Movie Review - Fantastic Four: Not even a heroic failure, more like a failed experiment

Each summer blockbuster movie season, there has to be the whipping boy, the one film that everyone seems to want to fail, even before it has finished filming.  Since the growth of the internet, and everyone thinking their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to film making, this has become infinitely worse.  This year the dubious status has befallen the attempt by Fox and Director Josh Trank to reboot 'Fantastic Four'.  To start with, there has been a general perception that, as they couldn't get these characters quite right with the first attempts, perhaps the rights would be better back with Marvel Studios (who, in contrast, have yet to fail to find the right way to put their characters on screen).  As well as that, the two previous (and widely derided) films are still fresh in most people's minds, adding to a sense of pessimism that they'd get it right.  Side-stepping the completely dumb casting controversy, since talk emerged earlier this year of re-shoots, and confirmation that Trank and the Studio hadn't seen eye-to-eye (leading to him quitting a planned Star Wars Anthology spin-off movie), the knives have been out for this one in a big way.  But still, I went in to this film with an open mind; I wanted the nay-sayers, doubters and haters to be wrong, I really did.  I wanted this film to succeed, and give us the definitive adaptation of these characters fans want to see.  Unfortunately, while the film is by no means a disaster, it is pretty mediocre: a superhero film that wants to focus on drama, and a sense of body horror, but doesn't pull off the 'super' or 'team' part when the story needs it to.

Rather than the classic Stan Lee version of these characters, this film is mostly inspired by the post-Millennial Ultimate version, which has a younger team of scientists undergo changes, gaining super-human abilities, as a result of cross-dimensional travel.  The film starts off with scientific prodigy Reed Richards (who will become the stretching Mr Fantastic) as an 11 year old boy, telling his class his ambition to teleport a person from one place to another.  He becomes friends with Ben Grimm (who becomes rock 'monster' The Thing), whose family owns a scrap-yard, helping him with parts to make his first attempt at a teleporting machine.  The film fast-forwards 7 years, and the pair (now played by Miles Teller and Jamie Bell respectively) are teenagers, presenting Richard's latest attempt at the machine at the county science fair.  This catches the eye of scientist Professor Franklin Richards (Reg E. Cathey), and his adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara), who it transpires have been attempting to use similar technology to make cross-dimensional teleportation a reality - and Richard's machine is the key to not only sending, but bringing something back from the parallel dimension.  Joining with disenfranchised and cynical former protégé or Professor Storm, Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebble), and the Professor's rebellious son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), they successfully crack return travel between dimensions.  When the team of youngsters decide to be the first people to make the trip, before NASA takes over the project, things go wrong - Von Doom is left behind, assumed dead, and the others return with bizarre physical abnormalities.  However, the Military sees a use for their powers, sending them on covert missions, whilst promising to find a cure for their conditions.

Don't let the smiles fool you - the Fantastic Four don't seem to find much of what happens in this film particularly 'fantastic'...

It's pretty clear that Trank and the Studio had two different visions for this film, and unfortunately they don't gel.  The Director seems to have wanted a character-driven dramatic approach to the subject, whilst the studio wanted typical superhero blockbuster fayre, to set up a franchise and allow for cross-overs with the X-Men franchise.  The first half of the film, which shows the characters forming friendships as they work on the dimensional crossing, is the most successful part of the film - Trank shows the same flair for getting a believable and easy-going camaraderie out of his cast as he did in 'Chronicle'.  This aspect of the film starts to unravel once they make their fateful journey across dimensions, largely due to some plot decisions that don't really make sense character wise - but are there as a reason to give certain characters their 'powers' later in the film.  After this, apart from a couple of scenes which manage to capture the 'body horror' tone Trank was going for, the plot becomes tepid, and tragically the lead actors begin to look lost in their own film.  It is a waste of the cast - separately each actor has demonstrated in other work (films and/or TV) what they're capable of, but once they powers and special effects come in to play they look as though they are struggling to convey how they should be reacting to it all.

