Which one is the best Spider-Man movie?

Marvel Studios’ Spider-Man: Homecoming is finally with us. You might have heard of it, thanks to the massive marketing campaign that has been badgering us with tons of trailers, commercials and interviews in the past months. Well, now that it’s in theatres worldwide, yours truly decided to go against the flow this time, and saw it yesterday... like the second day it was on. So not only did we decide to tell you if it’s any good, but we also thought it would be a worthwhile waste of time to rank the Spidey movies appeared so far.
As far as we know, there are now six Spider-Man films out there; however, we believe the role of our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in Civil War was so prominent but mostly so cool that we have decided to include it in our list.
So, without further ado, let’s start our list, from the very worst Spidey movie to the one that made us fall in love again (and again) with our wallcrawler.


7# The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Vinny: OMG. What a trainwreck. Seriously, I hardly know what to say about this film. It doesn’t capture the spirit of the comic, it doesn’t tell a good story and it’s just....boring. What a mess. Also, is that really the fracking Green Goblin?! It looks more like my cousin Calogero when he's sick.
Fred: I couldn’t agree more. The flashy bluish Electro is horrible. His traditional five-pointed masked costume would have been more credible. I remember one of the few things I used to like in the ASM films was the relationship between Peter and Gwen, but this film basically takes that chemistry, adds a silly plot and savagely throws it out of the window with THAT DEATH SCENE. No mercy for messing with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin.

6# Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Fred: I admit to my memories of this film being blurry, but maybe that’s already proof that this flick wasn’t memorable for anything at all. The black costume/Venom saga is one of the most sacred arcs in Spider-Man’s history. This movie definitely did not handle it well, totally miscasting Eddie Brock with Topher Grace, and having lousy action scenes. Still, I’d rather rewatch it over ASM 2. It must count for something.
Vinny: I really can’t help mentioning the sequences with ‘emo’ Peter...not only it doesn’t make much sense (you are possessed by an alien symbiote and you start acting like a freak?) but it looks REALLY SILLY. However, for me that is not the real deal-breaker; what I can’t stand is how it throws at the audience so many events, characters and story arcs in just one film. We have the previously mentioned black costume saga and Venom, Sand-Man (bring me a dream….) and Harry Osborn becoming the second Green Goblin! More focus on just one villain would have improved this film greatly.

5# The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Vinny: I have to admit I really like the suit in this incarnation of Spidey, and the POV sequence of Peter discovering his powers and jumping here and there at the beginning of the movie is breathtaking! The actors are good and the writing is decent. Unfortunately, having plunged the wallcrawler into a dark and gritty atmosphere was not a wise decision. It definitely works in relation to Batman, but doesn’t with Spidey. I know Peter goes through some tough times, but there is always hope in his adventures. Also, another origin story?! No thanks.
Fred: Internet wiseacres have said that Andrew Garfield wasn’t a good casting choice for the leading role. I respectfully disagree, as I think he did a pretty good job in this film. Setting the needless origin story aside, Garfield is credible as the young boy coming to terms with his powers. His almost childish romance with Gwen is probably the freshest thing about this film. Also, Lizard’s choice as the main villain proved new enough, with a credible yet not memorable performance. All in all this film, while entertaining, fails to excite as one would expect from a wallcrawler movie. It just isn’t that colourful nor funny.


4# Captain America: Civil War [The Spidery Bits] (2016)

Fred: When I first heard there was going to be a NEW Spider-Man in CW I was scared that they would screw up. After the pain of ASM 2, my philo-arachnid heart would not have sustained another shock. However, Marvel Studios got him right. Of course, the length of his appearance on screen cannot justify considering it as a single film, however what I saw was very entertaining. Everything feels fresh about him. The facts that Tony Stark himself visits him at home to recruit him, and that aunt May is played by a young (and hot) (and half-Tuscan) Marisa Tomei are just the icing on the cake.
Vinny: So far, Civil War is one of the most entertaining products of Marvel Studios and this is also thanks to the amazing (pun intended) inclusion of Spider-Man. It could have been a disaster to re-reboot the franchise so soon, but this time our dear filmmakers did their job right and went for something ‘revolutionary’, bringing to the silver screen a teenager Peter Parker full of wit and nerdiness. Also, the moves of our beloved web-head during the battle royale at the airport are sweeeeeet: they get your blood pumping and it really looks like Spidey is finally there, going head to head with all the other, less cool Marvel heroes. Yes, I am a Spidey fanboy. Got a problem with that?



