When The Black Widow Movie Should Start Filming, According To David Harbour

When The Black Widow Movie Should Start Filming, According To David Harbour

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is in a truly fascinating place right now. Avengers: Endgame is just weeks away, and the future of the MCU is largely a mystery. Marvel Studios is keeping its plans close to chest for Phase Four, as releasing the next slate of films has the potential to spoil the events of Endgame. But there are a few developing projects to keep an eye out for, including the long-awaited Black Widow movie.

The Black Widow movie has been slowly coming together, as director Cate Shortland has been assembling her cast and crew. Joining Scarlett Johansson for her first Marvel solo flick is Stranger Things fan favorite David Harbour, who already dipped his toes into the superhero genre with Hellboy. Harbour recently revealed when Widow's movie might begin filming, saying:

I think it’s slated to start in June. I don’t think they have it fully-boarded yet, but it’s a great character. I’m really excited about it. The cast is fleshing out (with) Scarlett and Florence Pugh, I think they said. I know they were talking about Rachel Weisz. There’s some really great actresses.

Well, this is exciting. The casting process may still be under way, but it looks like Black Widow's movie may start production in the near future. June isn't all that far away, so it looks like the solo flick will end up being one of the first releases of Phase Four. As long as nothing goes awry, that is.

David Harbour's comments to Den Of Geek are sure to excite the rabid Marvel fanbase, who are eager to see Scarlet Johansson's signature Marvel character get her time in the sun. While little to no information has been shared regarding the movie's contents, development amping up and possible June filming makes it all seem much more real. And the movie is a long time coming.

Despite being an OG member of The Avengers and one of the biggest characters in the MCU, Black Widow has surprisingly not been given her own solo movie yet. Instead, Natasha Romanoff served as a supporting character in a variety of other projects, including Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. But considering how mysterious and complicated the character is, she's still been underused in this capacity.

But that should change with her solo movie, although it's unclear what that project will contain. Black Widow is one of the surviving characters in Avengers: Endgame, but it seems possible that she might perish in the battle against Thanos. If that's the case, perhaps the solo movie will be a prequel, allowing for Widow's dark backstory to finally be fleshed out onscreen.

Black Widow will return to theaters when Avengers: Endgame arrives in theaters on April 26th, and you can see David Harbour in Hellboy April 12th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Regina Hall Really Loved Playing A Bad Boss In Little

Regina Hall Really Loved Playing A Bad Boss In Little

Many of us know Regina Hall as Brenda from the hilarious Scary Movie franchise, but if her newest character ran our workplaces, we’d be using that title in a brand new context. In Little, the comedy actress plays a rich tech entrepreneur who leaves her staff shaking in their seats with her crazy demands and deep-cutting insults – so much so that she must relive her middle school days to change her ways.

Regina Hall had such a blast playing the nightmarish bad boss to Issa Rae’s April, it actually surprised her how much so. Here’s what she said in my recent interview with her:

She’s so rotten. It was really a fun character to play. I have to say, I enjoyed being a little monster. No one would behave that insane in real life so I thought I would have a great time, I didn’t think it would come so instinctively, but yeah it was fun to do.

The actress certainly had the chance to go over-the-top for the comedy and say some vile things to her staff in the film. This included tearing them down during a pitch meeting and even getting on the bad side of a young girl, who ends up magically transforming her into a 13-year-old, played by Black-ish’s Marsai Martin.

Regina Hall served as an executive producer on Little along with her younger counterpart, Marsai Martin, who has now made history as the youngest in Hollywood history to earn the prestigious behind-the-scenes role. Martin pitched the film inspired by the Tom Hanks-led Big to Will Packer Productions when she was just 10 years old and had a hand in picking Regina Hall and Issa Rae as her costars.

While Regina Hall only stars in the beginning and end of the film, she gets some scene-stealing moments as a bad boss similar to Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada. The actress also apparently made sure to make it onto set for Luke James’ steamy dancing scene (according to director/writer Tina Gordon, she flew in just for it!)

Little opened last weekend with a handful of other newcomers such as Hellboy, After and Missing Link, and bested all of them at the box office with a $15 million weekend. Little was just behind Shazam!, which took home the No. 1 spot at $25 million during its second weekend. It’s a modest entrance for the studio that made the Ride Along films, Think Like a Man and Girls Trip, but altogether it wasn’t a solid run for movie theaters as a whole.

As more films hit theaters this weekend such as Breakthrough, Penguins and The Curse of La Llorona, we’ll have to see how Little (or Big) of an impression the ensemble comedy makes on audiences. Either way, it looks like Regina Hall and the cast had tons of fun making it, especially when it came to exploring her bad boss side.

6 Characters Hobbs And Shaw Needs To Bring Back

6 Characters Hobbs And Shaw Needs To Bring Back

Is it weird to say that it’s so damned easy to keep going back to watch the latest Hobbs and Shaw trailer over and over again? Revving up the motors for one of the potentially largest hits of 2019 certainly isn’t a hard prospect, especially when you have the right people for the job.

But mixed in the new footage we saw was an interesting development: Helen Mirren’s Magdalene, the matriarch of the Shaw clan, and in jail nonetheless. Which brings up one of the most fun pieces of the Fast and Furious franchise’s arsenal: surprise returning characters.

If Mother Shaw can cross over between franchises and return in Hobbs and Shaw, then the door is open for so many more possibilities. More specifically, there’s six characters that need to return in the Hobbs and Shaw side of the house, and they’ve all got some pretty good reasons to be brought back into the fold.

Cipher

At the end of The Fate of The Furious, Charlize Theron’s techno baddie Cipher escaped and made her way to Athens, probably planning some new plot to send the world into chaos. If that’s not the definition of a loose end, then the term needs to be revised for clarity.

However, with the Hobbs and Shaw team specializing in franchise extension, via saving the world from threats to security and intelligence, there’s a chance to tie off said hanging thread. With the titular pair ready to take on those who set out to destabilize the status quo, and Cipher being owed a proper villain rematch, the path is pretty clear to seeing these irresistible forces collide with more than a couple immovable objects.

Mr. Nobody

Returning audiences to the world of espionage in the Fast and Furious cinematic racetrack almost requires bringing other figures of the Diplomatic Security Service back into the fold. While we’ll probably be meeting some new personnel in this fairly new and shadowy organization in Hobbs and Shaw, it’d be nice to have a familiar face to help explain what’s going on.

It’d also be helpful to see professional smart ass/secret agent Mr. Nobody return in Hobbs and Shaw, because who doesn’t enjoy some good Kurt Russell snark? Of course, that snark is usually helpful whenever Nobody shows up, seeing as he’s the one with the intel for important missions ahead. When Mr. Nobody comes to town, you know the situation is serious, and we’d seriously like to see him back.

Little Nobody

The man we know as Little Nobody is a given for who should be brought into the Hobbs and Shaw world. Just as Mr. Nobody is the guy with the information and the plans needed to get the job done, Little is equally helpful, though a bit wet behind the ears.

As such, he still has something to learn when it comes to saving the world, and his lessons would be best conducted in the field, with bullets flying past his head. Scott Eastwood’s young spy in the making was a fun addition to The Fate of The Furious, and even if the character eventually stays in the more driven part of the canon, a Hobbs and Shaw mission wouldn’t hurt in the character development of Little Nobody.

Owen Shaw

Family is who you fight alongside, no matter the challenge. We’ve seen that Magdalene Shaw is coming back in Hobbs and Shaw, and with Vanessa Kirby being added to the family tree, it feels like another reunion is in order. Which means Owen Shaw needs to return yet again.

