Author: Adam

Prey just released over the weekend on Hulu in the USA and (strangely enough) Disney Plus in international territories. Despite some outburst from sexist trolls who were ready to hate on the movie the second that they learned that it would have a female main lead in it, it seems to be doing pretty well with critics and fans of the Predator franchise. Dan Trachtenberg was able to breath new life into a series that looked as good as finished and Amber Midthunder (Again, what a cool name!) is just destined to be the next big action lead heroine to watch out for. With a movie this well made and received, you would think it would deserve to be seen on the big screen. Unfortunately, it is not. It is strictly only a streaming service movie that was only seen at a theater during the San Diego Comic Con back in late July.

Many have wondered why exactly this was the case. The Predator IP is still a rather iconic brand. Say what you will about the quality of the sequels but the series has still run high on the greatness that was the original Predator with Arnold Schwarzenegger. You would imagine just the success of the first one alone and expanding to it’s own franchise that people would be supportive to see the newest one in theaters, right? Well, let’s take a look at how The Terminator franchise, the other franchise carried by Arnold, fared when they had a similar situation occurring with each installment.

Back in 2019, the sixth Terminator movie came out with Terminator: Dark Fate. Despite it’s mostly solid reviews from critics and having the return of James Cameron and Linda Hamilton themselves, it was a an absolute box office failure. Grossing only $261.1 million with a $185-196 million budget and a reported loss of $122.6 million for Paramount. Because of that, future plans for potential sequels were cancelled and who knows if the Terminator franchise will every see the light of day again anytime soon.

Plenty people have their theories on why the movie bombed the way it did. It could be due to the more polarizing reaction from fans along with the controversy of the fate of John Connor that might have turned audiences away. And of course, someone out there will throw out the fact it was a movie starting strictly women and apparently no one wants to watch action movies staring women (Something which has proven time and time again to be false). But, I believe the most logical explanation was that everyone was just done and over with the franchise at this point. The following three movies that came after the first two iconic masterpieces were met with mixed to negative reception and/or underwhelming box offices results.

Rise of the Machines despite it’s box office success was seen as a major stepdown from the first two. With many people not being fond of the film’s overly comedic tone, PG-13 rating, and severely missing Linda Hamilton’s presence.

Strike one!

Salvation wasn’t received much better and made even less money than the last one. Despite trying to differentiate itself from the other movies taking place in a post-Judgement day timeline and with John Connor at the leader, audiences still couldn’t get into it and just found the film too boring and forgettable for it to be a worthwhile Terminator sequel.

Strike two!

Then there came Genisys which was the most poorly reviewed and received entry in the franchise and the one that was the biggest bomb at the box office. From it’s convoluted plot to it’s lazy rehashing of other, better Terminator movies to it’s contradiction of the established lore to it’s countless plot holes the movie doesn’t even attempt to fill to it’s hilariously bad casting decisions (Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese?! Really?!), everyone finally had enough. It was the final nail on the coffin that people had just given up on the franchise.

Strike three and you are out!

Because it was following three poorly received movies that made less of a profit with each new entry, Dark Fate was practically DOA regardless of how good it was. People could care less that Linda Hamilton was back or that the GOAT James Cameron, the man behind the first two game changers would be involved in some way, shape, or form. Audience had already been fooled three times and they weren’t gonna bother being fooled again.

Which is a damn shame because I personally thought Dark Fate was a damn good movie and easily the best one since the first two Terminators but it was never gonna to be good enough to make the other bad installments worthwhile. Had the movie had truly been the third Terminator movie released, then it would have certainly made a profit. But being the sixth one, no chance? Looking back on it, the fact that Dark Fate was able to release at all in theaters is quite astonishing.

Before Prey, the Predator franchise was in a similar situation as the Terminator series. The sequels were iffy in quality and at the box office and the last one to release in theaters, 2018’s The Predator also underperformed vastly at the box office. It got a poor response from both fans and critics alike and it gave the impression that the series had finally ran it’s course. If there was another installment to release in theaters, it would most likely be guaranteed to be another bomb. Why in the world would anyone want to invest anymore time and money to watch it in theaters after being let down repeatedly over the years? Well, now they didn’t have to and could just watch the next one in the comfort of their own homes with only a subscription fee to pay.

To be sure, I know that Dark Fate tanking in theaters wasn’t the prime reason for Prey being only a streaming service exclusive but I like to imagine that it was the same mindset that 20th Century Studios had when deciding to release it. After several failed attempts to win the audience over again with Predator, there’s no telling that Prey would have fared much better at the box office even if it’s far away the best one since the original. Just like with Dark Fate and even Bumblebee, it was following up a bunch of poor, ill-fated features that everyone was exhausted with it and would rather just wait until it hit cable or streaming to even bother investing their time in. In that case, it seemed smarter to just release it on streaming anyway and there’s a big chance that would gain more viewership than it would had the folks who didn’t bother seeing it on the big screen just waited three months to get around to it.

While reports haven’t come out yet how Prey did in terms of ratings, hopefully the numbers are good enough that 20th Century might consider releasing the next Predator movie in theaters because of the support from fans and audiences alike. However, in the case of Prey, I think it was the right call to make it a streaming exclusive from the business side of things. There was just no guarantee it was going to make anything in theaters because of the shaky track record that other movies in the series had critically and financially. It was at least able to avoid the outcome that Dark Fate did and there may in fact be new leash on life for the Predator franchise in the near future.

For awhile, the Predator franchise seemed to be the equivalent of the Jurassic Park franchise, in which it has one film that is a major classic that just can’t be replicated no matter how hard you try with the sequels and trying to top it is just asking for trouble. Sure, you can argue the sequels where entertaining in both intentional (Predators) and unintentional ways (Predators 2, The Predator) but none of them works as well as the original did. What made the original Predator so good was strictly because it was able to deliver it’s creative but straight-forward premise and able to deliver intense thrills and exciting action with what it gave itself to work with. There was nothing more complex or complicated about it. Just Arnold facing off against an alien monster!

If there is one thing that is the most refreshing about Prey is how it seems to operate in that exact distinct mindset. There’s no attempt at going grander, bigger, and more epic or trying as hard to make you “understand” the Predator itself. All it does is have Amber Midthunder (which is one badass name btw)as a young female warrior facing off against a mysterious creature while proving herself to here tribe that she is just as capable with fighting as her male counterparts. Being able to execute on the exact premise heights is not only what makes Prey far and away the best since the original Predator but there may even be an argument that it’s on par with that if not better.

Premise: In 1719, Naru (Amber Midthunder) is a young girl living in the Northern Plains with her tribe. She has ambition to be as good of a leader and warrior has her brother Tabee (Dakota Beavers) and other members of his group. She constantly works hard everyday to train herself to be the best fighter she can possibly be. Eventually, a presence of a haunting alien force emerges in the Northern Plains. This finds Naru being forced into a position that she has been working towards her whole life. To finally become that elite warrior she has always seen herself has. She goes undercover to discover what exactly this creature is and how she can stop it. It’s then that Naru believes this supposed alien makes her set to embark on her very first hunt known as a “kuhtaamia”.

The first thing you can immediately take from Prey is it has it’s own back-to-basics feel to it. It doesn’t put as much focus on the overall mythology of Predators or try as hard to expand on certain backstories and motivations that it doesn’t need to. It’s able to convey it’s own ambitions as the original did by having a very nature vs extraterrestrial subtext to it along with subverting the narrative with it’s female main character.

I’m sure many people will compare the character of Naru to that of Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor has having a strong action heroine that can hold her own but I think a better comparison can be that of Mulan. Not just because it also that our main heroine going through an arc of showing that a woman can be as strong and capable in battle as a man but that we also see a very vulnerable nature to the character as she learns to inhabit the wilderness and being able to survive on her own. Heck, when you really think about it, this is basically a better live-action Mulan movie than Mulan (2020).

Admittedly, having a strong female protagonist would not worked if the lead actress isn’t compelling but Amber Midthunder (Again, such an awesome name!) is an absolute force of nature as the main heroine. She is able to display the perfect mix of vulnerability and just plain badassery to the character of Naru. We see her constantly grow and change constantly throughout the film as she learns to trust herself even when others don’t. It’s the key traits she has in her actions in her own determination and resourcefulness that helps define her character. Throughout the film, we see Naru start to learn the skills and mindset that she has and must stick to exactly that in order to survive and kills this vicious beast. Only knowing her true strengths and her own capability will she be able to live free when it’s all good.