WARNING: Vinny and Fred cannot agree on number 3# and 2#, so they will now each explain their picks for these positions. They both have strong motivations for their opinions, though in the end they’ll just decide with head or tails. Or rock-paper-scissors.

Vinny: #3 Spider-Man (2002)

#2 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Usually I’m the kind of guy that prefers the ‘classics’, but this time I have to admit that the third cinematographic incarnation of Spider-Man is superior to its first. Nowadays cinemas are flooded with superhero movies and it is getting harder and harder to create something new and fresh. When in 2002 our dear Sam Raimi decided to temporarily abandon horror film and make a superhero film the genre was still in its early stages, and the film was a brand new product which made thousands of fans of the wallcrawler happy, myself included.
Well, Homecoming succeeded in something even harder than that: it has made fans happy again after decades! I want to make clear that I think Spider-Man is a great film, but I believe Homecoming is a better film: it is faithful to the comics, while at the same time updating them and placing them in our current time period. The old film is in some moments a bit too cartoonish, sometimes even ‘camp’, and this may distract the viewer and take the epicness out of the film. Homecoming is, despite being a superhero film, grounded in the real world and manages to tell a somewhat plausible story of a kid dealing with amazing powers. Ok, uncle Ben is not there to make us cry, but I feel this time his death would have been redundant and heavy-handed. Homecoming is telling a different story of a different Peter, which will probably resonate more with the younger generations, at the same time bringing back bittersweet memories to those who wish they were still teenagers.
On a less apologetic note, the action sequences are almost perfect: while the plane sequence may be a bit chaotic, the others are among the best you could find in any superhero film. Last, but definitely not least, the writing is finally really good, especially during the ‘dad talk’ before Peter goes to the school party. Maybe screenwriters are realising that the viewers have a brain?

Fred: #3 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

#2 Spider-Man (2002)

After long pondering, I pick the first Spider-Man film over the latest one. Of course I really enjoyed Homecoming, with its new take on a younger Peter Parker learning the ropes of the superhero business, and other new paths the film explores. However, to me it just doesn’t have the flavour of the first of the Raimi films. I’m aware that it might have to do with the nostalgic awe of watching my favourite Marvel hero brought faithfully to the silver screen fifteen years ago, but I still think that film captured the cartoonish gist of the hero better.
Although Tom Holland is more believable as a high-schooler in Homecoming, Tobey Maguire is totally credible as the teenager Parker struggling to make sense of his identity. Also, the origin story feels quite in place. It adds a touch of sentiment and guilt to the character, which is a fundamental trait in the comics, but lacks in the 2017 version. Yes, I know that Homecoming couldn’t feature uncle Ben and the origin story, and rightly so, but still I feel that the hero’s pain in Spider-Man is more prominent.
Also, the film directed by Raimi, though flawed, better captures the cartoonish nature of the character, with a lot of jokes (which appear in Homecoming too, to be fair) and just a good bit of camp colourfulness and exaggeration in the action. I still remember the actions scenes from Spider-Man, especially in the last fight with the Green Goblin, which owes a lot to the “The Night Gwen Stacy Died” story arc. The action scenes in Homecoming feel a bit all over the place and confused towards the end. I’m not sure I can be at peace with that. In conclusion, both films are really enjoyable, and do different things with the character, both succeeding albeit with ups and downs. Spider-Man is a memorable first film, and Homecoming does a great job in adapting the wallcrawler’s world to the current scene. However, Spider-Man still comes more strongly to mind, and heart, when thinking about which film is more faithful.

