First Images From 'The Smurfs'

UGO has gotten their hands on the first image from "The Smurfs" film. See below.

'The Shadow' Script Review & Director Update

Below is an exerpt from "The Shadow" script review. Head over to IESB to find out more about the script and some news on Sam Raimi entering the picture as director.

The script was written by Siavash Farahanl, and what I had in my virtual hand was the 2nd draft dated 8/01/09. From what I can gather from some quick research, this is a debut script by Farahanl, but he did take on director duties on a project titled "Ingenue" in 1999. From page one you are thrown into a dark and gloomy version of New York City, as a girl in her twenties contemplates suicide teetering on the beams of the Brooklyn Bridge. This is the readers first look at Margo Lane. The name certainly caught my attention, a hybrid of Margot Kidder & Lois Lane I thought to myself, not realize that the character of Margo Lane made her first appearance in 1937. Before there was a Lois Lane. The young suicidal girl is hesitant and ends up loosing her balance falling fast off the bridge, only to be caught by a laughing "Shadow" who gives her a second a chance at life. "The Shadow" who knows a little too much about her sad past, propositions her with a new life which later leads to money and heart thumping adventure as an agent working under his umbrella.

Let me just say Margo Lane and The Shadow are characters you care about, Farahanl plays up the mystery of The Shadow against the vulnerability and naivety of Margo Lane, and they remained connected even though their storylines criss-cross throughout the script. Although the possible film could be looked as an ensemble piece because of the plethora of characters, these two characters are the backbone of the script. You never get sick of The Shadow's viewpoint on the world around him and his role as the ultimate anti-hero. He's menacing, he can break bones with his bare hands, and mow down an entire room of thugs with his Colt 45's. Margo Lane is that fish out of water that you grow with. She goes from a helpless lost soul to a empowered heroine because she has to. Being thrust into a word of murder and mayhem would force anybody to learn the way of the gun and you really believe in her character development. 

Is Zac Efron Our New Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man?

That's the latest rumor flying around anyhow. Brendon Connelly over at Slashfilm is reporting on a UK tabloid, OK, that has apparently broken the news that the next Wall Crawler is none other than High School Musical heart throb, Zac Efron. 

For the moment this should be taken with even less than a grain of salt. The OK article is reporting that Vanessa Hudgens may come along to play Mary Jane and that Efron's paycheck will be one eighth of the film's entire budget. Odds are this is the first of many ridiculous rumors that are bound to be circulating over what is now the most coveted role in Hollywood.

Still, you know the old saying, "every lie contains some truth,"?  Could OK have gotten this one right and if so how do you feel about it? Sound off in the feedback section and let us know what you think.

A Look Back at the Spider-Man Franchise

The following article is an editorial. It doesn't reflect the views of TMT, the staff, or anyone else other than it's author, Eric Sopko.

I don’t know if you have heard, but Spider-Man is getting the boot! Reboot that is. Debate is raging across the internet and the Spider-Man fan base about the direction this franchise is currently taking. However, I don’t want to focus on the future right now. I want to take some time and reflect upon this franchise’s past!

In order to fully understand my feelings on this situation, we have to go back many years. Even before I was born. The Salkinds over at Warner Bros. were looking for a new franchise to bring them boat loads of cash. They turned to an untapped resource: comic books. Namely The Man of Steel himself, Superman. Eventually, Richard Donner was brought in to film 2 back to back Superman films. Donner faced many challenges in bringing the Man of Steel to life, the most basic of those being how to make him fly. He spent more money than the studio anticipated, and eventually was not even on talking terms with the Salkinds.But, the end result was a phenomenon known as Superman: The Movie. Superman: The Movie was the beginning of the modern comic book film, and many future comic book films would rinse and repeat the 3 act formula utilized by Donner. The film was a smash hit, and Christopher Reeve became a household name. However, despite Richard Donner’s success in bringing Superman to life, and having a sequel 75% finished, the Salkinds would give him the axe, and replace him with Richard Lester, whom was brought in late as a mediator of sorts between Donner and the Salkinds. As I move forward with my history lesson, keep Donner’s story in mind.

