*It would appear that, much in the same way I am the only one I know who calls it “A New Hope,” I am the only one who refers to this film as “Superman The Movie.” I will not stop doing so. Just a heads up.

I’m breaking form by adding the question mark up there, but I can hardly call this a review. Spoiler – I love this movie. For 33 years I’ve held that this is the greatest comic book movie ever made, and up until “The Avengers,” nothing had come close (but truth be told, “Iron Man 3” came even closer). Yes, the movie does have a few flaws, but none of them so fatal that they can ruin a truly magical experience for me. I saw this movie for the first time in – I’m guessing – 1980, and I’ve held a special place for it in my heart ever since.

I feel I should probably mention here… I don’t read Superman comics. Well, I read the ones written by Grant Morrison or called “Red Son,” and that’s about it. I don’t know why, but his printed stories never really grabbed me like the other I’ve read through the ages. I think, and I freely admit that this is my own misgiving, it’s because Superman always seemed to me the black and white superhero. The “calm yo’ tits Batman because JUSTICE” superhero. And that was never something that interested me.

But the Superman of film, as he was introduced in 1977, now that was an archetype with a soul. An ego with an id. Superman is everything we want to be, but he’s also everything we are – mostly awkward and lonely. And then he finds his soul mate, and then she rejects his real self and then she dies and then – ah, I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m not going to provide a recap, because seriously.

For the most part, “Superman The Movie” stands the tests of time. Most of the effects hold up, but some notable exceptions include Clark racing the train and the birth of the Fortress of Solitude. The team tried a little too hard, methinks. Kal-El’s womb-like spacecraft pushed it a little too, if I’m going to be honest. The movie succeeds best when it uses subtle effect and tricksy camera work, a la Clark’s dust trail competing with the trail left by his car full of friends. The scenes of the helicopter dangling from the Daily Planet building are so well done and a testament to the beauty of practical effects, and the camera work there is a stark homage to the art of a well designed comic panel.

And while we’re on the subject of cinematography and comic panels… Can we please talk about how this was NOT nominated for any cinematography awards? Jesus. The Kansas landscape is just as an important part of the film as Krypton or Metropolis, and was shot so gloriously that Smallville might as well be Heaven. If you’ve ever driven through Kansas, you know that in reality it can be a bit monotonous, but you’d never know that based on Geoffrey Unsworth’s  choices. I’m generally torn between glee and frumpery when I see panels duplicated shot for shot in a film, but this is how you do it right, by gummy:

Right? That’s how you do a wink to fans. That’s how you tell them that they are appreciated with a secret handshake. Not by renaming a character Robin because THAT DOESN’T EVEN MAKE SENSE. Yes, I am still salty about that.

Where was I? Ah yes, the brilliance of the ’78 Superman movie. The screenplay was cowritten by Mario Puzo, and certain points of dialogue are so concise they should be used in every screenwriting class ever. When Jonathan and Martha find young Kal-El, a three minute scene tells you every single thing you need to know about the Kents. The conversation between Jor-El and Lara basically sums up the entire Superman mythos in thirty seconds. Cramming as much history as needed into as little screen time as possible, and doing it well, is the goal – and “Superman The Movie” succeeds wildly.

Are there flaws? Sure. But I can argue my way around most of them. Some would argue that the trial and sentencing of Zod and Pals is unnecessary in this film, that had a second Superman movie not been made it never would have made any matter at all. I disagree. I feel that the scene is wildly telling of the society of Krypton and Jor-El’s – and therefor his family’s and heir’s – place in that society.  And, to speak to no point whatsoever, that scene with the council is so freaking cool that Joss Whedon made a tribute in “The Avengers.” So there.

Some would argue that the film’s biggest flaw is, in fact, its villain. Sadly, I agree that Lex is a weak link. He is largely a parody and only once is he genuinely terrifying. When Lex explains his plan to Superman and reveals he gives zero thought to taking millions of lives, he is an adversary worthy of a God on Earth. The rest of the time he’s a real estate hog in shitty wigs and hilarious leisure suits. He has a dumb sidekick whose only purpose is comic relief and a buxom sidekick whose only purpose is a plot device to free Superman from Lex’s entrapment. That being said, I give Eve Teschmacher full credit for my present day proclivity for bustiers and retro suits.