This is majorly important as the movie never loses the fact that Naru is still a person. She has her own flaws, weaknesses, and there are certain things that she just can’t do. Instead of trying to be somebody she is not, Naru discovers the exact somebody that she has to be. This is not just a story about a woman vs a predator, this is about a human being vs a predator.

The overall simplistic premise does give director Dan Trachtenberg plenty of opportunities to focus on the tense and suspenseful atmosphere the movie is set in and for the most part, he exceeds. It’s always important in a movie like this to showcases a level of intensity and suspense in a movie about a hunt in the woods. Trachtenberg is able to use those exact techniques he displayed brilliantly in 10 Cloverfield Lane to an even better advantage here has he is giving more scope and location to work with here.

What works even greater here are the glorious action sequences. While the CGI is quite noticeable at times and it’s not entirely action-heavy until later on in the second half, the fights scenes really excel here. Not only are they bloody and gory, but they feel real and dirty. These aren’t just superhero with superpowers that has vulnerability taking away from, these are real living lifeforms that take hits, bruises, scars, and cuts throughout battles and must find a way to fight despite those. The real standouts here are the early ones with the Predator first arrives as that does a perfect job of displaying the tone and tension in every scene the alien arrives in.

Production wise, this movie is on top form as well. The cinematography by Jeff Cutter is top notch with plenty of nice location shooting that perfectly displays the time period which this movie is set in. The editing by Angela M. Catanzaro and Claudia Castello is rather well done despite a handful of choppy moments, particularly in the action scenes. The score by Sarah Schachner is inspiring and fits the movie immensely well. The make-up and costumes are great which look exactly that I would expect from certain tribes. The only real downside is some admittedly noticeable CGI that might take you out of the movie at the very beginning. Whether it has to do with it being strictly Hulu Plus exclusive or not, it’s just something you are force to get used to until it fades away.

If there is a downside to the movie, it mostly revolves around the pacing of the first half hour or so. It’s definitely worth noting that this is a fairly patient movie. While the 99 minute long runtime isn’t that noticeable, there are parts in the first half that does feel rather slow. This mostly consists of some of the same scenes repeatedly of Naru working on her own with her daily process of hunting and surviving. I get that the filmmakers were trying to show the ins and outs of Naru’s everyday routine but it does feels like it goes on a beat or two longer than it should. There’s also a cute animal sidekick with a dog that the movie hints at being a potential supporting character but comes across as an awkward cameo that feels like is only there or else Naru would have no one to interact with for at least 15 minutes long. There’s also the third act while fulfilling and satisfying, does end on a rather abrupt note with the reaction to the characters involved with it feeling like a complete blink and you miss it moment.

When looking at the big picture of Prey, it’s quite baffling how it has taking this long for the franchise to finally remember and understand the true appeal that the original Predator had. With all these attempts that the sequels try to do by making the lore overly complicated and giving the Predator some kind of motivation and depth, it always seem to be like those movies were thinking ahead of themselves and trying to accomplish something that was nearly impossible because of the standards that they themselves created for themselves. Prey, more so than any other movie in the franchise, gets the appeal of the franchise. It’s the action, it’s the tension, it’s the suspense, it’s the subversive genre, it’s the haunting atmosphere, and it’s just the plain badassery from the main characters that are likable, fun to watch, and easy to care about.

What director Dan Trachtenberg is able to display better than nearly every Predator movie that has come before it is it’s own unique craftmanship. Not only is it a true work of art, but it’s a labor of love. Or in the case of this movie with it’s main lead actress, it’s a labor of love and midthunder.

Other comments:

• This movie stands out so well on it’s own that you don’t even need to have seen the original Predator to enjoy or get this own.

• Yeah, I totally get why people are upset with this not being in theaters but I can think of a big reason or two for it. Something I plan to go into in a future post.

• This movie now kinda makes me wish that Trachtenberg directed Mulan (2020).

• Can’t wait to see Amber Midthunder being casted in a future Marvel or DC movie. Maybe as Black Cat or something.

• Did I mention that Midthunder is an awesome name?

The trade deadline is approaching in baseball. As playoff contending teams are prepared to make big, meaningful movies to give them a push towards a World Series title and non-contending teams look to sell off their best players in the hopes of rebuilding for the future, the stove is about to get hotter than ever. However, there is not one trade that is being discussed more right now than that of the young, energy-filled superstar for the Washington Nationals, Juan Soto.

Recently, it has been reported that Soto turned down a 15-year long contract extension for 440 million dollars by the Nationals. After trying to do everything in their power to extend their talent slugger in the hopes of building a contending team around him for the foreseeable future, the Nationals no longer feel that they will be able to extend Juan Soto long term and have made him opened to trade. Whether Soto turned this massive contract down because he felt he wasn’t being paid enough or just thinks the Nats won’t be a competitive team for the next decade plus is beyond me but no doubt this is a stunning development.

Juan Soto is no doubt one of the best players in baseball. He’s great with the bat with plenty of pop and contact, has one of the best eyes in baseball being able to take a ton of walks and always able to find a way to get on base, and has the cocky, show-off attitude that makes him the right player for this flashy age of baseball we are currently living in. Also, he’s only 23 years old!

He’s no doubt a future hall of famer at the moment but he has got a LONG way to go before we even consider having some sort of conversation about that. Even so, he’s already accomplished many things in baseball! He won a World Series in 2019, took home a batting champion crown in 2020, the Silver Slugger and All-Star game twice, and just came off on top at this year Home Run Derby! A team trading for him would be HUGE but no doubt it will come with a MASSIVE price.

According to head baseball writer/reporter, Ken Rosenthal, the Nationals are requesting at least four to five top young players in return, a combination of top prospects and major league players with brief experience on the major league levels to potentially land this all-star caliber player. This is a huge cost but you will be guarantee Juan Soto for at least three consecutive pennant races.

What's the Nationals asking price for Juan Soto? @Ken_Rosenthal reports that it will take 4 to 5 top young players (combo of prospects and major leaguers with low service time) to potentially land the superstar pic.twitter.com/fefj20gO7P

— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) July 23, 2022

There is however one other feature that makes this trade more complicated. On top of trading away Juan Soto, the Nationals have also requested that teams also acquired starting pitcher Patrick Corbin as a side dish so they could get rid of all of his remaining salary on his contract. The problem here is that Corbin has been one of the absolute worst pitchers in baseball for the past three seasons. This year in particular, he has a dreadful record of 4-13 with a 6.02 ERA and has lead the National League in hits and earned runs given up. Like Soto, Corbin will become a free agent after the 2024 season with plenty of money being due. So not only will you be able to require one of the best hitters in recent memory but you will also have to require one of the worst pitchers in recent memory. This is where things get quite frustrating.

This really comes off as a cheap and manipulative move on the part of Nationals general manager, Mike Rizzo. Basically asking a team to cover up a big financial mistake he’s made along with asking for multiple top prospects and players for two and a half years with a superstar slugger with no guarantee that he will stick around after 2024. Sure, Corbin might be better on a different team with a different catcher, pitching coach, different defense, and a completely different ballpark but asking for the other team to pay for every single cent of an overpaid contract is criminal. It’s a crime without a doubt, but I still believe it’s a crime worth committing.

As much as teams are passionate about their top prospects in their farm system, there is never a guarantee they will turned out to be the next big star. There’s never a guarantee they will turn out to be the next Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols. Some do but most other folks don’t. Just go back and take a look at any of the MLB drafts of the past decade and tell me how many players selected in the first round ended up having impactful careers to this day. Not just talking about Mike Trout and Bryce Harper but every single one chosen from every team out there. You are likely to find more misses than hits there. Prospects are unproven but veteran players are absolutely proven. Especially the ones that come around like Juan Soto. The kind that is able to impact the game of baseball harder than ever before. The ones that is absolutely is worth trading for at ANY price imaginable!

Anyone familiar with James Ramsey or Brian Johnson?

There are many teams that have been discussed that are interested in a potential trade for Soto.. The key teams that have been most considered to be traded include the likes of the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, and the Cardinals. Those are teams that have the talent to trade away as a means of acquiring Juan Soto for a potential postseason run. As much as there are plenty of advantages for each team to want to acquire him, there is at least one thing that could potentially hold them back of pulling the trigger.