Undoubtedly Magdalene is going to need some help leaving her current place of incarceration. Knowing the Shaw family, reunions are always at the most inopportune times, so the quest to break mother out of the slammer will require all three of her currently known children. Not to mention, much like Deckard himself, Owen is owed a redemption, with Hobbs and Shaw feeling like the best place to get it.

Sean Boswell

While we saw Fast And Furious: Tokyo Drift’s Sean Boswell return for a cameo in Furious 7, we didn’t see him at all during The Fate of The Furious. This is in spite of the fact that we were told actor Lucas Black would be back for two more installments in the series, which has us thinking that a new plan may be in order.

Sean could easily become a cadet in the Diplomatic Security Service, as he’s dealt with underground criminal operations in international settings. Also, with his connection to the Toretto gang not being as strong as some of the other members, it wouldn’t be hard to win him over onto the side of the law. Of course, it’d be nice for him to have a partner to navigate this new world with, which leads to the most important character return for the Fast and Furious extended universe.

Han Lue

No one is going to let go of the fact that Deckard Shaw killed Han Lue in Fast and Furious 6, and some how became accepted as a good guy later on in this particular universe. But, as we’ve learned in the past, just because they say you’re dead doesn’t mean you died. Just as Letty came back from the dead, it’s time for Han to come back to the world of the living.

In fact, there’d be no better way to do that then to reveal that, surprise, he was drafted into the Diplomatic Security Service and has been working as a deep cover agent. Right there, you not only bring back a fan favorite, you also squash a serious beef in the Fast and Furious canon. Also, reuniting Sean and Han for some excitement is too good of an opportunity to pass up, and since he’ll definitely be coming back in some way for the Fast and Furious sequels, you’re basically killing two birds with one stone.

The Hobbs and Shaw franchise is just starting up with this first film, so the possibilities are still up in the air. But there’s plenty of good characters to pursue once things get going, provided that they don’t already show up in this initial entry.

We’ve still got some time to see where things go, as Hobbs and Shaw doesn’t hit theaters until August 2; but if anyone wants to get out there and film some nifty post credits scenes with any of the characters above, we’re willing to accept an Executive Producer credit as a thank you.

Millions Sent Back To Malaysia In Wolf Of Wall Street Case

Millions Sent Back To Malaysia In Wolf Of Wall Street Case

With one of the biggest financial scandals of all time linked to the funding of its production, The Wolf of Wall Street has come back into the public eye. As the trial against former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is proceeding in court, another part of the investigation into Red Granite’s alleged impropriety has proceeded, because Malaysia has been given several million dollars back from its raided 1MDB fund.

The United States government has returned $57 million to the Malaysian government, thanks to production company Red Granite paying $60 million in a recent settlement. The gap in funds returned, amounting to around $3 million, was due to the FBI and Department of Justice recovering funds for their investigative efforts.

While that’s a drop in the bucket when compared to the $4.5 billion that was taken from Malaysia’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad fund, it’s a start to recovering the money that was funneled into Najib Razak’s high living lifestyle, which included funding fancy parties, large ticket purchases of artwork and luxury properties.

Razak also invested in the funding of films like The Wolf of Wall Street, Dumb and Dumber To and Daddy’s Home. Najib Razak was able to do so, courtesy of his step son Riza Aziz, who was one of the founders of the Red Granite company. The scandal was so huge that it's taken almost five years to work through the legal proceedings, and now it feels like justice is finally starting to be served.

The Hollywood Reporter also mentioned in its reporting on this recent development that $322 million has been recovered so far, with another $139 million in the process of being returned back to Malaysia’s government. While it didn’t take too long after the production of The Wolf of Wall Street and Dumb and Dumber To to start the investigation into Red Granite’s financing practices, we’re now finally seeing the concrete results of those efforts being paid back to the people of Malaysia.

Tommy Thomas, Malaysia’s attorney general, is confident that continuing efforts to recover the improperly channeled 1MDB funds will yield more payouts into the country’s investment fund. But for the time being, the $322 million recovered is the start of those promised recoveries.

Even Jordan Belfort himself couldn’t help but feel that The Wolf of Wall Street was being made with illicitly-obtained money, and if that’s not a sign of this entire enterprise being worth the effort, then we don’t know what is. Naturally, we’ll be keeping our eyes peeled for any further developments in terms of the 1MDB funds being returned, and should any other updates come through on the matter, we’ll report back with the findings here at CinemaBlend.

The Wolf of Wall Street is currently available on home video and streaming platforms.

Why Godzilla Chose Its Three Main Villains For King Of The Monsters

Why Godzilla Chose Its Three Main Villains For King Of The Monsters

When Godzilla returns to the big screen in Godzilla: King of the Monsters, he'll go up against three new (for this franchise) threats in Mothra, Rodan, and King Ghidorah. While there were any number of other giant monsters that Godzilla could have battled from his decades long film history, King of the Monsters director Michael Dougherty told CinemaBlend during a recent Q&A in Japan that these three were chosen because they were the best known, even among those who don't necessarily know Godzilla. According to Dougherty...

They are the crown jewels of the Toho universe. They are the ones that I feel like most Godzilla fans, and non-Godzilla fans, are the most familiar with. So as much as I love King Caesar and Gigan and those guys, they're a little bit more obscure.

As pragmatic as it is, it certainly makes a lot of sense. The reason that remakes and sequels are so popular is because audiences tend to be attracted to stories and characters that they are already comfortable with. So if you want to get people interested in a Godzilla movie, give them the monsters they love the most.

I certainly fall into the category of somebody who isn't a major Godzilla fan. While I've seen a few the films I'm far from an expert, but I do know the names of Rodan, Mothra, and Ghidorah. This is exactly what the new production is counting on.

While the name recognition was part of the reason that these three were chosen to appear in Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Michael Dougherty says there's another reason they were used. The four characters have a connected history in the past of the Godzilla franchise. The director goes on...

But [these are] also the first ones who kind of teamed up. There's a key point in Godzilla history when Mothra, Rodan and Godzilla put aside their differences and decided to team up against King Ghidorah. It's an amazing scene, by the way. I strongly suggest you go back and watch that movie. But there's, there's literally a scene where Mothra goes to Rodan and Godzilla and says, ‘Hey, this new asshole just showed up and he's going to mess everything up if we don't stop him.’ And the two twin fairies are translating for the monsters, so the humans can understand what the monsters are talking to her about. But they're actually having dialogue. Rodan and Godzilla are like, ‘Fuck the humans! They bully us. Why should we help them?’

The movie in question is 1964's Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. The sequence is an important one in the history of the the Godzilla franchise because, according to Dougherty, it's the first time that the giant monsters are seen as anything other than, well, monsters...

And suddenly, for the first time as a kid, that was where you suddenly saw things from the monsters’ point of view. Where the monsters saw us as the monster. The monsters saw us as the bullies that we're trying to prevent them from having happy lives. But anyway, they were the first giant monster team up, box and I feel like their truly the most iconic of the Toho universe. So it made sense that they should be the first ones to get adapted to the big screen for Hollywood.

Could we see any of the other, more obscure Godzilla antagonists appear in future films? At this point, it's hard to say. The only film in this particular franchise that we know is coming is Godzilla vs. Kong, which, based on the title, is unlikely to include any other giant monsters, though it certainly could. And depending on the outcome of that battle, we could still see more Godzilla films in the future. So if you're a serious fan of Megalon the giant beetle, don't lose hope.

A Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic Movie Is Reportedly In The Works

A Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic Movie Is Reportedly In The Works

There’s been a lot of speculation about what’s next for the Star Wars film series following the conclusion of the Skywalker Saga at the end of the year. Lucasfilm is still officially remaining quiet on the subject, but news has come in that at least one movie, if not an entire trilogy, could be based on Knights of the Old Republic.