#1 Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Vinny: When I think about the perfect superhero film, I cannot help thinking about SM2.
Fred: When I think about Spider-Man 2, I think about the perfect superhero film.

Vinny and Fred: So say we all.

Vostri,
Fred and Vinny

The Rules of Gaming Engagement

 Hola! As people in Italy say to say "hi." Or is it Spain? I don't know. They're all the same country to me. Anyway, I'm back to writing here on the best blog on earth 616. But before delving into any (un) structured rambling, let me first write a big literary hug to my colleague Vinny! Thanks for the call, and care, brother.

And now, for some serious stuff. Serious indeed, because we're talking videogaming... and the church! Wait, the two things don't have nothing in common? It may appear so, at first glance, but bear with me a second here. Videogaming is everywhere now, from mobile softwares that keep casual gamers entertained for halves of hours while commuting on the train, or waiting in line, to massive open-world products that last hours and hours, and hours. What's more, in addition to new games coming out every month, companies are re-mastering old masterpieces, enhancing them in graphics and gameplay (When they're not lazy). Not only that, most triple-A games produced nowadays offer big, immersive worlds players can explore in all their recesses, where they can always find new things to do and craft besides the main adventure; where they can easily spend tens and tens of hours. 

So, with so much stuff to choose from every month, it goes without saying that it’s easy to feel confused. The contemporary gamer is faced every time with stifling dilemmas like “Should I play a new game that just came out, or should I go back to that old gem of gaming history that just got republished?” Or, even worse, after how many hours can one feel satisfied enough with a very long game that would take ages to beat?

Well, have no fear.

These have been crucial questions plaguing our daily lives, until now. I can boldly say that these aren’t a problem anymore, all thanks to the church. Yes, because I have just recently unearthed and translated an old ecclesiastical document of the utmost significance and stature, that will definitely put to silence all these doubts. Yes, it is true. It so happens that I, Fred, came into possession of the fabled chart of the rules of gaming, or the charta ludorum. This mythical document was written as a section of the much bigger De rerum budellorum matrum vestrarum, the famous encyclical written by the anti-pope Cervosi in the 15th century. There exists more legend than fact around this mysterious encyclical, which was initially written as a manual covering all aspects of practical life in admonishment for the corrupt customs of the time, but which then got lost in the sands of time, though after having wreaked havoc in the contemporary ecclesiastical community. The figure of  Cervosi himself is shrouded in mystery too. According the most reliable sources, he was the third Tuscan antipope, the first of the Livorno line, elected after the two Pisa antipopes Filargo and Cossa. However, different and contradictory accounts of his life exist, causing scholars endless debate as to what really happened.

However, this is not the main point here. What is important is that after long and painful research I have brought to light an excerpt of the gaming document. How this came to pass is of small concern here, and the details cannot be disclosed at the moment, as the truth would probably shake the foundations of our society. Therefore, I will concentrate on reporting the contents here, with its main articles translated from ecclesiastical Latin into modern English. Here they are:

1) The game does not dominate you. You dominate the game.

2) Fun is the core of gaming. This should be the principle of all your gaming enterprises.

3) When the fun stops, it is allowed that you may stop the game.

4) Second chances may be given to games reputed dull or boring, but only in the exceptional circumstances that the tedium originated from the player being tired, upset or, more in general, in any perturbed state that prevented his full lucidity while gaming.

5) When in doubt between a game for a current-gen console, and a past gem that everybody tells you you should play, always prefer the current generation one. You paid for the new machine, so you’d better get your money’s worth.

6) As for those who tell you you should have played this and that, well, just to hell with them.

7) In considering when you should deem yourself satisfied with an endless open-world RPG, and whether you got your money’s worth, apply the golden rule of "one hour of playing for each monetary unit you paid": so, 1 hour for 1 Euro, 1 hour for 1 Dollar, and so on. When you have played as much as you have spent, you can rightfully say you completed the game. Woe betide to anyone who says the contrary.

8) In the case of borrowed games, the rule obviously does not apply. Simply starting the game once will suffice.

9) HD remasters are to be considered worthy only when there is a considerable gameplay improvement, together with the graphical one. Or if it’s Final Fantasy, of course.