The Mets are a divisional rival of the Nationals which might set them back from Washington’s sights. The Yankees don’t exactly have a top-tier farm at the moment and will probably be more focused on extending Aaron Judge. The Mariners and Rangers might not want to deplete their farm system this soon in the hopes that they can make future playoff spots in the upcoming years after being out of it for years now. The Dodgers already sacrificed a lot last year with the additions of Max Scherzer and Trea Turner and would probably rather just wait until Soto hits free agency to make the move on him. The Padres already have plenty of salary on the books with long-term contracts of Tatis, Machado, and Hosmer and may not want to go over the luxury tax. Lastly, the Cardinals are an organization that highly values their prospects and probably prefer to put greater focus on acquiring starting pitching to fill out that injury-plagued rotation.

As much as there is a strong chance that Nationals will trade Juan Soto in the next coming days, there is also likely as strong of a chance that he might not be dealt with until the offseason if no teams are willing to meet Mike Rizzo’s demands. In hindsight, that would be a big mistake on part of the Nationals as by then, the price will probably be less demanding and they won’t be able to get the players and prospects they want because they waited too long to trade him. However, when it comes to benefits from both sides of this equation, it is for the best that Soto is able to put on a new uniform by August 2nd.

(And that’s not even bringing up how the Nats were so grumpy over Soto’s rejection that they didn’t even offer him a ride to the Home Run Derby!)

A trade is always a big risk. Neither side knows how it will affect them in the future and whether or not it will benefit them in the long run. However, when you have an already proven winning player like Juan Soto involved with such a trade, then it is certainly worth it. There are very few players like Juan Soto right now that can be described as good and fun to watch as he is. He’s the type of player that not only can help a team out now but also in the long-term future. He is the type of player that any fan of any team will want to pay money to come watch play. He is the type of player that MLB needs to put a greater emphasis on around marketing for players as he fits right in. He is the type of player that is 100% worth trading for! Whoever ends up with Juan Soto, you will be in for quite a treat!

Thor: Love and Thunder is now released in theaters and everyone has an opinion on it. Whether it’s a positive one or negative one, this is definitely another MCU installment that seems to be getting a pretty split reaction from fans. Similar to that of more recent movies in Phase 4 such as Black Widow, Eternals, and Doctor Strange: Multiverse of Madness, there doesn’t seem to much of overwhelming positive reactions compare to other, more high-rated Marvel entries such as Spider-Man: No Way Home for example. Whether people debate about the film’s tone, direction, handling of the story and subject matter, and being slightly more progressive or whatever, there has now been some serious discussions as to whether or not the Marvel Cinematic Universe has finally ran it’s course. While most will argue that fatigue is settling in with the franchise approaching 30 movies and multiple Disney Plus series being released on a monthly matter, others have argued it’s because Marvel doesn’t seem to have an overall “plan” for Phase 4, or at least one that hasn’t been made clear enough.

I find this discourse quite amusing since it was Marvel themselves that created this mindset that every big studio must have a near decade long plan in advance before going forward with their own shared universe. It was the road map that Marvel created for themselves when developing the Infinity Saga that made people believe that you must plan out everything ahead of time or else it will fall apart. And now here we are, three years after the Infinity Saga has been complete and Marvel being accused for not being prepared enough in advance of what’s in store for the future of this franchise.

*in Palpatine’s voice* Ironic!

For the past several years, there has been discussions by movie buffs everywhere about whether or not a movie franchise needs to have a big grand plan in order for it to be worthwhile and feel cohesive. Many folks would claim the reason the Star Wars sequel trilogy turned out quite uneven was because there was no overarching plan four to five years in advance or how the Dark Universe and Sony Spider-Man universe collapsed because they had no idea what kind of foundation they were trying to built which lead to poor reviews and underwhelming box office results. While those talking points do have valid points, I think it’s more complicated than just not being planned in advance. As a matter of fact, planning in advance doesn’t have to be a necessity and I will gladly explain why.

First off, most movie franchises are built on original movies. Franchises tend to be as successful as they are because of how much people liked the very first entry of it. It’s because of that is what leads to a series being made. For example, Toy Story was given three sequels not because it was always planned to be a series but because of how much people adore the first one. You don’t get Toy Story 2, 3, and 4 if the original was no good. How can you expected for a franchise to plan ahead before it is even given a chance to be a franchise? Sure, you can argue that movies like The Godfather, Jurassic Park, and any Marvel or DC property is based off of existing source material that have had multiple additions, but there is still no guarantee that any of those can get more movies if the first one is not successful. You don’t get sequels to any of those without the first movie being a success.

Granted, there are definitely examples that are harder to defend with the no plan/road map mindset. Going back to the sequel trilogy, that was a series of films that the people behind it knew for a fact that they were going to make it a trilogy no matter what. They knew that each film was going to make a billion dollars based on the Star Wars name alone. Having a plan in advance certainly would have helped but I still would argue that was not a requirement. They didn’t need a plan for the trilogy, what they needed to do was make sequels that build upon the previous one and not try to erase it entirely.

Regardless of what one might think, The Last Jedi actually flows just fine with The Force Awakens as a direct sequel. You may not like the choices that were made in that movie but you can’t claim that it “retconned” the previous one just because it contained things you didn’t like. Rise of Skywalker on the other hand, did not flow well at all as sequel to both Last Jedi and even Force Awakens (which is baffling since Abrams himself directed that film). Instead of following through on the previous two movies and wrapping up it’s remaining story elements, Rise of Skywalker felt the need to add new story elements, characters and completely rewrite backstories at the very last minute because of online discourse surrounding the previous two installments. The movie was a complete mess because it felt sloppily put together at the last minute and felt like it was made with the people involved with it having a gun pointed to their heads by a member of The “Fandom” Menace. It didn’t need to be planned years in advance, what it needed to do was be an actual sequel. Something which most franchises out there tend to do without a big plan.

What’s even more interesting about these claims is that those people don’t even bother to think about the franchises that did in fact have a plan in advance and it completely backfired. Just look at what happened with DC after they gave Zack Snyder full creative control to his own shared universe. It was definitely planned in advance but it completely fell apart because they didn’t bother to keep their foundations in check or second guess what the actual public reaction would have been to those films or it’s box office results. Because of the mixed to negative reception to Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it forced Warner Bros to reconsider Snyder’s direction of DC films just right in the middle of the road map he had for it. Trying to plan ahead is what set DC films back for quite awhile and attempting to course correct by adding in reshoots to include jokes and tacked-on pop songs in movies like Suicide Squad and Justice League certainly didn’t help. Yes, Snyder did eventually get to release the movie that fitted more with his vision but at what cost. DC had a plan with their extended universe with Zack Snyder and it failed spectacularly.

Of course, this is not the only example of this. There are even instances involving television when this has occurred. Do I need to remind you how bad the ending to How I Met Your Mother and Game of Thrones despite it clearly being the intention from the get-go or how Marvel Netflix got muddled because the producers assumed that people would fall high over heels for Iron Fist and the godawful Hand cult? There can in fact be such things as planning too far in advance. It’s not always about preparing for the future when you’re certain where that exact future will leave you.

When talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would argue that it was not as pre-planned as many are willing to believe. Did they have a road map? Absolutely! Did they have everything figured out all the way back in 2008? Absolute not!

All you have to do is what the quadtrilogy of Thor movies. You can’t sit there and tell me that all four of those movies were planned the whole way through. There was clearly course correcting between each one of them. With things like how the Lady Sif and the Warriors kept getting build up but with zero payoff, not much time being spent completely on Asgard, Loki being shoehorned in whenever he can, and character arcs and moments that come out of left field such as Jane Foster becoming Thor all of a sudden , this was clearly a series of films being made up on a flight. Were there certain beats that was intended from the beginning? Sure but that doesn’t mean it was planned out as a whole. And do I even knew to mention that moment with Hela and the Infinity Gauntlet.

Don’t take this article as me thinking I’m completely against a franchise having a plan, road map, or a straight forward goal. What I’m trying to say that this should not be the ONLY source of thinking when it comes to making films within established franchises. You just need to have people involved with it that know exactly what they are doing and what stories they are trying to tell with each movie they make.

A perfect example of this is with the new Planet of the Apes reboot. They weren’t planned out from the very beginning (something which Matt Reeves admitted when he claimed he wanted to make a “filler” installment before the finale) but each entry felt cohesive and flowed beautifully with each other. This was because directors Rupert Wyatt and Matt Reeves were able to build upon the previous installment to help create a trilogy-long arc that felt like it’s own complete story with a beginning, middle and end. We saw the main character of Caesar evolve as a character throughout the course of three films as we see him in his role as ape, father, and leader of his own kind.

