Lady's Choice: Inside Out

Guess who's taking over!

Since Brian's schedule is a little out of whack right now, I though that I'd help by doing an extra blog post. And since Brian and I saw Ted 2 and Inside Out the other night , I thought we could split the new movies (plus I just did a top Pixar list). Besides he is much better suited to handle Ted 2. Inside Out is Pixar's latest creation and made over $90 million during its opening weekend. It was also released with a short film Lava. Now, we saw this with some little kids in front of us, and they were confused at first. I'm not sure if they liked it, but I know that I liked it. 

Lava is a musical about a volcano that is surrounded by various couples (two whales, two birds, etc.). He sings a song for someone to love. He sings until his lava goes out, aka becomes dormant. Under the waves is a girl volcano who has heard his song and erupts out of the ocean. Her eruption though causes him to sink beneath the ocean. That is until he hears her sing her version of the song. Lava erupts, and the two volcanoes end up being together. It was a really touching short film. 

As for Inside Out, on the surface it looks kind of like this:

When I first saw the trailer, I was extremely skeptical and thought that Pixar might have stretched too far; however, I can assure everyone that they have not. Pixar has created a story about growing up and all the emotions that go along with that. So of course they start with birth. Joy was the first emotion in Riley's head. Then came the rest: Fear, Anger, Disgust, and Sadness. Each with their own job to help Riley grow up, and Joy was their leader. Joy explains to the audience that as Riley grows up core memories are made, and all of them are yellow (aka happy/Joy).

Each of the core memories link to islands of Riley's personality, from Goofball Island to Hokey Island to Family Island. They have also all been created in Minnesota, where Riley was born and has lived all 11 years of her live. This all changes suddenly when her father gets relocated to San Fransisco. Ask anyone, and they'll tell you that moving halfway across the country to a new city can be extremely difficult for any child. Through Joy's eyes this is made worse when Sadness starts to turn happy memories sad when she touches them.


When Riley tries to make the best of things, Joy tries to get everyone ready for the first day of school. Everything seems to go well until, as Fear predicts, the teacher calls on Riley. While telling the class about herself, Riley starts to cry because Sadness touches the console, creating a new sad core memory. Joy tries to stop the sad memory from becoming part of the core, causing all the core memories plus Joy and Sadness to be sucked up the tube to long term memory.

As Joy and Sadness try to return to Headquarters with the core memories, the three that remain to control Riley's emotions (Fear, Anger and Disgust) are not able to keep Riley her normal happy self. Also without the core memories, Riley begins to make decisions that lead to her personality islands disappearing. Joy must learn that life isn't always happy and to accept the new Riley. Same way that Riley has to adjust to being in a new place, even if that takes her the whole movie. In the end, the headquarters of Riley start to look different since the beginning of the movie.

Not to be punny or anything, but this movie is full of feels, both Human and actual Feelings. Like many of the Pixar movies, it is all about a change that most children and adults can relate to. It's about growing and up and learning that you don't have to be the same person all the time. Life is full of emotions that make up who we are. This movie really takes me back to my own childhood and the emotions and trials that I had growing up, which is a big draw for the adults of the movie. It's a different way to think about parts of our childhoods, and for the children, it is a lesson about what they are going through or will go through.Joy and Sadness also have learn that they need each other and that Riley needs both of them equally in  life.  Joy had the most to learn about Sadness, saying in the beginning that she wasn't even sure what Sadness did.

The CG for Inside Out is stunning, which is something that I have come to expect from Pixar. Each feeling and each human are distinct, from Riley and her parents to how Joy and Sadness glow different colors. The beauty in this CG is the attention to detail. It's harder to get realistic looking blonde hair compared to other colors, and Riley's hair looks convincing. The "insides" get the same type of treatment from the imaginary friend made of cotton candy to the glitter in feelings' hairs.

Overall, this is another fantastic film from Pixar. From the story to the visuals to the overall pacing of the movie,  time flew by while watching this movie. I was sad that it was over so quickly and that I didn't put it on my most anticipated for this year. Good job, Pixar.

Rating:  9/10

Buy on BluRay:  A feelings-filled YES!

So what did you think of Inside Out?  Was it as good as other Pixar movies?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

The Weekend Review: Ted 2

In which I review a selection of last weekend's entertainment.

