MARVEL & FoX-Men

By Brandon T. McClure

In a comedically long announcement, Marvel Studios announced the cast of the upcoming Avengers: Doomsday. The next Avengers film will see new and old heroes face Robert Downey Jr. 's miscast Doctor Doom. Yet, they won’t be alone. Almost half the cast is made up of actors who haven’t been in a Marvel movie in a decade. Indeed, the X-Men are finally going to make their MCU debut, just not in the way that fans were expecting, and certainly not in the way they should be. It seems that Kevin Feige can now realize a nearly 20 year old dream and all it took was Disney buying 20th Century Fox. The cast from 2000s X-Men and 2003s X2: X-Men United are back (plus Kelsey Grammer from X3: X-Men United).

Since Disney purchased 20th Century Fox in 2019, fans have been wondering when the Fantastic Four and the X-Men will make their MCU enternance. While the Fantastic Four have made that debut this year, news of the X-Men has been sparse. The internet is littered with fan theories and rumors ranging from the mundane to the ridiculous. This question has obviously been on the mind of everyone at Marvel Studios as well. Many fans felt that the X-Men were too big of a property to introduce in the same way that every character or team has been previously introduced. How do you explain their long absence when they have such an expanded history? This is the same scrutiny that the Eternals fell into back in 2001. If they have been around so long, why didn’t they help defeat Thanos?

Eternals is likely why the multiverse approach was taken. For example, Fantastic Four: First Steps is set in an alternate timeline to get away from the “Thanos” question. While comic book audiences are accustomed to not questioning why past events didn’t include newly introduced heroes, the same cannot be said for film audiences. The MCU has trained general audiences to accept “silly” ideas or concepts that comic book audiences have been accepting for decades, but this was a hurdle they couldn’t get over. So the multiverse was needed. While Namor (Tenoch Huerta) in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and Ms. Marvel (Iman Vilani) in Ms. Marvel were introduced as MCU mutants, major characters like Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Beast (Kelsey Grammer) were relegated to the multiverse with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and The Marvels. However, this highlights a growing concern within Marvel Studios.

Rather than recasting the X-Men, Marvel Studios has chosen to bring back the original actors who burst onto the screen clad in black leather. A team that people don't even remember fondly and constantly talk about how misguided the films were. Marvel Studios is looking for the instant gratification of feeling like they're the biggest franchise in the world again. They know that the secret ingredient to making a quick billion dollar hit is to add aging former Marvel stars like in Spider-Man: No Way Home and the aforementioned Deadpool & Wolverine. The sad thing is that it's going to work. Avengers: Doomsday will be the biggest movie in the world regardless of how good it is because of all the returning actors that are known and unknown. The only film that will be bigger is Avengers: Secret Wars which comes out the following year.

Interestingly, this seems to be the realization of a major dream of Kevin Feiges. Having been part of the production of almost every Marvel film from X-Men to the formation of Marvel Studios, Feige probably has a lot of affection for the casts of these earlier films. In an alternate take for the post-credits scene of Iron Man, Nick Fury alludes to the X-Men and Spider-Man, which seems to imply that Feige, at some point, thought that he could connect all the Marvel films being produced by different studios under one universe. Rights issues don’t work that way and since Marvel sold the rights to various heroes, including the X-Men and Spider-Man in the 90s, Feige had to settle and build the Avengers with what he had. The rest is history, as they say.

Deadpool & Wolverine was supposedly meant to be a farewell of sorts to the pre-MCU era of Marvel films. Faced with the destruction of his entire universe, Wade Wilson aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), is sent to the wasteland, the TVA’s dumping grounds (This makes sense if you’ve seen Loki). Here he meets dozens of heroes and villains from across the Marvel multiverse such as Chris Evans as the Human Torch, Wesley Snipes as Blade, and Dafne Keen as X-23. Channing Tatum is also there as a version of Gambit that only exists in an ambitious cast photo from a Comic Con long past. Wade has to find a version of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to replace the one that died in Logan so that his universe can be saved. Sadly the film ultimately collapses under the weight of its references and only continues to muddy the already complicated X-Men timeline (is it the same timeline from the end of The Marvels? Because Beast should be dead). No one believed that it would be the promised “farewell” since everyone figured most, if not all these characters would show up in Avengers: Secret Wars. Frankly, they should have committed to the film serving as an ending to those characters and used the goodwill to move on.

There’s been a trend in the 21st century of older actors returning to roles many many years after their initial time as the character. Star Trek: Picard, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Terminator: Dark Fate, Top Gun: Maverick and so on and so on. There’s value to seeing older actors reprise these roles because it has destigmatized age and allowed older audiences to realize that there is no such thing as aging out of something. But, this trend has become so successful that it has begun to overshadow new and upcoming talent; creating an environment where younger audiences don’t have heroes of their own and are forced to relate to the heroes of a bygone age. Rather than giving a new generation an X-Men team to relate to, Marvel Studios has decided to give older fans their X-Men back. Although, it’s arguable over whether or not these older fans even want to see “their “ X-Men back. At a time when the MCU should be focusing on new heroes, they’ve doubled down on old ones which speaks more to how they’ve done a poor job cultivating a new generation of heroes (where are the Young Avengers Feige??)