It’s totally fine to not have a full plan in advance. Part of the fun in the creative process of the filmmaking is being able to see how far you can go with the main concepts and ideas that you have for you own standalone project without worrying about what the next one would be like. While there is still room to do that with franchises with strict planned scheduling, an overreliance of that can take away some of the energy and excitement with making certain movies that it can make come across as an obligation rather than a passionate project.

The main point I’m trying to get across here is that there are multiple ways to approach franchise filmmaking. All it comes down to is execution and how well each movie of said franchise presents itself. When it works, it works. When it doesn’t work, then it just doesn’t work. Plan or no plan, it will only come down to whether or not the filmmakers are able to translate that spectacular vision they have of their film properly on the big screen. If they can’t, then planned ahead or not won’t matter. What matters is the way the film present itself.

Who would’ve guessed that out of all the original Avengers that it would be Thor that would get a fourth movie? Sure, one could argue something like how Captain America: Civil War was just as much Iron Man 4 as it was Captain America 3 but as far as titled movies go, Thor is the first one to get a quadrilogy. It’s hard to deny that the sole reason for Thor getting another movie mostly has to do with the success of it’s predecessor Thor: Ragnarok. After his first two solo movies were met with a so-so reaction from fans and critics alike (along with an incredibly phony revival response from folks on the internet) , a change of course was needed to prove that Thor can hold his own movie and that he is a character worthy of the Marvel canon. Taika Waititi was able to provided that shot in the arm that the character and the franchise needed. While not everyone is a fan of the more comedic Thor, if it wasn’t for the success of that third Thor, there’s a big chance that Marvel would have been done with making standalone Thor movies and at best, he would be a supporting character in other movies until Hemsworth had lost interest in the role. Because of that, we now have Love and Thunder.

A big complaint that people have had about Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is how aimlessness it all feels. How many things are just being thrown at the walls to see what sticks, and that there’s really not a overall “plan” to it. While I understand those claims, I think it’s a bit more complicated than that.

I’m going to save most of this for a later post sometime next weekend but the fact is most franchises are run without any sort of big grand plan. It’s the success of Marvel that has given the misguided sense that you must have every single little thing planned out many years in advance before you start shooting the pictures or else it will be a failure. If you ask me, that’s not a very healthy way to think when constructing a series.

To those people who have made those claims, I suggest you watch all four of these Thor movies back-to-back-to-back-to-back. When you watch them I dare you all to tell me that all four of these movies were planned all out in advance. I dare you! I double dare you motherf*cker! I seriously dare anyone to tell me that each of these movies were planned the moment that filming began for the very first Thor! You can’t because it’s not suppose to be that way!

Yes, Love and Thunder was of course not planned from the get-go and the sole reason it existed is because how big of a hit Ragnarok was! However, WELCOME TO HOLLYWOOD! THAT’S HOW MOVIE FRANCHISE ARE USUALLY MADE!

Anyways, so how actually does Waititi do on round two with Thor movies? Mostly, more of the same as last time out except not quite as much tonally control as he did with the prior movie and tackling subject matters that isn’t executed as well has it could have because of the oddball tone it’s going for. This will definitely not win anyone over who didn’t care for the previous one but if you are a fan of it, then you will most likely find just as much enjoyment of this one even if it’s shorter and feels more like trying to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Warning: The following premise might contain some mild spoilers for the movie. The reason I say this is because there are certain subplots and elements that the trailers have not touched upon. Fans of the source material that this movie is based on should not be surprised but for everyone else, proceed the rest of the review with caution.

Premise: Taking place sometime after Avengers: Endgame, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been with the Guardians of the Galaxy for awhile and is struggling to find his next purpose in life. Despite all he’s lost and achieve, he is looking for that next big thing to help him find inner peace. Things take a turn for the worse when Thor receives a distress call from his old friend Sif (Jaimie Alexander), and discovers a new villain that has emerged in the form of Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale), a galactic killer who kidnaps the children of New Asgard as he seeks the extinction of all gods after losing his daughter. We also see Jane Foster (Natalie Porman) thrown back to the mix as she is battling cancer but believes that wielding the Mjolnir and becoming the Mighty Thor just might help her out with her life-threatening condition. It’s then that Thor must work together with Jane and reunite with his teammates from Ragnarok with Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), who is now king of New Asgard, and Korg (Taika Watti) to defeat Gorr before he gets his revenge.

Now, with that much of a setup, you would think that the movie would ranged around two and a half hours long. However, that is not the case here with Love and Thunder as it is just under two hours with a runtime of just 119 minutes including credits. The movie moves at a breezy clip by throwing enough action, laughs, and beats to keep your attention until it ends. While there are definitely elements that I feel could have benefitted with an extra 15 to 20 minutes of screen time, it’s not something you notice when watching the movie and only think about an hour or two after you’ve seen it.

The most surprising element of Love and Thunder is how this is the first time in these movies that I actually cared about the relationship between Thor and Jane. With the first Thor movies, it was hard to buy their chemistry and you couldn’t help but feel it was more of a physical attraction between the two as oppose to an emotional one. It only felt like Thor and Jane were together because both Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are two insanely attractive people. However, here, it does just enough to get you engage with their relationships and have it all reflect the arcs the two characters go through. Mostly involving being about cherishing every moment with the ones you love because you never know when they are going to be gone forever. While there are parts in the first act that feels like it’s doing the heavy lifting that the first two Thor movies should have done, it’s certainly the most engaging part of the movie and what keeps the picture from falling completely flat on it’s face.

Another nice element is the return of Natalie Portman. This is the first time in these movies where Portman feels like she is really enjoying herself. While that is mostly because she now gets the chance to play a superhero, she is able to blend with the other cast members very well and is a big highlight of the movie. And for those concerned that her coming back as Thor would come across as fake feminism or having her be completely flawless, there is plenty of vulnerability on display for her character and has enough depth to make her feel like a fully formed person here. I won’t go too much into what her character does through as that would contain spoilers but it’s good to see Natalie get something more worthwhile to do here.

Christian Bale makes a great impression as the main villain as Gorr. While he doesn’t have as much screen time as much as I would have liked, he does make for perhaps the most engaging MCU villain since Kilmonger. He’s fighting for the same cause that the heroes are in the movie but for completely different reasons. He’s sympathetic, intimating, and even kinda funny at times. Bale’s performance does feel closer to Patrick Bate than Batman but he’s good enough here to make you feel his presence in every scene that he is in.

As for the rest of the cast, Tessa Thompson gets less to do her as King Valkyrie than in Ragnarok but gets enough cool action bits to herself and Thompson herself is so charming that she just completely steals every moment she is in. Taika Waititi gets himself more time to shine as Korg and the narrator but it feels like he might have been better suited as an extended cameo rather than as a major supporting character. Speaking of extended cameos, the Guardians of the Galaxy don’t have any big roles to play after the setup and feels like they’re only here because continuity and to let the audience know what they’ve been up to three years later. There’s also another stage play here that reacts events from the last movie that has the other two celebrities from before making a cameo here along with a delightful one from the one that plays Hela. Despite it making less sense of having a stage play this time out, that one surprise cameo basically saved that moment for me.

The real thing that keeps Love and Thunder from being a top-tier MCU flick and somewhere in-between mid-tier and low-tier is it’s overall jarring change of tone and how it handle the elements in it’s story. While Ragnarok played a similar dark storyline in a funny way, it doesn’t work as well here. At least in Ragnarok, it made sense to be all wacky and fun with Thor as he visits these strange worlds and these strange individuals he meets along the way. In Love and Thunder, aside from a section where he visits a world to find Zeus (played gloriously by Russell Crowe), he doesn’t visit those kind of places or interact with those kind of individuals. It’s really hard to play the same comedic angle from last time but also try to make a personal story involving a man who kidnaps children to avenge his lost daughter along with a woman dying from cancer. It’s not that it’s impossible for Whatti to find the right balance between light and darkness as his other non-Marvel movies (What We Do in the Shadows, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and JoJo Rabbit) has proven otherwise. Here, it feels like he got a bit of ahead of himself.

There’s also certain characters that don’t get as much screen time as they should. There’s not much done with the status quo for Valkyrie in her newly King form or even attempt to explore the gay side of her (Relax, conservative parents who lost their shit over Lightyear! There’s no gay kiss scene here!), Gorr is practically absent throughout the entire middle act, and what was even the point of bringing back Jaimie Alexander as Sif if you were just gonna have her show up at the very beginning and very end. I know many will argue that because of the film’s runtime that it couldn’t have put as much focus on it but there was also the original Guardians of the Galaxy which had a similar runtime but was able to find the time to flesh out it’s characters to make you get behind them. It’s all about balance, execution, and choosing the right things to focus on. Love and Thunder struggles at that more so than other MCU installments.