Others would argue that the film’s biggest flaw is it’s resolution wherein Superman reverses the Earth’s orbit so that he may save his love from a horrible death. Yeah, OK, if Superman really spun the Earth backwards all he would do would be to negate gravity enough for us to float miles into the sky only to plummet to our deaths when he set the orbit right again. To that I would say “this is a movie about a baby who traveled alone for millions of light years in an egg only to arrive on Earth and grow up to be indestructible, SO MAYBE WE CAN TAKE SOME ARTISTIC LICENSE WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, YEAH?” My biggest concern with this foible is that, if the film’s editing is any indication, Superman would have saved Lois while letting a school bus full of kids die. Not my Superman, y’all. Not my Superman.

No, my biggest problem with “Superman The Movie” is that no one even tried, not one little bit, to make Metropolis a real city. Like, not even a little bit. The Daily Planet is in New York City and no one can convince me otherwise, and that is an unforgivable oversight.

But even with a megaflaw, this one remains my favorite. It is the standard by which I judge all superhero movies. Robert Downey Jr. is the first man in 35 years to embody a character the way Christopher Reeve did. “X-Men First Class” is the only movie to have come even close to the perfect plotting of origin-to-action of  “Superman The Movie.” I’ve sat here for five minutes to try to think of an on-screen version of superhero romance that can hold a candle to Clark and Lois and one hasn’t popped up yet – but I will give Peter and Gwen one more movie before I decide on that one.

Based on everything mentioned here, you might assume that I am dreading “Man of Steel.” Incorrect. It is still Big Screen Superman and I’ve already gotten misty eyed at just the damn trailer, so yeah. Incorrect. Am I still being a curmudgeon about the lack of spit curl? Yes. Am I worried that Snyder is going to turn Clark Kent into Bruce Wayne? A little. But I am still counting down the days.

It’s been a busy few weeks for Guardians of the Galaxy. Not only did Glenn Close agree to be the leader of Nova Corps, John C Reilly will also be our new somewhat Agent Coulson, and another huge announcement was made just today.

Doctor Who alum, Karen Gillan, has signed on to costar in 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy. While there is no word yet as to the actual character she will be playing, it has been revealed that she will be the lead female villain alongside already announced Michael Rooker and Lee Pace. Speculation is running rampant online as to what character she will portray, and while many think it would be great to see her as Death, it doesn’t seem likely that the motivation for Thanos’ actions would make an appearance so early, or that she would be sharing the limelight with other, lesser, bad guys.

What do you think; who will Karen Gillan be in Guardians of the Galaxy? Let us know in the comments below!

After the rousing critical and box office success of Skyfall, the most recent outing of the British Superspy, James Bond, director Sam Mendes said he wasn’t coming back to the franchise, instead focusing on some theatre projects.

Producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli set out on a search to find another director coming up in choices that ranged from uninspired (Christopher Nolan) to unique (Ang Lee) and all points in between.

According to Deadline, though, after their search came up empty, Broccoli and Wilson came back to Mendes and offered to wait for him to work through his theatre commitments. Sure, that means it won’t be until next year that we see this new film going into production, but it’ll have a stellar director who knows how to deliver a great James Bond film behind it.

Deadline is reporting this as fact, many other sites are reporting it as a possibility. No official announcements have been made and we’ve been unable to verify the reports on our own. So, take that as you will.

Personally, I think Bond was very good for Mendes and took away the crutches of his filmmaking that didn’t work for me and allowed him to flourish. I hope he’s able to repeat the performance and quality of Skyfall.

We are pleased to offer our readers a chance to win screening tickets to see The Purge a week from today, June 4 at 7:30 PM at the Gateway in Salt Lake City. To enter, simply text the word SURVIVE along with your zip code to 43549 (eg. if your zip was 12345, text ‘SURVIVE 12345’), and then keep an eye out for a text message you can bring to the theatre and redeem for up to 2 tickets.

The Purge takes place in an idyllic America wherein crime, unemployment and all other social problems are nearly nonexistent due to an annual event when, for 12 hours, all social services (police, fire and hospitals) are suspended and ALL crime becomes legal. It is during this brief period when all Americans can let loose all their pent up anger and desires without fear of repercussions in order to spend the rest of the year contributing to the greater good. The movie follows one family, content to stay locked up and secure in their home while madness takes over the outside world, only to have a random stranger show up begging for help, and how the consequences of their decisions will have an impact on their lives and his.

The Purge opens in theatres June 7.

As was announced earlier this week, Evan Peters has been cast in the role of Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past. This news left a lot of us wondering what was going to happen with the character in Avengers 2, since Joss Whedon had already said he had planned on casting him and Scarlet Witch in that movie.

