franchise were also struggling to connect with audiences in the same meaningful way as those from the original series. Maybe fans just weren’t interested in Newt Scamander. But, regardless, J.K. Rowling had become a rather unpopular figure since she was also the main credited screenwriter (Steve Kloves did return to co-write the third film), and critics agreed that she wasn’t a very good one.

Regardless of how critics and audiences felt about her screenwriting, Warner Bros. Discovery is devoted to keeping her on board for the new series. A spokesperson for HBO told Variety that “[we] are proud to once again tell the story of Harry Potter — the heartwarming books that speak to the power of friendship, resolve and acceptance,” the statement continued. “J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” Variety also notes that her entire online personality has been consumed by her anti-trans rhetoric. Posting over 200 times about her hateful views on X in the past two months. Conversely, she’s only posted about Harry Potter 8 times in that same amount of time. 

Another aspect going against the new series is the fact that there’s no evidence to suggest that the post-millennial generations even care about Harry Potter. Millennials are fiercely devoted to Harry Potter, even willing to continue supporting the franchise despite Rowling’s views. However, a survey from Morning Consult suggests that Gen Z has a very different opinion of the franchise. Many have made fun of millennials for their continued obsession with Harry Potter, and only 14% have identified as fans themselves. Gen Alpha is even less likely to be interested in Harry Potter, and they’re the generation that will be represented in the series. The series could likely win them over, but it’s very clear that the fanbase is very heavily skewed towards millennials.

The new streaming series is going to sport an astronomical cost. The first season of Percy Jackson and the Olympians on Disney+, likely the untitled Harry Potter series contemporary, had a per-episode budget of $12 - $15 million. It’s unlikely the Harry Potter series will be made for less and the budget will only increase every season. If the goal for the series is to adapt a book a season, that’ll be seven seasons. In this current streaming market, shows rarely make it past three seasons. But, even with that said, the series will also air on HBO, rather than solely on Max. This means that the return doesn’t need to be quite as high as a streaming show. As Tylor Starr, Potter fandom expert and co-author of The Unofficial Harry Potter Vegan Cookbook, puts it “There are so many fans who deeply disagree with what Rowling is saying, but still want to engage in the Harry Potter fandom.” But the major question remains: Are millennials enough to get that return and will it attract Gen Z and Gen Alpha?

While the movies cast millennials in the lead roles, this new show will be looking to cast Gen Alpha in the roles of Harry, Ron, and Hermoine. But the landscape has drastically changed since the films came out. “You can’t fault somebody for wanting to do the job. But the internet and the fandom and the politics of it all are probably going to demand that they say something. If you don’t, people are going to automatically assume that you agree with Rowling,” Kat Miller, creative director of MuggleNet and coauthor of The Unofficial Harry Potter Companion says. She was mostly referring to the adult roles, but the same can also be applied to the child roles. Fans are often very outspoken on social media, and the comparisons they’ll likely make to the original film actors could potentially create a toxic environment for these kids. Kids who are 11-12 years old shouldn’t be subjected to that kind of environment.

There’s also the question of whether or not this is necessary. Like Disney remaking their beloved animated films into live-action, is there a demand for a more faithful adaptation of the books? The movies are so beloved by fans that it’s hard to imagine any other actors taking on those roles. Sure the books left many things out, but the consensus of the films is very positive. It’s incredibly unlikely that Warner Bros. Discovery could recapture the magic (pun intended) with this series. The movies are a generation-defining event, and the show will constantly be compared to them for however long it runs. With likely two years before each season’s release (just judging by the current production timeline of these types of shows), it’ll be hard for an audience to grow up with these actors, which was a large reason why the movies connected with audiences in the way that they did.

At the end of the day, who really knows how well this series will do? It’s aiming for a 2026 release and is currently being developed by Succession alums Francesca Gardiner, as showrunner, and Mark Mylod, as director. Casting is underway and a writer's room is being assembled. There is no stopping this series and WBD is determined to keep Rowling involved, despite many fan theories claiming they want to buy her out. The dismal quality of the Fantastic Beasts movies and her hateful personality/identity have clearly done some damage. But it's hard to know just how much until the series comes out. No matter what, HBO and Warner Bros. Discovery have an uphill battle ahead of them with this show.

Indominous Rex: The Perfect Jurassic Antagonist

By Brandon T. McClure

One of the opening scenes of Jurassic Park III has Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) giving a lecture to a group of people about the new discoveries that fossilized remains have revealed about raptors. He takes a question about the point of paleontology since there are two islands that hold real living dinosaurs. Grant responds to this young man by saying “what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters. Nothing more and nothing less.” This line would prove to be the entire thesis on which Jurassic World would be based. A thesis perfectly encapsulated by one dinosaur: Indominous Rex.

Since scientists are constantly discovering new things about the animals that lived 65 million years ago, the science that the Jurassic franchise is based on is wildly out of date. Jurassic Park is a technical marvel that continues to age like a fine wine every year, but paleo communities are constantly pointing out the various inaccuracies and it’s only gotten worse as the franchise continued well into the 21st century. By the time Jurassic World was developed, the many scientific theories about the creatures had become irrefutable, so then why don’t the dinosaurs of Jurassic World reflect the new scientific evidence? Why didn’t the Jurassic franchise update with the times? The reasons for this are at the very heart of what the Indominous Rex represents. 

Indominous Rex in Jurassic World

John Hammond's vision of what Jurassic Park could be was a wonderful place filled with majestic creatures that haven’t been seen in millions of years. That park failed, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Now that Jurassic World was open for ten years, visiting a dinosaur had become like visiting an elephant at the local zoo. In order to keep visitors interested, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), the owner of the park, requested a new dinosaur be built from scratch. A completely unnatural scientific creation that would be bigger and scarier than anything the natural prehistoric world could reveal. The Indominous Rex was designed by splicing together a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a Velociraptor, multiple other dinosaurs, and various modern animals that gave it unpredictable genetic traits, such as the ability to camouflage. Indominous Rex is not a dinosaur, she’s a “theme park monster”. She’s the bastardization of John Hammond's vision and the very idea of Jurassic Park taken to its most extreme.

