Shazam! 2: Why The Filmmakers May 'Move Quickly' On A Sequel

Shazam! 2: Why The Filmmakers May 'Move Quickly' On A Sequel

DC’s latest superhero blockbuster is here and it looks to be another step in the right direction for the studio once playing catch-up in the shadows of the phenomenon that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Shazam! is a different kind of comic book adapted flick for the DCEU, as it centers on a 14-year-old kid's refreshing perspective when he has incredible powers bestowed upon him.

Having a story that features a primarily young cast comes with one concern: They’re constantly growing up. That's one reason why a sequel for Shazam! may need to come sooner rather than later. Collider asked the film’s producer Peter Safran if they'd want to jump right back in for a sequel, since the "kids" will probably look very different a year from now. Here's Safran's response:

They're going to look like Zach does today. So we've got to move quickly with the sequel, for sure.

Per his comments, you can’t exactly keep a story going about a kid who turns into the adult superhero played by Zachary Levi if his younger counterpart is already an adult himself. Asher Angel, who plays young teen Billy Batson in Shazam!, is already 16-years-old right now. So if the studio waits even two years to give the sequel a greenlight, he’ll already be inching on adulthood by the time filming gets underway.

Having a 20-year-old switch into Zachary Levi’s Shazam -- who will be in his 40s a couple years from now -- wouldn’t have quite the same effect on audiences as the age difference introduced to audiences this weekend. There is always room for creativity in superhero films, though, so the filmmakers might be able to find a way to work around this without seeing the franchise lose its charm.

The plus side of this logistical complication is that if Shazam! does well, the studio may feel more compelled to get going on a sequel from the lightning-powered hero before pursuing other pending projects. This would be great news for fans of the recent DC release -- and considering the producer himself recognizes this, it might just be in the works already.

During another recent interview, Peter Safran and director David F. Sandberg both showed their interest in returning for a sequel, so the stars just might align with more ease for Shazam! 2 than other DCEU projects being considered to move forward into production.

This is a problem that Tom Holland’s new Spider-Man franchise is also facing, as the actor plays a 15-year-old boy in Homecoming. As Far From Home nears release, Holland is now a 22-year-old stuck in a role of a high-school student. The second movie was fast-tracked behind the first for this very reason, and they will be release just two years apart.

Shazam! certainly looks to be a success thus far, as it exceeded expectations on opening night with a $6 million haul and has a certified fresh Rotten Tomatoes score of 93%.

Who’s already in for a Shazam! sequel? Stay tuned with us here at CinemaBlend!

Read More

Elton John Reveals Most Studios Didn’t Want 'Sex And Drugs' In R-Rated Rocketman

Elton John Reveals Most Studios Didn’t Want 'Sex And Drugs' In R-Rated Rocketman

This weekend the story of Elton John takes the big screen in the form of the massive musical adventure Rocketman. The film is sort of an anomoly, as it's a big budget musical, but it's also rated-R. Those two things don't often go together, but since Elton John himself is something of a unique combination, it probably shouldn't be too surprising.

It turns out, that not every studio was quite on board with this particular combination however. Elton John says that many studios wanted to tone down the story in order to achieve the broader audience friendly PG-13 rating, but John says such a decision wouldn't have made sense because it wouldn't have fit his life. According to Sir Elton...

Some studios wanted to tone down the sex and drugs so the film would get a PG-13 rating. But I just haven’t led a PG-13 rated life. I didn’t want a film packed with drugs and sex, but equally, everyone knows I had quite a lot of both during the ‘70s and ‘80s, so there didn’t seem to be much point in making a movie that implied that after every gig, I’d quietly gone back to my hotel room with only a glass of warm milk and the Gideon’s Bible for company.

No biographical film is 100% accurate when it comes to what actually happened. Things will always be modified in some way for dramatic effect. However, there is a general feeling that a movie must be accurate enough to capture the essence of the person, and as Elton John himself says, you can't really do that with him without including sex and drugs.