Well, on a recent episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Whedon was on mainly to discuss Much Ado About Nothing, but did field a question about the character, and had this to say about it:

I’ve already said we’re going to have a brother-sister team, the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver who were great mainstays in the Avengers when I was reading the comics … Their powers were very visually interesting. One of the problems I had on the first one was everybody had basically very punchy powers, but in the second, he has super speed, she can weave spells with a little telekinesis thrown in and can get inside your head. There’s good stuff.

Fallon immediately cast the characters with Selena Gomez and Channing Tatum playing Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, respectively, to great laughs from the audience, but Whedon specifically said no one has been cast yet.

While it’s highly unlikely Evan Peters would be playing the role in both movies, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, as it will be the first time a major character has been portrayed in two movies from separate film studios.

X-Men: Days of Future Past is set to open July 18, 2014, with Avengers 2 coming May 1, 2015.

The worst thing about this film is its uninspiring title. This is unfortunate, because if you can actually get past that, you get some of the most beautiful animation we’ve seen in a while.

Epic is the story of a hidden world in our forests, a continuing battle between growth and decay, good and evil. Once every hundred years, a new queen of the forest is crowned, and endowed with the powers to keep the forest green and full of life. It is the duty of the Leafmen to protect the Queen and the forest. And on that date, the evil Boggans decide to attack, and an unsuspecting human girl named MK is shrunk down to their size and drawn into the battle between the Boggans and the Leafmen. But before you go “Been there, done that, saw Fern Gully, saw Avatar,” you should take a second look. This film lacks the pretense and cheese factor of both of those.

The first thing to discuss here is how beautiful this animation is. Given the plot and theme of growth vs decay, we get some excellent work in light vs dark, greens and blues vs browns and grays. There are also some fun animated characters, like a three-legged, one-eyed pug who is the most adorable onscreen dog in a long time.

The next thing of note are the talents of the voice cast. Christoph Waltz, as always, does an amazing job as a villain. Jason Sedeikis brings a lot of heart to the character of MK’s absent-minded-professor of a father who is obsessed with finding evidence of the hidden world of the forest. And Colin Ferrell does his best to channel a strange mix of roguish Han Solo charm and Obi-Wan Kenobi dutifulness and mentorship into the character of Ronin, the Leafmen general. But it is Aziz Ansari who tries to steal the movie as, of all things, a slug. He and Chris O’Dowd, who plays a snail, provide excellent comic relief and some real heart into this movie that, frankly, could use a little bit more.

While the vast majority of the voice cast is a delight, there are a few very notable exceptions. Pitbull. Beyonce. Steven Tyler. Stick to your music careers, please. While Pitbull and Beyonce are utterly overlookable, Steven Tyler is not. He single-handedly brings the movie to a grinding halt with both an uninspired performance and a lame, out of place musical number.

And despite all of the themes of green vs decay, there is no overarching ecological message or anything like that. So, again, please, can the Fern Gully references.

So, all told, this is a fine movie, title excluded. This is something I don’t understand, as it was based on the book The Leafmen and the Brave Good Bugs. That would’ve been far more descriptive than Epic. Or, as shown in this Spanish language poster for the film, they named it “The Secret World”:

Now, while I may have some complaints, I also took my kids to go see the movie, and my daughter’s BFF. They went insane over this movie. They loved, loved, loved it. It may be that to 7 and 8 yr old girls, having strong female leads is important. But their favorite part was also the banter between the slug and snail, too. My 5 yr old son also liked the movie, though not as much as his sister, and there were parts in it which were a little too scary for him.

So, this is a good movie, not a great one, but it might be something your kids would enjoy. I’m still waiting for Monsters University to come out, but until then, Epic is not a terrible stopgap.

2 1/2 stars

For anyone with any doubt that Zach Snyder’s Man of Steel might be light on action and any less of a summer blockbuster than is expected has only to watch this trailer to get a glimpse of what is in store for us! We get heat vision, Superman punching the shit out of Zod (and cronies) and a neat Mass Effect hat tip.

Anyway, I’m even more excited than ever and can’t wait for this movie to come out!

Please to enjoy!

According to the astute and generally hauntingly accurate El Mayimbe over at Latino Review, it seems as though Jonathan Rhys Meyers may well be in talks to star in Episode VII.

Obviously “in-talks” doesn’t mean anything definite. Talks fall through, people move on, people puff themselves up and say they’re in talks because they want to be in talks soon. Anything.

Here’s the bit from Latino Review:

This is a name that has been thrown around a lot, especially since he has a relationship with J.J. Abrams. He appeared in Mission Impossible: III, directed by Abrams.

Sounds like he already has it.