 Jurassic World reminds the audience that it’s a thematic feature of the franchise that the dinosaurs don’t look “scientifically accurate.” Dr. Henry Wu (BD Wong) spells it out in a heated exchange with Masrani by simply saying “nothing in Jurassic World is natural”. Thanks to the gaps in the genetic codes that needed to be filled, the animals would never look the exact way they did 65 million years ago. A concept that was also explored in the TellTale point and click adventure game, Jurassic Park: The Game. In a way, every dinosaur on the island is some kind of hybrid, it’s just far less pronounced. For example, Blue is revealed to be genetically defective in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which is why she’s more responsive than other raptors.

Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum), Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) in Jurassic World: Dominion

As Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) says in Jurassic Park, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” At the time Dr. Malcom was talking about reviving dangerous super predators that haven’t been alive for millions of years, but now that line could apply to the scientists of Jurassic World. The new park could plan for any eventuality, they had multiple contingency plans in case the known dinosaurs got loose. The Indominous Rex was an unknown dinosaur, capable of abilities that were unpredictable. A genetically cloned dinosaur has millions of years of genetic coding that allows them to inherently know how to act and live. The Indominous, however, had none of that and had to discover it on her own. She had no genetic evolution encoded in her DNA and therefore had no concept of her place in the world.

The confusion in the Indominous Rex’s genetic code makes her far more dangerous than other dinosaurs. She doesn’t kill to hunt like a normal predator, she kills “for sport”. Everyone who ran and designed Jurassic World was so high on their own success that they felt they could handle anything. They knew they could design a dinosaur from scratch but, once again, they failed to ask if they should. Creation is a dangerous power that is incredibly unpredictable. They abused that power, and it fought back. In one single night, everything that was so carefully controlled and built was destroyed and returned to nature. Life will always find a way.

The Indominous Rex is the natural final step to the underlying theme laid out in Jurassic Park. She’s an unholy creature. Everything about her is trying to make the audience's skin crawl. Her skin is unnaturally white and her roar is strategically designed to make the audience uncomfortable. Her head is reminiscent of a skull and her jaw can open unnaturally wide. The Indominous may have been built from the genetic structure of real animals, but nothing about her is right. She is the antithesis of nature and the very thing the Jurassic franchise warns against. In another world, the Indominous Rex would have been a concept saved for Jurassic World: Dominion. Now that the hybrid dinosaur concept has been exploited three times (counting Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous), audiences are rather disinterested in the idea. The Jurassic franchise has always needed a “villain” dinosaur and they developed the perfect one far too soon. She truly was a “theme park monster.”

OPINION / Return of the Summer Blockbuster…sort of

By Patrick Nagy

It’s Memorial Day Weekend in the United States. A time we remember the soldiers of wars and battles past. It’s also is a time that feels like the kickoff of summer and since 1975, it’s the time of the Blockbuster! Technically the first Summer Blockbuster film Jaws was released on June 20th, but two years later Star Wars set the stage for what would be the launchpad for the big summer movie releases. Rambo: First Blood Part II, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men Days of Future Past, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Mission Impossible, Men in Black III, The Hangover II, Beverly Hills Cop II, Back to the Future III, Return of the Jedi…if it was a sequel to a success or featured a mega action star, it would be out Memorial Day Weekend.

Jaws

This year is a little different though. After two years of a pandemic, vast technology improvements, and just a basic shift on how entertainment is thought of and produced, the Summer Blockbuster is coming home. To your home that is. Sure there is still a push to get people back to theaters like the current release of the long awaited Top Gun: Maverick, but some of the most anticipated releases are from the streaming services. 

Disney+ comes out swinging with the unexpectedly adult humored Chip `N Dales Rescue Rangers full length film and the expanse of the Skywalker Star Wars timeline with Ewan McGregor starring in the Obi-Wan Kenobi limited series.

Chip `N Dales Rescue Rangers - Disney+

Paramount+ pushed up the streaming date of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 having only released less than two months ago in theaters.

HBO Max followed suit by releasing Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore hoping to find new life for the Harry Potter prequel after a disappointing theater run.

Netflix probably has the most anticipated return with the fourth season of their wildly popular Stranger Things franchise. Sticking with the batch release method, binge watchers should rejoice this three day weekend.

Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo), Mike (Finn Wolfhard) and Max (Sadie Sink) in Stranger Things S4

The point is, things are changing. In some ways entertainment is changing for the better, and in other ways not so much. Is this the last gasp of the super event movie theater summer Blockbuster we all come to love over the past 47 years? Is it the end of waiting in line for tickets to see that one big event movie opening day? The end of cheering, screaming, and applauding in sold out showings for our favorite characters on bigger than life screens while we sip on incredibly huge sodas while downing popcorn, and Junior Mints?

I sure hope not.

Television and films are better than ever, and I’m grateful for the convenience of streaming high definition images onto my large screen in the comfort of my living room, but next year when things are hopefully a little safer, I hope to go to the theater of rabid fans to see the next anticipated Summer Blockbuster. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 perhaps?! 

Disney Marvel - Guardians of the Galaxy

Jurassic World's Joker?

By Brandon T. McClure

The ending of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom promised a very different sequel. In the final moments of the 5th film in the long-running franchise that started with Jurassic Park, Maisie triumphantly decided that these animals deserved to live and freed them to roam the world. Jurassic World: Dominion picks up that thread and returns to a world now changed by these new dinosaurs roaming free. There are a number of new dinosaurs being introduced to the franchise with this film, including one of the largest carnivores that ever walked the Earth: the Giganotosaurus.

Giganotosaurus in Jurassic World Dominion

Fans who saw the IMAX screening of F9: The Fast Saga will probably remember the Jurassic World: Prologue that was available to see for a limited time. It introduced audiences to the prehistoric version of the Giganotosaurus (It’s the one that killed poor Rexy in her past life). Recently director Colin Trevorrow expanded more on what the Giganotosaurus’ role in Jurassic World: Dominion will be by explaining that the enormous dinosaur just “wants to watch the world burn”. With this quote, Trevorrow is channeling Michael Cain’s Alfred Pennyworth from The Dark Knight. He explained that he wanted something that felt like the Joker. But that’s certainly an odd way to describe something that is essentially an animal.

