Movie Review - Inside Out: Pixar work their Movie-making Magic once again

This year has seen the usual batch of computer-animated features, and disappointingly the most high-profile of them - 'Home' and 'Minions' - have been very much aimed towards kids.  Thank goodness then that, after a two-year gap, Pixar - the greatest name in the genre - are back with a new film.  Like most of the studio's work that precedes it, 'Inside Out' is another successful marriage of their technical wizardry, impeccable design artistry, and masterful story-telling.  The film's concept is amongst the most out-there ever put to film: it portrays people's emotions as characters in their minds, controlling their reactions and putting their mark on memories that shape that individual's personality.  Pixar make this concept work magnificently, and use it to fulfill every story-telling opportunity, every joke, every emotional moment that it has the potential for.

The film's story centres on 11 year-old girl Riley (voiced by Kaitlyn Dias), and the effect moving from Minesotta to San Francisco has on her developing emotions.  In her mind Joy (voiced by Amy Poehler) takes the lead over Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Bill Hader) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling); although each has their part to play in helping Riley to learn through each important memory, Joy feels it is her responsibility to make sure Riley is as happy as she can be growing up.  Reluctant to let Sadness have more effect on Riley's memories, things start to get out of her control when she tries to keep Sadness out of Riley's emotions on her first day in her new school.  There is a mishap, and Joy and Sadness are flung from Riley's control centre (cleverly called 'head-quarters') and in to the maze of her memory, along with the key memories that make up the core of her personality.  They have to make it back there before these fall away, and her other emotions make Riley go through with a rash decision in order to get her happy memories back.

If you wanted to explain to your children how your emotions work and how they effect how you think and behave, you'd only need to let them watch this film

This really is a film that will speak to parents as much as their children.  The way the mind, and people's emotions, is portrayed makes the concept something that any child of any age would be able to understand; that includes concepts such as how memories change as you grow up, and how personalities are shaped by those.  Meanwhile, adults will be moved one moment at the portrayal of innocent, imaginative childhood play; then you will be laughing the next as they go in to the head of other characters, showing the emotions which are controlling their thoughts and memories.

Co-director Pete Docter was the person in charge of 'Up', and whilst this film doesn't have any moments as heart-breaking as that film, this film reinforces that he, and the rest of the Pixar creative team, know how to maximise the emotion or humour of each scene.  And like that film it doesn't dumb-down, or try and sanitise a potentially complex moment - such as when Riley finally confides in her parents that she misses her old home - so it feels genuine and relatable.  Similarly, when it needs to be goofy the humour is brilliantly observed and perfectly handled - the montage during the closing credits is one of the funniest things I've seen this year.

The film shows us how emotions are running things in other people's heads, interestingly different emotions are in charge - in Riley's mom's head it looks like Sadness has the lead.

Not only does 'Inside Out' mark a return of Pixar's magic form, after the moderate successes of 'Monsters University' and 'Brave', it is their best film since 'Toy Story 3', and above all cements the fact that they are simply the best at making this kind of film.  This film is a prime example of how hey can equally entertain and capture the imagination of children and adults alike, without dumbing-down or making simplistic story choices.  If you have to take your kids to the cinema during the summer holidays you will quite simply not do any better than this wonderful film.

Monthly Marvel Musings: A close-up look at 'Ant-Man'

Here's this months 'Monthly Marvel Musings' article, which will be all about 'Ant-Man' - I'll do a brief review of the film, then take a closer look at a few things which will have a bearing on what's going to be in other films.  Obviously, there will be pretty major SPOILERS!! so only read on if you've already seen the film.

MARVEL MONTHLY MUSINGS

'Ant-Man' is a small success for Marvel

At the very least you have to say that 'Ant-Man' has had an eventful journey to the screen.  It's very well publicised that, after 7 years developing the film, original Director Edgar Wright walked away due to creative differences with Marvel Studios - apparently he wasn't happy with the film having links to the MCU and wanted it to be stand-alone.  Then Peyton Reed was brought on board, and many people raised an eyebrow based on his previous films - Jim Carrey comedy 'Yes Man', 60's throw-back comedy 'Down With love', and cheer-leading drama 'Bring It On'.  The project was in danger of being written off just as filming was about to begin, simply because Wright's departure was seen as signalling the end of any chance the film had at having a distinct style or humour (as with Wright's previous films).  But attitudes began to soften when it emerged that Reed has been a life-long fan of Marvel Comics, was runner-up choice to direct 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (which has made the actual director, James Gunn, arguably as famous as its break-out cast); and he had been developing a 1960's-set Fantastic Four movie for Fox - the opening scene of which would have been based on the iconic cover of the first ever FF comic.