Let’s fast forward to 1985. Outside of Superman, comic book films have yet to be really tested in the film industry. Superman III disappointed at the box office, so major film companies were still weary of the genre. Enter producer Menahem Golan of the notoriously low budget Canon films. Golan bought the rights from Marvel for Spider-Man, and tried desperately to bring Spider-Man to the silver screen. Despite his best efforts, Golan couldn’t get financial backing for the film.

Golan ended up selling the TV rights to Viacom in an effort to get his money back for the unused scripts for the previous Spider-Man film projects. He then sold the film rights to Carolco films, whom had made James Cameron’s hit The Terminator. This was a connection Carolco tried to utilize once again, as they commissioned James Cameron to write the now infamous script which featured things such as Peter cursing and having sex with Mary Jane on a bridge. Despite these story points, all the wheels were in motion to bring Spider-Man to the big screen!

Then came trouble. In 1993, Golan spoke out about his anger at Carolco trying to cut him out of the film’s production the best way businessmen know how: sue! Carolco responded the best way they knew how: counter sue! Pretty soon, Carolco was suing Viacom and Columbia Pictures, Viacom and Columbia Pictures were suing Golan, Carolco, and Marvel, and on and on the circle of paperwork would go. Marvel would file for bankruptcy in the midst of all this bureaucracy.

However, Marvel would rise from the ashes! In 1998, the original deal with Golan was ruled to have expired, so Marvel got the rights back to their most popular hero. They promptly would sell them to Sony, whom still has their grimy hands on the film rights. Director Sam Raimi, most known at the time for the cult classic Evil Dead franchise, would be brought in to adapt our friendly neighborhood wall crawler to the big screen. Tobey Maguire was cast as the beloved Peter Parker, and Kirsten Dunst was cast to play the beautiful Mary Jane Watson, though that bit of casting has been questioned ever since she landed the role.

Production was hard, effects took longer than expected, and the release date was pushed back from Christmas of 2001 to May 2002. This move would turn out to be a good deal for the wall crawler opening weekend.

I still remember May 3^rd of 2002. I skipped school that day in order to suck in the moment my childhood hero came to life. I had my tickets a month in advance, my mother took me shopping for Spider-Man action figures in honor of the occasion at the above Toys’ R’ Us, and I got in line a full hour early. The entire city of New York was sold out for the weekend on the first day of the films release, and my anticipation for the film couldn’t have been greater. Watching the 9:00 showing was probably the greatest theater going experience of my young life.

Now, the film wasn’t perfect, by any means. The CGI is dated by today’s standards, it basically recycles the formula of Superman: The Movie, the Green Gobin looks stupid, and after the Green Goblin kills the board members of Oscorp, I still have no idea what he meant by wanting power. What kind of power do you mean? But, the film got the heart of Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility. The origin was perfectly done, Maguire and Dafoe were amazing, JK Simmons owned J. Jonah Jameson, and Elfman’s score was haunting at times. Despite some problems, this was a solid Spider-Man film. I couldn’t wait for the sequel!

After the record breaking success of the first film, Spider-Man 2 hit theaters 2 years later. Now, this time, I made it to the theater an hour early, but was at the back of the line and had to sit in the front row! I had to move my head around to see all the things on the screen! Despite my discomfort, the film that I saw that day remains one of my favorite films of all-time, if not my favorite. Where Spider-Man was weak, Spider-Man 2 was strong. Where Spider-Man was strong, Spider-Man 2 was stronger! The effects were groundbreaking, resulting in an Oscar for the visual effects department. Alfred Molina was perfect as Doc Ock, right down to Ock’s dark sense of humor. But, what made this train run above all was the story. Watching Peter Parker grow in this film was a treat. From him losing his powers and letting go of this burden he put upon himself, to the moment he realizes that he can’t sacrifice his responsibilities in order to achieve his main goal, Spider-Man 2 was poetry in motion. The moment where the subway car riders pull an unconscious Peter Parker into the subway car after saving them from certain death is still one of the most haunting moments for me in film. This film was another smash hit, and Spider-Man was once again on top of the world!

Here is where the story starts to go downhill. Naturally, Spider-Man 3 was put into production. Sam Raimi decided to return, but with the Green Goblin and Doc Ock already used, where would they turn to for a villain? Sam Raimi had set up Harry to be a villain at the end of Spider-Man 2, so he was a natural pick. Raimi would also add classic Spider-Man villains Vulture and Sandman into the script with the focus on a storyline about forgiveness.