Interestingly, this goes back to a struggle that the Jurassic World films have been facing since the first reboot in 2015. An issue that might have even started in Jurassic World III. Villain dinosaurs have always been important for the franchise. In order to go through any sort of challenges, characters like Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) have to go up against some of the most dangerous predators this world has ever seen. The first two films, Jurassic Park and The Lost World: Jurassic Park relied on the Velociraptors with a healthy dose of Tyrannosaurus Rex action. Not wanting to go back to that well for a third time, director Joe Johnston and writers Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, and Jim Taylor, used the Spinosaurus and had him kill the Tyrannosaurus Rex to show how dangerous this new dinosaur could be.

Talk of a 4th Jurassic Park film started almost immediately after Jurassic Park III was released. From the beginning, talk of hybrid dinosaurs had dominated the discussions around the film. Initially, concept art pointed to the idea that there would be human/dinosaur hybrids that would be used in some sort of war scenario. Eventually, Colin Trevorrow came on board the project, and that idea evolved into the Indominus Rex. Not wanting to repeat the mistakes fans felt Jurassic Park III made by killing the Tyrannosaurus Rex and a plotline that relied heavily on hero Velociraptors, the Indominous Rex was created to fill the role of the “villain” dinosaur. The Indominous Rex was a large predator that was exploring its place in the world and was created because Masrani, the company that took over InGen, wanted to create something that would scare the visitors who they felt were beginning to get bored with the standard dinosaurs. It was an idea that was handled to the best of their abilities.

Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) in Jurassic World Dominion

In total, the franchise has created three hybrid dinosaurs. One being the Scorpious Rex from the Netflix animated spin-off Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous. Another included the Indo-Raptor from Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom which was portrayed as a truly evil and unhinged monster. Quite honestly, Indo-Raptor was not unlike the Joker. It’s refreshing that the creative team for Jurassic World: Dominion didn’t want to go back to the hybrid dinosaur route and going bigger makes a certain amount of sense, so it can go up against Rexy. But giving it the kind of motivation that villains in superhero films have seems like an odd choice for something that has something more in common with a crocodile than a person.

These carnivorous dinosaurs see humans and other animals as food. They’re essentially predators at the top of the food chain. Describing one of the newer dinosaurs like the “Joker” of the Jurassic World franchise creates the idea that it’s an intensely smart and calculating creature that assigns preemptive thought to everything that it does. But, it’s not like the Giganotosaurus has some sort of endgame plan. The franchise isn’t a superhero story and it’s not one with supervillains. The Raptors from the first two films wanted to eat the main characters, the Spinosaurus wanted to eat the main characters, the Indominous Rex and the Indo-Raptor wanted to kill the main characters, and so on. So why is the Giganotosaurus the one that is assigned something more than what has come before? What make’s this animal so special?

Jurassic World Dominion hits theaters on June 10th, 2022.

What The Baby-Sitters Club’s Cancellation Can Tell Us About Netflix

By Brandon T. McClure

Back in March of this year (2022), Netflix surprisingly canceled one of its most well-received series, The Baby-Sitters Club. The Netflix original series about a group of young girls who form a Baby-Sitters Club in their hometown exceeded Netflix's expectations and even won a few awards. So why was it canceled? Rachel Shukert, the creator of the Netflix adaptation, may have the answer to this and other mysterious cancellations. In an interview with Vulture.com, she speculated that “For whatever reason, the right people didn’t watch it at the right time for Netflix right now.”

The Baby-Sitters Club was an adaptation of the long-running Ann M. Martin book series of the same name. Both seasons currently sit at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and some reports claim it was a hit with the internal viewing numbers. Once upon a time, Netflix used to let shows last 5-6 seasons but then it was 3 and now a show is lucky to get to 2 seasons. While Shukert doesn’t know the exact reason for the changes in Netflix’s model, she speculates that viewers only have one weekend to secure a show's future. “Completion rates are a big deal,” she begins to say “and our show takes longer to complete because it’s for a younger audience. Parents don’t necessarily let kids sit and watch six hours of television at a time — probably rightly!” A show like The Baby-Sitters Club doesn’t reach the kind of audience that is able or willing to binge an entire season in a weekend. It appeals more to a younger audience than something like The Witcher or Locke & Key. “They want people to watch it a certain way, and they want shows that people will watch that way — not shows that people want to watch in their own way,” she continues, noting a stark change from their “wait and see approach” from years past. 

This is a problem unique to Netflix as well. Most of the major streaming services have found huge success with the weekly release model. Take Peacemaker or WandaVision for example. The weekly releases of these shows created appointment TV that allowed the shows to grow and build an audience. Perhaps it’s not in the cards for Netflix to adopt that type of model right now, but a case could be made that it’s doing more harm than good at this point. “I think we had the bad luck to come out at about the same time as Squid Game, which showed them how crazy numbers could get. Numbers that were totally respectable and successful last year were suddenly seen in a different way,” she said, while also adding that The Baby-Sitters Club had better numbers than a show like Succession on HBO.

Another issue that Shukert cites is how Netflix does things internationally. “The truth is that when your show does very well in North America, as ours does, as far as Netflix is concerned, pretty much everybody who’s going to have Netflix [in North America] has it. They’re looking to drive subscriber growth in other parts of the world where this IP doesn’t have much recognition,” she continues. Basically confirming what most have theorized at this point, which is that Netflix isn’t getting new subscribers in North America and are looking for opportunities to grow in other parts of the world.

It’s really a shame that Netflix did this to The Baby-Sitters Club since it fills a specific role in entertainment that rarely gets touched on. When she was asked about whether or not it’s easier to dismiss shows about young girls, specifically citing the discussions around Pixar’s Turning Red, Shukert responded by saying “Girls are expected to go straight from Doc McStuffins to Euphoria.” She went on to note that “People are extremely uncomfortable with this period in girls’ lives,” specifically referring to the time when they aren’t a child but also not an adult. “The Baby-Sitters Club speaks to so many girls because it meets them where they are. It’s not about adults telling them who they are. It’s not really about boys, although they have crushes, which is a realistic part of life at that age.” She went on to say “There’s something about stories geared to this age that always felt like hindsight from adults, as opposed to what it actually feels like to be that age. What we could do with The Baby-Sitters Club was make the girls as smart and interesting and mature as girls are without making it all about how other people see them. It’s about how they see themselves.”