Ted 2 - the awaited sequel to Seth MacFarlane's 2012 comedy about a kid whose teddy bear comes to life - hit theaters this last weekend to surprisingly little fanfare.  It fell direly short of industry expectations and Ted 3 is doubtlessly not in the immediate future for MacFarlane's host of loyal fans.

Following marital difficulties with Tami-Lynn, Ted concludes that the only way to save his marriage is to have a child with her.  Being unable to impregnate her himself, however, he needs to find a sperm donor, the search for which dregs up the fact that, according to the United States government, Ted is not a person.  Having lost his job, rights and even his marriage, Ted and Johnny sue the government to restore his civil rights and personhood.

I'm skeptical of comedies as a rule, but never more so than in the weeks preceding the first Ted's release in 2012.  Now, I trusted Seth MacFarlane to make me laugh - his track record with Family Guy and American Dad was impeccable - but the movie itself just looked so incredibly stupid.  Combine that with it being his first movie - and live-action to boot - and going to see it ended up being a pretty hard sell.

But, to MacFarlane's credit, Ted proved to be downright hilarious.  It was clever, funny and even surprisingly emotional.  While it certainly had its share of issues - the same as any movie - it ended up being one of the most enjoyable and memorable movies of 2012.

The sequel... not quite so much.  Don't worry, it's still hilarious.  The various plot points of hunting for a sperm donor and suing the government are wrought with comedic strife that MacFarlane expertly navigates.  The problem's that this movie faces have far more to do with structure than content.

Somewhere between the first movie and the sequel, MacFarlane lost Mila Kunis.  Being a integral part of the movie's cast, her presence had to be explained away.  But rather than just keeping her off camera, they wrote her out entirely.  In the last three years, her character and Johnny got married and divorced, forcing a cheapened story arc on Johnny about getting back into the dating scene.

Amanda Seyfried's Samantha, while a worthy effort, inherently fails to measure up to Mila's Lori.  She's a plot-necessitated character that fails to challenge the status quo of the movie's headliners (Lori's greatest strength in the first movie).  Sure, you get some funny bits about a dick-shaped bong and a stellar acoustic number from her, but she fails to bring anything substantive to the film.

And for as sound as the first, and even second, acts were, the third act is a mess of tangled plot points and unnecessary narratives.  Donnie - Ted's stalker from the first film - returns with a Hasbro-backed plan to sabotage the bear's court case so that he's declared property, and thus far more susceptible to theft, so that Hasbro can dissect and mass produce sapient teddy bears.

You see the problem there, right?  Ted's quest for personhood is already far more interesting - not to mention grockable - than the plot line that supposedly informs it.  It recycles the previous movie's villain for some third act stakes-raising that ultimately feels like a tired retread of a much better movie.  That's not even mentioning how confusing and downright stupid it sounds on the face of it.

That's not even mentioning how half of the movie feels like it's been left on the cutting room floor.  In one scene, Ted crashes a car into a barn, stranding him, Johnny and Sam in a pot field overnight.  Great pains are taken to set up the field's owner - including dredging up a shotgun and guitar - who is never shown.  Judging by the movie's trailers, this was supposed to end in some kind of car chase, but just feels like a half-baked setup to a payoff that ultimately never happened.

Now, none of this is to say that Ted 2 is a bad movie.  On the contrary, it's a gut-bustingly funny one that fans of MacFarlane, Family Guy and the first Ted are bound to love.  It's a solid, if sloppily written, comedy that Becky told me to stop laughing so loudly during on at least one occasion.  Just don't expect it to be as good as the first.

So what did you think about Ted 2?  Was it as funny as the first Ted?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

The Weekend Report: Ted 2 Falls Short of Predictions

In which I run down the big winners (and losers) at the box office this weekend.

Although the box office rankings for this last weekend look exactly as they were expected to, the actual numbers attached to the movies in question were actually pretty off.  More accurately, the numbers attached to Ted 2, Seth MacFarlane's sequel to the Family Guy-esque movie about a child who wishes his teddy bear to life, were far lower than predicted.

This might just be that Ted 2 is retroactively a worse movie than we initially gave it credit for (it's not).  It might be that Seth MacFarlane doesn't have as many fans as everybody thought (again, it's not).  It might just be that more people were interested in seeing genetically engineered dinosaurs run amok and feelings run rampant in a little girl's head than an R-rated comedy about a foul-mouthed teddy bear (probably closer to the point).

