Is There a X-Men Reboot in the Works? Part 2: Has Marvel Been Planning One All Along?

     Jumping on what I said earlier in the previous post, X-Men: Apocalypse is coming and it seems that director Bryan Singer and Marvel are planning to make this movie the biggest event to happen in the X-Men universe. You get a sense that something is going to happen in Apocalypse that will forever change the franchise forever. Hopefully one of these things could mean a reboot. In the previous post, I gave reasons why this seems likely. The biggest thing that seems plausible that they could be rebooting the franchise is them recasting Storm, Jean Grey, and Cyclops. The recasting seems almost like a passing of the torch from previous characters. What I forgot to add that there could've been possible clues in the recent X-Men movies giving key hints that Marvel has been planning on rebooting the franchise for a while.
     First lets go a bit deeper into the movies. Not the entire X-Men movie franchise, sorry Wolvie fans, but the first two trilogies. You can see that there are two import story arcs. The first one (X-Men, X-2, & X-Men the Last Stand, sets everything up in the events in the universe. The first three films. What is important is what's happening in the second trilogy.
     The second trilogy, First Class, Days of Future's Past, and Apocalypse has a certain theme that correlates between them. That theme is time. First Class is the film that sets what is the beginning of the timeline and the others and what is, setting up the events that happened in the first trilogy. The next two movies pretty much involve Director Bryan Singer channeling the Terminator franchise with Days of Future Past and Apocalypse as both films are about fixing disastrous futures set by what happens in the current timeline. Days involves time traveling into the past and Singer has stated that it will borrow some elements from the Age of Apocalypse's storyline meaning that the X-Men will be trying to prevent the Apocalypse timeline in some way. Of course one of the ways Apocalypse could end is there could be something that will trigger a big reset of everything. This relaunch could do away with everything that has happened in the two trilogies and start a new universe which will be our reboot.

     I could be reading a bit too much into things, but this wouldn't surprise me a bit. Marvel has been all about looking at the big picture of things. Making plans around movies and shaping them up for the next big thing to happen. The Avengers and the possible events that are happening in that movie universe leading to the Infinity Wars are proof of that. Again, in the last post, the new actors, the Deadpool conection to the universe, and whatever happens in Apocalypse could be making things more obvious. It would be actually impressive if Marvel had this in mind when they decided to do this with First Class.

Do you think that Marvel is considering a X-Men reboot or they should be considering one? I would love to hear your feedback.

Is There a X-Men Reboot in the Works? Part 1: Why There Should Be One

     Tuesday we were treated to possible actors who could play Jean Grey and Cyclops (Scott Summers) for X-Men: Apocalypse film coming out May 2016. Actresses that might play Jean Grey include Chloe Mortez and Elle Fanning while the actors playing Cyclops are mostly unknowns like Ben Hardy and Charlie Rowe. It was announced a while ago that Storm, Jean Grey, and Cyclops would be recast for Apocalypse so it's good to finally see some potential faces and see who could be right for the role. Apocalypse seems like it will be the biggest X-Men film yet. It will be no doubt that there will be some big changes after Apocalypse. Could one of these changes be a reboot? There are some signs that this could be possible or some reasons why a reboot should be the next step.

New Actors = New Start
     Let's start with the obvious. We are getting new actors to play Storm, Scott and Jean. New actors playing these character could just be the perfect opportunity to start things over.  Apocalypse could be or it should be a vehicle for a reboot for these actors. We could see how well they can do the roles as well as see what works and what doesn't.

The Time Continuity is Fucked
     One of the biggest set backs of the X-Men film franchise is the time continuity. It's a big mess. You have examples like Charles Xavier being in a wheel chair at the end of First Class and walking in X-Men Origins: Wolverine years later, as well as Emma Frost age in both films. Apocalypse resetting everything into a new reboot of the franchise could be just the thing to make the timeline not as messy, unless the producers and writers decide to ruin the new timeline as well....

Hugh Jackman
     If you are new to the franchise, Mr. Jackman has played Wolverine in the entire franchise. From X-Men in 2000 to Days of Futures Past in 2014 and a few spin-offs, Jackman has played Wolverine for 14 years (Actually 17 because he will reprise the role in the sequel to The Wolverine). I don't know about you but it is time for him to pass the role to somebody else. Jackman himself has went back and forth on whether he would retire from the character and hang his adamantium claws up. Despite on whether he wants to continue to play the role, a recast of Wolverine is inevitable. A reboot would be just the thing to transition the role to another actor.