Back in April during Star Wars Celebration, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy said Knights of the Old Republic was being developed as “something to look at."At the time, it wasn’t clear if this would be for the movie or TV realm.

Knights of the Old Republic was a video game series that primarily consisted of two Xbox games and an online MMORPG, from 2003-2011. However, because the Expanded Universe was wiped away after Disney purchased the franchise, this period of Star Wars history (thousands of years before the movies) hasn’t been explored in official canon.

Now Buzzfeed has heard from sources that Avatar and Shutter Island screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis is penning a Knights of the Old Republic movie, but that could end up being the first entry of a new trilogy. Assuming this project moves forward, Kalogridis would be the first woman to write a Star Wars movie since Leigh Brackett, as she's credited as a co-writer on The Empire Strikes Back alongside Lawrence Kasdan.

It’s also worth mentioning that it was confirmed earlier this month that the next Star Wars movie to come out after The Rise of Skywalker will be from Game of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. Those two reportedly signed a three-picture deal, although it’s unclear if this translates to a full trilogy or three standalone movies.

Either way, this report about one or more Knights of the Old Republic movies indicates that Laeta Kalogridis is not writing them for David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, and that she was hired in spring 2018 to “develop the property.” No plot details about this Knights of the Old Republic movie were revealed, but considering how far removed it would be from the in-canon Star Wars stories, it would have its own self-contained corner of the franchise to operate in.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this Knights of the Old Republic movie is not connected to what David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working, and let’s also assume that their movies form a trilogy. That means that if Knights of the Old Republic becomes a trilogy, and taking into account the trilogy that The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson is working on, that's three separate trilogies Star Wars fans can look forward to.

Given how deep and intricate the original Knights of the Old Republic mythos was, it’s hard to imagine whatever Laeta Kalogridis is working on being confined to just one movie. That said, it's too soon to tell if it would differ only slightly or significantly from what we got in the video games and the tie-in novels and comic books.

Many Star Wars fans have expressed interest in the Knights of the Old Republic getting big screen representation over the years since the Star Wars film series relaunched. Assuming this new information is legitimate, their wish has been granted, or is at least on that path.

Rest assured, we here at CinemaBlend will keep you updated on any developments concerning a Knights of the Old Republic and other cinematic Star Wars tales. For now, The Rise of Skywalker hits theaters on December 20, and the next three movies after that come out on December 16, 2022; December 20, 2024; and December 18, 2026.

Why Didn't Anyone Go See Missing Link?

Why Didn't Anyone Go See Missing Link?

There's all this talk about Hellboy under-performing in its opening weekend -- the hellish, going up in flames jokes write themselves -- taking third place below both Shazam! and Little. But Missing Link would've been happy with such a finish. Instead, it opened in 9th place, even after playing on more screens than fellow newcomers Hellboy, Little, and After.

Missing Link only made $5.8 million in its opening weekend at the domestic box office. That's the lowest opening yet for Laika. The stop-motion animated adventure -- starring the voice talents of Hugh Jackman, Zach Galifianakis, and Zoe Saldana -- had been tracking for $8 million-$12 million, per THR. That's still not a wow, but this is worse.

So what happened?

Sometimes you can look to reviews. But not this time. Hellboy, After, and Little were all trounced by critics, with 15%, 13%, and 49% respective Rotten Tomatoes scores. Missing Link, on the other hand, has an 89% RT score with a still positive 74% audience score. Missing Link also earned a B+ CinemaScore from moviegoers polled opening night. That's the same score as Little, and higher than After's B and Hellboy's C.

So it wasn't bad reviews, which was probably a factor in turning people away from Hellboy. With Missing Link, I'd wager lack of publicity was a factor. I may not have been the target audience, but I saw very few ads for this movie. Then again, I could say the same for the romantic drama After, which opened above Missing Link with $6.2 million from 2,138 screens. That's a thousand fewer screens than Missing Link, which opened in 3,413 theaters.

Missing Link actually opened in about a hundred more theaters than Hellboy, and nearly a thousand more than Little. It had fewer than Shazam! but the per-screen average for Missing Link was only $1,712, vs. $5,838 for Shazam! this week, $5,811 for second place Little, and $3,638 for Hellboy.

Expect a lot of chatter about the Hellboy reboot and what that could mean, but I'm wondering what this could mean for the studio behind Oscar-nominated films Coraline, ParaNorman, The Boxtrolls, and Kubo and the Two Strings. Maybe the international box office will help.

None of the Laika films have been blockbusters, but worldwide Coraline made $124.6 million in 2009, with $75M of that from the domestic box office. Subsequent films made a bit less money, per Box Office Mojo. Kubo and the Two Strings has the lowest total so far with $69.9 worldwide -- $48M from domestic -- after its opening in 2016. Missing Link looks to be on track to end with less.

Missing Link could be one of those films that picks up as it goes along, but with Avengers: Endgame coming April 26, there isn't much time to build momentum. That thing is going to take over all screens. As we wait to see what happens from here, be sure to come back to CinemaBlend to check out our weekend box office roundup, and bookmark our 2019 movie schedule to keep up with everything headed to theaters this year.

Zoe Saldana Is 'Proud' Of James Gunn And Disney For Guardians Of The Galaxy 3 Rehire

Zoe Saldana Is 'Proud' Of James Gunn And Disney For Guardians Of The Galaxy 3 Rehire

The Guardians of the Galaxy family is back together and Zoe Saldana (Gamora) is thrilled -- she also has no hard feelings against Disney for the James Gunn situation. Not that she would share them publicly if she did, since Disney is now the Avatar star's employer on multiple fronts.

Disney rehired James Gunn as director of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, after the infamous firing back in July. While promoting her new movie Missing Link, Zoe Saldana shared love for Gunn and gratitude to Disney for the final result. Here's what she told ET:

I'm proud of him. I'm happy that he's coming back. I'm so proud of Disney, actually, that all the leaders right now behind that big corporation decided to lead by example, and spreading the word and the message of redemption is important.

James Gunn had been fired as writer/director of the movie back in July, after old offensive tweets resurfaced. Later in the same month, Zoe Saldana and fellow Guardians of the Galaxy cast members posted a statement showing their support for Gunn:

In August, there were reports that Disney would not rehire James Gunn. There was speculation about what would happen next for the film, and if Disney/Marvel would hire someone new. But no. It turns out, no one else was even considered. (Sorry, Taika Waititi.)

About two weeks ago, it was announced that Disney had rehired James Gunn, and that the decision had actually been made months ago. The announcement came after Gunn had already signed on to make DC's The Suicide Squad and that movie is still happening, and Gunn plans to work on it first, before Guardians.

James Gunn thanked everyone for their support after he was rehired, since it came as a pleasant surprise to many fans, as well as MCU stars like Zoe Saldana.

It's not clear when Guardians 3 might hit the big screen at this point, but we have some ideas. Meanwhile, it still needs to be explained how we might see Gamora again -- not to mention Star-Lord, Groot, Drax, and others snapped by Thanos in the Avengers: Infinity War Decimation. Right now, Rocket Raccoon and Nebula seem to be the last Guardians standing. But Avengers: Endgame may change all of that.

Zoe Saldana's new animated movie Missing Link opens in theaters on April 12. Saldana is also part of the multiple Avatar sequels in the works. Avengers: Endgame arrives April 26. Guardians 3, like a wizard in Lord of the Rings, will arrive precisely when it means to. Keep up with everything coming to the big screen with our 2019 movie release date schedule.