Now the film is here, although it is not the disaster many feared following Wright's departure, it is almost a curio in the midst of the rest of Marvel Studio's output.  It's a solid enough super-hero movie, which features many of the genre's tropes, but has flashes of some inspired comedy.  Yet at the same time it feels like it never fully commits to either being an off-kilter skewing of the genre, or a standard super-hero origins flick, or the heist movie that its structure is based off.  The story has Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), creator of the shrinking technology that enabled him to carry out covert ops for SHIELD as Ant-Man after the discovery of 'Pym Particles', who has long since turned his back on the role following a personal tragedy.  Estranged from his daughter Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lily), who still works at the company he founded, he discovers his one-time protégé Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) is about to weaponise the Ant-Man technology with the development of a suit called the  'Yellowjacket'.  He enlists Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a former con just released from prison who is trying to go straight in order to get access to his daughter, to use the original Ant-Man suit to carry out a heist to steal the Yellowjacket and stop Cross from mass producing the technology.

Douglas (Hank Pym) and Rudd (Scott Lang) are both solid and effective in their roles, though not quite at the 'star-making' level of other Marvel Studios movies.

The first couple of acts of this film do feel uneven in some ways, because the times that it looks like it is going to properly parody the super-hero genre - such as the montages where Pym is training Lang in how to use the Ant-Man powers - it doesn't go as far as it could.  It's as though it pulls its punches at the last moment when you're expecting a gag at the expense of the inherent silliness of the concept, but then it jumps back to a more straight-forward portrayal of 'superhero' training.  Similarly there are times where the plot struggles to merge the disparate genres and arcs - the corporate espionage of Pym's concerns about Cross' creation, Lang trying to keep on the straight and narrow and be a good dad, prepping for the heist, and on top of it all the 'super' powers that come with the Ant-Man suit.  The consistent thread through all this is that Marvel sense of levity, but by now we're so used to these sort of super-heroics delivered with a witty one-liner, that there are times the comedic aspects don't feel as effective as they should be - which is a genuine surprise given the film's development at the hands of several noted writers of comedy TV shows and/or films.

It's a good job then that the cast, as is usually the case with Marvel Studios movies, are fully committed and effectively portray their roles.  Douglas' portrayal of Pym as a slightly paranoid, traumatised, at times manipulative mentor/father is perfect for the role (especially if you know anything about the character's history in the comics - though don't expect any references to spousal abuse).  Rudd is highly likable as the thief with a conscience, trying to do the right thing to get access to his daughter, and learning about the Ant-Man powers with a mix of wonderment, semi-disbelief and excitement that are quite believable.  The supporting cast are solid, Lily making the most of her arc as the angry daughter who softens when she learns the truth about her mother; and Lang's ex-con associates Luis (Michael Peña), Kurt (David Dastmalchian) and Dave (T.I.) - who get most of the more effective comedy beats.  The only slight weakness is the villain Cross - despite Stoll's visible efforts to give him nuances beyond the usual psychopathic corporate madman, the script doesn't quite do enough to make his motivations convincing beyond stereotypical villainy.

The scenes where Ant-Man is miniaturised are impressively realised, and are one of the film's best aspects

There are probably still a few people that will forever lament the Edgar Wright version of this film that we never got to see.  However, whilst it is likely you'll watch this trying to spot Wright's influences on the story and script, this is far from a journeyman effort from Reed.  In fact, some of the moments that feel like they could have been from Wright actually came from Reed himself.  It is pleasing to say that probably the two best scenes in the film - montages where Peña's Luis rambles almost stream-of-conscious about 'tips' he's gotten about potential 'jobs' for Lang - feel like the sort of thing Wright would have brought to the film, as they are energetic, expertly cut, and the funniest moments in the film.  But these were actually put in from Reed's own ideas - he has put his stamp on this film very effectively.

