So what you're saying is, we're finally going to get the ball rolling on the BASEketball sequel?
Fr though, I'm in a different mind re: the interconnectivity of superhero franchises. I've long appreciated the philosophy of comic book continuity that says the events of a comic book happen whenever the reader opens and reads it, thereby making the reader the pivot-point of the canon. The sheer inassailability of one true canon, even before reboots and retcons and resurrections are accounted for, makes that philosophy not only narratively economical, but also conducive to the richness of these characters in both a historical and arc-sensitive sense. What are the definitive Wolverine stories, and in what ways do they inform each other and mesh together, even if they don't adhere to the same canon or place within the same canon? How will/should they inform future Wolverine stories, both on the page and screen?
You're right about Secret Wars spelling the end of the MCU as we know it, and I personally believe that if Marvel is smart (a hard sell that I have little interest in selling), they'll approach their future filmmaking with a similar philosophy to the one I've noted above. James Gunn seems to be doing some version of this with the DCU, whose Clayface film I will be chowing the hell down on.
If I had to choose, I would prefer a bunch of comic book movies freed from the strict continuity of the comics, just making one unrelated comic movie after another. So many of these characters have survived multiple eras and personas -- it would be nice to see this reflected onscreen.
But IF you were to go the other way, as Marvel has done, you have to confront and somehow mash together two contradictory truths -- one, these are power fantasies that protect the status quo, and two, you're making these movies with actors who age, who change, who become new people, and it's occurring throughout a long period of time. I'm fascinated by the creative challenges of this. Marvel has typically pushed the notion that in the comics their whole continuity has happened over an eight year period. Chris Hemsworth has played Thor for fourteen years. I love that contrast. How do these stories end? How long can you organically prolong that ending?
I do wish Secret Wars meant that Marvel would rest a few years, but I'm guessing they'll immediately reboot Marvel as more or less the same, but with the political dimension of mutants. With nearly all characters under one corporate roof and movie/TV synergy, I'm betting they proceed in an even more dogmatic fashion regarding continuity.
I'm with you, Charlotte. I love that the original Phases 1-4 managed an inter-connectivity that had never been accomplished in feature film history. But it also found the sweet spot - by Phase 3 there seemed to be a true blue plan, that could be followed movie to movie, but didn't *have* to be. You truly could just put on Civil War or Infinity War and understand nearly everything, certainly all the core plot points, without ever having seen another Marvel movie.
The problem is Marvel kept trying to build inter-connectivity waaaay beyond this sweet spot starting with Phase 5 and the TV shows, etc. Great for nerds, not so great for anyone just wanting to catch a Marvel movie, or show. It also didn't help that "the plan" much like with Phases 1-2 as always starts loosey goosey, decisions being made on the fly to respond to audiences and trends. But now the inter-connectivity was the key marketing point, and the whole thing became unwieldy both for the studio and for audiences.
Reminds me of the issues with Star Wars 7-9. If you're just going to be making shit up as you go, cool, but then just make Star Wars movies, and let people be surprised by how the films do or do not tie together. Don't pretend it's all an epic, well-coordinated conclusion to a decades-old storyline.
Frankly I was stunned to hear Marvel writers and directors admit there were huge chunks of the MCU they had yet to explore. If you're making MCU stuff, I expect you to have an encyclopedic knowledge of ALL of it. Every show and movie offers you several storytelling ideas, a well to which you can always return. Why ignore this?
Okay, comic nerd to comic nerd (I've been reading them since the 80s and during the 90s and 00s probably bought and read absolutely every Marvel and DC title alongside oodles of indies): I don't trust comic nerds to tell good or memorable stories.
The Green Lantern movie is a perfect encapsulation of what happens when you let a comic nerd run roughshod. Geoff Johns is known for being encyclopedic with his comic knowledge and he wrote the most impenetrable origin story imaginable. When a vastly more accessible version already existed (Emerald Dawn).
Think JJ Abrams vs what Rian Johnson managed in Star Wars. Or Alvarez with Alien: Romulus (which i admitteddy quite liked.) More fan service than you can shake a stick at, and a lot more. When I think about franchises that I personally am not encyclopedic about, I want someone who's just going to zero in on the heart of the character and/or story and tell a good one. I'd argue that in *most* cases, the nerd or mega-fan is the worst option for that.