From an outside perspective, Netflix’s practices seem erratic. Where once stood a place for creatives to make the projects they want with the idea that Netflix will let the audience find them, now stands a slaughterhouse where two-season critical darlings go to die. Due to some weird numbers in the algorithm, many didn’t even know a second season of the series was released. Having worked on a number of Netflix projects, Rachel Shukert can only speculate what practice Netflix is using now. But with Netflix looking to lose two million subscribers and other streaming services finding great success with their original programming, perhaps it's time for Netflix to overhaul its model.

Why Pixar?

By Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure @fakenerdpodcast)

On January 7, 2022, Disney announced that the latest film from Pixar Animation, Turning Red, was going to skip its theatrical release, and instead be released exclusively on Disney+ at no extra cost. This move follows similar decisions for the likes of Pixar’s 2020’s Soul and 2021’s Luca. It’s no secret that Disney is putting a lot of effort into building the Disney+ library, but this isn’t happening as frequently as other studios under Disney’s umbrella. Marvel and Disney Animation, for example, are guaranteed to receive exclusive theatrical windows, so why isn’t Pixar getting the same treatment?

When the announcement came for Soul, it was a surprise, but Disney framed it as a “Christmas gift” to the fans who have been waiting patiently for the film's release. Since 2020 was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, people were stuck inside as everything was closed, including movie theaters. Even though Disney had successfully rolled out Mulan with a $29.99 one-time payment, Disney seemed unsure if they were going to continue that financial approach for their future releases. Soul ended up being a big streaming hit for Disney+ and that seemed to be the end of it. That was until March of 2021, when Luca was announced to be heading straight to Disney+ at no extra cost.

Disney Pixar 2021 Luca animated film.

Luca was a major surprise, while theaters were struggling, they were at least open. At the time, the move was criticized because other movies had been released as a hybrid model. Cruella, Raya and the Last Dragon, and Black Widow all had theater releases as well as same day streaming on Disney+ at an added cost of $29.99. If Disney truly felt that Luca’s box office performance would be negatively impacted by the pandemic, then why didn’t they decide on a hybrid model or at the very least, a premier release?

Insiders at Pixar have already spoken about these perplexed decisions. Many felt confused and hurt after they poured so much love into the creation of an anticipated hit, that they were baffled it wouldn’t get to be seen in the format that it was made for. Pixar was being treated as a Disney+ content generator and not the major box office draw it had been countless times since Toy Story. Of course, there were some saying that it’s nice that kids could safely see the film, and that is true, but then why wasn’t the same concession made to Raya and the Last Dragon, which had a hybrid release, or Encanto which was released exclusively in theaters?

Meilin “Mei” Lee from Disney Pixar’s Turning Red.

After Luca, Disney stopped the hybrid model and released all of their major tentpoles, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Eternals, and Encanto exclusively in theaters. So then, why not Turning Red? Pixar’s latest film about a young girl who begins to turn into a giant red panda was all set for its March theater release date, before Disney once again pulled the rug out from under Pixar. To the many animators at Pixar, this seemed to have come without a warning, and certainly to the audiences who were excited to see a new Pixar film on the big screen. No real explanation has been given to why this is, and it’s unlikely any explanation would be believed.

While many studios these days rely on recognizable IP (intellectual property) to get audiences into theaters, Pixar only ever had to rely on their name. A Pixar film was a guaranteed box office hit, and if something like The Good Dinosaur wasn’t a hit, then a film like Inside Out would be. Their focus on original animated films that the whole family could love has put them at the top of the animation industry for decades now. They are more than a content generator for Disney to shuffle onto Disney+. They are a staple in the homes of peoples of all generations. They are the metric by which other animation studios are compared to. With Lightyear’s June release date fast approaching, many are left wondering if the rug will be pulled out once again and Lightyear will be the fourth Pixar film to release exclusively on Disney+ at no extra cost. Unfortunately, the decision to move Turning Red has created a precedent that could potentially change Pixar’s entire future.

Disney Pixar’s Turning Red.

Sony and the Curious Case of Andrew Garfield

By Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure @fakenerdpodcast)

Spider-Man: No Way Home is a runaway success, there’s no doubt about it. It’s Sony’s highest-grossing film ever, the highest-grossing film of the pandemic era, and even if there wasn’t a pandemic, over a billion dollars is nothing to scoff at. Fans were enamored with the film and the hype was at an all-time high. Despite what Andrew Garfield had to say, everyone knew he and Toby MacGuire were returning as their various Peter Parkers to help Tom Holland's Spider-Man fend off their previous villains.

The film came, and curiously, Andrew Garfield’s return is the one that’s gained the most hype. It’s no secret that Garfield loves the character, loved playing the character, and was heartbroken when they canceled the third Amazing Spider-Man film. Returning to the role was something that clearly excited him, but is it the last time?

In the weeks since the release of Spider-Man: No Way Home, reports have stated that Sony is looking to bring Andrew Garfield back to the role of Spider-Man in some way. Since so many reports have come out, it seems like a safe bet to assume that nothing is set in stone and that discussions are ongoing about what that return could possibly be. Garfield, himself, stated in an interview recently that he would be open to returning.

This is not the first time that Sony has haphazardly put the bull before the horns. Back in the Amazing Spider-Man days, Sony and Amy Pascal had announced various films such as Silver and Black, The Sinister Six, and an Aunt May prequel spy movie. Most of these ideas had directors and writers attached and were going ahead until the infamous Sony leaks lead to a deal with Marvel Studios to put Spider-Man in the MCU. Even then, most of these early projects were still moving forwards, and that’s how we ended up with Venom. Even now Sony is still looking to capitalize on Spider-Man spin-off films such as Morbius and a Kraven the Hunter solo film starring Aaron Taylor Johnson.

Any number of these projects that Sony discusses could just as easily fall through, but it is exciting to think about a possibility that Andrew Garfield could once again return to the role of the wall-crawler that he loves so much. One report states that the next Venom film could be a multiversal adventure that pits him against the Amazing Spider-Man. It’s been a prominent fan theory for some time that Venom and The Amazing Spider-Man exist in the same world, so fans are already primed for this match-up. Since the beginning, Sony has been eager to tie in Venom to the MCU and this might be the best middle ground approach.