None more so than the attention to detail and technical aspects of this film, which it has to say offer some truly impressive visuals, and mark this film as another achievement milestone in CGI special effects.  The most striking and immediately impressive is the de-ageing of Michael Douglas for the film's opening scene, set over 25 years ago - here the use of digital effects to make Douglas look like he did in his 1980's prime is the most convincing use of the technology on film so far.  As gob-smacking as that is, the other effects really deliver where it most matters, that is when Lang shrinks and we get to see the world from his 'ant-sized' perspective.  All the scenes and shots when he is in 'ant-mode' are impressively detailed and capture a realistic 'micro-photography' look.

This film will also make you look at ants with a new-found respect..!

'Ant-Man's biggest achievements are in its effects work; and in how Director Reed took what could have been a poisoned chalice or a 'Journeyman' gig and actually fashioned something that bears flashes suggesting a talent for comedy, drama and a tremendous grasp of emerging technology in effects and film-making.  In many ways the film feels as though Marvel Studios are playing safe and not straying too far from their formula - whilst it is never a total detriment to the film, there are moments you can't help but feel they could have done more to make it more subversive and genre-skewing.  That said, it is typical of the entertainment and fun audiences have come to expect and enjoy from Marvel releases, and delivers in that respect.  What at one point looked as though it might be the studio's first failure is far from it; but it will be welcome to see their films take some more risks with tone, narrative and structure in the future.

So what does 'Ant-Man's arrival mean for the MCU?

While long-time Marvel Comics fans may still lament the absence of Hank Pym from the MCU until now, and the resulting story changes (in the comics it's Pym that creates Ultron, not Tony Stark), we now have technology that shrinks - and enlarges - objects and people.  Going forward, whilst Pym himself might not be a player in future cross-over movies such as Infinity War, Scott Lang will more than likely be (he's already confirmed for 'Captain America Civil War', though I'll discuss that below).  In the comics Pym 'reverses' his shrinking technology to become Giant-man, or Goliath - given that in Ant-Man we see the technology 'embiggening' an actual ant and a Thomas The Tank Engine Toy, it's pretty safe to say that at some point Lang will apply that to himself.  There are rumours we may see this in Civil War, though it's a safe bet it will have happened by Infinity War, and if not,  during those films.

Whilst Pym isn't the controversial character he has been in the comics, this portrayal shows him as slightly paranoid, and there's something almost Machiavellian and manipulative in the way he gets Lang to enact his Heist plan.

The film also marks the first MCU of another favourite of comic fans, the Wasp, normally associated with Pym's wife Janet van Dyne.  Although we only get to see her in a flash-back, there are suggestions that potential Ant-Man sequels could feature more of Pym's escapades as the titular hero during the '60's, '70's and '80's, so we could yet see the 'classic' comic iteration of this character.  As well as that, given the first of the two post-credits scenes reveals that Pym & his wife were working on a version of the Wasp suit for their daughter Hope, it seems a bit of a no-brainer to say we'll see Wasp in the 'current' MCU too.  Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige himself has stated we'll see Wasp in another movie before the end of 'Phase 3' (which culminates with Infinity War and The Inhumans).

It seems pretty certain we'll be seeing Wasp in a forth-coming MCU movie

With regards to storylines they could incorporate Ant-Man in to, the better known ones involving Pym have tended to be those involving his stints with the Avengers, or when he creates the Yellowjacket which turns him slightly psychopathic.  Given they've used the Yellowjacket for this film, the 'evil Pym' storyline seems very unlikely.  My bet would be on the thread the film leaves open, which has agents of Hydra taking Cross's version of the Pym Particle, and them trying to put it to use (although some believe this could feature in Season 3 of Agents of SHIELD, as Hydra Agent Grant Ward has been confirmed as the main villain of the series).  Regardless, we're guaranteed to see Ant-Man and Wasp (and maybe even a Goliath) in the not too distant future - I wouldn't be surprised to see them as part of an Avengers line-up at some point during either of the Infinity Wars movies.

Ant-Man became Goliath and was part of one of the classic Avengers line-ups in the comics.