Sean Gunn Knew In Advance About James Gunn’s Reinstatement As Guardians 3 Director

Sean Gunn Knew In Advance About James Gunn’s Reinstatement As Guardians 3 Director

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a fairly well-oiled machine at this point, with 21 movies and a decade of filmmaking under its belt. The studio has especially hit its stride with Phase Three, as every single release has been a box office and critical success. But there were a few bumps in the road, especially James Gunn's firing and eventual reinstatement as director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

James Gunn was fired in July after offensive tweets from a decade ago resurfaced, and Disney attempted to distance itself from that narrative. But considering how much of Gunn is infused with the Guardians franchise, it put the future of the threequel in jeopardy. James' brother Sean Gunn plays Kraglin and stands in for Rocket during filming, and therefore discovered the news early. As he tells it:

I was aware before it was announced, a little bit before. I know that they were, they wanted to get the timing right in terms of when the announcement was made. Like I was saying before, in Hollywood, things don't ever happen until they happen, you know? So I was aware that it was probably going to happen, but I was never sure until I actually saw it in the news. But I was pretty sure for, let's just say for a little while.

The public was shocked by James Gunn's return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it doesn't look like Sean Gunn was. He saw the plan in the works for some time before it was official, although he found out about the final decision in the news just like everyone else. I guess it pays to be related to the subject of such a major story.

Sean Gunn's comments to Comic Book show that the deal with James Gunn went back quite some time. It came out of nowhere for the public, but was likely a long process filled with red tape and legalese. It was certainly a bold choice for Marvel to do an about-face, and bring Gunn back into the fold. What's more, the director recently signed on to helm The Suicide Squad for DC, so there was probably extra contracts and scheduling issues as part of the deal.

It stands to reason that Sean Gunn would be privy to more information than most, as its his sibling who is the mind behind the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. On top of hearing about it from his brother, Sean is also an important cast member of the property. While he's not a bonafide member of the member, Kraglin has had a supporting role in the first two movies. What's more, Sean also does the motion capture work for Rocket on set, with Bradley Cooper eventually stepping into the studio to record dialogue, and extensive visual affects bringing the character to life.

Sean Gunn also played Rocket during Avengers: Endgame filming, with the blockbuster arriving April 26th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

One Thing Captain Marvel Is Seriously Missing

One Thing Captain Marvel Is Seriously Missing

This past weekend saw the release of Captain Marvel, and based on the weekend’s box office, a lot of people wanted to see this movie. Professional reviews were complimentary, if not glowing, and overall I really enjoyed it. However, as I walked out of the theater last week, I must admit I felt like there was one thing missing from Captain Marvel. The music. Don’t get me wrong, Captain Marvel had music. It had good music, but the music that you remember coming out of the theater is the 1990s pop soundtrack, not the score that was composed for the film. Captain Marvel had some epic moments, but it was short on an epic theme.

A lot of comparison has been made between Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman. Both are recent solo superhero movies starring female leads. However, when I compare my emotional impressions of these characters to each other, Wonder Woman comes out on top quite easily. The reason, I think, is that when I think of Wonder Woman, I think of Hans Zimmer’s powerful theme that he created in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. You know what I mean. It's the one moment in the film that everyone agrees was great.

That music simply isn’t there when I think of Captain Marvel, and the character suffers because of it.

To be fair, the problem of a less than memorable score is not exclusive to Captain Marvel. It’s a problem the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe suffers from. The music isn’t bad and nothing is wrong with it, but there’s nothing quite like a memorable character theme, and few Marvel movies have them. Captain Marvel does have a theme, and it’s actually pretty decent, but I had to play the soundtrack on Spotify to hear it. I couldn’t tell you when in the movie it gets played. I don't recall hearing it at all, and that's part of the problem.

If you listen to Pinar Toprak's Captain Marvel score in its entirety, you'll hear that it's actually really good. The problem is the way it's mixed into the film. It's designed to fall into the background. It's designed to have you not notice it. It makes one wonder why the studio bothers to score so much of the movie if they don't want you to hear the music.

Marvel hasn't seemed as if it wanted us to care about the music for years. If the studio did, the music would be more consistent across films. Iron Man has three different themes in three different solo films, more if you count songs by AC/DC. Captain America has an actually pretty great theme in The First Avenger, which is then barely used in The Winter Soldier and utterly forgotten after that. Instead, Cap has a new theme in that movie, one you still never hear again. While Marvel has done a stellar job of making sure that its films have continuity of story, there is none in the music.

Some of this may be because nearly every Marvel movie is handled by a different composer, and clearly those composers want to make their own music, but it's not like the Harry Potter films forgot the theme John Williams wrote after he stopped scoring the movies.

Superhero themes can be some of the best pieces of music in modern films. John Williams’ theme for Superman and Danny Elfman’s Batman theme are classics. One Marvel theme, the Avengers theme, is a key part of the single most memorable moment in all of the MCU.

That moment would not have been nearly so memorable without that piece of music. It’s one of the few pieces of music that has been carried over from one film to another. It even shows up in Captain Marvel. It was at that point when I heard it that I realized that the movie had no noticeable theme for the main character the movie was actually about.

Of the 20+ movies and 10 + years that make up the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there are only a few themes worthy of note. If you look back at Avengers: Infinity War, a movie that contains basically every character who has ever appeared in the MCU, the only pieces of music you might recognize are the Avengers theme, which gets used twice, and the Wakanda theme from Black Panther.

And if we're being honest, one of those uses is totally wrong. The second time we hear the Avengers theme in Infinity War is when Thor, Groot, and Rocket arrive during the battle of Wakanda and help turn the tide. Only one of those characters is an actual Avenger. That moment would have been the perfect place for Thor's theme, an epic piece of music that told you the Asgardian was once again ready to fight with a new weapon by his side.

The problem is, if that piece of music had played, nobody would have recognized it because nobody can hum Thor's theme. Does Thor even have a theme? He has two actually. The movie needed a piece of music that conveyed to the audience all of that same information, and the Avengers theme is the only piece of music the audience knows well enough to be able to do that.

In the case of Captain Marvel, there is at least something of a reason why the score was downplayed. The focus, musically speaking, was on the '90s era music that made up the bulk of the soundtrack. The movie wants you to hear No Doubt more than it does the orchestral themes.

Still, we don't have to only pick one. The Guardians of the Galaxy movies make their '70s pop soundtrack not simply part of the movie, but part of the plot, and that didn't stop James Gunn and Tyler Bates from giving the team a solid theme that was used well in both Guardians of the Galaxy movies.

I loved almost everything about Captain Marvel. Everything on the screen was great, and yet, somehow I found something was lacking. What was missing was what I didn't hear. I hope that when Captain Marvel returns in Avengers: Endgame, her theme will be given some room to breathe. I hope some attention is given to it, because it will only make the character stronger.

Captain Marvel's Stan Lee Tribute Is Perfect

Captain Marvel's Stan Lee Tribute Is Perfect

The following contains minor spoilers for Captain Marvel**.**

When we lost Stan Lee at the end of last year, Marvel fans were in shock. when it wasn't necessarily an unexpected turn of events, the man who helped bring so many of our favorite heroes to life was loved by many who never met him that everybody felt it. Since then, we've seen tributes to Lee included in Once Upon a Deadpool and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, but the one included in this week's Captain Marvel may be the best of them all. It doesn't wait until the credits roll where some might not see it. It drops it right into the opening seconds of the movie, by making Stan Lee the focal point of the Marvel Studios logo.

If you've seen any Marvel movie you're familiar with the Marvel Studios logo that plays either at the very beginning of every film, or after a short cold open. The current version of the logo is a collage of brief clips of various MCU films showing off all our favorite heroes in action. We see Captain America and Iron Man and Black Widow and the Hulk all looking awesome while the camera pulls back to reveal the Marvel Studios logo.

