Though there are sure to be a number of classic moments from the franchise that we’ll never see on screen, the new movie will also be fleshing out the mythos of the Rangers in a number of ways. Part of that is down to the design of the film itself. We’ve already seen how different villains like Rita Repulsa and Goldar will look in the film. That more alien and organic design will also be carrying over to everyone from Alpha 5 to the Zords themselves. We’ve had a pretty good look at the updated Zords so far, in everything from TV spots to posters. Now, we’ve got a little more insight into the concepts behind their redesign.
During an interview with Collider, Israelite discussed how the new look for the Zords came about, and how the film will expand their backstory.
“The idea is the Zords are machines that take on the form of the most powerful organisms of the planet they’re on. When these Zords came to Earth, dinosaurs reigned supreme and so they took on the image and the spirit of these dinosaurs – that’s the mythology that we’ve put into the movie. But in the concept that we’ve created they’re meant to be inspired by those animals – not an actual, literal, version of it, and so we decided we wanted to take certain liberties, too.”
Israelite went on to talk about trying to craft a unique aesthetic for the movie, in order to separate it from things like Transformers and Star Wars. In doing so, he and the crew tried to craft an organic look for everything, as opposed to simply designing mechanized monsters. In focusing on the more alien elements of the Zords, some liberties had to be taken with the final look of the dinosaur-inspired robots to make them function in a more pragmatic way.
“The other component of it is almost more of a practical component. We look at these renderings and we create a 3D space and we look at how they should move, and you learn a lot from that. And the mastodon is so big that we realized that with added legs it would just move better in a CG environment, and we’d be able to make it a more nimble machine. So it felt kind of like practical; if you were an alien creating this machine, you would want those added limbs.”
Of course, Israelite isn’t using ‘practical’ in the usual sense when it comes to movies. Unlike Fury Road or The Fast and the Furious franchise, Power Rangers won’t be telling their story using very many practical effects. But though the Zords will be all CGI, Israelite’s comments tease the idea that from an alien design point, the giant robots will move in a way that makes sense. Part of that was redesigning the Zords to look like mechanized creatures that could actually run, jump, and fight.
And while we’ve known for some time that the film’s aesthetic would have a more otherworldly bent, all this talk of alien design and an updated mythology make it seem as though the movie might dive into the history of the Power Rangers in new and exciting ways. Over the years, the various TV shows have expanded the lore of the Rangers, but the new film may mark the most concise and cohesive origin yet for the Rangers and their mighty Zords. Whether that holds true or not, we’ll know in a couple of weeks once Power Rangers lands in theaters.
When the first X-Men movie dropped into theaters back in 2000, with a modest budget and few stars, few could have predicted the unbelievable cultural impact that the film would have. Back then a sequel wasn’t a sure thing, but Bryan Singer’s little mutant sci-fi film paved the way for superhero cinema as we know it today. Since then, Fox has released nine more movies in the X-Men universe, culminating in Logan — a tense, heartbreaking finale to the X-Men as we know them, finally bringing the series full circle. Throughout these films, the series has weaved together a complex continuity, with characters that grow old, change, die, and inspire others.
There have certainly been continuity errors throughout the X-Men series. Unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the X-Men films weren’t planned out in advance, so mistakes were made along the way. But in the long road from X-Men to Logan, a fascinating, mutant-influenced alternate history has been developed, full of intriguing divergences from our own version of history — along with similarities that call attention to our greatest societal mistakes. The X-Men’s mutant conflicts have always been used as a political allegory for real life issues, and the movies have taken this to the next level, through the use of prequels, back stories, and peeks into the future, with major events tied to specific dates.
But this raises an interesting question: if one lived in the X-Men movie universe, and was sitting in Logan’s history class as a student of Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, what sort of lessons would they be learning?
Alternative History Lessons
Since the X-Men movies were not made in chronological order, it requires some work to put the X-Men history book together. And their history, of course, isn’t over: while we now have a definite endpoint in the future of 2029, there’s plenty of still unknown time between then and the 1990s, when the next X-Men sequel will come out. But since Logan tells the story of a day when the X-Men are no more, and thus gives us a conclusion, we can now look over the entire alternate history of this movie universe from the beginning until now.