We've had our first glimpse of 'Captain America Civil War'

The second post-credits scene has been confirmed by Feige to actually be a scene from the next MCU film, one of the most eagerly awaited comic movies of next year; it depicts Captain America and Falcon in some abandoned warehouse or workshop, with Bucky/the Winter Soldier's bionic arm trapped in a vice.  It seems they're in a quandary over their apparent captive, talking about 'the accords', which is no doubt a reference to the Laws drawn up regarding superhero activity that causes the fall out between Stark and Cap.  It seems they need someone to get something covertly, and the final line has Falcon saying "I know a guy", before it cuts to black and the message 'Ant-Man will return'.

Sam 'Falcon' Wilson's appearance in 'Ant-Man' made for a fun scene, and sets out how Ant-Man could be involved in 'Civil War'

While we're used to Marvel's post-credit scenes now, some of them being jokey-punchlines to a film, others foreshadowing events of future films, this scene is a really interesting choice for Marvel Studios.  Firstly, it's not a scene which has been specially filmed for Ant-Man, but is something from a still-filming (therefore unfinished) movie (as an aside, I'd be interested to learn how Civil War directors the Russo Brothers felt about a scene from their film hitting cinemas before they'd finished making it!).  It has been dropped in without context, so though we know the vague plot upon which the story hinges, we don't know the exact events that lead to it, or at which stage of the film it occurs.  Secondly, it is not explicitly setting up any characters, events or 'maguffins' that are part of Civil War.  It's surmised that when Falcon says "I know a guy" that it is referring to Ant-Man, and this seems very likely; Feige himself stated they chose this scene for the end of Ant-Man due to this line throwing back to something Pym himself says during the film.  Also, following the fun interlude where Lang has to steal some tech from The Avengers' base, having to unwittingly take on Falcon to do so, the final scene of the film shows that Falcon is trying to track down this Ant-Man.  So this post-credits scene does some work in establishing that Ant-Man is involved in Civil War, but it doesn't fully explain why - crucially though it seems he's at least being employed by Cap's side, even if he is not explicitly fighting alongside those against whatever Law is at the heart of the conflict.

Although their first encounter ends in a fight between the pair, will Ant-Man be on the side of Falcon in 'Civil War'?

Finally, I'd say this scene is a positive move for Marvel Studios - something that 'Avengers Age of Ultron' was criticised for was the way in which there are a number of references to things which didn't really serve the story in that film but are setting up elements of future films.  Whilst there was much of this in the first 'Phase' of MCU films leading up to Avengers, I can accept the criticism - it made sense there, but now we've an idea of what things are going to happen and where the stories are going, we don't need that level of foreshadowing - just tell us the story!  Including this scene at the end of Ant-Man avoids the name-dropping of characters or Maguffins, but still indicates where the ongoing MCU is heading and how certain characters are going to be involved.  We know that the next film is a Captain America one, we know that it encompasses a great number of other characters, but it is important that it still continues the arc established in Cap's previous films involving his friend Bucky.  This scene suggests that Civil War is going to be a lot more personal and intimate, in terms of key character stories, than we may be anticipating based upon the cast and the comic story which it is partly taking inspiration from.

It wasn't just this scene that pointed towards the future of the MCU without waving Maguffins around or introducing new characters - one moment at the end of 'Ant-Man' very cleverly sets a precedent for an element of Marvel comics which is likely to be very important during Phase 3...

Our glimpse of the 'Quantum Realm' is the first step in introducing the 'weird' to the MCU

In order to defeat Darren Cross and his 'Yellowjacket' suit, Scott Lang has to break the most important rule of being Ant-Man - he turns off the regulator that controls how far he can shrink, and eventually goes sub-atomic before entering the 'Quantum Realm'.  It's described by Pym as being a place where the laws of physics - or at least, our capacity to understand them - are no longer applicable.  This scene, as well as being visually stunning and offering a an exciting finale that doesn't rely on something falling from the sky, is arguably the first step for the MCU in to the realms that are going to be a key part of next year's 'Doctor Strange' movie.  That film will see 'supernatural' threats being addressed, a staple of the comics, but something that so far is beyond the hard(ish) sci-fi underpinning much of the MCU thus far. Feige has suggested that there will still be some scientific basis to the threats faced by Doctor Strange, so as to lend them a sense of plausibility - and Ant-Man's trip to the Quantum Realm is arguably the stepping stone towards this. 