Speaking of special effects, they are frustratingly inconsistent throughout.  Whilst The Thing and Human Torch are well portrayed and look as realistic as possible, other parts don't; there's a terrible CGI monkey, for example.  The alternate dimension is well portrayed, if a bit on the drab side, until some pretty poor looking green ooze-stuff starts erupting.  The stretching effects on Reed Richards are inconsistent too; it's clear that Weta (who handled the effects on this film) could have done with more time to complete certain shots - but they were only given less than a year from principal photography to get them done.  The film does suffer as a result.

While this version of Doctor Doom is more powerful and dangerous than the previous take, it is still a massive failure to properly put the character on the Big Screen.

The final act proves the film's biggest Achilles heel, as it shoe-horns in an 'end of the world threat' that seems tonally out of place with what's preceded it; it relies on some characters making snap judgements that, again, aren't consistent with their previous attitudes/behaviour; and by wasting Doctor Doom.  Why is it Fox don't seem to be able to grasp how to bring this character to the big screen?  In the first half Kebble manages to make Doom seem more than a one-note, scenery chewing villain (unlike the previous films' version), but when he returns from the alternate dimension he has become the typical 'mad' villain, who wants to destroy the world as he has clearly 'gone insane'.  They manage to make him more threatening and genuinely dangerous than the last version - he actually racks up quite a body count - but considering this character is the most famous of all Marvel villains, arguably, he is given little to do (apart from, mainly, recite some pretty awful dialogue), and the threat is resolved with shocking ease by the Fantastic Four.  When the film goes for its CGI fuelled action set-piece it is almost completely weakened by feeling out of place with the tone of the rest of the film, and by dispensing with the film's only threat in an almost inconsequential matter.

Despite their best efforts, it's really clear that Fox simply do not know how to handle Fantastic Four, nor the potentially outstanding villain they have in Doctor Doom.  Marvel have shown that it is possible to capture the pulp and fun side of their characters while bringing some real story-telling heft to them.  Fox needs to embrace this aspect of the Fantastic Four, and they definitely have to embrace the almost operatic scale of Doctor Doom's story.  It's hard not to imagine Marvel Studios doing a far better job of incorporating Doom in their on-screen universe - such a big character, and significant threat, deserves to be set up over multiple films, as they have been doing with Thanos; establishing his power, the massive threat he poses, but also the tragedy in his background that motivates him.

It's not likely Marvel Studios will get Fantastic Four, and therefore Doom, back soon, as it is likely this new take on comic's 'first family' should do well enough at the box office to enable Fox to retain the film rights and proceed with a sequel.  I sincerely hope, however, that they will acknowledge the struggle they are having realising these characters, and talk to Marvel Studios for creative assistance - the same way Sony have done with Spiderman.  Whilst this film is nowhere near to being a dismal mess like 'The Amazing Spiderman 2', neither does the dramatic approach carry enough weight to give the film a slightly redeeming feature, like the heroic failure that is Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.  In the end it's a mid-level comic book superhero flick that, despite its aspirations, is on the whole forgettable.  I wanted to like this film, but it seems like it needs to be third time lucky for the Fantastic Four....

Iconoclast: 'Chronicle's portrayal of a bullying and abuse victim arguably weakens the film

When 'Chronicle' was released at the beginning of 2012 it was met with an enthusiastic reception, both critically and at the Box-Office.  It put Director Josh Trank on the map (leading to him getting the 'Fantastic Four' reboot gig), and established lead actors Dane DeHaan and Michael B. Jordan as talents to watch.  It is, admittedly, well directed and acted - the effects work as the boys develop their psychic powers is impressive, and the camaraderie of teenage lads larking about with them is believably portrayed.  But it's a film that I have some problems with, basically down to its portrayal of someone who has been the victim of bullying and abuse.  This film touched a nerve with me, when it came to the scenes where Andrew (DeHaan) is bullied and ostracised at High School - basically I had a pretty sh*tty time at school with bullying, which panned out to being an almost complete social pariah by the age of 15/16, when most kids are too old to push someone or trip them up, or laugh at it.  There was one particular kid at school who behaved like a nasty, arrogant piece of work - because his dad was a local TV sports presenter on one channel, and because he apparently played guitar, he behaved like he was better than everyone else on the planet. He made my life - and that of several of my friends - something of a misery.  As we got older, and towards the end of high school, I mainly based myself in my small group of genuine friends so as to avoid people, but any encounters with him mostly consisted of me being sneered and laughed at derisively.