He’s none other than…

The Tudors (2007-2010) star Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

I think he’s a fantastic actor, his turn in Woody Allen’s Match Point was nothing short of brilliant.

The bigger question is who would he play?

And that’s really anyone’s guess. We can speculate about a hundred Expanded Universe characters (which I still personally find an unlikely scenario), or he could be a brand new character that we know nothing about.

Or he could not end up being in the film at all.

But if you look at the timeline, and Disney swears they’re sticking to a 2015 release date, they’re going to have to start making these decisions sooner rather than later.

Until then, take this with a grain of salt and remember that until something is announced through Disney/Lucasfilm, nothing is official.

If you don’t want spoilers, come no further. We instead suggest that you read this nice review Vagabond Prime wrote up. Otherwise, if you’ve already seen Star Trek: Into Darkness, or don’t care about spoilers, this is the place for you! We had some fairly divergent opinions on the latest Trek, although I think we all come down on the side of liking it (Miss Mecha doesn’t know if she can say she liked it… but she wishes she could like it a bit more).

What follows is our round-table discussion of the movie, spoilers and all! 

Citizen-Bot: Before I start anything, let me say that I liked this movie. A lot, actually. But I think it fits into the second tier of Trek movies. It’s not as good as the last one, or First Contact or Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country, but it’s in that same tier as Search for Spock or Generations. And probably better than those two. So. . .it’s my 5th favorite Star Trek movie? Is that faint praise? That’s like saying “It’s my third favorite Star Wars movie.”

Miss Mecha: Unlike Citizen-Bot, I walked out of that theater pretty conflicted about what I had just watched. That was a Star Trek movie? No, of course it was a J.J. Abram’s movie, and I was trying to go into it expecting what I loved about the last new Trek movie (which, in my opinion, was a whole lot better written than Into Darkness). To be honest, though, I just couldn’t come to terms with this one.

Only about five minutes into my viewing of Star Trek: Into Darkness, I had already started to get nervous about the progression of the film. As you know, we open on a planet where the crew of the Enterprise are trying to save the natives from an erupting volcano (while blatantly violating the Prime Directive). Why couldn’t we see a bit more time spent on this away mission? I felt like there was no reason to rush through this scene and piece together events with quick one-line dialogue (which, might I add, poorly tries to excuse the “We put the Enterprise underwater” bit). I’m not saying it needed to be a particularly lengthy away mission, but the opening scene is one of many examples that perfectly exemplify my main problem with Into Darkness – poor pacing.

Into Darkness never gives us any time to really enjoy what’s going on or interact with the characters before something else is blowing up again or putting the lives of the crew in “immense” danger (and I have to agree with my counter-bot Vagabond Prime when he says that you never actually got the feeling that anybody was going to die. The only exception, for me, was seeing Admiral Pike killed instead of paralyzed – which is honestly where I thought they were going to take that scene.).

Sith-Bot: I absolutely loved it and wanted to get back in line to see it again (and probably will tomorrow), BUT there were some glaring issues that really can’t be ignored, which I’ll get to later.

Swank-mo-tron: I don’t understand why people are saying this isn’t a Star Trek film. There was Kirk, Spock, Starfleet and a whole bunch of Star Trek stuff, only slightly more entertaining. It had interesting dilemmas, great action, and many of the reveals brought tears to my eyes.

Sure, Abrams directed it, and it had his fingerprints all over it, but that doesn’t make it not Star Trek, merely more palatable to a wider audience. That being said, I loved the hell out of this movie, though I had some problems with it. I loved it the same way I loved Superman Returns. It’s a well-constructed homage to another film I loved.

Citizen-Bot: I don’t understand why they’d say that, either. This was most definitely a Trek film. But let me ask a provocative question, which is more about Abrams than anything else: Is the fact that Cumberbatch’s John Harrison is Khan really a spoiler? I think a spoiler is generally something that has to happen near the end or where there’s a huge emotional payoff that is hollow if you hadn’t come on the entire journey (Dumbledore dies. Vader is Luke’s father. Spock dies at the end of Wrath of Khan.) Did it really spoil anything? It had been on IMDB for a month, it was revealed on numerous websites from Australia/New Zealand/Britain and. . . I kind of didn’t know how to process that information. I first was skeptical. (Nah, they wouldn’t. Would they?) Then I was hopeful (It would be awesome if they did.)

I feel like this was handled poorly from the get-go. Is JJ Abrams just so obsessed with spoilers and leaks that they couldn’t figure out how to tell this story without this shell game? If they’d just been up front, announced at Comic-Con “Yes, we’re tackling Khan. But this is not “Space Seed.” This is not The Wrath of Khan. This is a story of how Starfleet is handling getting its ass handed to them by some Romulans from the future, and they make a deal with the devil to try to catch up.” I don’t feel like that would’ve spoiled anything.

