The Suicide Squad wrapped up filming over the weekend and the first thing jared Leto did was cut off his green locks. Five months earlier Leto started his journey into the role of The Joker.
Suicide Squad is directed by David Ayer and stars two-time Oscar nominee Will Smith as Deadshot; Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flagg; Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn; Oscar winner Jared Leto as the Joker; Jai Courtney as Boomerang; and Cara Delevingne as Enchantress.
The band of anti-heroes will be in theaters on August 5, 2016.
If you are an aspiring comic book artist or a writer, you’re probably going to deal with a lot of rejection. That is just the nature of the beast.
One artist apparently had experienced one too many rejections and went on a bigot-fueled rant for the ages.
Taneka Stotts is the editor of Elements, a comics anthology by creators of color. They are accepting submissions for the book until August 30. Anthony Acri is an artist that submitted his work to be reviewed for the anthology. According to Bleeding Cool, Stotts told Acri she didn’t want to see a completed comic book, and he should stop sending her individual pages of it. (Update) Stotts added that Acri continued to spam their inbox with the book after they made clear they were not interested in.
On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM Acri responded to Stotts in the following email.
NSFW – DO NOT READ THIS EMAIL OUT LOUD AT WORK OR IN FRONT KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 17.
“I won’t say this “comes with the territory” because it shouldn’t and normally doesn’t. I shared the email in full to shed a little light on what can happen behind the scenes, and to hopefully prevent it from happening to any other editors or curators in the future. In the end it has sparked a lot of healthy dialogue which I can only hope will continue well into the future, especially as I’m now added to an ever growing list of women who are attacked online because they said “no” to a man,” said Stotts.
At the time this article was published Acri had not responded with comment.
Telling a man "no" and the usual response. A warning to all to just block his email now and get it out of the way. pic.twitter.com/owCu44jGVX
Well last week was hopefully the last introduction that Monster Girls will have to show us for a long time. And considering that over half the show is character intro’s I’m already seeing how it could be hard to watch this more than once. But for the time being, everything is new, so I might as well enjoy Monster Girls, for better or for worse.
Episode Synopsis
The first half covers Rachnera moving in and everyone’s reaction to her. Basically everyone acts exactly as you would expect them too. Miia’s confrontational, Papi and Suu are happy-go-lucky and Mero is as kind as ever. But whats really being focused on is how Cerea is interpreting Rachenra moving in. For most of the episode she is constantly clinging to Kimihito out of a sense of protection. But of course she doesn’t admit till the very end of the episode that it’s because of her prejudice against Rachnera. Which is a little more than justified. And Cerea actually catches Rachnera in the act of seducing Kimihito and steal him away from her into the city. The “anti-monster girl dicks” show up again and are about to sexually assault Cerea when Rachnera ties and scares the shit out of them. Cereal confesses her prejudice but Rachnera doesn’t really care. But Cerea insists to make it up to her so Rachenra gets to practice tying up Cerea in all sorts of ways.
The second half covers Kimihito getting sick. Right when the girls try to help him though, Smith blows through the window and quarantines him, not wanting any of the girls to get sick and risk a pandemic. But Smith deems herself useless as usual and falls asleep leaving the girls to figure out a plan to help him. They decide to use Suu as a proxy to administer their varied treatments to him. But of course everything turns into something sexual. And we do discover three of Suu’s powers. She can heal injuries with her breast water, she can look into people’s memories and she can finally talk on her own.
Episode Thoughts
Something that I took notice this week as I have in previous episodes of Monster Girls is thatmost of the episodes are split into two parts. And typically the parts don’t really have anything to do with each other. I’m assuming that the show will continue this trend at it will turn into a sort of Nickelodeon cartoon format, like “Spongebob” or “Fairly Odd Parents”. I think this is perfect for what the show is ultimately trying to accomplish and I actually like the two-part episodes better in this case. Mainly because the big thing Monster Girls has going for it is the jokes. And more often than not Anime has a bad trend of dragging out a certain joke until it’s not really funny anymore. But with Monster Girls, the jokes keep changing because of the episode formatting and the jokes last long enough for the laugh and then the concept changes. Now occasionally there will be an episode like the “shedding/egg-laying” episode where enough is happening to warrant a whole episode dedicated to it. But most of the time if you try to do that in a show like this you’ll get a lot of bull shitting around where, either nothing funny is happening or nothing sexy is happening. And that’s the last thing you want to happen with a show like this.