Whatever the reason, Ted 2 under-performed in a very serious way.  While it can hardly have been said to have bombed, it likely isn't going to encourage Universal executives to greenlight Ted 3 any time soon, regardless of how gut-bustingly hilarious it actually turned out to be.

Despite its relatively narrow appeal, Max did a lot better than a lot of people were expecting it to.  My local theater kept selling out its showings throughout the weekend (even if it was being shown in some of the smaller theaters).  A combination of strong word of mouth, patriotic dressings so near the Fourth of July and a strong-looking coming of age story about a boy and his dog kept it on track for a solid opening weekend.

And from what I've heard, it's actually a really good movie.  Some have even gone so far as to say that it's one of the best movies about the post-9/11 military conflicts to date (and that coming from a guy who hated American Sniper).

Box Office Ranking:

1) Jurassic World -  $54.2m
2)  Inside Out - $52.1m

3) Ted 2 - $33m
4) Max - $12.2m
5) Spy - $7.8m
6)  San Andreas - $5.2m
7)  Dope - $2.8m
8)  Insidious: Chapter 3 - $2m
9)  Mad Max: Fury Road - $1.7m
10)  Avengers: Age of Ultron - $1.6m

So what movie did you see in theaters this last weekend?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

Blog Update: Keeping Up with the Filmquisition

In which I detail upcoming changes to Filmquisition.

As many of you may have noticed, my current schedule is proving to be increasingly prohibitive to the publication schedule that I had set out to keep up with.  Some days I can only post a fraction of what I promised - if I post anything at all - and I'm in a constant frenzy to catch up whenever I get a space minute.  It's a losing option at best, and needs to be addressed.

Change needs to happen.  There's just no way around it.  I need to either adapt to my new schedule or fall hopelessly behind on everything.

Upon reviewing my options, I think that toning down the reviews is the best way to go.  They're the articles that easily take up the most time to hammer out - both in terms of writing and given that I actually have to watch something pertaining to it.  It's just not realistic to hammer out five movie reviews a week when I'm holding down 2 or more jobs on the side.

That doesn't mean that I'm stopping the reviews entirely, just that I'm slowing things down on that front.  I'll still publish a Weekend Review and Revisited article each week: something old and something new.  Unreality Companions are still floater articles that might sometimes turn into reviews.  While the other two - From the Vault and Date Night - can still pop up from time to time when my schedule allows for it, just not regularly.

Naturally, this will shift the focus of Filmquisition to editorializing and news, punctuated throughout the week by the occasional review.  Since Lady's Choice has gotten up and running, though, it's entirely possible that Filmquisition will continue to put out its full compliment of 15 articles each week, although the exact numbers are as much reliant on Becky as they are on myself.

With a bit less on my plate to worry about, this should keep me from falling behind on other articles that simply lost out to me struggling to keep up with my reviews.  I'm looking into other ways to make up for this deficit - ways that might not take up quite as much time as the review series - but that's a subject for another time.

Other than Extra, Extra, WTF and Lady's Choice, this is what the publication now looks like:

Monday:
The Weekend Review
The Weekend Report

Tuesday:
AdapNation

Wednesday:
Trending

Thursday:
Throwback Thursday
Revisited

Friday:
Unreality Companion
The Weekend Forecast

So now that Filmquisition has scaled back a bit, what would you like to see out of our other article series?  Would you like to see movie reviews incorporated into Lady's Choice or more often featured on Unreality Companion?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

The Weekend Forecast: Another Jurassic Weekend

In which I predict that big winners (and losers) at the box office this weekend.

Enjoy it while it lasts, but this weekend might very well prove to be Jurassic World's last as #1 at the box office.  Neither Ted 2 nor Max will come anywhere near the Crichton titan, but Terminator Genisys will doubtless be able to push it off of its pedestal in its fourth week of release.  That doesn't mean, though that it's going down without a fight.

This weekend will doubtless prove to be when Jurassic World surpasses Avengers: Age of Ultron's  global gross.  The two are separated by less than $14 million as it is, which should be easy for Jurassic World to cover with another blockbuster weekend, even if it's take does dip below $100 million.  I never thought that I'd say this, but The Force Awakens might ultimately prove insufficient to beat Jurassic World as the top-grossing movie of 2015.