Sony wasn’t convinced this was a good follow up. The producers wanted Raimi to use the popular Spider-Man villain, Venom. Raimi didn’t want to use Venom due to being a fan of the Stan Lee era on Spider-Man, and not really understanding Venom. Never-the-less, the studio would get its way, and Venom replaced the Vulture in the script. Harry and Sandman were kept. Now, Vulture is a much simpler villain to explain than Venom, so adding Venom was no easy task. You have to cover the black suit before you can even talk about Venom, and that is practically a movie into itself. Then the studio asked for the Stacys to be added to the film to make it even MORE convoluted! The idea of doing this over two films was tossed around, but with no one under contract past Spider-Man 3, that really wasn’t a realistic possibility.

Spider-Man 3 would be one of the most hyped films of all-time. It would also become one of the biggest let down in blockbuster history. While Spider-Man 3 made over $900 million at the box office, the film would be met with mediocre, at best, reception. Spider-Man 3 continues to be the subject of much debate on various internet sites, and much of the fan backlash landed upon the shoulders of Sam Raimi, whom was once a god amongst the fanboy nation.

I personally don’t think Spider-Man 3 was bad. I thought it was very flawed, but still good. The effects are sketchy at points, but it also has great moments like the Birth of the Sandman. Elfman’s score is definitely stronger than Christopher Young’s effort, though I think his score was decent. In fact, I like a lot of the Sandman and Harry stuff. But, the story is definitely the culprit on this movie failing to meet the standards of the first 2 films of the series, and all the story problems stem from one subplot: Venom. The black suit doesn’t mesh in with the story well. The meteor randomly falls into the park Peter and MJ happen to be in? Sandman killed Ben and Peter is now full of hate? Not to mention Brock is in a very small number of scenes, which makes it hard to feel anything for him as he is ruined by Peter. He’s just kind of there. Also, the Butler knew about Norman! But despite all these interlocking plots, the film manages to reach some level of cohesion, and I feel it has enough of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 in it to make it a decent movie. I know I am in the minority on this, don’t remind me. I’ve been fighting this battle for nearly 3 years!

Now that Spider-Man 3 was out, Sony still had 3 films to make under the current contract. Which brought about the question: Where do we go from here? Sony decided initially to bring Sam Raimi and co. back for a 4^th film. He was also supposed to have been promised more freedom on this film. Now we’ll get a proper ending to his Spider-Man films. Spider-Man 3 won’t be his lasting legacy on the series I have adored and waited to see for many years before that faithful day in 2002!

Unfortunately, fate is not always so kind to us. Raimi and Sony were apparently fighting for control through most of the production on Spider-Man 4. Raimi wanted to use the Vulture, as played by John Malkovich. The studio apparently wanted to turn the character Felicia Hardy into a new villain called the Vulturess, likely to replace the unhappy Dunst and provide more action due to a lack of confidence in Vulture as a prime villain. Many rumors have long since been reported. That there was a kid involved in the film; Vulture was maybe killed by Spider-Man, Peter quits, etc. We don’t know what all happened, but whatever happened we know one thing: it was a mess. After much turmoil with the producers. After 3 successful films that grossed billions of dollars worldwide. After over 10 years of working on the character, Sam Raimi walked away from Spider-Man.

This whole matter brings me back to Donner’s situation once again. Superman: the Movie was a great film, but a personally frustrating one for me as a fan. The film is almost perfect, until the turning back the Earth ending. The film then becomes incredibly confusing on the logic behind it and how it exactly worked, and is a bad lasting effect on a film that had me truly believing a man could fly. Instead of making up for the lame ending, Donner got the boot from a film he almost finished. Sure in 2006, we got a DVD release of Donner’s footage into a new, and if you ask me far superior, cut for Superman II, but it isn’t the same. That film feels incomplete due to not having a new ending made by Donner. I can see his Superman II and only imagine the possibilities had Donner got to finish his work.

I look at Spider-Man 4 in the same way. Raimi had a vision, and just when I felt a proper ending to his Spider-Man series could have finally been made after years of fighting over Spider-Man 3, I am left with that same bitter taste Donner’s Superman II leaves in my mouth. That feeling of unfinished business. That feeling of a story left on the cutting room floor.