That original X-Men cast are getting quite old at this point with none of the announced returning cast members younger than 51. Fans have always enjoyed seeing returning actors in outfits they didn’t wear when they were initially cast. Patrick Stewart in the yellow hover chair, Hugh Jackman in the yellow and blue, and Kelsey Grammer as a CGI Beast that looked closer to his comic book counterpart then he did in X-Men: The Last Stand. The internet got very excited when the announcement of these returning actors dropped. Curiously so. Is the excitement just so 60 year old Alan Cumming will look closer to his comic book counterpart? Or perhaps fans are excited to see James Marsden (51 and looking good by the way) in blue spandex, Ian McKellen (87) with a slightly different looking helmet, or Rebecca Romijn (52) in a white sleeveless dress with a belt made of skulls? Should Marvel Studios go all in on nostalgia and put them in black spandex again? Is that really all it takes for people to get excited? Or do fans want to see new actors take on these roles with a new director that actually likes the X-Men (this is a snipe against Bryan Singer, not the Russo Brothers). It’s too late to stop the juggernaut (heh) of Avengers: Doomsday. But the smell of desperation is all over it. A new cast of X-Men should have been the priority, and not whatever this is.

Recently Kevin Feige has confirmed that Avengers: Secret Wars will lead to a soft reboot by saying there are plans to “reset singular timelines” and promised that classic superheroes will begin to get recast. “X-Men is where that will happen” he said to a crowd of journalists. So there are plans to recast the X-Men as he also confirmed that Jake Schreier, director of Thunderbolts* will be directing whatever they’ll call the first X-Men film produced by Marvel Studios. But you can’t help but wonder if this is a little late for Marvel. Perhaps they’ve overthought it and in response to the questions posed by Eternals (why didn’t they fight Thanos?) and their desire to regain their notoriety in pop culture, they’ve dug themselves deeper into a hole of unoriginality and nostalgia. Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars feel like desperate pleas for an audience's affection where Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame felt like a victory lap.

Can How To Train Your Dragon 2 Fix A Problem With The Animated Version

By Brandon T. McClure

Universal Studios has gotten into the live-action remake game with this year's How to Train Your Dragon. Directed by the original's co-director Dean Deblois, Universal is hoping that How To Train Your Dragon will revitalize interest in their animated franchise. Especially now that there's a theme park attached to it. They have loftier goals than that, as they announced that How To Train Your Dragon 2 will be making the jump to live-action as well. Unlike the original, there’s actually room for improvement when adapting this annimated film for a new audience, notably with the film's villain.

The original How to Train Your Dragon is a rather simple, yet effective film about a boy who learns to stand up to his father and forge his own path by freeing his people and the dragons they swore to kill from a never-ending cycle of violence. The closest thing the film has to an antagonist is Hiccup's dad, Stoic and the Red Death, the Queen Dragon. They both serve thematic and physical barriers for Hiccup to overcome that ultimately proves that Hiccup and Toothless are unstoppable together. Strengthening their bond and paving the way for a better future for everyone. To put it simply, the first film isn’t structured with a villain in mind. But both sequels have a primary antagonist that the heroes have to beat in order to protect their way of life.

The strongest aspect of How To Train Your Dragon 2 is the relationship between Hiccup, Stoic, and Hiccup's long lost mother. The reveal of the film is that Hiccup's mother did not die in a dragon attack, but was rather taken. She spent years amongst the dragons learning about their true nature. On the other side of that coin was the movie's villain, Drago Bludvist. This was a dragon tamer with only one goal, to unite all the viking clans under him through strength and fear. Drago spent years subjugating dragons so that they would do his bidding, thanks to a king dragon, known as the Bewilderbeast. While Djimon Hounsou delivers an excellent vocal performance, there’s not much in the script as far as character.

While Valca, Hiccup's mom, shows Hiccup the end of the path he’s on, Drago shows Hiccup the path he could have taken. While not explicitly stated in the film, Drago wears a cloak made of Night Fury skin. It’s a dark detail for a kids movie and so it is relegated to subtext. What is also in the subtext is that Drago may be responsible for wiping out the Night Fury species. Valka suggests that Toothless is likely the last of his kind afterall. Centering a film on a dark reflection of Hiccup, one that wiped out the Night Fury’s rather than befriending them, is an excellent starting point for a villain of this franchise. Yet, it’s a PG rated film at the end of the day, so all of Drago’s character and motivation is brought down to mere subtext. His name may send Stoic into fits of fear, but he has no depth. This is where Dean Deblois can put his money where his mouth is.

Since it’s unlikely that How To Train Your Dragon 2 won’t be a remake of the original, and it’s equally unlikely that Dean Deblois won’t return to direct the sequel, there’s a good chance that the film will adhere closely to its source material, like in How To Train Your Dragon. Speaking with THR, Deblois mentioned he considered the original animated film to be a first draft and wanted to use the live-action film to fix what he considered to be mistakes. He used this opportunity to expand Astrid’s character in the first film and will likely continue that new trajectory she’s on in the sequel. Nevertheless, if Astrid is anything to go by, then Drago could benefit from this same direction. With the animated film rated PG and the live-action film most likely aiming for PG-13, there is room to expand on the darker subtext of Drago’s character and enhance his role. Perhaps even going so far as to make the audience fear him as much as Stoic does. This adventure could be even more personal for Hiccup and Toothless due to Drago’s proposed history with the Night Fury’s. Bring the subtext into the text.