Of this weekend's new crop of films, Ted 2 will come closest to unseating the invariable box office king.  Seth MacFarlane has a strong body of fans who are willing to see anything he puts out, and the first Ted was a shockingly hilarious comedy that even I was able to get behind.

And while the press is pretty front-loaded with both negative and disappointed reviews, the movie is actually hilarious and is bound to willfully soldier through the majority opinion.  While it does suffer from some whiffed jokes and significant third act plotting issues, it's a strong comedy that fans of the first and of MacFarlane will happily shell out hard-earned money to see.

Although it never looked like my kind of movie, the incredibly strong press surrounding Max has me hopeful for an unexpected gem.  It's positive focus on the military and the hardships facing the families of those who serve will likely draw out the conservative crowd, and people like Becky will show up just for the dog.  I can't see it beating out the aforementioned franchise movies, but a relatively strong third place showing is not out of the question here.

So what movie are you planning on seeing in theaters this weekend?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

Unreality Companion: Why the X-Men Shouldn't Join the MCU

In which I expand upon the content of my weekly Unrealitymag.com article.

Most of you are probably already aware about how Marvel and Fox are increasingly at each other's throats over the film rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises.  The short of it is that Marvel wants them and Fox will keep pumping out sequels, reboots and remakes for as long as it can afford to (in order to retain those films rights for the foreseeable future).  But the question that nobody ever seems to ask is "does Marvel even really need those franchises?"

Movie rights are funny things.  As long as you keep making more movies and don't want to sell them back, they're yours to keep.  That's why Sony rebooted Spider-Man after Raimi's trilogy concluded.  That's why Marvel initially couldn't make a Hulk movie (or a Daredevil series).  And that's why Fox is able to tie up two of Marvel's most iconic teams outside of the comic publisher's meta-franchise.

But when you stop and think about it, what do the Fanastic Four - or even the X-Men - bring to the table that Marvel didn't already have?  I mean, I love Wolverine as much as the next guy, but does he really need to suit up alongside Cap' and Iron Man?

The short answer is no.  While we might miss out on adaptation of Avengers vs X-Men and the full breadth of Age of Apocalypse, neither franchise really needs what the other has.  The MCU has damn-near the full breadth of Marvel's expansive roster of heroes and villains to work with, and X-Men has an obscenely wide character base to draw from as well.

And Fantastic Four?  They haven't been relevant in decades.  This is why when Marvel decided to go to war with Fox over their film rights, they canceled the Fantastic Four comic book.  While the team launched Marvel's Age of Heroes and has been historically important to the shared universe, they haven't sold especially well in years, and can't help but feel dated more than fifty later.

The only thing that Marvel would even want from them is Doctor Doom, who's about as awesome as Marvel villains come.  Guardians of the Galaxy is doing a great job of covering Marvel's cosmic canon while the Avengers are doing just fine with their terrestrial adventures.  People just aren't all that interested in watching a team in matching onesies fight the Mole Man.

While X-Men does offer a lot more than the Fantastic Four does, it's always struck me as a supremely insular franchise that never really jived well with the rest of Marvel's offerings.  In a brilliant twist on the Civil Rights Movement, mutants are feared and hated simply because they're born different.

It's insightful.  It's dramatic.  It doesn't really fit with every other super-powered character and team that they've come up with since 1961.

Why are the X-Men so reviled when the Fantastic Four are superhero celebrities?  Why do people loathe mutants when Thor gets away with doing the exact same thing?  Why are people okay with Captain America, but not with Charles Xavier?

And really, can you blame him?

For everything Spider-Man has to put up with, he really only gets ragged on by one angry guy on a soap box.  The only other guy who's in the same boat as the X-Men is Hulk, and he's an actual, factual monster who's just as likely to rip you in half as he is anything else.

The social and tonal disparity between X-Men and basically everything else has always been a cause for pause with me.  It's filled with nuanced characters, rich stories and excellent writing, but when push comes to shove, for as much as I love the franchise, X-Men simply never belonged with the rest of Marvel.

So while  Marvel misses out on any number of fantastic characters to throw into the ring with (against?) Stark & Co., They're better off on their own.  Marvel has a hard enough time trying to fit all of the characters that they actually do own the film rights to into any given phase, never mind having to worry about the literal hundreds of mutants that they would have at their disposal.