For the most part the episode was pretty standard in the route of comedy. I think at least once every character pulled out their signature gag, and they still feel fresh and funny. The funniest part for me was when Smith came crashing through the window out of nowhere. And the part where Mero eats Miia’s cooking and flashes into the Little Mermaid story. They are still keeping the jokes intertwined with the sexy scenes to keep a lighthearted balance that the show trades in. Rachnera fits in perfectly as someone who can bring tension to the group while at the same time hold the group together. She’s basically a big sister to the girls but also just a pure dominatrix of everyone when she wants to be. Honestly I loved everything involving Suu in this episode but there really isn’t much to say than it was super cute. There’s just something about super hot and super stupid Slime girls that makes me happy.
But the most interesting part this week is the character driven stuff in the first half, where Cerea is being prejudice over Rachnera but pretending not to be. For one it reinforces Cerea’s shyness to come out and say how she’s feeling. It also relates to her centaur code to not judge people and hold herself to a higher standard. These scenes are really cute and make Cerea seem more like a character instead of a trope.
Rachnera on the other hand doesn’t really come off as a trope to begin with anyway, just a cool character. We do get a little clearer depiction of Rachnera’s personality, and boy is she a freak. She’s almost like Miia in a way but much more sadistic and mature. She’s not really afraid of consequences and lives life the way she wants too, which coincidentally coincides with stringing people up with her webs, almost always in a sexual manner.
A nice gem of world building pops up again when Smith is talking about how something like the common cold could cause an epidemic if one of the girls were to catch it and it would mutate. It makes perfect sense that they would be concerned with that happening. It also helps string together the actions to take place and make them not seem as random. I’ve said it a million times but its nice when stuff happens for a reason. Sure the sexy Suu stuff is ridiculous but it all happens for more or less a reason.
Next week we’ll see if the show continues to follow this two part episode groove or go back to its single episode plot-lines. I think it should stick with this style to prevent jokes from getting old but if they can make it work I really don’t care which they do. But it’s sure nice to finally have all the girls in the house and I can’t wait to see what kind of hijinks they can get into. And with only five or so many episodes left I will be sure to soak in the continuing phenomenon that is Monster Girls.
Strange news came out today that Bruce Willis was no longer shooting his part in Woody Allen’s upcoming film, untitled at this point. Just yesterday, set photos showed Willis filming scenes for Allen’s 2016 picture. Then, today, Willis has left the project, citing “scheduling conflicts” as the reason.
Scheduling conflicts typically don’t arise right in the middle of a film shoot, so this claim is clearly bogus spin. There are seemingly one of two theories as to what happened here: Willis was fired, or Willis simply left. Both possibilities make sense, given Willis’ growing reputation as a difficult asshole on many sets. We all remember Kevin Smith’s claim that Bruce Willis was “soul crushing” on the set of Cop Out. But, Willis probably realized what a pile of crap that movie was, so you can’t go off that reaction exclusively.
Paired with that claim, however, is plenty of evidence that Willis is a pain in most peoples’ ass on set. Armed with that history, I might lean towards a little bit of both happening: Willis pissing off Allen and being fired mixed with Willis saying something along the lines of “you can’t fire me I quit.” Regardless, Allen and his crew will have to double back and reshoot Willis’s part with a different actor.
No Escape, the latest film from Quarantine director John Erick Dowdle, is a tense and harrowing ride for most of its 103 minute running time. With a strong cast and a solid plot that skirts the line of plausibility without ever veering over, the film manages to avoid the well-worn clichés of “family in peril” thrillers and Taken knock-offs while still delivering suspenseful entertainment at every turn.