10) Local multiplayer is the only truthful form of multiplayer. No other form shall ever exist.

These where the first articles that I got. But Cervosi is thought to have written a good deal more. I will do my best to report his other words on these pages later on, as soon as I acquire larger parts of his encyclical. Yet, even in the present form, I guess they simplify things a great deal. If we stick to these rules, we’re all going to be happier gamers. Thank you for your wisdom, Cervosi.

Alla prossima,

Fred
 

Better Late Than Never: Magic The Gathering PART1

                                                    
                                       BEST CARD EVAAAAAAH   (I know, I know, it's a lame in-joke...)


So, many times in our lives we said: oh, I wish I did that thing when I was a teen, but now it's too late and I'm a grown up and I really can't, it doesn't matter if my brain is still as underdeveloped as it was at the time.
Well, to this I say BULLSHIT! We're never too old to do anything! So, what did I do that I haven't done as a teen? Go partying every night, being promiscuous and assuming every kind of illegal substance? NO, because I'm still a nerd as I was before! Then learn how to play an instrument or something artistic like that? No, because I'm lazy!

What I did, and still doing, is playing Magic The Gathering (from now on MTG as this is how the pros call the game). Back in the early 2000, when I was still a teen, my only approach at MTG was this: I bought a 2 player starter set (I think this was the name of that product) and forced a friend to play with me. I kinda liked the game, and the instructions were clear. However, I only played a couple of games with that friend and that's it. The cards in that pack were very basic and that specific product had no replayability at all.

What I should have done was to grab that friend or go on my own to a shop where they played MTG, buy an intro deck or something similar and start playing with seasoned players. Well, I didn't.

A bunch of decades later, a friend confesses me he was a MTG player but quit for various reasons and sold all his cards for some pocket money. He tells me he misses the game and that MTG is an amazing game. So, what happened was that me and the woman that oddly loves me more than anything decided get his for his birthday a Deck Builder's Toolkit of Shadow Over Innistrad. Also, we bought two of the same for us, as we thought it would be fun to start playing together . At the time I had no idea if the DBT was a good purchase or not, nor I knew what the hell Innistrad meant. But I was really curious to have another go at that game!

The problem was, I didn't really know where to start from! Luckily my friend, as a returning player, gave us some guidance, but he admitted it was quite 'rusty' regarding the mechanics. Also, he realised they introduced TONS of new in-game mechanics!

I need to quickly explain what the Deck Builder's Toolkit is: it's a neat box with a bunch of lands, a bunch of cards of each of the 5 colours (don't expect to find any valuable or powerful card among those though) and a few sealed booster packs (can't remember how many) from a few different sets.

Well, our friend explained us I'd have to BUILD A 60 CARD DECK OUT OF THOSE. Aaaaaaand I kinda panicked. There are more than 200 cards in this box, how can I just pick 60 of them?! So he explained me that different colours mean different 'attitudes' of the cards: white is for protection, blue is mind, red is brute strength, green nature, black necromancy...OK, black definitely sounds cooler than the others, but this didn't help that much. Anyway, I picked two colours (because I was bold and thought one was NOT ENOUGH) and did my best. Put some creatures, some lands and some other stuff. Damn, in this game they have 3 different names for what you'd call 'spells' (instant, sorcery, enchantment) but, and this is confusing, EVERY SINGLE CARD IS A SPELL. Yes, even a creature is a spell, as you are a Planeswalker (like a mage) casting every sort of spell. Very straightforward, right?

Anyway, got my green-blue deck (if I remember correctly) and played my first match. And discovered I didn't put enough lands (which are the 'money' to pay the cost of every spell), so that I ended up not being able to play that many cards.

In the next games I fixed that, and the experience was much more enjoyable. Actually, I really enjoyed the game! Put creatures on the boar, tap them for attack but maybe keep some untapped for blocking the opponent, play a sorcery to destroy another creature, enchant one and make it stronger...pretty cool stuff. And lots of variations though! I was starting to get why this MTG was and is so popular after all...