Now, before I get accused of condemning the reboot, I don’t want the reboot to fail. I hope Marc Webb brings us something truly incredible. I have been a Spider-Man fan for as long as I can remember, and I always will be. I would never hope for the demise of my favorite character just to vindicate a man I like. I hope Webb brings me that joy I felt in 2002 once again.

That is not the focal point of this piece, however. I just wanted to bring back the good times I had watching this franchise develop over the Raimi’s run, and maybe show all the people who have condemned Raimi post-Spider-Man 3 that there was a time before that when we could look at this series, and be proud of having the best comic book franchise in all of comicdom.

Lastly, I also want to thank Sam Raimi. Mr. Raimi, thank you for all your hardwork these past years. You gave me a theatrical experience I will never forget, and made what will probably be my favorite film for many years to come. No matter what the Raimi haters say, and no matter how this reboot turns out, either good or bad, I will always be able to look at these films, and smile. You at least made one Spider-Man fan happy.

Captain America Auditions

 

                                                      It has been a lenghty absence for me. But, it feels good to be back at TMT. For my re-debut, I've been juggling over what to write an article about. Each day brings us new news items on projects of various interest. In deciding, I went with a great lovbe of mine, and many of our loyal TMT readers. Superhero movies. I will focus on one movie in particular which is getting underway as I write this article. Captain America! As I am sure our eagle-eyed readers have deduced by now, thanks to the picture accompanying this article.

Thanks to Twitter, and love it, hate it, or don't give a rats patoot, it gets us information out fast, we know that Captain America auditions are currently going on. Thank you Rick Malambri. Because of Mr Malambri's tweet, which was subsequently deleted it tells us a couple of thngs. One, that the aforementioned Captain America auditions are underway, and secondly that Joe Johnston, the man who will helm The First Avenger as it will be called is searching far and wide for the right man to wield the star-spangled shield, and inevitably lead The Avengers. In laymans terms, he wont just be picking from a select group of marketable names.

While  it was initially Mr Malambri who set the geek world ablaze, there have been a couple others, who've voiced their desire to portray the good Captain. One notably, is Robert Buckley. His name might not seem familiar, but you likely have seen his face before. He's been on several tV shows, including One Tree Hill, Priveleged, and Lipstick Jungle.

Could he be our Steve Rogers?

He's a good actor from what I have seen, possesses that handsome look our superheroes need, and is already in "Captain America" shape, as any google search will clearly show you. Best of all, he is one of us. A comic geek. How could you not root for a man who not only wants to be Captain America, looks the part, and has read Watchmen and Fables?

I think I've found my Captain  America.  So, what do you think true believers? Now, let the universe howl in despair for I have returned! (Kudos to any who realize where I stole that last line from. For those interested, my next article will be about a certain Avian Avenegr that none but me seem to take all too seriously.

Looking forward to some comments, and I'll be writing agin very soon.  Hope to entertain and hopefully bring some exclusive new salong the way.

"The Losers" Trailer

I've never read the books but the impression this entertaining trailer gives me is that of "What if Tarantino made The A Team!?" The action is over the top, the grimy feel of the trailer is a bit on the grindhouse/exploitation vibe side, and oh.....Zoe Saldana looks very nice.

It looks like your standard story of a betrayed team of special forces guys who get a shot at covert redemption through a government agent, that just happens to need their particular brand of skills and who is also hot so she can have a fling with the leader of the team.

Interesting side note, this movie is directed by the guy (Sylvain White) that did "Stomp the Yard"...Just goes to show, never judge a director by his cheesy teen dance movie!

It opens April 9th so it's aiming for that "Fast and the Furious" Pre-summer blockbuster money, and if the film lives up to the trailer it will get it.

No More Sal?

Bad news for Mad Men fans hoping (or at least assuming) that formerly disgraced art director Sal Romano would be joining the new Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce ad agency next season.  TV Guide is reporting that Bryan Batt will not be returning to the series. 

Batt, whose character was uncermoniously fired by Don Draper last season after being outed by a client, tells TV Guide he was supposed to hear by December 31 if Sal would be returning to the show.  So far he hasn't heard anything.

Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner confirms that Batt will not be back, saying "We don't murder people on our show, but there have to be consequences," calling Sal's departure from Sterling Cooper as "the ultimate case of sexual harrassment."