The one in front of Captain Marvel, however, is slightly different. It functions exactly the same way, only instead of seeing our favorite Marvel heroes, we get clips of Stan Lee in all of his various MCU cameos that he's made over the years. We don't see any other characters. No Iron Man. No Thor. It's just Stan. All Stan. As the logo fades away a text briefly flashes on the screen to say thank you to Stan Lee, then our movie gets underway.

It's an incredibly lovely way to say goodbye, one that touched the entire audience at my screening. The audience erupted in cheers and applause as soon as everybody realized what we were seeing. It was glorious. There may have been tears. From other people, I mean.

Of course, that wasn't the only time we saw Stan Lee in Captain Marvel's run time. Lee filmed his requisite cameo for the film before he died. It comes fairly early in the film. Vers (Brie Larson) has chased a Skrull onto a city bus and she's trying to figure out which of the humans on the bus is now the hiding Skrull. One of the people on the bus is Stan Lee.

Interestingly, unlike most of Stan's cameos, where he's playing a random nameless character, in this cameo he's actually playing Stan Lee. We see Stan on the bus reading a movie script and trying to learn his lines. Specifically, he's reading the script to Kevin Smith's 1995 comedy Mallrats. Yes, Stan Lee's cameo makes reference to another Stan Lee cameo.

We understand that Stan Lee filmed his cameo for Avengers: Endgame as well, so we'll likely see him again at least one more time. As it's only a couple months from now, maybe Stan Lee will be in the Marvel logo again then. It will be fitting to be sure Stan Lee gets a proper thank you during the film the entire MCU has being building towards. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing that again.

Katherine Langford’s Cut Avengers: Endgame Role Would Have Been Very Cool

Katherine Langford’s Cut Avengers: Endgame Role Would Have Been Very Cool

We've officially reached a point where spoilers regarding Avengers: Endgame are allowed, and that means that the filmmakers themselves are now talking openly about some of the decisions that led to what we saw in the epic Marvel movie. They're also talking about decisions that led to things that ended up not making it into the movie at all.

Several months ago it was reported that 13 Reasons Why and Love, Simon star Katherine Langford had been cast in an undisclosed role for the recent film. However, if you've seen the movie, you know the actress never actually appears in the final film. While the scene was cut, it seems the plans for Langford were significant, as she was hired to play an older version of Tony Stark's daughter, Morgan Stark. According to Joe Russo...

There was an idea that we had that Tony was going to go into the metaphysical way station that Thanos goes in when he snapped his fingers. And that there was going to be a future version of his daughter in that way station.

When Thanos commits universal genocide at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, we see him standing in some sort of otherworldly place where he is confronted by a child version of Gamora. She asks him what it has cost for Thanos to finally achieve his objective.

It seems the plan was to have a similar scene in Avengers: Endgame where Tony Stark has a similar vision upon using the Infinity Stones. Instead of seeing his younger daughter, he sees a version of her grown up, where Morgan tells him that it's ok that he's gone. This gives Tony Stark peace and allows him to go.

The Russos confirm to the Happy Sad Confused Podcast that the scene was shot, but in showing it to test audiences, they found that the scene was actually quite confusing, and so they took it out. Anthony Russo explains part of why it didn't work.

What we realized about it was we didn't have, we didn't feel an emotional association with the adult version of his daughter so it wasn't ringing to us, resonating with us on an emotional level, which is why we moved away from it.

Instead, Pepper Potts is sitting by Tony as he fades away, and tells him that she and Morgan will be ok. Allowing Tony to finally rest.

Since the scene was shot, there's the possibility we might end up seeing as part of extras on the eventual Blu-ray release for Avengers: Endgame. While the scene might not have worked in the final cut, that doesn't mean it's not a cool scene on its own.

Of course, this information does open up a couple of questions we have to ask. If using all of the Infinity Stones sends you to some sort of cosmic way station, what did Hulk see when he was there?

Secondly, if the Marvel Cinematic Universe ever decides to take a time jump forward and show us an older Morgan Stark, could they call Katherine Langford again? Assuming Morgan got her parents' brains, she could be an important character in the future of the MCU.

The Emotional Reason Rocketman Should Be Seen In A Theater, According To Taron Egerton

The Emotional Reason Rocketman Should Be Seen In A Theater, According To Taron Egerton

Classic rock icons are becoming staples at our local movie theaters. Queen powered last year’s Bohemian Rhapsody, which attracted huge crowds (and got the Academy’s attention). And this year, movies focused on Bruce Springsteen (Blinded By The Light) and The Beatles (Yesterday) will be making a play for audience ticket dollars.

Before those drama/comedies hit, though, Paramount wants people to flock to the movies to see Rocketman, Dexter Fletcher’s movie-musical that’s inspired by the life and times of the legendary Elton John. The song-and-dance blockbuster uses the hazy memories of John’s rock escapades to craft a winning narrative. And when CinemaBlend recently sat down with Rocketman lead Taron Egerton, who plays John, we landed on the emotional reason why he thinks this movie deserves the bog screen treatment. He told us:

Elton’s music is something we all share. I would go so far as to say as a species now. We are all united over the fact that everyone knows – and if they have any taste at all – loves his music. And so, I think the shared experience of going to see it in the cinema… now look, obviously, I’m here selling my movie as well. But I really believe this. I think going to see it in the cinema with a whole group of other people will heighten your emotional reaction to it. And aside from that, just the sound. It needs to be blasted at you.

There’s something to be said about these big-screen treatments of the classic-rock icons of decades gone by. You’ll never be able to see Queen in concert again. So paying for a movie ticket to see a faithful recreation of the band’s Live Aid set becomes the next best thing.

The same goes for Rocketman. With Elton John tickets currently tracking north of $300 for his farewell concert, there’s a very good chance that fans reading this now won’t be able to make it to a local concert. And while Rocketman doesn’t necessarily replace the feeling of seeing Sir Elton on stage, it does bathe you in the power and solemnity of his songs, while also giving fantastic insight into the creative collaboration between John (Taron Egerton) and Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell).

Directed by Dexter Fletcher, Rocketman is told from the perspective of Elton John while he’s in rehab. It starts during his youth, and continues through his hall-of-fame career. And while we agree with Taron Egerton that his quotes make it sound like he is selling his movie, we can ALSO vouch for the fact that the costumes, the sets and the musical arrangements found in Rocketman absolutely demand that you go see this full-blown musical on the biggest screen possible.

Here’s Taron Egerton talking Rocketman with us:

And you will be able to see for yourself once the movie musical bops into nearby theaters on Thursday night. Get your tickets now, if you haven’t yet.

5 Ways Tom Holland's Spider-Man Is Different From His Predecessors

5 Ways Tom Holland's Spider-Man Is Different From His Predecessors

Ever since his fun, memorable introduction — and the character's third (at least) iteration on the big screen — in 2016's Captain America: Civil War, Tom Holland's enjoyable and heart-tugging performance as Spider-Man has renewed public interest in the amazing character and provided audiences with a variation of the character that's winningly unique while also staying true to several of the bedrocks of the character's foundation. By that, what we mean is, this Spider-Man is still the same old Spider-Man, but he's also noticeably different in several ways too.

Through this new version of the character, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has allowed itself the opportunity to change some key details about Spider-Man and provide audiences with a take on the character that's different enough to keep the constantly-seen character feel fresh and vibrant. Without further ado, let's break down the ways that Tom Holland's Spider-Man is different from the previous Spider-Man performances we've seen before him. Of course, we should expect to have a few more examples when Spider-Man: Far From Home swings its way into theaters in just a few months.

Spoilers for a lot of Spider-Man and Marvel movies follow!