Owen Wilson plays Jack Dwyer, an engineer and one-time entrepreneur whose reluctant career detour leads him to uproot the lives of his wife Annie (Lake Bell, Million Dollar Arm) and daughters Lucy (Sterling Jerins, And So It Goes) and Beeze (Claire Geare) from their home in Texas as he assumes a middle management role at a U.S. corporate-owned water treatment plant in Southeast Asia. Less than 24 hours after their arrival, the Dwyers find they have a whole lot more to worry about than lost luggage or not being able to read the newspapers: a violent coup kicked off by the assassination of the unnamed country’s prime minister takes over the streets surrounding their hotel, and the insurgents forcing their way in and quickly executing any Westerners they come across.
With literally no understanding of what is going on or why the insurgents seem to be targeting them specifically, the Dwyers manage to keep one step ahead of those trying to kill them thanks in part to Hammond (Pierce Brosnan), a British national who proves to be more than just the randy, rough-around-the-edges tourist he initially presents. With no help coming from the outside and the net cast by the militants rapidly closing around them, the goal for the Dwyers becomes bloodily simple: survive and evade long enough to cross the border into a neighboring country and request asylum, which is, of course, far easier said than done when their very physical appearance makes them stand out even amidst the swirling chaos of a popular uprising.
Having directed 2010’s Devil and last year’s As Above, So Below in addition to Quarantine, John Erick Dowdle is certainly no stranger to effectively bringing to audiences the terror of feeling trapped. In fact, it’s a running theme in just about all of his films — Quarantine featured people trapped in a contagion-infected apartment building, Devil focused on characters trapped in an elevator with a demonic entity, and As Above, So Below centered on a group trapped in ancient catacombs beneath the streets of Paris. What does separate No Escape from those previous efforts in terms of Dowdle’s direction is his move away from utilizing the “found footage” technique he’s used previously, which is a welcome change. Granted, there’s still some instances of that technique’s well known and oft bemoaned “shaky cam” to be found here as the production follows the cast running down narrow corridors, dimly-lit staircases and dirty back alleys. But mostly Dowdle and director of photography Léo Hinstin go with wider, more traditional shots to better incorporate the exotic look and feel of the film’s locations, as well as to convey to audiences just how far removed from the safe and familiar the story’s protagonists really are.
Dowdle also is very careful to keep the narrative focus of the film on the Dwyers at all times save the film’s opening minutes — he keeps their perspective of the events around them front and center, with the result being that the minds and motives of the insurgents remain relatively unknown to them. There aren’t even subtitles provided to translate dialogue spoken by the militants, to keep those viewing just as much in the dark about what’s being said or shouted as rocks are being hurled and bullets fired at our viewpoint characters. The cumulative effect of all these subtle choices is a surprising level of tension and genuine terror. No Escape may not be a “horror film” in the same sense that Dowdle’s previous films all were, but thanks to his approach it still provides plenty of scares.
https://youtu.be/VFpK71yBv1s
There are, however, a few questionable choices in terms of the film’s final edit, the most glaring of which is his liberal use of slow motion in editing the film’s set pieces, enough so that its noticeable and it feels heavy handed. It’s as though Dowdle didn’t trust the tension and suspense he and his brother/writing partner Drew Dowdle wrote into their script to be intense and riveting enough, so he uses the slo-mo to at times unnecessarily drag things out. Arguably, the film’s first act is a bit ponderous, as well; the intent to fully introduce the family dynamic and set the stage for what’s to come is certainly clear, but like the handling of the film’s more intense sequences, had Dowdle and his crew trusted their material and the quality of the cast’s performance to draw the audience in and get them invested, it all could have been done more efficiently and to the same effect.
Speaking of the cast, those reading this who might find the prospect of Owen Wilson being the lead in a film of this kind odd or worrisome should put that all aside, as he for the most part keeps his trademark goofiness to a minimum and delivers a capable “everyman” performance. Lake Bell, also a performer one might not quickly associate with work in action thrillers, is equally strong here in a role that actually demands quite a bit more than Wilson’s in a number of ways, not the least of which is one particularly intense scene she is the victim of a sexual assault. In contrast, Brosnan is far more in his element here, though Hammond is far closer in character type to the neurotic hitman he played in 2005’s The Matador than he is to Bond, James Bond, and so he’s completely credible in the role, even during one of the film’s few lighter scenes when he’s singing on a karaoke stage … badly. He doesn’t have as much screen time here as one might expect going in, but when he is on screen, he’s clearly comfortable with the material.