It certainly seems that way.  Despite Don Draper's mounting list of lies and infidelities, we're somehow always willing to forgive him his shortcomings (seriously, is anyone rooting for Betty in the divorce?).  But his firing of Sal was one of the ugliest moments in the series.  We knew Don was on to Sal's secret, but we weren't expecting him to turn on Sal the way he did.

This is definitely disappointing news.  Bryan Batt was terrific in the role, and with the brilliant Sterling Cooper mutiny that ended Season 3, all signs certainly seemed to point to Sal returning as the new agency's art director.  Alas, it doesn't seem to be happening.  Damn you, 1960s discrimination!

At least Mad Men fans can still look forward to Jon Hamm's second SNL hosting gig this weekend.

Mel Gibson to reunite with Shane Black on "Cold Warrior"

 Mel Gibson is about to blast back onto screens this week with "Edge of Darkness, a revenge thriller with political elements, it's a return to badass form for Gibson according to most reports and he is already lining up his next action outing, teaming up with "Lethal Weapon" scribe Shane Black, Variety has the details.

Mel Gibson is in talks to star in Universal Pictures' spy thriller "Cold Warrior."

Project reunites Gibson with "Lethal Weapon" scribe Shane Black, who is helming.

Based on a script by Chuck Mondry, pic centers on a spy from the Cold War era who comes out of retirement to team with a younger agent from the new school to confront a domestic terrorism threat orchestrated by Russia.

Pic will be produced by Michelle Manning ("The Eye"). David Greenblatt and Anthony Bagarozzi are also producing.Gibson has been absent from the bigscreen ever since his 2006 drunken-driving arrest, when he reportedly made anti-Semitic remarks. In the ensuing years, Hollywood's majors have been reluctant to cast the actor in a starring role, and Gibson has instead signed on to a number of independently financed projects, including "Edge of Darkness," which opens Friday. He recently completed production on Jodie Foster's "Beaver."

"Cold Warrior" marks the actor's return to toplining a studio-backed project.

Gibson will begin shooting in March the indie action drama "How I Spent My Summer Vacation," based on a screenplay he penned. He told Daily Variety that he is hoping to segue to "Cold Warrior" in June. Gibson also recently committed to direct Leonardo DiCaprio in a pic about Viking culture to be financed by GK Films. That pic has no start date.

I recall this one being announced quite a while back but I figured like many projects it had hit a wall, great to see it revived,  Gibson is an ideal choice for this role and hopefully they cast the young agent with Mel's age in mind, Gibson is looking very craggy these days so they don't need to cast someone who looks straight out of college, I'd go for Ryan Reynolds or Jake Gyllenhaal.

On the directing front I am glad to see Black back in the directors chair as I loved "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" and despite the fact he will be working from someone else's script I am sure he will have given the dialgue a once over given the buddy buddy dynamics of the concept.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps - Teaser Trailer

When this belated sequel was announced I was firmly in the "Why bother?" camp, granted the current financial climate gives it a good backdrop but still, I wasn't feeling it.

Fast forward to today and the trailer drops, I find myself doing a 180, Gordon Gekko as a fish out of water when he is released from prison looks like great fun and as the trailer picks up pace it reveals what looks to be a slick thriller, although younger fans may be annoyed with the lack of Shia in the trailer, however my main concern is that Shia's character is not just a rehash of Charlie Sheen's.

Of course this could just be a case of a really well cut trailer, fusing Gekko's story with a thriller st in the intoxicating high powered, high living glamour world of Wall street is a potent mix, but for now I am won over.

"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" Open on April 23rd and you can check the trailer out below.

Memo To The Executives: Avatar 2

I don’t want James Cameron to make Avatar 2.  See you next week.

Oh ok, I’ll give it a go.  It may surprise you to hear that someone who loved the film doesn’t want the sequel made, let alone a trilogy.  My reasoning is very simple.  There are far more years behind Cameron than in front.  At the rate it takes the man to make a film (having only directed seven if you don’t count ‘Piranha 2’), we’re only going to get a few more and I’d rather be taken to a completely different world than go back to Pandora.  It seemed very clear to me that Avatar was a self contained story with a very definitive ending.  The main character had come full circle, the humans had been kicked off the planet and every square inch of Pandora’s geography seemed to have been covered.  We may get the chance to see a few new species of Pandoran wildlife but that is hardly the soundest groundwork to build a film around. 