He's Younger, And More Boyish/Jubilant, Than Other Spider-Men

While the character of Spider-Man has almost always been in high school or at least in his early-to-mid twenties, with his origin story happening around the time he turns 15, the movies have been flexible — to say the least — when it comes to Spider-Man's age. In Sam Raimi's flicks, the character is believed to be around 17-18 years old, to accommodate for actor Tobey Maguire's 26 years of age when he made that original movie.

Additionally, while it's never clear exactly how old Peter Parker is in The Amazing Spider-Man movies, he's believed to be around the same age, and the age disparity is even starker. Actor Andrew Garfield was 28 when he played the titular web slinger. These actors would be stretching it playing college students — let alone high schoolers. Yet, it wasn't until Tom Holland that we got an actor closer to his teens signed on to play the youthful hero.

While Tom Holland is currently in his early twenties, the actor signed on to the role when he was 19, making it at least a little more believable that he would be 15-18 years in the movies. It also helps that Holland has an earnestly boyish face and captures the youthful enthusiasm vital for this version of the part. The actor gives the role a fun jubilance that was only captured temporarily in the other takes in the past, which makes his supporting appearances in the Avengers movies and Captain America: Civil War all the more memorable, while giving his own movies a goofiness and lightheartedness that separates them from the slightly more serious-minded Marvel movies that came out —away from Thor: Ragnarok —at the time.

The Stories Are Set In Cooler Locations Than Other Spider-Man Movies

At his heart, Tom Holland's Peter Parker is still New York City's friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. But in the character's newfangled MCU take, Spidey doesn't always find himself staying squarely in the Big Apple. When we're introduced to this version of the character in Civil War, it doesn't take long before Tony Stark ships him off to Berlin to meet up with the other Avengers in the midst of internal battle. And in Spider-Man: Homecoming, his daring super-skills are put to great use when a field trip to Washington D.C. goes awry. Hell, in Avengers: Infinity War, Spider-Man even found himself in space.

That tradition will continue with this summer's sequel, Spider-Man: Far From Home, which will find the character leaving New York City again, as the title doth suggest, in order to go to Europe for a summer vacation with his friend. Sure enough, there will be dangers that arrive in this destination. Different place, same troubles, right? No matter where Spider-Man may be, there are dangerous foes lurking around. And in this variation of the popular web-slinger, Spider-Man gets around.

Tom Holland Is More VulnerableThan Previous Spider-Men

As we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. Peter Parker was taught this lesson by his late mentor figure, Uncle Ben, and it has been his guiding principle throughout every iteration of the character to date. At least, until Tom Holland's version. Truth be told, it's unclear if Uncle Ben is even in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Unless I'm forgetting something, he hasn't been mentioned or brought up, not even in passing, in any MCU film to date, and it's possible that he doesn't play a part in this variation of the character. With that, as seen in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Spider-Man can often be a little more silly and carefree with his superpowers, tending to be a pretty silly person the way most teenagers can often be goofy individuals. With that said, though, Tony Stark has proven himself to be the primary mentor/father figure for Peter Parker/Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

While it's perhaps a bit of a leap to assume that he is the intended Uncle Ben of this version, it's probably not a coincidence that he passed away so shortly after giving Spider-Man his sense of responsibility and moral obligations (in addition to a bunch of cool new Spider-Men suits). With that in mind, Spider-Man's youth and lack of responsibility in his first film provided a more vulnerable version on the character than we've seen to date. To be clear, that's not to say that he doesn't have his own sense of obligations and desire to do good. It just comes off a bit differently than the rest.

He's A Little Jokier Than Other Spider-Men (Or More Jokey Than Peter Parker)

Spider-Man is always quick to throw a joke. Part of the reason why he gets under the skin of his various nemesis is because he's making fun of them while he's taking them down. It's part of Spider-Man's charm, and one thing that has been seen more readily in the new versions of Spider-Man is the character's open willingness to throw jokes around while he's fighting bad guys. Sure enough, Tom Holland's Spider-Man is always quick with a joke.

But more than that, Spider-Man's sense of humor in Spider-Man: Homecoming and his various appearances in The Avengers movies can notably be different than his persona as Peter Parker. While he isn't the best at keeping his identity a secret, his version of Spider-Man is a little cockier and bolder, and therefore more joke-friendly, when he's wearing the Spider-Man suit opposed to his normal, everyday demeanor, which tends to be a lot more shy and reserved.

Compare that to Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man, where his sense of humor isn't that much of a departure from the one he gave Peter Parker, and you see how Tom Holland's Peter Parker is a little better at maneuvering between his public persona and the one he adopts with the mask.

He's A Little More Relaxed About His Secret Identity (Kinda, Sorta)

If there's one thing that people often associate with superheroes, it's their inherent need to keep their secret identity, you know, secretive. With the sole exception of Tony Stark, who wasn't afraid to boast that he was Iron Man at the end of his first movie, superheroes like Batman and Superman have been notorious about keeping their real identity unknown by the public-at-large. Oftentimes, particularly with Batman and Spider-Man, the identity of anyone being Spider-Man makes them a bigger symbol of hope and justice. Literally anyone could be Spider-Man; the mystery keeps the spirit alive.

With this new version of Spider-Man, however, much like Tom Holland himself, Peter Parker has a hard time keeping secrets — particularly about his secret identity — from key people in everyday life. For instance, it didn't take long for Tony Stark to figure out who Spider-Man is in Captain America: Civil War. Similarly, in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Peter Parker was a little too clumsy about keeping his super persona a secret, ultimately spilling the beans — unintentionally— to his best friend, Ned, and his primary guardian and caregiver, Aunt May.

In Avengers: Infinity War, Peter Parker revealed his identity to Doctor Strange only moments after he met the guy. There is a theory — perhaps we should call it a plain ole' rumor — that Spider-Man: Far From Home will end with Peter Parker revealing his identity to the world, much like his late mentor Tony Stark did at the end of Iron Man. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to believe, to be perfectly blunt, based on what we already know about Tom Holland's Spider-Man.

These are only a few examples we can give explaining how Tom Holland separates his version of Spider-Man/Peter Parker from the other actors and performances before him. But we're sure there are other examples of how this Spider-Man is different from the rest, and we'd love to hear them. Be sure to let us know in the comment section below what makes Holland's version of Spider-Man different to you. We're sure you have a few examples of your own you can give and we look forward to hearing them from you.

Meanwhile, for more updates on Spider-Man and other MCU-related news bits, you can always be sure to check back with us right here at CinemaBlend for the latest news, developments and a whole lot more.

That James Wan Produced Mortal Kombat Movie Is Really Happening

That James Wan Produced Mortal Kombat Movie Is Really Happening

Not too long ago, a new Mortal Kombat reboot was announced that would bring the franchise into theaters once again. As New Line Cinema is still the force of studio nature that will be making the film, and James Wan is producing the film with his steady hands of action and horror, fans have undoubtedly been excited for things to get going on the film’s production.

But even with the initial whisperings surrounding the project, the consensus was it wasn’t going to happen for a while. Well, the wait is closer to being over, as Mortal Kombat just rang the bell on pre-production, putting the film in the process of making its move for big screen glory.

The project’s status update came from an announcement made by several South Australian government officials, including premier Steven Marshall. Mortal Kombat is a huge prospect for the region’s film industry, and one that producer James Wan is happy to see being brought to life in the country where he made his last huge hit, Aquaman.

What’s even more interesting about this new Mortal Kombat movie is its choice in directing talent. Making his feature film debut, and still signed on after almost two years of development hell, is Australian director Simon McQuoid, who up until now has been known for his commercial work. However, looking at his resume in that field, one can see how and why he got the gig.