But what’s really best about No Escape is that it stays grounded and plausible. What audiences witness the Dwyers experience was carefully conceived and executed to come across as something that could happen to any Western family out of their element in any volatile part of the world, and it works. As a result, it’s one of those films you’re likely never to see on an overseas flight, as the last thing airlines want to do is spook their passengers right before their family getaways to exotic locales where they don’t speak the language. So if you enjoy thrillers where it’s more about atmosphere and suspense than crazy stunts and action, by all means see this film.
Just don’t see it before you go on vacation abroad.
No Escape
Starring Owen Wilson, Lake Bell, Sterling Jerins, Claire Geare, and Pierce Brosnan. Directed by John Erick Dowdle.
Running Time: 103 minutes
Rated R for strong violence including a sexual assault, and for language.
Despite his dark garb , sith-like cloak , a sweet cross-guard lightsaber and his use of the Force in the epic trailer, Star Wars: The Force Awakens director J.J. Abrams says Kylo Ren is not a Sith lord or apprentice. While speaking to Empire magazine, Abrams was quoted saying:
“Kylo Ren is not a Sith…He works under Supreme Leader Snoke, who is a powerful figure on the Dark Side of the Force.”
Supreme Leader Snoke is the mysterious motion capture character played by premiere Mo-Cap pacesetter, Andy Serkis. To date all we have gotten from the character was his chilling voice over in the first teaser and this has led many fans to speculate that Snoke could really be Darth Plagueis (Who is known to Star Wars fans as a very powerful Sith who may or may not have died a long time ago) in disguise.
Abrams went on to give a few more details about The First Order. Speaking of their origins and possible motivations, he said:
“That all came out of conversations about what would have happened if the Nazis all went to Argentina but then started working together again? What could be born of that? Could The First Order exist as a group that actually admired The Empire? Could the work of The Empire be seen as unfulfilled? And could Vader be a martyr? Could there be a need to see through what didn’t get done?”
These are very interesting revelations indeed. It would seem that if anything, the Star Wars mythos are about to be enriched with even more complex villains as the story gets expanded in the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens and all the other spin-offs that follow, which is something to be very excited about!
For more on Star Wars, be sure to come back to Monkeys Fighting Robots daily. Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
King Kong is one of the most iconic, beloved movie “monsters” in cinematic history. Birthed in 1933, Merrian C. Cooper’s film was, as advertised, one of the new world wonders. The epic adventure story was a watershed moment for special effects and thrilling creature features, culminating in an unforgettable showdown atop the Empire State Building. It defined cinematic epics for the world. You know the story, you’ve seen King Kong at least… a dozen times? I’m sure you have.
King Kong spawned a number of spinoff films and imitators, from its semi-sequel Son of Kong, to serving as a partial motivation for Toho to create Godzilla (that, and the nuclear fallout from WWII). Cooper’s film and its legacy extended throughout the years, finally getting the remake treatment in 1976 thanks to big-time producer Dino De Laurentiis. De Laurentiis, with a history of big-budget blockbusters on his ledger, had stars in his eyes when he tackled a new Kong story. The film would feature groundbreaking effects, much like the original, and would star fresh-faced newcomers Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges, accompanying Charles Grodin.
This new amalgamation of King Kong would focus on the current climate in 1976, namely the oil crisis in the U.S. that had started earlier in the decade. Rather than being adventurous filmmakers traveling to a mysterious island to capture footage for a feature, Grodin’s Fred Wilson would be a businessman traveling to Skull Island for the prospect of crude. The rest of the film fell mostly in to place as far as the story structure is concerned: Americans find natives, natives capture the woman (in this case, Dwan, played by Lange), the woman is kidnapped by Kong, Kong is then captured and brought to the U.S. and, well, all hell breaks loose. Despite the bloated bottom line and appropriately epic scope, John Guillermin’s version of the Eighth Wonder of The World failed to recoup its budget, and was met with mediocre to poor reviews.