All of the best alternate history theories pivot around a single change, and how that one change impacts everything. You know, the butterfly effect. What would happen if the Nazis won WWII? How would today’s music scene be different if Kurt Cobain hadn’t committed suicide? The key is to start with one change, drop that single stone into the river, and watch the ripples spread.
In the X-Men universe, that single change to the timeline is easy to pinpoint: the existence of mutants.
Lesson #1: Ancient Egypt & Apocalypse
So, how would history students study Apocalypse?- what would the textbooks say? In the pre-Days of Future Past timeline, he never rose up again, so he would likely be viewed as a mythological god, discussed in the same chapter as Ra, Anubis, and Set.
Really, there’s no way that En Sabah Nur wouldn’t be a major mythological figure that history students would write papers on. After all, the guy singlehandedly constructed the pyramids with his powerful telekinetic abilities. His fearsome appearance would likely be depicted in countless relics, murals, statues, scrolls, and so on. In X-Men: Apocalypse, Moira MacTaggert even proposed the notion that the biblical “Four Horseman of the Apocalypse” were named after his horseman, not the other way around.
But in the X-Men universe, contemporary historians probably don’t think that En Sabah Nur was a mutant. In fact, they probably don’t believe he actually existed in real life. There would be some historians who would propose the “Maybe Apocalypse was a mutant?” theory, but these ones are outliers, most likely mocked by the scholarly community. Even in the post-Days of Future Past timeline, the general public wouldn’t have any reason to associate the big blue mutant overlord with the historical En Sabah Nur.
Lesson #2: Magneto Studies
After Apocalypse, the timeline wasn’t much influenced by mutant activity (at least, not that we know of) until the mid-20th century, when mutants began to emerge more frequently. When WWII came along, it played a key role in shaping the single most controversial mutant of the 20th century -a figure who would certainly be discussed in history classes for decades to come, and who would the singular focus of millions of magazine articles, research papers, and books.
Lehnsherr’s story began when his family was murdered in the Holocaust, decades before mutant powers become public knowledge. This event scarred Lehnsherr for life, and eventually led to him becoming Magneto, who in the X-Men universe would certainly be seen by authorities and the news media in the same context as Osama Bin Laden. Unlike the universally reviled Bin Laden, however, there would probably also be studies and news analysis pieces debating whether there were merits to Lehnsherr’s argument, and whether perhapshis cause was justified, if not his methods. Some would argue that he was a terrorist, others would say he was a freedom fighter.
If there were a college course devoted to the subject of “Magneto Studies,” it would certainly begin with the Holocaust, at which point the next important point in history would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. In X-Men: First Class, the incident itself was actually manipulated into happening by Sebastian Shaw, the leader of the Hellfire Club. But the point where history started really diverging from our timeline was in that single moment where Magneto took control of all of the missiles, turned them around, and got ready to make his first massive strike on human society. Even though this bloodbath was halted, this was the first time in history where mutantkind was truly unveiled to the world’s governments, and Magneto didn’t set the best first impression.
Only one year later, Magneto was implicated in the murder of John F. Kennedy Jr., his metal-controlling powers offering the best explanation ever for the oft-disputed “magic bullet” theory. Based on Charles and Hank’s discussion of Erik’s imprisonment in Days of Future Past, it can be reasonably assumed that Erik Lehnsherr’s supposed guilt in the assassination was common knowledge, even if his mutant powers were not (yet).
Lesson #3: Anti-Mutant Prejudice Begins
Once we get to 1973, when Days of Future Past takes place, the history book gets complicated. Due to time travel interference, the entire course of history was changed. Because the new X-Men movies are taking place on the altered timeline, much of history from 1973 onward is unknown to us. For that reason, when studying a hypothetical X-Men history book, it’s necessary to continue on with the original timeline. Also, for the sake of argument, it’s conceivable that Xavier may want to teach his students about the original timeline, so that they could know what to watch out for.
In any case, 1973 is a pivotal year. In the original timeline, Mystique assassinated Trask and was captured, eventually leading to the development of Sentinels modeled after her powers. Soon after, the world truly learned about mutants, and opinions began to form. The human/mutant conflict erupted.
