Monthly Marvel Musings: Can Marvel Studios negotiate other characters back to the MCU?

In the midst of recent casting announcements (some big, some very welcome, some minor), some interesting details have emerged regarding the various rights issues that my help - or hinder - bringing various Marvel characters and stories to the big screen.  This month I thought I'd look at this; in some cases it makes certain films or comics stories seem unlikely to happen, but there is light at the end of the tunnel....

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Following Spidey, can Marvel Studios negotiate other characters back to the MCU?

So this week it was finally confirmed that young British actor Tom Holland would be the new, teenage Peter Parker (better known as Spiderman), as well as relatively unknown Director Jon Watts would be in charge of his first solo outing.  But alongside this was the interesting confirmation that, despite Sony still having the rights (and therefore windfalls of box office) from the character, Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige confirmed that they, not Sony, are effectively producing this film.  Basically, Sony puts up the money, makes the profits, but creative decisions - casting, story, director, etc - ultimately are down to the choices of Marvel Studios.  This is the result of well-publicised negotiations between Sony and Marvel Studios - the former wanting to get their biggest money earner back on track after two perceived disappointments, the latter wanting the character in their MCU sand box (not to mention it being a massive desire on the part of fans).  This deal gives me hope that we may see beloved characters and stories realised, that at present look unlikely to happen - and it has to be said that many of these are down to Fox studios having X-Men and Fantastic Four.

Interestingly, what prompted this article wasn't so much the Spiderman-related news above, but rumours around the next Wolverine film (confirmed as Hugh Jackman's last in the role) being based on a comic story called 'Old Man Logan'.  To be fair, while there are elements of the story that could be an interesting basis for this film, on the other the bulk of the story relies on the pantheon of Marvel characters - the overwhelming majority of which Fox wouldn't have access to.  The story isn't part of Marvel comic's accepted continuity, but is a Mark Millar written 'what if' story that is set in a bleak, post-apocalyptic future; teaming together, the super-villains have defeated and killed most of the Marvel heroes, and America is split in to realms ruled by various villains.  Wolverine has apparently survived all this, and turned his back on the name he's associated with and has literally not extended his claws for many years.  Living with his wife and children in the area ruled by Hulk and his offspring sired in a relationship with She-Hulk (who is his cousin in the comics, remember!), he is forced to take a mission to escort Hawkeye (now a blind, old man) from one side of the US to the other.  Taking in encounters with symbiote-covered dinosaurs, Red Skull, and an underground resistance of superheroes, the story is violent, bloody and bleak; but it has a very blackly comic under-current to it.  Before you get to the rights issues that'd prevent it being filmed, you have to say that tonally it just wouldn't fit with the output of either Fox's X-Men films, nor the MCU.  Yet in the midst of the rumours, there were some people hopeful Marvel Studios and Fox could negotiate an agreement like the one with Sony.  I honestly can't see this happening, not only due to the tone of the story, but also because it seems relations between Fox and Marvel are a bit patchy right now.

The part of 'Old Man Logan' where he's turned his back on violence, and has to escort an ageing hero across dangerous territory would be a good basis for the next Wolverine film.  The rest of the story, well, not so much...

It seems to be around the issue of marketing.  To start with, Marvel Comics have ceased publishing Fantastic Four comics; while the characters still exist in the comics (and will appear in the re-launch that is going to happen after a current cross-over event 'Secret Wars' has culminated), their comic ended months ago.  As this happened around the same time Fox put the new, rebooted Fantastic Four movie in to production, some speculated Marvel did this to snub Fox for not getting the rights back.  This isn't the case however, as it seems the cancellation of Fantastic Four comics was driven mainly by sales.  Even though Fox have X-Men, Marvel Comics have never stopped publishing the many X-Men books - and obviously so, as the titles are amongst Marvel's best sellers; Fantastic Four, it has been acknowledged, were suffering from flagging sales of their comic.  But though comic sales may not be the issue, other merchandising is showing clear signs that there is a rift between Marvel and Fox.  A number of recently released pieces of Marvel themed merchandising, such as t-shirts and posters, have depicted classic Marvel images (for example comic covers) featuring many of their well-known characters - but where X-Men or Fantastic Four characters have appeared, these have been Photoshopped to remove the characters Marvel don't have the film rights for, and replaced with lesser-known ones that they do (e.g. Luke Cage, Black Panther or Iron Fist).  As well as that, recent ranges of Marvel Action Figures haven't included X-Men or Fantastic Four characters.

