The press tour for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice starts to pick up this week, as we are less than two weeks away from the release of the film. Ben Affleck spoke with Entertainment Weekly about the impact the death of Robin has had on Batman in this new DC Cinematic Universe.
“He’s bitterly disappointed in the past that he’s lost this guy who fought by his side. That character’s death must have been devastating to him, and he’s suffered. We get the sense that he’s suffered a lot of devastating losses before this movie even starts,” said Affleck.
Are you disappointed that the DC Cinematic Universe has jumped so far ahead in the Batman mythos?
About Superman v Batman: Dawn of Justice
Fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City’s own formidable, violent vigilante takes on Metropolis’s most revered, modern-day savior while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting the world in greater danger.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jason Momoa, Ben Affleck, Jesse Eisenberg, Gal Gadot, Jena Malone, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Diane Lane, Ezra Miller, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Michael Shannon, and Laurence Fishburne.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice has a worldwide release on March 25.
10 Cloverfield Lane rolls into theaters this weekend with 90 minutes of anticipation, trap setting, dark moments that will engross audiences, and leave you breathless at times.
J.J. Abrams describes 10 Cloverfield Lane as something very different from Cloverfield. For spoiler sake, let’s just say it’s is a blood relative of Cloverfield. The setup for the film is very straightforward. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has an argument with her fiancé and decides that it is time to move on. She packs up her things and drives off into the night sky. While driving late at night, something catastrophic occurs.
No worries, this will stay relatively spoiler free. The less you know, the better.
Michelle awakens, injured, and shackled in a windowless concrete room. She is a prisoner of Howard (John Goodman), an unhinged survivalist who would argue he’s just fine. He saves her life by bringing her to a bunker beneath his farmhouse, after some attack (chemical? Alien? Biological?). Howard sounds like a complete lunatic, but we start to wonder if he’s right. 10 Cloverfield Lane is fantastic at taking what information we do have in the film and allowing us to experience it through the characters. Howard has his moments where it seems he’s lucid and truly is doing right by Michelle and Emmit (John Gallagher Jr.), a willing lodger who helped build the bunker. Then in the blink of a nanosecond, Howard will snap into a psychotic rage.
In the current climate that we live where movie studios are constantly rebooting and rehashing old ideas, then inundating us with clips and trailers, seeing a film like 10 Cloverfield Lane is such a breath of fresh air, from its sneaky marketing campaign to the result on screen.
The “freshness” of this movie is a result of the stellar writing from Josh Campbell, Matt Stuecken, and Damien Chazelle. Every line has a purpose, is rich with detail on just about every level, and makes the catastrophic circumstances deeply personal to all involved. Director Dan Trachtenberg shoots the picture (his first feature) with such precision, artistry, and imagination.
Skill and precision were crucial here, as this is a chamber film, taking place primarily in four rooms. Trachtenberg uses wide lenses and, almost unnoticeably, scans this claustrophobic setting, keeping the viewer’s eyes working consistently. It’s an interesting and subtle technique. His use of light and shadow emphasizes moods at all the right moments, enhancing dread, and even playing tricks on the audience.
Winstead’s interpretation of her character is marvelous. She runs a gamut of emotions from happiness to horror. No one ever questions the authenticity of her performance. Here we are, front and center, to see Michelle’s world crumble, and Winstead pushes that pain through the screen.
But the story of this film will be the performance of John Goodman. Goodman is in control of every one of his scenes. One moment he is a towering inferno of terror, the next he’s a teddy bear. Goodman’s ability to turn his emotions on a dime is what makes the film soar. Just as he pulls us in, he terrifies us.
There is nothing more satisfying than walking into a movie theater and having your expectations subverted. Unpredictability has indeed been missing in recent years in film, and seeing it come back in 10 Cloverfield Lane is a pleasant surprise.
10 Cloverfield Lane
Director: Dan Trachtenberg
Cast: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Gallagher Jr.