The biggest problem with live-action remakes of beloved animated films is that audiences know that they’re only made for money. Sure, Dean Deblois may have passion for the world he co-created, but studios are only interested in the bottom line. While that is true for all movies, it feels more egregious with this current trend. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean there aren't interesting things that can be done. If How To Train Your Dragon 2 is going to adhere close to its animated predecessor then meaningfully developing Drago is an easy way to help it stand out, and perhaps even surpass the original. 

Are The Alien Vs. Predator Films Canon?

By Brandon T. McClure

At one point it was assumed that the Alien and Predator franchises were in fact one franchise. Thanks to comics and video games, Alien vs. Predator was a massive juggernaut, but it didn’t jump to the big screen until 2004 with the release of AVP: Alien vs. Predator. It was official that both of 20th Century Fox’s massively popular horror franchises were now one. But as of now, there hasn’t been another crossover film since 2007 with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. Both franchises have continued beyond yet the AVP films have felt like a simple blip in the timeline, rather than a massive sea change. This has led many to wonder if the AVP films are still canon.

While 1990’s Predator 2 would be the first on-screen hint at a potential connective universe, the first crossover actually happened a few months prior in 1989 in the pages of Dark Horse Presents, an anthology comic book published by Dark Horse Comics that featured three consecutive stories written by Randy Stradley with art by Phill Norwood. The final of the three stories revealed that it was a prelude to a comic simply titled Alien vs. Predator and included Chris Warner (who was the artist on Dark Horse’ Predator comics). This series was the beginning of the Machiko Noguchi saga which followed a young girl rescued from a colony overrun with Xemomorphs and then trained by Predators to become one of them. The success of this comic would lead to dozens more and eventually a thriving video game franchise that lasted from 1993 to 2010.

Machiko Noguchi - Dark Horse Comics

Due to the success of the comics and video games, fans were eager to see a big screen version. 20th Century Fox began pursuing a film version by commissioning a script by Peter Briggs, who would go on to write the first Hellboy movie, in 1991. In response, Ridley Scott, who was at one point interested in directing Alien 3 reportedly turned it down because he didn’t like the idea of Alien vs Predator. Rumors also seem to imply that Fox’s desire for a crossover was one of the many reasons that led to Sigourney Weaver demanding her character, Ripley, be killed off in Alien 3. Despite all this, the film would sit in development hell for more than a decade before Paul W.S. Anderson came on board to see the film reach the finish line in 2004. While AVP: Alien vs. Predator was a success for both franchises, Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem was not and derailed any future crossover plans.

AVP: Alien vs Predator (2004)

Since Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, directed by Colin and Greg Strause, failed with both critics and audiences (12% and 30% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively), 20th Century Fox decided not to move forward with a third film that would have seen the franchise move into the far future. Instead the studio moved forward with new entries in each respective franchise. This manifested due to the financially disappointing releases of Predators (2010) and the divisive Prometheus (2012). In the minds of 20th Century Fox (before Disney bought them), and more specifically, Ridley Scott, the Alien and Predator franchises had a divorce and were no longer considered to be a connected franchise. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott was not interested in any crossover potential. He elected to return to the Alien franchise (after much coaxing) with a prequel to Alien that would become Prometheus. The film's promise was to explain where the fabled “Space Jockey” came from and by extension the origins of the Xenomorphs. Regrettably, Scott wasn’t interested in telling that story either and opted to make a yet far grander tale of the origin of humanity that may or may not also serve as an origin to the Xenomorphs. While he would attempt to course correct this with Alien: Covenant, telling what many believe to be the origin of the Xenomorph, the story that both films tell is one that makes any connection to the Predator films all but impossible.

David (Michael Fassbender) in his lab - Alien: Covenant

This disconnecting of two franchises only went one direction and was not true for Predator. AVP has a long history of referencing its sister horror franchise that goes back to the aforementioned 1990s film Predator 2 and a cancelled third AVP film wasn’t going to stop them. While Predators doesn’t have any references to Alien, The Predator has a very interesting one. Located in Project Stargazer is the spear that Scar (the surviving predator from AVP) gave to Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to help her fight her way out of the pyramid. It’s not even subtle as the camera lingers on it for quite some time. Predator: Killer of Killers may also have a reference in the form of bone tails from Aliens that form a cape for the Grendel King. But the most overt reference is yet to come in Predator: Badlands. Elle Fanning’s character Thia is a Weyland/Yutani android. A reference on this scale has never been seen before in this franchise. This proves one thing about the canonicity of the AVP films: They are only canon to the Predator franchise.

Thia (Elle Fanning) in Predator: Badlands

But is that true?

There’s a few reasons why it would be hard to fit Alien vs. Predator films into the cannon of the Alien franchise. Interestingly, both AVP: Alien vs. Predator and Aliens vs. Predator introduced the founders of the mega corporation Weyland/Yutani before Prometheus did the same thing. As fans, connections can be found, but there’s some pretty heavy mental gymnastics that need to happen. Shortly after the release of Prometheus, Dark Horse Comics published a massive crossover called Fire & Stone. This series spanned four mini-series titled Prometheus: Fire & Stone, Predator: Fire & Stone, Aliens: Fire & Stone, and Alien vs. Predator: Fire & Stone. The goal was to reconnect the two franchises through the lens of Prometheus, or at least try. It was a valiant effort and features some great horror moments as the Predator goes up against the new elements of Alien lore introduced in Prometheus. Ultimately it did not land with readers in any meaningful way though. So on the surface it looks like Predator cannot connect with the Alien franchise as Prometheus and Alien: Covenant seem to stand in the way.

