'The Batman', 'Top Gun Maverick' and other Wion picks for the best Hollywood movies in 2022 so far

Based on the eponymous novel by Jane Austen, Netflix's 'Persuasion' is a diverting enough film if you, like me, are fond of that particular setting, Britain on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, her heroines usually belonging to the gentry, their families pretty prosperous but still aspiring for that elusive higher status and in want of a fortune or two. But it is also a pretty bad Austen adaptation that seems to completely misunderstands the original story and tries to turn into something it isn't.

Austen lived in the late 18th and early 19th century in Georgian Era rural Britain. Fiercely talented and possessing a voice and style like none of her peers, her tragedy was her works did not find appreciation until the 20th and 21st centuries.&nbsp;

Now they are widely praised among readers and critics for a more authentic portrayal of contemporary British society and the place of women in it, as well as her inherent sharp assessment of the way women were written in literary works in her time. Austen's heroines, be it Elizabeth Bennet from 'Pride and Prejudice', Elinor Dashwood from 'Sense and Sensibility', or Anne Elliot in 'Persuasion' are quite different from each other, but the thing is in terms of their independent outlook, they come across as almost modern.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fz7HmgPJQak" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The story follows Anne Elliot (Dakota Johnson), a young woman who regrets turning down an offer of engagement from a dashing young Navy officer Frederick Wentworth (Cosmo Jarvis). In the intervening years, While Anne has continued to long for him, he has grown considerably in rank and status. Eventually, their paths cross and their encounters, unintentional or otherwise, evoke much awkwardness, each clearly having feelings for the other. There are misunderstandings, unspoken thoughts, and so forth.

Will they each go their own way or will Austen find a way to unite them in marital bliss? 'Persuasion' was the last work of Austen's regrettable short life, and is often also called her most insightful and mature novel. The story is certainly sombre and there is little of the caustic humour that is present in heaps in works like 'Pride and Prejudice'. But &nbsp;'Persuasion', the movie that is, is clearly not interested in such distinctions.
<img alt="Cosmo Jarvis and henry golding in persuasion" data-caption="Cosmo Jarvis and Henry Golding in 'Persuasion'." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7f5f1b2b-2a62-47be-93b0-c43c00372c17" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/persuasion-1200.PNG" />
From a solemn story of a woman getting her life back on track after years of longing and regret, the story is turned into a romantic comedy, its pensive heroine Anne is turned into Phoebe Waller-Bridge's 'Fleabag' with her eye-rolls and her fourth-wall-breaking which is rarely funny and often distracting.&nbsp;

It is a shame, because Johnson is at the top of the game here, simply quite brilliant even with that passable English accent, although she is slightly miscast. Her demeanour is too chipper for Anne from&nbsp;the book, but for that too I think the writing is to blame. I am not a snob, and I do not get resentful when writers of TV or film take liberties with the source material -- so long as the essence is intact. But here, the writers ( Ron Bass and Alice Victoria Winslow) may as well be adapting some other book.

I do think if you are not an Austen fan and have never read any of her works (seriously, how dare you!), you would like this film just fine. But if you are, can I suggest 'Fire Island' instead?

Based on the eponymous novel by Jane Austen, Netflix's 'Persuasion' is a diverting enough film if you, like me, are fond of that particular setting, Britain on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, her heroines usually belonging to the gentry, their families pretty prosperous but still aspiring for that elusive higher status and in want of a fortune or two.

Based on the eponymous novel by Jane Austen, Netflix's 'Persuasion' is a diverting enough film if you, like me, are fond of that particular setting, Britain on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, her heroines usually belonging to the gentry, their families pretty prosperous but still aspiring for that elusive higher status and in want of a fortune or two. But it is also a pretty bad Austen adaptation that seems to completely misunderstands the original story and tries to turn into something it isn't. Austen lived in the late 18th and early 19th century in Georgian Era rural Britain. Fiercely talented and possessing a voice and style like none of her peers, her tragedy was her works did not find appreciation until the 20th and 21st centuries. Now they are widely praised among readers and critics for a more authentic portrayal of contemporary British society and the place of women in it, as well as her inherent sharp assessment of the way women were written in literary works in her time. Austen's heroines, be it Elizabeth Bennet from 'Pride and Prejudice', Elinor Dashwood from 'Sense and Sensibility', or Anne Elliot in 'Persuasion' are quite different from each other, but the thing is in terms of their independent outlook, they come across as almost modern. The story follows Anne Elliot (Dakota Johnson), a young woman who regrets turning down an offer of engagement from a dashing young Navy officer Frederick Wentworth (Cosmo Jarvis). In the intervening years, While Anne has continued to long for him, he has grown considerably in rank and status. Eventually, their paths cross and their encounters, unintentional or otherwise, evoke much awkwardness, each clearly having feelings for the other. There are misunderstandings, unspoken thoughts, and so forth. Will they each go their own way or will Austen find a way to unite them in marital bliss? 'Persuasion' was the last work of Austen's regrettable short life, and is often also called her most insightful and mature novel. The story is certainly sombre and there is little of the caustic humour that is present in heaps in works like 'Pride and Prejudice'. But 'Persuasion', the movie that is, is clearly not interested in such distinctions. From a solemn story of a woman getting her life back on track after years of longing and regret, the story is turned into a romantic comedy, its pensive heroine Anne is turned into Phoebe Waller-Bridge's 'Fleabag' with her eye-rolls and her fourth-wall-breaking which is rarely funny and often distracting. It is a shame, because Johnson is at the top of the game here, simply quite brilliant even with that passable English accent, although she is slightly miscast. Her demeanour is too chipper for Anne from the book, but for that too I think the writing is to blame. I am not a snob, and I do not get resentful when writers of TV or film take liberties with the source material -- so long as the essence is intact. But here, the writers ( Ron Bass and Alice Victoria Winslow) may as well be adapting some other book. I do think if you are not an Austen fan and have never read any of her works (seriously, how dare you!), you would like this film just fine. But if you are, can I suggest 'Fire Island' instead?