I'm not arguing for total knowledge of the canon in regards to comic books. But I don't think it's a huge ask for someone making one of the $200 million adaptations to be aware that he's working in a specific world where a lot has already happened, because the MCU isn't a mosaic of superficially-related tales -- it's a well-established single world and single story. Like, if you sign up to make "Shang-Chi", and you set some of it in California, you need to be aware that New York City is awash in ground-level vigilantes, the kind you saw on Netflix for a short while there. I don't think the same responsibility exists for someone tackling the comics now, where continuity is encouraged but not a mandate.
Let me put it to you this way -- Nia DeCosta was set up to fail on "The Marvels" because apparently they weren't telling her a lot about the concurrent TV shows she was forced to reference that were filming while she was developing the story. But she also didn't help her case because she'd only seen some of the movies, AND she needed people in production to clue her in on the comic history of all the characters. Those would be concerning facts if she actually had creative control over her own movie, but obviously she did not.
You nailed it, Dave; the brand/market-driven storytelling was the downfall in every sense of the word. I'll never forget all the pouting that happened around WandaVision's lack of a Mephisto tease/cameo, meanwhile the show itself is a genuinely brilliant and poignant examination of grief. Why pout over Mephisto when you can (justifiably) celebrate the storytelling? The fans may have taken their eye off the ball, but at that point, it's Marvel's responsibility to keep theirs on said ball, rather than try to be the perfect product (product, as opposed to films/stories).
As a filmmaking mentor with the Youth Cinema Project (YCP), I’m all in on kids making movies. We work with students from 5th grade through high school—and yes, the kids are absolutely ready. The creativity is there, the hunger is real. What they need is structure, mentorship, and a deeper appreciation for cinema beyond TikTok loops and meme culture.
At YCP, our students handle everything from concept to final cut. We even go all the way to distribution—their films premiere alongside adult filmmakers at the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival, complete with a red carpet experience. These kids get a real taste of the industry. And some of them? They rise to the occasion. Right now, I’ve got a mini Greta Gerwig on my hands—she took the full process seriously and delivered something with real heart and craft.
But I’ll be honest—getting them to think beyond short form is the biggest challenge. Their media diet is built on speed and bite-sized content, so stretching their attention to develop full narratives takes work. A lot of our scripts start out filled with “rizz” and “skibidi,” and part of the mentorship is teaching them storytelling that has staying power.
Your idea of a studio-funded academy for young filmmakers? Brilliant. And I love the catch—no social media for a year. No clout-chasing, just pure focus. Let the work breathe. Let the voice develop. This isn’t Project Greenlight—it’s long-term vision-building. And yes, there are kids out there right now who could out-direct a mid-tier studio hire with the right support (believe me, I have a couple of talented kids in my class who school ME about shots and coverage).
Let’s give them the runway. The next wave of bold, inventive filmmakers might be 14 right now, shooting on an iPhone between homework assignments. We just have to meet them where they are—and then challenge them to rise.
Totally agree with you. The irony for me is I don’t even like kids (Maria and I are proudly child-free), but somehow I’ve found myself deeply invested in the Youth Cinema Project.
What keeps me in it is this: I love movies, and I want the art form to survive. But yeah, it’s frustrating sometimes. We have to keep reminding the powers that be at YCP—we’re filmmakers, not classroom teachers. We’re giving our time to pass down the craft, not to babysit.
But if I can get even one kid to start seeing movies differently—to understand the process, to realize that those faceless names in the end credits are us, their YCP mentors—it’s worth it. And what’s wild is, every year, there’s always a handful who really get it. They fall in love. Not just with making movies, but with watching them, talking about them, studying them. That’s the spark that makes all the frustration worth it. When so many YCP alumni are now working at studios, making their indie movies and are in writer’s rooms, it gives me hope—itty, bitty hope—that they’ll keep film alive.
My students are losing their minds over the Minecraft movie. Apparently there’s a chicken scene that has them absolutely hyped. If that’s the gateway that gets them into theaters, sitting in a dark room, watching a story unfold on the big screen? I’m all for it.
And you know I’ll be grilling them next class—asking what shots they liked, how they think it was made, getting them to think like filmmakers. That’s where the real magic starts.
V cool! I wonder if it has any visual trademarks from Jared Hess' previous films -- now that's a guy with a pronounced aesthetic, would be great if they saw his earlier movies and was able to catch a whiff of what he was doing in this massive Minecraft movie. Allegedly. I have no idea what Minecraft is, and I have no desire to find out and, at my older age, I'm kind of happy about that. I should be surrounded with all sorts of youth pop culture that makes me scratch my head, and I think it's weird that I'm not.