According to 25 Moments, a cool viral marketing website that Fox released in conjunction with Days of Future Past, by the mid-1970s Professor Charles Xavier was presenting himself before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he pleaded for basic mutant rights. In 1977, Pietro “Peter” Maximoff decided to compete in the Olympics. When Quicksilver broke eight world records, it ignited a massive controversy that resulted in a complete ban from mutants participating in sports.
In the 1980s, the televangelist Bob Bell began an organization called “The Human Majority,” which believed mutants were a curse. The Chernobyl catastrophe caused the spread of new mutant births all over Eastern Europe, included Piotr Rasputin/Colossus. Germany formally adopted anti-mutant policies, and a resulting mutant riot led to more bloodshed; in this universe, the Berlin Wall was never knocked down.
Lesson #4: The New Millennium Begins
Any study in 21st century mutant history would be closely tied in with Magneto Studies. While Charles Xavier was an equally important historical figure, his role was quieter, whereas Magneto was busy mounting violent offensives against the human race. Since the US Government had an anti-mutant agenda, it would have used Magneto’s image as a propaganda tool to fuel anti-mutant sentiment. Holding up Magneto as a symbol of mutantkind would allow politicians to pass controversial policies like the Mutant Registration Act, whereas devoting any attention to Xavier and Jean Grey’s pleas for peace could potentially lead to pro-mutant sympathy.
Thus, Magneto was the single most controversial mutant in history, and the most prominent. And his actions in the 21st century were a big reason why.
First of all, there was the Statue of Liberty incident. This didn’t claim too many lives thanks to the X-Men, but it still would have been a huge deal in the news. Keep in mind, at this point Magneto was a wanted felon – the mutant who murdered JFK. His mutant terrorist group barging into the Statue of Liberty and flashing some weird lights at the top would be scary stuff to people sitting at home. In X2: X-Men United, viewers see the near-extinction of mutants, immediately followed by Magneto causing the near-extinction of humans, but Lehnsherr’s involvement in this would not have been clear to the general public.
The miraculous thing is that after all of this went down, the United States actually started to turn around in its stance on mutants. A pro-mutant president was elected to office, and Hank McCoy was even appointed to the position of Secretary of Mutant Affairs. Things were looking up for the first time in history.
Flashforward to San Francisco, 2006, where it all came crashing back down.
When Worthington Labs announced a mutant “cure,” Magneto sprang back into action. After gathering a massive army of mutants behind him, including the Phoenix, Magneto staged his first true act of war against the human race: he tore the entire Golden Gate Bridge off of its roots, and then unleashed hundreds of bloodthirsty mutants upon the Worthington Labs facility on Alcatraz.
Consider the scale of this for a moment. Forget that the X-Men intervened to save the day, or that Wolverine stopped Jean Grey from blowing up the entire city, because the news media and general public wouldn’t know any of that stuff. What they would know is that the most wanted man on the planet had just destroyed a national landmark in the name of war — most likely killing thousands.
In the X-Men universe, this “Golden Gate Bridge Attack” would have been their 9/11. In this one action, Magneto implicated all of mutantkind as being enemies of the American people. The bomb had finally dropped.
In the X-Men universe there was never any “War on Terror,” because the “War on Mutants” took its place. Mutants were questioned, deported, subjected to police brutality, killed in hate crimes, and thrown into Guantanamo Bay. Every mutant was accused of being a secret agent for Magneto, and forced to register. And sure enough, what did all of this end up leading to?
Sentinels.
Lesson #5: The Future That Almost Was, And Then Wasn’t
Days of Future Past paints a pretty clear picture of what happened at this point. The Anti-Mutant movement reached fever pitch, mutants were thrown in concentration camps, the US government commissioned Sentinels from Trask Industries… and oops, there goes the world. After almost all of the mutants have been eliminated, the Sentinels then turned their guns on the humans.
Until the X-Men sent Wolverine back in time. The efforts of Xavier’s team saved the entirety of humanity from themselves. This would be the final history lesson for students at Xavier’s school, at which point they’d be dragged to Professor Beast’s science class so they could learn weird, confusing lessons about time travel.