'Persuasion' review: Even a scintillating Dakota Johnson can't save this Jane Austen adaptation

The storm called 'Thor: Love and Thunder' is settled. The Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman-starrer film did not overly impress critics but had a huge global box office opening, and is set to become a commercial success by the time it exits theatres. Meanwhile, the eager eyes of fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are set upon the next big-screen entry in MCU: Ryan Coogler's 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever'. Although it does not come out until November, fans are curious as to how it will work without its biggest star, Chadwick Boseman, who died from colon cancer at the age of 42 in 2020.

Certainly, the absence of Boseman in the film will hurt it, but it still might work. We know Kevin Feige, the chief of Marvel Studios, the company behind the MCU, has made it clear that the role of T'Challa (Black Panther's real name) will not be recast. So the film that has 'Black Panther' in its name will not have a Black Panther. Or won't it?

Also in MCU:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-she-hulk-director-defends-shows-horrible-cgi-shes-so-different-497045">'She-Hulk' director defends show's horrible CGI: 'She's so different...'</a>

'Black Panther' is a title, not a person

We know Black Panther is just a title from the first 2018 film and before that 2016's 'Captain America: Civil War'. It does not connote a specific superhero or person. Several generations of Black Panthers have ruled Wakanda as kings. Wakanda is a fictional African nation in MCU and Marvel Comics that is super-advanced, and has technology that is far superior to any other on earth.

Who should be the next Black Panther?

So, technically speaking, anyone can don the Vibranium suit and can call themselves 'Black Panther'. And indeed, there will almost certainly be one to take Boseman's legacy forward. Boseman's death will always be hurtful, but the writers -- Coogler and Joe Robert Cole -- have the opportunity to create a female Black Panther here. For that, there are several candidates. Take for instance Dora Milaje, the elite group of warriors that protects the Wakandan monarch. Okoye (Danai Gurira) can go toe-to-toe with any other warrior in MCU when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. It is natural that she will be nearly invulnerable in the vibranium shield.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BkoYYy1EyLE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Also, T'Challa's young sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) is the biggest tech wizard in the nation and can create a customised suit for Okoye. Another candidate is Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o), T'Challa's former love-interest who is a formidable warrior herself and can totally fill his shoes.&nbsp;

But the most suitable candidate for the title of 'Black Panther' is...

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>

But here is who I think should really be the next Black Panther: Riri Williams played by Dominique Thorne. In the lore, Williams is a genius young inventor who makes a suit of armour to rival Tony Stark's Iron Man suit and becomes his successor Iron Heart. If she does become Black Panther, and not Ironheart, it will be fitting in a way -- she played the role of Judy Harmon in the movie 'Judas and the Black Messiah', one of the Black Panthers (the real-world organisation).

'Wakanda Forever' also stars Martin Freeman, Winston Duke, and Angela Bassett. The film releases on November 11 later this year.&nbsp;

The storm called 'Thor: Love and Thunder' is settled. The Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman-starrer film did not overly impress critics but had a huge global box office opening, and is set to become a commercial success by the time it exits theatres.

The storm called 'Thor: Love and Thunder' is settled. The Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman-starrer film did not overly impress critics but had a huge global box office opening, and is set to become a commercial success by the time it exits theatres. Meanwhile, the eager eyes of fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are set upon the next big-screen entry in MCU: Ryan Coogler's 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever'. Although it does not come out until November, fans are curious as to how it will work without its biggest star, Chadwick Boseman, who died from colon cancer at the age of 42 in 2020. Certainly, the absence of Boseman in the film will hurt it, but it still might work. We know Kevin Feige, the chief of Marvel Studios, the company behind the MCU, has made it clear that the role of T'Challa (Black Panther's real name) will not be recast. So the film that has 'Black Panther' in its name will not have a Black Panther. Or won't it? Also in MCU: 'She-Hulk' director defends show's horrible CGI: 'She's so different...' 'Black Panther' is a title, not a person We know Black Panther is just a title from the first 2018 film and before that 2016's 'Captain America: Civil War'. It does not connote a specific superhero or person. Several generations of Black Panthers have ruled Wakanda as kings. Wakanda is a fictional African nation in MCU and Marvel Comics that is super-advanced, and has technology that is far superior to any other on earth. Who should be the next Black Panther? So, technically speaking, anyone can don the Vibranium suit and can call themselves 'Black Panther'. And indeed, there will almost certainly be one to take Boseman's legacy forward. Boseman's death will always be hurtful, but the writers -- Coogler and Joe Robert Cole -- have the opportunity to create a female Black Panther here. For that, there are several candidates. Take for instance Dora Milaje, the elite group of warriors that protects the Wakandan monarch. Okoye (Danai Gurira) can go toe-to-toe with any other warrior in MCU when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. It is natural that she will be nearly invulnerable in the vibranium shield. Also, T'Challa's young sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) is the biggest tech wizard in the nation and can create a customised suit for Okoye. Another candidate is Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o), T'Challa's former love-interest who is a formidable warrior herself and can totally fill his shoes. But the most suitable candidate for the title of 'Black Panther' is... Also read: After 'Thor Love and Thunder, 'Deadpool 3', 'Shang-Chi 2', 'Thunderbolts' and all other 11 upcoming MCU movies But here is who I think should really be the next Black Panther: Riri Williams played by Dominique Thorne. In the lore, Williams is a genius young inventor who makes a suit of armour to rival Tony Stark's Iron Man suit and becomes his successor Iron Heart. If she does become Black Panther, and not Ironheart, it will be fitting in a way -- she played the role of Judy Harmon in the movie 'Judas and the Black Messiah', one of the Black Panthers (the real-world organisation). 'Wakanda Forever' also stars Martin Freeman, Winston Duke, and Angela Bassett. The film releases on November 11 later this year.