Screenplay: Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, Damien Chazelle
Rating: PG-13; brief strong profanity and violence, disturbing images
Yo-Yo Rodriguez races from the pages of Marvel comics to the small screen on Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD
After a nearly three-month hiatus, Marvel TV and ABC’s Agents of SHIELD Season 3 returned this week replacing its stand-in sister show, Agent Carter. For those in need of catching up, Daisy and Mac are recruiting Inhumans to join a SHIELD special ops team. Gideon Malick had Ward assassinate Rosalind Price. Dr. Garner, it turns out, is the semi-cannibalistic Inhuman Lash. Daniels, the astronaut who kept Simmons alive on the alien planet–the two quickly became more than friends–, was possessed by an alien entity. Daniels’s alien possession being obvious, Fitz, who was on a mission to rescue Simmons from the alien planet, murdered Daniels to stop the alien from coming back to Earth. Coulson and Ward, also on the alien planet, got into an altercation that ended with Coulson using his robotic hand to crush Ward’s chest in, killing him. The team succeeded in rescuing Simmons, but the alien in searching for a new host possessed the freshly murdered corpse of Grant Ward, and returned to Earth just as the portal closed. Oh, and the team is holding a vegetative Werner von Strucker captive.
What a great place to take a three-month break! Seriously, how are viewers expected to remember and/or care about the miasma of plot-lines emanating from this show? It’s hard enough to stay interested in Agents of SHIELD Season 3 when the episodes air weekly but after a three-month holiday, I could barely engage at all, even after the pre-episode plot review. I get that this is supposed to be an ensemble cast show but this is too much all at once.
“Bouncing Back” didn’t slow down the pace though. Instead, more plot elements and a new character were added to the mix. This episode saw the introduction of Elena “Yo-Yo” Rodriguez, another one of the few characters on the show that originally appeared in Marvel comics. Rodriguez, after her brother is murdered in cold blood by an Inhuman working with the Colombian police, decides to assist SHIELD on an on-call basis. Mac provides Rodriguez with an Apple Watch and says that now they’ll be able to contact each other whenever she or SHIELD needs help.
Coulson in a meeting with the President of the United States, played by William Sadler, demands that Gideon Malick answer for his crimes, especially his assassination of Rosalind Price. President Ellis tells Coulson that he can’t help him, Malick is too powerful. The President also tells Coulson that though a new head of the ATCU must be appointed, this person will be a figurehead that will unofficially defer to SHIELD on matters relating to Inhuman activity. Near the end of the episode, we find out that this will be Brigadier General Glenn Talbot. Ellis also suggests that Coulson and SHIELD follow up on Malick through unofficial channels.
Towards that end, Coulson uses a machine to extract information from their captive Werner von Strucker. Using this machine, previously used on Coulson to extract his own repressed memories about the TAHITI program, the team is able to determine the method Strucker used to check in with Malick. Coulson using this information is able to compromise several Hydra bases around the world, dealing Malick and Hydra a costly blow.
Grant Ward’s looking a little pale in his new undead role
Throughout the episode we also see an alien-possessed Grant Ward eating a lot of raw food and acting creepily. The audience learns that he is getting stronger but we have no indication of how that strength will manifest. However, at the end of the episode Zombie-Ward puts out his hand and appears to disintegrate. But, just after the effect started, the credits rolled so I imagine we’ll find out more about that next week.
My Critique
I think I’ve made it clear how disappointed I am in Agents of SHIELD’s scattershot approach to its premise already. The writers seem to be continually betting on the wrong horses, showing the audience little of what we want and lots of what they think we should want. Although I’ve been whining almost non-stop to anyone who would listen about how there aren’t many characters on Agents of SHIELD that originally appeared in Marvel comics, I don’t think that the way to fix that problem is to introduce another character, as they did with Yo-yo Rodriguez. Instead, it would have been great to see some real development from any of the established characters: Daisy, Mac, Coulson, May, Gutierrez … The audience was treated to a cute scene between Fitz and Simmons in which the two scientists agree to start their relationship over after an array of romantic missteps, but for all its potential tension and character development this scene took up maybe a minute of the episode.