From an audience perspective, the special effects of the film may have stunned them the world but that initial magic will not cross over into the second.  A sequel which is just more of the same with 20% new forests and waterfalls weighed up against the colossal expectation and hype which will come about from a film of Avatar’s success may just be enough to kill this supposed trilogy off before it gets to deliver on part three.  And lets not forget we have future 3D/motion capture/80/90% CG created event films in 'Tron: Legacy' and 'John Carter of Mars' hoping to capture the same magic, awe and box office of ‘Avatar’ not to mention the projects we don't know about yet that studios have probably greenlit this past month in a vain attempt to cash in.

So, as opposed to most of my articles, I don’t need to rant about certain specific issues of production which need improving.  In this case, it is allabout the story.  A truly great story, better and deeper in every way than its predecessor is what will set Avatar 2 apart from its inevitable imitators.  Rather than having an admittedly simplistic cowboys vs. Indians/white hats vs. black hats/purely good vs. purely evil story, tell one where such concepts are more a matter of perspective than anything else.  A story where the audience is not forced to side with one particular group of characters but struggles to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

We need to start by recapping where the end of the first film left us.  Though we never got to see it, we are at least told that Earth has been devastated by lord knows what; pollution, global warming, deforestation, nuclear winter?  Whatever the case, it sure ain’t pretty over there and now the majority of the humans who came over to Pandora to suck it dry have been forced back to “their dying world”.   Only a few humans have been chosen to stay behind on Pandora.  Will they revert to the more primal lifestyle of the Na’vi or will they be unable to separate themselves from technology that has dominated their lives to date?  Will Jake Sully, having forsaken his human body and transferred mind and soul into his avatar permanently, be feeling any psychological repercussions of such a completely unique experience in human evolution?  With their clad leader Eytukan and his successor Tsu’Tey both dead, will a simple grunt like Sully be able to handle the responsibility of leading the Na’vi tribe?  Most pressingly of all, will the humans come back to Pandora for seconds?

If Cameron wants to continue the not too subtly disguised parallels with the Iraq war then this story has the Na’vi as a substitute for the USA.  They feel threatened by an enemy whose intentions they don’t understand and feel the need to take pre-emptive action, and create a climate of fear to justify it.  Sully knows that, with there being no Na’vi advocates among those returning to Earth, it is likely the story of the Pandoran occupation will be spun by the company into a horrific tale of how a group of noble humans tried to find a way to save their race and encountered a race of malicious creatures determined to exterminate them.  Based on that, who knows what the military forces on Earth will decide to do.  And on Pandora, the Na’vi clan leaders are pondering the exact same thing as the human race; in order to protect their people, is it necessary to strike at the enemy before they have a chance to plan another attack.  What is going to make this potent is that these issues will be debated on the Na’vi side exclusively.  This accomplishes two things.  First, we finally get to see more depth to the Na’vi characters.  Rather than being portrayed as a group of pure souls, completely content with their lives, we get to see that they are capable of the same aggression and fear that drives human beings into conflict and war.  The Na'vi have only learned such concepts because of what the humans did to them in the first film.  Secondly, it allows the audience to feel that same fear, and ignorance, if we don’t keep cutting back to the humans on Earth and therefore don’t know what their plans are.

Of course, the Na’vi are not scientific and military minded in their fear.  They are a deeply spiritual people and so the comparables to be drawn are to the wars of our own history spawned from religion and faith and marching blindly into conflict because "God wills it".  We are told in the first film, after Sully prays to Eywa, the Na’vi deity, that she does not take sides in conflict but merely protects the balance of nature.  However, on the edge of defeat in the final battle against the military forces, Eywa answered Sully’s call and rallied all of Pandora’s wildlife to turn the tide.  Clearly, she does take sides.  In fact Eywa’s intervention at that critical moment is the excuse which will be used by all those on Pandora pushing for war as the perfect excuse for it.

And chief among them is Moat, Neytiri’s mother and spiritual leader of the Na'vi.