How 'Black Panther Wakanda Forever' could work without Chadwick Boseman

There is a new teaser for 'The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power'. The lavishly-produced series is made on a budget that is more than the most expensive movies. In other words, 'Rings of Power' is the costliest entertainment production of any kind, be it movie, show, or even video game. Amazon Studios bought the rights from Tolkien Estate for a whopping $250 million. And the five seasons of the show will cost $1 billion to make. Thus, the total budget is a staggering $1.25 billion.&nbsp;

While it carries 'The Lord of the Rings' in the title, it is actually set thousands of years before the events of JRR Tolkien's book. As the subtitle suggests, it is centred around the forging of Rings of Power. Charles Edwards, Robert Aramayo, and Morfydd Clark lead a humongous ensemble cast.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-new-teaser-an-epic-stunning-return-to-middle-earth-497346">'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' new teaser: An epic, stunning return to Middle-earth</a>

Edwards plays the role of elven smith Celebrimbor, who is beguiled by Dark Lord Sauron, whose forces will go on to wreak havoc on Middle-earth in the War of the Ring. Aramayo is the half-elf Elrond, a character that was played by Hugo Weaving in Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' trilogies. During the Second Age in Middle-earth, when 'Rings of Power' is set, he is not yet the lord of Rivendell. Clark plays Galadriel, Cate Blanchett's character in the Jackson movies. She appears to be the main character of the show.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f2Cs-u4b6hI" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The trailers and promos have displayed shots of immense and varied landscapes like mountains, valleys, deserts, and woods as befits Middle-earth. There is also shots of artificial structures like statues and edifices rendered on a dizzyingly huge scale. It all looks to be doing justice to the high budget.

But a big question arises: will it recreate the magic that Jackson's original trilogy did? Released in consecutive years from 2001 to 2003, the films were a phenomenon, excelling in box office returns as well as receiving universally positive critical reception. They together won an incredible 17 Oscars out of 30 nominations, with the concluding picture 'The Return of the King' clinching a record 11 trophies alone -- equalling the record of 'Titanic' and 'Ben-Hur' for most Oscars. More than the accolades, the movies had a seismic impact on the cinematic landscape, transforming it for the better forever.&nbsp;

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-new-images-and-new-plot-details-out-492984">'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' new images and plot details out</a>

When it comes to Amazon's attempt, the budget is certainly a plus point. It means that the makers have enough dough to spend on things like locations and visual effects.&nbsp;

But the secret to making productions like this successful is more than just throwing money at it. The most important thing that serves as the basis of these stories is scripting. Jackson and his writers delivered scripts that were not just epic and action-packed but also brimming with emotion and thematic depth. The series will only be successful if the writing is good.&nbsp;

It is likely, even probable, that the series will not match the attention that the movies received. But it is important for&nbsp;us, the fans, to go into the series with an open mind and consider that both productions tell different stories and are not similar in any way apart from sharing the creator who is behind&nbsp;this vivid world: Tolkien.

'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' premieres on September 2, 2022. 
&nbsp;

There is a new teaser for 'The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power'. The lavishly-produced series is made on a budget that is more than the most expensive movies. In other words, 'Rings of Power' is the costliest entertainment production of any kind, be it movie, show, or even video game.

There is a new teaser for 'The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power'. The lavishly-produced series is made on a budget that is more than the most expensive movies. In other words, 'Rings of Power' is the costliest entertainment production of any kind, be it movie, show, or even video game. Amazon Studios bought the rights from Tolkien Estate for a whopping $250 million. And the five seasons of the show will cost $1 billion to make. Thus, the total budget is a staggering $1.25 billion. While it carries 'The Lord of the Rings' in the title, it is actually set thousands of years before the events of JRR Tolkien's book. As the subtitle suggests, it is centred around the forging of Rings of Power. Charles Edwards, Robert Aramayo, and Morfydd Clark lead a humongous ensemble cast. Also Read: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' new teaser: An epic, stunning return to Middle-earth Edwards plays the role of elven smith Celebrimbor, who is beguiled by Dark Lord Sauron, whose forces will go on to wreak havoc on Middle-earth in the War of the Ring. Aramayo is the half-elf Elrond, a character that was played by Hugo Weaving in Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' trilogies. During the Second Age in Middle-earth, when 'Rings of Power' is set, he is not yet the lord of Rivendell. Clark plays Galadriel, Cate Blanchett's character in the Jackson movies. She appears to be the main character of the show. The trailers and promos have displayed shots of immense and varied landscapes like mountains, valleys, deserts, and woods as befits Middle-earth. There is also shots of artificial structures like statues and edifices rendered on a dizzyingly huge scale. It all looks to be doing justice to the high budget. But a big question arises: will it recreate the magic that Jackson's original trilogy did? Released in consecutive years from 2001 to 2003, the films were a phenomenon, excelling in box office returns as well as receiving universally positive critical reception. They together won an incredible 17 Oscars out of 30 nominations, with the concluding picture 'The Return of the King' clinching a record 11 trophies alone -- equalling the record of 'Titanic' and 'Ben-Hur' for most Oscars. More than the accolades, the movies had a seismic impact on the cinematic landscape, transforming it for the better forever. Also Read: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' new images and plot details out When it comes to Amazon's attempt, the budget is certainly a plus point. It means that the makers have enough dough to spend on things like locations and visual effects. But the secret to making productions like this successful is more than just throwing money at it. The most important thing that serves as the basis of these stories is scripting. Jackson and his writers delivered scripts that were not just epic and action-packed but also brimming with emotion and thematic depth. The series will only be successful if the writing is good. It is likely, even probable, that the series will not match the attention that the movies received. But it is important for us, the fans, to go into the series with an open mind and consider that both productions tell different stories and are not similar in any way apart from sharing the creator who is behind this vivid world: Tolkien. 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' premieres on September 2, 2022.