It's not entirely uncommon for a movie to wallpaper over the darker parts of a true story. Especially when the subject is still alive, there's a natural inclination to focus on the more positive elements of a life story. Elton John could have wanted to see that happen here, but that wasn't what happened. In a piece he wrote himself for the Guardian, he says while he did work with producers and make a couple of "yea or nea" decisions (he doesn't specify what those were) about the film, but for the most part he kept himself away from the production, intentionally wanting to avoid casting his shadow over things.

Quite the contrary, Elton John clearly wanted his struggles with alcohol and drugs to be part of the film. He takes full responsibility for them, and says for that reason those elements aren't even difficult for him to watch. He knows they were his fault and is at peace with the decisions he made.

Based on the early critical reaction, it seems that the decisions that Rocketman made may be the right ones. The film is getting very positive reviews overall. The rest of the world will get to see it this Friday.

Read More

Netflix's Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile Trailer Is Surprisingly Murder-Free

Netflix's Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile Trailer Is Surprisingly Murder-Free

After its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, Netflix scooped up the somewhat controversial Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile, the Ted Bundy movie starring Zac Efron as the charming and despicable serial killer. We’ve been waiting to hear when the wider public would get to see this film and now, along with a release date, the streaming service has released a new trailer for the film and it's surprisingly murder-free. Take a look:

Despite this being a serial killer movie with an R rating for “disturbing/violent content,” this latest trailer for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile eschews all such brutality, opting not to show any of Ted Bundy’s murders. Yet that lack of onscreen violence does nothing to diminish the darkness present in this trailer. If anything, it actually gives the whole thing an underlying sense of dread that is much more potent than the previous trailer.

That is perhaps the most interesting thing about this trailer, how much it contrasts with the original Voltage Pictures trailer that arrived right before the Sundance premiere and before Netflix picked up the movie. The original trailer, which actually did show brief snippets of Ted Bundy committing crimes, had more of a light feel to it, showcasing Zac Efron’s charm and attractiveness as the serial killer. It also had a rock soundtrack that fit the way the trailer was cut, but was incongruous with the nature of the crimes.

This new trailer for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile is a different beast entirely. Instead of focusing on Zac Efron’s Ted Bundy, this trailer puts much more emphasis on the character of Liz,played by Lily Collins. The film is told from the perspective of Ted Bundy’s girlfriend who refused to see the truth about him for years and this trailer is more in line with that as we see more of her struggle with Ted and that truth.

Additionally, this trailer establishes a much more serious tone, utilizing ominous music that befits that horrors Ted Bundy committed, even if we don’t get to glimpse them here. Zac Efron’s Ted Bundy, who has been the subject of some controversy for being attractive, has his charm toned down in this trailer and his creepiness is amplified. It’s kind of fascinating how that dichotomy of presentation is reflective of the way Ted Bundy was outwardly perceived and his true nature.

I wonder if Netflix choosing to sell the film in this way is at all a response to the criticisms that have been raised about ‘hot Ted Bundy’. It also raises the question of what this film actually is, because the trailers pitch two different tones. Such is the power of editing.

When we first heard that this movie was coming to Netflix it seemed that the streaming service was planning on a small theatrical run come awards season. Whether it will receive any awards recognition remains to be seen, but Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile will be arriving much sooner than that previous assumption would indicate. The film will arrive on Netflix and in select theaters on May 3.

While not an awards season release, that does position Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile in closer proximity to Netflix’s series, Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, also from director Joe Berlinger. So Netflix can capitalize on that true crime interest as the one-stop shop for Ted Bundy in 2019, the 30th anniversary of his execution.

Will Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile wind up becoming one of the better serial killer movies based on true life crimes? Find out when it hits Netflix on May 3. For all the biggest movies heading to theaters this year, check out our 2019 Release Schedule.

Read More

ReelBlend #60: Sean at SXSW And Our Interview With Captive State's Rupert Wyatt

ReelBlend #60: Sean at SXSW And Our Interview With Captive State's Rupert Wyatt

There are a number of highly anticipated movies coming to theaters in the next few weeks. We know it has felt like a drought – and Captain Marvel might not have been the movie y’all have been waiting for – but the ReelBlend guys are here to get your hopes up. They are teasing the fact that they managed to see both Jordan Peele’s Us and the DC origin story for Shazam! What did they think? Play this week’s episode and find out!