With two weeks until the release of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, one of the biggest mysteries is who Jena Malone is playing in the “ultimate edition” home media release. Well, it seems that it’s no longer a mystery thanks to a very active redditor. Check out this image.
This picture is a copy of a survey that this particular redditor claims he received after seeing the movie. On the survey, it lists Jena Malone as Barbara Gordon. Many fans know Barbara Gordon as her alter-ego Batgirl. To some, this doesn’t make sense because just last week, director Zack Snyder claimed that Jena Malone was neither playing Robin nor Batgirl. However, he certainly didn’t make any claims about her not being Barbara Gordon or, more importantly, The Oracle. What’s confusing is if she’s playing such an important role, then why was she cut from the Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice theatrical release.
My intial thought is perhaps in the rated R version of the film; they just might give us an adaptation of Barbara’s crippling from Batman: The Killing Joke.
We are right up against the release of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice and Captain America: Civil War. The trailers have been released, marketing campaigns and press junkets are in full swing, and the movie watching public can’t wait for the next chapters in these respective franchises.
The common thread in these upcoming films, besides big budgets, big names, and a whole lot of spectacle is accountability. Typically the heroes take on the villains with reckless abandon, tearing up buildings, blowing up cars while the general public takes cover, the credits roll, and the day is saved..but what happens after? That is the question that looks to be asked and answered in both of these releases. Who is responsible for the damaged buildings, the collateral damage, and the state of a city or country once the dust has settled? Do heroes get a pass because they have saved the day or should they be made to answer for the damage caused and way of life disrupted?
How Did Metropolis Become the ‘City Of Tomorrow’? Superman and Zod Nearly Leveled It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TReIozZ1b10
In this Turkish Airlines ad, Lex Luthor tells us that Metropolis is ‘Open For Business’. That’s certainly nice to hear, considering that in Man Of Steel, Superman and General Zod came to Kryptonian strength blows, nearly destroying a substantial portion of the city. Superman was still learning how powerful he really was, while Zod was enraged that Kal-El would not allow his adopted home planet to be terraformed and presumably turned into a new Krypton. While Superman did prevail, buildings were leveled, people were killed, and the landscape of the city irrevocably altered. In the upcoming Batman v Superman, Superman (Henry Cavill) is called in front of the U.S. government to answer for the damage done. Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is shown in Metropolis during the climactic battle, seeing first hand the kind of destruction that super powered beings can cause. In 6 Superman films, not once has Superman been questioned about the damage he’s caused or allowed to happen, but in this modern climate, this is not going to be glossed over in the plot, nor should it be. A super powered individual who dropped out of the sky and has the strength to bench press an aircraft carrier shouldn’t be allowed to level half a city and not be held accountable. In what manner should he be held accountable? Should we just let Batman handle it? These are questions that will hopefully be answered later this month, upon the film’s release.
Terrorism vs Heroism – Where Does ‘Civil War’ Draw The Line?
#TeamCap or #TeamIronMan ?
Loosely based on Marvel Comics 2006 seminal storyline, Captain America: Civil War also addresses accountability in a fantastic world. The most recent trailer starts with General “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt) reviewing the recent exploits of the MCU’s heroes. The Battle Of New York in Marvel’s The Avengers, the fall of the Triskelion and destruction of Project: Insight in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the Battle of Sokovia in Avengers: Age Of Ultron highlight a massive amount of destruction. From large chunks of NYC being demolished, to helicarrier wreckage in the Potomac river, to an entire city being levitated and then blown up by Iron Man and Thor, someone has to answer for that. Now the details of the catalyzing incident in the movie are under wraps until release, but it appears a terrorist incident resulting in massive casualties and damage prompt the Superhero Registration Act to be introduced.
The SHRA sanctions heroes to be trained and monitored by S.H.I.E.L.D. and the U.S. government. Any hero not complying is declared a criminal. This concept does not sit well with everyone. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) supports it, Captain America (Chris Evans) does not, leading to all the heroes we’ve seen on film to date choosing sides and some new ones joining the fray, namely the MCU debuts of Black Panther and Spider-Man.