Will 'The Lord of the Rings Rings of Power' be able to recreate the magic of Peter Jackson's 'LotR' trilogy?

The new season of 'What We Do in the Shadows' is here, or at least the first two episodes. This Jemaine Clement-created FX mockumentary horror-comedy series is a spinoff of the 2014 movie of the same name directed by Clement with Taika Waititi. The story is set in a world where hundreds of years old vampires exist but are set in their old-timey ways and are having a tough time adjusting to the modern era. The series follows a group of vampires residing in New York's Staten Island and one of the vampire's human familiar, who brings them unsuspecting human victims for their blood, cleans the place, and introduces them to new-age human concepts.

While the three of the four vampires -- Nandor, Laszlo, and Nadja, played by Kayvan Novak, Matt Berry, Natasia Demetriou, respectively -- are your traditional vampires in the vein of Dracula, there is one "energy vampire" as well called Colin Robinson (Mark Proksch), who sucks off not blood but the energy of his victims, leaving them listless and uninspired. The human familiar is called Guillermo, and is played by Harvey Guillén, who is with the vampires due to lack of employment and secretly wanting to be a vampire.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-what-we-do-in-the-shadows-season-4-trailer-promises-more-vampire-shenanigans-in-tvs-best-comedy-491729">'What We Do in the Shadows' Season 4 trailer promises more vampire shenanigans in TV's best comedy</a>

The gang was scattered at the end of the third season. The premiere episode of the fourth season, titled appropriately "Reunited"&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(first two episodes are available on Disney+ Hotstar in India now), finds them back together again, though Colin Robinson is only a little boy after the "original" version of him died and a new one emerged from his chest cavity. The boy has Colin's face but the rest of his body is like that of a typical boy. It is a crazy, crazy show, mind you.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CuYcR8SgSKk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The setup of 'What We Do in the Shadows' should be funny and it is, but it is a one-joke and by rights, the concept should have outlived its raison d'etre long ago, but somehow, it has stayed fresh for three seasons, and continues to feel so in the first two episodes. The calibre of the people behind the show has made sure that there are enough alterations with the sitcom and mockumentary tropes to keep things novel and the wit infused by the show's astonishingly consistent writers.&nbsp;

And the brilliant actors -- every one of the main five -- use that solid material and do wonders. In the fourth season too, the makers of the show find new ways to surprise and delight its audience. The jokes are once again not the laugh-out-loud variety, at least not most of them, but 'What We Do in the Shadows' is still the funniest show around. The premise itself is pretty funny in a ludicrous way and the brand of absurdist comedy that Clement and Waititi pioneered all those years ago with the original movie has not lost its appeal.

The new season of 'What We Do in the Shadows' is here, or at least the first two episodes. This Jemaine Clement-created FX mockumentary horror-comedy series is a spinoff of the 2014 movie of the same name directed by Clement with Taika Waititi.

The new season of 'What We Do in the Shadows' is here, or at least the first two episodes. This Jemaine Clement-created FX mockumentary horror-comedy series is a spinoff of the 2014 movie of the same name directed by Clement with Taika Waititi. The story is set in a world where hundreds of years old vampires exist but are set in their old-timey ways and are having a tough time adjusting to the modern era. The series follows a group of vampires residing in New York's Staten Island and one of the vampire's human familiar, who brings them unsuspecting human victims for their blood, cleans the place, and introduces them to new-age human concepts. While the three of the four vampires -- Nandor, Laszlo, and Nadja, played by Kayvan Novak, Matt Berry, Natasia Demetriou, respectively -- are your traditional vampires in the vein of Dracula, there is one "energy vampire" as well called Colin Robinson (Mark Proksch), who sucks off not blood but the energy of his victims, leaving them listless and uninspired. The human familiar is called Guillermo, and is played by Harvey Guillén, who is with the vampires due to lack of employment and secretly wanting to be a vampire. Also Read: 'What We Do in the Shadows' Season 4 trailer promises more vampire shenanigans in TV's best comedy The gang was scattered at the end of the third season. The premiere episode of the fourth season, titled appropriately "Reunited" (first two episodes are available on Disney+ Hotstar in India now), finds them back together again, though Colin Robinson is only a little boy after the "original" version of him died and a new one emerged from his chest cavity. The boy has Colin's face but the rest of his body is like that of a typical boy. It is a crazy, crazy show, mind you. The setup of 'What We Do in the Shadows' should be funny and it is, but it is a one-joke and by rights, the concept should have outlived its raison d'etre long ago, but somehow, it has stayed fresh for three seasons, and continues to feel so in the first two episodes. The calibre of the people behind the show has made sure that there are enough alterations with the sitcom and mockumentary tropes to keep things novel and the wit infused by the show's astonishingly consistent writers. And the brilliant actors -- every one of the main five -- use that solid material and do wonders. In the fourth season too, the makers of the show find new ways to surprise and delight its audience. The jokes are once again not the laugh-out-loud variety, at least not most of them, but 'What We Do in the Shadows' is still the funniest show around. The premise itself is pretty funny in a ludicrous way and the brand of absurdist comedy that Clement and Waititi pioneered all those years ago with the original movie has not lost its appeal.