Sean also went to Austin, Texas this week for SXSW 2019. He caught up with a few great movies, but more importantly, met some INCREDIBLE ReelBlend listeners who swung by for a mini Texas meetup!

Jordan Peele’s new movie, Us, opened the fest. Then Kevin caught up with it days later at the movie’s L.A. junket. They won’t spoil it for Jake and Gabe, so they rave about it without giving away details. Jake also sees Shazam!, and interviewed Zachary Levi. Listen to his fun stories.

Speaking of interviews, this week on ReelBlend, the guys speak with Captive State director Rupert Wyatt about his post-apocalyptic, futuristic drama. The film is set during an alien invasion, but it focuses on the human rebellion that chooses to fight back against our new oppressors. It’s a great and informative conversation about Captive State, and filmmaking, in general.

The Blend Game this week was one of the toughest. The guys played #ShotBlend, where they picked their all-time favorite shots of all time. Not scenes. Shots. It’s impossible.

ReelBlend is a weekly podcast that we do on CinemaBlend. You can download the latest episode (and all of our past episodes) for FREE on our iTunes page! Visit. Subscribe. Like and comment. Review! Apple loves when you have star ratings and reviews, so if you listened, and you liked it (or even if you didn't), let us know. We also are on Spotify. And Google Play. And basically everywhere that you download podcasts. So download us.

Meanwhile, follow the guys on Social Media! We have an official Twitter feed for the show, so follow @ReelBlend. In addition, follow the guys at @Sean_OConnell, @JakesTakesand @KevinMcCarthyTV.

Read More

Fox Almost Made A Marvel Crossover Movie Starring The X-Men, Fantastic Four And More

Fox Almost Made A Marvel Crossover Movie Starring The X-Men, Fantastic Four And More

The superhero movie landscape looks a lot different than it did at the beginning of the decade. For one thing, back then, the film rights to properties like X-Men and the Fantastic Four still belonged to 20th Century Fox, a studio a long ways away from being owned by a certain Mouse House. As such, the chances of seeing these Marvel characters share screen time with those in the Marvel Cinematic Universe wasn’t possible.

However, evidently at one point Fox was considering making its own Avengers-level crossover superhero movie. During his recent appearance on Fatman Beyond, screenwriter Zack Stentz, who co-wrote both X-Men: First Class and Thor, was asked which of his movies that he’s written that will never come out is his favorite, Stentz answered:

My ex-partner and I, when we were working at Fox and working on X-Men: First Class, we did a secret movie for them that, I can't tell you what the plot was, but I can tell you that it used all of the characters, all of the Marvel characters that Fox had at the time in 2011. It used the X-Men. It used the Fantastic Four. It used Daredevil. It used Deadpool. Daredevil was still at Fox at the time. And it was a really cool freakin’ script. We almost had Paul Greengrass directing it, which would've been so cool, but he had another project to do instead. It didn't end up going, but it was a script I was really proud of and it would've been really good.

Man, this takes me back. While the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool were obviously Fox-only Marvel characters up until the Disney transaction went through, it’s easy to forget that Daredevil was also part of that group for a long time. The Man Without Fear only starred in one movie, and while Fox tried to get a reboot off the ground by 2012, that fell through and the rights went back to Marvel, paving the way for the Daredevil Netflix series.

Having Paul Greengrass direct this Fox crossover movie also would have been a cool choice, as the man had proved his action mettle with The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. Going off the loose time frame Zack Stentz laid out, I suspect Greengrass turned down this opportunity in favor of directing Captain Phillips, which went on to be nominated for an Academy Award and a Golden Globe, among other accolades.

Had Fox moved forward with this movie featuring the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Deadpool and X-Men, this might have placed the Fox Marvel franchise on a higher pedestal. Granted, the X-Men film series has been chugging along steadily for nearly two decades, which includes the surprise success of Deadpool, but along with Daredevil barely getting a chance to shine, the Fantastic Four movies didn’t fare particularly well, with the 2015 reboot ending up a critical and commercial bomb.