It’s always interesting in sequels if you are able to take characters, whom you already have knowledge of, even an attachment to, in a completely unexpected direction.  I still remember the disappointment I felt with the Matrix sequels when they dropped the ball on that.  In the second film, it looked as though they were taking Lawrence Fishburne’s character down a dark path, making him out to be a dangerous and unpredictable fanatic rather than the brilliant and inspiring leader we initially thought him to be.  Instead of taking that character arc to its natural conclusion, the filmmakers wimped out and neutered him in the third movie. The character of Morpheus was perfect to turn into a villain (well flawed loony, callhim what you will) because of the clout he had with the population of Zion who practically saw him as the city’s voice and the voice of their faith.  If he told them to head out on a suicide march to the machine city, they would have done it.

Moat is in that same position in Avatar’s universe.  As the film says, she interprets the will of Eywa.  What if the events of the first film have actually scarred her emotionally to the point where she actually is incapable of understanding that will?  After all, she had to deal with the death of her husband and the destruction of  Hometree at the same time.  She is still the high mother of the people and is stillexpected to fulfill that role so she feels the need to put on the pretense of still speaking for the Na’vi God.  So when Moat says to her people that they need to take the fight to the humans before they have a chance to invade Pandora again, its all based on her own fears not only of what could happen in the future but out of duty and responsibility, and of failure.  In times of uncertainty, the Na’vi are alllooking to her for the right decision.  She doesn’t suddenly turn into a villain.  She just ends up on the wrong path, a path of no return and her actions drive a wedge right inbetween not only the humans left on Pandora and the Na’vi, but also Sully and Neytiri.

The humans, such as Norm and Max, have the opportunity to be far more fully realized characters in the sequel (instead of just filler) because of the position they are in.  We never get to find out exactly how they feel about abandoning Earth to its fate to stay on Pandora.  What is interesting to note is that the humans who were forced off-planet have clearly left in their wake, at least a partial amount of the technology and the facilities that they built on Pandora; labs, guns and even space craft.  Unable to detach themselves from technology, and cursed with that affliction which curses all movie scientists, their knowledge and wisdom exceeds their grasp.  Norm and Max believe that if they are able to integrate their way of life with the Na'vi, given time, they can be the first to establish a human colony on Pandora and create a world that both races can share; maybe even save the population of Earth.  As it turns out, all they are doing is giving the Na'vi the tools they need to exterminate the entire human race.

Meanwhile, Neytiri’s need to be loyal to her mother (being that she will be the next in line to the position of spiritual mother) puts her in direct conflict with Sully who, though having become one of the Na’vi, has not entirely lost his humanity.  This lone hero is once again facing impossible odds to do the right thing.  He is determined to find a peaceful resolution to this conflict.  What becomes interesting about it is that Sully has almost become a deity to the Na'vi in his own way.  He is a human re-incarnated in a Na'vi body and he did the unfathomable in conquering the Leonopteryx (that is big ass winged thing to you and me) in, admittedly, one of the dumbest plot devices in the first film.  It never looks up eh?

So with Moat speaking for Eywa advocating war with humanity and Sully opposing it, we have a conflict of God against God, and all of the Na'vi tribes must choose which side they are on.  It is a choice which will tear them apart forever.  That is, if they come back to Pandora at all.  With the knowledge now in hand to pilot the ships left behind on Pandora, the Na'vi clans, both for and opposing war, prepare to fly to Earth and begin the conflict that will, visually, take the audience into completely new territory.  Some of the most impressive sequences in Avatar where those small glimpses where human actors and practical environments where seamlessly integrated with computer generated Na'vi.  Just imagine a whole film of that, on whatever future Earth James Cameron has in his head, with twenty times the action of the first movie.  Start booking those IMAX tickets now folks.

But, as I said at the beginning of this piece, I’d rather James Cameron made ‘Battle Angel’ instead.  The only compromise would seem to be if Cameron wrote and produced Avatar 2 and handed the directing duties to someone else.  Somehow, however, I can’t see ‘Avatar 2: a Kathryn Bigelow/Steven Soderbergh film’ on the poster.  Cameron created this sandbox and he’s not about to let anyone else play in it.  We’ll see how it turns out.

…actually he should skip doing ‘Battle Angel’ and pick up the rights to ‘Robotech’.  James Cameron is the only director on the planet whom a studio would trust with the amount of money it will take to make that into a film.  And if he made Robotech he could cast a pop singer as Linn Minmei (the fictional pop singer in the story).  Then him and James Horner would have an excuse to put terrible songs in their films.

Hmmmm, sounds like I’ve got another article to write.  See you next time.