Then make just a couple of script changes. When Khan is first revealed in the hospital, and the officer from Section 31 asks him how he can save his daughter, he says, “I am Khan.” Then as Adm Marcus is explaining how this is a guy named David Harrison, either Spock or Pike or someone says, “They’re not telling us something.” And see, we as the audience know what they’re not telling, and we’re along for the ride. I think just being up front with us about this would’ve been better.

Swank-mo-tron: Yes. It’s a spoiler. I hadn’t heard and the revelation blew me away inside the theater.

Vagabond Prime: I would argue that the movie would have been stronger if he had not been Khan at all: Perhaps another augment, or someone who had been enhanced through nano-technology. Ultimately, Harrison being Khan just diminished things. Now, if they had kept him Khan and avoided the magical “Call Old Spock” bit, we could have avoided the cliched turncoat bit at the end. He had a reason for everything he did up to that point. Everything he had done was either for revenge against Marcus, or to protect the other Augments. Why would he turn on Kirk? He just wanted to save his people, and Spock pulls a dick move and phasers his ass into the ground. How about letting Khan have a hero turn? Kirk and Khan team up to take Marcus down. Things on the big ship start going horribly wrong, the warp core breach happens, Khan could even sacrifice himself to save Kirk. End of movie, completely unique spin on an iconic character, and Kirk learns about “real sacrifice” long before he’s an Admiral. That would have taken some balls. But no, let’s just recycle everything from Wrath of Khan.

Swank-mo-tron: Yep, there’s my problem with Khan in this film. The turning on Kirk for no reason.

Sith-Bot: I went in knowing that he was Khan, so I didn’t give the collective gasp the audience did when his name was first said on screen (although how they didn’t guess from the 5 minute exposition explaining his back-story before that is beyond me). I was really intrigued to see how they were going to handle his character due to the fact that he didn’t have the bad blood with Kirk that he did in WoK, and I think they did it well. By making Khan’s vendetta against Starfleet itself, they gave him that strong motivation he needed to be such a bad ass. Unlike Vagabond, I’m fine with the fact that the writers didn’t change him into a different character (hero or otherwise), but I’m in complete agreement about the space call to old Spock. Look, you’re reinventing this classic character, yet try to tie it all into a continuity that can not exist in your world; Space Seed and WoK can’t happen, so why try to tie them all together? Also, Khan’s turning on Kirk made sense as far as his character goes. He’s a bloodthirsty bastard who craves power, and Kirk would be in his way. Also, the fact that Spock phased him, obviously on Kirk’s orders probably didn’t help the situation any either.

Citizen-Bot: There were several plot threads I just wished they’d explored more. The whole issue about whether it was better to blow “Harrison” up on Qo’nos or use the long-range weapons. (A morality tale about Obama and the use of unmanned drones to kill terrorists vs sending in troops?) The weaponization/militarization of scientific discovery. The use of secret branches of the military or a military-intelligence service (Section 31 – always one of my favorite plot threads from Deep Space Nine).

Vagabond Prime: What was the intent of those missiles, anyway? Was Marcus giving them to Khan by firing them at him? Was he planning on killing them all and getting even with Khan? All this is really unclear. It’s implied that the Augments were going to be “set loose” on Qo’Nos.

Citizen-Bot: Which would’ve been a cool idea, too. I kind of feel like the writing process for this was similar to me playing with my toys when I was 10: dump everything out on the floor, and make it fit in, regardless of whether it makes sense to mix Transformers, Star Wars, GI Joes, and Ghostbusters together.

By the end I felt kind of pandered to. Like instead of trying to present a single artistic vision, this got muddled by trying to fit too much into one narrative. Like a sundae where you’ve put too many toppings on it, it’s important to remember to simplify.

Sith-Bot: I believe this is what’s called doing things for shits and giggles. But yeah, a lot of that did feel contrived, and it was easy to tell the writers ran out of ideas or reasons to get the crew where they needed to go, so they just made stuff up and hoped the lens flares would distract us from what was really going on.

Citizen-Bot: And it’s a new record!! We went over 1600 words without making a lens flare joke! I’d like to thank everyone for their restraint.