I'm not exactly sentimental towards the younger generation -- I've never wanted kids, and I certainly wouldn't want to teach them. But I love movies, and it's clear that, for maybe a decade or more the major studios have ignored young people -- haven't marketed to them, haven;t made an effort to speak their language, haven't acknowledged anything they may appreciate. It sounds like kids are stuck on short-form storytelling, but a lot of that is because they were forced there by repetitive movie slates that have no relation to the world these kids occupy.
Right now, studios are doing their part to ensure that, in ten years, no 25-35 year old is gonna want to watch movies at all, let alone make them. And then where will the art form be? It will be just a niche concept, the idea that a movie might be "interesting", the idea that you'd have a theater filled with people excited to share the same experience, the idea that movies could possibly mean anything. Ignoring the younger generation will simply kill the moviegoing experience in my lifetime.
Love that TOYS trailer. It made me go see it in the theater back in the day. Looking back, I can easily see how the marketing team had zero idea how to make a standard trailer for that flick (it's such an odd movie, while not *quite* being outright weird.) What we need, is an industry willing to take risks of any kind on the studio level, when your name isn't Blumhouse or A24. So long as marketing departments can be fired for one misfire of a trailer, it's just gonna be the formula until the end of days.
I hate saying something vaguely anti-cinema in a way... I love love love trailers at the movies, anytime, all the time. But you know what I miss? That goofy E! show "Coming Attractions" that was just a half hour of trailers. Before the internet, I would scour the airwaves trying to find the show's new timeslot. Man, I was psyched to watch EVERY episode of that thing to catch all the new trailers, even if I was already sick to death of the more familiar ones.
I'm sure there would be a large audience for a "Coming Attractions" show. I was going to suggest you put one together, but then realized there is a crucial missing ingredient-the trailers worth watching (as you pointed out). Perhaps those young talents you mentioned could get their starts by producing trailers for the movies they imagine to make in the future.
That sounds like a fun idea! But, shoot, will people watch thirty minutes of that? At the end of Coming Attractions, it was running new episodes in the middle of the night.
So what you're saying is, we're finally going to get the ball rolling on the BASEketball sequel?
Fr though, I'm in a different mind re: the interconnectivity of superhero franchises. I've long appreciated the philosophy of comic book continuity that says the events of a comic book happen whenever the reader opens and reads it, thereby making the reader the pivot-point of the canon. The sheer inassailability of one true canon, even before reboots and retcons and resurrections are accounted for, makes that philosophy not only narratively economical, but also conducive to the richness of these characters in both a historical and arc-sensitive sense. What are the definitive Wolverine stories, and in what ways do they inform each other and mesh together, even if they don't adhere to the same canon or place within the same canon? How will/should they inform future Wolverine stories, both on the page and screen?
You're right about Secret Wars spelling the end of the MCU as we know it, and I personally believe that if Marvel is smart (a hard sell that I have little interest in selling), they'll approach their future filmmaking with a similar philosophy to the one I've noted above. James Gunn seems to be doing some version of this with the DCU, whose Clayface film I will be chowing the hell down on.
If I had to choose, I would prefer a bunch of comic book movies freed from the strict continuity of the comics, just making one unrelated comic movie after another. So many of these characters have survived multiple eras and personas -- it would be nice to see this reflected onscreen.
But IF you were to go the other way, as Marvel has done, you have to confront and somehow mash together two contradictory truths -- one, these are power fantasies that protect the status quo, and two, you're making these movies with actors who age, who change, who become new people, and it's occurring throughout a long period of time. I'm fascinated by the creative challenges of this. Marvel has typically pushed the notion that in the comics their whole continuity has happened over an eight year period. Chris Hemsworth has played Thor for fourteen years. I love that contrast. How do these stories end? How long can you organically prolong that ending?
I do wish Secret Wars meant that Marvel would rest a few years, but I'm guessing they'll immediately reboot Marvel as more or less the same, but with the political dimension of mutants. With nearly all characters under one corporate roof and movie/TV synergy, I'm betting they proceed in an even more dogmatic fashion regarding continuity.
I'm with you, Charlotte. I love that the original Phases 1-4 managed an inter-connectivity that had never been accomplished in feature film history. But it also found the sweet spot - by Phase 3 there seemed to be a true blue plan, that could be followed movie to movie, but didn't *have* to be. You truly could just put on Civil War or Infinity War and understand nearly everything, certainly all the core plot points, without ever having seen another Marvel movie.