BUT. There is a but. I only suspected that at the time, and now I know it for sure : MTG has a very steep learning curve, due to its complexity as a game. Complexity which, at the same time, makes this game one of the very best in its own genre.

So, what happened was that, after a while, we got tired of our decks or, to be more precise, of our cards. We made different decks of different colours, but our games become to be a bit repetitive and 'random'. What I mean when I say random is that I felt there was something 'lacking' in our decks.

What was that? Did that stopped us from playing? These, and many other questions nobody asked will be answered in the next 'episode' of BLTNMTG. What a charming acronym.

A presto raga!

Il vostro,

Vinny Panini

THIS BLOG IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THIS BLOG

A random image that doesn't fit that much with the post. But posts with no pics are booooooring.

Two enthusiastic posts, then two months of absolute silence.

I knew it! Another project that starts with lots of enthusiasm and then...just dies in silence. Well, my friends, maybe not this time.

But what happened? Or, even better: what didn't happen? I started this blog as I felt the need to have a platform where I could write whatever I wanted, without having to follow a formula or be rigorous. I think I'm talking for my dear Fred Cannoli as well, the co-founder of this blog. Dear reader, you need to know that more or less for a living I write every day lots of cool stuff which probably won't be read by many people but which needs to be top-notch: well researched, creative, well structured. So, I thought: let's start a blog, where I can just throw shit on paper (not literally, as I'm not writing on paper) and don't care about the result. 

So I hammered my fingers on the keyboard and wrote my first post, which was a sort of rant and personal opinion on the current mania of remaking films (yes, it's still here on the blog).

All was good, but then...the VOID. What happened is, I believe, that I unconsciously started thinking too hard about the audience and the quality of the contents of this post. 

OK, let's go a bit more into detail here: the audience. If you are reading this post, well, you are indeed my audience. Maybe you won't come back to read any other post, but still. When I started, I said to myself: who cares about the audience! Just DO IT. If nobody reads it, that's fine. I'm doing it for myself. Well, guess what? That didn't work. And this brings me to the other point: the content.

As I kinda wanted to have an audience, I was trying to figure out how to produce interesting and original content. I didn't want to do what the other bloggers are doing: tell interesting stories about their lives, shout their opinions about politics and do totally biased reviews of films, comics etc. I wanted to do something smart that let readers  THINK.

Turns out, I really don't know if I'm capable of that, and I couldn't accept that. 

So, as I'm writing again on the blog and I'm 'confessing' all my false hopes and broken dreams...does this mean I finally found a way to do it? HELL NO. And I probably won't. What I found is, hopefully, the strength for accepting my limits and work within them.

What to expect then from now on? ANYTHING. Literally, I will take any aspect I encounter in my boring life which makes me think a bit (yes, that can happen. It's horrible) and I'll write a post. I really don't want to have deadlines (nobody will ever pay me for doing this) but I'd say I'll post at least once (ideally twice) a week.

OK, now two important things: first, the English of this blog. You may have noticed that the writing is a bit...weird. Well, that's because ENGLISH IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE. I think I'm doing pretty well, but you'll find here bad grammar, misspellings and the like. At first I decided to have a person doing a light proofreading of my posts but...I think that's not fair. This is just something I do for fun, and I don't think a proofreading is necessary. What is necessary is the patience of the hypothetical readers. That's it!

Last, but definitely not least! Actually, this is VERY IMPORTANT: in this post I am writing what I feel, but this blog also belongs to my dear friend Fred Cannoli. In this post I'm stating what I THINK, NOT WHAT WE THINK.

Fred is going through some really, really REALLY bad stuff at the moment, and I don't know if he'll feel like writing on this blog again. Something tells me he will, but I can't push anyone to do things they don't feel like doing or they don't believe in. Anyway, he still has total creative control on this blog, and I want both him, and you, dear reader, to know that. I hope he'll join me soon in the resurgence of this prematurely dead blog, but that's totally up to him. This blog-thing is not the same without you, Fred!