In order to defeat villain Darren Cross, Lang takes us on a journey to a whole new area that the MCU will explore in future films...

Although not explicitly stated, when Ant-Man goes to the Quantum Realm it is strongly implied the technology has crossed him in to another universe or dimension that is beyond our current scientific knowledge and understanding.  Multi-dimensional travel is a staple of the comics, where there are parallel universes, or far stranger places.  If this scene establishes there are these universes or realities beyond our current scientific understanding, there is a basis to introduce Doctor Strange, his mystical abilities, and the threats he takes on - and not have it seem like a stretch for audiences to accept.  What if, for example, the inhabitants of one of these alternate universes, dimensions, etc already have the knowledge and technology to cross in to our universe - and these are the beings that Doctor Strange - and the Sorcerers before him - have been keeping at bay?

Doctor Strange will hopefully take us to even more bizarre and weird places than the 'Quantum Realm'...

This is a thread that will enable Marvel Studios to introduce this element from the comics and not have it seem, well, ridiculous and far-fetched, even in a universe including alien invasions and super-science.  It will also be an important thread that would enable stories allowing Fox and Marvel Studios to collaborate in bringing the Fantastic Four or even the X-Men in to MCU movies (which I've already talked about previously).  As well as that, I wouldn't be surprised if alternative dimensions, universes and realities feature in the Infinity Wars movies.  Either way, Ant-Man's journey to the Quantum Realm is a fascinating and exciting glimpse of an important part of future MCU films.  Going on how trippy and weird and visually amazing this scene was, it sets a high bar for Doctor Strange - which hopefully will be the weirdest and most unique film that Marvel Studios will make.

That's it for this month, next time I'll be examining the 'rivalry' between the Marvel and DC movies, and most likely having a look at Fantastic Four and any other exciting Marvel movie related news.  Thanks for reading!

Iconoclast: Has the 'Minions' joke started to wear thin?

In 2010 two CG animated films were released that were both about a super-villain who changes their ways and becomes something of a good-guy (to a certain extent).  One has a character arc which genuinely feels earned, that is rooted in comic-lore, and whilst it touches on clichés of romance, highlights that environment as much as choices can shape a person.  The other was chock full of sentimental clichés about the transformative power of the love of children, negative portrayals of people based on their body type, but had some biting satirical touches that probably went over most people's heads.  Neither film was a match for the quality that Pixar regularly put out (even in their weaker works), but both were well designed & animated, and had flashes of some genuinely memorable humour - as well as great turns from the lead actors.  If I needed to pick a film of the two which I felt had enough merits to be worthy of a franchise, I'd have picked the film which ironically didn't get one.

You see, despite the similarities between DreamWorks' 'Megamind' and Universal's 'Despicable Me', the former is the film that stands up to repeated viewing and has more narrative weight (at least to my mind, anyway).  To some extent there is little to separate the films - they have a similar premise, though Megamind is clearly coming from a comic-book influence (as evidenced by the presence of indestructible 'Superman'-like character Metro Man); Despicable Me is clearly trying to evoke 60's spy thrillers, and the black humour of those cult 'Spy vs Spy' comic strips from waaaay back.  When it comes down to it, the reason one film is celebrating the release of the third movie in its franchise, and the other is largely not discussed nowadays, is due to one simple reason: marketability.  You see, Despicable Me had something that Megamind neglected to add - a cute character that could be turned in to a toy and sold to kids.  That is what the little yellow, pill-shaped Minions from Universal's movie turned out to be.

I wonder if the makers of 'Megamind' kicked themselves after for not including cute, child-like, and inept comedy lackeys for their titular villain?

They have proven to be hugely popular, and understandably so.  They talk gibberish in high-pitched voices, they get up to mischief, they regularly injure themselves or other minions - and laugh at their expense afterwards.  They have big, round baby eyes (or eye, singular, in some cases), are slightly smaller than a 5-year-old child.  They tick two boxes that are a marketing man's dream - they are cute, and they are funny.  This probably seems like a cynical thing to say, but I can see how their appeal is more than a trick of commercialisation; in the Despicable Me films, they are genuinely funny - they capture something of the anarchic spirit that all children have, wanting to run riot, have accidents, break things as they explore boundaries - and laugh at the expense of someone who has stumbled and fell flat on their face or got in to trouble in the process.  These are the same things that make them appeal to grown-ups too - they're those things that you're not supposed to laugh at when you're a responsible adult, like flatulence or prat-falls, but you still find hilarious anyway.