And sure, Magneto solves the perpetual "Marvel Problem" of never having an interesting villain.  Apocalypse too.  Hell, you could say the same thing about Stryker, Phoenix, Mystique and any number of X-villains.  They're all phenomenal, nuanced and incredibly interesting characters, but they simply don't fit the logic of the MCU.

Besides, Marvel's been managing just fine without them.  Say what you will about its fidelity to the comics, but Iron Man 3's twist on The Mandarin was the most memorable thing that a villain did in any superhero movie short of asking people if they wanted to know how he got his scars.  Thanos' long-game with the Infinity Stones is proving to be the best-laid conflict of any series pumping out sequels today.  Ultron was a phenomenally tragic character with surprising layers of nuance.

What's more is that the two franchises in question seem to be in remarkably good hands.  Days of Future Past was easily one of my favorite movies from last year.  Same goes for X-Men: First Class in 2011.  X-Men: Apocalypse is easily one of my most anticipated movies for next year (behind only Captain America: Civil War).  It might have taken them the better half of two decades to do so, but it looks like Fox has finally gotten a pulse on what makes the X-Men tick.

And while I still have my reservations about the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot, I think that I'm starting to come around to it.  It doesn't seem quite as grim-dark and tone-deaf as its first trailer suggested.  Hell, by DC standards, its muted color pallet and low-key lighting look downright cheery.  And although far too young for their roles, the cast is otherwise excellent.

So do you think that Marvel should reacquire the film rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four?  If so, how would you like to see the new franchises incorporated into the existing MCU?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

Lady's Choice: Favorite Pixar Movies!

Guess who's taking over!

I promise that eventually I will get away from lists. I'm looking at doing my own "From the Vault" or "Date Night" articles for the blog, but for now, I keep wanting to do lists. June has seen the release of Disney/Pixar's newest movie: Inside Out. For the most part Pixar has put out a movie every year, and while not all of them have been smash hits, they all have been solid movies. Because of that, I had a really hard time limiting myself to just 5 movies.

I decided to go with movies with Pixar as the studios and only including feature lengths. I also decided against putting The Incredibles (2004) on this list. My decision was mainly because it has already been highlighted as part of my of my superhero movie list. Even with this decision, I still had a really hard time limiting it to not all of them. So here's my top 5 Pixar movies in release date order.

Toy Story (1995)

Pixar's first movie put it front and center for children's movies from 1995 through today. They used the state of the art CG for the day, amazing audiences. It also left many children with the question of what their toys did while they were away or even lost. It also had a great message: it's not about what you think you are but what you mean to those around you. This is seen with Buzz thinking that he is the real Buzz Lightyear and goes through a crisis of both identity and purpose when he finds out that he actually is a toy. Woody shows him that while he might not be a real sheriff (space ranger for Buzz) but loves being Andy's toy and bringing joy to Andy. The voice acting with leading actors Tom Hanks as Woody and Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear is superb. The soundtrack is great. Everyone know "You've Got a Friend in Me." And to this day, most kids have seen this ground breaking Pixar classic.


Finding Nemo (2003)
Pixar took audiences on a wild, Australian ride with Finding Nemo. Again, audiences were amazed with the CG. The attention to detail was amazing. From studying how the fish actually move to how the currents affect the reef and other wildlife, Pixar took their time to get everything not only right but natural looking. I don't remember Toy Story in theaters, but I remember being in awe when Finding Nemo's opening scenes started playing. I was lost in the underwater world, and, thanks to a great script, still to this day quote this movie (Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming). Audiences loved the character Dory so much so that Pixar will have Finding Dory coming out in June 2016. I think this movie is also why children know clown fish as Nemos.


WALL - E (2008)
From underwater to outer space, once again Pixar upped the game by taking its audiences to the future and made us root for a little robot named Wall-E. Again, Pixar's attention to detail is evident in the CG, from the garbage filled, abandoned Earth to Wall-E and Eve dancing in space. Some adults railed against the environmentalist message from this movie, but I think it is a good message. It is also a love story. Wall-E and Eve are from different worlds essentially. Even though they are both robots made by human beings, they have different directives and end up loving each other all the same. And all of this was done with much less dialogue then other movies as Wall-E and Eve don't have very big vocabulary, and the humans are somewhat of side characters.