Time-travelling super-villain Kang the Conqueror has been a frequent adversary of the Avengers in the comics...

So it's clear that Marvel are at the very least reluctant to let their merchandise promote Fox's movies.  Similarly, there have apparently been no discussions, as with Sony, to find a way to allow characters to crossover.  While there is a strong argument that Fox has such a strong X-Men universe, and the MCU is doing great without Mutants, that this isn't an issue (although it'd be tremendous fun to see Wolverine team-up with/fight against the likes of the Avengers, as he has one many times in the comics) - but going forward this may prove issues if Marvel Studios want to bring certain stories, and certain characters in them, to cinemas.  Details emerged recently regarding which of the 'cosmic' characters - that is, the ones who are from outer space, or involve wackier concepts like inter-dimension or time travel - Marvel studios don't have the rights to, and there are implications that could affect future Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy films.  To start with, a powerful and recurring adversary of the Avengers is Kang the Conqueror, a super-villain from the future who uses time travel to set about his plans for world and galactic domination.  Unfortunately, it seems Fox got the rights to this character along with the Fantastic Four - as in the comics Kang is really Nathaniel Richards, a 30th Century descendent of Mr Fantastic Reed Richards, of the Fantastic Four.  So, Kang resides with Fox.

...but as he first appeared in Fantastic Four, and is a descendant of one of the FF characters, his rights are with Fox.

Another well-known and much-loved Avengers story is 'Secret Invasion', which had a race of alien Shape-shifters called the Skrulls attempt to conquer Earth by kidnapping, and imitating, the Marvel heroes.  This race have a vast back-story in the comics, where they once had a bitter war with the Kree Empire (represented by Ronan the Accuser in Guardians of the Galaxy) - during which the Kree experimented on early humans to create what would become the Inhumans.  Although the recent Agents of SHIELD season introduced the Inhumans to the MCU, and established their Kree-based origins, the Skrulls are unlikely to appear in the MCU - as they first appeared in Fantastic Four.  That's right, Fox has their rights.  These aren't the only aliens who have featured heavily in the comics who can't be used by Marvel Studios - the Shi'ar Empire first appeared in X-Men, so belong to Fox, and the Badoon (although Guardians Director James Gunn says the rights are shared between Fox and Marvel); don't anticipate seeing these cause problems for the Guardians of the Galaxy or the Avengers any time soon.

So did alien race the Skrulls, due to their appearing first in Fantastic Four comics.  Keeping up?

And this is before we get in to the obvious cross-overs - Doctor Doom waging war against the Avengers, Thanos teaming with Annihilus to use Galactus as a weapon against the galaxy - with these villains tied to the Fantastic Four at Fox, these stories will likely never hit the big screen.  Not only is this a shame, but with the current situation many of these characters, and stories are just being completely wasted.  Given as how the series Producers, and directors (notably Bryan Singer) have been at pains to keep X-Men grounded and relatable to the 'real world' we live in, it seems like a massive stretch that they would suddenly have them fighting alien races and going off in to space (even though they have in the comics).  Similarly, although you've got the Fantastic Four traversing dimensions in the upcoming reboot, again an apparently grounded and scientifically believable tone would be at odds with stories involving time-travel and intergalactic villains.  Essentially, it is unlikely Fox would use these characters (without utterly changing their setting or context).  But if Fox wouldn't, Marvel Studios definitely could; after The Infinity War, Kang the Conqueror would be a formidable opponent for the Avengers to take on; and the Kree could re-ignite their war with the Skrulls as the background to a future adventure for the Guardians of the Galaxy - that's if the Skrulls haven't already been defeated, trying to conquer Earth, by the Avengers.

Unless the rights are renegotiated, don't count on seeing the popular 'Secret Invasion' storyline from the comics turned in to an Avengers film.