The problem is Marvel kept trying to build inter-connectivity waaaay beyond this sweet spot starting with Phase 5 and the TV shows, etc. Great for nerds, not so great for anyone just wanting to catch a Marvel movie, or show. It also didn't help that "the plan" much like with Phases 1-2 as always starts loosey goosey, decisions being made on the fly to respond to audiences and trends. But now the inter-connectivity was the key marketing point, and the whole thing became unwieldy both for the studio and for audiences.
Reminds me of the issues with Star Wars 7-9. If you're just going to be making shit up as you go, cool, but then just make Star Wars movies, and let people be surprised by how the films do or do not tie together. Don't pretend it's all an epic, well-coordinated conclusion to a decades-old storyline.
Frankly I was stunned to hear Marvel writers and directors admit there were huge chunks of the MCU they had yet to explore. If you're making MCU stuff, I expect you to have an encyclopedic knowledge of ALL of it. Every show and movie offers you several storytelling ideas, a well to which you can always return. Why ignore this?
Okay, comic nerd to comic nerd (I've been reading them since the 80s and during the 90s and 00s probably bought and read absolutely every Marvel and DC title alongside oodles of indies): I don't trust comic nerds to tell good or memorable stories.
The Green Lantern movie is a perfect encapsulation of what happens when you let a comic nerd run roughshod. Geoff Johns is known for being encyclopedic with his comic knowledge and he wrote the most impenetrable origin story imaginable. When a vastly more accessible version already existed (Emerald Dawn).
Think JJ Abrams vs what Rian Johnson managed in Star Wars. Or Alvarez with Alien: Romulus (which i admitteddy quite liked.) More fan service than you can shake a stick at, and a lot more. When I think about franchises that I personally am not encyclopedic about, I want someone who's just going to zero in on the heart of the character and/or story and tell a good one. I'd argue that in *most* cases, the nerd or mega-fan is the worst option for that.
I agree with this.
I'm not arguing for total knowledge of the canon in regards to comic books. But I don't think it's a huge ask for someone making one of the $200 million adaptations to be aware that he's working in a specific world where a lot has already happened, because the MCU isn't a mosaic of superficially-related tales -- it's a well-established single world and single story. Like, if you sign up to make "Shang-Chi", and you set some of it in California, you need to be aware that New York City is awash in ground-level vigilantes, the kind you saw on Netflix for a short while there. I don't think the same responsibility exists for someone tackling the comics now, where continuity is encouraged but not a mandate.
Let me put it to you this way -- Nia DeCosta was set up to fail on "The Marvels" because apparently they weren't telling her a lot about the concurrent TV shows she was forced to reference that were filming while she was developing the story. But she also didn't help her case because she'd only seen some of the movies, AND she needed people in production to clue her in on the comic history of all the characters. Those would be concerning facts if she actually had creative control over her own movie, but obviously she did not.
You nailed it, Dave; the brand/market-driven storytelling was the downfall in every sense of the word. I'll never forget all the pouting that happened around WandaVision's lack of a Mephisto tease/cameo, meanwhile the show itself is a genuinely brilliant and poignant examination of grief. Why pout over Mephisto when you can (justifiably) celebrate the storytelling? The fans may have taken their eye off the ball, but at that point, it's Marvel's responsibility to keep theirs on said ball, rather than try to be the perfect product (product, as opposed to films/stories).
As a filmmaking mentor with the Youth Cinema Project (YCP), I’m all in on kids making movies. We work with students from 5th grade through high school—and yes, the kids are absolutely ready. The creativity is there, the hunger is real. What they need is structure, mentorship, and a deeper appreciation for cinema beyond TikTok loops and meme culture.
At YCP, our students handle everything from concept to final cut. We even go all the way to distribution—their films premiere alongside adult filmmakers at the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival, complete with a red carpet experience. These kids get a real taste of the industry. And some of them? They rise to the occasion. Right now, I’ve got a mini Greta Gerwig on my hands—she took the full process seriously and delivered something with real heart and craft.
But I’ll be honest—getting them to think beyond short form is the biggest challenge. Their media diet is built on speed and bite-sized content, so stretching their attention to develop full narratives takes work. A lot of our scripts start out filled with “rizz” and “skibidi,” and part of the mentorship is teaching them storytelling that has staying power.
Your idea of a studio-funded academy for young filmmakers? Brilliant. And I love the catch—no social media for a year. No clout-chasing, just pure focus. Let the work breathe. Let the voice develop. This isn’t Project Greenlight—it’s long-term vision-building. And yes, there are kids out there right now who could out-direct a mid-tier studio hire with the right support (believe me, I have a couple of talented kids in my class who school ME about shots and coverage).