Before we get too far into the meat of Kong ’76, fast forward to 2005, and Peter Jackson’s vision to re-make one of his most beloved childhood movies. Jackson’s King Kong would approach the story from the 1933 version, of course, after Kong ’76 failed. Again, Carl Denham (Jack Black this time) would be the filmmaker, Naomi Watts the young starlet Ann Darrow, Adrian Brody the leading man Jack Driscoll, etc. Jackson, ever the epic filmmaker, decided to add cut scenes from the original version back into his story. He also decided to expand some creature fights and add a few more, because he had the new CGI tech at his disposal. Why not?
While the 2005 version of King Kong wasn’t groundbreaking, it was generally lauded by critics and managed to bring in around $220 million domestically (albeit on a $207 million budget). But now, ten years later, and 39 years beyond Kong ’76, I am here to say the 1976 version is better, flat out, than Jackson’s film.
Jackson’s version was broad, epic in scope, dare I say bloated. Yes, Jackson’s version of the classic tale clocks in at three hours and seven minutes. I am all for three-hour films if the story deserves such a treatment. But King Kong at three hours? This is an adventure surrounding a giant ape who is captured and brought back to New York City, this is not Schindler’s List or Lawrence of Arabia. Had Jackson’s film been able to fill those hours with weighty material, it might have worked. We get nearly 90 minutes before the arrival of Kong himself, an extended journey to Skull Island, extraneous characters, the insertion of a deleted scene from the original featuring giant spiders that was deleted for good reason, and endless side roads and detours from the core of the story. In contrast, the 1976 version of King Kong clocks in at two hours 14 minutes, almost an hour shorter. It avoids the asides. Because of that, the film never has extended lulls in its narrative thrust.
Also, I realize that 2005 CGI allotted much more dexterity for Kong, and the freedom for Jackson to insert extended battle sequences and creatures on top of creatures. But was it necessary? Eventually, computer-generated bugs lose their luster, and all of the creatures carry with them a slick, homogenized look and feel. It isn’t nearly as compelling when it is clear Kong is on a green screen. Granted, the ’33 version used stop-motion puppetry and a giant robotic hand and head, but that ws what they had at their disposal and it worked. Then the ’76 adaptation used several techniques – mostly a man in a monkey suit. But those tangible effects gave those versions a texture, something that could seemingly be touched and felt. As hokey as the ’76 scenes might look in this age of seamless CGI, it has its own undeniable charm.
Something else working in the favor of the ’76 version is the three-dimensional development of the human characters. In both the ’33 version and Jackson’s version, the three central characters are utterly forgettable cogs in the story. In 2005, Brody and Watts have absolutely no chemistry, and they have little to do aside from gazing at the assembly line of beasts in front of them (via green screen). Jack Black tries hard to shed his scowling comedic energy, but it doesn’t work. In 1976, Charles Grodin channels the maniacal single-mindedness of Fred Wilson, his oilman version of Denham. Jeff Bridges, playing Jack Prescott, an environmental stowaway aboard the ship, adds serious weight to what is typically a throwaway savior character in the other versions. Meanwhile, Jessica Lange’s Dwan is a dreamy starlet, shipwrecked and brought aboard the ship. Lange plays up the aloof adventurousness of her character, rather than scream and stare aghast at the monster. And what Dwan also does that Faye Wray’s Ann Darrow didn’t do in the original, she falls in love with Kong. She brings real emotion to the character, and manages to develop a relationship with both Kong and Jack that drives the film. This makes Kong’s last stand (atop the World Trade Center, another fascinating element of the ’76 version) impact the audience on an additional level. In fact, the only element of the ’76 version Jackson brought to his adaptation was Ann’s unusual romantic relationship with the ape.
The 1976 version also manages to keep the original story in tact while becoming something altogether unique. The timely storyline, focusing on an oil crisis, makes it a product of its time more than Jackson’s straight period-piece remake. It has charm, emotion, and some tongue-in-cheek bizarro 70s romanticism that sets it apart from the other two versions. And it also adds a crucial element of the story that was glossed over in both the original and Jackson’s version: 1976 King Kong makes sure to add an important scene after Kong is captured where we see how he is transported across the ocean and back to the U.S. This minor (major) detail was never broached in either of the other two films.