It seems very unlikely given the apparent enmity between the two parties at the moment, but in an ideal world surely it would make sense for Marvel Studios and Fox to sit down and agree which of these characters they are genuinely likely to use - and if they don't fit, come to some agreement to let Marvel have them back, away from X-Men or Fantastic Four.  It might take money, but given how Disney are having a pretty decent year at the Box Office, I'm sure they could stump up some cash to sweeten the offer..!  But it might not even take money to make it happen.  It is unlikely that the Fantastic Four rights would revert to Marvel Studios automatically - this would depend upon the imminent film being a total flop, and even with the scepticism and criticisms around it, this seems unlikely: a sequel has already been scheduled by Fox.  Yet the deal between Marvel Studios and Sony regarding Spiderman could demonstrate a solution here - Fox and Marvel negotiating a cross-over between the MCU and the Fantastic Four, in return to marketing exposure via Marvel's comics, toy and other subsidiaries, or sharing production costs, or something along those lines.  There'd be no need for another reboot, or recasting - the new Fantastic Four movie has them crossing inter-dimensional boundaries, so who's to say they couldn't cross in to the dimension where the MCU resides?  Seeing as alternative dimensions and parallel universes are a staple of the comics (the current 'Secret Wars' story event is based on the 'classic' Marvel Universe and the 'Ultimate' version literally colliding), writing a story to justify this, and use as a platform for bigger cross-over events, shouldn't be too much for audiences to accept.  This seems an ideal solution, and would allow Marvel Studios access to some great stories for adapting - as well as giving fans the opportunity to finally see the Fantastic Four in the MCU.

Although in the comics the X-Men have frequently journey to outer space and encounter alien races, these stories just wouldn't fit the tone of the film series.

And there's no reason the X-Men could be left out of this, either; if Professor X's psychic powers can communicate across time, there's no reason they couldn't do the same across dimensions.  And if Wolverine's healing factor means he's the only mutant capable of surviving time travel, surely the same applies to inter-dimensional travel..?  With ideas like that it's easy enough to create a story thread to justify setting up an event like Wolverine fighting with the Avengers, and would prove a massive draw to fans and general audiences.  As for the finances, rights, and legal side - well, I'll leave that to Kevin Feige and his counterparts at Fox (not to mention the studios' Lawyers)!  But if Marvel and Sony can 'share' Spiderman, there's hopes something could happen to give Fantastic Four, X-Men, and their many classic foes a chance to appear alongside Spidey in the MCU.

That's it for now - next month I'll be reflecting on Ant-Man, so be sure to come back soon!

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Movies Ever: Jaws

I've been quite busy this month, so this blog has been quieter than usual - but I've found time to look back at an all-time great movie that just happens to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of its first release this month...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART NINE:

JAWS

After 40 years of being regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, it might seem redundant to further analyse 'Jaws' - there have, after all, been entire books written about the film.  But I can still bring a personal perspective to why it remains so greatly loved, and continues to terrorise and captivate each new generation.  If you were growing up in the late 1970's or '80's, there is little doubt that you were at some point terrified by this film: John William's menacing and hysteria-inducing score, the gory shocks of severed hands or chewed off heads, and the horrific sight of thrashing limbs as the sea turns red - these are etched on to the psyche of an entire generation.  But we survived this trauma, partly because the film ends on a cathartic and brighter note than the death and terror that precedes it; and partly because we all took it and put it in the games we played - who else would play 'Jaws' in the school playground, chasing their friends, snapping their arms like a fanged mouth, while singing the 'duh-duh, duh-duh' signature over and over?  I can't have been the only one!

But this is a film that doesn't just frighten kids, there is real substance to the plot and characters that make it one that so many people happily revisit time after time, year on year.  Of course, it is directed with real panache by Spielberg - no one would know what a dolly zoom is if it wasn't for that shot - but it helps that the script, and the actors playing them, give the characters a depth that really makes this film more than the simple 'shark hunt' story it could otherwise have been.  It's little touches that blockbusters nowadays often overlook that help achieve this; for example, I love the scene where Chief Brody and his wife make fun of the New England accents of the community they've moved to ("I'll put the CAAHRR in the GAH-RAAHGE!") - it's a scene that does nothing to advance the plot, but is so intrinsic to the characters - it's easy see how many films today would have cut it out altogether.

One of the most famous shots in film history...