Marvel Movie Universe!!!™
     The last reason is probably the most obvious money wise. The Marvel Movie Universe has done Marvel some good in the past few years. Connecting already bankable movies like Captain America to other bankable movies like Iron Man, creating a huge comic book all-star movie cast like The Avengers has made their studios billions. Why not X-Men? They are already trying to do connect the X-Men movie franchise to other movies like the upcoming Deadpool movie. A new reboot could be just the perfect opportunity as a new reboot could allow things to be connected perfectly. Especially as stated earlier, the current timeline is jumbled. A new reboot could have things like Deadpool in the X-Men universe make more sense.

Where the f*** is Star Fox Wii U?

     Nintendo did a direct on Wednesday and we were treated to a lot of goodness. Finally we got an announcement that we are getting a Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask remake for the Nintendo 3DS. We got treated at the new DLC pack for Mario Kart 8 including seeing Link in action and the new Hyrule Circuit. We also got to take a look at how Amiibo will work on games like giving Link am new weapon for Hyrule Warriors and giving your Mii all new costumes for Mario Kart. All of these things look promising. We are going to be in for some good gaming for the Spring of next year. Despite all that Nintendo showed us one question stands: Where is the new Star Fox game?
     A while back at E3, Shigeru Miyamoto displayed a demo of what could have been a new Star Fox game. Since then, the game has been slated to appear in 2015, along with other titles. Since the announcement of the new Star Fox game, there has been a ton of excitement from fans and it is for a good reason. It's been a while since we have gotten a Star Fox game. Despite getting a remake of Star Fox 64 on the Nintendo 3DS, we haven't gotten a REAL Star Fox game in eight years with Star Fox: Command for the Nintendo DS in 2006.  We are long overhauled for a new Star Fox game. The series is still in demand.
     The weird thing is that they have been very hush on the game other than stating that they are working on it. We have seen other trailers and demos for the other games that are coming out for 2015 like Yoshi's Wooly World, Splatoon, and Zelda Wii U. Will they ever show us something other than that test demo that we saw at E3 this year?  There are a few possibilities as to why they are keeping things underwraps. The first one is that they are probably going to feature a new mechanic to that will offer something different to the series giving it new life. Whatever they are experimenting on, they would have to be cautious as it won't be something that drifts away from what made us love the series (I'm looking at you Star Fox Adventures...)
     It seems like if we are ever going to see something, we will get a chance to at least see a teaser of a new Star Fox game next year around E3. While that seem like it would be the ideal spot to announce something, it will be problematic if they give us something in the Summer of 2015 as it will be hard to build up enough hype to get everyone to buy it in the Holiday 2015 season as the game would seem a bit rushed. Hopefully whatever they are doing with Star Fox Wii U Nintendo, please don't keep us waiting TOO long...

7 REALLY Bad Horror Films

     I am a fan of horror movies. I simply love them. When you usually think of horror, you think of movies like Scream, or Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street. These are all great examples. Sadly not all horror movies are great. Here's a list to prove that.

House of the Dead
     If it isn't hearing Uwe Boll directed is enough to make you not watch it, it is everything else. The acting, the script, editing, everything. As well as a really bad horror film, HotD is also a video game movie, which most are notoriously bad in their own right.  Fun fact, the first time I had to watch this, it took me a world record five minutes to watch it before changing the channel. The second time was a strength of endurance. I was really hyped to see it in theaters and thankfully I didn't go see it when it came out.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
     One of the bad things that happened with the sequels of some of the greatest horror movie franchises of the 80s and 70s was that some of the plots often venture into crazy WTFness of explanation. Case in point, evil dream demons that at the point of his death, granted Freddy the power to haunt the children of Elm Street in their dreams and killed them. This and the crappy 3D glasses tie-in didn't make this movie very good. It also didn't help that over the run of the original franchise, Freddy Kruger had devolved to your literal worse nightmare into a really charred Looney Tunes character. New Nightmare was redeemable though.

See No Evil
     This not only marked the debut of WWE Films, but it marked the debut of WWE wrestler, Kane, in a film. Wrestlers don't make good actors period. From Hulk Hogan, to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, to  John Cena. They must have been hit hard in the head too many times with the chair to think acting is a good idea. See No Evil did too many of the slasher film cliches. Teens being hunted and killed by huge brawny serial killer, gore-porn, and in the case of the Kane's character, Jacob Goodnight, the serial killer with mother issues, ala Jason Voorhees and Norman Bates. It tried to borrow most of the stuff from other horror movies and it ended up being a jumbled mess.

The Amityville Horror (Remake)
     Most remakes are bad, and Amityville Horror is one of  them. With the original, what worked was the fact that it did the less was more method in horror until the end where things really got fucked up and the house was bleeding. The remake didn't. The remake is a simple case of when overuse of CGI ruins everything. CGI is cool, but too much of it is a bad thing. It went the opposite of scary and went in the direction of outright ridiculousness by doing what most horror movies did with that era, add in sort-of-creepy-not-really CGI, mostly with the scenes with the supposedly creepy ghost girl. Thank goodness for the shirtless Ryan Reynolds though.