So, how should heroes be held accountable for the destruction they bring about? Do they get a pass because, at the end of the day, they’ve stopped a larger evil? Do you just want to see everyone slugging it out and enjoy the spectacle? Let us know in the comments, on Twitter, or on Facebook.
Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice releases March 25.
Ren is left alone in the world after his single mother passes away. Not wanting to go live with his mother’s family and instead his dad who his mom divorced. Realizing that his biological father was never coming back, Ren ran away to live on the streets. Even though he was only nine years old he decided that he would live the rest of his life along.
Then a hooded beast Kumatetsu, half-monkey and half-bear, appears and asks Ren to become his apprentice on a sheer dare from a fellow beast friend. Terrified of being caught and sent back home, Ren follows Kumatetsu into the world of beasts and is branded the name Kyuta. At first, Kyuta hates his new life and master, but slowly realizes that living with Kumatetsu might be better than being alone.
Another Hosuda Flop?
More than I’d like to admit I was genuinely luke warm about Mamura Hosuda’s new film The Boy and the Beast. After viewing it I was trying to really decide whether what I liked about the movie was, the movie itself, or the name behind all the previous movies that I loved, likeSummer Warsand The Girl Who Leapt Through Time. Maybe there was another part of me that just didn’t want to admit that they’re were two movies in a row that Mamura Hosuda has made that were not that good. Which is almost fitting in a way since the tying themes between Wolf Children and The Boy and the Beast are portrayals of single parents. So part of this movie’s failure is the undeserving success of Wolf Children, and Hosuda’s desire to tackle single fathers this time. Somehow though it seems he got worse.
At a glance The Boy and the Beast is nothing more than a nice fun family film that you can show to your kids when attempting to ingrain anime into their life. Which is not a bad thing, but its clear that the movie is trying to trade in much deeper feelings and emotions. This shouldn’t seem hard since all of Hosuda’s other movies have this emotional impact. So to figure this out I had to look into what changed between Wolf Children and this movie. Satoko Okueda is known to be the sweetness behind Hosuda’s films, giving them the feminine charm that makes them so emotionally engaging and really helping his films stand out. Since The Boy and the Beast is a story almost exclusively like fatherhood, Hosuda decided that he would head this script on his own. What came out of his endeavor is a jumbled up emotional mess of a story that’s bare bones/ametuer. Having put aside his most precious asset when it comes to storytelling, it seems his storytelling has suffered, imagine that.
In his other works it was clear that there was a lot of thoughtfulness put into the writing and how the story would convey its themes and emotions. The Boy and the Beast suffers from a complete lack of that subtleness and the story comes across as very overwrote. Throughout the movie there is a lot of characters flat-out explaining how they are feeling and what circumstances brought them to their situation. This kind of writing would make even the little kids watching this, roll their eyes saying, “We get it!” It gets so bad that they actually have two characters whose sole existence is to reiterate what is happening in the film through expository dialogue between themselves. This is a shame because they have interesting personalities and are reduced to part-time narrators.
As for the overall message about fatherhood, the film has a lot of ideas but overall comes across not really taking a stance of addressing any issues about parenting. At first it seems like the moral is that Kyuta needs a brash overbearing father like Kumatetsu to whip him into shape. Unfortunately it doesn’t really turn out that way. In fact almost everything that Kyuta learns in the beast world is by his own efforts and by chance. Honestly I think Kumatetsu’s character could be replaced by a TV. The only genuine dynamic they have is their constant bickering. Which doesn’t really contribute to any familial commentary the movie is going for.
The movie actually has a few father figures it can play around with besides Kumatetsu. Theres Iozan (Kumatetsu’s foil and opposite) and then there is Kyuta’s real father. All different aspects and portrayals of fatherhood, that the movie does nothing with. The movie is too busy and caught up with looking awesome (which it does), that it doesn’t take any time to creatively incorporate its themes and they come across as no stance or opinion. Not even a basis for an opinion to be made. You would think that it would at least give some stance on what makes a good father since the main conflict is set off between two different styles of parenting, but nope. Instead all fathers are fathers in their own fatherly way. And I’m not saying that there had to be some demonized portrayal of a father, but having a two-minute conversation about lying to your kids as being bad doesn’t make for cinematic weight or development.