However, for human students, their lessons would continue all the way to 2029, which we now know as the endpoint. By then, a new question has arisen:
Lesson #6: Where Did All the Mutants Go?
While the future world depicted in Logan isn’t so great, it’s certainly better than the post-apocalyptic scenario featured in Days of Future Past. Logan shows a country where corporate greed, genetically engineered crops, and anti-immigrant nationalism have choked the life out of the economy, easily making it the most political X-Men movie to date. While people in this society are getting by, they’re struggling, and it shows. Mutants, once poised to take over the human race, have mostly died out, and no new mutants are being born, thanks to Zander Rice’s high fructose corn syrup.
But what’s most significant here, as far as the history of the X-Men, is that at this point the context in which mutants are viewed has entirely changed. Now that they’re no longer a “threat” for human survival, people have become nostalgic about mutants, and celebrate their past achievements, or are excited when they run into one of them. The X-Men have become iconic heroes of the past, pop culture icons whose past heroism is never questioned. Comic books are made of them. Parents probably brag to their kids about the time “the X-Men saved me.”
Strange as this might seem, it’s actually quite realistic. Real life heroes and social movements are often controversial in their time — but in later decades, these figures become celebrated as icons. It makes sense that in this universe the X-Men would be treated the same way. Even though the mutant gene was suppressed, and even though the X-Men never lived to see themselves accepted, their legacy will live on… and in the history books, they will be forever memorialized as the heroes that they really were.
The new King Kong film, Kong: Skull Island, effectively recontextualizes the story of the mighty gorilla. Instead of merely remaking the primal fairy-tale once again, Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ version reworks the tale of the giant primate into something fresh. Almost the entire movie takes place on the titular island, with the story following a group of explorers trying to survive the strange prehistoric creatures that live there and get to the other side for rescue. This quest is hampered by the maniacal Col. Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), who develops a grudge match with Kong after several of his men are killed in the first encounter with the primal beast. Unlike the original, capturing this jungle ruler isn’t an option and the movie goes the long way around when it comes to explaining why.
Part of the new MonsterVerse that launched with 2014’s Godzilla, Kong: Skull Island introduces the King to the fold with a new backstory that mixes some classic elements with new mythology, in order to set the universe up for the long-haul. The crux of this is the hollow earth theory, which theorizes a whole other world is lurking below the planet’s surface. Bill Randa (John Goodman) is a scientist who, along with the organization Monarch, has become obsessed with the idea that the world once belonged to giant monsters, and some of those monsters are still around. Randa is convinced that one such creature attacked a boat he was serving on in the navy and left him as the only survivor, and he’s dedicated his life to proving it.
Randa’s search leads him to Skull Island, a previously completely uncharted region of the South Pacific ocean. Randa and his assistant, seismologist Heuston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), believe Skull Island to be an entry point through which the entities that live under the earth’s crust can come up, and after some last-ditch scientific funding and the enlisting of a military escort, they embark to explore it. To get seismic data as quick as possible, they drop bombs on the island’s surface when they first arrive to get a read on whether the earth below is hollow.
Their hypothesis is proven correct but quickly draws the attention of Kong – which was the real motive behind the bombing of the island. The giant gorilla makes swift work of the helicopters that the scientists and their escort arrive in. Once they’re stranded in various parts of the isle, the scientific team and the soldiers work their way around the forests and jungles, encountering giant spiders, pterodactyl-like birds and massive water beasts – seeing first-hand the kind of life that exists around a hollow earth waypoint.
No other monsters are mentioned specifically until the post-credits sequence, but the overt implication is that all the monsters of the MonsterVerse will come from places like Skull Island – mysterious pieces of land where the ground is thin enough for these possibly prehistoric beings to break through. Godzilla hinted at a similar story, though kept it contextual to Godzilla as a “great equalizer” that was there to keep us in check, riffing on the lizard being an embodiment of nuclear paranoia. Monarch is the same company seen in Godzilla, and some of the same language is employed in Kong: Skull Island – specifically, the idea that we share the planet with ferocious entities beyond ourselves.