Vagabond Prime: Sorry, couldn’t read what you wrote through the lense flare…

Miss Mecha: My friends and I have been talking about this since we watched the film. First off, it wasn’t super clear what Khan’s goal even was when he was on Qo’nos. Okay, so he’s bombed the archives and presumably obtained valuable information prior to attacking Starfleet and beaming himself to Qo’Nos… so, what the heck was he going to do next? How long do you really think a guy can hang out on the Klingon homeworld with a gun and a heavy laser? Somehow Kirk shows up for all the right reasons and we’re not supposed to question the insane way all the circumstances have lined up.

Sith-Bot: I agree, that was really weak. If you’re gonna introduce Klingons, DO something with them instead of letting them get shot to hell and getting the crap kicked out of them and their ships.

Miss Mecha: And seriously, I can’t agree with you more about the pandering. I was so sick of callbacks and re-imagined scenes from The Wrath of Khan that I seriously almost laughed at the scene where Kirk was dying. First they send him into the core and let anyone that’s seen the original film know that he’s about to die of radiation poisoning (but don’t worry folks, because you’ll never actually feel like anybody’s in any real danger in this film), then we see him kick a device in the wrong direction to fix the warp core, and finally, we watch as he stumbles back to his most certain “death.” Oh, by the way, did Scotty really want to call Spock down there first or was he even going to try to call McCoy to see if anything could be done? No? Just let him roast? Okay, that seems like the thing to do.

Sith-Bot: I disagree here; Kirk’s dying got to me, and I didn’t find it cheap at all. Granted, it was a reverse rehash, but I felt as emotional as I did when Spock died in the original. Unfortunately, the way they were going to revive Kirk was telegraphed from the opening scene in the hospital, so I wasn’t too pleased with that. What they should have done was let Kirk stay dead and introduce a new captain in the next film. Sure, it would have pissed some people off, but it would have made for a more interesting and emotionally impactful ending, and it’s not as if he would have had to stay dead — no one dies forever in these types of movies.

Swank-mo-tron: Yeah, for me all the call backs were what worked the best. The second Carol Marcus was revealed, an image of David and the history of loss that caused for Kirk Prime appeared in my head, that moment of him falling over the chair in Star Trek III, and it almost brought a tear to my eye. I never felt pandered to once.

Citizen-Bot: They can have Alice Eve as Carol Marcus in every Star Trek movies from now until the end of the franchise. In fact, I demand it.

Miss Mecha: I wonder if it has anything to do with this?

Just kidding…I actually thought she was a great character and was happy to see the strong stance she tried to take against her father’s wrongdoings.

Vagabond Prime: The Carol Marcus stuff didn’t bother me in the slightest. It was all of the recycled stuff from WoK. Most of what worked in Wrath of Khan was because of history. No history, much less impact, at least for me. When Spock died in WoK, he was fucking SPOCK. He had been SPOCK for decades. These guys had been family for longer than I had been alive. New crew? They’re friends, sure. But hardly family… yet. I love that Kirk was going on his 5 year mission with who might be the love of his life on board. I really dug the re-imagined Khan, how he was found, used, etcetera. It was the sloppy throw-backs that kept getting to me. I would get into the movie, and then they would ape on WoK. Rush through something else, then ape on WoK again. Almost like the writers were setting up action sequences just to string along the WoK tribute show, and looking desperately for old Trek stuff to pull from. It was like “people loved it when Kirk shouts Khan’s name! Let’s do that! But have Spock do it!

Sith-Bot: What about when I do it? KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!

Citizen-Bot: My turn: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vagabond Prime: MADALYN KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

Sith-Bot: Thanks, I just spit out good vodka laughing.

Citizen-Bot: Na zdorovye, comrade!

Vagabond Prime: I have been struggling with some huge logic issues: Scotty can use the transporter to beam anyone across the galaxy onto a moving ship, but they can’t pull Spock out of a volcano. The transporters work just fine on the Enterprise during the scene that sets up Kirk’s command dismissal, yet they hide the ship underwater, allowing natives to see the Enterprise as it rises from the sea. There was no need for this to happen. They did it because it looked cool, and that’s it. One mention of “ionic interference” in the atmosphere would have shut me the hell up.

Also, why do we need to beam people onto the top of a moving shuttle (again, we can’t pull a stationary dude from a volcano, but the top of a fast-moving shuttle? SURE!) to get Khan’s blood? THERE ARE SEVENTY TWO FREAKING AUGMENTS IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION ON BOARD! If they are all genetically engineered super-men, you would think a medical genius of McCoy’s calibre would catch on to that. But shuttle-top fights look cooler.

Miss Mecha: I facepalmed at this point, because McCoy even went out of his way to remove one of them from the tube so Kirk could go in it (and keep the guy in a coma during that time). He couldn’t just… borrow some blood while he pulled the guy out for a bit?