Having directed commercials for such franchises as Halo and Call of Duty, as well as ads for Playstation and Duracell, McQuoid has shown a slick visual flare that just happens to pair well with geek friendly properties. Especially when that Duracell ad just happened to be one that saw Star Wars, and the power of imagination, in the middle of the action.

With Simon McQuoid’s resume boasting such material, it cannot be stated enough that Mortal Kombat is a good fit for the man’s talents. What's also interesting is that thanks to the details that Variety has reported on the project, it sounds like the film will be the largest to ever shoot in South Australia when it finally kicks into high gear.

Unfortunately, the good news of Mortal Kombat’s pre-production start within the month comes with some uncertainty about what the film’s story will cover. Previously, there were two different concepts being talked about: one in which a brand new character would be created for the story to follow, and one in which we’d see the return of Christopher Lambert’s Raiden, as well as some dimensional portal hopping. Seeing as the former draft has been searching for a 14-year-old to play the thunder god of the Mortal Kombat realm, it doesn’t seem likely these two concepts will be folded together.

Still, in a world where Pokemon has drawn successfully from the nostalgia well, Mortal Kombat seems primed to deliver a very similar result. And if the world building holds up as well as Pokemon: Detective Pikachu's did, there's no telling where the world of this gruesome action spectacle might go with the public.

While Mortal Kombat may not have a release date to speak of, that doesn’t mean the theaters are empty. Head over to our 2019 release schedule, and see what’s waiting for your hard earned movie money today!

How Much Money Bohemian Rhapsody Made For Freddie Mercury’s Family

How Much Money Bohemian Rhapsody Made For Freddie Mercury’s Family

It’s no secret that Bohemian Rhapsody was one of the most triumphant champions of this past award season, especially at the box office, where the Queen biopic made about $900 million worldwide. That’s a lot of money going around that the late Freddie Mercury may not get to bask in, but his family will get to share a bit of the film’s success with their own cut of earnings.

When the Queen frontman passed in 1991, he left 50% of his future earnings and London mansion from Queen to Mary Austin, the “love of his life” and longtime friend. The other 50% was divided among his parents (who have since passed) and sister Kashmira Bulsara. According to Sunday Express, this puts Austin’s earnings for Bohemian Rhapsody at least at $60 million and his sister’s at $25 million. The remaining members of Queen may make $90 million each thanks to the phenomenon the movie about their band’s life achieved.

Mary Austin, played by Lucy Boynton, had a significant role in Bohemian Rhapsody as it tracked their longtime friendship that began as a love story that shifted as Freddie started to embrace his sexuality. Though the their romance had a falling out, Austin looked to be a constant friend in the frontman’s life and was even present in Bohemian Rhapsody’s epic conclusion that recreated their iconic Live Aid performance.

The role of Freddie’s sister in Bohemian Rhapsody was small, as the family moments centered on his complicated relationship with his father. Kashmira did get a chance to witness Rami Malek in action as her brother. Here’s what the initial exchange played out from the words of Malek:

She got to see me as young Freddy with long hair and, of course, the teeth, makeup---the whole kind of 1970s early glam rock look. She laughed. As you can imagine it was an incredibly kind of bizarre, alien moment for her... She did [cry] later on. On a serious note, she wrote me the most moving email. It was very powerful. To get that vote of appreciate from the people closest to them was everything to me.

While it was a strange experience for Kashmira at first, she seemed to have embraced Malek as Freddie. Here’s what Freddie’s sister said thought about Bohemian Rhapsody:

I was happy to find out they were going to make the movie. And, although it was very emotional for me, I thought it was tastefully done.

Oh… and she gets a sweet Bohemian Rhapsody check too! It is nice to see some of the key players in Freddie Mercury’s life are getting to share in the success of the telling of his life, which had a mix of highs and lows. It must have been an interesting experience to watch some events of their own life play out on the big screen and it certainly seemed like it was an emotional journey to watch it come to life and be so warmly received.

Aladdin’s Naomi Scott Is Now Starting To Realize The Impact Of Being A Disney Princess

Aladdin’s Naomi Scott Is Now Starting To Realize The Impact Of Being A Disney Princess

Being a Disney Princess is a very big deal. There are, of course, many iconic characters that have been created by the filmmakers at Walt Disney Animation, but the Disney Princesses have an important legacy of their own, and they’ve now been making a significant pop culture impact for decades. It’s a particular history of which now actress Naomi Scott has become a part – starring as Princess Jasmine in Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin – and it’s something that only recently she has started to fully wrap her head around.

I had the opportunity to sit down with the actress at the Los Angeles press day for Aladdin this past weekend, and one topic of conversation that came up during the interview was the simple significance of being the newest live-action Disney Princess. You can check out this part of our chat by clicking play on the video below:

Naomi Scott is now the fourth actress to bring one of the Disney Princesses into the live-action realm – following Lily James (who starred as the titular character in Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella), Emma Watson (who played Belle in Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast), and Elle Falling (who brought Aurora to life in Robert Stromberg’s Maleficent). Sadly she has not yet had the opportunity to meet her colleagues in this field – something she is very excited to eventually do – but while she waits for that to happen she is doing just fine with all the love she’s been getting from fans since Aladdin started screening.

The Disney Princesses have long been making an impact because of the strength of their personality and character, which has been inspirational for young girls and boys for years. Obviously playing a live-action version of one of these icons is a big responsibility as a result, but it’s something that Naomi Scott is ready to embrace. Discussing her realization of the roles importance and significance, the actress explained,

I'm realizing more and more and more 'Wow' - just the impact that these characters had on my generation growing up. The opportunity to potentially inspire the next generation is just mind-blowing. I think I felt it when we were in Iman. We went to a screening and literally just the joy... there was a bunch of kids, and they'd just seen the movie and all these little girls just attacked me. And I was just like, 'Yes, give me the love! Gimme the love!' But that was the moment that I was like, 'Wow.' I now feel like, you know, 'Her.' So that was pretty incredible.

Jasmine is one of 12 characters who are considered part of the official Disney Princess group – with the others being the aforementioned Cinderella, Belle and Aurora, as well as Snow White (from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs), Ariel (from The Little Mermaid), Pocahontas (from Pocahantas), Mulan (from Mulan), Tiana (from The Princess And The Frog), Rapunzel (from Tangled), Merida (from Brave), and Moana (from Moana). As of right now the live-action realm has only seen a third of the ensemble brought to life, but that number is growing quickly. Yifei Liu will be playing Mulan in the Niki Caro-directed remake that is scheduled to be released next year, and while casting has not yet been completed, a new version of The Little Mermaid is currently in the works.

One can imagine that Disney will eventually make some kind of effort to bring all of the live-action princesses together – either on the big screen, or just for an event – so we’ll just have to be patient and wait for it to happen.

For now, fans will be able to see Naomi Scott’s turn as Princess Jasmine in Aladdin this weekend, as the film will be launching into theaters nationwide. Go check it out, and be on the lookout for more of my interviews with the new movie’s cast and filmmakers here on CinemaBlend.

Space Jam 2 Just Added A Star Trek: Discovery Star

Space Jam 2 Just Added A Star Trek: Discovery Star

In the last 10 years, Sonequa Martin-Green has done a fantastic job making a name for herself on the small screen. Her run started with a multi-episode run on Army Wives, but in the years since has played significant roles on The Good Wife, NYC 22, Once Upon A Time, The Walking Dead, and most recently Star Trek Discovery. She has done some film work as well, but nothing that compares to the project for which she is now signing up: Space Jam 2.

After years of being stuck in development, the LeBron James-starring sequel finally started turning its gears earlier this year, and now Variety is reporting that Sonequa Martin-Green is now in negotiations for a key role. Specifically, the actress will be playing James’ wife in the movie - though it's not entirely clear how that will rope her into the larger plot... mostly because we don't really know much about the larger plot. It's also worth noting that the NBA star is married in real life to his high school sweetheart Savannah James, but it's unclear if Martin-Green will be playing her, or an entirely original character.

