DC Comics' 'The Sandman', written by Neil Gaiman, is a landmark comic-book storyline that has enjoyed a reputation among literary circles that rivals Alan Moore's 'Watchmen'. And similar to 'Watchmen', Gaiman's story was considered 'unfilmable' for, the argument went, these stories were different from your typical superhero comics, and that they were specifically written to be narrated across comic book panels and would not translate well to the screen -- big or small. Zack Snyder's reverential adaptation of 'Watchmen' divided Moore's fans and some called it a little bit too faithful. Moore himself disowned the adaptation. Netflix's 'The Sandman', which is blessed by Gaiman, however, does differ a little from the lore, but all in all is true to the essence of the tale of Morpheus, which is all that really matters.

For those who are new to 'Sandman', the story follows the titular entity, variously called Sandman, Morpheus, Dream, Lord of Dreams, and so on. Although he appears in a different form to different people, he is most often seen as a 30-something thin, pale man with a shaggy, spiky head of hair. Morpheus is one of the Endless, a group of seven beings who are billions of years old and represent different aspects of human experience. The others are Death, Destiny, Despair, Desire, Delirium, and Destruction.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/83ClbRPRDXU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

At the beginning of the story, Dream is captured by a British dark magician Roderick Burgess (Charles Dance), who wanted to summon Death, his sister, instead. For decades the Dream remains imprisoned in a glass cage, and the magician keeps trying to get him to resurrect his son. But the Dream doesn't, or can't. Burgess dies and his son takes over, and still Dream does not respond to his pleas. Meanwhile, in the real world, due to Dream's absence from his realm has dire consequences. &nbsp;For instance, some people could not wake up from their sleep for decades and all but one died without ever waking up.

One day, Dream escapes and exacts his vengeance. And then he embarks upon a quest to retrieve his stolen tools and rebuild his crumbling realm and restore order. Along the way, he encounters a variety of interesting characters.

'The Sandman', the Netflix series that is, respects his source material but the writing is thankfully not worshipful -- something that sunk Snyder's 'Watchmen'. The writers realise that the comic book series was a product of its time and some of the aspects have not aged well. The show both adapts and engages with its source material in meaningful ways. Also, here the writers pick and choose as to what to include, a wise decision as the 'Sandman' storyline is absolutely immense in scope and if every single thing was crammed in 50-60 minutes of television, even some of the major characters will get a shot or two.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iZOwaeAEIw0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

But the purists need not worry too much, as some of the most iconic panels from the comics have been recreated here in startling detail and with unerring accuracy. &nbsp;

The casting is another thing that elevates Netflix's 'The Sandman'. It's just right. Even the changes flow nicely with the story. Tom Sturridge's portrayal of Dream as a mopey man feels like the character we know from the comic book panels jumped into the real world -- it is that good.&nbsp;The casting goes quite astonishingly deep.&nbsp;David Thewlis, always brilliant in everything but particularly the roles of unpleasant men and rejects from the society, has an episode of his own set in a diner (readers will know what I am talking about) and it is actually better in the show.

Stephen Fry appears as a personification of a verdant heaven-like place within the realm of Dreaming in a couple of episodes and it appears the show will suffer if he were not in it. Gwendoline Christie is majestic and terrible as Lucifer. Jenna Coleman's Johanna Constantine is everything you'd expect from a Constantine -- sass, sarcasm, intelligence, resourcefulness, and of course the iconic trenchcoat. Kirby Howell-Baptiste plays Death with wide eyes and wider smiles, a vivacious, cheery contrast to her gloomy brother. &nbsp;

All that said, 'The Sandman' is not perfect. The decision to move the 'present' timeline to 2022 (or nearabouts) instead of the 1980s or 1990s (in the original story) is an odd choice and does not sit well with a few aspects of the story. 'Sandman' was 'Sandman' because it came out in that era, and it had a lot of elements that characterised the pop culture of those two decades. Also, the show I fear may not be very newbie-friendly. The story has dense mythology and while not everything is included in the show, there is enough to confound those who have only a passing acquaintance with 'The Sandman'.

If this sounds like nitpicking, it is. That is my job as a critic. 'The Sandman', if you will allow me a corny pun, is mostly a dream come true, particularly for somebody like me who has been a huge fan of this story for a long, long time.&nbsp;

Thus far, 'The Sandman' is the best show of the year.&nbsp;

DC Comics' 'The Sandman', written by Neil Gaiman, is a landmark comic-book storyline that has enjoyed a reputation among literary circles that rivals Alan Moore's 'Watchmen'.

DC Comics' 'The Sandman', written by Neil Gaiman, is a landmark comic-book storyline that has enjoyed a reputation among literary circles that rivals Alan Moore's 'Watchmen'. And similar to 'Watchmen', Gaiman's story was considered 'unfilmable' for, the argument went, these stories were different from your typical superhero comics, and that they were specifically written to be narrated across comic book panels and would not translate well to the screen -- big or small. Zack Snyder's reverential adaptation of 'Watchmen' divided Moore's fans and some called it a little bit too faithful. Moore himself disowned the adaptation. Netflix's 'The Sandman', which is blessed by Gaiman, however, does differ a little from the lore, but all in all is true to the essence of the tale of Morpheus, which is all that really matters. For those who are new to 'Sandman', the story follows the titular entity, variously called Sandman, Morpheus, Dream, Lord of Dreams, and so on. Although he appears in a different form to different people, he is most often seen as a 30-something thin, pale man with a shaggy, spiky head of hair. Morpheus is one of the Endless, a group of seven beings who are billions of years old and represent different aspects of human experience. The others are Death, Destiny, Despair, Desire, Delirium, and Destruction. At the beginning of the story, Dream is captured by a British dark magician Roderick Burgess (Charles Dance), who wanted to summon Death, his sister, instead. For decades the Dream remains imprisoned in a glass cage, and the magician keeps trying to get him to resurrect his son. But the Dream doesn't, or can't. Burgess dies and his son takes over, and still Dream does not respond to his pleas. Meanwhile, in the real world, due to Dream's absence from his realm has dire consequences. For instance, some people could not wake up from their sleep for decades and all but one died without ever waking up. One day, Dream escapes and exacts his vengeance. And then he embarks upon a quest to retrieve his stolen tools and rebuild his crumbling realm and restore order. Along the way, he encounters a variety of interesting characters. 'The Sandman', the Netflix series that is, respects his source material but the writing is thankfully not worshipful -- something that sunk Snyder's 'Watchmen'. The writers realise that the comic book series was a product of its time and some of the aspects have not aged well. The show both adapts and engages with its source material in meaningful ways. Also, here the writers pick and choose as to what to include, a wise decision as the 'Sandman' storyline is absolutely immense in scope and if every single thing was crammed in 50-60 minutes of television, even some of the major characters will get a shot or two. But the purists need not worry too much, as some of the most iconic panels from the comics have been recreated here in startling detail and with unerring accuracy. The casting is another thing that elevates Netflix's 'The Sandman'. It's just right. Even the changes flow nicely with the story. Tom Sturridge's portrayal of Dream as a mopey man feels like the character we know from the comic book panels jumped into the real world -- it is that good. The casting goes quite astonishingly deep. David Thewlis, always brilliant in everything but particularly the roles of unpleasant men and rejects from the society, has an episode of his own set in a diner (readers will know what I am talking about) and it is actually better in the show. Stephen Fry appears as a personification of a verdant heaven-like place within the realm of Dreaming in a couple of episodes and it appears the show will suffer if he were not in it. Gwendoline Christie is majestic and terrible as Lucifer. Jenna Coleman's Johanna Constantine is everything you'd expect from a Constantine -- sass, sarcasm, intelligence, resourcefulness, and of course the iconic trenchcoat. Kirby Howell-Baptiste plays Death with wide eyes and wider smiles, a vivacious, cheery contrast to her gloomy brother. All that said, 'The Sandman' is not perfect. The decision to move the 'present' timeline to 2022 (or nearabouts) instead of the 1980s or 1990s (in the original story) is an odd choice and does not sit well with a few aspects of the story. 'Sandman' was 'Sandman' because it came out in that era, and it had a lot of elements that characterised the pop culture of those two decades. Also, the show I fear may not be very newbie-friendly. The story has dense mythology and while not everything is included in the show, there is enough to confound those who have only a passing acquaintance with 'The Sandman'. If this sounds like nitpicking, it is. That is my job as a critic. 'The Sandman', if you will allow me a corny pun, is mostly a dream come true, particularly for somebody like me who has been a huge fan of this story for a long, long time. Thus far, 'The Sandman' is the best show of the year.

'The Sandman' review: Netflix's DC series is the best show of 2022 so far

DCEU, or the DC film universe, such as it is, has been in the doldrums for quite a while. The people in charge cannot seem to figure out how to build a unified cinematic landscape as the rivals at Marvel Studios have done. It is even stranger when you think the individual movies, particularly the recent ones, have been mostly pretty good. It is just that the characters do not seem to play well with each other, something Kevin Feige's MCU succeeded in. 'DC League of Super-Pets' is an animated movie that appears to have only a tangential connection to anything else in DCEU and its heroes are the pets of Justice League and not the Justice League members themselves, but it proves that DC comic book characters can also shine if there is a coherent vision behind it.

<h2>Is&nbsp;'DC League of Super-Pets' any good?</h2>

Granted, 'DC League of Super-Pets' is an animated film and most (but not all) of its jokes are targeted towards the younger DC fans. But it tells a nicely paced story, a lot of heart, is action-packed and the laughs more often than not land.&nbsp;Krypto (Dwayne Johnson) is a superpowered Labrador who came to earth with Superman (John Krasinski) after their home Krypton was destroyed. They together fight crime and take down baddies who are threatening Metropolis. However, things sour, from Krypto's perspective anyway, when Supes gets himself tangled in a romance with fellow Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Olivia Wilde).

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1jkw2JPCl18" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Assuming that Krypto needs a friend to overcome his jealousy, Clarke Kent takes him to an animal shelter. But of course, Krypto does not think he wants friends no other animal on earth has superpowers like him. But when Superman and the Justice League get captured and Krypto loses superpowers thanks to a generous dose of Kryptonite, it is up to Krypto to find help to rescue his friend. The 'help' comes in the form of the animals at that animal shelter, who are not superpowered due to a substance called orange Kryptonite.&nbsp;

<h2>Inspired by&nbsp;'The Secret Life of Pets'?</h2>

'DC League of Super-Pets', to be honest, has a pretty straightforward script with little deviations and surprises. The end is fairly predictable. But the humor, action, and stellar voice-acting keep the events transpiring on the screen interesting. The film owes a lot of fun interplay between its four-footed characters to 'The Secret Life of Pets', and chances are if you love that film, you will like 'DC League of Super-Pets'.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-joker-2-lady-gaga-confirms-role-opposite-joaquin-phoenix-as-harley-quinn-503775">'Joker 2': Lady Gaga confirms role opposite Joaquin Phoenix as Harley Quinn. Watch</a>

And here, there is an added bonus of superpowers here. They are extremely well-realised. Animals flying and shooting laser beams from their eyes will never be funny, but there is a sense of grittiness to the action here. This film was entirely made on computers, but fight sequences are top-notch and truly majestic at times. In many ways, the film can teach the directors in its live-action counterparts in DCEU something.&nbsp;

<h2>'DC League of Super-Pets' is better than 'Justice League'?</h2>

It sounds incredible as I write this, but I had more fun with 'DC League of Super-Pets' than I had with 'Justice League' -- either the original theatrical release, which I was neutral to, or 'Zack Snyder's Justice League', which I loved.

DCEU, or the DC film universe, such as it is, has been in the doldrums for quite a while. The people in charge cannot seem to figure out how to build a unified cinematic landscape as the rivals at Marvel Studios have done.