Another report states that Emma Stone is being courted to come back as an alternate universe version of Gwen Stacy who becomes the Spider-Women of her timeline. Matching Garfield and Stone up again seems like a no-brainer, their chemistry carried the two Amazing Spider-Man films, and seeing Peter Parker interact with a Gwen Stacy who didn’t die could create some exciting drama for a future project.

Sony seems very interested in trying the multiverse angle again, and why wouldn’t they? It’s made them more money than they’ve ever made before. Maybe a multiversal adventure isn’t even the way they go, perhaps they just go ahead and greenlight The Amazing Spider-Man 3. With everything Sony has announced in the past, no one should put it past them. No matter which way they go after Spider-Man: No Way Home, it’s safe to say they’re excited and they want to bring back Andrew Garfield somehow.

Spider-Man: Every Villain, and Where We Left Them

Panels from Marvel® Spider-Man Blue and Spider-Man: Revenge of the Green Goblin (2000 - Issue #3)

By Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure @fakenerdpodcast)

There has been so much that has come out about Spider-Man: No Way Home over the past few weeks. Rumors began so long ago with the casting of Jamie Foxx as Electro. Even before learning that it was a multiverse adventure, the question on everyone's mind was… what was happening? Alfred Molina let it spill that his Doctor Octopus was pulled out of his universe just before his climactic end. So using that logic here’s a list of every live-action Spider-Man villain that could or is showing up in the latest MCU Spider-Man film and where we last saw them.

GREEN GOBLIN (Spider-Man - 2002 )

ACTOR: Willem DaFoe

STATUS: Dead

For Sam Raimi’s first outing with the web-slinger, he chose arguably, Spider-Man’s greatest villain: The Green Goblin. Portrayed by Willem Dafoe, the character became immediately iconic. Faced with losing a major defense contract, Norman Osborn took the risk experimenting on himself to prove that his formula would work. This only turned him into the deranged killer; the Green Goblin. The film’s climactic battle saw Goblin try and trick Peter into getting stabbed by the Goblin Glider, but Peter’s spidey sense saved him in the nick of time. The glider skewered and pinned Goblin to the wall, killing the villain.

Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man and Willem Dafoe as The Green Goblin in Sam Raimi’s 2002’s Spider-Man

DOC OCK (Spider-Man 2 - 2004)

ACTOR: Alfred Molina

STATUS: Dead

With the success of the first film, it was only natural that a sequel would come. Naturally, another classic Spider-Man foe was picked, this time Doctor Octopus who is played by Alfred Molina. With his hero firmly established, Raimi was able to work on creating a villain that audiences would find endearing and tragic. Fueled with the desire to complete his experiment, but manipulated by his own robotic arms, Doc Ock set about trying to destroy Spider-Man and the city of New York. Although in a turn of events and with the help of Spider-Man, Doc Ock saw clearly and was able to heroically sacrifice himself.He plunged himself and his destructive experiment into the bottom of the ocean, saving the city.

Alfred Molina as Doctor Otto Octavius in Sam Raimi’s 2004’s Spider-Man 2

SANDMAN (Spider-Man 3 - 2007)

ACTOR: Thomas Haden Church

STATUS: Alive?

The first of many new villains introduced in the third Spider-Man film, Flint Marko (played by Thomas Haden Church) escaped from prison, only to find himself in some sort of sand experiment that accidentally turned him into the Sandman. Revealed to be the man who killed Ben Parker, he became the target for Spider-Man’s unresolved revenge. His life of crime ended when, after a failed team-up with Venom, he expressed remorse for the killing of Peter’s uncle and let the wind carry him away. Though that doesn’t mean he’s dead, supposedly he could put himself back together?

Thomas Haden Church as Sandman in Sam Raimi’s 2007 Spider-Man 3

Venom (Spider-Man 3 -2007)

ACTOR: Topher Grace

STATUS: Dead

This was Sony’s first attempt to bring the symbiote to the big screen. Introducing Eddie Brock (played by Topher Grace) as a rival photographer to Peter, the second villain introduced in Spider-Man 3 started life as a black suit that made Peter into… well… a jerk. After Peter rips the costume from his skin, it falls on Eddie and they hatch a plan to stop Spider-Man by teaming up with The Sandman to put Mary Jane in danger. Spider-Man uses sound against Venom to separate the symbiote from Eddie. Spider-Man then throws a New Goblin Pumpkin Bomb to vaporize both Eddie and Venom, leaving their fate sealed. (NOTE: If any Venom shows up in No Way Home it would be the Tom Hardy one)

Topher Grace as Venom in Sam Raimi’s 2007 Spider-Man 3

NEW GOBLIN (Spider-Man 3 - 2007)

ACTOR: James Franco

STATUS: Dead

Five villains in three movies is kind of crazy when you think about it. The final villain introduced in Spider-Man 3 is New Goblin played by James Franco. Admittedly Harry Osborn has been in the franchise since the beginning, but his villain turn was happening in the background of Spider-Man 2 as his hatred for Spider-Man grew. With the help from the spirit (?) of his father, Harry turned himself into New Goblin. His time as a villain was cut short when his first battle with Peter ended with him losing his memory of the last three films. When he regained his memory, he saw the error of his ways. While his time as a villain ended up being relatively short, his turn to a hero helped save Mary Jane and defeat both Venom and Sandman, but not without costing him his own life.

James Franco as Harry Osborne aka New Goblin in Sam Raimi’s 2007 Spider-Man 3

THE LIZARD (The Amazing Spider-Man - 2012)

ACTOR: Rhys Ifans

STATUS: Alive

Due to a fourth Sam Raimi Spider-Man film falling apart, Sony rebooted the franchise with Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield. A new villain was needed to go up against this new Spider-Man, and the Lizard was the villain to kick off this new era of the web-slinger. Doctor Curt Conners, played this time by Rhys Ifans, desires to regrow his arm but in doing so, he turns himself into The Lizard. Conners is cured and sent to prison after Spider-Man thwarts his plan to turn all of New York into Lizard people.

Rhys Ifans as The Lizard in Marc Webb’s 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man

THE RHINO (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 2014)

ACTOR: Paul Giamatti

STATUS: Alive

The first villain introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Aleksei Sytsevich, played by Paul Giamatti and who will call himself The Rhino by the end of the movie. A goofier villain than others introduced in the previous Spider-Man films, Aleksei was stopped after stealing an Oscorp truck full of chemicals. After going to jail, the mysterious “Gentlemen” (The guy with the Fedora that everyone forgets) gives him the use of a robotic Rhino mech suit that ends the film without any closure to the character.

