An Alternate Reality: Fox's X-Men Cracked the Multiverse First

There's much talk of the alternate-reality/multiverse approach to both Marvel and DC mythologies: how their cinematic universes will open for a broad range of superhero crossovers. The intrigue is justified, but the idea isn't trailblazing or unusual among imagi-franchises. 

Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Star Trek, Terminator, Planet of the Apes, Alien Nation, Fringe, Sliders, Cloverfield and (in perhaps a more subtle manner) Toho's kaiju have paved thought-provoking, parallel paths. However (unless one considers such small-screen endeavors as Gerard Christopher's Superboy or Lois and Clark), the forerunner on the live-action superhero-franchise front is Twentieth Century Fox's X-Men. 

The actual catalyst came with Days of Future Past, named after a comic-book saga, which in turn was named after a legendary concept album by the Moody Blues. 

In X-Men's Days, time travel invades, with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine leading the charge. The '70s morph as a result, with an assassination attempt on President Nixon and bad girl, Mystique turning good in the end.

 

Nothing was the same after those events, though the altered history presented doesn't erase what came before or what may exist along an infinite number of celestial trails. The setup also allowed its actors to exchange roles and backgrounds within Days' ensuing sequels/prequels: a gimmick that both Warner Brothers and Disney now employ without shame. 

Considering X-Men's track record, our diligent mutants have left the door wide open for amazing offshoots and outcomes. For example, a few years prior, audiences were treated to a rugged realm where Logan grew old in a character study that, though connected to previous chapters, embodied its own world, while still begging for a down-the-line link to intersecting pockets.

Logan gave us something so brash and idealized, in fact, that rumor now claims that Jackman's world-weary mutant may cameo in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Some say that Patrick Stewart's Charles Xavier might manifest, too. We've also heard about Ryan Reynolds' intended insertion as Stan the Man's cameo replacement. And then there's this whole double-Quicksilver thing which--ah, shoot, for the sake of squashing a major spoiler, I must go mum. (Watch WandaVision Episode #5 for that significant scoop.) 

I sure hope that many members of the Fox team do, indeed, show in the grand, mix-and-match Marvel Cinematic Universe plan. The alternate-reality scope of X-Men is too prolific not to nibble on, in particular with Disney now holding the anything-goes, rebooting reins. If made part of the  unfurling, zigzagging realities, X-Men holds the transforming tonic to be uplifting, sorrowful, thrilling and above all, surprising at the same and varying times: ideal flavoring for any MCU stew.  

Let's hope the House of the Mouse doesn't fumble the opportunist ball. The X-Men should rub elbows with such big-screen counterparts as the Avengers, Spidey and the Fantastic Four; and more than on specialized occasion, but on a hardy, indefinite basis. Fingers crossed that this tried-and-true band of uncanny irregulars ascends again into the coveted X-light. 

Picard Returns

"Picard" is the new CBS All Access "Star Trek" series: a "Next Generation" continuation that not only features Patrick Stewart in his most famous role, but other assorted friends, such as Geri Ryan's gorgeous Seven of Nine. 

I honestly don't know how on target this sequel will be. Considering some of the skewed, revisionist takes on nostalgic entries as of late, I do suspect this incarnation could instill a mythology-messing agenda. 

On the other hand, why not rejoice in its basic premise? Jean Luc Picard is back and based on promotional bits, so is Jonathan Frake's Will Riker, Marina Sirtis' Deanna Troi and Brent Spiner's Mr. Data. 

Though folks won't admit it, there was a time when the "Next Generation" characters didn't always please the consensus, and (shock of shocks) Picard was one. Comparisons to William Shatner's James T. Kirk might be to blame, but I do believe because Picard stood as his own man (i.e., held his unique ground to impress), he was able to reach an iconic status that still stands to this day, thus the new series. 

Alas, to watch "Picard", one must pay. All the same, shelling out is a tempting prospect: one that Trekkies will likely embrace.

For better or worse (and let's pray it's the former), "Picard" arrives on Jan 23. 

I saw King Arthur Jr...

I guess with Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur" perceived as too mature, a more subdued version was opted; and so we're served writer/director Joe "Ant-Man" Cornish's "The Kid Who Would be King": a heart-in-the-right-place, family fantasy hampered by modern mollification. 

The next-generation Arthur Pendragon, otherwise called Alexander Elliot, is played by Louis Ashbourne Serkis (yep, Andy's son) and his pal, Bedders by Dean Chaumoo, both of whom are bullied and in desperate need of self-esteem. The duo gains such when Alexander extracts Excalibur from a construction site. From there the lad gains the predestined gumption to coax the bullies, Lance and Kaye (Tom Taylor and Rhianna Doris) into joining their crusade, which is (drum roll, please)...

Defeating Morgana, aka Morgan le Fay (Rebecca Ferguson), King Arthur's exiled half-sister who wants to rule (what else?) the whole, bloody screwed-up world, as she anticipates escape from her smoky pit. She's also got lots of monster-making magic to accomplish the self-serving task, but thanks to Merlin, portrayed with spell-snapping, eccentric command by both Angus Imrie (in long-term, spry guise) and Patrick Stewart (for the occasional cameo), her plans may not reach fruition. 