Sith-Bot: I assumed it was because their blood was frozen so it was unusable right at that moment, and they needed to get it into Kirk as fast as possible before more lasting damage was done.

Vagabond Prime: You’re making excuses for shitty writing, Sith-Bot. One of those very same Augments is in a COMA on the ship somewhere.

Sith-Bot: Shitty writing aside, I was willing to suspend disbelief because I was drawn into the film. Sure there were a lot of mistakes, and I’m not excusing them, but I was having so much fun, I didn’t notice at the time. Looking back, I’m seeing a lot of the gaps in the plot, but it didn’t take away from my enjoyment of the movie. Could it have been better? Definitely, and I don’t even think I can say it’s in my top 5 Trek movies, but I still loved the hell out of it.

Vagabond Prime: My last gripe, promise: why did Kirk need to be stripped of command at all? He’s back in the Chair in ten minutes. You could have had the strong reprimand, even the lecture/pep-talk in the bar. That could all be present in the story and still have Kirk in place to see Pike die. All of the emotional gravitas would still be there. EVERY other Captain in the area was present at the big meeting, we don’t need Kirk demoted to get his ass in the conference.

Here’s the sad part: I was completely on board, logic flaws and all, until the Celestial Phone Call to Spock Prime. From that point forward, the movie pretty much trampled every ounce of good will I had towards it. Anyone who bitches about Vader’s “NOOOOOO” in Revenge of the Sith had best have the same gripe about Spock’s “KHAAAAAAAN!”. It’s just as bad, if not worse.

Swank-mo-tron: I never once bitched about Vader’s Nooooo. Nor Spock’s Khaaaaan. I dug ‘em both.

Vagabond Prime: You and I are united on our love of Revenge of the Sith, Swank. I’m talking about all the haters out there that immediately point out the “NOOOOOOOO” as why that movie sucks.

Citizen-Bot: I loved Vader’s Noooooo! I hated the middle finger to the fanboys in the ROTJ Blu-Ray version, but that’s a different story. And I got a big goofy grin when Spock when all Shatner on that Khaaaaaan!!!!!!

Sith-Bot: The NOOOOO didn’t bother me in ROTS either, but as you said, ROTJ was a different story. Maybe I’m lame, but I liked it. I wonder if Chris Pine felt like he got robbed, though, “Khan should have been mine, dammit!”

Citizen-Bot: Note to Chris Pine: In next contract re-negotiations, make sure to add a rider that no one gets to yell “Khan!!!” except for you.

Miss Mecha: I can’t stand this part of the movie, at all. They go out of their way to have future Spock say that he’s vowed not to share any information about the future, and then immediately violate that because, otherwise, how could these characters from an alternate timeline ever possibly figure out how to take down Khan by themselves? It’s almost as if they’re discrediting this crew a bit. Can they not figure out anything on their own?

Sith-Bot: That was the worst part of the movie; groan worthy, laugh out loud for the wrong reasons bad.

Vagabond Prime: I still enjoyed the hell out of Into Darkness, but we have to address the “Highlander 2” levels of stupidity the writers threw in there!

Citizen-Bot: I just think they were trying to be too clever. Rather than actually being clever, they just were saying, “See how smart we are? You wanted ______? Here it is! You wanted _____? There it is!”

Sith-Bot: He just threw it all at the wall to see what would stick, and while there was a lot of good stuff there, it also ended up being a pretty big mess.

Vagabond Prime: With all this lip-service to Trek-That-Was, I’m surprised there wasn’t a reference to “Turnabout Intruder”. I’m all for paying tribute, but if you want me cheering, do something original. Cumberbatch rocked his part; he would have rocked it no matter what. Give him something worthy of his performance. The whole cast is exceptional, they deserve something better than “big summer fun”. We can have smart in “big summer fun”, too.

Sith-Bot: Cumberbatch was excellent, and it’s a shame he wasn’t in it more. Considering how much the story revolves around him and how much hype there was for his character in the ad campaign, he didn’t have nearly enough screen time.

Citizen-Bot: Every second he was on screen he was a delight. Love him.

Miss Mecha: Okay, I love Cumberbatch – give me more of him anytime! Really…

So, in closing on some of my gripes, I did enjoy about 30 – 40% of the movie, and if the film had taken the time to be smart and figure out the pacing, I think there was a lot of potential this movie could have capitalized on. Yes, there were fun moments, and yes I did like some of the dialogue, but overall I just left the theater disappointed and wishing they had taken the time to let us breathe a bit between all the shiny and excitement they were trying to cram in.