Paul Giamatti as Rhino in Marc Webb’s 2014’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2

ELECTRO

ACTOR: Jamie Foxx

STATUS: Dead

The main villain of Andrew Garfield’s second turn as the Wall-Crawler was Electro. Electro is introduced as mild-mannered Oscorp worker Maxwell Dillon (played by Jamie Foxx), who is initially saved by Spider-Man and grows an unhealthy obsession with him. After a tumble in a tank filled with electric eels, Max becomes the villain Electro. Electro goes on to fight Spider-Man a number of times, the final time being at a power plant. With the help of Gwen Stacey, Peter is able to kill Electro by overloading him with power, thwarting his plan to control the power grid. 

Jamie Foxx as Electro in Marc Webb’s 2014 The Amazing Spider-Man 2

GREEN GOBLIN

ACTOR: Dane DeHann

STATUS: Alive

Much like Spider-Man 3 before it, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 bit off a bit more than it could chew with the introduction of Harry Osborn, this time played by Dane DeHaan. In this reboot, Harry returns after the death of his father, Norman Osborn, and looks to find a cure for the illness that killed Norman (since that same illness is killing him). He believes this cure lies in Spider-Man’s blood. Spider-Man’s unwillingness to give him the blood leads Harry to take matters into his own hands. Mixing Spider-Man’s DNA with the disease turns him into this film's version of The Green Goblin. Spider-Man does defeat the last-minute villain but at the cost of Gwen Stacey’s life. Harry is sent to prison where the “Gentleman” pays him a visit to end the film.

Dane DeHann as The Green Goblin in Marc Webb’s 2014 The Amazing Spider-Man 2

THE VULTURE

ACTOR: Michael Keaton

STATUS: Alive

The first proper villain that audiences saw the MCU Spider-Man fight (and one of the best in the MCU) is Adrian Toomes (played by Michael Keaton). Toomes, known as The Vulture to fans, was a contractor who felt wronged by Tony Stark’s new Department of Damage Control He spent the next “eight” years stealing technology from Avengers battles to sell on the black market. Business was good until Spider-Man got wind. What’s worse is that Spider-Man’s alter-ego, Peter Parker was dating Adrian Toomes’ daughter! Spider-Man had to do what was right and stopped Toomes from pulling off the “big one” and it landed him in jail.

For some reason though, Toomes didn’t give away Parker’s identity to Mac Gargan (the man destined to be Scorpion). So what is Toomes planning? Could he escape from prison to unite the multiversal villains against his Peter Parker?

Michael Keaton as The Vulture in John Watt’s 2017 Spider-Man: Homecoming

THE SHOCKER (Spider-Man: Homecoming - 2017)

ACTOR: Bokeem Woodbine

STATUS: Alive

Both Jackson Brice and Herman Schultz appear as the shocker in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Brice, played by Logan Marshall-Green, plays a small part before being accidentally killed by Toomes and the mantle is passed to Schultz, played by Bokeem Woodbine. In this film, he’s not really a major player, although he does try to distract Spider-Man from coming after Toomes before being defeated and arrested. While it is possible that someday, if the MCU does their own Sinister Six with MCU Spider-Man villains, Shocker could come back. It’s unlikely he’ll be part of this multiversal team-up.

Bokeem Woodbrine as Herman Schultz (aka Shocker) in John Watt’s 2017 Spider-Man: Homecoming

MYSTERIO (Spider-Man: Far from Home - 2019)

ACTOR: Jake Gyllenhall

STATUS: Dead?

Our first tease of the multiverse came from the hero Mysterio… or so he said. In reality, Quentin Beck (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), aka Mysterio, is a disgruntled Stark employee. He originally developed B.A.R.F. and was attempting to get the glasses that Tony bequeathed to Peter so that he can upgrade his holographic technology to solidify himself as an Avengers-level hero. After his betrayal was revealed, Peter set out to stop him which ultimately led to Quentin’s death. At the time of his death, Dr. Riva (played by Peter Billingsley), took a flash drive, seemingly to leek Peter’s identity. What if he showed up as the new Mysterio? Perhaps Mysterio could come back and play a role in uniting these multiversal villains against the MCU’s Spider-Man.

Jake Gyllenhall as Mysterio in John Watt’s 2019 Spider-Man: Far from Home

There’s a lot of questions leading up to Spider-Man: No Way Home. One of the biggest questions about the upcoming film is why these villains are fighting this Spider-man? The Spider-Man films make a point to make sure the villains are emotionally connected to Peter Parker. They aren’t just characters that Peter has to physically overcome but they have their own emotional arcs within the films. In the second trailer, Dr. Strange reveals that all the villains that have invaded the MCU died in their universes and timelines implying that what’s happening in this film would be set after their emotional arcs were over. Obviously the question of “how” is a big one, but Tom Holland’s Peter Parker has some villains in his canon that could offer some insight into why they’ve decided to go after this Spider-Man.

Let’s not forget some other intriguing questions as well:  

• What was the deal with the post-credits sting in Venom: Let There Be Carnage?

• Is Charlie Cox in the movie?

• Why won’t Sony let Andrew Garfield say he’s in the movie?

• What’s going to happen to Tom Hollands Peter Parker?

• Will this finally fulfill Sony’s dream of having a live-action Sinister Six, or will they be one short?

These questions and more will have to wait until the film is released. Until then, speculation continues to ramp up for the hotly anticipated Spider-Man. Regardless of who’s in the movie or not, it’s fun to revisit these villains and their stories because, at this point, who even knows what’s really going to happen.

Spider-Man: Freshman Year - What it Could Mean For his Future in the MCU

By Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure @fakenerdpodcast)

Disney+ Day has come and gone. As expected, there were tons of announcements (though not as many as people expected). One of the most surprising announcements came in the form of a new Disney+ exclusive animated series called Spider-Man: Freshman Year.  This, in canon series from Marvel Studios will follow the exploits of Peter Parker’s first year as Spider-Man as he learns that with great power comes great responsibility (even though Civil War was meant to be 6 months into his career, but who’s keeping track any more). 