Production wise, it’s quite a mixed bag as well. While there are definitely not as many awful green screen shot that Film Twitter has made a big hassle over (the CGI helmet on Thor is admittedly very obvious), some of the movie does look distractingly flat while at others times, it looks glorious. The action setpieces are mostly fun, with the standout being the very first one with Thor and the event with all main four players in Zeus’s arena. The editing and lighting can be quite distraction at times with some awkward screen transaction and certain scenes looking quite dark. The music choices aren’t as fresh as before but the ones that are choosing are still awesome and the overall original score does it’s job.

Love and Thunder does help bring home many major points of the MCU that both it’s supporters and haters have hammered for the past several years. That the universe is not as planned out as many have been led to believe, it doesn’t have that same “fresh” feeling as it once did, and how even with an lesser entry like these still rise above the lesser entries in many other movie franchises (You can’t say with a straight face that Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World is of the same quality as Catwoman and Fant4stic). There’s going to be multiple discussions about the future of Marvel throughout the coming weekend and this movie will likely provide plenty of amusing talking points for it.

Still, there are worse ways to spent a hot summer day than in a cool theaters and watching hot, badass folks kicking butt and saving the day like the superheroes they are. If still being entertain by these Marvel movies is now so wrong, then I don’t think I want to be right. It’s like having a big old Big Mac from McDonalds. Yes, it’s messy and all over the place but man, does it still taste good. If that sounds like a negative to you, then it will be a negative. If that’s a positive to you, then positivity trumps all! Or in the case of this movie, love (kinda) trumps all!

(And yes, there are two credit scenes.)

Other comments:

• It’s funny how this movie references a sci-fi epic that came out in 2014, a year after the last time that Natalie Portman was in these movies.

• I would definitely watch a Disney Plus show of Thor and his adventure with the Guardians themselves.

• There was WAY too much foreshadowing in this movie. Even if you don’t know the comics, you are bound to see certain beats coming from a mile away.

• There’s basically one moment that this movie’s version of “I have nothing to prove to you!” from Captain Marvel. Certain folks are gonna go nuts for that moment!

• When it comes to a movie that moves at a brisk pace and crams two popular storylines into one without as much build up and emotional payoff that one might want, this is basically like a better version of X-Men: The Last Stand. Don’t @ me!

• I forgot to mention but that Chris Hemsworth guy is still pretty good as Thor Odinson.

Sports is a game of failure. No matter how many games you win, there will be plenty that you will lose. Even when you are able to climb up the top of the mountain and win it all, there will follow numerous of attempts before and after where you fall down from that mountain brutally. And to be sure, you will fall plenty. But why is it we fall, you may ask? *in Michael Caine’s voice* So, we can learn to pick ourselves up.

It’s that simple note of advice that makes victory taste even greater when you are to finally accomplish it. While losing in sports tends to sting, what stings even more is watching your arch-nemesis and a person/team you loathe being able to achieve great success when they don’t deserve it. In this case, I’m talking about Stan Kroenke.

The Colorado Avalanche just won this year’s Stanley Cup. It’s their first cup since 2001 and their third overall in franchise history. They took the Tampa Bay Lightning to six games and prevented them from winning their third consecutive cup and Pat Maroon winning his fourth straight. However, this is not the only championship that a team owned by Stan Kroenke himself won. His own Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl just over four months ago when they defeated the Cincinnati Bengals. That in of itself is quite an accomplishment for a sports owner to win two major sports titles in the same year. If only it was awarded to a good sports owner or even just a good human being.

I’m going to be real here. There is not a single person I hate more in sports than Stan Kroenke! I’m not just speaking as a St. Louisan who watched Kroenke crashed and wreck the Rams so he could convince the NFL to move them to LA to light up his pockets! I’m speaking as someone that is a fan of sports that Kroenke is everything that is wrong with sports ownership today! Not just because he’s someone that couldn’t care less about his teams winning, but that he is actually winning despite not caring at all. He’s selfish, greedy, manipulative, only cares about himself, and is an absolute f*cking liar! He was able to convince the NFL to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles based on a lie! A move that was swindling, shameless, and 100% not legal!

It’s not only my experience of the awful job he did with owning the Rams when they were in St. Louis but how terrible of a job has done with other teams and how much of those fanbases don’t seem to care much for him either.

Fans of Colorado sports teams such as Avalanche and the Nuggets were only able to watch their teams on Direct TV because Comcast and Dish Networks were at odds with Kroenke-owned altitude tv. You think he cares about that? Nope!

Aresnal fans help ranked Kroenke as one of the top bottom five worst owners in the Premier League! You think he cares about that? Nope!

And do I need to even mention the massive backlash Kroenke received over the whole European Super League controversy where all of Aresnal practically came together to let the sick man know how much everyone hates his guts there! You think he cares? Nope!

And these are only a handful of examples of what this disaster of a sports owner he is!

Despite all of this, Kroenke has won multiples times! In the four major sports, he’s won two Super Bowls and three Stanley Cups. If you include other sports, he also has an MLS cup with Rapids and two National Lacrosse League championships with the Mammoth. Despite proving time and time again that he could care less about winning or the fanbases of the teams that he has own, he is still winning! Despite having his teams go through awful and dour years where they have had to build from scratch, he is still winning! Despite committing acts as a owner that are flat out illegal, he is still winning! Despite being the last owner in the world who deserve any sort of championship success or any kind of trophy case, he is still winning!

This is true, cruel reality that we live in that a madman like Stan Kroenke can have as much success as he does. This is not like a movie where the hero will always find a way to be the villain. Even if that villain is able to achieve victory, the hero will always be the one to have the last laugh in the end. The villain might win the battle but we all know by the end of the movie that the hero will win the war. The same thing that can’t be said with what goes on in the real world. In the real world, especially in sports, it’s always the scum and villainy that gets the last laugh and ends up winning the battle and the war at the same time! Whether it’s waving a dollar sign at the problem or having their own personal advantages, the bad guys will always win! And I’ve had to watch the bad guy win gold twice in the same year! I can’t tell you how much that hurt me and plenty others on the inside. Just dreadful!

Links to other articles about this infamous man whose points I referenced in this post:

• https://deadspin.com/welcome-to-the-party-pal-nfl-owners-finally-see-stan-1847955165
• https://www.football.london/arsenal-fc/news/arsenal-stan-kroenke-premier-league-21734287
• https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12284399/arsenal-owner-stan-kroenke-has-no-intention-of-selling-club-after-european-super-league-backlash

Other comments:

• As much as I hate the Avalanche, the LA Rams were a really fun team last year that I would have rooted if they had been own by any other owner in football and I’m dead serious!

• Can’t tell you how much it hurt for me to look up pictures of Kroenke lifting up a trophy of some sorts! It would be like the Avengers having to publish a photo of Thanos sitting proudly into the sunset after doing his one deed.

• I was way more quiet about this on Twitter than I should have been but as much as I think Nazem Kadri is a dirty player who I hate to see winning a cup, death threats and racism are INCREDIBLY wrong! Every single person who send Kadri a racist comment or a threat of any sort deserves cruel punishment for it! That is just not acceptable in any way!

The big movie to release this Father’s Day weekend is Pixar’s newest feature film, Lightyear, a spin-off of the Toy Story series which has Buzz Lightyear himself as the title character and is suppose to be the one film that was basically the equivalent of Andy’s Star Wars. The big blockbuster that supposedly released in 1995 (or at least that was the year that Andy watched it) that became Andy’s favorite movie of all time and one that made him one to buy a Buzz Lightyear action figure. What makes Lightyear a bit more important when compared to the last few Pixar films is that this is the first movie to come out in a post-Covid world. Whereas Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were strictly exclusive to Disney Plus to watch, Lightyear makes the first Pixar film since Onward to be released in theaters. To say this movie is a big deal for Pixar would be an understatement. Not only does the gold standard of animated films is allowed to have a movie on the big screen again but this could be a sign that mainstream audiences may or may not be interested in watching animation in theaters as opposed to their own homes. Unfortunately, if the early underperforming box office results are any indication, the future for Pixar in theaters could be in crumbles.