Vagbond Prime: It’s the Del Taco of Trek movies: Great while it’s in front of you, then you’re uncomfortable and wondering what the hell was really there an hour later.

Sith-Bot: But like Del Taco, you get a craving and just have to go back and do it again!

Citizen-Bot: Now I want Del Taco. Damn you!!!!! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!! And I want to go back and see this movie again. And despite all my bitching, this is still my second favorite movie of the year so far.

Vagabond Prime: So do I, and I will buy it on BluRay when it comes out. But it gets to stay at the kid’s table when I’m watching my fave Trek movies. This movie is a crap-ton of fun, and there is nothing wrong with that. But when I know what you are capable of as a filmmaker, I’m less likely to give you a pass. Luckily, anything that went screwy with this was just because JJ was day-dreaming about Episode 7. If there is one thing we know about that from watching this, it will be exciting as hell.

So, what do you think, fellow robots? Love it? Hate it? Let us know!

With the space between The Avengers and the inevitable sequel to hit 3 years later, I figured there may be some cast shake-ups, and the current rumor circulating around is that Jeremy Renner may not be reprising his role as Hawkeye.

A “Hollywood Source” told CBM that Hawkeye and Jeremy Renner’s involvement in Marvel’s Phase 2 of films may be in jeopardy due to some comments he made about his character’s portrayal in The Avengers – which to my recollection were made months ago:

“For 90 percent of the movie, I’m not the character I signed on to play,” Renner said to Total Film. “It’s kind of a vacancy. [He’s] not even a bad guy, because there’s not really a consciousness to him. To take away who that character is and just have him be this robot, essentially, and have him be this minion for evil that Loki uses … I was limited, you know what I mean? I was a terminator in a way. Fun stunts. But is there any sort of emotional content or thought process? No.”

Okay, Renner, fair enough. However, I thought Hawkeye’s “turn to the dark side” played a fairly important role inThe Avengersand by the end of the film, he was back to his badass former self, standing up against an alien invasion with a bow and arrow. But, I can see where he is coming from with the “limitations” of the role. The character of Hawkeye has a pretty shady past, and in other forms of media he’s appeared in (cartoons, comics, etc.) it makes for a pretty interesting and compelling character. For the Marvel movie universe though, he is very much a secondary character, and we only find out bits about him through conversations with others; given the size of the roster, it’s doubtful this archer would ever be fully explored.

CBM also notes:

No surprise since Hawkeye has not been mentioned once in Marvel’s Phase 2 by studio president Kevin Feige or Phase 2 helmer Joss Whedon. Renner’s best chance to reprise his character—pre-Avengers 2—would’ve been in the heavily S.H.I.E.L.D. featured Captain America: The Winter Soldier. But with new S.H.I.E.L.D. additions Agent 13 and the Falcon being introduced, Hawkeye would have once again been more in the background and probably continuing to anger Renner.

The source hints that there’s the tiniest chance Renner will reprise his role in The Avengers Sequel but the source also said there is a greater chance Hawkeye will be recast (like War Machine and the Hulk have been recast before). Finally, the source said if Hawkeye is to be recast there is a solid chance he could be incorporated into the new television show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as a primary character.

Well, this just got a little more interesting. Even with being just a supporting character, I really enjoyed Renner as Hawkeye, however the thought of the role being recast and the character moving to the upcoming S.H.I.E.L.D. television series sounds pretty intriguing to me, and frankly, perhaps a better fit?

Taking a step back, the Marvel cinematic universe is growing quickly. We had the culmination of 5 films result in The Avengers, and Iron Man 3 just kicked off phase 2. There are plans to introduce even more characters, and now on top of all this, we are getting an awesome-looking television show set in the same universe. I have faith the Marvel will put all the right pieces in the right spot. I’m sure we will get some “low-tiered” superheroes popping up on the S.H.I.E.L.D. television show, and some more heavy hitters popping up in the various films already filming and in development, and hopefully it will all fill like a fluid universe – perhaps a recast Hawkeye on television will prove a better fit and give fans of the character far more of him than they would get in cameos in films.

However, keep in mind that at this point, this is a rumor. Hopefully someone from Marvel, or Renner himself, will come forward with some information soon.

You can follow Arse-bot and all the pointless thoughts he puts out into the interwebs on Twitter @Arse_bot

What do you think the best route for the portrayal of Hawkeye is going forward? Are you hoping Jeremy Renner reprises the role in Avengers 2? Or are you hoping he’ll be recast and have a larger role in the S.H.I.E.L.D. television series? Sound off below!