When I think about Jaws, something that springs to mind is how it is one of those few films that, if you come across it channel hopping, inevitably you end up watching it regardless how far in it is.  I don't just think that's because it has been seen so many times that it's etched on our minds (though it might be); to me it's because it almost feels like two films in one.  The first half, where the threat of the shark is slowly being realised as it begins to terrorise the swimmers around Amity Island, feels like a '50's monster b-movie, or a horror movie.  You've got some of the elements - the police chief and 'scientist' (okay, biologist) that realise the threat but whose warnings fall on deaf ears amongst those in authority, until (of course) it's too late.  You've got a relentless, uncatchable, dangerous and barely seen monster, from whom no one is safe - even dogs or children.  (As a side note, am I the only one who gets frustrated during the scene where Mrs Kintner, grieving at the death of her son at the shark, slaps Brody round the face?  I always want to scream at the screen "go slap the stupid Mayor, it's his fault the beaches weren't closed!"  Or, maybe that's just me?  Ok then.)  But then the film shifts in the final section, almost half the film, as Quint takes Brody and Hooper out to hunt the beast: okay, the strands of the shark hunt are already set up, but the feel becomes that of an adventure, a wild hunt, a cat-and-mouse thriller at sea.

All together now: "you're gonna need..."

During this second half there are moments where the film deliberately slows down, further differentiating itself from what has preceded it; the films ups the tension to almost unbearable levels for a scene where no one - not even Brody's children - are safe, then it almost goes off at a tangent, with the focus seemingly shifting to Quint.  Well, it might just be that Robert Shaw's performance is so iconic, so mesmerising, that it seems like the film becomes about him and his quest to get the shark.  Again, it's incredible to think that any film, especially one that is apparently a genre movie, would take a shift at the final act, when most films are gearing up to their climax.  That's not to say that at this point the film doesn't have tension, or build to a satisfying and tense finale - which of course it does - but there are few films that would still find space for great moments of character while gearing towards a final showdown.  We should all be thankful that 'Jaws' does this, as we get one of the greatest single scenes ever committed to celluloid: an evening of drinks leads to some unlikely male bonding between three unimaginably disparate characters, seguing in to an unforgettable monologue from Shaw: his revelation about the USS Indianapolis.  It is a moment that, aside from the phenomenal acting performance that Shaw delivers, is a moment that - in the midst of an apparently light-hearted scene - manages to make the film even more disquieting, and brings a level of genuine and actual horror to it.  For whilst the shark attacks of the first part of the film, terrifying as they are, are still fiction, this monologue is based in fact.  And it carries deeper terror, as it draws attention to the fate of these lost and seemingly abandoned sailors, facing the prospect of drowning or being eaten alive; furthermore, during a time of war, when capture by the Japanese military must have been a terrifying prospect.  And the final piece on top of all that, the mission was to deliver the first Nuclear bomb used during war - a subtle reminder that mankind is capable of acts far more horrific than those driven by the survival instincts of a natural predator.

"Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies..."

'Jaws' was a landmark release at the time, it etched itself on the minds of the generation that were children when it was first released - but it remains an enduring classic.  And I think it's worth considering how remarkable that is, because on paper it doesn't add up to a film that has followed some 'template' or 'recipe' to be successful: hallmarks of B-movies, monster movies, horror movies; terror, gore and menace; a final act that veers in to a nautical adventure, or a study of man versus nature.  But Spielberg's seminal direction - his technical mastery, ability to make a scene just simply work, and his lightness of touch with characters and his actors - combines with great acting performances and an effective script to give us an iconic masterpiece of cinema. In this piece I've barely scratched the surface of its complexity, of what makes it so great; yet the fact it its rediscovered afresh and equally loved by each new generation is testimony to what a fantastic piece of cinema it is.  I just need to persuade my son to sit and watch the whole film now - so he can be terrified, thrilled and enthralled, just like his mum and dad were by 'Jaws' at his age..!

Movie Review - Spy: Comedy's funniest new double-act, Melissa McCarthy and Jason Statham - eh?!?