There are a number of scenarios as to why Lightyear hasn’t done so hot at the box office. The biggest one that I imagine most will come too is that the inclusion of an LGBTQ+ couple in the movie (who, *mild spoilers*, don’t appear again after the first 20 minutes of the movie) is a big turn-off because the world is full of folks who still can’t accept same-sex couples as a real thing. If that was the case, then I would like an explanation as to why Multiverse of Madness became a near billion dollar grosser despite there being a scene with America Chavez being with her two moms and how Jurassic World Dominion will most likely be a billion dollar grosser despite having an opening bisexual side character taking good chunks of screen time.

Others would also suggested it’s a change of voice actors from the one white guy who played Captain America (Chris Evans) to the one white guy who played Santa Claus (Tim Allen) because the former is more politically correct. If that was the case, then I would like an explanation as to why the latter still was allowed to come back for Toy Story 4 and is even getting his own Disney Plus series (Yes, a Santa Clause series is really in the works!)

However, I think the big reason for it is a bit more complicated than most folks are willing to admit. It’s not that nobody wanted a Buzz Lightyear movie like some have suggested, fans of Toy Story have wanting a Buzz Lightyear movie on the big screen for years if you ask a certain number of them. It’s that nobody at Pixar seemed to understand WHY people wanted a Buzz Lightyear movie based off the promos of the movie.

To tell you the truth, if it wasn’t for the fact that the title character was called Buzz Lightyear and the actual title of the movie itself was called, Lightyear, I don’t think I would have guessed that this was suppose to be the movie that is based on the iconic toy of Buzz Lightyear himself. When watching this movie and going back to all the easter eggs and references presented in the Toy Story films about Buzz himself, you would be hard press to discover that this was the movie that Andy would call his favorite of all time.

Aside from Buzz and (kinda) Zurg himself, there is hardly anything in Lightyear that feels reminiscent of the character of Buzz himself. There’s none of those lovable iconic aliens, no references to Pizza Planet, he hardly flies around in his space suit like he did in say the opening of Toy Story 2, and includes side characters, while not necessarily bad, are not even hinted at and referenced in any of the Toy Story movies (Especially Sox, why wouldn’t Andy want to have a toy of him too?!).

Also, while it’s definitely great for Pixar to include openly LGBT characters in their films, this was a really strange film to start doing it with. It’s really hard to buy a major studio making a movie for kids in the 1980s and 90s (Again, it is stated that this movie was watched by Andy in 1995!) being that openly progressive back then. It kinda makes you wonder why we didn’t see any queer or gay characters in the Toy Story movies aside from random background characters or why Andy didn’t pair Jessie and Bo Peep together as a couple during one of his playing times. It’s elements like this that makes Lightyear all the more baffling and makes you wonder why Pixar bluntly chose to ignore the history of their beloved character that they themselves established.

Say what you will about that other Buzz Lightyear movie that went straight to VHS and how that was basically just a toy commercial/a pilot for that tv series (one that Pixar or at least John Lasseter still wants you to forget ever happen), but that at least felt more consistent with the Buzz character that the first two movies established along with the majorly successful toyline that the Lightyear franchise had. It had the iconic aliens, it had the cartoon and sci-fi-like feel that felt majorly appreciate, it had Buzz operating more as a space ranger and had him fly around movie, it made his iconic lines feel more organic to the situation, and it also had Zurg as his main nemesis who was definitely not actually *SPOILER*! Like that movie or not, that at least felt like an expansion of the Buzz Lightyear character that the main toy character from the Toy Story movies was based on. That is something I can hardly say for Lightyear.

Even taken out my own personal grips on the movie, the lukewarm reviews for the movie hasn’t help much either or it’s review bombing from trolls on Imdb (which btw, we really got to stop trusting as a reliable source). Lightyear hasn’t been made anything more from critics than just a decent time-waster and doesn’t seem to getting as much love and acclaim than there more recent Pixar entries like Soul and Turning Red. While the movie didn’t need to be a game-changer, it had to at least be good enough to justify it’s existence, which so far, doesn’t really looking like it’s going to do that. While I’m sure this won’t be a complete disaster at the box office, this does make me concern for the future of Pixar and even animation on the big screen.

With Lightyear not making as much as one would hope, I can’t shake the feeling that this will give Disney the indication that people aren’t interested in watching their movies, at least for Pixar, in theaters anymore and might resort back to strictly making their exclusive to their streaming service. If a movie based off arguably their most popular characters is unable to make a big profit, then what does that say for their more original projects coming up that won’t be part of their successful IPs.

Who’s to say anyone will show up for Elemental next summer or even a sequel like Onward 2 in the future? Who’s to say they will all just wait until those movies are available to watch on Disney Plus, just like I imagine most people will be doing the same thing for Lightyear? We have seen Disney make big chances in the past with the properties they bought if they are not as successful as they want it to be, who’s to say they won’t do the same for Pixar?

While I highly doubt that Pixar will go the same way of Blue Sky Studios but they won’t be seen as valuable to Disney as before and could resort to having their movies be exclusive to their streaming services. It’s a dark, bleak thought but it’s once that could become a reality if the results of Lightyear are any indication.

Other thoughts:

• I had the strangest experience watching this movie. My initial screening didn’t happen because the theater screening was messed up so I had to take the next screening of it which was in 3D. The 3D was non-existent the first 2/3rds of the movie but then came alive in the final third of it. While I don’t think my thoughts of the movie would change that much, I do wish I had a more comfortable experience watching it.

• The movie was just okay at best btw. Not bad, but just kinda mediocre. One of Pixar’s weakest movies by a wide margin and is something you could honestly wait for Disney Plus if you don’t have that much interest in it. If you are tho, then perhaps see it at a discount price so you can show theater support. 2.5/4 stars at best and 2/4 stars at worst!

• And here’s a pic of the lesbian couple in the movie to scare homophobic assholes out there!

Anyone remember the simpler times when it came to television? A time where a new episode of a show was something you could look forward to every single week?! The episode itself was only a half hour long with a couple of commercial breaks in between with a tease of what next week’s episode was going to be. Back when television shows were short, sweet, and fast paced. To quote Ryan Gosling’s character in Blade Runner 2049, “things were simpler then”.

While there are certainly shows and series still out there that do that, one can’t help but wonder why is it that shows you watch on tv or series you watch on a streaming service is becoming the equivalent of watching a feature film? What I mean by that is how the ways shows nowadays are structure and when exactly each episode of a show gets released.

Instead of an episode being a brief 15 to 30 minutes long, they are now somewhere between 60 to 75 minutes now. Instead of building anticipation for the next episode and making it a weekly thing, they are now just making a handful of episodes available at the exact same time. Instead of feeling like mini-movies with each one serving their own standalone purpose, they now feel like a really big movie but split into multiple different parts with an abrupted cliffhanger after each one. This can make for a fairly disjointed and bizarrely paced entertainments. Not just because with the way each episode is put together but how companies are choosing to release all new episodes.

While it can definitely make for an interesting binging experience to have multiple episodes released at the same time, it also runs the risks of big spoilers on the show being out much more quickly than it should be. If you are someone on social media every day, you know damn well it is hard to avoid massive spoilers in any form of capacity. You know that there’s a big chance people will already be talking about a certain big twist or reveals on your Twitter or YouTube timeline before you even get a chance to watch it. You always have to remind yourself to stay off your social media pages before you watch a show to avoid any big spoilers. While shows should be able to work as it’s own thing without having big spoilers ruin the experience for you, it can be unfair to expect your audience to be able to avoid those kind of spoilers when you make the decision to be multiple episodes that are at least an hour long on the same day.

This is something that has been on my mind for quite some time now but what really compelled me to write this piece is around the time the news came out that about every single episode of the fourth season of Stranger Things was going to be at least over an hour long.

In case you don’t know, before the newest season of Stranger Things came out, the length of every episode of the season was announced. Every single episode was to be at least one hour long. Here was the final episode runtimes for what was confirmed to be Part I of Season 4.

Episode 1- 1 Hour 16 Minutes

Episode 2– 1 Hour 15 Minutes

Episode 3– 1 Hour 3 Minutes

Episode 4– 1 Hour 17 Minutes

Episode 5– 1 Hour 13 Minutes

Episode 6– 1 Hour 13 Minutes

Episode 7– 1 Hour 38 Minutes

So, the first few episodes of Season 4 Part 1 was at least one hour long with the longest one being Episode 7 which was exactly 98 minutes long. The length of an actual movie. While I won’t comment on whether or not the runtime of each episode was warranted (I’m still on Episode 5 at the time of writing this!), that does seem to be asking a lot of your audience to find the amount of free time available to be able to watch all seven of these episodes without getting the big surprises revealed beforehand.