DCEU, or the DC film universe, such as it is, has been in the doldrums for quite a while. The people in charge cannot seem to figure out how to build a unified cinematic landscape as the rivals at Marvel Studios have done. It is even stranger when you think the individual movies, particularly the recent ones, have been mostly pretty good. It is just that the characters do not seem to play well with each other, something Kevin Feige's MCU succeeded in. 'DC League of Super-Pets' is an animated movie that appears to have only a tangential connection to anything else in DCEU and its heroes are the pets of Justice League and not the Justice League members themselves, but it proves that DC comic book characters can also shine if there is a coherent vision behind it. Is 'DC League of Super-Pets' any good? Granted, 'DC League of Super-Pets' is an animated film and most (but not all) of its jokes are targeted towards the younger DC fans. But it tells a nicely paced story, a lot of heart, is action-packed and the laughs more often than not land. Krypto (Dwayne Johnson) is a superpowered Labrador who came to earth with Superman (John Krasinski) after their home Krypton was destroyed. They together fight crime and take down baddies who are threatening Metropolis. However, things sour, from Krypto's perspective anyway, when Supes gets himself tangled in a romance with fellow Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Olivia Wilde). Assuming that Krypto needs a friend to overcome his jealousy, Clarke Kent takes him to an animal shelter. But of course, Krypto does not think he wants friends no other animal on earth has superpowers like him. But when Superman and the Justice League get captured and Krypto loses superpowers thanks to a generous dose of Kryptonite, it is up to Krypto to find help to rescue his friend. The 'help' comes in the form of the animals at that animal shelter, who are not superpowered due to a substance called orange Kryptonite. Inspired by 'The Secret Life of Pets'? 'DC League of Super-Pets', to be honest, has a pretty straightforward script with little deviations and surprises. The end is fairly predictable. But the humor, action, and stellar voice-acting keep the events transpiring on the screen interesting. The film owes a lot of fun interplay between its four-footed characters to 'The Secret Life of Pets', and chances are if you love that film, you will like 'DC League of Super-Pets'. Also Read: 'Joker 2': Lady Gaga confirms role opposite Joaquin Phoenix as Harley Quinn. Watch And here, there is an added bonus of superpowers here. They are extremely well-realised. Animals flying and shooting laser beams from their eyes will never be funny, but there is a sense of grittiness to the action here. This film was entirely made on computers, but fight sequences are top-notch and truly majestic at times. In many ways, the film can teach the directors in its live-action counterparts in DCEU something. 'DC League of Super-Pets' is better than 'Justice League'? It sounds incredible as I write this, but I had more fun with 'DC League of Super-Pets' than I had with 'Justice League' -- either the original theatrical release, which I was neutral to, or 'Zack Snyder's Justice League', which I loved.

'DC League of Super-Pets' movie review: This animal caper is more fun than 'Justice League'

Recently, Warner Bros axed the 'Batgirl' movie starring Leslie Grace in the role of DC superhero. The decision comes under the new David Zaslav-led regime of Warner Bros. Discovery, after the two companies -- WarnerMedia and Discovery -- merged. Ever since Zaslav took command, he has&nbsp;shown himself to be pretty ruthless, but even for him, cancelling an almost finished movie, with acclaimed directors like Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah at the helm, an undeniable popular appeal that is inherent in comic-book superheroes, and finally a cast with names like Grace, Michael Keaton, Brendan Fraser, and JK Simmons is unprecedented. The movie also highlights why DCEU (DC Extended Universe) has been lagging behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe for nearly a decade and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/batgirl-nicolas-cages-superman-lives-quentin-tarantinos-debut-movie-other-unreleased-films-503529">Apart from 'Batgirl', Nicolas Cage's 'Superman Lives' &amp; these 7 films were also scrapped!</a>

While the Marvel Cinematic Universe started with 2008's summer release of Jon Favreau's 'Iron Man', the DCEU's beginning came half a decade later in 2013 with Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel', and it has only played catchup since then. Starring Robert Downey Jr in the role, 'Iron Man' was a runaway, and yet unexpected, hit. The superhero was not a well-known one, and frankly neither were the Avengers that came later for the general audience who were not comic book readers. But Marvel Studios, with Kevin Feige at the helm, had trust in themselves and the cast (even Robert Downey Jr, who was pretty much persona non grata back then due to his substance abuse issues run-ins with the law) and crew that paid off.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T6DJcgm3wNY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The challenge in front of 'Iron Man' was also 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan's grownup oriented 'The Dark Knight' was more of a crime thriller than a full-fledged superhero pic. But the Dark Knight trilogy, featuring Christian Bale in the role, was its own self-contained universe. And it was not until 'Man of Steel' that DC really looked into building a cinematic universe.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y08IjYs_XZY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Starring Henry Cavill in the role of Superman, the film was a standalone film that was supposed to eventually lead to the formation of the Justice League. But the film was poorly received, and Snyder's gloomier Superman was rejected by fans. The film was a decent commercial success and received mixed critical reviews. The next two releases -- 'Batman V Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' -- were even more heavily panned by critics and disappointed at the box office as well, the former especially when it had the main three DC superheroes.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-warner-bros-shelves-batgirl-will-not-release-in-theatres-or-hbo-max-503045">Warner Bros shelves 'Batgirl', will not release in theatres or HBO Max</a>

Again, 'Batman V Superman' featured an angry Superman and an even angrier Batman taking on each other and the general mood of the film was like the writers and Snyder did not want the audience to have fun with the movie.

Then came 'Wonder Woman' in 2017, a more hopeful and sunny superhero movie starring Gal Gadot, which pleased both audiences and critics. However, whatever goodwill 'Wonder Woman' had generated evaporated with 'Justice League' later, a bastardised film with two competing visions of Snyder, who had to quit the production midway after a family tragedy, and Joss Whedon, who had directed the first two 'Avengers' movies for rival Marvel Studios, and finished the film.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thanos-idiotic-plan-and-other-things-that-make-absolutely-no-sense-in-marvel-movies-498039">Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies</a>

The film was a spectacular failure, grossing about $650 million on a budget of an incredible $350 million. The reason, apart from the tonal mess, was also that audiences did not know most of these characters. Only Superman and Wonder Woman had had standalone films. Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg were known only to comic book fans and those who had seen the animated series on DC's primary superhero team. In other words, DC had not earned a team-up movie yet. It was too hurried, particularly in contrast to the MCU.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r9-DM9uBtVI" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

'Justice League' failure prompted execs and Warner Bros to overhaul the structure of DC Films, just one of many since then. The DCEU as it existed then was scrapped. The decision was taken to not focus on a cinematic universe, but rather on smaller self-contained universes that can crossover with each other every now and then -- much like the DC Universe in comics.

After that, DC films have been more successful, with hits like 'Aquaman' and 'Shazam!', but there have been setbacks too mainly due to the regimes that keep changing and that are evermore capricious. 'Batgirl' cancellation is a case in point. The film, even if it was terrible, would easily have been dumped on HBO Max, WarnerMedia's streaming service, without a lot of money spent on marketing. But the $90 million film was outright cancelled. This may have saved money (more likely not) but will disillusion the fans even more. And talented filmmakers will not trust the studio if their projects can be cancelled after they are greenlit and even when they are almost finished. Ezra Miller-starrer crossover movie 'The Flash' is also in danger as Miller has had legal troubles due to multiple instances of violent behaviour. But perhaps it is too expensive to be cancelled.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/riDeeSHw0V0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The biggest reason DC films are a mess is there has been a lack of unifying vision throughout the DCEU history, nobody like Feige to oversee the films and the cinematic universe. And no, Zack Snyder is not it as his vision was already roundly rejected by both critics and fans. And I am saying it as somebody who loved 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'. So no, do not #RestoreTheSnyderVerse. Instead, stick with what you have got, and find somebody as passionate as Feige is about comic book movies to govern the DC adaptations.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Recently, Warner Bros axed the 'Batgirl' movie starring Leslie Grace in the role of DC superhero. The decision comes under the new David Zaslav-led regime of Warner Bros.

Recently, Warner Bros axed the 'Batgirl' movie starring Leslie Grace in the role of DC superhero. The decision comes under the new David Zaslav-led regime of Warner Bros. Discovery, after the two companies -- WarnerMedia and Discovery -- merged. Ever since Zaslav took command, he has shown himself to be pretty ruthless, but even for him, cancelling an almost finished movie, with acclaimed directors like Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah at the helm, an undeniable popular appeal that is inherent in comic-book superheroes, and finally a cast with names like Grace, Michael Keaton, Brendan Fraser, and JK Simmons is unprecedented. The movie also highlights why DCEU (DC Extended Universe) has been lagging behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe for nearly a decade and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Also Read: Apart from 'Batgirl', Nicolas Cage's 'Superman Lives' & these 7 films were also scrapped! While the Marvel Cinematic Universe started with 2008's summer release of Jon Favreau's 'Iron Man', the DCEU's beginning came half a decade later in 2013 with Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel', and it has only played catchup since then. Starring Robert Downey Jr in the role, 'Iron Man' was a runaway, and yet unexpected, hit. The superhero was not a well-known one, and frankly neither were the Avengers that came later for the general audience who were not comic book readers. But Marvel Studios, with Kevin Feige at the helm, had trust in themselves and the cast (even Robert Downey Jr, who was pretty much persona non grata back then due to his substance abuse issues run-ins with the law) and crew that paid off. The challenge in front of 'Iron Man' was also 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan's grownup oriented 'The Dark Knight' was more of a crime thriller than a full-fledged superhero pic. But the Dark Knight trilogy, featuring Christian Bale in the role, was its own self-contained universe. And it was not until 'Man of Steel' that DC really looked into building a cinematic universe. Starring Henry Cavill in the role of Superman, the film was a standalone film that was supposed to eventually lead to the formation of the Justice League. But the film was poorly received, and Snyder's gloomier Superman was rejected by fans. The film was a decent commercial success and received mixed critical reviews. The next two releases -- 'Batman V Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' -- were even more heavily panned by critics and disappointed at the box office as well, the former especially when it had the main three DC superheroes. Also Read: Warner Bros shelves 'Batgirl', will not release in theatres or HBO Max Again, 'Batman V Superman' featured an angry Superman and an even angrier Batman taking on each other and the general mood of the film was like the writers and Snyder did not want the audience to have fun with the movie. Then came 'Wonder Woman' in 2017, a more hopeful and sunny superhero movie starring Gal Gadot, which pleased both audiences and critics. However, whatever goodwill 'Wonder Woman' had generated evaporated with 'Justice League' later, a bastardised film with two competing visions of Snyder, who had to quit the production midway after a family tragedy, and Joss Whedon, who had directed the first two 'Avengers' movies for rival Marvel Studios, and finished the film. Also Read: Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies The film was a spectacular failure, grossing about $650 million on a budget of an incredible $350 million. The reason, apart from the tonal mess, was also that audiences did not know most of these characters. Only Superman and Wonder Woman had had standalone films. Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg were known only to comic book fans and those who had seen the animated series on DC's primary superhero team. In other words, DC had not earned a team-up movie yet. It was too hurried, particularly in contrast to the MCU. 'Justice League' failure prompted execs and Warner Bros to overhaul the structure of DC Films, just one of many since then. The DCEU as it existed then was scrapped. The decision was taken to not focus on a cinematic universe, but rather on smaller self-contained universes that can crossover with each other every now and then -- much like the DC Universe in comics. After that, DC films have been more successful, with hits like 'Aquaman' and 'Shazam!', but there have been setbacks too mainly due to the regimes that keep changing and that are evermore capricious. 'Batgirl' cancellation is a case in point. The film, even if it was terrible, would easily have been dumped on HBO Max, WarnerMedia's streaming service, without a lot of money spent on marketing. But the $90 million film was outright cancelled. This may have saved money (more likely not) but will disillusion the fans even more. And talented filmmakers will not trust the studio if their projects can be cancelled after they are greenlit and even when they are almost finished. Ezra Miller-starrer crossover movie 'The Flash' is also in danger as Miller has had legal troubles due to multiple instances of violent behaviour. But perhaps it is too expensive to be cancelled. The biggest reason DC films are a mess is there has been a lack of unifying vision throughout the DCEU history, nobody like Feige to oversee the films and the cinematic universe. And no, Zack Snyder is not it as his vision was already roundly rejected by both critics and fans. And I am saying it as somebody who loved 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'. So no, do not #RestoreTheSnyderVerse. Instead, stick with what you have got, and find somebody as passionate as Feige is about comic book movies to govern the DC adaptations.