Wow, this post is long and boring! What a great start! OK, enough of this. Soon, you'll find a new post and you'd better be here reading!

Statemi bene! Vostro,

Vinny Panini

 

 

DC Comics Reborn

Last May, the DC Comics universe was reborn. Again. The most recent time when Batman & Co. had been reborn was in 2011, as part of the “New 52” initiative. However, the new timeline, initiated with the event called “Flashpoint”, indeed generated many nice story arcs, but it didn’t achieve the resurgence in comics’ sales that DC headquarters had hoped for. Therefore, the aim of breathing new life into the superheroes’ universe (and into that of potential new readers) may be seen as one of the reasons behind last year’s additional reboot.

Aside from considerations of a more practical nature, let’s see what has changed in terms of what matters to us: the stories and characters. Basically, the Rebirth initiative reties the pre-New 52 timeline and the present one, showing that the time split was not a consequence of Flash’s tampering with the past (as seen in Flashpoint) but actually the machinations of a certain character. So, with the magic touch and gimmicks of writer Geoff Johns, nothing is lost in the characters’ stories, and old and new friends can (re)begin their adventures anew. But then we have to consider, is Rebirth any good, or is it just a sterile attempt to renew the unrenewable, weakened under the emphasis of comic book publishers boosting movies aimed at a general audience? Well, it’s too early to say: for sure we haven’t seen the end of the plot bringing chaos into the superheroes’ worlds. But here’s what I think about the series I’ve come across so far.

DC Universe Rebirth. Geoff Johns (writer), various artists.

This is a must-read mini series serving as an introduction to the Rebirth event. It’s a must-read not primarily in terms of quality, but mainly because it sets the stage for the new universe, and it functions as a showcase of the predicaments of various heroes. Maybe even too much of a showcase: as an averagely-informed DC reader, I had trouble identifying all of the secondary characters and newer heroes in the pages, which occasionally turned out a bit confusing. However, in the end, one can make sense of what’s happening. Everyone’s favourite characters, such as Superman, Batman, the Flash, Wonder Woman, all take part in the rebirth. And the final revelation of who’s behind the temporal paradox is as unexpected as it is exciting. Of course, the showdown will take place a long way from here. All in all, a pretty nice, well-written and well-drawn (totally love Van Sciver) introduction. It’s still confusing in the beginning, but let’s face it: it’s good fun to see all of those characters with shiny new costumes start again.

Superman Vol. 1: Son of Superman. Peter J. Tomasi and Patrick Gleason (writers), various artists.

I can say upfront that this was the weakest of the few titles I read. I’m always torn about whether or not I should buy Superman titles. I like the characters and his mythology, but I am often disappointed with how the cycles end. I tend to find the last battles undermining. It happened with All Star Superman and Last Son of Krypton. It happened again here. The premise was interesting. Superman is living in the countryside with his wife Lois and their child Jon, who happens to have inherited his father’s powers (so Bryan Singer didn’t get it all wrong). While it is interesting to see how this new scenario of protecting family and the son coming to terms with the new powers he’s developing but can’t control, the final resolution does not quite deliver. The art gets the job done, without impressing me too much. The exception is Gleason’s old-fashioned style, which I found pleasing and in line with the overall out-of-time tone. Most of all, it also reminded me of the art in my beloved Red Son.

Batman Vol. 1: I am Gotham. Tom King (writer), David Finch (penciler).

Thank God they got Batman right. If the new beginning of Superman has its shortcomings, the new Batman has kicked off in a most promising way. I hadn’t read anything by Tom King (Scott Snyder, the main writer of New 52 Batman, is now in charge of All Star Batman), but judging from this first volume, I can say the caped crusader is in good hands. The story starts with an emotionally powerful moment of the dark knight, which made me almost shed a tear. Then, it introduces interesting characters for whom the reader can’t help but care in the end. Of course, there is no real ending to the whole saga. Something indeed happens in the end, but at the same time it sows seeds for Batman’s next adventures (as is wont) but also for something else entirely, which I can’t reveal here. We will see how that is played out in the next issues. I’m definitely getting vol. 2, which comes out next month. Which is more than I can say for Superman. Maybe Action Comics, with Dan Jurgens at the helm…

So that was the first batch of DC reviews. More to come in the future.