So is there anything redeemable about The Boy and the Beast besides the amazing art? Yes, for one, the english voice cast does a real good job of making the dialogue seem more engaging than what they are actually saying. I can tell that they must have had a hard time trying to make the script seem more engaging than what it probably was, so kudos to them.
Another great thing was the portrayal of kids just being angry little assholes. As opposed to a Miyazaki movie flooded with strong and promising kids, Hosuda’s movies tend to star self-centered and troubled children. There were many times where Kyuta would get furious and angry for no reason and it was totally in sync with what a real kid would do. This is one of Hosuda’s developing strengths and it should only get better with more time. Sure some of the actual scenes made for some awkward moments with kids screaming that played almost comically, but there was enough well executed scenes to dwell on if you enjoy that kind of stuff.
The romance aspect also works well and flows with similar Hosuda works, but there isn’t enough emotion or justification that makes it feel earned or important enough. I felt like it could have been its own movie and it was stifled by being shoved into this one. It did make the movie seem to go by quicker and was probably the most engaging part of the film.
Unfortunately there are just too many problems that this film has and all the good things that are found in it have been in better movies, some by Hosuda himself. This is something good to put on in front of your kids but I don’t see adults getting much more out of this after an initial viewing. I certainly haven’t given up hope on Housda and looking towards his next work.
Today, we saw the first glimpse of Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War. It was a brief glimpse. Iron Man was funny, calling him “Underoos.” It was cool seeing him pull the shield out of Cap’s hand. And…that was it. It did what it set out to do, whetting our appetite for a small wait until the film is released in two months (with other sci-fi/superhero movies to make the wait more bearable).
But there was one aspect of that brief glimpse that was a bit more subtle (just a bit) and that reminded me of my favorite television incarnation of Spider-Man, the 2009 cartoon series Spectacular Spider-Man. It was when Spidey’s eyes moved…in his mask. Yes, we all noticed that and the intent is clearly to make his in-costume face more expressive like it is in every printed version of Spider-Man, both comics, and animation. This expression was something that Spectacular did very well. I look forward to seeing this play out just as well in the movie. That brief movement of the eyes made me think about other things that Spectacular Spider-Man did very well that I would like to see in this new block of Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider-Man/Avengers films.
“Betty meet Veronica.”
First, the way they did the origin story in Spectacular was very fast-paced. The producers of this show knew that most kids had seen the three Sam Raimi Spider-Man films and dove right into the important stuff. The first scene of the first episode shows Spidey in action. He is beating up two hoodlums, including a pre-Sandman Flint Marko, spouting quips that are way funnier than anything he says in the movies. We learn in this scene that Spidey has thrashed Flint a number of times before. Sort of a verbal flashback, information is presented that shows history.
There are more verbal flashbacks as we jump right into Peter’s life a few months after he has been fighting crime as Spider-Man. Peter is starting school again after summer vacation. As Peter leaves for school, we see Aunt May, still dealing with the death of Uncle Ben. And we see Peter’s relationship with his Aunt, how close they are, something that plays out very well for the rest of the series. Point being that the story jumps right into Spidey being a hero and the origin story stuff is presented in very quick flashbacks. Getting bitten by a spider in a lab, Uncle Ben’s death and even his short-lived career as a wrestler are shown in flashbacks and not in present day story. This may bring to mind what Deadpool was being praised for by fans, diving right into the action and then filling you in. THAT is what the new Spider-Man movie needs.
Batman Begins and Man of Steel did that somewhat, but “present day” was not when they were superheroes, so you still had to sit through 4o minutes of origin story to see the hero in the costume. This Spider-Man cartoon did not have three episodes of origin story like Superman: The Animated Series, although having some of the better writers and producers from the Bruce Timm DC cartoon universe on board. With the new Spidey movie, because we are dealing with a character that has been rebooted twice, those origin story flashbacks (if any) will need to be short and sweet. And the first episode of Spectacular showed us that this could be done, bringing everybody up to speed in a speedy way, and then telling thrilling stories in present day.