'Batgirl' cancellation explains why DCEU is such a mess compared to MCU

The eleventh episode of the sixth and final season of 'Better Call Saul' is probably the most revelatory episode so far and for longtime fans of the 'Breaking Bad' universe, most exciting. Not only do we finally learn of the fate of Rhea Seehorn's Kim Wexler, the heroine and in this scribe's opinion the main character of the show, but we also get to renew our acquaintance with old favourites: Walter White (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Saul Goodman). The latter does not count as a spoiler as the very title of the episode is 'Breaking Bad' and it has long been known that the two main characters from the original show will return.&nbsp;

Hereon though, I am going to go into specifics, so if are yet to see the episode, please do and come back.&nbsp;

SPOILER ALERT

Directed by the veteran of the 'Breaking Bad' universe, Thomas Schnauz, 'Breaking Bad' with none other than Francesca Liddy (Tina Parker), Saul Goodman's secretary who worked for him in his office. After all the brouhaha of law enforcement dismantling Heisenberg's massive drug empire, her fate was not revealed. Turns out, she is alive and well but has to do menial jobs for a living. She receives a call from Goodman who offers her money in return of information. The titular hero apparently wants back in the game. Having lived under cover as Gene Takavic, he is back to his old ways.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-how-better-call-saul-became-kim-wexlers-story-501183">How 'Better Call Saul' became Kim Wexler's story</a>

Oh, and Francesca says she received a call from Kim Wexler! So Kim is alive. When Saul tries to call her in a phone booth, he appears to be speaking angrily -- it is not clear whether it is her or somebody else -- and slams the telephone repeatedly and kicks and breaks the door glass.

Meanwhile, Saul again enlists the help of Jeff (Pat Healy) and his friend and begins fooling fairly rich patrons in a bar and accumulating a respectable pile of cash. The first thing he does? He orders the massager he used to have back in his office in his Saul Goodman days. Despite the risk, despite what his time living as a slimy lawyer gave him, Gene cannot help himself. He is as addicted to breaking bad as Pinkman was to meth.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-10-review-saul-goodman-pulls-a-nippy-con-in-a-flashforward-episode-500837">'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 review: Saul Goodman pulls a "Nippy" con in a flashforward episode</a>

And yes, Walt and Jesse return. The scene elaborates upon the 'Breaking Bad' scene in which the two kidnap Saul and threaten him by digging a man-sized hole out in the desert. And Saul thinks Lalo sent them. We see Saul getting back in the truck and same old bickering between Walt and Jesse ensues. Although they are both not good people, the scene is still like meeting old friends.&nbsp;

The scene is a little jarring, though. Both Cranston and Goodman look a little different. Goodman, particularly, is a little older. We also get to see Mike in a flashback that preceded Saul going to meet Walter White at his workplace.&nbsp;

The final scene of the long-ish episode promises that Saul Goodman is truly back in the present.&nbsp;

'Better Call Saul' streams on Netflix in India.

The eleventh episode of the sixth and final season of 'Better Call Saul' is probably the most revelatory episode so far and for longtime fans of the 'Breaking Bad' universe, most exciting.

The eleventh episode of the sixth and final season of 'Better Call Saul' is probably the most revelatory episode so far and for longtime fans of the 'Breaking Bad' universe, most exciting. Not only do we finally learn of the fate of Rhea Seehorn's Kim Wexler, the heroine and in this scribe's opinion the main character of the show, but we also get to renew our acquaintance with old favourites: Walter White (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Saul Goodman). The latter does not count as a spoiler as the very title of the episode is 'Breaking Bad' and it has long been known that the two main characters from the original show will return. Hereon though, I am going to go into specifics, so if are yet to see the episode, please do and come back. SPOILER ALERT Directed by the veteran of the 'Breaking Bad' universe, Thomas Schnauz, 'Breaking Bad' with none other than Francesca Liddy (Tina Parker), Saul Goodman's secretary who worked for him in his office. After all the brouhaha of law enforcement dismantling Heisenberg's massive drug empire, her fate was not revealed. Turns out, she is alive and well but has to do menial jobs for a living. She receives a call from Goodman who offers her money in return of information. The titular hero apparently wants back in the game. Having lived under cover as Gene Takavic, he is back to his old ways. Also Read: How 'Better Call Saul' became Kim Wexler's story Oh, and Francesca says she received a call from Kim Wexler! So Kim is alive. When Saul tries to call her in a phone booth, he appears to be speaking angrily -- it is not clear whether it is her or somebody else -- and slams the telephone repeatedly and kicks and breaks the door glass. Meanwhile, Saul again enlists the help of Jeff (Pat Healy) and his friend and begins fooling fairly rich patrons in a bar and accumulating a respectable pile of cash. The first thing he does? He orders the massager he used to have back in his office in his Saul Goodman days. Despite the risk, despite what his time living as a slimy lawyer gave him, Gene cannot help himself. He is as addicted to breaking bad as Pinkman was to meth. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 review: Saul Goodman pulls a "Nippy" con in a flashforward episode And yes, Walt and Jesse return. The scene elaborates upon the 'Breaking Bad' scene in which the two kidnap Saul and threaten him by digging a man-sized hole out in the desert. And Saul thinks Lalo sent them. We see Saul getting back in the truck and same old bickering between Walt and Jesse ensues. Although they are both not good people, the scene is still like meeting old friends. The scene is a little jarring, though. Both Cranston and Goodman look a little different. Goodman, particularly, is a little older. We also get to see Mike in a flashback that preceded Saul going to meet Walter White at his workplace. The final scene of the long-ish episode promises that Saul Goodman is truly back in the present. 'Better Call Saul' streams on Netflix in India.

'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 11 review: Kim Wexler's fate revealed & Walter White, Jesse Pinkman return

I kid you not. I went into 'Good Luck Jerry' expecting to hate it. Most of the recent Hindi films feel as though they were manufactured by an algorithm and a badly-written algorithm at that. This Sidharth Sengupta film has its imperfections, but it can still serve as a good palate cleanser, particularly if you had completely lost hope in Bollywood as I did.&nbsp;

Written by Pankaj Matta, the film is based on Janhvi&nbsp;Kapoor's Jerry, a young woman who moved from Bihar to a Punjabi town with her sister Cherry (Samta Sudiksha) and mother Sarbati (Mita Vashisht). Her mother sells momos to earn a living and Jerry works at a less reputable joint -- a massage parlour (this term will likely never escape the shadow of being a genteelism for brothel) to utter disapproval of her mother. When Sarbati gets diagnosed with stage two cancer, the doctor declares a bill for chemotherapy and radiation therapy that is a figure several times the family can afford.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pwe_va9hPH0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Naturally, Jerry turns to crime, drug dealing to be precise, prompted by a chance encounter with a low-level dealer who is on the run from the police. Jerry doesn't see any other choice since only drug dealing can get her the money she needs for her mother's treatment.

But the life of crime is never easy, and when Jerry wants out of the business, the drug lord Daler (Sushant Singh) asks her to do a final job: smuggling an entire cartload of cocaine, instead of the usual few hundred grams. If she fails, Daler will kill her and her family. Defeated, Jerry begins her journey to the destination in a truck driven by a neighbour. But the journey ahead is perilous as the law enforcement is on high alert and every vehicle is being checked thoroughly by the cops. And if the police don't get Jerry and others, the gangsters might. However, beneath her timid exterior, Jerry may be hiding a will of steel and a cunning mind.

The script of 'Good Luck Jerry' slackens a bit at times, but for the most part, it moves at a steady pace. By the end, the two-hour length seems just right. The third act serves up surprises after surprises, some you will see coming, some you won't. The plot has numerous contrivances, admittedly, but the story is still entertaining and it is the humour that chiefly keeps you hooked. Janhvi&nbsp;Kapoor has possibly given the most committed performance of her career. She won the cynical in me.&nbsp;

However, as good as Janhvi&nbsp;is in the movie, the story greatly benefits from an absolutely stellar supporting cast. The film is full of eccentric men played by character actors like Deepak Dobriyal, Saurabh Sachdeva, and Neeraj Sood. Dobriyal is almost unrecognisable as a local scoundrel who is head over heels in love with Jerry and believes she cannot wait to marry him. He is the MVP of this movie while playing a character that's unlike anything he has done (if you are reading this Deepak, more of this please). Sushant Singh is delightful as a cartoony villain who fits snugly into the film's world.&nbsp;

'Good Luck Jerry' does have all the usual trappings of a Hindi movie, and gets overly sentimental at the strangest of times. But more often than not, it treats its subject matter blithely and is an entertaining, family-friendly ride.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

I kid you not. I went into 'Good Luck Jerry' expecting to hate it. Most of the recent Hindi films feel as though they were manufactured by an algorithm and a badly-written algorithm at that.

I kid you not. I went into 'Good Luck Jerry' expecting to hate it. Most of the recent Hindi films feel as though they were manufactured by an algorithm and a badly-written algorithm at that. This Sidharth Sengupta film has its imperfections, but it can still serve as a good palate cleanser, particularly if you had completely lost hope in Bollywood as I did. Written by Pankaj Matta, the film is based on Janhvi Kapoor's Jerry, a young woman who moved from Bihar to a Punjabi town with her sister Cherry (Samta Sudiksha) and mother Sarbati (Mita Vashisht). Her mother sells momos to earn a living and Jerry works at a less reputable joint -- a massage parlour (this term will likely never escape the shadow of being a genteelism for brothel) to utter disapproval of her mother. When Sarbati gets diagnosed with stage two cancer, the doctor declares a bill for chemotherapy and radiation therapy that is a figure several times the family can afford. Naturally, Jerry turns to crime, drug dealing to be precise, prompted by a chance encounter with a low-level dealer who is on the run from the police. Jerry doesn't see any other choice since only drug dealing can get her the money she needs for her mother's treatment. But the life of crime is never easy, and when Jerry wants out of the business, the drug lord Daler (Sushant Singh) asks her to do a final job: smuggling an entire cartload of cocaine, instead of the usual few hundred grams. If she fails, Daler will kill her and her family. Defeated, Jerry begins her journey to the destination in a truck driven by a neighbour. But the journey ahead is perilous as the law enforcement is on high alert and every vehicle is being checked thoroughly by the cops. And if the police don't get Jerry and others, the gangsters might. However, beneath her timid exterior, Jerry may be hiding a will of steel and a cunning mind. The script of 'Good Luck Jerry' slackens a bit at times, but for the most part, it moves at a steady pace. By the end, the two-hour length seems just right. The third act serves up surprises after surprises, some you will see coming, some you won't. The plot has numerous contrivances, admittedly, but the story is still entertaining and it is the humour that chiefly keeps you hooked. Janhvi Kapoor has possibly given the most committed performance of her career. She won the cynical in me. However, as good as Janhvi is in the movie, the story greatly benefits from an absolutely stellar supporting cast. The film is full of eccentric men played by character actors like Deepak Dobriyal, Saurabh Sachdeva, and Neeraj Sood. Dobriyal is almost unrecognisable as a local scoundrel who is head over heels in love with Jerry and believes she cannot wait to marry him. He is the MVP of this movie while playing a character that's unlike anything he has done (if you are reading this Deepak, more of this please). Sushant Singh is delightful as a cartoony villain who fits snugly into the film's world. 'Good Luck Jerry' does have all the usual trappings of a Hindi movie, and gets overly sentimental at the strangest of times. But more often than not, it treats its subject matter blithely and is an entertaining, family-friendly ride.

'Good Luck Jerry' movie review: Boosted by a stellar supporting cast, Janhvi Kapoor film is a hilarious ride

What makes a good TV character? There is, of course, no one answer. It can vary quite radically from person to person. For some, an interesting character means something they can relate to. For others, it must serve the plot nicely and it does not matter much whether it is interesting in itself or not. I also have an answer to this question, which I will give shortly.&nbsp;

What makes for a good character?

First, let's explore how important a character is to a story. It is said that we are in a Golden Age of Television (though some say it is coming to an abrupt end). After the HBO series 'The Sopranos' arrived in 1999, and in the years afterward when the medium saw some of the best writing ever seen on any screen, small or big, fans of the "serious" (I use the term lightly as for me, all forms of entertainment are equally valid) movies sat up and took notice. They realised that TV had become as much, if not more so, a place to watch exciting stuff as cinema was.&nbsp;

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-10-review-saul-goodman-pulls-a-nippy-con-in-a-flashforward-episode-500837">&nbsp;'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 review: Saul Goodman pulls a "Nippy" con in a flashforward episode</a>

And the prime reason was&nbsp;that the medium, due to its sheer length, let the writing breathe. There was much more leeway for writers to craft plots and draw characters that felt authentic and that could grow over time. In many ways, TV's Golden Age has been driven by characters. The plots of the shows that are normally considered the best, like 'The Sopranos', 'The Wire', and 'Breaking Bad', could often be meandering. Imperfect, at least. What we remember them for are characters like Tony Soprano, Omar Little, and Walter White. My point is, it is TV's length that allows for characters to develop in a more believable way than a film's two or three hours and it was the stronger character development that drove TV's Golden Age.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qEhUSaEhFOU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

My answer to the question I started this piece with? For me, a good character is one that feels like if it were dropped into the real-world, people will not question its existence. They would not find it too dramatic, too extra. It would blend in perfectly well with us and would feel just like another person. Kim Wexler of 'Better Call Saul' is one such character. it is not as if Saul Goodman is not interesting. He obviously is and is the main reason the show is so big, but he does not feel like a real person. He is too dramatic for the real world.