Alla prossima!

Fred

      Be still and just let me REMAKE you!

          It’s really no big news, as it has been out there for a while, but it struck me to read that now Disney is systematically planning to do live-action remakes of pretty much all its classic animated films. Well, remakes, re-imaginings, spin-offs... call them whatever you want. It was already in the air, as Disney has already produced Maleficent, Cinderella and now Beauty and the Beast, and people seemed to have enjoyed them. I do admit, I haven’t seen any of those, so I should just SHUT THE FRACK UP MAN, YOU DUNNO WHATCHA TALKING ABOUT! Yeah, yeah... Look, I just want to talk about this trend, this phenomenon, and I really don’t want to condemn any of these film or the ones that will come, as some will probably be good, if not excellent. It’s just that all this has me all puzzled!

          Let me be even broader: everyone seems to be doing remakes of everything! The remake of the cult anime Ghost in The Shell, Power Rangers (what?!), The Mummy, Death Note (expect a bitter post on that), The Matrix (SERIOUSLY?!) and so on. If you’d allow me (yes, you do allow me) to be even broader, producing follow-ups is even more popular than a remake: Trainspotting 2 (really didn’t see that coming), Blade Runner 2049 (smart title, but it’s Blade Runner 2, good luck with that), Fast and Furious I-have-lost-count. The list is truly endless. Moreover, there are even hybrids of the two! For example, as far as I know from rumors and trailers, Alien: Covenant could be a sort of Prometheus 2 (the character of David is there), Alien 5 (indeed, it is the fifth film with a xenomorph, and no, I don’t talk about Alien Vs Predators 1 and 2) or even a remake of Alien 3, as everyone seems to hate that movie (it’s imperfect for obvious reasons, but I quite like it). And what to make of Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Yeah, it’s a follow up in the series but... the sense of déjà vu during the viewing was very strong!

          And mentioning Star Wars opens a big can of sand worms: the big D has promised us a new SW film pretty much every year, alternating the ones belonging to the main saga and the spin-offs - like the good, but in the end useless - Rogue One (see, I liked that!). And now Disney owns Marvel, and Marvel Studios are putting out the staggering number of two big-budget films a year! And, obviously, Disney owns all of the classic films, and... go back and see the beginning of this post. It seems like it’s impossible to see an end to all this remaking, rebooting and sequeling (that’s a verb, trust me….).

          Is Disney the Empire of Dreams or the Evil Empire of Ready-Made Dreams? I wouldn’t be so drastic, as it is obvious that Disney is composed of many teams, which are each composed of many, many creative minds at work. So, I don’t think that creativity will be killed, even if those people will have to work inside defined boundaries. However, it does make me uncomfortable to think that just one company owns all of the franchises which which I grew up. If they really wanted to, there may be a chance for Disney to insert very specific values in their films and gently influence our lives... but enough about a Disney Conspiracy Theory!

          In conclusion to my first, rambling post on this blog (hi there!), let me write this: the trend described above is not a new thing. For example, Universal Studios did lots of sequels to its classic monster movies, rebooted some franchises and even did some horror comedies! Here, however, I’m talking about horror genre, which is kinda its own thing... damn, I’ll have to write another post on the genre! Anyway, the re-doing trend in film is an old thing and it’s stupid to say, “in the old days, everything was new”. Well, bullpoop (this is a safe for work blog). It has always been there. The problem nowadays is that a very high number of big budget films are remakes and the like, and their state-of-the-art marketing campaigns are always putting them on the spotlight. I also suspect that, due to the current economical situation, big companies want to play it safe, thus producing films that people are going to like for sure. But I really don’t know a thing about business and marketing, so I’ll just be quiet for now.

          One last thing: watch the ‘new’ re-made films with a critical eye and, if possible, enjoy them, but don’t forget the classics!

Ciao e a presto, vostro

Vinny Panini