In a lot of respects this film gets that experience right, but it doesn't adequately capture a significant part of it - the anger and rage that is felt by the bullying victim.  Sometimes this is turned inwards, sometimes this is directed at those closest to them, but mostly this is stored up and simmers beneath the surface.  When it erupts, it can have tragic results - or it can be used to refocus and drive a person.  In 'Chronicle' though, Andrew doesn't just face bullying at school - he faces it in his neighbourhood, where he is picked on by local thugs (it's suggested they have physically assaulted him, and even mugged him, before the events of the film).  Worst of all, he is subjected to abuse at home at the hands of his alcoholic father, who (it is strongly implied) beats him.  When, at the end, Andrew unleashes his powers against those who have abused him, the good work that the film has done leading up to it in terms of naturalistic performances and characterisation is arguably undermined.

'Chronicle' authentically portrays the camaraderie of three teenage lads larking about.  Only, with Psychic powers...

Firstly, just because Andrew is bullied and abused at home and school did not necessarily mean he would 'turn bad'.  The film partly tries to justify this shift through the device of his mother's slowly succumbing to cancer.  When there's no money to buy her medication (because his dad has spent it on Alcohol) Andrew turns to crime to get it, using his powers to do so.  Whilst this is partly believable, I believe that it would take more than that to push someone like Andrew to using their powers in 'bad' ways.  In real life (speaking from experience), surviving bullying is easier with the support of genuine friends - but before he slides to 'evil' we see Andrew becoming isolated from his two best friends - and, again, I'm not sure this is convincing.  The falling out stems from an embarrassment involving over-drinking and vomiting at a party, and besides the fact it puts Andrew back at the bottom of the social hierarchy amongst his peers, it never feels like a convincing reason for him to kill Steve (Jordan).  Apart from, of course, to show how he is 'turning bad' in how he uses his powers.  He falls out with his other friend, his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), when he uses his powers to get back at one of the bullies we see assaulting him earlier in the film.  Matt confronts him and lectures him about how they agreed not to use their powers on living things, but this brings me to my second issue: Matt's reaction shows how the film doesn't really sympathise with the experience of being bullied.

The film sort of justifies Andrew's descent in to 'villainy' due to the abuse and bullying, but then it bizarrely tells the audience we shouldn't sympathise with him.  Eh?!?

After we've seen all that Andrew has endured at the hands of his peers at school, the local thugs, and his abusive father, the audience is supposed to side with Matt when Andrew starts using his powers against those who have bullied and abused him. Whilst DeHaan has the right look and acting ability to pull off a troubled person, it feels like a cliché when he is contrasted with Matt, who is the stereotypical square-jawed, tall dark and handsome leading man.  It is a lazy kind of short-hand that the film uses with this approach to casting the actors, which basically says "you are less likely to turn bad if you are stereotypically handsome, and more likely to turn bad if you're not".  It is a lazy way of making the audience get behind Matt during the final act, as opposed to arguably where the audience's sympathy should lie, with Andrew.  It cheapens what he goes through over the course of the film, and the way in which it contributes to where he ends up in the final act.

If the film really wanted to show us how bullying and abuse would have pushed Andrew in to using his powers in a 'bad' way it has also failed in this respect - because, arguably, it doesn't go far enough.  Again, demonstrating how the makers either don't fully appreciate how bullying really feels or can make the victim feel, there is a holding back when we finally begin to see Andrew striking back against those who have made his life a misery.  Having felt the rage that being bullied creates, looking back to my school days if I'd have had powers, like Andrew, I'm not sure I would have killed the people bullying me, but I would have wanted to hurt them.  And not only that, I would have wanted to humiliate them for all the times they'd laughed at me and made me feel inadequate in front of the rest of the school.  Pulling out teeth would have been a start, but why do just do that, when he could have thrown them around, broken a limb or two - then pulled their clothes off and left them naked and exposed in front of their peer group?  Again, when we see him turn the tables on the local thugs and use his powers to mug them, putting myself in his shoes I would have used the powers to afflict more psychological terror before bringing physical harm on them - pay back for all the times they'd intimidated and threatened me.  I can partly understand why the film makers held back at this point - budgetary reasons, and no doubt not wanting to push the film's rating up too high and cut off potential box office from a younger audience.