King Kong’s cinematic history began in 1933, and the giant ape has been portrayed in many different movies over the years (some good, most pretty bad). Initially Kong is painted as the brute Godlike animal with allegiance to no other living creature, but gradually he’s revealed to be the protector and lode-bearer of the island’s eco-system. Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) and James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) find a completely isolated tribe of indigenous people, with whom John C. Reilly’s Hank Marlow has lived for years after his plane crashed. As with previous iterations the tribe still regard King Kong as sacred, but here it’s retooled as respect for their eco-system and its balance, rather than as a violent or sacrificial religion. The tribe are shown to be completelu pacifist and in harmony, having built a wall to keep out anything that Kong himself hasn’t killed that would try to to hurt them.
The main threat to this tribe – and, indeed, to anyone else unfortunate enough to land on Skull Island – is a race of monsters dubbed “Skull Crawlers” by Marlow, who play an important role in the rebooted Kong’s backstory. Both of the Kong’s parents died keeping bigger Skull Crawlers at bay, leaving him the only one who can stop them – and even then, only by killing them while they’re still young and weak.
The movie also takes care to establish another key fact about Kong: that he is relatively young, and is still growing. This is important because Kong will eventually face off against Godzilla, whose current incarnation is around 350ft tall, and could therefore crush classic portrayals of King Kong under one foot. Since Kong: Skull Island is set in the 1970s, and Godzilla was set in the modern day, the already massive Kong can spend several more decades growing before he has to fight the King of Monsters.
One important questions remains: the question of why Kong and Godzilla will end up fighting, since both creatures are portrayed as being fairly benevolent – a balancing force against monsters like the M.U.T.O.s and the Skull Crawlers. Beyond his initial (arguably justified) rampage against Packard’s men, Kong appears to be relatively docile, submitting to Weaver’s touch and even protecting her from the adult Skull Crawler towards the end.
In one of the movie’s most striking images, Kong allows the surviving characters to fly away, watching and roaring as they leave. He has a purpose to continue to serve on the island as its great guardian, saving it from whatever other oddities happen to emerge from the ground. But while the island’s visitors may have pledged to keep it a secret, it seems unlikely that Skull Island will remain undisturbed by the outside world for much longer.
Streaming giant Netflix continues to expand, and not just with its many award-winning original TV series. The company has reportedly been looking into increasing the production of their own original content. This means more original series, but it also means more focus on improving their feature-length offerings. Movies are an area where Netflix hasn’t been performing as well as they could be, with plenty of films having been released, but none that have reached the level of critical acclaim or fan excitement seen with the company’s television series.
Earlier this month, it was reported that Netflix was looking to hire a producer to head up their film division and bring it up to scratch — and now we can confirm that the company has found the man for the job.
Today, THR confirmed that Scott Stuber has been hired as the new head of Netflix’s film division, and will be ‘leading future development, production and acquisition’ for Netflix’s feature-length content. Stuber spoke about his new role in the company, saying:
“Netflix is at the forefront in changing the way entertainment is enjoyed throughout the world, bringing a greater variety of stories to more people than ever before. It’s an incredible opportunity to work with a company with such reach and that stands for such diverse quality content for global audiences.”
Stuber is known for his work on Patriot’s Day, Ted, A Million Ways To Die In The West, Love And Other Drugs, and many more. He is described by Netflix head Ted Sarandos as “well known and respected in the film industry. His innovative work and strong talent relationships should help accelerate the Netflix original filminitiative,” and was previously being courted by Paramount to head up their film division.
This is big news for Netflix’s film division, as it points toward an emphasis on even more original content coming soon. The streaming site has already got several big titles in the works, including the live-action anime adaptation Death Note, Martin Scorsese’s highly anticipated gangster movie The Irishman, and Will Smith’s latest project, Bright. Orson Welles’s final film will also be released on Netflix. The addition of Stuber to the team promises even more exciting new creations and acquisitions for the company.