However, that was just Part I. How about Part II? Well, Part II is only confirmed to have two episodes that is scheduled to be released on July 1st, more than a month after Part I was released. And here are the confirmed runtimes for those.

Episode 8– 1 Hour 25 Minutes

Episode 9– 2 Hours 30 Minutes

Yes, you read that last one correctly. The final episode of the season is confirmed to be TWO HOURS and 30 MINUTES LONG! The length of the ending of a season is about as long as an Avengers movie. Talk about overboard! Again, I can’t confirmed if the runtime is necessary but it just feels completely and utterly bizarre to see the length of an episode be as long as an actual movie. It’s not like this is suppose to be a tv movie where the length can be considered justified. This is an episode of a big and long running series that needs at least 150 minutes of your time to provide the complete experience.

As we move time and time again in this age of streaming services, one can’t help but ask the question of how we got to this point. How is it that shows are fairly long now with multiple episodes being released at once? My conclusion comes down to two factors: social media and tv/streaming service companies.

I know I’ve stated it several times in the pass but no one can deny that we are living in a time of social media. Everyone is free to say whatever they want and when they want to. This gives anybody free realm to share how they feel about a certain form of entertainment, whether it’s a movie, tv show, book, video game, song, etc. When they really like it, they will often make a post or two about how much they enjoy it and move on with their daily lives. When they really hate it, then they will make sure that the social media account of said entertainment hears them loud and clear about their displeasure. Because of that, no doubt that will get the creators attentions as they will believe that to be the general reaction to what the public thinks of their latest projects. It’s elements like that is what is leading me to believe as to why shows have become what they are along with movies.

A main possible reason why shows and movies are as long as they are is because the creators believe they have to make their points loud and clear so they make sure the audience get the point they are trying to make. Considering we are in a time where CinemaSins is a big thing (I got a whole piece about them in the works!), they have to use certain scenes to overexplain and show off every little detail so that any potential nitpickers won’t have too much to nitpick at. While that is not necessarily the fault of CinemaSins or any other big content creators out there, the influence are becoming clear as day and something that has gotten in the heads of many creators out there. Oh, and also certain networks and companies making deals of the amount of episodes each season must have and the length of the episodes certainly isn’t helping either.

Stranger Things is definitely not the only show out there that has fallen victim to really long episodes. HBO had the writers of Game of Thrones fill up huge chunks of the show with filler so that it could match the agreed runtimes. Netflix forced Marvel to have at least 13 episodes a season regardless if there was enough material to cover that much episodes for their series. And even some would admit that Disney Plus series like Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Obi-Wan Kenobi would have probably benefited more as being movies instead of shows. This has been definitely going on for awhile now but it seems that we are now getting to a point where it feels like tv series/shows are just feeling like one giant feature film except divided into multiple parts and with no deleted scenes whatsoever. (Seriously, I dare someone to find an episode of Falcon and the Winter Soldier that did NOT end with a last-minute cliffhanger out of nowhere.)

Regardless of what the true cause of this turn with television and streaming entertainment, it has definitely change the way we view shows and series. Personally, I do like the way that some streaming services like Disney +, HBO Max, and Apple are doing it by releasing just one or two episodes of a show at a time and being able to watch that episode at any given time without having to record it. That is the kind of proper transaction we need from tv to streaming as oppose as to just dumping up all 13+ episodes of a season at once like Netflix does. Even so, I do hope we go back to a time with shows where episodes can work as their own thing. Have each one have a proper beginning, middle, and end with a brief hint as what’s to come for the future. Not just feeling like a quarter or half of a movie that got cut to multiple pieces to make it structured like a show. It doesn’t make for a satisfying viewing experience in my humble opinion. I rather have movies be movies and shows be shows but that’s just me.

Stranger Things Season 4 Part I is available to watch now on Netflix with Part II available on July 1st.

I know this is definitely at least three decades too late to bring up but isn’t it worth acknowledging that the original Jurassic Park was the exact definition of a great movie that feels like it should be expanded into it’s own franchise but when you actually get right down to it or even think about it for a split second, you realize “No!”, this is the kind of movie which you DON’T make into a franchise because the entire idea of multiple sequels and spinoffs completely contradict the morals and message that the original was trying to convey. In the sense that the original Jurassic Park existing and being as good as it is on it’s own terms is simply something you can’t replicate. You would never be able to get that same sense of accomplishment of seeing something so imaginary as real life dinosaurs existing in it’s own unique theme park and the idea of opening the doors for more of it is basically asking yourself for unmatched standards to reach. That has definitely been a problem that has plagued every single movie since the original. Each one has their moments and some are better than others but it’s just never going to be Jurassic Park no matter how many times you try. And that same thing certainly applies to Jurassic World Dominion possibly more so than any other Jurassic Park sequel.

Premise: It’s been four years since the events of Fallen Kingdom. After Isla Nublar has been destroyed and Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon) released the dinosaurs out into the open ends of the world, dinosaurs now live and exist with humans along with constantly hunting and preying on them. It’s then that the future of mankind and these fearsome creatures remain in balance. We see returning characters from the previous two Jurassic World movies such as Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) along with returning characters from the original including Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) who try to uncover secrets as to what the tech company named BioSyn wants with the technology from the original Jurassic Park and what are they trying to obtain with Maisie, the clone daughter of Ben Lockwood (Be honest, you totally forgot that girl was actually a clone!). Can humanity learn to co-exist along with dinosaurs or will one side’s role to the world will lead to the extinction of another?

Now, admittedly, for at least the first half of the premise I just mention there, it can make for a rather interesting or at least fun one. The idea of human beings and dinosaurs being forced to live with each other now that they are all free can make for an engaging enough parallel to the original of having the relationships between the main human characters and the dinosaurs evolve with one another. Whether it’s makes for a solid exploration of human beings inhabiting with other species like say the new Planet of the Apes movies or for making a wacky, over-the-top movie with ridiculously fun and unrealistic set pieces like the Fast and Furious movies, this can make for something worthwhile. Could it match or top the original? No, not even close but there would at least be something here and even make the World movies able to justify their own existence except for the business side of things.

Unfortunately, just like with the last two Jurassic World movies, Dominion doesn’t seem interested in it’s own concepts and ideas and yet again makes for another Jurassic movie that are all about these brave and reckless heroes running away from scary dinos in numerous remote locations. It makes me wonder what was even the point of the last one going in the bold direction it did at the end if it was gonna follow the same pattern nearly beat-for-beat. With the exception of some expositions scenes at the beginning along with a handful of silent, visually pleasing moments of human interacting with dinosaurs (mostly at the very beginning and very end), the movie’s whole “human and dinosaurs co-existing” premise gets pushed to the wayside (I actually forgot that dinos were a part of humanity for a good portion of the second act) in favor of another typical chase movie where the main characters are on the run and have to rescue a girl from the government. Between this and Obi-Wan Kenobi, I think most folks are starting to realize just how completely redundant that whole premise is.

The movie tries to earn some bonus points by bringing back the original cast of Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum reprising their roles as Dr. Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, and Ian Malcolm respectively. While it is definitely nice to see these actors in these movies again (even if Sam Neill looks slightly annoyed to be here) and I’m sure it will make longtime fans of the series excited to see them interact with the newer characters, they don’t seem to have much of an important role that the movie are hoping they would. A lot of time with them is spent in research labs in scenes that really drag and could have shaved off at least a good 15 to 20 minutes of it’s runtime (This movie is nearly two and a half hours long btw!). They really only seem to be here because this is supposedly the last movie of the franchise and I guess it’s feel appropriate to bring them here to play a role since the world is now forced to inhabited with what they unwillingly helped create.

As for the returning Jurassic World characters, they are about as one-note and cardboard cutout as before and is relying heavily on the performances of the cast to be able to add some sort of thematic weight. Chris Pratt is still playing the cocky, charismatic badass and Bryce Dallas Howard is still playing the overprotective but somewhat meaningful mother figure. Both do what they can but they are only really likable for the actors they are and not for the characters they are playing. One standout however, is DeWanda Wise as Kayla Watts, a former Air Force pilot who helps out Owen and Claire on their mission. While her character can be noted as also just a typical kick-ass woman (something which this movies has surprisingly quite a bit off), Wise brings enough energy and charisma of her own and I hope she is able to shine more in a better role like this in the future.