Many of the other things that we’ve heard about he new MCU Spider-Man from online reports are also done very well in Spectacular Spider-Man. We know that the new Peter Parker is going to be high school age for a few films and that it is going to have “John Hughes” vibe, which is definitely a thought I had while watching this series. The “high school” stuff gave this series a depth and maturity that I initially dismissed when I saw the animation style. I was an adult when this show came out, and I was immediately won over by the maturity and the stories that, yes, did feel like a cartoon John Hughes movie.
“Face it, Tiger. You’re Ducky from ‘Pretty in Pink’.”
This inspired me to keep picking up DVDs of this show, which were, at the time, being sold at my local Price-Rite checkout counter. See, I do mundane things as well, just like Peter Parker. I’m not a hero all the time. And if you love that aspect of this character, check out this show.
Have you seen Spectacular Spider-Man ? Did you like the new Civil War trailer? What do you hope to see in this new batch of MCU Spidey movies? Comment below.
Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions released the first trailer to A Hologram for the King, starring Tom Hanks.
A failed American businessman looks to recoup his losses by traveling to Saudi Arabia and selling his idea to a wealthy monarch.
The film is directed by Tom Tykwer from the novel by Dave Eggers. A Hologram for the King also stars Alexander Black, Sarita Choudhury, Tom Skerritt and Ben Whishaw.
You can see Hank’s newest film in theaters on April 22.
Flash has gotten some important things right. It’s managed to build up a shared universe, with its fellow CW programs and now with the upcoming Supergirl crossover. It’s done a good job at balancing out the concept of a multiverse, as a lot of this season has focused on the relationship of two different Earths. And the CGI for characters like Gorilla Grodd/Killer Shark has been surprisingly high quality. So it seems surprising that one of the show’s weakest links comes from one of its leads. But for whatever reason, Caitlin Snow has just been a terrible character mostly throughout the show’s run.
The main problem is the lack of development of Caitlin. Lots of the other characters have gotten interesting development, but Caitlin has really only two main attributes – she’s a scientist with a dead boyfriend (husband, since Flash Season 2). That’s only two things, and considering how much they’ve built up their other cast members, it’s downright embarrassing. Cisco, her closest counterpart, has much more going for him – he’s the comic relief, weapon-builder, Joe West sidekick who’s now developed future sight powers. Wells was not-Wells-Reverse-Flash in Season 1, until he was killed off. Instead of letting Caitlin fill the void of scientist extraordinaire, they brought in Earth-2 Wells, complete with a bad attitude, a daughter, and ties to Professor Zoom.
Caitlin and Ronnie were married for a shorter time than Kim Kardashian & Kris Humphries
And it’s not as if Flash didn’t have an opportunity to fix this. When Barry, Cisco & Wells crossed over into Earth-2, it was revealed that this universe’s Caitlin Snow was more than just a sidekick – she was Killer Frost, a deadly new super villain. Ronnie was her evil partner Deathstorm, and together, they killed Barry’s Earth-2 father-in-law. It seemed like a perfect, new Caitlin that wasn’t just the female Cisco with a dead boyfriend!
Only, within the first of two episodes that had Killer Frost, they revealed that Cisco was also a super villain. And Zoom came in to kill Ronnie. So, again, Caitlin is the female Cisco with the dead boyfriend.
A female Mr. Freeze. Complete with the dead spouse.
Let’s also not forget that dumb relationship with Jay Garrick. That’s right, I said dumb. It only took a couple of episodes following Earth-1 Ronnie’s death for Caitlin to pair off with Earth-2 Flash. Now the character of Jay was pretty dumb, as he turned out to be a speed addict – not the actual drug, but a speed drug of some sort – don’t worry about it, it was dumb. At the very least, their relationship gave Caitlin a chance to use her brain and get his speed back. But then, with the reveal of Professor Zoom’s identity – which was ALSO dumb, by the way – Jay gets killed by Zoom, right in front of Caitlin. That means that, between three relationships and TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNIVERSES, there’s not a single scenario where Caitlin isn’t defined by the men around her, alive or dead.[easy-tweet tweet=”Why @CW_TheFlash can’t get Caitlin right” user=”@JonBarrTweets”]
So what’s the solution to this? How can Caitlin shine on her own? She could pull a Patty Spivot and move away for Science Academy. Iris West isn’t a great character either – she mostly stands in the background, waiting for when Barry needs to be told he’s dumb when it comes to something or other. And unless Wells, Cisco, & Wells’ now-present daughter get killed, she’ll never be Scientist Uno on Team Flash.