However, some may be concerned that Netflix’s move toward even more original content could impact its future as a streaming service for content created elsewhere. Should Netflix become it’s own ‘network’ of sorts, we may be left looking for somewhere else to watch all of our other favorite shows. This is unlikely to be an issue any time soon, of course, but it is worth keeping an eye on as the site continues to grow and shift focus.
Once upon a time, when Marvel Studios was tentatively releasing the first Iron Man movie and the Edward Norton-led The Incredible Hulk, the Marvel Cinematic Universe was little more than a twinkle in Kevin Feige’s eye and not even the most optimistic comic book fan could’ve ever imagined the critically acclaimed box-office juggernaut the MCU has now become. Those early movies were largely standalone features, with only a smattering of Easter Eggs and post-credit scenes to connect them to the wider Marvel world and hint at the multi-hero universe that was soon to come into full effect.
That all changed with Joss Whedon’s The Avengers in 2012. Combining the efforts of Marvel Studios’ previous standalone movies and bringing together an A-List ensemble cast, The Avengers changed the landscape of the superhero genre and showed exactly the level of critical and commercial success that could be achieved in a multi-hero venture. From this point on, characters began to cross over with far more frequency – notably Black Window landing a significant role in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Cap’s own cameo in Thor: The Dark World – and this phenomenon was pushed to the next level with Captain America: Civil War. Despite technically being the third Captain America solo movie, Civil War felt, looked and acted far more like an Avengers film, featuring the majority of the MCU in a huge cinematic dust up.
By achieving more success than either of the previous two Cap movies could manage, Civil War proved that expanding the franchise’s universe with multiple superheroes and interconnected plots in turn brought greater rewards. Since then, it has seemed as if Marvel’s standalone movie days might just be numbered, as Robert Downey Jr. prepares to appear in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Bruce Banner gets a big part in Thor: Ragnarok and half of Hollywood joins the cast list of The Avengers: Infinity War. But with Marvel Studios preparing to introduce a new batch of characters for Phase Three, is it really going to abandon its standalone movies?
Standalone Success
Having constructed their cinematic empire from the ground up over a number of years, Marvel Studios clearly appreciates the importance of taking the time to build characters and familiarize audiences with them via individual standalone movies. Captain America: The First Avenger and Thormight not be the most fondly remembered entries in the MCU but both were critical in the establishment of their respective characters and as a result, when The Avengers rolled around, fans were already very comfortable with each figure’s personalities, motivations and backstories, allowing Joss Whedon to focus on more interesting topics without having to worry about the grunt work.
For the sake of comparison, Warner Bros.’ D.C. Extended Universe has taken a different approach, quickly launching into the Batman V. Superman team-up movie that connected significantly to the franchise’s larger narrative. The DCEU hasn’t had as easy a time as its Marvel counterpart when it comes to critical reception and part of the reason for this can be attributed to the decision to pull the trigger on the wider reaching movies before building the franchise up with some standalone features beforehand.
With the MCU set to introduce new protagonists such as Captain Marvel and ramp up the roles of newer figures like Black Panther, the importance of standalone movies will once again become apparent, especially since these characters’ comic origins aren’t as well known within a mainstream audience. This has already been seen in Marvel’s most recent venture – Doctor Strange. Other than a hilarious post-credits cameo and some brief visual or dialogue references to the wider MCU, Doctor Strange represented a move back towards the franchise’s past of self-contained stories by focusing squarely on the characters at hand.
This move was entirely necessary as not only is Doctor Strange a lesser known character in the Marvel canon but he heralds a whole new world of magic and mysticism that required a standalone movie to properly introduce, explain and do justice to. Happily, the movie was a resounding success both in terms of box office takings and reviews, which aimed particular praise at the visual style and the execution of this new mystic side to the MCU.
Another property that has been more or less standalone in nature is Guardians of the Galaxy. Although the first movie featured Thanos – arch-villain of the MCU’s overall narrative – the intergalactic location set the movie apart from the rest of the Marvel world and was another example of a mega-successful standalone piece. Somewhat surprisingly, it appears from the trailers and plot details released so far that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 will be even more self-contained than the original movie and although you can expect some form of set-up to lead the characters towards Infinity War, the sequel has its own ensemble, stories and lore to play with without throwing other MCU characters or plot lines into the mix and yet despite this, GOTG remains an integral part of the franchise.