Nobody will ever say the 1976 big-budget version of King Kong can hold a candle to the 1933 original. They shouldn’t. The ’33 version was the birth of a new genre of filmmaking, a thrilling and lean adventure picture that is seminal. What some should consider are the merits of Kong ’76 when compared to Jackson’s version. Kong ’76 is all-too-often marginalized and looked over when discussing the film versions of the classic beast. But Jackson’s version is unjustly praised when it is, for the most part, dull and bloated and lacking any true emotion. More becomes less. I defy anyone to tell me the 1976 version is in the least bit dull. It’s easy to praise Jackson and scoff at any monster flick from the 70s, but that would be missing the better version of the classic creation.
Some set photos from AMC’s upcoming adaptation of the graphic novel Preacher surfaced on Facebook yesterday. In the photos, we get the first glimpse of Joseph Gilgun as Cassidy and Ian Colletti as Arseface (a.k.a. Eugene Root).
Here are the photos:
Preacher tells the story of the Reverend Jesse Custer, who is on a journey to track down God, who has abandoned his post. Along the way he scrums it out with a few baddies. The story is being adapted from the graphic novel series by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon, and being produced by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg.
There is no release date yet for the series, but I would expect it next fall from AMC.
There are very few anime properties which have cemented themselves within the pop culture fabric as firmly as Dragon Ball. From Japan to the US and Europe to Australia, there exists a collective experience, a generation who grew up on the adventures of Goku, Vegeta and the Z-Fighters. Despite this, many still wonder what makes the series so special and even fans can find themselves puzzled about what endears them to the characters so much. Derek Padula’s Dragon Ball Z It’s Over 9000: When Worldviews Collides seeks to present the answers to the questions by analyzing the conflicting philosophies underpinning two of the franchise’s principal characters; Goku and Vegeta.
Padula begins by offering a history of the “Over 9000” meme, its popularity, and the important role the original scene plays within the series itself. He goes on to explain how it, shockingly, became a driving force behind the marketing of many Dragon Ball products, and led to a renewed relevance for the series. While analyzing what made this meme stick in the cultural hive-mind, the topic acts as a gateway to a much more interesting discussion. Using the now-infamous meme as a starting off point, Padula takes an in-depth look at what makes the rivalry between Goku and Vegeta interesting. Both are Full-Blooded Saiyans, so what is it that drives them towards conflict? Padula rejects the notion that the answer is as simple as a battle between good and evil. In this regard, he examines how classism, spirituality and morality inform the world of Dragon Ball and how they impact the characters. What follows is a profound academic analysis of a series most assume exists solely to provide well-choreographed, albeit drawn-out, fight scenes.
What becomes apparent throughout the book is that Goku and Vegeta cannot be categorised as merely amounting to the archetypical “good guy” and “bad guy” respectively. Instead, both are incredibly complex characters in their own right. Whether it’s the hierarchical, classist upbringing that defines much of Vegeta’s worldview or Goku’s ability to see the potential of others to become more than what they seem, it’s clear that there is a lot going on under the surface. Padula argues that their rivalry is symbolic of the wider clash of idea present in competing Eastern and Western philosophies. The book places what is arguably the most famous rivalry in Shonen entertainment into a mature light linking their struggles with those found within our world.
Padula’s writing style is quite accessible and overall the book reads very well. It’s Over 9000 offers clear, well-argued analysis that sets it apart from other books of a similar vein. It doesn’t talk down to its audience or over-simplify, but neither does it complicate the ideas it discusses beyond comprehension. Moreover, this is not a case of someone reading too much into something, as each argument presented by Padula is well-supported and recognizable on an intuitive level. The author simply provides us with full-implications of that which is already hinted at. Padula is quite economical as a writer, using exactly the amount of words necessary to convey his points succinctly. Structurally speaking, the book is laid out into distinctive segments which provide for ease of reference. It is, however, fair to say that those with a familiarity with the series will get much more out of this than non-fans. That being said, Padula does a fine job at providing the necessary context for his analysis ensuring that those who have never seen the show or are a little rusty on the finer details are not excluded from the conversation.