Jaws 3
     The thing that made the first Jaws movie scary was that you never got to see much of the shark. This along with the technical difficulties of the mechanical shark led to a great move. This is a technique that works great in horror as it leaves you, the audience to imagine what happens. Jaws 3 decides to sorta ditch this technique and deciding to cash on the franchise as well as the 3D trend too was what made this bad. The 3D scene with the shark moving towards the camera just came off as hilarious instead of scary.

The Ring 2
     I am a big fan of both The Ring, as well as the original Ringu. There are a few parts of Ring 2 that are scary, but the reason Ring 2 is on this list is due to the fact it's not like its first film. The reason behind this is due to how the sequel was made. Instead of the first film which was an American adaptation of a Japanese horror film, Ring 2 was completely 100% American made, an original script. Taking out the key components that we loved from the first film, Ring 2 just comes off as generic and lifeless.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
     Even though some won't agree, The Blair Witch Project was scary. Again, going back to what I said with Jaws, the technique of leaving the audience to imagine the fear is a very powerful thing and that is what Blair Witch did. You had to imagine the fear of the witch hunting and stalking the three college students in the haunted forest, picking and killing them off one by one. The first film was a hit, being the most profitable film ever until the release of a film that drew a lot from it, Paranormal Activity. To quickly cash in on the success of The Blair Witch, a sequel was made and went a different, route, to Hell. Book of Shadows decided to ditch the formula from the first film and try to go the route of traditional horror films. It didn't work. It ended almost having little to do with the original film and was almost a parody of it. The moral of the story is, let's not stray away from the winning formula.

DC Movie Universe: What Will Marvel Do?

     Earlier this week we got news that along with the new "Justice League" movie, Batman v Superman, DC and Warner Bros. is planning  to release  a lineup of superhero movies for most of the superheroes involved. That means we will be getting an Aquaman movie along with a Wonder Woman movie (finally). Warner Bros. and DC are already making plans for Wonder Woman, looking for female directors to make the film. Does all of these movies being planned after a huge all-star superhero lineup movie sound familiar? It should. It sounds like DC is taking a lesson from Marvel's Movie Universe and they are making a universe of their own.
      This is kinda no surprise. We hear that the sequel to Man of Steel is going to not only Batman in it, then Wonder Woman, and then Aquaman, Cyborg, The Flash, and possibly a Robin? Not only who's in the movie, it would be awfully foolish of DC not to try to copy Marvel's movie strategy. Ever since Marvel came up with this idea to have a majority of every superhero movie they come out linked, every movie has been a hit. The Avengers, which brings this universe all together is Marvel's biggest success to date and its follow up, The Age of Ultron, is the most anticipated movie of 2014. DC's plan seems to be let's beat Marvel at its own game. The question is what can Marvel do to stay on top?
     As far as movies go, Marvel doesn't need to do much. As long as they keep up with the quality of story and production, they will be fine. Marvel has a finely ran machine in the movie department. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. In order for Marvel to excel, they have to go past movies and maybe start venturing into new territory. Maybe Primetime TV? Primetime TV is where DC reign. DC has had it run of Primetime shows for the past few years. We had Lois and Clark before Smallville on the CW and now DC has shows like Arrow as well as newly premiered shows like The Flash and Gotham. Since DC is trying to take on Marvel on their home turf, movies, Marvel needs to do the same. We haven't gotten much from Marvel when it comes to Primetime shows. We do have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, but that seems to be the only thing right now. The time is now for them to expand a bit. There's a possibility that S.H.I.E.L.D might be them testing the waters for something big. There are rumors that there is an X-Men TV series being planned and that would be a good start for Marvel to come out on the offensive. They do have some good material for them to put out. It would be nice if we do see something else like a Fantastic Four drama on the CW or Fox as well.
     Whatever the plan is for Marvel, they have to consider how they're going to outdo not only themselves and the competition. They have reinvented the Superhero genere, making it a spectacle instead of it just being a movie about your favorite superhero. Whether or not if they are going to do the Primetime TV takeover route, I'm sure they are making plans on what they can do. Hopefully it will be good.

Bayonetta 2: Too Sexy for Feminism?