'What We Do in the Shadows' Season 4 premiere review: TV's best comedy marks a triumphant return

I knew Taika Waititi was not going&nbsp;to meet the towering&nbsp;expectations he set with 2017's 'Thor: Ragnarok'. Indeed, he&nbsp;falls way short with 'Thor: Love and Thunder', the fourth film in the franchise that brings back Chris Hemsworth's God of Thunder. But the film is not just disappointing, it is also an utter mess. There is, for instance, little harmony between several scenes -- so much so that they often appear as though they belong to their own movies. Did I enjoy it? Yes, mildly,&nbsp;though I am not eager for a second viewing. Could it have been better? Absolutely.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-before-thor-love-and-thunder-revisiting-god-of-thunders-journey-in-mcu-494636">Before 'Thor Love and Thunder,' revisiting God of Thunder's journey in MCU</a>

The movie begins with Thor and&nbsp;Guardians of the Galaxy 

The last we saw of Thor, he was with the Guardians of the Galaxy and here we find him saving lives across the universe with them. A distress signal tells him&nbsp;about a being calling himself Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale) killing gods around the universe. Gorr's next target is New Asgard, the settlement in Norway where the surviving Asgardians settled in the wake of their realm's destruction.

There,&nbsp;Thor gets the surprise of a lifetime. His old flame, Natalie Portman's Jane Foster, is now a Thor herself (or more precisely, Mighty Thor), and wields the reassembled Mjolnir. Her way of dispatching Gorr's baddies using the hammer&nbsp;has far more flair than Odinson had.&nbsp;There is an undercurrent of poignancy related&nbsp;to her newfound power -- her cancer that is lifted directly from the Mighty Thor storyline.

Thor, Mighty Thor, King Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson,&nbsp;underused here), and the rocky Kronan warrior Korg (Waititi) team up to take down Gorr before he accomplishes his vow to obliterate every god.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Go8nTmfrQd8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Gorr, a villain with a point?

Now, Gorr, like every other good villain, has his reasons. Played by Bale with a suitably sinister air, bleached skin, and eyes that burn with hatred&nbsp;for anything divine, Gorr lived on a planet that gods forgot existed. His pleas for his family and people went unheeded. We find him cradling his dying young daughter in the film's prologue. He somehow gets his hands on the Necrosword, the one weapon that can kill any god in the universe, and makes the vow.

Of course, Gorr encounters Thor in his crusade of god killing. To get help, Thor and company visit Zeus, played by Russell Crowe as the Zeus we know from Greek myths -- vain, prideful, and hedonistic. Crowe clearly had fun with the role, and I hope to see more of him. After a quick yet spectacular action scene, the heroes learn that they will have to take on Gorr alone.

Also See:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/thor-love-and-thunder-comics-to-read-before-watching-chris-hemsworths-movie-494919">'Thor Love and Thunder': Comics to read before watching Chris Hemsworth's movie</a>

Lots to love in the film, but...

There are flashes of brilliance, of course. Waititi has a real eye for visuals. Like 'Ragnarok', 'Love and Thunder' is full of unforgettably dazzling imagery, and action is never less than interesting. It is hard to completely hate a film that has a thrilling&nbsp;final fight set to Guns N' Roses' 'Sweet Child O' Mine'. The acting is great all around as well. Hemsworth could&nbsp;play Thor forever and I will not mind. Portman instills much-needed poignancy and a sense of stakes in an otherwise fluffy script. But 'Love and Thunder' also features Bale, and he unsurprisingly pretty much steals the film.&nbsp;

Like many things in this film, the script, by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, does not give the character enough meat for Bale to do much. But then, it's Bale. He practically&nbsp;disappears into the role and devises a worthy adversary for the two Thors -- in both strength and principle -- a slimy force of nature single-mindedly determined to get his vengeance.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MqMRGkmGO98" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

'Love and Thunder'&nbsp;illustrates larger issues with MCU and the superhero genre

But the film cannot recreate the magic that we saw playing out in the preceding film. The trouble, I feel, is that the film is missing that immaculate cocktail of intelligent, humour-laced&nbsp;writing and carefully crafted set pieces that made 'Ragnarok' one of the best MCU entries.&nbsp;

Despite Waititi being given more control this time (I assume), this feels crafted in the traditionally Marvel mould -- designed as per the good old formula that Kevin Feige et al has perfected over the last one and a half-decade. In other words, the film watches like your typical MCU movie.

And I get why Feige and&nbsp;the team persist with the formula. The formula where even scenes are serious and emotional, they&nbsp;are tinged with humour as though the writers are nervous about fans not being&nbsp;able to&nbsp;stomach all that sentiment.&nbsp;

The Marvel formula works, sadly

Because&nbsp;they are right. The fans love the formula, for it makes for a comfortable, unchallenging time at the movies. In the theatre where I watched the film, there were hoots at even&nbsp;hints of humour, but during those quiet moments where characters were sharing their feelings? Everybody looked uncomfortable, and there were tense whispers, clearly wondering when the onslaught of 'feels'&nbsp;will end.

I knew Taika Waititi was not going to meet the towering expectations he set with 2017's 'Thor: Ragnarok'. Indeed, he falls way short with 'Thor: Love and Thunder', the fourth film in the franchise that brings back Chris Hemsworth's God of Thunder.