The anatomy of Kim Wexler

Played by Rhea Seehorn, who should have won multiple Emmys for her performance already, Kim was conceived as a love interest to Jimmy McGill, Bob Odenkirk's fast-talking lawyer who is better known as Saul Goodman of 'Breaking Bad'. But Kim grew up to be so much more than just a love interest. It was as though she had a life of her own beyond the script in some other parallel world and the writers could get a glimpse into that life and put that faithfully on paper.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-9-jimmy-mcgill-becomes-saul-goodman-in-a-tragic-episode-498800">'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 review: Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman in a tragic episode</a>

The place Kim has in the life of Jimmy is apparent from the very first scene we see them together. Jimmy kicks a dustbin repeatedly after an encounter with Howard at HHM. The scene zooms out to show Kim leaning against a wall outside, smoking. Jimmy comes out and stands beside her, takes the cigarette out of her hand, inhales, and puts it back in her mouth. "Couldn't you just---?" Saul begins to ask but Kim cuts him off. "You know I can't," she says. She goes back inside and uprights the dustbin.

There were dents on the dustbin before Jimmy began to kick it. This, none of this, has happened for the first time. Apart from the clever, subtle storytelling, the scene demonstrates Kim's role in Jimmy's life. They are clearly romantically involved or were, and Kim cleans up Jimmy's messes.

The scene painted Kim as a character who liked Jimmy, but could not compromise with her work ethic. Unlike Jimmy, who was effusive and silver-tongued she was far more reserved and rarely showed emotion. While 'Better Call Saul' is mostly about Jimmy's transition, which is compelling enough,&nbsp;the infinitely more interesting story (as per this scribe) of Kim breaking bad, so to speak has eclipsed it.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z7LM6obyuZs" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

'Better Call Saul' became less Saul's story and more Kim's

We thought it would be heartbreaking to see Jimmy become Saul Goodman, and it is indeed a tragedy, but somehow Kim turning into this darker, less conscientious version of herself is more affecting.&nbsp;

Initially, Kim is repelled by Jimmy's wily ways and shortcuts to get ahead, for she is a completely self-made woman who cannot comprehend that&nbsp;mindset. Tightly wound like her ponytail, she is genuinely a good person, or was anyway, and likes to help the helpless and meant what she said. She did not have any guile in her. In comparison, Jimmy was all guile. But Kim was also romantically attracted to him, though the nature of their relationship is deliberately kept vague for most of the series. It appears to oscillate between friendship and relationship.&nbsp;

Kim falls under Jimmy's influence

But gradually, Kim falls under the spell of Jimmy and his cons, later enthusiastically taking part in them. Even when she realises that not only Jimmy is reckless and will always bounce back to being a con artist no matter how much he regrets his prior actions, he is also an extremely bad influence on her. Perhaps without meaning to, she puts a blind eye to his actions as he ventures into illegal and even immoral territory, and that is Kim's tragedy. Well, that and the&nbsp;element of curiosity in her with regards to Jimmy.&nbsp;She clearly appears titillated by&nbsp;pulling a fast one every now and then with Jimmy.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DdOQUdBlpxA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The 'pranks' that Jimmy and Kimmy played became more and more severe. In the end, they were not shenanigans&nbsp;but became way more serious as they got involved with the cartel. All the while, Kim continued to break bad, so to speak, unwittingly drawn to the thrills of being on the wrong side of the law -- without getting caught, of course.

There are still a couple of episodes remaining of 'Better Call Saul' and the fate of Kim is uncertain. But whatever happens, the fact remains: Kim Wexler is one of TV's most incredible characters, perhaps the best character in any TV show right now, powered by an astonishing Seehorn who should take all the accolades in existence.

'Better Call Saul' season 6 is streaming on Netflix in India. 
&nbsp;

What makes a good TV character? There is, of course, no one answer. It can vary quite radically from person to person. For some, an interesting character means something they can relate to.

What makes a good TV character? There is, of course, no one answer. It can vary quite radically from person to person. For some, an interesting character means something they can relate to. For others, it must serve the plot nicely and it does not matter much whether it is interesting in itself or not. I also have an answer to this question, which I will give shortly. What makes for a good character? First, let's explore how important a character is to a story. It is said that we are in a Golden Age of Television (though some say it is coming to an abrupt end). After the HBO series 'The Sopranos' arrived in 1999, and in the years afterward when the medium saw some of the best writing ever seen on any screen, small or big, fans of the "serious" (I use the term lightly as for me, all forms of entertainment are equally valid) movies sat up and took notice. They realised that TV had become as much, if not more so, a place to watch exciting stuff as cinema was. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 review: Saul Goodman pulls a "Nippy" con in a flashforward episode And the prime reason was that the medium, due to its sheer length, let the writing breathe. There was much more leeway for writers to craft plots and draw characters that felt authentic and that could grow over time. In many ways, TV's Golden Age has been driven by characters. The plots of the shows that are normally considered the best, like 'The Sopranos', 'The Wire', and 'Breaking Bad', could often be meandering. Imperfect, at least. What we remember them for are characters like Tony Soprano, Omar Little, and Walter White. My point is, it is TV's length that allows for characters to develop in a more believable way than a film's two or three hours and it was the stronger character development that drove TV's Golden Age. My answer to the question I started this piece with? For me, a good character is one that feels like if it were dropped into the real-world, people will not question its existence. They would not find it too dramatic, too extra. It would blend in perfectly well with us and would feel just like another person. Kim Wexler of 'Better Call Saul' is one such character. it is not as if Saul Goodman is not interesting. He obviously is and is the main reason the show is so big, but he does not feel like a real person. He is too dramatic for the real world. The anatomy of Kim Wexler Played by Rhea Seehorn, who should have won multiple Emmys for her performance already, Kim was conceived as a love interest to Jimmy McGill, Bob Odenkirk's fast-talking lawyer who is better known as Saul Goodman of 'Breaking Bad'. But Kim grew up to be so much more than just a love interest. It was as though she had a life of her own beyond the script in some other parallel world and the writers could get a glimpse into that life and put that faithfully on paper. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 review: Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman in a tragic episode The place Kim has in the life of Jimmy is apparent from the very first scene we see them together. Jimmy kicks a dustbin repeatedly after an encounter with Howard at HHM. The scene zooms out to show Kim leaning against a wall outside, smoking. Jimmy comes out and stands beside her, takes the cigarette out of her hand, inhales, and puts it back in her mouth. "Couldn't you just---?" Saul begins to ask but Kim cuts him off. "You know I can't," she says. She goes back inside and uprights the dustbin. There were dents on the dustbin before Jimmy began to kick it. This, none of this, has happened for the first time. Apart from the clever, subtle storytelling, the scene demonstrates Kim's role in Jimmy's life. They are clearly romantically involved or were, and Kim cleans up Jimmy's messes. The scene painted Kim as a character who liked Jimmy, but could not compromise with her work ethic. Unlike Jimmy, who was effusive and silver-tongued she was far more reserved and rarely showed emotion. While 'Better Call Saul' is mostly about Jimmy's transition, which is compelling enough, the infinitely more interesting story (as per this scribe) of Kim breaking bad, so to speak has eclipsed it. 'Better Call Saul' became less Saul's story and more Kim's We thought it would be heartbreaking to see Jimmy become Saul Goodman, and it is indeed a tragedy, but somehow Kim turning into this darker, less conscientious version of herself is more affecting. Initially, Kim is repelled by Jimmy's wily ways and shortcuts to get ahead, for she is a completely self-made woman who cannot comprehend that mindset. Tightly wound like her ponytail, she is genuinely a good person, or was anyway, and likes to help the helpless and meant what she said. She did not have any guile in her. In comparison, Jimmy was all guile. But Kim was also romantically attracted to him, though the nature of their relationship is deliberately kept vague for most of the series. It appears to oscillate between friendship and relationship. Kim falls under Jimmy's influence But gradually, Kim falls under the spell of Jimmy and his cons, later enthusiastically taking part in them. Even when she realises that not only Jimmy is reckless and will always bounce back to being a con artist no matter how much he regrets his prior actions, he is also an extremely bad influence on her. Perhaps without meaning to, she puts a blind eye to his actions as he ventures into illegal and even immoral territory, and that is Kim's tragedy. Well, that and the element of curiosity in her with regards to Jimmy. She clearly appears titillated by pulling a fast one every now and then with Jimmy. The 'pranks' that Jimmy and Kimmy played became more and more severe. In the end, they were not shenanigans but became way more serious as they got involved with the cartel. All the while, Kim continued to break bad, so to speak, unwittingly drawn to the thrills of being on the wrong side of the law -- without getting caught, of course. There are still a couple of episodes remaining of 'Better Call Saul' and the fate of Kim is uncertain. But whatever happens, the fact remains: Kim Wexler is one of TV's most incredible characters, perhaps the best character in any TV show right now, powered by an astonishing Seehorn who should take all the accolades in existence. 'Better Call Saul' season 6 is streaming on Netflix in India.

How 'Better Call Saul' became Kim Wexler's story

We finally have a faint idea as to what the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe looks like, at least a little bit. Not only did the panel introduce the next phase in the cinematic universe, Phase 5, but also talked quite a bit about Phase 5. We now know how the already released MCU movies are shaping up the immediate future of MCU. Apart from several announcements regarding standalone movies or sequels like 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever', 'Captain America: New World Order, Marvel Studios has announced the title of the next two movies in the 'Avengers' series. While the fourth 'Avengers' movie is called 'Avengers: The Kang Dynasty', the fifth 'Avengers' movie is called 'Avengers: Secret Wars'.&nbsp;

Marvel Studios will be expecting to recreate the success of 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame'. Made on a staggering combined budget of $500 million, the movie also delivered in spades. Both the critical reception and commercial performance of the films were probably more than even Kevin Feige had hoped. The films, which ended the threat of Thanos, together grossed a mind-numbing $4.83 billion.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/marvel-phase-6-two-new-avengers-films-announced-read-details-inside-500144">Marvel Phase 6! Two new 'Avengers' films announced, read details inside</a>

Interestingly, the two movies will release only half a year apart from each other: 'The Kang Dynasty' on May 2, 2025 and 'Secret Wars' on 'November 7th, 2025'. While we do not know anything about the films' plot and how the intervening MCU films lead to the big two-part finale (much like 'Avengers: Infinity War' and 'Avengers: Endgame'), the titles themselves go a long way in hinting fans about the story.&nbsp;

What does MCU Phase 6 entail?

So everything that happened after 'Avengers: Endgame', which ended what was called the Infinity Saga, comes under the Multiverse Saga. We have already seen the concept of the multiverse playing out in shows like 'Loki' and movies like 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'. So the next big overarching saga in MCU will be based on the multiverse. It implies that there can be potentially infinite versions of the character we know as per the term our universe is not the only universe but just one of infinite universes. Also, thanks to the multiverse, hitherto unseen Marvel characters like X-Men and Fantastic Four can enter MCU. Earlier, these characters were owned by Fox, but that was before Disney acquired most of the Fox properties.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Welcome to the Multiverse Saga. The filmmakers and talent of Marvel Studios were out in full force in Hall H this weekend, surprising fans with special looks, trailers, and some major announcements for the future of the MCU. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SDCC2022?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SDCC2022</a> (1/3) <a href="https://t.co/GzKaf4LHmB">pic.twitter.com/GzKaf4LHmB</a>
— Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1551262203558252544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

MCU can say, the mutants and the FF arrived from parallel universes! Simple.

Now, let's theorise about what those titles of the fourth and fifth 'Avengers' movies may mean.