In the first two Despicable Me films they are a welcome addition - they don't derail the film from its central narrative, they don't take the spotlight away from main character Gru (who is voiced in a fun turn from Steve Carrell); but they do offer relief when the story is in danger from getting too sentimental, when Gru starts fawning too much over his adopted daughters, or over his new love life.  In a film about a super-villain who finds a reason to be a good guy, they play an important part in helping the character and story keep its edge and mischievous moral core.  Outside of the films, away from that context, they start to lose that and become, well, annoying.

The Minion's popularity with adults has given rise to a completely irritating internet meme known as a 'Minion Quote'.  These are, somewhat ironically, not even quotes from the Despicable Me films - neither are they things that the Minions actually say (probably because a picture with "Lookit-oo, hahaha!" written on it, without the high-pitched sped up voice saying it, would look dumb and not at all funny).  Instead they've been used by people as a way of putting mean statements and opinions, but making them seem like they're a 'joke', because there's a picture of a Minion grinning mischievously next to it.  "Annoy me and you'll find I'm a murderous bitch!"  A statement like that would be grounds to call in the Police, or at the least some kind of psychiatric help in most cases - but, hey, if I put a picture of a Minion next to it then it's a 'joke', and it's perfectly ok!  No, it's just annoying, stop spamming my social network feeds with these stupid, annoying pictures.  To make it worse people have started photo-shopping the pictures of the Minions so that they're suddenly sexualised.  No, putting a minion in a leather-bound dominatrix suit isn't a statement of your confident sexuality - it makes you look like you've got the maturity of a barely adolescent child that can't even mention the word 'boobies' without descending in to a fit of giggles...

Pictures like these were fodder for meme creators to annoy the hell out of people with...

These 'memes' have taken something that was funny in the right context and made them become, for me at least, something that is now pretty annoying.  This doesn't bode well for their debut solo movie (titled, aptly, 'Minions').  While they're back in a child friendly, CG animated feature environment - away from efforts to make them mean something they don't - is there enough to these characters to sustain what makes them funny as central characters in their own film?  Sadly, no there isn't.  Despite the prat-falls, the references to bananas, and the childish sibling rivalry that often descends to slapping play-fights, the Minions really need to be used as they were in the first two Despicable Me films.  They are comic relief, and work best in short doses.  Despite the presence of big name actors like Sandra Bullock, Jon Hamm, Alison Janney and Michael Keaton, none of the other characters make much of an impact.  Central villain Scarlett Overkill has none of the redeemable qualities of Gru - you might say she shouldn't as she's the antagonist of the piece, but you don't get a sense that someone like her needs the Minions to do assist her in her schemes; she's ruthless to the point where she crosses being an evil b*tch to behaving like a spoilt child.  And that, for me, is the crucial reason why the Minions didn't need their own film - the whole concept of a minion is a disposable lackey, someone to bear the brunt when their master's plans fail (both as they're designed, and in the execution).  These characters really turn up the comedic potential of this idea - when they are support to Gru in the Despicable Me films.

Ultimately, 'Minions' is a film that is more squarely aimed at kids.  The warm, reassuring tones of Geoffrey Rush's narration (which will evoke in parents nostalgia for the programmes they watched as young kids in the '70's, '80's and '90's), and the very broad (often clichéd) strokes used to depict the 1960's and London, are too familiar to adults, who will most likely want something a bit more sophisticated.  The supporting cast of named actors sound like they're phoning in their performances, which is a shame considering the talent involved.  And this film suffers from the problem many comedies have recently - if you've seen the trailers then you've genuinely seen almost all of the best gags (especially a montage showing the Minions' journey under various masters through history).  This film is an excellent marketing opportunity, destined to sell lots of toys, kid's fast food meals, and will make Universal's already monumental Box Office even bigger this year.  It's a film that'll keep kids amused and entertained for its duration, but sadly won't do anything more.  It just makes me wonder if, by the time we get the next Despicable Me sequel next year, will the Minions joke already have been stretched too far, too thin?  Well, so long as they help that film to further financial success, I doubt the film makers or the Studio will think so.