Let’s give them the runway. The next wave of bold, inventive filmmakers might be 14 right now, shooting on an iPhone between homework assignments. We just have to meet them where they are—and then challenge them to rise.
https://youthcinemaproject.org. If we’re not handing it down to the next generation, we’re not doing it right.
Totally agree with you. The irony for me is I don’t even like kids (Maria and I are proudly child-free), but somehow I’ve found myself deeply invested in the Youth Cinema Project.
What keeps me in it is this: I love movies, and I want the art form to survive. But yeah, it’s frustrating sometimes. We have to keep reminding the powers that be at YCP—we’re filmmakers, not classroom teachers. We’re giving our time to pass down the craft, not to babysit.
But if I can get even one kid to start seeing movies differently—to understand the process, to realize that those faceless names in the end credits are us, their YCP mentors—it’s worth it. And what’s wild is, every year, there’s always a handful who really get it. They fall in love. Not just with making movies, but with watching them, talking about them, studying them. That’s the spark that makes all the frustration worth it. When so many YCP alumni are now working at studios, making their indie movies and are in writer’s rooms, it gives me hope—itty, bitty hope—that they’ll keep film alive.
My students are losing their minds over the Minecraft movie. Apparently there’s a chicken scene that has them absolutely hyped. If that’s the gateway that gets them into theaters, sitting in a dark room, watching a story unfold on the big screen? I’m all for it.
And you know I’ll be grilling them next class—asking what shots they liked, how they think it was made, getting them to think like filmmakers. That’s where the real magic starts.
V cool! I wonder if it has any visual trademarks from Jared Hess' previous films -- now that's a guy with a pronounced aesthetic, would be great if they saw his earlier movies and was able to catch a whiff of what he was doing in this massive Minecraft movie. Allegedly. I have no idea what Minecraft is, and I have no desire to find out and, at my older age, I'm kind of happy about that. I should be surrounded with all sorts of youth pop culture that makes me scratch my head, and I think it's weird that I'm not.
Fantastic! I love it.
I'm not exactly sentimental towards the younger generation -- I've never wanted kids, and I certainly wouldn't want to teach them. But I love movies, and it's clear that, for maybe a decade or more the major studios have ignored young people -- haven't marketed to them, haven;t made an effort to speak their language, haven't acknowledged anything they may appreciate. It sounds like kids are stuck on short-form storytelling, but a lot of that is because they were forced there by repetitive movie slates that have no relation to the world these kids occupy.
Right now, studios are doing their part to ensure that, in ten years, no 25-35 year old is gonna want to watch movies at all, let alone make them. And then where will the art form be? It will be just a niche concept, the idea that a movie might be "interesting", the idea that you'd have a theater filled with people excited to share the same experience, the idea that movies could possibly mean anything. Ignoring the younger generation will simply kill the moviegoing experience in my lifetime.
"Full Poochie" is an excellent way to describe failed sidekicks and Comic relief!
I love Idea #3: Equal marketing for all!
Love that TOYS trailer. It made me go see it in the theater back in the day. Looking back, I can easily see how the marketing team had zero idea how to make a standard trailer for that flick (it's such an odd movie, while not *quite* being outright weird.) What we need, is an industry willing to take risks of any kind on the studio level, when your name isn't Blumhouse or A24. So long as marketing departments can be fired for one misfire of a trailer, it's just gonna be the formula until the end of days.
I haven’t thought about Toys in decades, I remember seeing it in the theaters. Sadly it does not appear to be streaming anywhere.
Have you tried... The Internet Archive???
https://archive.org/details/toys-1992-FS
Oh nice! Saving that for a lazy weekend.
Also, trailers should be two minutes, tops! Ideally they would be 90 seconds.
I hate saying something vaguely anti-cinema in a way... I love love love trailers at the movies, anytime, all the time. But you know what I miss? That goofy E! show "Coming Attractions" that was just a half hour of trailers. Before the internet, I would scour the airwaves trying to find the show's new timeslot. Man, I was psyched to watch EVERY episode of that thing to catch all the new trailers, even if I was already sick to death of the more familiar ones.
I'm sure there would be a large audience for a "Coming Attractions" show. I was going to suggest you put one together, but then realized there is a crucial missing ingredient-the trailers worth watching (as you pointed out). Perhaps those young talents you mentioned could get their starts by producing trailers for the movies they imagine to make in the future.
That sounds like a fun idea! But, shoot, will people watch thirty minutes of that? At the end of Coming Attractions, it was running new episodes in the middle of the night.