'Avengers: The Kang Dynasty'

There is an entire storyline called Kang Dynasty in Marvel Comics. And we know Kang the Conqueror is arriving in MCU with the third 'Ant-Man' movie, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania'. We already saw Jonathan Majors playing a gentler variant of him called He Who Remains in the finale of 'Loki' season 1. Found inside Citadel at the End of Time, He wanted Loki and Sylvie about his less-than-kind variants who can potentially wreak havoc on the multiverse. And Kang is certainly one of them.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just announced in Hall H: 
 
Marvel Studios' Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, in theaters May 2, 2025. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SDCC2022?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SDCC2022</a> <a href="https://t.co/kCxeyYwgN5">pic.twitter.com/kCxeyYwgN5</a>
— Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1551009643698106368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Unlike Thanos, Kang is a full-on conqueror and at least in comics, does not have any noble reasons for his conquests. But his conquests are not of land but temporal. He is a time-travelling being who belongs to 31st century. He was a descendant of his namesake Nathaniel Richards, the father of Reed Richards or Mr Fantastic (played by John Krasinski in 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'). He found out about the time travel technology invented by Doctor Doom and sought to use it, thus becoming a conqueror of temporal domains.&nbsp;

In Kang Dynasty, Kang attacks the earth along with his son Marcus or Scarlet Centurion (a mantle earlier held by Kang). The giant storyline is certainly worth an 'Avengers' movie, but it is 'Secret Wars' (fifth 'Avengers') that is the real deal that dwarfs it, and will likely lead directly from 'The Kang Dynasty'.

&nbsp;'Avengers: Secret Wars'

Russo Brothers have expressed interest in directing a 'Secret Wars' movie. And it would certainly be ambitious. As Joe Russo said, it will be bigger than 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', which speaks volumes about the difficulties in production that Marvel Studios is going to face. Arranging actors' schedules and letting them film around other projects was a nightmare for the studio.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just announced in Hall H: 
 
Marvel Studios' Avengers: Secret Wars, in theaters November 7, 2025. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SDCC2022?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SDCC2022</a> <a href="https://t.co/FXQ5ZbzQYl">pic.twitter.com/FXQ5ZbzQYl</a>
— Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1551009742604013568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The Russos told Deadline, "Our love for Marvel is based on the books that we read as kids and the books that we fell in love with. The one series that we adored growing up was Secret Wars. It's incredibly ambitious, it would be bigger than Infinity War and Endgame, but it's a massive undertaking. And, you know, those two movies were very hard to make. So, trying to imagine making another two movies even bigger than those two—we're going to have to sleep on it."

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-russo-brothers-want-to-direct-secret-wars-for-mcu-it-would-be-bigger-than-infinity-war-and-endgame-497627">&nbsp;Russo Brothers want to direct 'Secret Wars' for MCU: It would be bigger than 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame'</a>

Will the Russos really direct 'Secret Wars'?

However, Feige said in a media interaction that Russos will not direct 'Secret Wars'. While talking to Deadline, he said, “They’re not connected to it. They’ve been very direct about that. We love them, they love us. We want to do something together, it’s not this.”

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/after-thor-love-and-thunder-deadpool-3-shang-chi-2-thunderbolts-and-all-other-11-upcoming-mcu-movies-497022">After 'Thor Love and Thunder, 'Deadpool 3', 'Shang-Chi 2', 'Thunderbolts' and all other 11 upcoming MCU movies</a>

So, there have been two big crossovers events in Marvel Comics called 'Secret Wars', one in 1984 and the second in 2015. The original was the first ever crossover in Marvel Comics that brought together all the properties in one giant storyline. A mechanical ring mysteriously appeared in New York's Central Park and the superheroes found themselves lured to it. But when they came near, they are transported to a realm called Battleworld. It was later revealed that Beyonder, an insanely powerful cosmic entity, has spirited away a group of superheroes and supervillains in a battle between good and evil. Beyonder, you see, is just curious who would ultimately win.

In the 2015 version, the main Marvel Universe was destroyed and other alternate universes' earth began to combine to form Battleworld. As one can tell, adapting 'Secret Wars' will be a tall order indeed, one that surpasses anything seen in the MCU until now.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

We finally have a faint idea as to what the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe looks like, at least a little bit. Not only did the panel introduce the next phase in the cinematic universe, Phase 5, but also talked quite a bit about Phase 5.

We finally have a faint idea as to what the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe looks like, at least a little bit. Not only did the panel introduce the next phase in the cinematic universe, Phase 5, but also talked quite a bit about Phase 5. We now know how the already released MCU movies are shaping up the immediate future of MCU. Apart from several announcements regarding standalone movies or sequels like 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever', 'Captain America: New World Order, Marvel Studios has announced the title of the next two movies in the 'Avengers' series. While the fourth 'Avengers' movie is called 'Avengers: The Kang Dynasty', the fifth 'Avengers' movie is called 'Avengers: Secret Wars'. Marvel Studios will be expecting to recreate the success of 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame'. Made on a staggering combined budget of $500 million, the movie also delivered in spades. Both the critical reception and commercial performance of the films were probably more than even Kevin Feige had hoped. The films, which ended the threat of Thanos, together grossed a mind-numbing $4.83 billion. Also Read: Marvel Phase 6! Two new 'Avengers' films announced, read details inside Interestingly, the two movies will release only half a year apart from each other: 'The Kang Dynasty' on May 2, 2025 and 'Secret Wars' on 'November 7th, 2025'. While we do not know anything about the films' plot and how the intervening MCU films lead to the big two-part finale (much like 'Avengers: Infinity War' and 'Avengers: Endgame'), the titles themselves go a long way in hinting fans about the story. What does MCU Phase 6 entail? So everything that happened after 'Avengers: Endgame', which ended what was called the Infinity Saga, comes under the Multiverse Saga. We have already seen the concept of the multiverse playing out in shows like 'Loki' and movies like 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'. So the next big overarching saga in MCU will be based on the multiverse. It implies that there can be potentially infinite versions of the character we know as per the term our universe is not the only universe but just one of infinite universes. Also, thanks to the multiverse, hitherto unseen Marvel characters like X-Men and Fantastic Four can enter MCU. Earlier, these characters were owned by Fox, but that was before Disney acquired most of the Fox properties. Welcome to the Multiverse Saga. The filmmakers and talent of Marvel Studios were out in full force in Hall H this weekend, surprising fans with special looks, trailers, and some major announcements for the future of the MCU. #SDCC2022 (1/3) pic.twitter.com/GzKaf4LHmB — Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) July 24, 2022 × MCU can say, the mutants and the FF arrived from parallel universes! Simple. Now, let's theorise about what those titles of the fourth and fifth 'Avengers' movies may mean. 'Avengers: The Kang Dynasty' There is an entire storyline called Kang Dynasty in Marvel Comics. And we know Kang the Conqueror is arriving in MCU with the third 'Ant-Man' movie, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania'. We already saw Jonathan Majors playing a gentler variant of him called He Who Remains in the finale of 'Loki' season 1. Found inside Citadel at the End of Time, He wanted Loki and Sylvie about his less-than-kind variants who can potentially wreak havoc on the multiverse. And Kang is certainly one of them. Just announced in Hall H: Marvel Studios' Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, in theaters May 2, 2025. #SDCC2022 pic.twitter.com/kCxeyYwgN5 — Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) July 24, 2022 × Unlike Thanos, Kang is a full-on conqueror and at least in comics, does not have any noble reasons for his conquests. But his conquests are not of land but temporal. He is a time-travelling being who belongs to 31st century. He was a descendant of his namesake Nathaniel Richards, the father of Reed Richards or Mr Fantastic (played by John Krasinski in 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'). He found out about the time travel technology invented by Doctor Doom and sought to use it, thus becoming a conqueror of temporal domains. In Kang Dynasty, Kang attacks the earth along with his son Marcus or Scarlet Centurion (a mantle earlier held by Kang). The giant storyline is certainly worth an 'Avengers' movie, but it is 'Secret Wars' (fifth 'Avengers') that is the real deal that dwarfs it, and will likely lead directly from 'The Kang Dynasty'. 'Avengers: Secret Wars' Russo Brothers have expressed interest in directing a 'Secret Wars' movie. And it would certainly be ambitious. As Joe Russo said, it will be bigger than 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame', which speaks volumes about the difficulties in production that Marvel Studios is going to face. Arranging actors' schedules and letting them film around other projects was a nightmare for the studio. Just announced in Hall H: Marvel Studios' Avengers: Secret Wars, in theaters November 7, 2025. #SDCC2022 pic.twitter.com/FXQ5ZbzQYl — Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) July 24, 2022 × The Russos told Deadline, "Our love for Marvel is based on the books that we read as kids and the books that we fell in love with. The one series that we adored growing up was Secret Wars. It's incredibly ambitious, it would be bigger than Infinity War and Endgame, but it's a massive undertaking. And, you know, those two movies were very hard to make. So, trying to imagine making another two movies even bigger than those two—we're going to have to sleep on it." Also Read: Russo Brothers want to direct 'Secret Wars' for MCU: It would be bigger than 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame' Will the Russos really direct 'Secret Wars'? However, Feige said in a media interaction that Russos will not direct 'Secret Wars'. While talking to Deadline, he said, “They’re not connected to it. They’ve been very direct about that. We love them, they love us. We want to do something together, it’s not this.” Also Read: After 'Thor Love and Thunder, 'Deadpool 3', 'Shang-Chi 2', 'Thunderbolts' and all other 11 upcoming MCU movies So, there have been two big crossovers events in Marvel Comics called 'Secret Wars', one in 1984 and the second in 2015. The original was the first ever crossover in Marvel Comics that brought together all the properties in one giant storyline. A mechanical ring mysteriously appeared in New York's Central Park and the superheroes found themselves lured to it. But when they came near, they are transported to a realm called Battleworld. It was later revealed that Beyonder, an insanely powerful cosmic entity, has spirited away a group of superheroes and supervillains in a battle between good and evil. Beyonder, you see, is just curious who would ultimately win. In the 2015 version, the main Marvel Universe was destroyed and other alternate universes' earth began to combine to form Battleworld. As one can tell, adapting 'Secret Wars' will be a tall order indeed, one that surpasses anything seen in the MCU until now.

'Avengers: The Kang Dynasty' and 'Avengers: Secret Wars': Everything to know

As 'Better Call Saul' inches towards its finale, we have seen the identities or personas of Jimmy McGill and Saul Goodman merging together, with Bob Odenkirk's attorney now seemingly no different from the fast-talking lawyer we saw in 'Breaking Bad' who almost exclusively works for criminals and was instrumental in the rise of Heisenberg. The last episode of the ongoing sixth and final season of the show, titled "Fun and Games", had Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn) leaving Jimmy after the death of Howard Hamlin, which occurred at least partially thanks to Jimmy and Kim's pranks in a scene that was somehow more emotional and saddening than the two major deaths that came before in this season: Nacho and Lalo's.

Note: If you are yet to see "Nippy". the tenth episode of 'Better Call Saul' Season 6, do so and come back. This piece dissects the episode in detail so it is extremely spoiler-y.&nbsp;

In "Nippy", the tenth episode, we are shown a flashforward for the first time this season. In fact, if you were clamouring to know what has become of the "current" Saul Goodman, the entire episode is a flashforward. Earlier, a cab driver Jeff had recognised who "Gene Takavic", the manager of Cinnabon in Omaha, Nebraska really is. That he is the same Saul Goodman who's wanted by the Albuquerque police for crimes related to the infamous Walter White case.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-9-jimmy-mcgill-becomes-saul-goodman-in-a-tragic-episode-498800">'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 review: Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman in a tragic episode</a>

Gene, of course, cannot take this lightly as if Jeff rats him to the authorities, he will spend the rest of his life in jail. The episode begins with him searching for his dog called Nippy and putting up notices. The dog clearly does not exist but the fictional canine helps him befriend an old lady called Marion, who is none other than Jeff's mother. Later, when Jeff confronts Saul, he offers him to enter "the game". Saul, Jeff, and one of Jeff's friends make a plan to steal expensive goods like Armani suits and Nike Air Jordan sneakers.&nbsp;

To let Jeff steal the goods and save him from the CCTV cameras, Gene cooks up a plan to hang out with the two personnel strong security team at the mall and gift them Cinnabon rolls. Clearly, Saul, or Gene as he calls himself now, has not forgotten his old, more prosperous life as the criminal lawyer, with emphasis on the criminal. He was smart, brilliant, and perceptive. He was also a people person and devilishly manipulative, which allowed him to pull cons throughout his life and successfully prove himself to appear as the wronged one.

His yearning for Saul Goodman identity pops up every now and then, his assistance to Jeff in getting him to enter the game is nothing else.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-8-review-thrilling-devastating-episode-delivers-massive-casualty-496681">'Better Call Saul' season 6 episode 8 review: Thrilling, devastating episode delivers massive casualty</a>

Also -- and it has happened before in 'Better Call Saul' and 'Breaking Bad' -- but it's remarkable how much the writers and creators working in the 'Breaking Bad' universe trust their audiences to be ridiculously patient for the payoffs. The sequence demonstrating Gene's burgeoning friendship with one of the security personnel would feel tedious in any other show. Here, it is painstakingly written and shot. And another top-drawer example of showing, not telling.