I knew Taika Waititi was not going to meet the towering expectations he set with 2017's 'Thor: Ragnarok'. Indeed, he falls way short with 'Thor: Love and Thunder', the fourth film in the franchise that brings back Chris Hemsworth's God of Thunder. But the film is not just disappointing, it is also an utter mess. There is, for instance, little harmony between several scenes -- so much so that they often appear as though they belong to their own movies. Did I enjoy it? Yes, mildly, though I am not eager for a second viewing. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Also Read: Before 'Thor Love and Thunder,' revisiting God of Thunder's journey in MCU The movie begins with Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy The last we saw of Thor, he was with the Guardians of the Galaxy and here we find him saving lives across the universe with them. A distress signal tells him about a being calling himself Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale) killing gods around the universe. Gorr's next target is New Asgard, the settlement in Norway where the surviving Asgardians settled in the wake of their realm's destruction. There, Thor gets the surprise of a lifetime. His old flame, Natalie Portman's Jane Foster, is now a Thor herself (or more precisely, Mighty Thor), and wields the reassembled Mjolnir. Her way of dispatching Gorr's baddies using the hammer has far more flair than Odinson had. There is an undercurrent of poignancy related to her newfound power -- her cancer that is lifted directly from the Mighty Thor storyline. Thor, Mighty Thor, King Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson, underused here), and the rocky Kronan warrior Korg (Waititi) team up to take down Gorr before he accomplishes his vow to obliterate every god. Gorr, a villain with a point? Now, Gorr, like every other good villain, has his reasons. Played by Bale with a suitably sinister air, bleached skin, and eyes that burn with hatred for anything divine, Gorr lived on a planet that gods forgot existed. His pleas for his family and people went unheeded. We find him cradling his dying young daughter in the film's prologue. He somehow gets his hands on the Necrosword, the one weapon that can kill any god in the universe, and makes the vow. Of course, Gorr encounters Thor in his crusade of god killing. To get help, Thor and company visit Zeus, played by Russell Crowe as the Zeus we know from Greek myths -- vain, prideful, and hedonistic. Crowe clearly had fun with the role, and I hope to see more of him. After a quick yet spectacular action scene, the heroes learn that they will have to take on Gorr alone. Also See: 'Thor Love and Thunder': Comics to read before watching Chris Hemsworth's movie Lots to love in the film, but... There are flashes of brilliance, of course. Waititi has a real eye for visuals. Like 'Ragnarok', 'Love and Thunder' is full of unforgettably dazzling imagery, and action is never less than interesting. It is hard to completely hate a film that has a thrilling final fight set to Guns N' Roses' 'Sweet Child O' Mine'. The acting is great all around as well. Hemsworth could play Thor forever and I will not mind. Portman instills much-needed poignancy and a sense of stakes in an otherwise fluffy script. But 'Love and Thunder' also features Bale, and he unsurprisingly pretty much steals the film. Like many things in this film, the script, by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, does not give the character enough meat for Bale to do much. But then, it's Bale. He practically disappears into the role and devises a worthy adversary for the two Thors -- in both strength and principle -- a slimy force of nature single-mindedly determined to get his vengeance. 'Love and Thunder' illustrates larger issues with MCU and the superhero genre But the film cannot recreate the magic that we saw playing out in the preceding film. The trouble, I feel, is that the film is missing that immaculate cocktail of intelligent, humour-laced writing and carefully crafted set pieces that made 'Ragnarok' one of the best MCU entries. Despite Waititi being given more control this time (I assume), this feels crafted in the traditionally Marvel mould -- designed as per the good old formula that Kevin Feige et al has perfected over the last one and a half-decade. In other words, the film watches like your typical MCU movie. And I get why Feige and the team persist with the formula. The formula where even scenes are serious and emotional, they are tinged with humour as though the writers are nervous about fans not being able to stomach all that sentiment. The Marvel formula works, sadly Because they are right. The fans love the formula, for it makes for a comfortable, unchallenging time at the movies. In the theatre where I watched the film, there were hoots at even hints of humour, but during those quiet moments where characters were sharing their feelings? Everybody looked uncomfortable, and there were tense whispers, clearly wondering when the onslaught of 'feels' will end.

'Thor Love and Thunder' review: Chris Hemsworth's film proves 'Avengers fatigue' is real

As 'Better Call Saul' draws to a close, an era is coming to an end. There might always be another spinoff series of movie (I, for one, would love to see the origin story of one Lalo Salamanca), but the end of 'BCS' is a major end. The first episode in volume 2 of the show's sixth and final season, titled "Point and Shoot", is easily one of the best the series has ever been: brutal and emotionally devastating.

Note that this review is very, in fact totally spoilery, so if you are yet to watch the episode, the season or the show, do that and come back. I will be waiting.

SPOILER ALERT

The last episode had Lalo (Tony Dalton) ambushing Jimmy (Bob Odenkirk), Kim (Rhea Seehorn), and Howard (Patrick Fabian) as the latter excoriated the former two for undermining him. But the playful pranks that Jimmy and Kim played on Howard quickly turned deadly as Lalo casually shot Howard in the head.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PVeTDxCwGLE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

"Point and Shoot" picks up soon after Howard's death. Lalo has no time for Jimmy and Kim's grief for Howard (which is frankly hypocritical as they did try to destroy his career and reputation) and asks Jimmy to knock on a particular door and kill the black and librarian-appearing man (Gus Fring) who opens it and he would wait with Kim until he finishes the job.

This is a ruse as Lalo wants to record the evidence of the underground meth lab that Fring has been building. Jimmy convinces Kim to do the job instead. Lalo agrees, Kim leaves and Lalo also leaves after binding Jimmy to a chair. When Kim reaches the house, she is restrained by Mike and his men.&nbsp;

They quickly leave for her house and found it empty -- apart from Jimmy, of course. Meanwhile, Lalo is at the lab, where Frings also reaches on a hunch and his men are quickly dispatched by a hiding Lalo. He brings out a video camera and records Fring and the secret lab. But Fring, always preparing for any and every emergency has a handgun hidden in the still-under-construction lab. And shoots Lalo in the neck. It is a brutal end and the man leaves the world with a wry smile on his face.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-better-call-saul-season-6-volume-2-trailer-beginning-of-the-end-495749">'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Volume 2 trailer: Beginning of the end</a>

The fixer that he is, Mike (Jonathan Banks), visited Jimmy and Kim and took care of Howard's body. The cracks in Jimmy's vestige of conscience are appearing as he did not seem to care as the body was squeezed into his refrigerator for disposal. The 'Breaking Bad' universe delights in nuanced storytelling but also knows when to deliver payoffs that feel as though somebody struck you with a jackhammer. Sure, Jimmy has been breaking bad for a while now. It is a tragedy at this point. He is stepping at the precipice with little nudges he is being given by both internal and external forces. But that casual look he gave is something we know from Saul Goodman of ''Breaking Bad'.
<img alt="tony dalton" data-caption="RIP Lalo." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c26168bc-ba9d-4044-9d81-6d1c48d6f91e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/tony-dalton.PNG" />
What a corker of an episode. The pace, the camerawork, the suspense, the acting, every single thing was absolutely top notch. Just like 'Breaking Bad' fired on all cylinders in the final season the entire sixth season of 'Better Call Saul' until now has been chock-full of shocks, payoffs and incredible dramatic moments.&nbsp;

Lalo had to die in the last few episodes, sadly, as he is no longer alive in 'Breaking Bad', but some writers, overseen by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, still managed to create a sense of mystery around his fate. A majestically complex character played with utter elegance by Dalton.&nbsp;

It is hard to believe there are still five episodes remaining. 'Better Call Saul' is streaming on Netflix.