Thematically speaking, it’s almost impossible to imagine the two connecting now anyway. Like most horror movies, the Alien franchise used to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Both Alien and Aliens end in a hopeful way for Ripley. Even Alien: Resurrection doesn’t portray the franchise as a hopeless universe. Alien 3 was the outlier until Prometheus. But thanks to Ridley Scott's prequel duology, the Alien franchise is now a universe devoid of hope. Something that Alien: Romulus builds on, built from the very ground up to be about the futility of mankind. Our very creators sought to wipe us out after sending a “savior” who was killed (Jesus was an Engineer, Google it). The Alien exists to punish mankind in an ever repeating cycle that you can’t escape from. It’s in the very DNA of the Alien universe. Conversely, the Predator franchise is more action than horror. Often relying on heroes beating the Predators and going home (unless you’re the sore loser clan from Predator: Killer of Killers). Sometimes the Predators may even respect you and treat you with honor. It’s hard to imagine the two being able to connect.

Interestingly, AVP: Alien vs. Predator details that the Predators have a long history on Earth. They were worshiped like gods and taught ancient people how to build pyramids. It doesn’t seem likely that this would be the case where Jesus was an 8 foot pale alien and the first “facehugger” was born from a woman in the year 2093. Again, maybe there’s some mental gymnastics that can be done without retconning any film. There’s enough subtext in both Prometheus and Alien: Covenant to suggest that David didn’t create the Alien, he recreated it. Ridley Scott wasn’t interested in telling the origin of the Alien, and perhaps he didn’t. Instead detailed the story of a madman stumbling onto something that the Engineers tried to lock away centuries ago. Also, while slightly racist to humanity's ancestors, a Predator clan could have positioned themselves as gods while others were more interested in hunting humans for sport. So now what once seemed like two disconnected franchises, now appear to be connected again.

There’s even renewed interest in a crossover as both Fede Alverez (director of Alien: Romulus) and Dan Trachtenberg (director of Prey and Predator: Badlands) have both talked about their willingness.. It’s not hard to believe that Trachtenberg would be willing considering the references to Alien that he’s included in both 2025 Predator films. There was even interest from 20th Century Fox before being swallowed by Disney, as it was revealed that there was a completed anime series based on Alien vs. Predator. This series will likely never see the light of day, but one could hope that some good samaritan at the Disney vault will get it out there to the fans eager to see it. When discussing the new Predator movies and the sequel to Alien: Romulus, 20th Century Studios President Steve Asbell, said that a crossover is likely to happen but will only happen organically from both. With the Predator franchise jumping into the far future with Predator: Badlands, could that be the first step in setting up this epic rematch?

If you’re a strict canon junkie, then it’s clearly not possible that the AVP films are connected to both franchises. As the Alien franchise continued, it grew further away from its sister franchise, while Predator continued in a grand tradition of references. It makes far more sense that the films are canon only to Predator. The relationship has always been one sided and it only makes sense for Predator to get the films in the divorce. But a reconciliation could be on the horizon and at the end of the day, canon is what you, the audience, deem it to be.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Nostalgia

By Brandon T. McClure

As soon as Anson Mount swaggered off the transporter pad of the USS Discovery, fans fell in love with his portrayal of Captain Pike. Portraying the second captain of the Enterprise, Mount took on the legacy role originally held by the late Jefferey Hunter throughout the second season of Star Trek: Discovery. Fans immediately began a social media campaign for a spin off show centered around Mount’s Captain Pike and his crew of the USS Enterprise. Paramount heard their pleas and announced Star Trek: Strange New Worlds in 2020 to the cheers of Star Trek fans around the world. However, the show that many were hoping for was not the one they got. Instead, the show seems less interested in telling the story of Captain Christopher Pike, and more interested in setting up his replacement, the nostalgic Captain James T. Kirk. A character who casts a very large shadow over the franchise.

Despite what the general consensus of the internet would have you believe, there's nothing inherently wrong with prequels. They offer a unique opportunity to shed light on characters in ways that could fundamentally change the audience's understanding of said characters. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds found itself in a great position. It was far enough away from the events of Star Trek: The Original Series (I know it’s just Star Trek, but for the sake of my sanity it’s going to be called Star Trek: The Original Series in this piece), which gave it enough room to tell new stories in a familiar setting. Rebecca Romijn and Ethan Peck would reprise their roles as Una Chin-Riley (originally just referred to as Number One) and Spock from Star Trek: Discovery, but there was room to fill the bridge crew with brand new characters for fans to fall in love with. Nevertheless, it didn’t really work out that way.