Up (2009)

Somewhat back down to Earth, Up is still a high flying adventure about a husband trying to live how his wife had dreamed of living. First, I'm going to state the obvious: The first like 8 minutes of this movie is better than Twilight. With that out of the way, Pixar has proven once again to be able to focus on what matters in the story, in this case it is the variety of characters and their interactions. Carl looses the love of his life Ellie and feels like she never got to go on the adventure that she wanted. So, when push comes to shove, he set sail for Paradise Falls with Russell (a stowaway). Along the way, they meet Dug the Dog, Kevin the Bird, and Carl's childhood hero Carles Muntz, and Carl learns what really mattered to Ellie and what matters now to him. Like Finding Nemo, this movie is still quoted among my friends and loved by many.


Brave (2012)
Brave is a very underrated Pixar/Disney movie. Merida herself, while the favorite of a friend, is an underrated princess. Today, many love Frozen because Ana saves Elsa and herself, it doesn't end in a wedding, etc. This leave me confused because Merida did it first. She is trying to get out of her parents arranging a marriage and wants to choose her own fate. In fact, Merida has mad bow skills, and the movie doesn't end with any love interest for her at all. Her fate, and that of her people, rests on her shoulders the entire movie. Maybe Brave wasn't as well received because she is so different or some other reason that I am not seeing; however, Merida is one of my favorite princess and well as the star of one of my favorite Pixar movies. Can I also point out that her hair was a nightmare to animate? Props to Pixar for giving her those beautiful, long, red curls. I also love that she is Scottish and has her own distinct look from the rest of Disney's princess line-up.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog

Extra, Extra!: Marvel Finally Casts Spider-Man

In which I report on the latest in entertainment news.

After stringing us along for months about who they were considering - after disregarding brilliant up-and-comers and passing on obvious choices - Marvel has finally selected their cinematic Spider-Man.  And no, it's still not Asa Butterfield.

Marvel has selected generally unknown child actor Tom Holland to play the role of Peter Parker / Spider-Man.  If you don't recognize the name, don't feel bad.  Most people don't.

Holland's only notable movie to date was 2012's The Impossible, where he played a child trying to reunite with the rest of his family following 2004's devastating Indian Ocean Tsunami.  I only happened to see it by accident and was marginally satisfied with the results.

While the movie was (barely) well enough. Holland did an excellent job in it.  While I can hardly call him the best choice for the role, he is a perfectly serviceable young actor who fits the physical requirements of the role (early to mid teens, white, male, lithe frame).  While I would have hardly gone with him, he was an obvious improvement over the other finalist for the role.

There's more to the role than just acting, though, and that's where Hollands' real strengths come in.  He auditioned for the role with Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr., so he can obviously hold his own in a room with those two.  He's a (relatively) long-standing Spidey fan, which goes a long way toward his investment into and understanding of the character.

So while he's neither my first nor my second choice for the role, I'm perfectly satisfied with his inclusion in the MCU.  A young Spidey will be a refreshing change of pace from all of these old man Parkers running around and nearer to the heart of the character as it stands.

So are you happy with Holland as Peter Parker?  If not, who would you have preferred?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.

Throwback Thursday: Explaining Marvel's Ongoing Feud with Fox

In which I revisit old articles from Filmquisition and Unreality.

If you ever wondered why Days of Future Past‘s timeline fails to sync up with the Avengers movies or why none of the Fantastic Four showed up for Age of Ultron, it’s basically because film rights are funny things.  You see, before Marvel started making movies themselves, they were content to lease out the movie rights to their comics to other production companies.  They didn’t have any plans for them at the time and sitting on those rights was just leaving money on the table.  Why not make a few bucks off of them?

The enduring successes of the Spider-Man and X-Men movies proved that there was a surprising demand for big-screen superheroes, and abject failures like Hulk, Daredevil and Ghost Rider ultimately resulted in the rights to those properties reverting back to Marvel.  So Marvel took stock of what properties they had to work with and went ahead with their own cinematic universe, picking up whatever strays they could along the way.  And now that Spider-Man is officially back inMarvel’s possession, the only two franchises left to reacquire are Fantastic Four and X-Men.