It’s Over 9000 is proof-positive the Dragon Ball is a franchise capable of being enjoyed on many levels and holds much more depth than many would argue. Both fans and non-fans alike will gain a new appreciation for and understanding of one of the stalwarts of anime. It’s a fascinating book and one that both challenges and inspires its readers to inspire to surpass their limits. If you find yourself asking how Dragon Ball is still going strong after 30 years, It’s Over 9000: When Worldviews Collide contains the answers you seek.
For those of you interesting in picking up the book, it is currently available in both paperback and ebook format from Amazon and a hardback edition is due out in the coming weeks. We also recommend checking out Derek’s other books; Dragon Soul: 30 Years of Dragon Ball Fandom and Dragon Ball Culture.
If you were to go back in time and take a look at me, say around the age of five, you would see a blonde-haired young cherub (I did look innocent back then) spending hours playing with his Castle Greyskull and acting out scenes from his favorite show, He-Man. My parents hooked me up with everything from the castle to the action figures: man, I had it all! My family even took to the mall to meet He-Man himself and we almost got trampled on. Of course, as time progressed I grew less fond of The Masters of the Universe and more into other things, but when I heard that they were making a movie based on my favorite cartoon… I was pumped.
When the movie was eventually released in 1987, it was met with a thunderously apathetic response. Masters of the Universe received a dismal 17% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 17% … that makes The Fantastic Four look like a contender for Best Picture. Billy Barty was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for worst supporting actor in a motion picture. I guess the thought of a movie headed up by Dolph Lundgren, Courtney Cox, and Billy Barty was not enough to drum up box-office dollars. So the dream of Masters of the Universe sequels died a quick and painless death and left one blonde haired super fan heartbroken.
Fast-forward thirty years, and word broke that Christopher Yost, who penned such Marvel hits as Thor: The Dark World, has taken on the task of bringing He-Man back to silver-screen. What’s important about this hire is that Yost has experience in dealing with both comic books and animated series as well. It seems as if hiring Yost is an indication that this is really going to happen. Columbia Pictures has resurrected my dream of another Master of the Universe movie. So I decided that I would run up into the attic and dust off my old He-Man toys and use the powers of Eternia to inspire me to give you the top 5 actors who should play the title role of He-Man. Executives at Columbia Pictures please takes these names down.
Daniel Cudmore
He is a Canadian actor and stuntman. He is perhaps best known for his roles in the X-Men and Twilight Franchises. The role of He-Man requires someone with a massive physique and dominant presence on the screen and Cudmore fits the bill. His experience in Comic-Book films will help him succeed in the role of both He-Man and Adam, the Prince of Eternia.
Michael O’Hearn
He has appeared in the movies Barbarian, Keeper of Time, and had a minor supporting role in Death Becomes Her. He may not have the extensive resume that some might but based on what I have seen of Mr. O’Hearn he not only has the build but the presence to pull off the He-Man.
Ryan Kwaten
He played Vinnie Patterson from 1997 – 2002 in the Australian soap opera Home and Away. After that he was cast in Summerland and in 2008 he was cast as Jason Stackhouse in True Blood. His roles seem to feature some sort of duality or some sort of secret he’s keeping from the others which makes him a very interesting fit for the role He-Man. Plus, more importantly, he looks very close to the actual character.
Kellan Lutz
Our very own Matthew Sardo interviewed Kellan and he alluded that he has his eyes on a particular comic-book role. Could he be referencing the upcoming Masters of the Universe Film? He certainly has not only the build but the acting chops to pull of the role. Plus he does have some box office appeal as well.
Charlie Hunnam
The Son’s of Anarchy star has been long rumored to be inline to take on this role. It’s hard to deny his appeal to a wider audience but I think the fact that he doesn’t look like He-Man might just supersede that. We have to be able to buy into the idea that the actor on screen could very well be He-Man and Charlie Hunnam just wouldn’t be believable. That being said I wouldn’t be floored if they announce that Charlie Hunnam is the next He-Man