Number One (Rebecca Romijn), Captain Christopher Pike (Anson Mount), Erica Ortegas (Melissa Navia) and Brad Boimler (Jack Quaid) in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

While there were new characters introduced like Christina Chong’s La'an Noonien-Singh and Melissa Navia’s Erica Ortegas, most of the principal cast is made up of legacy characters. Jess Bush plays Nurse Christine Chapel, a part originally played by the first lady of Star Trek Majel Barrett, Celia Rose Gooding plays Nyota Uhura, a part originally played by Nichelle Nichols, and Babs Olusanmokun plays Dr. M’Benga, a part originally played by Booker Bradshaw. Like it was mentioned above, seeing these familiar characters isn’t inherently a problem. Afterall, M’Benga only showed up in two episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series and is therefore just as much of a blank slate for the writers as Lt. Ortegas. But after two seasons, the problem lies in how the characters have been used.

For example, Majell Barrett is considered the first lady of Star Trek, not only for her relationship to the “great bird of the galaxy” Gene Roddenberry, but due to the fact that she played three characters in Star Trek including Una Chin-Riley, Nurse Chapel, and Lwaxana Troi from Star Trek: The Next Generation, and then voiced the ship's computer until her death in 2008 (she has a brief vocal cameo in 2009's Star Trek that she recorded beforehand). Although, not many people would consider her Nurse Chapel a well rounded and engaging character. Most of her appearances in Star Trek: The Original Series sees her as Dr. McCoy’s sidekick or fawning over Spock due to her one-sided attraction to him. There’s room for “improvement” so to speak, and a prequel series with her as a lead could lead to a re-contextualization of her character. Even though the first season began to paint Nurse Chapel as a complicated, yet intelligent character, the second season reframed her entire character around her love of Spock. Bringing her back to square one. That’s the real problem, Chapel’s character in the original series centers entirely around other people, namely men. Season two of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds sees Chapel’s entire character arc revolve around other people again, the same men. There is plenty of time for this to course correct, but now that the writers sloppily got her through a relationship with Spock, they’re introducing her future husband Dr. Roger Korby (played by Cillian O'Sullivan). Hell, Chapel’s bisexuality was all but erased in a concerning trend within the once progressive franchise.

In contrast, Dr. M’Benga got some much needed character development in the first season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. His arc, especially in season one, is a good example of how this prequel series can positively develop a legacy character that enhances his appearance in Star Trek: The Original Series. In fairness, the writers fumbled his story in season two by forgetting that he was a doctor and focusing on Babs Olusanmokun’s martial arts training. While it’s cool that Dr. M’Benga has another side to him, it was frustrating that the second season focused so heavily on this side that it neglected the important side of him. But regardless, Dr. M’Benga is a step in the right direction for what this show can achieve when it focuses on its own cast of characters. Similarly, Una Chin-Riley has also benefited from being a featured member on this show.

But then, there’s the biggest legacy character of all. The one that the entire franchise revolves around. The future captain of the USS Enterprise, James T. Kirk. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds surprised audiences in the final episode of the first season by revealing that Paul Wesley had been cast in the role, making him the third actor to play Kirk. So far Wesley has shown up in four episodes of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, but only two as Lt. Kirk (time travel and alternate universes account for the other two appearances) and will definitely show up more and more as the show progresses through its final three seasons. Frankly, the question of whether or not Kirk needed to be in this show has to be asked constantly. Sure, his brother Sam Kirk, played by Dan Jeannotte is part of the crew of Pike’s Enterprise, but Akiva Goldsman (co-showrunner) and his team of writers don’t seem interested in developing Sam and Jim’s brotherly relationship, but do seem very interested in setting Jim Kirk up to take command of the Enterprise.

Captian James T. Kirk (Paul Wesley), Erica Ortegas (Melissa Navia) and Christine Chapel (Jess Bush)

Recently, during an interview for season three, Akiva Goldsman spoke about how the final episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will show Kirk’s first day as captain of the Enterprise, saying “We will take the show to Kirk’s first day of command.” As if the show only exists to set up the events and characters of Star Trek: The Original Series. Which means this show will never be able to stand on its own. Much has been said about Star Trek: Enterprise, but at least it’s able to stand on its own as a Star Trek show first and a prequel show second. Of course nothing exists in a vacuum. Audiences have the original series in mind when watching Strange New Worlds, and it will be compared to it whenever it tries to do something new or different. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds can’t magically come out first. Perhaps in another world where the shows came out in reverse order, an episode like “The Menagerie” would be considered “fan service” and writers would be trying to find ways to shoe horn in Captain Pike every three episodes.

Remember when WB decided that The Hobbit should be three movies and Peter Jackson wrote in a ton of references to The Lord of the Rings films? Legolas isn’t in The Hobbit but he’s all over the film adaptation. His arc ends when his father says he needs to go and find Aragorn. Legolas only exists in that movie to set up his appearance in The Lord of the Rings. He serves no other purpose and is arguably wasting space and taking the attention away from the story being told. That’s what Paul Wesley’s Kirk is doing to the cast and characters of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. From 1963 to 1994, Captain Kirk dominated Star Trek in both television and film, and then again in 2009 to 2016 when JJ Abrams rebooted the franchise around Kirk and the original series crew. There’s plenty of Captain Kirk. Like Legolas in The Hobbit, it’s fair to ask “why is he here?” In this instance, he overstayed his welcome before he even got there.