When it comes to the plot of the movie, we know that Looney Tunes characters will be teaming up with basketball players again, but everything beyond that is basically a mystery. A teaser poster has revealed that the live-action/animated hybrid blockbuster will headline both Bugs and Lola Bunny - the latter having been first introduced in the 1996 original.

Production on Space Jam 2 is scheduled to start up this summer, with Terence Nance attached to make the movie as his second feature after the 2012 animated indie An Oversimplification of Her Beauty. More recently Nance has also been making a name for himself on television, as he is the creator of the HBO series Random Acts of Flyness. In addition to LeBron James and his partner Maverick Carter producing through their SpringHill Entertainment label, Ryan Coogler is also backing the film.

Although cameras will be rolling on Space Jam 2 in just a couple months, those excited to see it will have to exercise a bit of patience. As is the case with all animated material, Warner Bros. is going to need a little time to get the film done even after all of the live-action material is shot and cut together. Because of this, the anticipated follow-up won't be heading to theaters until July 16, 2021.

That being said, we're surely going to be getting a lot more details about the project in the coming weeks and months, as there are going to presumably be a lot more people in this film beyond just LeBron James and Sonequa Martin-Green. We'll keep you updated with all of the latest casting news from Space Jam 2, and, as always, you can check out our 2019 Movie Release Calendar to see all of the movies that actually will be hitting screens near you soon.

Batman May Kill, But That Doesn’t Mean It Should Be The Norm

Batman May Kill, But That Doesn’t Mean It Should Be The Norm

While it’s arguably the most polarizing entry in the DC Extended Universe, three years after its release, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is still a popular topic of conversation in the comic book movie world, and its director, Zack Snyder, has helped with that. Just last month, Snyder screened Batman v Superman’s Ultimate Edition alongside his director’s cuts of Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen as the capper to a 3-day event, and during one of the Q&A sessions, Snyder hit back against those who criticized his choice to have Ben Affleck’s Batman kill, saying that those who have a problem with that should “wake the fuck up.” And he is right, Batman has killed people various times over the decades, but that fact doesn’t mean that it is or should be his normal course of action. Far from it, Gotham City’s Dark Knight is a more interesting character when he chooses not to kill, no matter what.

During Batman’s earliest comic book appearances, when he was written like the pulp characters popular at the time rather than a standard superhero, Batman had no issue dispensing lethal measures against the criminals he fought, like when he snapped a man’s neck while swinging on a rope. Starting in the 1940s, though, he adopted a no-kill policy, which was presumably done to make him more appropriate for younger readers. That no killing rule has stuck for the most part, though there are instances when Batman has taken a life, both in the main DC universe and in alternate continuity stories (not in The Dark Knight Returns, contrary to what some believe).

For the sake of this piece, let’s only focus on Batman’s movie appearances. Michael Keaton’s Batman had no issue with killing foes, as evidenced by when he blew up Ace Chemicals while people were still in it in Batman and when he attached a ticking bomb to a Red Triangle Gang member in Batman Returns. Val Kilmer and George Clooney’s respective Batmans had a slightly softer method with dealing with Gotham City’s superstitious and cowardly lot, but it wasn’t until Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy rolled around that a cinematic Batman declared that he wouldn’t kill. However, that stance is muddied when considering that he let Ra’s al Ghul fall to his death in Batman Begins and drove straight into a trash truck in The Dark Knight that almost certainly crushed the Joker henchman driving it. By the time we get to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne, who has become more weary and cynical, has no issue with killing criminals, whether it’s by breaking their necks in a brawl or gunning them down in the Batmobile.

So yes, when it comes to movies, Batman has left a fair amount of bodies in his wake, but thanks to the Dark Knight trilogy, as well as various comic books, TV shows and direct-to-video movies, Batman is usually depicted as unwilling to kill criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes are. Why is this? The explanation changes depending on who’s writing the character, but my favorite explanation comes from the 2010 animated movie Batman: Under the Red Hood, adapted from the 2006 comic book story arc “Under the Hood.” When Jason Todd, who’s holding The Joker at gunpoint, questions if Batman’s moral code doesn’t allow for him to kill his arch-nemesis or if it would be too hard for him to cross that line, Batman responds:

No! God Almighty, no! It'd be too damned easy. All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by when I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others and then... end him… But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place, I'll never come back.

Jason Todd then points out that he’s not asking Batman to kill someone like Penguin, Scarecrow or Two-Face, only The Joker, but Batman refuses. No matter how much he hates Joker, no matter how many people the cackling crook has murdered, Batman just can’t cross that line. And frankly, Batman following that rule makes him a more compelling character because it’s an understandable flaw in his approach to fighting crime.

Despite having no superpowers, Batman is usually considered to be one of the most formidable heroes in the DC universe. Give him enough prep time, and he can win just about any battle, and he’s fought his way out of so many fantastical conflicts that he’s earned the nickname Bat-God among fans. But when you boil things down to basics, Batman is just a ‘regular’ man waging a war against Gotham City’s criminal underworld, sometimes alone, sometimes with partners. With Gotham City so infested with evil, Bruce Wayne’s life would be a lot easier if he didn’t bother throwing villains in Blackgate Prison or Arkham Asylum, and instead just eliminated them right off the bat (pun slightly intended), but he can’t. He’s incapable of doing that, for better or worse, adding extra drama to an already incredibly dramatic character.

Having watched his parents being murdered down in Crime Alley, Batman can’t bring himself to take the life of another. To do so would make him an executioner, and as much as he embraces darkness, Bruce won’t delve that deep into the shadows. He’s incapable of doing so, even if he comes close to at times (like when he threatened to kill Joker in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker for turning Tim Drake into a mini-Clown Prince of Crime). It’s the same reason why he won’t use a gun; if he did that, he would become too much like the man who irreparably damaged his life and the evildoers he’s dedicated his life to thwarting, and he’s not willing to fall that far, even if it makes his ‘job’ significantly harder. Zack Snyder tossed all that out for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and while that decision makes sense if you’re looking at Batman fighting crime through a more practical lens, it conflicts with the spirit of the character that has developed over the years.

I’m not saying that all superheroes shouldn’t kill; The Punisher wouldn’t be who he is if he didn’t snuff out criminals, and it’s hard to believe that heroes like Captain America and Wonder Woman who have been in wars didn’t take any lives. I even understand Superman having to kill in rare instances, such as when he snapped General Zod’s neck in Man of Steel, another controversial DCEU decision. For Batman, though, killing flies in the face of his moral code. Sure there might be instances where he’s not able to save everyone, but to the best of his ability, he won’t have anyone die at his hands. Besides, if Batman went on a killing spree around Gotham City, that would destroy the already fragile relationship he has with Commissioner James Gordon and the Gotham City Police Department, and that would definitely be problematic for his mission.

Certainly one of the reasons superheroes have endured for so long is because different writers and artist have been able to interpret these characters differently, and change and development is integral to longevity. That said, there’s no denying that most characters have core traits and elements that need to be retained in traditional depictions, and while it’s up for debate whether Batman not killing is one of those things, the fact of the matter is that more often than not you’ll see him exercise restraint rather than execute his foes, even if the movies haven’t always followed this rule. It’s not necessarily the most realistic and logical approach to fighting crime, but hey, there’s a lot about Batman that doesn’t translate for real life, and yet we nonetheless still enjoy him 80 years after his introduction.

Let us know where you fall on the Batman kill debate in the comments below. We’ll see how Matt Reeves handles the character when The Batman is released on June 25, 2021.