In the end, it turns out Gene has Jeff and his friend in his grasp. The plan to let them steal the goods was only so he could make them criminals like himself. Now they are also felons and Gene has evidence to back that. He threatens them in a fashion that evokes Heisenberg at his peak, and says if they spout some nonsense about him being Saul Goodman to the police, the three will go to jail together.

In the end, he visits the garment shop and longingly touches a suit that Saul might have worn. But he puts it back. He is no longer Saul Goodman. No matter how much he would like to be.&nbsp;

'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 streams on Netflix in India. 
&nbsp;

As 'Better Call Saul' inches towards its finale, we have seen the identities or personas of Jimmy McGill and Saul Goodman merging together, with Bob Odenkirk's attorney now seemingly no different from the fast-talking lawyer we saw in 'Breaking Bad' who almost exclusively works for criminals and was instrumental in the rise of Heisenberg.

As 'Better Call Saul' inches towards its finale, we have seen the identities or personas of Jimmy McGill and Saul Goodman merging together, with Bob Odenkirk's attorney now seemingly no different from the fast-talking lawyer we saw in 'Breaking Bad' who almost exclusively works for criminals and was instrumental in the rise of Heisenberg. The last episode of the ongoing sixth and final season of the show, titled "Fun and Games", had Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn) leaving Jimmy after the death of Howard Hamlin, which occurred at least partially thanks to Jimmy and Kim's pranks in a scene that was somehow more emotional and saddening than the two major deaths that came before in this season: Nacho and Lalo's. Note: If you are yet to see "Nippy". the tenth episode of 'Better Call Saul' Season 6, do so and come back. This piece dissects the episode in detail so it is extremely spoiler-y. In "Nippy", the tenth episode, we are shown a flashforward for the first time this season. In fact, if you were clamouring to know what has become of the "current" Saul Goodman, the entire episode is a flashforward. Earlier, a cab driver Jeff had recognised who "Gene Takavic", the manager of Cinnabon in Omaha, Nebraska really is. That he is the same Saul Goodman who's wanted by the Albuquerque police for crimes related to the infamous Walter White case. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 review: Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman in a tragic episode Gene, of course, cannot take this lightly as if Jeff rats him to the authorities, he will spend the rest of his life in jail. The episode begins with him searching for his dog called Nippy and putting up notices. The dog clearly does not exist but the fictional canine helps him befriend an old lady called Marion, who is none other than Jeff's mother. Later, when Jeff confronts Saul, he offers him to enter "the game". Saul, Jeff, and one of Jeff's friends make a plan to steal expensive goods like Armani suits and Nike Air Jordan sneakers. To let Jeff steal the goods and save him from the CCTV cameras, Gene cooks up a plan to hang out with the two personnel strong security team at the mall and gift them Cinnabon rolls. Clearly, Saul, or Gene as he calls himself now, has not forgotten his old, more prosperous life as the criminal lawyer, with emphasis on the criminal. He was smart, brilliant, and perceptive. He was also a people person and devilishly manipulative, which allowed him to pull cons throughout his life and successfully prove himself to appear as the wronged one. His yearning for Saul Goodman identity pops up every now and then, his assistance to Jeff in getting him to enter the game is nothing else. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' season 6 episode 8 review: Thrilling, devastating episode delivers massive casualty Also -- and it has happened before in 'Better Call Saul' and 'Breaking Bad' -- but it's remarkable how much the writers and creators working in the 'Breaking Bad' universe trust their audiences to be ridiculously patient for the payoffs. The sequence demonstrating Gene's burgeoning friendship with one of the security personnel would feel tedious in any other show. Here, it is painstakingly written and shot. And another top-drawer example of showing, not telling. In the end, it turns out Gene has Jeff and his friend in his grasp. The plan to let them steal the goods was only so he could make them criminals like himself. Now they are also felons and Gene has evidence to back that. He threatens them in a fashion that evokes Heisenberg at his peak, and says if they spout some nonsense about him being Saul Goodman to the police, the three will go to jail together. In the end, he visits the garment shop and longingly touches a suit that Saul might have worn. But he puts it back. He is no longer Saul Goodman. No matter how much he would like to be. 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 streams on Netflix in India.

'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 10 review: Saul Goodman pulls a "Nippy" con in a flashforward episode

‘Netflix’s ‘The Gray Man’ had all the ingredients of an instant action classic. It’s directors are the Russos, who helmed probably four of the best films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; its writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, are the duo that scripted those films; its cast is populated by charismatic and talented film actors (Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, and our own Dhanush); the budget is an incredible $200 million, usually reserved for franchise entries or recognisable IP. And yet, it is an almost entirely disposable action-thriller, virtually indistinguishable from those genre movies that have cropped up in hordes on streaming services in the last five or so years.&nbsp;

The story follows a rogue, off-the-book CIA agent Sierra Six (Ryan Gosling) who learns the agency is eliminating others who were hired in the programme he was hired in. He gets his hands on an encrypted USB drive, which supposedly contains information the CIA doesn’t want to let the world know. A heavy-handed higher-up Denny Carmichael (Regé-Jean Page) recruits a psychopathic mercenary Lloyd Hansen (Chris Evans) and his men to hunt him down. And there I have described the plot. If you are worried I spoiled anything, the story has nothing much to spoil. The entire movie moves along a straight path with no deviations, twists, and surprises. For those watching this for Dhanush, yes he is there. For a while. He does get an action scene, but did they just hire an actor of his calibre just to make life more difficult for your hero for a while?

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BmllggGO4pM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

This film exemplifies in many ways why Netflix is undergoing financial troubles. It has thrown millions of dollars to any writer/director with an idea that could be turned into a serviceable film or show. Or that is what it felt like to a neutral observer. The streamer’s inflated content budget meant it could spend more than even traditional studios like Disney and Warner Bros. This formula may have worked for years, but then the company received a huge wake-up call in April when it lost subscribers for the first time in a decade.

‘The Gray Man’ is why Netflix should think deeply about its strategy. It should be one of the cases in point when the execs tell the board of directors what they will not do in future. It is simply a bad film. Not even a cast like that can redeem it. It is not even that you could enjoy it like a mindless actioner.&nbsp;

I, for one, do not scoff in contempt when an action movie hero has a firefight with dozens of baddies with little cover and still come out unscathed — well, not unscathed always, maybe they have a few bullet holes in his body, but can still walk and even spit out one-liners. I know how this genre works. But even the action in ‘The Gray Man’, while sometimes impressive, is mostly distracting. The camerawork is strange, switching to drone perspective in a way that takes one out of what little immersion the film offers.

I am never getting back those 2 hours.

 
&nbsp;

‘Netflix’s ‘The Gray Man’ had all the ingredients of an instant action classic. It’s directors are the Russos, who helmed probably four of the best films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; its writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, are the duo that scripted those films; its cast is populated by charismatic and talented film actors (Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, and our own Dhanush); the budget is an incredible $200 million, usually reserved for franchise entries or recognisable IP.

‘Netflix’s ‘The Gray Man’ had all the ingredients of an instant action classic. It’s directors are the Russos, who helmed probably four of the best films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; its writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, are the duo that scripted those films; its cast is populated by charismatic and talented film actors (Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, and our own Dhanush); the budget is an incredible $200 million, usually reserved for franchise entries or recognisable IP. And yet, it is an almost entirely disposable action-thriller, virtually indistinguishable from those genre movies that have cropped up in hordes on streaming services in the last five or so years. The story follows a rogue, off-the-book CIA agent Sierra Six (Ryan Gosling) who learns the agency is eliminating others who were hired in the programme he was hired in. He gets his hands on an encrypted USB drive, which supposedly contains information the CIA doesn’t want to let the world know. A heavy-handed higher-up Denny Carmichael (Regé-Jean Page) recruits a psychopathic mercenary Lloyd Hansen (Chris Evans) and his men to hunt him down. And there I have described the plot. If you are worried I spoiled anything, the story has nothing much to spoil. The entire movie moves along a straight path with no deviations, twists, and surprises. For those watching this for Dhanush, yes he is there. For a while. He does get an action scene, but did they just hire an actor of his calibre just to make life more difficult for your hero for a while? This film exemplifies in many ways why Netflix is undergoing financial troubles. It has thrown millions of dollars to any writer/director with an idea that could be turned into a serviceable film or show. Or that is what it felt like to a neutral observer. The streamer’s inflated content budget meant it could spend more than even traditional studios like Disney and Warner Bros. This formula may have worked for years, but then the company received a huge wake-up call in April when it lost subscribers for the first time in a decade. ‘The Gray Man’ is why Netflix should think deeply about its strategy. It should be one of the cases in point when the execs tell the board of directors what they will not do in future. It is simply a bad film. Not even a cast like that can redeem it. It is not even that you could enjoy it like a mindless actioner. I, for one, do not scoff in contempt when an action movie hero has a firefight with dozens of baddies with little cover and still come out unscathed — well, not unscathed always, maybe they have a few bullet holes in his body, but can still walk and even spit out one-liners. I know how this genre works. But even the action in ‘The Gray Man’, while sometimes impressive, is mostly distracting. The camerawork is strange, switching to drone perspective in a way that takes one out of what little immersion the film offers. I am never getting back those 2 hours.

‘The Gray Man’ review: Russo Brothers’ disposable action thriller is a massive waste of Dhanush

'Better Call Saul' Season 6, which is also the final season of the 'Breaking Bad' spinoff prequel series, has so far been crammed with huge payoffs and dramatic moments -- which is on brand for Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould. The original series was also built up gradually and most of the first 2-3 seasons were even purposely slow burn. This allowed the writers to focus their energies on crafting well-rounded characters and plotting coherently. And in the final season, they were allowed to finally let loose.&nbsp;

Thus far, 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 is a humdinger. The storytelling has not lost its subtlety. There are still scenes that leave you befuddled as to the significance of the scene and what exactly happened -- if you are not paying attention. 'Better Call Saul', even more than 'Breaking Bad' rewards attention.&nbsp;

Do not continue if you have not seen the episode, as this review is pretty spoiler-y.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-8-review-thrilling-devastating-episode-delivers-massive-casualty-496681">'Better Call Saul' season 6 episode 8 review: Thrilling, devastating episode delivers massive casualty</a>

Unless the writers have screwed up the finale completely (which would surprise me), the show should end up slightly better than its parent series -- in the opinion of this scribe leastaways. The last episode "Point and Shoot" featured one of the biggest casualties in the series so far, as Lalo Salamanca (Tony Dalton) met his maker after finally coming face to face with Gus Fring (Giancarlo Esposito), who outfoxed one of the most compelling characters in the show.&nbsp;

It was both satisfying and devastating and the writing once again managed to make the viewers care about a character they knew was going to die -- since Lalo does not appear in 'Breaking Bad' and he would never stop hunting Fring as long as he was alive.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qz3u06eXf0E" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The ninth episode, titled "Fun and Games", does not feature any casualty. Indeed, there is no violence at all. It is a relatively quiet episode. But somehow, in some way, it is more tragic as it bridges the gap between the Saul Goodman of 'Better Call Saul' and the one in 'Breaking Bad'.

We find Gus at Eladio's to answer for the accusation against him by the Salamancas of doing something to Lalo. You can see he is plotting the murder of the entire cartel even then as he recalls the murder of his boyfriend. He manages to convince Eladio of his innocence, though Hector is not happy. He retreats to a bar and orders a high-quality glass of wine, letting himself relax. He also converses with the manager, who appears to be smitten with him. Fring soon realises, however, that a relationship is not in his fate. Such brilliantly nuanced storytelling.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-bryan-cranston-says-returning-as-walter-white-in-better-call-saul-was-surreal-heres-why-492565">Bryan Cranston says returning as Walter White in 'Better Call Saul' was 'surreal'. Here's why</a>

At Howard's Wake, his wife voices concerns about his death. This prompts Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn) to give notice to Bar Association, leading McGill to express dismay at him. A heartbreaking scene ensues and it is revealed that she is leaving him as well as she believes the combination of Kim and Jimmy is lethal for others.&nbsp;

"You asked if you’re bad for me. That’s not it. We’re bad for each other. Apart, we’re OK, but together, we’re poison," says Kim. The scene also features some astonishingly good acting by Seehorn. If she doesn't get Emmy this year, there is something wrong with the world.&nbsp;

Sometime later, we find Saul in that palatial home he went on to build for himself. Later, he is seated&nbsp;in his office, not with the backdrop of the American Constitution. Transformation complete.&nbsp;

'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 is streaming on Netflix in India.