It’s only going to get worse. Now that the show has an expiration date, the writers want to “set up” the original series. Scotty, originally played by James Doohan, now played by Martin Quinn (the first Scottish actor to play the character) has now joined the main cast of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Rather than developing the resident Chief Engineer, Pelia, the writers have decided in their infinite wisdom that they need to set up Scotty and his relationship to the Enterprise and his future captain. Introducing a legacy character will always take away from the new characters. Always. It almost feels like the writers would have rather have written a reboot of Star Trek: The Original Series and consider this show a back door pilot to that. Which has been all but confirmed in every interview for the new season. It would not be a surprise if Dr. McCoy or Sulu were to show up by the end of season three or four.

The writers of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds seem to be of the opinion that the show's only value comes from how it can set up and lead directly into the original series. As if every story only serves to set up the next. The next story is the only one of value, so every story has to center around it. Rather, the opposite is true. It’s established canon that Kirk and Pike didn’t meet until Kirk took over the Enterprise, but in a world where Kirk’s story is the only one that matters and Pikes only exists to set up Kirk, then that needed to be retconned. This course devalues Pike's story. His crew doesn’t deserve to have a story of their own, rather their story only exists to set up or enhance what came before. It’s a shame, because Star Trek: Strange New Worlds should be able to stand on its own and not be beholden to a show that came out 60 years ago. We aren’t learning about new adventures that Pike went on, we’re learning about a footnote in the history of the Enterprise while Pike kept the seat warm for Kirk. Pike was in command of the Enterprise for 15 years, so surely there should be more reverence put on his tenure. Strange New Worlds should put its value on its crew, and not the set up of a crew that audiences are more than familiar with.

Streaming shows don’t have the real estate that network shows used to have. At the end of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ five season run, it will have fewer episodes than Star Trek: The Original Series did in three. The higher production budget that streaming shows get, demands less episodes, which is why serialized television thrives in the streaming era. Episodic television like Star Trek has a harder time. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds was born out of a desire to go back to the episodic nature that the franchise was known for. The benefits of that meant that audiences would be able to spend more time with the characters and get to know them without the writers having to worry about some looming threat or mystery that needs to be set up in every episode. While some characters have benefited from this, like Una Chin-Riley and M’Benga, others have not been so lucky. In 20 episodes, all audiences know about Lt. Ortega is that she “flies the ship.” Perhaps the writers could have cut a Jim Kirk (who’s a guest star at best) episode in favor of an Ortega's (who’s a credited lead) one. But maybe that will change in season three.

The problem is that nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Franchises have made billions on nostalgia, but that’s not what Star Trek is. Star Trek is a franchise about moving forward, learning from the mistakes of the past, actively building a better future for those that will come after you, and the hope that things can get better. It’s about looking to the future, and nostalgia is about looking to the past. Even though Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is a prequel, it can still carry those ideas and forge a new path with new and old characters. Telling stories that are progressive and relevant to today, and not be so focused on setting up a status quo that is, frankly, outdated. A 21st century Nurse Chapel shouldn't look or feel the same as a 20th century idea of Nurse Chapel. Ideas change all the time as we improve ourselves. Star Trek: The Original Series is progressive for its time, but it’s not perfect and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds shouldn’t be actively trying to emulate it. It should be forging a new path so that the characters of Ortegas, La’An, Una, M’Benga, Chapel, and even Pike can stand shoulder to shoulder with Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer. Star Trek: Discovery understood this, and while that show was also not perfect, it remains the most bold and progressive Star Trek show to date. 

All that said, there’s ways that Star Trek: Strange New Worlds can use its nostalgia to its strength. If the writers are so insistent that Jim Kirk be a regular guest star, then they should do more to set up his relationship with his brother Sam. That’s a character that was introduced as a dead body in the original series, so there’s plenty of room to form that relationship that can recontextualize the moment in the original show. Season one introduced the beloved Captain Angel, who was working with Spock's brother Sybock. This was a much maligned character when he was introduced in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, but Strange New Worlds could build a relationship with Spock. Audiences have seen Kirk, they’ve seen Spock wrestle with his emotions, they’ve seen Chapel fawn over a man who doesn’t love her back. But there are still plenty of things they haven’t seen and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds should be focusing on those. It’s not too late either, they have three seasons left to course correct.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds isn’t a bad show, and it’s certainly not a bad Star Trek show. It’s weirdly regressive, overly reliant on nostalgia and it’s starting to feel like a set up for a show Akiva Goldsman would rather write, and that’s just after two seasons. But it’s not a bad show. Its first season is one of the strongest in the franchise's history, and it’s incredibly well cast with loveable actors that make you forget the writers aren’t interested in developing them. It’s also got some of the most fun episodes the franchise has ever produced, with a crossover with Star Trek: Lower Decks and the franchise’s first musical episode. It just needs to dial up the progressiveness, and dial down the nostalgia. Focus on this cast, this crew, and stop focusing on setting up a 60 year old show.

BOOK REVIEW/ "Lucky Day" by Chuck Tingle

Lucky Day by Chuck Tingle

Release date: 8/12/25

Published by Tor Publishing Group

By Matt Spaulding

Lucky Day is the third mainstream horror novel by internet sensation Chuck Tingle, and it’s easily his most bonkers. Though not as scary as Camp Damascus and last year’s incredible Bury Your Gays, this novel is still packed with plenty of strange and gross moments while still exploring the more existential horrors of the meaning (or meaninglessness) of life and the randomness of the universe, all while ultimately proving Chuck’s mantra: “love is real.”

