Greetings, mail mates! Today we're looking at how Bryan Singer's legal woes might affect his future with the X-Men, why you should give The Leftovers a chance, and of course a discussion about The Game of Thrones Character Who Must Not Be Named. Let's do this thing.
Oh, many of you wrote in asking questions about Transformers 4. You asked these questions pretty frequently, as I recall... anyways, if you somehow missed it, the FAQ of Extinction is here. Moving on!
Third Time's a Charm
Do you think that there will ever be a universally accepted 'great' comic book movie trilogy? It seems like fandom will always have a problem with one of the entries in a trilogy that has a shot at attaining 'great' status.
Ignoring the easy targets like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand, even the series that come the closest, like the Dark Knight Trilogy and the Iron Man Trilogy, will always have a divisive entry (Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man 2, etc.) that will keep them from attaining 'perfect/great trilogy' status.
Are us geeks just bitching/building up expectations so much in our own heads and hearts that we refuse to ever allow or acknowledge a perfect trilogy? Is it because the filmmakers legitimately can't maintain quality across three films? Or is there just no such thing as the 'perfect trilogy?'
It's tough to make a good movie, and it's even tougher to make three good movies. You have to have the right actors, the right crew, a good script, multiple good directors on occasion, a lack of studio interference (or productive studio interference), and then a bit of luck — it's not that making "the perfect trilogy" is impossible, it's just really, really hard for everything to go that right three times in a row.
There will always be people who will hunt through a movie looking for flaws (cough) but generally, nerds desperately want to love all these movies. We wanted Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 to be awesome, but they weren't; when we complain about them we aren't doing so just because we're too bitter to enjoy them, we're bitter because they were kind of crappy. It's not like there's already a "perfect" trilogy out there that nerds simply refuse to acknowledge as being awesome.
The good news is that the more nerdy films get made, the more chances we have to get this "perfect trilogy." Eventually, someone will hit three jackpots in a row. Hell, maybe it'll be the Avengers movies. Maybe it'll be the new Planet of the Apes movies; I'm sure a third one is planned. Heck, maybe it'll be Batman V. SuperhahahahahHAHAHAHAHA sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence.
Is it true that Lady Stoneheart won't be in the Game of Thrones TV show at all? Why would the show not show her? She's not been in the books much but she's obviously a major character! Tell me it's not true!!!
You're not the only person to write in about this, and I'd like to tell you all that you probably don't need to worry. I find it really unlikely that showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss will decide to exclude the character of resurrected Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart for several reasons:
1) First and foremost. I'm guessing she has a major part to play in the books' final acts, because I severely doubt that George R.R. Martin would resurrect Catelyn Stark as a vengeance-crazed zombie and not have her be majorly involved in the plot moving forward. Lady Stoneheart isn't super-significant at the moment, but she almost certainly will be later on. I think the show will have to have her.
2) Despite actress Michelle Fairley's recent comments on the matter, which point to Lady Stoneheart never making an appearance on the show, a careful examination of her interview doesn't really deny it. Fairley says Catelyn is dead — which is true, both literally and figuratively — but furthermore, the show doesn't actually need Fairley back for the role. I figured most of the time the character could be a stand-in, seeing as she's veiled and all, and the very few times she reveals her face it would be better to be a CG Michelle Fairley in order to look properly gruesome and zombified.
3) Lady Stoneheart is, at least until the next book comes out, the last big "HOLY FUCK" moment the Game of Thrones series has left (because we all know Jon Snow is going to be okay one way or another). I just can't imagine the show refusing to give us this moment, even if it's expedient, storytelling-wise. It's Red Wedding-level bonkers, and I think it has to be included. And I think it's far more likely D&D are playing coy in hopes of eventually surprising hardcore books fans later than that they've really decided to drop the character.
Admittedly, at the moment, Stoneheart is such a minor character in the books that her character can be omitted right now without much of a fuss, and I guess D&D could be envisioning a show without her…. but I don't think so. I'm guessing they're just waiting to use her until a point where the character has more material than a simple guest appearance or two.
X Marks the Spot
Hey Mr. Postman,
Hope they have SPF 5,000 to keep you nice and safe from the irradiated earth you now inhabit. I have a question that's been on my mind since I saw X-Men DOFP a few weeks ago..
With the rejuvenated success of the X-Men brand (no thanks to two Wolverines) it seems like a verified fact that Bryan Singer has the ability to respect the source material of the comics better than other X-Directors and produce a quality film that will please the fanboys and more importantly please the stockholders ($700M and counting). That being said, up until the recent allegations against Singer how close do you think Fox was to offering him a Whedon-like role as the studio's Major Domo of X-films where maybe he doesn't direct every single movie like Zak Snyder but major decisions and storyboards are guided by his vision? And as a follow up, do you think there's still a chance that they would still make the offer if his name is eventually cleared?
I won't jump on a soapbox here because it's blatant to anyone that these are serious allegations, but I was just curious if box office returns might actually trump legal proceedings and convince Fox to go ahead. Cheers!
Oh, god, money TOTALLY trumps everything for the studio. Whether convicted or not the only reason Fox would drop Singer is because not doing so would cost them money — whether his legal proceedings would take up too much of his time, delaying the film, and thus costing them money, or because of public disapproval of Singer, which would make people refuse to see his X-Men movies, which also costs the studio money. That's the only issue for the studio. Bryan Singer could murder a hobo in the Fox offices and if there were no legal or financial consequences, Fox wouldn't give a shit. At all.
As for the majordomo business… that's a little dodgy. Fox isn't worried about nerds or the critical reception of its X-Men movies, just that they make money. Obviously, Days of Future Past did well, and The Wolverine only did okay, so I can see Fox wanting Singer to have a bigger hand in all X-movies going forward, but to be honest, unless he goes to jail, Singer's legal problems probably won't affect this at all. Fox may not be able to give a convicted Singer a title like "Head of X-Men Entertainment" or something, but they could still keep him on as producer, let him guide the franchise, and make the big decisions without making a public spectacle of his involvement. Again, Fox isn't worried about anything other than the bottom line. If they think Singer can make them more money than he might cost them in bad press, they'll use him any way they can.
As someone who was burned by Lost, is there any reason I should give The Leftovers a chance? It looks good but I don't want to waste my time on another show that completely screws up the ending.
I think so. I've said this before, but I'm of the mindset that whatever answers Lost failed to give me, that doesn't negate how much entertainment I derived from watching the show until that point. Would it have been nice if the show had a concrete mythology set-up from the beginning? Sure, but the ending doesn't somehow ruin everything that came before it. So by that logic, if you liked Lost at all, then you should give Damon Lindelof, the guy who made Lost, and his new show a chance.
But more specifically, The Leftovers doesn't seem to be about a mystery, it's about the people living in the aftermath of it. The show is built around people not solving an insane event that has changed the world, and are never going to solve it. If you thought the "answers" that Lost gave us at the end were bad, well, The Leftovers isn't even going to try to give us answers; it's about the characters and their lives and their grief. It avoids Lost's problem entirely.
Honestly, I don't think you have any reason not to give it a chance. Unless you don't like shows that seem like they're going to be super, super depressing.
Are rare comic books still seen as valuable in your time?
Comic books in my time are indeed seen as valuable; much like toilet paper is considered valuable in your time. In both cases, they make shitting significantly easier.
Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the firstname.lastname@example.org! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!