As 'Better Call Saul' draws to a close, an era is coming to an end. There might always be another spinoff series of movie (I, for one, would love to see the origin story of one Lalo Salamanca), but the end of 'BCS' is a major end.

As 'Better Call Saul' draws to a close, an era is coming to an end. There might always be another spinoff series of movie (I, for one, would love to see the origin story of one Lalo Salamanca), but the end of 'BCS' is a major end. The first episode in volume 2 of the show's sixth and final season, titled "Point and Shoot", is easily one of the best the series has ever been: brutal and emotionally devastating. Note that this review is very, in fact totally spoilery, so if you are yet to watch the episode, the season or the show, do that and come back. I will be waiting. SPOILER ALERT The last episode had Lalo (Tony Dalton) ambushing Jimmy (Bob Odenkirk), Kim (Rhea Seehorn), and Howard (Patrick Fabian) as the latter excoriated the former two for undermining him. But the playful pranks that Jimmy and Kim played on Howard quickly turned deadly as Lalo casually shot Howard in the head. "Point and Shoot" picks up soon after Howard's death. Lalo has no time for Jimmy and Kim's grief for Howard (which is frankly hypocritical as they did try to destroy his career and reputation) and asks Jimmy to knock on a particular door and kill the black and librarian-appearing man (Gus Fring) who opens it and he would wait with Kim until he finishes the job. This is a ruse as Lalo wants to record the evidence of the underground meth lab that Fring has been building. Jimmy convinces Kim to do the job instead. Lalo agrees, Kim leaves and Lalo also leaves after binding Jimmy to a chair. When Kim reaches the house, she is restrained by Mike and his men. They quickly leave for her house and found it empty -- apart from Jimmy, of course. Meanwhile, Lalo is at the lab, where Frings also reaches on a hunch and his men are quickly dispatched by a hiding Lalo. He brings out a video camera and records Fring and the secret lab. But Fring, always preparing for any and every emergency has a handgun hidden in the still-under-construction lab. And shoots Lalo in the neck. It is a brutal end and the man leaves the world with a wry smile on his face. Also Read: 'Better Call Saul' Season 6 Volume 2 trailer: Beginning of the end The fixer that he is, Mike (Jonathan Banks), visited Jimmy and Kim and took care of Howard's body. The cracks in Jimmy's vestige of conscience are appearing as he did not seem to care as the body was squeezed into his refrigerator for disposal. The 'Breaking Bad' universe delights in nuanced storytelling but also knows when to deliver payoffs that feel as though somebody struck you with a jackhammer. Sure, Jimmy has been breaking bad for a while now. It is a tragedy at this point. He is stepping at the precipice with little nudges he is being given by both internal and external forces. But that casual look he gave is something we know from Saul Goodman of ''Breaking Bad'. What a corker of an episode. The pace, the camerawork, the suspense, the acting, every single thing was absolutely top notch. Just like 'Breaking Bad' fired on all cylinders in the final season the entire sixth season of 'Better Call Saul' until now has been chock-full of shocks, payoffs and incredible dramatic moments. Lalo had to die in the last few episodes, sadly, as he is no longer alive in 'Breaking Bad', but some writers, overseen by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, still managed to create a sense of mystery around his fate. A majestically complex character played with utter elegance by Dalton. It is hard to believe there are still five episodes remaining. 'Better Call Saul' is streaming on Netflix.

'Better Call Saul' season 6 episode 8 review: Thrilling, devastating episode delivers massive casualty

'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', featuring Ranveer Singh and British survivalist Bear Grylls, does not know what to do with itself. It pretends to be interactive, and sure enough, there are choices presented to you a few times through the narrative. But they do not seem to matter at all. It also pretends and both the host and the star talk about, too many times to count, how dangerous this remote Serbian jungle is, where angry brown bears and hungry wolves roam. But who in their right mind would think of this as anything different from what Ranveer does in his&nbsp;movies (acting)?

Strictly for Ranveer Singh fans?

Whether you would be able to sit through 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', then, would depend on whether you are okay with Ranveer's energetic, gung-ho persona, because it is all about him. I liked to think I was. But then I saw this. Unlike you, I did not have the consolation of thinking 'Well, I could turn it off whenever I wanted to'. This is my occupational hazard, for I had to watch the entire thing in a single sitting, only so I could tell you how bad it was.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/joH3je2HrxA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The special begins with Ranveer apparently running for his life as a bear rumbles towards him like a small tank. As Ranveer is cornered on a cliff, Grylls climbs down a rope ladder hanging from a helicopter and rescues him. This opening would have fit into an adventure or survival film. But here, it confounds. What is the purpose of showing Ranveer alone and lost in dense, wildlife-infested woods if we perfectly well know this is a narrative?&nbsp;

No stakes?

Both Ranveer and Grylls tell the camera (as the old joke goes, the cameraperson is at far more risk as they are busy holding a giant camera instead of, you know, protecting themselves) several times that what they are going to do next is a very risky and/or exhausting. But there are still no stakes, as we know it is all scripted and contrived. 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls' is not fun even if we presume it is self-aware, as it does not have enough wit. Not reality television, just television, and mediocre television at that.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-ranveer-singh-introduces-himself-as-deepika-padukones-husband-in-viral-video-watch-495466">Ranveer Singh introduces himself as Deepika Padukone's husband in viral video. Watch</a>

interactive storytelling without a lot of interaction?