Perhaps new life could have been breathed into all these characters had they been able to join forces in such an epic tale, although I worry introducing Deadpool here might have resulted in the character not being adapted as well as he was in 2016. It’s also a good bet that this movie would have taken the X-Men down a much different path than they are now.

Fast-forwarding to now, all of these properties now rest under Marvel Studios, and while the plan is to keep Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool around, it’s expected that the Fantastic Four and X-Men will are rebooted down the line. Daredevil was cancelled over a month after Season 3 premiered, and it remains to be seen if we’ll ever see Charlie Cox’s version of Matt Murdock again or if the character will be rebooted again to better fit within MCU continuity.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for updates concerning Marvel’s plans for any of the above characters on the big or small screens. Those of you who are curious about what the MCU has lined up next can look through our comprehensive guide.

Read More

Eva Green Almost Didn't Audition For Casino Royale Because She Didn’t Want Be A ‘Prissy’ Bond Girl

Eva Green Almost Didn't Audition For Casino Royale Because She Didn’t Want Be A ‘Prissy’ Bond Girl

Over the decades that the James Bond franchise has continued there were always certain elements that you could be sure would be included. Among them was the famous "Bond Girl." While the exact definition of what constituted the Bond Girl was somewhat fluid, you could always be sure the role would be played by a beautiful woman who would catch the eye of James Bond.

When the James Bond franchise got something of a reboot, Eva Green was offered the female lead of Casino Royale, but the actress actually turned down an audition initially. It seems she didn't have the highest opinion of the Bond Girl, and wasn't really interested in becoming one. According to Green...

I was probably a bit stupid or naive. I said, ‘Ugh, a Bond girl? What kind of prissy girl is that?’ They also kept the script secret. So it wasn’t until they gave me the script [nine months later] that I realized it was a meaty role. I didn't see her as a Bond girl. She’s a strong character; she’s got cracks.

To be fair, it seems Eva Green had no idea what she was actually saying no to when she was asked to consider the role. She saw the role as being something "prissy" that she had no desire to play. Once she had more of an idea of what the role actually was, she tells THR she became much more interested in it.

In the early James Bond movies most of the female roles were little more than sex objects that James would would either sleep with and/or rescue from the villain. There were always some exceptions to that rule, in some of the later films we saw actresses like Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry take on roles of characters who were perfectly capable of fighting alongside James Bond, though the fact that they could do this might actually disqualify them from being "Bond Girls" depending on exactly how you define the term.

However, with Casino Royale the entire franchise saw a reboot. With that came a very different Bond in Daniel Craig and a very different sort of female lead. Eva Green's Vesper Lynd isn't another secret agent, but neither is she simply eye candy. She was one of the more complicated, and therefore more interesting, female lead's in the history of the franchise. She was so much more interesting that it's quite unfortunate that we lost her at the end of the film. Though the character's death went on to influence the rest of the Craig Bond films.

I for one am certainly glad that Eva Green joined Casino Royale as it's one of my favorite Bond films of all time and she's no small part of that. The next James Bond movie is finally moving toward production. Eva Green will be seen next in the new live action Dumbo.

Read More

Why It's OK If You Can't See Avengers: Endgame Opening Night

Why It's OK If You Can't See Avengers: Endgame Opening Night

Tickets to Avengers: Endgame's opening weekend are selling in record numbers, and those who are trying to get a ticket to the big night at this stage in the game will have to pay quite a hefty price. Some may not even be that lucky and will be forced to sit at home Thursday night in sadness while their friends and family scuttle off to the cinema to watch the three hour and two minute-long conclusion to the MCU's Phase 3.

It's a sad feeling, although those who weren't able to snag a ticket to their local theater shouldn't be discouraged in the slightest. Believe it or not, missing out on a debut showing of a highly anticipated film isn't the end of the world. In fact, there's an argument to be made that skipping out on opening night and midnight showings may be a better option, especially when compared to other available options.

Bottom line, it's ok if you can't see Avengers: Endgame on Thursday, and I've got a bunch of reasons why I'm not upset about missing out in the slightest.