But what is totally unforgivable is that the one character who is completely irredeemable, who totally deserved the full force of Andrew's anger and to meet their death at his hands, is rescued by Matt.  In pure story-telling terms Andrew's dad (Michael Kelly) fulfils the role of an antagonist who surely deserves to be killed off.  We see him completely oblivious to the suffering of his wife as she slowly succumbs to cancer, due to his alcoholism, as well as being oblivious to the misery his son is enduring at school.  Not only that he adds to this misery by directing his rage towards Andrew - there is no moment of remorse or contrition over this, his anger and Andrew is sustained throughout the entire film.  And to top it all, he blames Andrew for not being there when his wife finally passes of her cancer, unleashing a furious tirade at him - despite Andrew being the only person trying to get his mothers' drugs and ease her pain.  There is no reason from a story-telling point-of-view for him to survive the film,and  the moment when Matt saves Andrew's dad is completely frustrating, serving little purpose than reinforcing the poorly set out 'good/bad' dynamic which is supposed to define the pair in the final act.  Andrew would throw a man to his death, therefore he is irredeemably bad, while Matt saves that man, so is clearly the good guy who we must root for.  Again, it just cheapens what Andrew has been through, how he has by and large been the victim throughout the film.

My biggest problem with the final 'battle' is that the audience are given more reasons to sympathise with Andrew, but are expected to accept Matt as the 'hero' - who happens to have stereotypical 'hero' looks, unlike Andrew...

It is also a lazy way of setting up that Andrew must die at the end.  We're supposed to believe that he is so consumed by his grief-stricken rage that there is no way back for him - however, there are moments earlier in the film where Andrew has acted out of anger but shown genuine remorse, so there is a precedent that suggests he may have calmed down.  Although Matt's attempts to do this are seemingly futile, it would arguably have made sense to try and remove him from the city to an area where his rage would have caused less harm and less danger to by-standers.  However, that wouldn't have made for such a spectacle-filled final act, would it?

On the one hand I get that 'Chronicle' isn't meant to be a super-hero movie - it is framed more like a horror film, in certain respects.  And underneath the narrative is a 'counter-point', if you like, to the origin story of, say, Spider-man: like Andrew, Peter Parker is bullied at school and something of a social outcast, but he has the loving upbringing and guidance of his Aunt May & Uncle Ben to inspire him to use his powers for good.  This film highlights that, if he hadn't have had that, he'd have probably turned in to a little a**hole after the spider bite.  But aside from that, having been through bullying myself (though thankfully not domestic abuse) I ultimately feel the way the film handles it shows a real sympathy or understanding of the experience.  I think the biggest clincher is that the film seems to suggest that if you're bullied and socially shunned by your peers at school, you're more likely to turn 'bad'.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the experience of being bullied did not turn me bad, or violent, but I chose to turn the hurt and anger in a different direction.  I became interested in music, and found an outlet for my feelings through playing the drums.  And above all it made me want to be a good person, not like the bullies - contributing to making me work as a volunteer with elderly and disabled people, and campaigning for development charities in my late Teens and early 20's.

As for the bully I spoke about, well things didn't turn out so well for him after school.  His apparent talent for playing guitar never lead to a career, and he fell in to drug abuse - dying of an overdose a couple of years ago.  I don't know what drove him to that, perhaps it was the same issues that made him a bully, perhaps he was so mean to people to distract from those issues.  If I'd have known what they were, or how his life would end up, I don't think I would have allowed myself to be bullied by him when I was at school.  I probably would have just felt sorry for him. But then, things might have been different if I'd have developed psychic powers at that age..!

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.

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!