The book opens with Vera, a statistics and probability professor, living through the horrors of a worldwide disaster of ridiculous events that comes to be known as The-Low Probability Event. It’s one of the most bizarre scenes I have ever read. Fish rain from the sky. A monkey attacks people. It’s like the part in Ghostbusters where Venkman yells “dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!” It’s a wild ride.

Jumping ahead in time, we find Vera has decided everything is meaningless. She’s practically shut into her apartment waiting to die. That’s when Special Agent Layne enters her life. Layne works for an unchecked government agency investigating the LPE, and he’s maybe tracked its cause to a casino in Las Vegas where the odds are, somehow, in the players’ favor. Yet the house somehow still makes money. That shouldn’t be possible. And the casino is owned by a shady organization that Vera had been working to bring down before the LPE. With her fire (kind of) relit, Vera and Layne head off to Vegas.

Tingle’s imagination has yet to fail to amaze me. The Low-Probability Event, the events that take place later, and the reasons behind all of it, are all incredibly creative and entertaining. On top of that, the attention to statistics, probability, and other things I can’t reveal because they give away certain things, it’s all so well researched and thought out. I don’t know if Tingle was interested in these topics before writing this novel or if he dove into them just for this, but, either way, I commend him. I always love and appreciate when an author knows (or at least seems to know) their stuff when tackling deep subjects.

Lucky Day also explores what it means to live and love in a world that exists in a godless universe full of pain (my words, not Tingle’s). Vera’s crisis after living through the LPE when she thought everything in the universe was based on rules and order is something I think a lot of people go through, especially in the modern age when everything we see on the news and on social media seems to be awful all the time. But, Tingle believes that love is real. It’s written on the pink sack he wears to stay anonymous. And, personally, I agree with him. And that belief comes through by the end of the novel, leading to a very satisfying character arc.

Lucky Day is yet another winning read from Tingle. And I can’t wait to read it again while I wait for what he puts out next.

MOVIE REVIEW: How To Train Your Dragon (2025)

By Brandon T. McClure

Released in 2010, the original How to Train Your Dragon launched a new and more confident era for Dreamworks Animation. With a new theme park in tow, Universal Studios has now remade the classic adventure of Hiccup and Toothless, this time for a live-action audience. While it feels like Universal has adopted at the end of its life cycle, they are no doubt hoping to cash in on Disney’s trend that has plagued much of the 21st century. Directed by the original’s co-director, Dean Deblois, How To Train Your Dragon, sports the tagline “the legend becomes real” but falls short of the original's greatness. While there is fun to be had, the film can’t get away from the cynical nature of the very style it’s cashing in on.

Once again, audiences are introduced to Hiccup, the scrawniest Viking in Berk. His desire to prove himself leads to him taking down a Night Fury, the most dreaded dragon the Vikings of Berk have ever faced. At this point, you know the story. Hiccup couldn’t kill the Dragon and the two form an unlikely bond that allows Hiccup to learn more about Dragons and change his world for the better. All the while his stubborn father has to be dragged kicking and screaming away from his Ahab-like hatred for Dragons in order to finally see his son. If you’ve seen the animated version, then there’s nothing on a macro scale that’s entirely new. But there’s a lot of tiny changes that both add and subtract to the overall theme of the film.

Much criticism has been lobbied at Disney for making unnecessary changes to their animated films when remaking them into live-action. Truthfully, it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If you keep the film exactly as it is, then it feels unnecessary, but if you change little things, then it still feels unnecessary. At the same time, with little changes they to try and trick the audience into thinking they’re watching a different version. For example, it’s never explained in the original Beauty and the Beast how the village that Belle lives in could forget about a castle right next door to them. The live-action version explains it by saying it was part of the curse that befell the inhabitants of that castle. No one who watched the original film ever had that question in mind, however, and having it answered doesn’t change the movie for the worse. It just feels like an unnecessary detail that was added for the sake of it. How To Train Your Dragon is no different, but there is one change that does help this live-action film stand-out from its animated counterpart in a positive way. That is the character arc of Astrid. 

Hiccup (Mason Thames) and Astrid (Nico Parker) in How to Train Your Dragon

While the original film sees Astrid as the object of Hiccup’s affection, she doesn’t get much of a character arc in the film. She’s strong and dogmatic in her desire to be the best dragon hunter in Berk, but she serves the story as an extension of Hiccup and only comes into her own in the sequels. Here, director Dean Deblois attempts to give Astrid more motivation and character throughout the story. Since the cast of the new film is far more diverse than the original, Deblois feels the need to explain where all these Vikings came from, in a long monologue from Gerard Butler’s Stoic. In this film, the Vikings came from far and wide to settle in Berk with the hopes of defeating the dragons at the very source of where they came from. This iteration of Astrid, who is from one of these far off viking clans, feels like Hiccup has had everything handed to him as the son of the chief and resents him due to her family not being as privileged as the other Vikings on Berk. However, while it’s great to give Astrid more of a character, following it to its natural conclusion robs Hiccup of the climax of his.