Besides, Alexander grows ever more courageous along his discovery trail, inspiring his budding knights to shed their doubts and fears to confront the tendriled villainess, thus establishing (through symbolic gesture) a potential Camelot II.

The concept sounds nice and noble, but it's slanted by Arthur's schoolboy boundaries, which favor Harry Potter (via verbal and visual means) as much as the classic legend. The mythologies don't mesh, and if I must explain why, then you're a fan of neither and/or your philosophical knowledge is damn weak. So be it...

For the record, I am a King Arthur fan--have been since way back when. I've long fancied the idea of a humble youth ascending to royalty or some form of great, non-conformist leadership. The execution needn't be as brash as Ritchie's or as splashy as James Wan's "Aquaman" to work, but it should always adapt an edge far sharper than sole Excalibur exudes. 

Arthurian legend requires toughness, a serious degree of prolonged sadness and rage to accompany its glory. That's where "The Kid..." skids. Though it moves well enough on a rudimentary level (and there's never a dull moment throughout), it never hits its emotional peak. That's frustrating, because the concept has "Spider-verse" reach, and to have nurtured it, it had only to deliver on its title.

I saw Logan...

In the X-Men movie universe, there's no longer a linear track. “Days of Future Past” changed all that. Varying offshoots like “Deadpool” and “Apocalypse” now characterize the franchise. “Logan” is the latest in this offbeat, parallel-chapter trend.

Directed by James Mangold from a script he coauthored with Scott Frank, “Logan” is, in a sense, “Wolverine 3”, but only in that it’s another solo-leading film for the franchise’s most popular mutant. This movie, however, is more or less its own thing: not succinctly connected to any of the cinematic chapters that came before it, nor linked directly to the X-Men comic-book series or its Marvel spin-offs. It is, on the other hand, loosely based on Mark Millar and Steven McNivan's "Old Man Logan": a post-apocalyptic mini-series, where our hero has (of all unexpected things) aged and mutant supremacy is waning. 

In the film adaptation, we're given a somber, ominous vision of Hugh Jackman's iconic portrayal, with Logan now on the run from his once noble past, with a seizure-prone Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) at his side in the possible year of 2029, where they encounter another of their kind: a little girl named Laura (Dafne Keen). Like Wolverine, she possesses an Adamantium constitution and the lethal claws that accompany it. Sinister men converge to capture the remarkable, little girl, but she doesn't intend to be caught, her sights steadfastly set on a mutant playground called Eden (how Mad Maxian, or perhaps even Trekian). With Wolverine and Professor X along for the trip (even if they're not at their energetic best), one could presume Laura has a damn good chance of achieving her dream. 

The bad guys in this instance are representative of any entitled, bullying group that sees society's slippage as its means for control. Led by scientist Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant), his security henchman Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) and the rapacious Reavers, the villains won't rest until the doctor's little, super soldier is seized. Nonetheless, these baddies appear to chase her more for sport than any viable cause: not that hunting a little girl, regardless of how captivating her abilities, should be perceived as honorable.

Hope at least prevails in Logan's staunch, though downcast presence, which comes with an implied blessing of fate. Professor X and the once mutant-seeker Caliban (Stephen Merchant) aid him in her welfare, with the latter's "home" giving the fugitives temporary refuge. Logan, in the meantime, must consider how he might fix Laura's dilemma, finally invoking the basic mettle to fight the antagonists head-on and maybe, just maybe, deliver the lass to her fabled haven. Alas, he hasn't been in good-deed practice for a spell, but through Laura's inspiring innocence, he manages to break that slump, thus culminating the film's burgeoning bond.

There’s a rich, slow sadness in the story's arc, which allows us to reacquaint ourselves with old friends and when need be, embrace new ones, even if they're disagreeable. Above all, we care about the protagonists and feel bad that they've entered such harshness: symbolic, in a way, of those tough times we all face in life. These mutants, however, must regain their dignity against staggering odds. Seeing how such may be accomplished makes the story, beyond its extrapolated circumstances, as engrossing as any standard melodrama kissed by Oscar's pretentious grace. "Logan", though, deserves its accolades and then some. 

Though the film holds Mangold's intended "Watchmen" flair, I liken “Logan” more to the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, “Maggie”: another character study that presents an adult's perspective toward a child's predicament. Additionally, "Logan'"s tone is similar to Mickey Rourke's in "The Wrestler": another tale of a tired man seeking a second chance, or at least some sign that life can be as rewarding as it once was. Whether Logan and his friends attain their goal is left for the audience to discover, but the path that leads there is fascinating and when it touches its tenderest parts, uplifting, particularly for anyone who might feel downtrodden, uninspired or overwhelmed. 

"Logan", contrary to what publicity implies, could act as an initial chapter in a new, progressing series, no matter what the ending seems to finalize. Because of the film's unique temperament, Wolverine, Professor X, Caliban and little Laura, have a decent chance to return, though it's probable they'd be reinvented on yet another parallel plane. Regardless, it matters little how they resurface (either on the printed page or the big screen), as long as they teach us how to cope, whether in the future, the past or as will likely be the case, in whatever fictional present we find ourselves at such moment.