Why not kill one of the two?
But is killing someone on the Flash roster the appropriate cure for this problem? Caitlin’s surrounded by enough death already, so it doesn’t seem like that’s the needed solution. Flash already killed Wells once, and the inclusion of his daughter makes it seem even less likely that they’d kill him again. And while Cisco’s powers are usually only shoehorned in for episodic plots, he’s still the main scientist and comic relief, so his life seems pretty secure.
So what about killing Caitlin? It seems like a shame, that a character would be wasted only to be murdered. However, it’s hard to say what else they could do to make her interesting. They’ve given her superpowers, and made her a sinister figure, only to put her back in her place, and say dumb lines like “I guess I really am as cold as you thought.” Ew. There’s only one time where we got extra insight into her life – at a coffee date with Jay, she revealed that she also has a dead father. Meaning another man in her life, dead. They’ve tried and failed to make her interesting, but based off their actions, the show runners of Flash don’t seem to care for Caitlin enough to make her worthwhile. If Caitlin is going to serve any purpose on the show, and justifiably be present, they need to make up their minds. Either Caitlin is going to have a purpose, or she needs to join her boyfriends in a glorious afterlife orgy.
Marvel posted a 17 second video yesterday, teasing the “World Trailer Premier” for Captain America: Civil War. Fans took to social media immediately to speculate whether or not they would finally get a glimpse of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, with the vast majority of them hoping that he would be kept under wraps until the movie actually came out.
The trailer dropped today, and the closing shot indeed revealed the teenage webslinger in all his glory, snatching Cap’s shield right out of his hands:
It’s understandable that fans were hesitant about seeing the character this early. Trailers can be dangerous; they run the risk of revealing too much and taking the suspense out of big moments. The Dawn of Justice trailer certainly caught its share of flack for showing both Wonder Woman and Doomsday, both of whom would have made for awesome reveals in a theater. The Force Awakens, on the other hand, was praised for its trailer, which got people excited for the flick without giving away any plot details. It’s a fine line between too little and too much, and Spider-Man fell right on that line for Civil War.
But Marvel had to show the infamous web-head in this trailer, despite their fans’ protests. It was the necessary business decision.
If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance that you’re the kind of person who keeps his or her finger on the pulse of the entertainment industry. You read all about the latest rumors, and are the first to know when your favorite character has been cast. The second that Sony and Marvel struck a deal to bring Spider-Man into the MCU, you knew about it. You’re so deeply ingrained in the world of pop culture, that you may not even realize that most people had no clue that Peter Parker is going to be in Civil War.
These are the same people that needed a trailer during Monday Night Football to tell them that there was a new Star Wars movie coming out. They’re the vast majority of moviegoers, and they need a little extra help in deciding whether or not to go see a film in theaters. They may have seen the first Civil War trailer and thought, “Meh.” But now that might change. Now they may be thinking, “Oh, Spider-Man is in this movie? That might be worth checking out after all.”
Keep in mind that these people probably still don’t know that Spider-Man is in the flick. They weren’t refreshing their Twitter feeds all morning waiting for it to drop like you and I were. So if you know one of these people, send them the link immediately. Otherwise, they’ll have to wait until it airs during next week’s episode of The Bachelor (presumably).
Disney made the proper business decision, and it will prove fruitful at the box office come May. And, luckily for fans, they handled the situation perfectly. They gave just a small taste of Spider-Man, and they spoiled nothing. Fans arguably could not have asked for a better reveal.
Now we only need to hope that they don’t show much more footage in TV spots.