 
&nbsp;

'Better Call Saul' Season 6, which is also the final season of the 'Breaking Bad' spinoff prequel series, has so far been crammed with huge payoffs and dramatic moments -- which is on brand for Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould.

'Better Call Saul' Season 6, which is also the final season of the 'Breaking Bad' spinoff prequel series, has so far been crammed with huge payoffs and dramatic moments -- which is on brand for Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould. The original series was also built up gradually and most of the first 2-3 seasons were even purposely slow burn. This allowed the writers to focus their energies on crafting well-rounded characters and plotting coherently. And in the final season, they were allowed to finally let loose. Thus far, 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 is a humdinger. The storytelling has not lost its subtlety. There are still scenes that leave you befuddled as to the significance of the scene and what exactly happened -- if you are not paying attention. 'Better Call Saul', even more than 'Breaking Bad' rewards attention. Do not continue if you have not seen the episode, as this review is pretty spoiler-y. SPOILERS AHEAD Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' season 6 episode 8 review: Thrilling, devastating episode delivers massive casualty Unless the writers have screwed up the finale completely (which would surprise me), the show should end up slightly better than its parent series -- in the opinion of this scribe leastaways. The last episode "Point and Shoot" featured one of the biggest casualties in the series so far, as Lalo Salamanca (Tony Dalton) met his maker after finally coming face to face with Gus Fring (Giancarlo Esposito), who outfoxed one of the most compelling characters in the show. It was both satisfying and devastating and the writing once again managed to make the viewers care about a character they knew was going to die -- since Lalo does not appear in 'Breaking Bad' and he would never stop hunting Fring as long as he was alive. The ninth episode, titled "Fun and Games", does not feature any casualty. Indeed, there is no violence at all. It is a relatively quiet episode. But somehow, in some way, it is more tragic as it bridges the gap between the Saul Goodman of 'Better Call Saul' and the one in 'Breaking Bad'. We find Gus at Eladio's to answer for the accusation against him by the Salamancas of doing something to Lalo. You can see he is plotting the murder of the entire cartel even then as he recalls the murder of his boyfriend. He manages to convince Eladio of his innocence, though Hector is not happy. He retreats to a bar and orders a high-quality glass of wine, letting himself relax. He also converses with the manager, who appears to be smitten with him. Fring soon realises, however, that a relationship is not in his fate. Such brilliantly nuanced storytelling. Also Read: Bryan Cranston says returning as Walter White in 'Better Call Saul' was 'surreal'. Here's why At Howard's Wake, his wife voices concerns about his death. This prompts Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn) to give notice to Bar Association, leading McGill to express dismay at him. A heartbreaking scene ensues and it is revealed that she is leaving him as well as she believes the combination of Kim and Jimmy is lethal for others. "You asked if you’re bad for me. That’s not it. We’re bad for each other. Apart, we’re OK, but together, we’re poison," says Kim. The scene also features some astonishingly good acting by Seehorn. If she doesn't get Emmy this year, there is something wrong with the world. Sometime later, we find Saul in that palatial home he went on to build for himself. Later, he is seated in his office, not with the backdrop of the American Constitution. Transformation complete. 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 is streaming on Netflix in India.

'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Episode 9 review: Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman in a tragic episode

In 1999, HBO debuted 'The Sopranos', a TV series called Tony Soprano, a family man and a mobster suffering from something relatable to nearly every working human being: work-life balance. He is unable to balance his family life with his, um, career as a crime lord. The series was superbly written and acted, and ushered in what is now known as the Golden Age of Television. Indeed, it was this show that made the television medium the place of prestige. If not for 'The Sopranos' there will not be 'The Wire', 'Mad Men', 'Breaking Bad', 'Game of Thrones', and so on.

When Netflix entered the picture

The medium initially flourished after Netflix entered the picture and became a true challenger to the supremacy of legacy players like HBO. For the last 7-8 years, the leader in streaming space just showered money on every writer with any halfway-adequate idea that could somehow be worked into a TV show. The result was a flood of content for Netflix subscribers, most of it unwatchable for those with decent taste.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-hollywood-desperately-cutting-back-on-movie-tv-budgets-after-years-of-profligate-spending-495576">Hollywood desperately cutting back on movie, TV budgets after years of profligate spending</a>

Then, the streaming giant upped the ante even further and set its eyes on filmmakers of prestige, and managed to rope in the Coen Brothers, Alfonso Cuarón, Bong Joon-Ho, and even Martin Scorsese. While the films came out great, the company had to shell out up to $225 million (in the case of Scorsese's 'The Irishman') to make those movies. It is anybody's guess as to whether the company got a decent return on investment with respect to those movies as we only have the number of views to gauge that.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WHXxVmeGQUc" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Cracks in the edifice?

TV has enjoyed this reputation for more than two decades now, but not it appears cracks are showing the edifice.&nbsp;

Earlier this year, it was revealed that for the first time in a decade Netflix lost subscribers instead of gaining them. About 200,000 subscribers said goodbye to the streamer, when it expected to gain 2.5 million users. It was a giant setback and forced the company to take stock of its choices. It has reportedly been considering offering cheap, ad-supported plans and banning users from sharing their passwords with friends and family.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/netflix-fires-300-employees-in-latest-round-of-layoffs-amid-financial-troubles-491223">Netflix fires 300 employees in latest round of layoffs amid financial troubles</a>

Whether Netflix gets over its woes soon or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is it's not just Netflix. The Golden Age of the TV medium, due to several factors, appears to be over, and perhaps has been for quite some time.&nbsp;

Streaming wars

The death of high-quality, prestige television as we know it began with still-ongoing streaming wars. Earlier Netflix -- and to some extent Amazon Prime Video -- was the only big player in streaming space. Now there are a dozen. The competition is fierce and to make matters worse for Netflix, services like HBO Max and Disney+ come bundled with decades of legacy content due to the long history of the studios behind them.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="664" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f2Cs-u4b6hI" title="The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power – Main Teaser | Amazon Prime Video" width="1180"></iframe>

As streaming wars have raged, nearly every single studio has jumped in. Thus far, only Sony holds out. And this has been Netflix's loss. Also, many have gotten over its binge-friendly model of releasing the entire season all at once, and instead, wish for an interval between episodes' release. Netflix's algorithmic-driven approach has also been excoriated, particularly when it recommends inferior clones just after one has finished a good TV show.&nbsp;

Due to multiple streamers, there has also been a flood of content. And since new stuff has found only intermittent success, much of it cashing on to nostalgia factor that comes from age-old franchises.

The death of 'prestige television'

Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that a TV director making $4 million a year is now getting $750,000 and the TV budgets are dropped by a shocking 30 per cent. Sure, there are still expensive productions like Amazon's 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' and 'Game of Thrones' spinoff 'The House of the Dragon' that come out later this year, but then again these are tried and tested properties. No streamer, even Prime Video, with that virtually unlimited Amazon money, is shelling out good money for fresh television.&nbsp;

And this is a tragedy. For if studio execs were not generous with talented writers' visions, we would not have 'The Sopranos' and we would not have 'Breaking Bad'. For all intents and purposes, the Golden Age of TV appears to be well and truly over.

In 1999, HBO debuted 'The Sopranos', a TV series called Tony Soprano, a family man and a mobster suffering from something relatable to nearly every working human being: work-life balance.

In 1999, HBO debuted 'The Sopranos', a TV series called Tony Soprano, a family man and a mobster suffering from something relatable to nearly every working human being: work-life balance. He is unable to balance his family life with his, um, career as a crime lord. The series was superbly written and acted, and ushered in what is now known as the Golden Age of Television. Indeed, it was this show that made the television medium the place of prestige. If not for 'The Sopranos' there will not be 'The Wire', 'Mad Men', 'Breaking Bad', 'Game of Thrones', and so on. When Netflix entered the picture The medium initially flourished after Netflix entered the picture and became a true challenger to the supremacy of legacy players like HBO. For the last 7-8 years, the leader in streaming space just showered money on every writer with any halfway-adequate idea that could somehow be worked into a TV show. The result was a flood of content for Netflix subscribers, most of it unwatchable for those with decent taste. Also Read: Hollywood desperately cutting back on movie, TV budgets after years of profligate spending Then, the streaming giant upped the ante even further and set its eyes on filmmakers of prestige, and managed to rope in the Coen Brothers, Alfonso Cuarón, Bong Joon-Ho, and even Martin Scorsese. While the films came out great, the company had to shell out up to $225 million (in the case of Scorsese's 'The Irishman') to make those movies. It is anybody's guess as to whether the company got a decent return on investment with respect to those movies as we only have the number of views to gauge that. Cracks in the edifice? TV has enjoyed this reputation for more than two decades now, but not it appears cracks are showing the edifice. Earlier this year, it was revealed that for the first time in a decade Netflix lost subscribers instead of gaining them. About 200,000 subscribers said goodbye to the streamer, when it expected to gain 2.5 million users. It was a giant setback and forced the company to take stock of its choices. It has reportedly been considering offering cheap, ad-supported plans and banning users from sharing their passwords with friends and family. Also Read: Netflix fires 300 employees in latest round of layoffs amid financial troubles Whether Netflix gets over its woes soon or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is it's not just Netflix. The Golden Age of the TV medium, due to several factors, appears to be over, and perhaps has been for quite some time. Streaming wars The death of high-quality, prestige television as we know it began with still-ongoing streaming wars. Earlier Netflix -- and to some extent Amazon Prime Video -- was the only big player in streaming space. Now there are a dozen. The competition is fierce and to make matters worse for Netflix, services like HBO Max and Disney+ come bundled with decades of legacy content due to the long history of the studios behind them. As streaming wars have raged, nearly every single studio has jumped in. Thus far, only Sony holds out. And this has been Netflix's loss. Also, many have gotten over its binge-friendly model of releasing the entire season all at once, and instead, wish for an interval between episodes' release. Netflix's algorithmic-driven approach has also been excoriated, particularly when it recommends inferior clones just after one has finished a good TV show. Due to multiple streamers, there has also been a flood of content. And since new stuff has found only intermittent success, much of it cashing on to nostalgia factor that comes from age-old franchises. The death of 'prestige television' Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that a TV director making $4 million a year is now getting $750,000 and the TV budgets are dropped by a shocking 30 per cent. Sure, there are still expensive productions like Amazon's 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' and 'Game of Thrones' spinoff 'The House of the Dragon' that come out later this year, but then again these are tried and tested properties. No streamer, even Prime Video, with that virtually unlimited Amazon money, is shelling out good money for fresh television. And this is a tragedy. For if studio execs were not generous with talented writers' visions, we would not have 'The Sopranos' and we would not have 'Breaking Bad'. For all intents and purposes, the Golden Age of TV appears to be well and truly over.

Is the Golden Age of Television over?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe&nbsp;is by far the biggest cinematic brand in the world. These movies (and now shows) have dominated the global film landscape so authoritatively for almost a decade-and-a-half that it is now considered too big to fail. Even after several lack-luster entries in terms of critical reception and even box office returns, the insane popularity of MCU remains intact. The so-called 'Marvel Formula' honed over a decade by Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige and company is so recognisable around the world that when one utters the phrase 'Marvel movie', the others in the conversation more often than not know what kind of movies they are talking about.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/beta-ray-bill-captain-britain-miles-morales-and-other-marvel-superheroes-who-should-get-their-mcu-movie-497991">Beta Ray Bill, Captain Britain, Miles Morales, and other Marvel superheroes who should get their MCU movie</a>

It is usually superheroes flying around, debris of buildings, one-liners, camaraderie, and superpowers manifested by all sorts of things like technology (Iron Man), some serum or chemical (Captain America and Hulk), insect bites (Spider-Man), experiments (Wanda Maximoff) a MacGuffin (Vision, Ms Marvel and Shang-Chi), or just good-old workout in the case of Black Widow and Hawkeye.&nbsp;

Since the MCU is so dominant, it is easy to forget that these movies are riddled with errors, plot holes, and logical leaps. Here we list 6 of those. Make no mistake, I believe MCU is awesome. Such an intricately plotted and written cinematic universe with dozens of superheroes, supervillains, and several thousand supporting characters who inhabit a world that feels lived-in is in itself an achievement. But due to the scale, there are bound to be issues and inaccuracies.