There is a couple of action set pieces that are fine in their own right, most notably a motorcycle chase scene with Owen and the dinosaurs, even if they don’t quite reach the same heights as the first Jurassic World‘s action-packed finale and the final showdown with the Indominus Rex. The dinosaurs surprisingly don’t stand out as bad as they did in the first Jurassic World but not as nice to look at as they did in Fallen Kingdom (J.A. Bayona definitely brought his A game in that one!). The score by Michael Giacchino is serviceable at best but I was at least expecting to hear the full Jurassic Park theme at one point (especially since this is suppose to be the final movie, after all). Lastly, there are a handful of moments that do flirt with it’s own premise and gives at hint at what it could have been if it was able to at least figured out what it actually wanted to be.

That has basically been the whole problem with all three of these Jurassic World movies, most notably it’s sequels. It can never seem to decide what kind of movie it wants to commit too and what type of direction it’s willing to go in. They all seems like it wants to have it’s cake and eat it too by operating as both a goofy action-packed adventure along with one with important social/political commentary but it just never amounts to anything or goes far enough with either concept. A big reason why the original Jurassic World can only been seen as a guilty pleasure at best and these last two as just beautiful disasters.

Take the whole deal with Maisie, the girl who is suppose to be a clone. It’s a bizarre idea that is never justified because the movie itself doesn’t know what to do with that idea. We don’t see how Maisie is any different than any other human being or how being a clone affects her on an emotional level other than being able to connect with the dinosaurs more so than anyone else. She’s just there to be seen as the big important girl of the picture just because the script says so. That entire character is basically this entire series in a nutshell. Bizarre and just not worth investing in.

This all goes back to my original point at the beginning of how these sequels will never be able to follow up to the original because it’s mere existence goes against what the original stand for. The entire idea around Jurassic Park is how there shouldn’t be a Jurassic Park because having something that special is just too good to be true. While these follow-ups tend to hint at similar morals, it never remains fully committed to it or even tries to act as a meta commentary of sorts. It’s hard to judge these movies for what they are trying to be because I don’t think even the movies themselves know what they want to be. When even the man who made the classic original was unable to make lightning completely strike a second time with his own movie, you know you are fighting a losing battle here. At best, you are fighting for second place.

However, regardless of my personal feelings on it, this series clearly has an audience of it’s own. The last two made over a billion dollars at the box office and I wouldn’t be surprised seeing this one make similar numbers. If you are fan of this franchise and enjoy the prior two movies, then you most likely will enjoy this one. If you didn’t enjoy them, then there is no reason to believe that this one will change your mind. Despite it’s undeniable commercial success, it still feels like for the better for these movies to finally heed it’s own advice for once, to stop trying to bring a beautiful dead thing back to live and just let it rest in peace. I highly doubt that Universal will commit to that but one can only hope.

Other comments:

• I still don’t understand the reasoning for making the girl a clone.

• Can someone please tell me the difference between Campbell Scott’s character in this movie and his one from The Amazing Spider-Man movies?

• For as much as we like to talk about The Force Awakens being the movie to kick-start this legacy sequel ear we are currently in, we all tend to forget that the original Jurassic World came first and was just as successful financially.

• Speaking of which, at least we all now know that Episode IX would have been doomed no matter what.

• What is it with Colin Treverrow taking fun and exciting ideas but always executing them in the worst and oddest ways possible?

• On the bright side, BD Wong is here and is still awesome!

*Warning- This piece DOES contain spoilers for Top Gun: Maverick! If you haven’t seen the movie yet and/or don’t want anything spoiled, then you might want to click off this piece and come back to it after you have seen the movie.*

In terms of the “legacy sequels” that are coming out nowadays, Top Gun: Maverick existing as one feels insane. At least with the likes of Star Wars, Ghostbuster, Jurassic World, Terminator, Mad Max, Rocky, Halloween, etc.., that you can argue that those came from long-running franchises with multiples entries over the past few decades. Top Gun, similar to Blade Runner, was a straight-up standalone feature that in no way, shape, or form, demanded a sequel. Heck, even Tom Cruise himself admitted to not wanting to do a sequel until at least ten years after the original came out. You can debate about how well the original Top Gun holds today (I don’t really think it has.), but it’s existence both feels like a blessing and a curse with how good a legacy-kind of sequel can be.

The big thing that Maverick most differentiate from most legacy sequels is the “passing of the torch” approach. Movies such as The Force Awakens, Afterlife, and this year’s Scream have themes involving a brand new colorful set of characters who are designed to be the main focus with most of the spotlight shined on them while the legacy/fan favorite characters are secondary and play a big role of guiding these new characters through the journeys they go on in the movie. It’s always about the new characters accepting their role as the main people to follow and the old characters accepting their roles as mentor/leadership figures and that it’s time for them to move on to other things. Maverick however takes an approach that’s not all the different from Creed and even, to some odd existent, Cars 3 (Just hear me out!). While Maverick does indeed have the original star from the first movie himself, Pete Maverick, having to guide a new generation of pilots onto the next mission, it also seems to be trying to state that Maverick himself is still the best of the best as an pilot can get despite not being able to exactly pass that along.

Throughout the movie, we see Maverick having a very difficult time training these younger pilots. He’s unable to get him to that certain level of not just what Maverick could ever do as a pilot but even enough to be able to complete the main mission. A big part of it has to do with Maverick’s own attachment to Rooster, the son of his own late RIO and best friend, Goose (Miles Teller). Maverick is clearly still emotionally damaged about losing his friend years ago and is most afraid of that same outcome happening to his own son. It takes a big and very touching conversation of his old former rival/close friend Iceman (Val Kilmer) to push Pete to do what he can to teach the crew. That is until a few days later where words gets out that Iceman passed away and the Naval Air Forces led by Cyclone (Jon Hamm) decide to move on from Maverick as an instructor.

In hindsight, it’s really difficult to find out what exactly the point of Maverick’s role is in this movie. While the original Top Gun established he’s as good as a pilot can get, then Maverick seems to establish that he is also as bad as a teacher can get. That along seems to question whether or not this movie needed to exist in the first place. If Tom Cruise is unable to inspire a new generation of air force pilots with balls and heart, then why even bother to make the movie outside of 80s kid nostalgia over the original. That is until we get to the scene after the big turning point of the movie.

During a class meeting that Cyclone has with Maverick’s former students, Maverick makes an unauthorized flight of the simulated course with the original parameters. With this successful test, it proves that the mission can in face be done. As a result, Cyclone is convinced and reluctantly appoints Maverick as strike leader. That right there brilliantly showcases the role that Maverick still plays. He might not be able to pass on the torch to others properly, but he can still hold that torch still pretty damn high and have others surrounding him. It’s then that the other younger pilots are able to complete the mission but not doing what Maverick himself still does best as a pilot but what they themselves do best as a pilot. It’s only the advice that Maverick himself gives to Rooster, “Don’t think, just act!” that has the needed impact it does to get this young crew to complete the mission and save Maverick himself.

Just like how Creed found a suitable role for Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky Balboa to act as a mentor to Michael B Jordan’s Adonis Creed and even how Cars 3 shown that Lightning McQueen still has enough in the tank to be a competitive racer along with having an apprentice of his own, Top Gun: Maverick seems to argue that you can have your cake and eat it too with these kind of sequels. You can have the old characters still be as important and meaningful as the newer characters without needing to sacrifice one end or the other. Legacy sequels don’t necessarily have to be the end of the legacy characters journey but the beginning of a brand new one. It’s possible that newer characters don’t have to be the next face of the franchise but the right face of it to guide the meaning and purpose of the original characters. Two wrongs can still make a right!

You can say what you want about Tom Cruise as a person and his own beliefs, but no doubt, he knows his own reputation as an actor and still loves to do whatever it takes to entertain his audience in any way he can. Whether it’s Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher, or Top Gun, Cruise’s characters still act as the best kind of action hero that anyone can except out of whatever character he plays. In some sense, these newer Mission Impossible sequels and Top Gun: Maverick itself that sees Tom Cruise continuing to challenge and dare himself to do better and better. And he will keep doing that either until he’s tired of it or he’s just dies. Regardless, Top Gun: Maverick, unlike other legacy sequels, seems to give the notion that it’s titled main character is still on top form with what he is still able to do even if he can’t seem to do anything else. Sometimes it’s okay to let Tom Cruise be the Tom Cruise that audience knows and loves about him without the need for anything else.

Other comments:

• Jon Hamm sure did seem like he was having the time of his life being Tom Cruise’s boss in a movie.

• We really don’t talk enough about how talented Jennifer Connelly is.

• I saw this movie on Memorial Day with my parents. I can’t say for sure but I’m pretty sure this is now their new favorite movie ever.