2015 will be remembered as a pretty decent year for spy movies; 'Kingsman The Secret Service' was a lot of fun, the latest Mission Impossible film looks entertainingly crazy, the Men from 'UNCLE' are revived for a big screen debut in August, and, of course, November will see James Bond return to take on his classic nemesis in 'SPECTRE'.  In the midst of these arrives 'Spy', an action-comedy starring Melissa McCarthy, Jude Law and Jason Statham.  I'm loathe to call it a 'spoof', as 'Spy' does make an effort to establish itself as an actual spy movie - you've got the CIA, satellite surveillance, terrorist threats, assassins.  At the same time though it is clearly aware of the tropes of the genre.  Law's character Agent Bradley Fine is an American proxy of Bond, with all the suaveness and moves, but not above a tragically mis-timed case of allergies.  His support comes in the form of CIA analyst Susan Cooper (McCarthy), a 'voice' in his earpiece who uses satellite, infrared (and perfectly timed missile strikes!) to help him carry out his missions.  When the daughter of a deceased villain (Rose Byrne) plans to sell a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group the CIA has to track her down - but her apparent knowledge of all their field agents threatens to prevent any attempt to pursue her.  Susan steps forward to volunteer gathering intel in the field, as who would suspect a plump and dowdy woman from tech-support of being, in reality, a CIA spy?

The first act of this film is arguably the weakest, and threatens to scupper the whole thing before it's already got going.  Much of the 'humour' comes from McCarthy's weight and the manner of her character, because she looks like the 'kind of woman' who would be a cat owner - obviously because she's single and lonely, and no one would like her because she doesn't have the super-model looks of CIA agent Karen Walker (Morena Baccarin).  Similarly, this extends to Miranda Hart's fellow CIA support person Nancy, due to her being tall etc etc.  Given as we have an actress capable of playing ferocious yet/or vulnerable characters, and a writer/director in Paul Fieg who has professed to being a fan of funny actresses (he gave the world Bridesmaids and will next be directing the female Ghostbusters team), this is not just a disappointment; it feels very misjudged.  It also depends on your preferences, but humour based upon un-confident people being put through awkward situations to be laughed at by their physical/social 'betters' just makes me cringe; it feels cheap, easy and a waste of the talents of all involved.  Thankfully, this film has an ace up its sleeve - in reality Susan is as competent a field agent as any of her colleagues (and quite a bad-ass to boot), and as the film goes on this becomes abundantly clear, to mostly great comedic effect.

The film frequently makes fun of how some people might pigeon-hole Susan Cooper (McCarthy) due to her appearance; it rises above this by revealing Cooper to be a capable and pretty bad-ass agent

In many ways, this film plays it safe; the plot is not the most original or most convincing spy caper put to film, the action is adequately but not spectacularly handled; but as a vehicle for the comedy it does just about enough.  McCarthy is funniest at her most bolshy and foul-mouthed - again, we've seen this before from her in other films so it feels like a safe thing for it to do (also, it means the film lives or dies on whether or not you find her funny at all; if you don't, this film won't likely win you over).  Miranda Hart brings her goofy, slightly awkward yet enthusiastic 'jolly hockeysticks' persona to the role, again not a stretch, but she doesn't get in the way of the film nor feel like a major asset (though she does get a couple of very funny moments).  Having said that, the film's greatest asset - and biggest surprise - is Jason Statham as CIA agent Rick Ford; you'd have been forgiven for not thinking him capable of comedy, but here he makes a fantastic double-act with McCarthy, getting the share of the film's funniest lines.  Great comedy works best when there's a straight man, although you could argue Statham's character - a crazy riff on some of the action roles he's best known for - isn't quite in that mould.  He delivers his lines with a great intensity, aided by the slightly psychotic glint in his eye (which is no doubt due to the fact he is visibly doing all he can from bursting in to laughter).

The funniest scenes arguably are those containing Jason Statham.  Who'd have thought it?

'Spy' isn't the most memorable or original film to turn the genre to comedy, and it doesn't feel like much of a stretch for a lot of its headline cast.  It overcomes a weak beginning and some potentially patronising body-stereotyping humour to deliver some very funny moments, and in Jason Statham one of the most surprising and effective assets a comedy has delivered.  While not an instant classic like the immensely likeable 'Bridesmaids', it is an effective and mostly funny vehicle for McCarthy and her supporting cast; but it's Jason Statham who gives this film the lift it needs to be something that might have otherwise been rote and forgettable.