In the original film, HIccup leads the other viking children into battle with The Red Death (the Queen on the island) while riding Stormfly with Astrid. He barks out orders to the other children as Stoic looks up in awe at his son as he finally sees Hiccup as the chief he will one day become. In the live-action version, Hiccups and Astrid's roles in the scene are reversed. While Hiccup and Astrid are still riding Stormfly into the battle, it’s Astrid who is leading the charge. A seemingly small change but does stop Hiccup's character arc in its tracks in favor of Astrids. In some ways it’s refreshing that Dean Deblois committed to following Astrids new character arc to its natural conclusion but it will be a change that will likely be debated in fandom circles for years to come.

Outside of that, much of the film plays out the same way as the original with very little cut out or changed. In fact, many of the actors feel like they’re trying to copy the performances of their animated counterparts and other times they feel like they’re deliberately trying to avoid copying them. This creates an identity crisis for the film in both design and performance. This has the unfortunate issue of making the film far less charming and even less funny than the original. Almost every single joke is left in the script, but the deliveries rob them of their charm. Hiccup is a far more depressing main character then he was in the original. To be fair though, if you took out Jay Baruchel’s charming performance, then the character probably reads just as sad. But there does seem to be a concerted effort to take out the inherent charm of the original Dreamworks classic in order to be taken more seriously as a film. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

One of the biggest unfortunate side effects of the shift to live-action is that change in cinematographer. One of the reasons why the animated How To Train Your Dragon looks so striking and impressive all these years later is because Roger Deakins consulted on all three films. This was revolutionary for the time because it gave the film a far more cinematic look that truly changed the game. Now for the live-action film, Bill Pope steps into the cinematographer seat. Pope is an incredibly prolific cinematographer who has worked on films such as The Matrix, Chang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and Baby Driver, but he’s not Roger Deakins. Without Deakins' eye, the film feels flat and lifeless as all the color has been stripped from Berk.

The cast is a mixed bag. Nico Parker and Gerard Butler are the strongest in the cast by miles. Parker is wonderful as Astrid and perfectly captures America Ferrera’s performance while merging the new aspects of the character introduced in this film. Butler, the only returning cast member from the animated film, is a veteran of this story so it should be no surprise at how well he’s able to bring Stoic from animation to live-action. He hits most of the same beats, this time without much of the humor, and still manages to capture what the animators were able to bring to his vocal performance. Mason Thames as Hiccup often feels miscast but still plays a decent enough Hiccup that proves he’ll likely be better in the sequel. The rest of the main cast is fine. They get similar moments to their animated counterparts, and Snotlout gets a new subplot that’s, frankly useless. Finally, Nick Frost is the weakest link in the cast. His Gobber, originally played by Craig Ferguson is a boring and pale imitation of Stoic’s loveable friend and sidekick.

Ruffnut (Bronwyn James), Tuffnut (Harry Trevaldwyn), Snotlout (Gabriel Howell), and Fishlegs (Julian Dennison) in How to Train Your Dragon

John Powell, who scored the original trilogy, returns to score the live-action film. The animated score can be argued as one of the best film soundtracks ever composed, and now that Powell has a bigger budget, he’s able to make an even grander version of the original. It frankly makes the entire film worth it. All the themes are present and in the exact same places but bigger and more grand this time around. Powell even sneaks in a track from How To Train Your Dragon 2 that eagle eared listeners will delight in. The only mark against it is that he makes a truly baffling change to the iconic “Test Drive” that will leave many fans scratching their heads. 

Speaking of scratching their heads, fans will likely forget about this scene until the very end, but a (once again baffling) change to the story happens after the test drive scene. See, in the original, Hiccup learns much about the true nature of dragons, such as their weaknesses through his relationship with Toothless. The final thing he learns is that dragons aren’t fireproof on the inside of their bodies, through a cute little encounter with a couple of Terrible Terrors. This scene leads to Hiccup being able to defeat the Red Death by igniting a fire inside her that forces her to crash and explode. This scene is removed from the film but the way that Hiccup defeats the Red Death is not changed. It may seem like a small change on paper but audiences will be left wondering how Hiccup knew that would work in this new version of the story. This highlights one of the issues with these live-action remakes. While a change could seem small in the moment, it has the potential to dramatically change the outcome of the film and if you don’t follow that change to a new conclusion, but rather force the story to reach the same conclusion, then you end up hurting the film rather than helping it.

A more apt analogy of this idea would be if you were remaking a murder mystery. The audience already knows the outcome of the story so you decide to change all the clues so they point to a different murderer. The only problem is that the reveal in the original is so good and fans will be expecting to see that moment play out again, so at the last moment you reveal the murder to be the same person it was in the original. Except this time, it doesn’t make any sense because you robbed the audience of all the set up that was necessary for everything to pay off and didn’t follow the new clues set up to their natural conclusion. This is a much grander example than a bunch of animated films being made into live-action, but it gets the point across. 

If you’re a longtime fan of the How To Train Your Dragon franchise, then you’ll delight in seeing the same scenes play out in live-action. As remakes go, it could have gone way worse. It’s honestly one of the better attempts at this trend and the financial success of the film means that Universal Studios will likely be looking at Dreamworks' library to see what else they can try and remake. But you’ll never be able to shake off the idea that it feels unnecessary. While director Dean Deblois clearly has immense love for the story he helped bring to life 15 years ago, even he can’t wipe away the stench of a cash grab. He referred to this film as a “second draft” and if it is, then it’s an unnecessary one. The original is a classic that will be remembered for decades, and this will simply be a footnote in its memory.