1. Why superheroes are not assisted by other Avengers in solo movies?

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fEWSgfNMkjE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Poor Spider-Man was left to fend for himself in 'No Way Home' and only Doctor Strange came to his rescue. Where were the others? &nbsp;When Strange had to face Wanda and the fate of the entire MULTIVERSE, not just one universe, was at stake, where were the others? Why were Eternals the only ones fighting the Deviants as the latter attacked global cities? Where were others to help them?&nbsp;

We know the real-world reason for this: the actors demand salary to act, and a standalone movie's budget cannot go beyond the mandated mark. So if team-ups were to happen in every single film, Marvel Studios would go bankrupt. But there must be an in-universe explanation for other heroes not coming to assist their friends in need. The problem is only going to be bigger as MCU also becomes bigger.

2. Why do characters without superpowers land on their knee and just walk it off?
<img alt="black widow iron man" data-caption="Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c38cb8b6-241f-46ac-940b-ad34d9bcd33a" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/black%20widow.PNG" />
Yes, it is a superhero cinematic universe, and one has to suspend disbelief with this sort of stuff, but god, sometimes MCU make no sense at all. Tony Stark wears a suit of armour and can land on his knee without getting hurt. Same for Steve Rogers or Captain America, who was fortified by a special serum and Bruce Banner was exposed to gamma waves that turned into the Green Goliath called Hulk. But what about Natasha Romanoff, better known as Black Widow? We have been looking at her landing casually in a way (see the image) that would shatter the knee caps of every flesh-and-blood human, no matter how well-developed their muscles are.&nbsp;

3. Superheroes feel like different people in different films

It is a huge challenge for Feige and others pulling the strings to keep MCU tonally balanced and events should matter and character should not feel different from movies to movies in the hands of different filmmakers. And they do not always succeed For instance, Thor in the movies preceding 'Thor: Ragnarok' did not have much in terms of sense of humour. In 'Thor', 'The Avengers', and 'Thor: Dark World' he was funny so far as his Asgardian ways felt funny to other characters. But in 'Ragnarok' he turned into a jokester, becoming almost like an alternate universe version of Thor. Yes, we loved the film, but tonally that Thor does not fit well with the superhero we knew from before.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0IF7xQD0DbE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Also, Odin told Thor in 'Ragnarok' that his power is innate and that he does not need any magical hammer (Mjolnir) to use his powers "Are you a god of hammers?," smirks Odin as he dies. And sure enough, Thor made quick work of warriors resurrected by Hela and even challenged Hela for a while. But in the next film, 'Avengers: Infinity War' he went on to forge another weapon for himself, the Stormbreaker? Why? Was Odin wrong? Thor cannot manifest his powers without Mjolnir? Or what we saw in 'Ragnarok' is not canon?

4. Depiction of marginalised communities in MCU

MCU has been dominated by white males for the most part. Each member of the OG Avengers was white, and only one was female. Sure enough, there has been a course correction. We now have female-centric movies, a movie on an African superhero, and a show on a South Asian Muslim superhero. While many decry this as political correctness, other are pointing out that the parent company of Marvel Studios, does not itself advance the cause of progressivism as its projects do. The media giant has been in hot water over its ambiguous approach to LGBTQ issues.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-ms-marvel-seeing-red-episode-portrays-horrors-of-indias-partition-in-unflinching-detail-493454">&nbsp;Ms Marvel: 'Seeing Red' episode portrays horrors of India's partition in unflinching detail</a>

It had removed a gay kiss scene in the Pixar movie 'Lightyear' until there were protests and walkouts by employees. It has also removed black actors from the posters in China to satiate that country's alleged preference for white colours. For instance, it made the face of British actor John Boyega less prominent on the posters of 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. Perhaps fans would take Disney more seriously if it practiced what it preaches.&nbsp;

5. Why always the United States, and why nearly always New York?

It appears all the extraterrestrial beings, monsters,&nbsp;warlords, and entities from another universe have a beef with the Big Apple. Whenever an alien power attacks earth, they mostly choose New York for some reason. And unfortunate residents of the US financial capital either have to die or flee their homes. More often than not the city is turned into a big pile of rubble, renewing the traumatic, deeply buried memories of those MCU fans who lived through 9/11.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oBqqI6NMeaM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Granted, this is not an issue for just MCU, but it does look like NYC, in movies at least, is the first and often the only target of everything hostile outside our solar system. And if it is New York, then it is somewhere in the US. The rest of the world, it appears, is invisible to alien eyes.&nbsp;

6. Thanos' insane plan

Now we come to the biggest logical leap MCU has ever taken and isn't that saying something. Thanos, played by Josh Brolin, was the Big Bad of the MCU until 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame' which ended the so-called Infinity Saga. His ultimate plan was to acquire the Infinity Stones, the most powerful objects in the universe, and place them in his Infinity Gauntlet, which would then allow him to snap his fingers and do whatever he wish. He could shape reality in any way. But he chose to end half of all living beings in the universe? Why? Because he was on a Malthusian quest to reduce the load on the universe -- so that the rest half of the living beings will be prosperous.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fzGBRDpf5GU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

But the more you think about it, the less that plan makes sense. And yes, the writers do want you to sympathise, at least a little, with Thanos. He is painted as a fairly reasonable character who does not kill indiscriminately. He is precise with his words. Now, what are those 'resources' the Mad Titan was talking about? Aren't plants and animals also resources for humans and other people inhabiting the universe? Won't they die as well? Also, suppose an aeroplane pilot is snapped out of existence, the rest of the travellers will die as well in that aircraft. What about them? Over the centuries, research has proven that it is not the population that is the problem, but resource distribution. Some have everything, and some have nothing. If only Thanos had solved the hunger problem, we would not be in this mess.&nbsp;

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is by far the biggest cinematic brand in the world. These movies (and now shows) have dominated the global film landscape so authoritatively for almost a decade-and-a-half that it is now considered too big to fail.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is by far the biggest cinematic brand in the world. These movies (and now shows) have dominated the global film landscape so authoritatively for almost a decade-and-a-half that it is now considered too big to fail. Even after several lack-luster entries in terms of critical reception and even box office returns, the insane popularity of MCU remains intact. The so-called 'Marvel Formula' honed over a decade by Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige and company is so recognisable around the world that when one utters the phrase 'Marvel movie', the others in the conversation more often than not know what kind of movies they are talking about. Also Read: Beta Ray Bill, Captain Britain, Miles Morales, and other Marvel superheroes who should get their MCU movie It is usually superheroes flying around, debris of buildings, one-liners, camaraderie, and superpowers manifested by all sorts of things like technology (Iron Man), some serum or chemical (Captain America and Hulk), insect bites (Spider-Man), experiments (Wanda Maximoff) a MacGuffin (Vision, Ms Marvel and Shang-Chi), or just good-old workout in the case of Black Widow and Hawkeye. Since the MCU is so dominant, it is easy to forget that these movies are riddled with errors, plot holes, and logical leaps. Here we list 6 of those. Make no mistake, I believe MCU is awesome. Such an intricately plotted and written cinematic universe with dozens of superheroes, supervillains, and several thousand supporting characters who inhabit a world that feels lived-in is in itself an achievement. But due to the scale, there are bound to be issues and inaccuracies. 1. Why superheroes are not assisted by other Avengers in solo movies? Poor Spider-Man was left to fend for himself in 'No Way Home' and only Doctor Strange came to his rescue. Where were the others? When Strange had to face Wanda and the fate of the entire MULTIVERSE, not just one universe, was at stake, where were the others? Why were Eternals the only ones fighting the Deviants as the latter attacked global cities? Where were others to help them? We know the real-world reason for this: the actors demand salary to act, and a standalone movie's budget cannot go beyond the mandated mark. So if team-ups were to happen in every single film, Marvel Studios would go bankrupt. But there must be an in-universe explanation for other heroes not coming to assist their friends in need. The problem is only going to be bigger as MCU also becomes bigger. 2. Why do characters without superpowers land on their knee and just walk it off? Yes, it is a superhero cinematic universe, and one has to suspend disbelief with this sort of stuff, but god, sometimes MCU make no sense at all. Tony Stark wears a suit of armour and can land on his knee without getting hurt. Same for Steve Rogers or Captain America, who was fortified by a special serum and Bruce Banner was exposed to gamma waves that turned into the Green Goliath called Hulk. But what about Natasha Romanoff, better known as Black Widow? We have been looking at her landing casually in a way (see the image) that would shatter the knee caps of every flesh-and-blood human, no matter how well-developed their muscles are. 3. Superheroes feel like different people in different films It is a huge challenge for Feige and others pulling the strings to keep MCU tonally balanced and events should matter and character should not feel different from movies to movies in the hands of different filmmakers. And they do not always succeed For instance, Thor in the movies preceding 'Thor: Ragnarok' did not have much in terms of sense of humour. In 'Thor', 'The Avengers', and 'Thor: Dark World' he was funny so far as his Asgardian ways felt funny to other characters. But in 'Ragnarok' he turned into a jokester, becoming almost like an alternate universe version of Thor. Yes, we loved the film, but tonally that Thor does not fit well with the superhero we knew from before. Also, Odin told Thor in 'Ragnarok' that his power is innate and that he does not need any magical hammer (Mjolnir) to use his powers "Are you a god of hammers?," smirks Odin as he dies. And sure enough, Thor made quick work of warriors resurrected by Hela and even challenged Hela for a while. But in the next film, 'Avengers: Infinity War' he went on to forge another weapon for himself, the Stormbreaker? Why? Was Odin wrong? Thor cannot manifest his powers without Mjolnir? Or what we saw in 'Ragnarok' is not canon? 4. Depiction of marginalised communities in MCU MCU has been dominated by white males for the most part. Each member of the OG Avengers was white, and only one was female. Sure enough, there has been a course correction. We now have female-centric movies, a movie on an African superhero, and a show on a South Asian Muslim superhero. While many decry this as political correctness, other are pointing out that the parent company of Marvel Studios, does not itself advance the cause of progressivism as its projects do. The media giant has been in hot water over its ambiguous approach to LGBTQ issues. Also Read: Ms Marvel: 'Seeing Red' episode portrays horrors of India's partition in unflinching detail It had removed a gay kiss scene in the Pixar movie 'Lightyear' until there were protests and walkouts by employees. It has also removed black actors from the posters in China to satiate that country's alleged preference for white colours. For instance, it made the face of British actor John Boyega less prominent on the posters of 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. Perhaps fans would take Disney more seriously if it practiced what it preaches. 5. Why always the United States, and why nearly always New York? It appears all the extraterrestrial beings, monsters, warlords, and entities from another universe have a beef with the Big Apple. Whenever an alien power attacks earth, they mostly choose New York for some reason. And unfortunate residents of the US financial capital either have to die or flee their homes. More often than not the city is turned into a big pile of rubble, renewing the traumatic, deeply buried memories of those MCU fans who lived through 9/11. Granted, this is not an issue for just MCU, but it does look like NYC, in movies at least, is the first and often the only target of everything hostile outside our solar system. And if it is New York, then it is somewhere in the US. The rest of the world, it appears, is invisible to alien eyes. 6. Thanos' insane plan Now we come to the biggest logical leap MCU has ever taken and isn't that saying something. Thanos, played by Josh Brolin, was the Big Bad of the MCU until 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame' which ended the so-called Infinity Saga. His ultimate plan was to acquire the Infinity Stones, the most powerful objects in the universe, and place them in his Infinity Gauntlet, which would then allow him to snap his fingers and do whatever he wish. He could shape reality in any way. But he chose to end half of all living beings in the universe? Why? Because he was on a Malthusian quest to reduce the load on the universe -- so that the rest half of the living beings will be prosperous. But the more you think about it, the less that plan makes sense. And yes, the writers do want you to sympathise, at least a little, with Thanos. He is painted as a fairly reasonable character who does not kill indiscriminately. He is precise with his words. Now, what are those 'resources' the Mad Titan was talking about? Aren't plants and animals also resources for humans and other people inhabiting the universe? Won't they die as well? Also, suppose an aeroplane pilot is snapped out of existence, the rest of the travellers will die as well in that aircraft. What about them? Over the centuries, research has proven that it is not the population that is the problem, but resource distribution. Some have everything, and some have nothing. If only Thanos had solved the hunger problem, we would not be in this mess.

Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Kshitij Mohan Rawat

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.