A Future United
Certainly then, standalone movies will be a key part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe – at least in the immediate future – but it could be argued that the studio are reserving these for lesser known characters that casual fans may need familiarizing with. The idea of a solo movie starring Steve Rogers or Thor that doesn’t have implications in the wider MCU seems unlikely at this point, as the various Avengers have become ever more entangled in each others’ character arcs. Furthermore, given the impact of Civil War, if Marvel Studios hypothetically did decide to announce Captain America 4 as a standalone solo movie with no additional characters, there would no doubt be some sections of the fandom who would be disappointed at what could be seen as a ‘smaller’ scale film. Marvel set its own bar and now it has the responsibility of meeting those expectations.
The same can be said for the Thor series. Neither of the Norse God’s solo adventures were rapturously received but the hype surrounding the forthcoming Ragnarok is palpable and that’s largely thanks to the addition of Bruce Banner. In what is being described as a ‘buddy picture‘ in space’, there is considerably more anticipation for this third trip to Asgard and when all is said and done, money talks. If Ragnarok vastly out-performs the previous two Thor movies – and it most likely will – then the formula will surely be clear for Marvel to follow: more characters and interconnected stories = higher box office.
And from a critical standpoint, it would be difficult to blame them. After all, the core Avengers characters have all had their groundwork laid – Hawkeye and Black Widow aside – and audiences are very familiar with each of them at this point. It not only makes good business sense to have these characters team up with others and become involved in story lines that develop over a number of films, it also keeps them fresh and relevant in an ever-expanding movie universe and the standalone features can be reserved for newer characters. As far as Spider-Man: Homecoming is concerned, Peter Parker might be new to the MCU but Marvel Studios will only be too aware of how familiar movie-goers are with the character and bringing in Tony Stark will greatly aid in anchoring Spidey to the wider Marvel universe after five movies under the Sony umbrella.
However, the real acid test for Marvel’s intentions with their standalone output will be next year’s Ant-Man and the Wasp. Aside from a brief scrap with Anthony Mackie’s Falcon, the first Ant-Man movie was a standalone heist movie, largely unconnected to the rest of the franchise. Now that the character has properly established himself, it’ll be interesting to see whether the same approach will be utilized for the sequel or whether Ant-Man’s new Avengers connections will mean a more involved role in the wider goings-on of the MCU and feature appearances from more names than just Falcon. If Marvel goes with the latter, it’ll be a strong sign that the studio is looking to make their movies as inter-connected as possible, reserving standalone features for newer characters in need of exposition and establishment.
After Infinity
If it feels as if the Marvel Cinematic Universe is putting less emphasis on standalone movies, this can perhaps be explained by the relative proximity of The Avengers: Infinity War. The forthcoming battle against Thanos represents the culmination of a decade of movies and is the very moment the MCU has been building towards since its inception. With plenty to do before reaching that point, it’s only natural that the focus right now would be on the bigger picture. But what happens when the threat of Thanos has been vanquished?
There’s only so ‘big’ Marvel can realistically go in terms of scale and – judging from the cast list and rumored budget – the conclusion of the Thanos arc will be bigger than anything seen before. From there, attempting to go even bigger doesn’t feel like the most appropriate option. The Michael Bay philosophy of ‘more, more, more’ is unlikely to cut it in the MCU and although there are plenty of juicy, universe-spanning stories from the comics to pick from, it may not be wise to jump straight from the Thanos material into a new major arc right away.
Perhaps then, the post-Infinity War MCU may see a return to prominence of the standalone superhero movie. After all, if you can’t go bigger, the only way is inwards and this might see whichever Marvel characters are left standing get involved in some more personal, small-scale stories. For instance, it has long been rumored that Sebastian Stan’s Winter Soldier would eventually take over the Captain America mantle from Steve Rogers. There have also been rumblings of a solo outing for Black Widow and for Mark Ruffalo to get the opportunity to finally do a standalone Hulk movie justice. In the wake of Thanos, perhaps these stories and other standalone fare can once again come to the fore… and start building towards a whole new major arc.