First, let's start with the fact that no movie, even one as highly anticipated as Avengers: Endgame, is worth the finders fee folks are charging online. Online resale value has some asking hundreds of dollars for their tickets, and others swinging for the fences with their asking price in the thousands. Others are less extreme and want a more reasonable $50, which may be a price some with the cash may be willing to spend.

Let's make one thing clear: paying a premium to see Avengers: Endgame on opening weekend may not be the best decision. For starters, theaters are in the business of making money, and if tickets continue to sell at the rate they are going, odds are more screenings will be made available for more people to attend. It seems theaters aren't just going to throw up their hands and say no to more money.

Plus, the thought of paying anything more than general admission for an opening night showing of a blockbuster movie is atrocious given past experiences. It's taken nearly 30 years and dozens of screenings to come to this realization, but midnight and first-day screenings are among the worst screenings one can attend.

Sure, it's easy to get caught up in the fun. Everyone is excited they're among the first to see a movie, there might be people there dressed as characters in the film and everyone is riding high on the emotion that their long wait is finally over. It's an intoxicating feeling, but it comes with its downsides. As others may attest to, when it comes to midnight screenings, the common courtesy of average filmgoing tends to go out the window.

The biggest common occurrence is applause. Audiences will break out in applause for the opening credits, any major character's first appearance and whatever else may come along the way. While that's fine for a live performance, characters in films don't hold for applause before delivering the next line. While the person next to you is clapping hands together like a keyed-up circus seal, you might be missing a meaningful line that can't be heard until the next time you see it.

Laughter is another big one, and another thing that occurs often and in excessive amounts at big-ticket Marvel releases. It's understandable since Marvel films can be humorous, and by no means am I trying to shame folks for laughing during the movie. People are free to enjoy the movie they paid for however they like, but for those who want to hear dialogue, extended audience laugh breaks are another thing that gets in the way of that.

There's also heckling, which may not occur in every first-day screening I've attended, but it definitely seems to happen quite a lot. Again, it makes sense, especially when the folks most excited and passionate about the Marvel universe will be amongst the few willing to do "whatever it takes" to secure those first showings.

Some of these people are the same folks who want a pleasant theater going experience, and some of those are the type who screamed at the screen in panic "WHAT'S HAPPENING?" when Leia got sucked out into space during Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Again, these types of theater outbursts aren't exclusive to opening night screenings, but there definitely feels like there's more of it.

Let's remember on top of all of the above that the run time for Avengers: Endgame is a little over three hours long. Even in the most ideal of circumstances, there's going to be more than a few tired eyes during the late showings as the film reaches its most pivotal moments. Falling asleep or missing some key moments due to nodding off is not ideal.

With all of that said, I do understand and respect the urgency of seeing Avengers: Endgame as quickly as possible. It only takes one errant headline, actor or one over-enthusiastic friend to ruin a major plot point, and learning it before viewing can drastically lessen the moviegoing experience. So, how does someone who doesn't wish to be spoiled still get a chance to see one of the first showings free from distractions or fatigue?

Two words, "matinee showing." If you're someone not bound to the restrictions of a 9-5 job, or someone with some vacation time to burn, buy a ticket for an early showing on Friday. You'll get a relatively empty theater, plenty of rest and perhaps even a discounted ticket price for going at an odd hour. It's literally the perfect solution, especially for those who may be considering calling in Friday anyway to recover from the night before.

And if Friday is absolutely out of the question, Saturday and Sunday morning screenings are likely just as available. So there's no need to panic about ticket sales, or the fact that you may not see Avengers: Endgame on opening day. There's still plenty of time to make another game plan for a showing, so get a strategy together and create an experience that, in my opinion, is far more optimal than the typical "midnight screening" experience.

Avengers: Endgame is in many theaters Thursday, April 25, but again, audiences will be able to see it any day following for quite a while. Keep with CinemaBlend before and after the premiere for more updates on Marvel, analysis on the film and where the studio is headed in Phase 4. For more on Avengers: Endgame, and how to prepare for it, check out the two films the Russo brothers said fans should watch before the premiere.

Read More