As Spectacular Spider-Man fans will know, Disney holds the animation/television rights to Spider-Man. This is one of the many reasons why that series was cancelled in favor of Disney XD’s Ultimate Spider-Man.  A new animated adventure for the MCU’s Peter Parker was practically inevitable when Marvel Studios began building up their animation division.  There seems to be two potential reasons why Marvel Studios is interested in pursuing this series.

Spider-Man only exists in the MCU thanks to a deal between Sony and Marvel/Disney, effectively giving Kevin Feige creative control of the solo Spider-Man movies. A deal that won’t last forever.  After Spider-Man: No Way Home, the future is unclear for the MCU’s wall crawler. There are conflicting reports if another MCU appearance was part of the deal. Behind the scenes, a deal is no doubt being worked on to continue Tom Holland's Peter Parker, but Spider-Man: Freshman Year could point to Marvel being uncertain what the future could hold for him. Potentially, Marvel Studios would be looking for other mediums to keep telling Spider-Man stories. In the event that a deal isn’t struck, this series could be a way for them to continue telling stories with the MCU Peter Parker without having to go any further into the future. Effectively leaving the door open for Sony to return to the negotiating table someday down the line.

On the other hand, this move could signal Marvel Studios confidence that a new deal will be signed and are already setting up plans for the next few years of the MCU Spider-Man. It would be beneficial for both parties to keep Spider-Man in the MCU, even if Sony insists on making other Spider-Man related films, they’re aware of the fans desire to keep seeing Tom Holland interact with the wider MCU. At this point, continuing Spider-Man’s MCU journey is impossible for Marvel to do without Sony as it’s proven to be a huge success for all parties.

Of course, realistically and optimistically speaking, the second option is far more likely then the first. Fans are not only eagerly anticipating the next Spider-Man film but holding their breath as to what the future for this character could be. By its very nature, Spider-Man: Freshman Year is probably not going to be a long series but it is nice to know that there is more MCU Spider-Man in our future, even if it is a prequel series.

Analyzing the Daniel Craig James Bond Film

By Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure @fakenerdpodcast)

“The name’s Bond, James Bond” is one of the most iconic film lines of all time.  First uttered by Sean Connery in Dr. No, it has been said by more than 6 actors, throughout more than 24 films.  Very few characters have had the lasting impact and staying power that James Bond has had in cinema. Each actor has brought a new element to the long running franchise but Daniel Craig may have made the greatest contribution to the franchise since Sean Connery.

Regardless of what fan theories will have you believe, Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan are meant to be the same James Bond.  James Bond isn’t a time lord and the name “James Bond” isn’t meant to be a codename.  While Daniel Craig’s Bond is familiar, he’s not the same man as the others, and in many ways, he can’t be. After Die Another Day was released, and in no small part thanks to the Austin Powers franchise (a very popular James Bond parody), Eon Productions, the production company that owns the rights to Bond, felt that the character should go in another direction. So instead of moving forward with a fifth Pierce Brosnan film, they recast the character and decided to tell the story of how he became 007, with Casino Royale.

Le Chiffree played by Mads Mikkelsen, Felix Leiter played by Jeffrey Wright, Madame Wu played by Tsai Chin and Jame Bond played by Daniel Craig in Casino Royal 2006

Casino Royale was a huge shift for the franchise when it was released in 2006. The film removed much of the tropes that had become a huge staple to the franchise: no over the top gadgets, no over the top action sequences and for the first time since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Bond fell in love.  For the first time in a long time, James Bond was a more relatable human character.  The producers wanted the film to be more realistic and bring Bond into a post Jason Bourne world.  Just six months before Die Another Day was released, The Bourne Identity redefined the spy genre that had been dominated by James Bond for many decades. Audiences were clearly hungry for this new take on the spy genre and not all that interested in Bond surfing a tidal wave to escape a space laser.

Sean Connery as James Bond in Thunderball 1965

For many years, the Bond franchise were the spy films to beat.  Tons of spy movies tried to copy the Bond formula to no success (The MCU currently sits in a similar place).  In many ways the Mission: Impossible and Kingsman films owe something to James Bond, but what happens when the student surpasses the master?  Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond has been the best received since Sean Connery in the 60s but they have clearly been influenced by other films. For example; The Bourne Trilogy, the last four Mission: Impossible films and, even The Dark Knight.  They all have played a hand in shaping the last four James Bond films.

Javier Bardem and Daniel Craig in Spectre 2015

Much like a long running comic book universe, James Bond had a “sliding scale continuity”, which allowed him to remain the same age for more than 50 years.  Major characters would remain the same (like M or Q), and sometimes they would call back to a previous film adventure. An example like when Roger Moore visited the grave of Bond’s wife who was killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.  While loose, there was a continuity for long-time fans, but each adventure was standalone so newer audiences could always find a way into the franchise. Quantum of Solace was the first film to break that trend, following up a loose end from the end of Casino Royale.  While Skyfall brought Bond “back to basics” in some ways, it’s sequel Spectre decided to run with a “it has all been connected to Spectre” plot-line, leaving Bond in a place where he’s never been before: locked in a set continuity. 

As it stands, the Bond franchise seems to have limited options in regards to moving forward.  It’s unlikely they’ll be able to move on from the Craig era as they have before.  So what could be next for James Bond?  Eon Productions has shown interest in spin-off films before, with Haley Berry’s Jinx from Die Another Day, moving forward with a new 00 agent or even Lashana Lynch continuing as the new 007 is an option.  If they decide not to go that route then another complete reboot would be the next best option.  Recasting Bond is nothing new but continuing in the manner they previously did, went out the window by the time Spectre rolled around.  Casting a young up and coming actor (Henry Golding for Bond) and setting it in a different time period and could give the franchise the fresh perspective they’ve been chasing.

Halle Barry as Jinx & Pierce Brosnan as James bond in Die Another Day 2002

The final option on the table would be to just let the franchise rest.  This is the most unlikely option since Bond is really the only thing that Barbara Broccoli and Eon Productions have, but it might ultimately be their best option.  They’ve just been chasing the success of other spy franchises since 2006, and maybe letting the franchise lie for a few years and waiting for the right idea to come along is what Bond needs.  Bond is a relic of the Cold War and has been struggling to survive in the modern era for more than 20 years (that’s the point of Skyfall), so perhaps it’s time to let it go.