The problem is that unlike Sony, Fox isn’t willing to play ball.  The Fantastic Fours might have been modest successes, but they did make money, and X-Men is a box office powerhouse all on its own.  Left to their own devices, Fox’s CEOs would contentedly churn out new movies every year and rebuff any offer Marvel made to buy the rights back.

That’s why the now Disney-backed Marvel started to play dirty.  Last year, at the height of Marvel’s 75th Anniversary celebrations, the company cancelled the Fantastic Four comic.  Although the team has been a historically big player in the Marvel universe – kicking off a new Age of Heroes back in 1961 – they haven’t proven to be the best sellers.  Marvel had very little to lose by swapping their comic out with one that would invariably sell better, but Fox had a lot to lose by the way of free advertising for their upcoming movie.

The cancellation further drew a line in the sand for kids that were getting into the comics because of the movies.  Iron Man, Thor, CaptainAmerica – these are the important guys.  The Avengers matter.  The Fantastic Four do not.

While Marvel could not in good conscience cancel the various X-Men comics – they make far too much money to justify shutting down – they had another strategy entirely for dealing with them.  Rather than cancelling the comics, they simply refused to lease Fox the merchandising rights for last summer’s Days of Future Past.  That’s why you didn’t see Wolverine, Magneto and Sentinel action figures in your local toy aisle: Marvel was willing to give up on a little bit of profit to starve Fox out of a boat-load of money.

There’s also the matter of the twins: Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch.  If Fox owned the film rights to X-Men – and by extension all of its characters – how did Marvel get away with including the supersonic son of Magneto in Age of Ultron?

As it turned out, the company’s technically share the rights to those, and other, characters.  Sure, Fox still owned the rights to mutants, Magneto and the rest of it, but Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch had actually been Avengers at one point, meaning that they fell under the umbrella of Marvel’s Avengers film rights too.

They had to seriously shake up the character’s back story to do it, but they got them into the movie just fine.  And, when you really stop to think about it, this opens up a lot of characters to the same treatment.  For one, every member of the Fantastic Four would fall under the same legal technicality.  So would most of the key players of the X-Men franchise, potentially including Beast, Wolverine, Rogue and Storm.

But those would only work in the context of Avengers, and only after seriously rewriting the characters so as to never mention mutants, the X-Men, the Brotherhood or anything else that Fox would exclusively own.  Marvel, understandably, wants to make solo-movies and non-Avengers team-ups of their own.  And – surprise, surprise – they actually found a way around that too.

Anybody who looked carefully at Marvel’s phase three lineup were probably asking themselves who the Hell The Inhumans were.  The Inhumans are virtually identical to – yet legally distinct from – the X-Men: the result of ancient alien experimentation on Humans that gave them extraordinary powers that are indistinguishable from those of Mutants.

Their leader, Black Bolt, has a supersonic voice that can bring entire cities down around him.  Medusa, his wife, has prehensile, inhumanly strong hair (collectively able to lift about 1.6 tons).  Others have control over the elements, telepathy or can empathically control the emotions of others.  Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.‘s Skye was recently shown to be an Inhuman and can create earthquakes.  They’re Marvel’s way of tapping into the fun of the X-Men while not being able to include them in the MCU.

The latest chapter in this ongoing feud was reported yesterday by Bleedingcool.com.  According to their sources, the conclusion of the comics’ Secret Wars will involve mutantkind as a whole leaving the Earth for a planet all their own.  The Terragen Mists – exposure to which causes Inhumans to gain their mutant-like powers – evidently kills mutants outright.  And with it circling the globe, they’ve finally decided to cut their losses on Earth.

According to Marvel’s editor-in-chief Axel Alonso,

The X-Men office is taking the opportunity of “Secret Wars” to build an entire new world for the characters — to create a shared universe within the X-books that’s set off by a huge event/incident/surprise. At that point, they’re going to introduce a new team that feels unlike anything you’ve seen before. It’ll be… “extraordinary.”

This means that there’s now no chance of any character that Marvel doesn’t own the film rights to interacting with characters that they do own the rights to.  It’s the ultimate statement about which characters matter and which ones you can expect to see in future movies.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if exposure to the Terragen Mists don’t seriously up the number of superpowered individuals running around the Marvel universe, waiting for their chance to shine on the big screen.

So would you like to see X-Men and the Fantastic Four join the MCU?  Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Join the Filmquisition on Twitter (@Filmquisition) or by subscribing to this blog.