     Creator of Feminist Frequency, Anita Sarkeesian posted on her Twitter account disdain over the recently released game Bayonetta 2, criticizing it as being oversexualized attended for male gamers. She also attacked several sites for "turning a blind eye" and not mainly talking about how overtly sexual the character is. Along with Sarkersian, Polygon in a none accusing sexism manner bashed the new game, giving it a 7.5 for it being too sexy. The question is: Is Bayonetta too sexy and is it too sexy to the point of it be objectifying to women?
      First of all, this is not an attack on Ms. Sarkeesian at all. This is a disagreement. I respect and admire her a lot for exposing a well known problem we have in the gaming community with sexism. Any other time she would be right. There are several games out here that do overtly sexualize women to the point that their only purpose in the game is to just be a big pair of tits that talk. From the bikini ninja women (Kitana, Mileena, Jade, Tanya, & Skarlet) of Mortal Kombat to the women of DOA, which went to a kinda respectable fighting game to just pure fanservice by having them play volleyball and jiggle physics. Again, she would be right any other time, but her tirade against Bayonetta 2 is just over reaching.
      Going back to the original question of whether Bayonetta the game and character is sexy, of course she is. The game screams sex. It is brazen with its sexual themes. It is full of sexual undertones and it is unapologetic for them. Is it sexy to the point where it is objectifying women? No. Again, the character Bayonetta is a very fanservicey character that is sexualized a lot, it's not in the same way as the female characters in Mortal Kombat or the girl in that chainsaw zombie game. Those other female characters are sexualized for the sake of sex whereas Bayonetta isn't. Living up to the origin of her name, bayonet, there is something deeper to Bayonetta's sexuality. It is empowering. Her character is one who is fearless and will put it out there and won't care if you are offended, especially when it comes to being sexy. She uses it and is actually in control with it. She puts it in your face, forcing you to deal with it. Bayonetta uses her sexuality as a weapon. One way you can compare Bayonetta to is a dominatrix. She exuberates sex and also used as a powerful force. She gets her jollies pummeling her enemies into oblivion and doing it in a sexy way.
      Is it possible for a woman to be sexy, in control with it without it being considered to be pandering or her being objectified to men? It is, but some people can't see it that way. There does seem to be an issue with some feminists and women's sexuality. It's almost and still sad to this day that a woman to this day cannot claim to be sexy without being slut shamed, even by the so called people who fight for her rights to do so. It's almost like a few feminist that bashed Beyonce over her recent album for its adult tone. They are wrong for doing so. Sexuality is a good thing. It's not something to be ashamed of. Owning it and not caring what people think is a bold and brave thing, especially if you are a woman. In a way, Bayonetta, the games and the character, are a fine example of feminism. She using something that people are afraid of against them. If that isn't pro woman. I don't know is.

What are your thoughts on Bayonetta being sexual? Is it TOO much and/oris it really objectifying?

Labyrinth Sequel: Will It Make Dance Magic or Be Banished into the Bog of Eternal Stench?

     On Friday, we just got news that there might be a Labyrinth sequel! In an article in Variety, we learned that in an interview with Jim Henson, talking about Billy Crystal being involved in their upcoming film "Which Witch" that the company is considering developing a sequel to the 1986 film, along with a Fraggle Rock movie and a sequel to The Dark Crystal. A lot of people, including myself,  are excited about this. Labyrinth is an 80s classic. I can ensure you that it is constantly brought up in discussion of what is the best movie of the 80s. Jim Henson took you into a magical world full of wonderment full of creatures that could remove limbs at will, fruit that could take to a party in your wildest dreams, and the wonderment of David Bowe in tights. The news is fascinating, there's a dread in me that the sequel, if everything is confirmed and set to film, would not live up to standards.
     The idea of doing sequels years later isn't new. A lot of times they have been bad and less than stellar as well. Rarely do these year-gaped sequels do well at all. The Star Wars prequels had people in awe over what the exact hell did they just watched, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull moved people to get out of their seats and asked for their money back, and we don't speak of Oz: The Great and Powerful. Why is it that these movie sequels fail? There are some considerations.
     One is that as obvious there is an age gap between sequel and original, the same could be said for the demographic. You have two different audiences to consider. The ones who grew up watching the movie and the one who mostly didn't. It can be hard trying to appeal to both demographics. Some things will get lost with the new moviegoers and whatever to appeal to the new moviegoers will not get the old generation. Another factor is how the sequel is made is the movie itself. Usually the reason a studio decides to make a sequel for a movie years ago is to make a quick buck off of nostalgia and it shows. It shows how poorly put together it is compared to the originals and it puts off the entire audience.
     Before I put the Labyrinth sequel down even before it is even green lit, there is a chance it could be good. There are some year-gaped sequels that are good, not better than the original, but they don't suck. Even it technically isn't a sequel, Disney's Return to Oz was great. To some, not better than the 1939 movie with Judy Garland, but it was a far more superior Oz movie than Oz: The Great and Powerful and the recent Oz sequel Dorothy of Oz was. Why was that? Because they kept true to the source material. The producer and writers knew what they were doing and that they had to remember the magic of the first movie and what made people love the source material. Hopefully whoever attaches themselves to this movie remembers that.

What are your thoughts on the Labyrinth sequel? Is a sequel a good idea? Will it be good?