Daniel Craig as James Bond n No Time To Die 2021

FUN FACTS:

• George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were both attempts to bring the character more in line with his book counterpart, but Craig is the only one to do it successfully.  Guess audiences weren’t ready.

• Lazenby and Dalton were also the second choices to play the character and were only cast because their first choices, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were doing successful TV shows. When Lazenby and Dalton didn’t reprise the role, the TV shows were cancelled and Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan would go on to play the role anyway

Random Thoughts / The Addams Family Movies Cast Revisited

MOVIE: The Addams Family (Part 1 - 1991) & Addams Family Values (Part 2 - 1993)

STARRING: Raul Julia, Anjelica Houston, Christina Ricci, Christopher Lloyd, Joan Cusack, Jimmy Workman, Carel Struycken, Christopher Hart

By Patrick Nagy

Getting into the spooky season here and I had the most random thought. The Addams Family films in the 90’s were cast perfectly! Haven’t seen them in a while, but I remember really liking those films. Yes, I even liked Addams Family Values. The only random one is Pugsley, but then again how hard is it to find some random Bobby Hill looking kid?

Okay, getting down to brass tacks!

First up is Gomez. I remember thinking when they cast the late Raul Julia it was a bit confusing. I only remembered him vaguely from a few dramas and a thriller or two in the 80’s. The only comedy I can think of was 1988’s Moon Over Parador with Richard Dreyfuss (also it felt weird not seeing John Austin after years of Addams Family re-runs, but I digress). Anyway, Raul Julia killed it! Just the right amount of suave vs odd and the pencil thin mustache was a nice touch. He played the character very Peter Lorre-esque.

Raul Julia as Gomez Addams

Next up was Uncle Fester. Originally played by silent film child actor Jackie Coogan, Fester is by far the strangest of the strange when it comes to the Addams’. Bald, dumpy, pale, can light a lightbulb with his mouth…who could've played such a mad-cap character better than Doc Brown, and Reverend Jim himself?! I mean Christopher Lloyd in that role will be tough to beat. He had the quirks, and the child like mischief that Coogan brought to life so many years before, down to a science. A bonus is fellow Taxi co-star Carol Kane playing Grandmama in the sequel.

Christopher Lloyd as Fester Addams

One of the more interesting Addams that the films focused on was the daughter Wednesday (played by up and coming star Christina Ricci). The cynical (and slightly psychotic) Wednesday was the perfect foil for any outside forces trying to get the best of the fish out water family. Whether it was trying to steal their fortune, kill her beloved uncle, or getting sent off to summer camp, Wednesday with Pugsley in tow always seemed to get the better of their opponents in the most dark and hilarious way.

Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams

There are many other fun and slightly off family members appearing here and there that help keep the story moving. Such classic oddballs like their monstrous butler Lurch, the ever helpful bodiless hand simply named “Thing”, and the bowler cap wearing talkative hairball Cousin Itt are all in there, but there is one Addams whom is the most perfectly cast…

Dana Ivey as Margaret Alford with John Franklin as Cousin Itt

Anjelica Huston playing the sultry dark matriarch Morticia Addams. Even before the internet and social media you could just feel the buzz coming out of Tinsel Town, this was the perfect cast! I don’t know if there has ever been a better choice for an actor to play a classic role. Huston is Hollywood royalty, and her Oscar winning portrayal as a Mafia daughter in 1985 Prizzi’s Honor gave her the sex appeal. Her turn as a veteran con-artist in 1990’s Grifters added to her mystique, and her take on Roald Dahl’s The Witches sealed the deal. She could be all the things that make an amazing Morticia. I would argue she was better than the original.

Anjelica Huston as Morticia Addams

So there you have it! No point or reason to this article, I just wanted to say The Addams Family films from the 1990’s, are some of the best cast films in history!

Headlines / Black Widow vs The Mouse

Covered by: Brandon T. McClure (@btmcclure)

In any other year, a film like Black Widow would have done huge numbers at the box office. Since this isn’t any other year, the 24th film in the expansive Marvel Cinematic Universe has struggled in theaters, only making around $368M, and is predicted to unlikely gross much more in its theatrical run. No doubt, one of the facts related to this low box office gross was due to Disney deciding to release the film same day on Disney+ for a premium price. Now Scarlet Johannson, the film's star, has decided to sue the House of Mouse for a breach of contract.

Johannson claims that she is owed money because she was guaranteed a percentage of that box office gross for the film. According the suit filed “Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel.” Shortly after this reached the news, Disney fired back with their own statement, saying “[this is] especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.” The company said it “fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date.”

Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow

The statement made by Disney is an obvious smokescreen to turn the blame on the actress and away from Disney. Disney’s new CEO Bob Chapek has decided to stand by his decision to release the film on Disney+ at the same time. Chapek claims that Disney’s former CEO Bob Iger is behind him on this decision, something The Wrap has heard is not true, claiming that Iger has said they’ve “bungled” this whole thing. 

Among the parties supposedly not happy is Marvel CCO Keven Feige, who pushed hard for an exclusive theatrical release of Black Widow.  At the time of this writing, no official statements from either Iger or Feige have been released.

Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow with Taskmaster

On the surface it’s easy for the general consumer to look at this and say that it’s just a greedy millionaire suing a mega corporation but this could have far reaching ramifications. If Disney is willing to breach a contract and deny one of the biggest stars in the world the money she’s owed, then what’s to stop them from doing this to a smaller creator?

This could also set a precedent with other companies. For example, Warner Bros releasing their films on HBOMax for no extra cost (same day as in theaters) has forecasted doom for Dune at the box office. Perhaps what Johansson is doing could embolden Denis Villeneuve to demand the money he would have gotten had the movie had an exclusive theatrical run (of course depending on the verbiage of that contract or renegotiations).

So far during these unprecedented times, F9: The Fast Saga seems to be the exception and not the rule. That could be because Universal gave it an exclusive theatrical release, or it could just have been a random fluke. The narrative of what is a “flop” is going to have to change as we once again enter unprecedented times, that’s for sure. 

One thing is certain, if studios insist on releasing major tentpole movies, the filmmakers and stars need to get the proper compensation.