As I said above, 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', like Grylls' 'You vs. Wild' before that, says it is an example of interactive storytelling, where the audience can make key decisions that will affect the course of the narrative and the eventual ending in fun and compelling ways. That the choices should matter is indispensable.

Just to confirm what I had already realised, I clicked on one of the options and often went back to choose another to see if my choices really matter. It did not alter even the immediate outcome.&nbsp;

To sum it up: are you a Ranveer Singh fan? Watch this. There are moments in 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls' when he does manage to convey sincerity, however out of place it feels. If you are not a fan, skip this.

'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', featuring Ranveer Singh and British survivalist Bear Grylls, does not know what to do with itself. It pretends to be interactive, and sure enough, there are choices presented to you a few times through the narrative.

'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', featuring Ranveer Singh and British survivalist Bear Grylls, does not know what to do with itself. It pretends to be interactive, and sure enough, there are choices presented to you a few times through the narrative. But they do not seem to matter at all. It also pretends and both the host and the star talk about, too many times to count, how dangerous this remote Serbian jungle is, where angry brown bears and hungry wolves roam. But who in their right mind would think of this as anything different from what Ranveer does in his movies (acting)? Strictly for Ranveer Singh fans? Whether you would be able to sit through 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', then, would depend on whether you are okay with Ranveer's energetic, gung-ho persona, because it is all about him. I liked to think I was. But then I saw this. Unlike you, I did not have the consolation of thinking 'Well, I could turn it off whenever I wanted to'. This is my occupational hazard, for I had to watch the entire thing in a single sitting, only so I could tell you how bad it was. The special begins with Ranveer apparently running for his life as a bear rumbles towards him like a small tank. As Ranveer is cornered on a cliff, Grylls climbs down a rope ladder hanging from a helicopter and rescues him. This opening would have fit into an adventure or survival film. But here, it confounds. What is the purpose of showing Ranveer alone and lost in dense, wildlife-infested woods if we perfectly well know this is a narrative? No stakes? Both Ranveer and Grylls tell the camera (as the old joke goes, the cameraperson is at far more risk as they are busy holding a giant camera instead of, you know, protecting themselves) several times that what they are going to do next is a very risky and/or exhausting. But there are still no stakes, as we know it is all scripted and contrived. 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls' is not fun even if we presume it is self-aware, as it does not have enough wit. Not reality television, just television, and mediocre television at that. Also Read: Ranveer Singh introduces himself as Deepika Padukone's husband in viral video. Watch interactive storytelling without a lot of interaction? As I said above, 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls', like Grylls' 'You vs. Wild' before that, says it is an example of interactive storytelling, where the audience can make key decisions that will affect the course of the narrative and the eventual ending in fun and compelling ways. That the choices should matter is indispensable. Just to confirm what I had already realised, I clicked on one of the options and often went back to choose another to see if my choices really matter. It did not alter even the immediate outcome. To sum it up: are you a Ranveer Singh fan? Watch this. There are moments in 'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls' when he does manage to convey sincerity, however out of place it feels. If you are not a fan, skip this.

'Ranveer vs Wild with Bear Grylls' review: Strictly for Ranveer Singh fans

All signs suggest that Chris Hemsworth's fourth movie in the 'Thor' franchise, titled 'Thor: Love and Thunder', will likely be a huge commercial success, perhaps managing to cross the $1 billion mark, or at least will its box office journey at around $800 million, a respectable amount during the Covid-19 affected times. But the reviews of the 29th entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are mixed, a rarity in MCU. It has scored only 67 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes, which is touching the much-derided second entry in the franchise, 'Thor: Dark World'. The score will likely go lower, and may even touch the dreaded 'rotten' mark.&nbsp;

There was great anticipation for 'Thor Love and Thunder'

Directed by Taika Waititi, there were a lot of hopes from this film for multiple reasons. First, it was directed by Waititi, who had delivered a gem in the form of 'Ragnarok', the last movie in the series. Second, the film had two Thors for the price of one. Natalie Portman made a comeback as not just Jane Foster, but also assumed the mantle of Mighty Thor. Third, the film marked the MCU debut of Oscar-winner Christian Bale as the supervillain of the movie, Gorr the God Butcher. 'Love and Thunder' has not been able to recreate that response that marked 'Ragnarok'.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thor-love-and-thunder-review-chris-hemsworths-mcu-film-proves-marvel-formula-has-lost-its-charm-495191">'Thor Love and Thunder' review: Chris Hemsworth's film disappoints, proves 'superhero fatigue' exists</a>

MCU, in general, is struggling&nbsp;

In 2018, James Cameron hoped that the world will finally get 'Avengers Fartigue. In an interview with IndieWire, he said, "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking cities in the process. It's like, oy!"

He has been proven true just in time for 'Avatar' sequel, 'Avatar: The Way of Water', slated to be released later this year.

It is not just 'Love and Thunder'. MCU, in general, has been struggling to maintain momentum after the big finale of 'Avengers: Endgame'. The 2019 film ended the so-called Infinity Saga of MCU and Thanos' threat. We were told the MCU will get bigger, and in a way it is. There are several new superheroes belonging to more diverse backgrounds instead of white males from New York.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TWB31WFomz4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Despite opening avenues for&nbsp;newer kinds of heroes and fresher approaches to storytelling, the appeal of MCU is slowly but steadily waning. Marvel Studios' experience with TV format has been mixed to bad. 'WandaVision' looked interesting and then squandered all that setup in favour of a terrible finale. Both 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier' and 'Hawkeye' were bad from the beginning and got worse. Loki was overall good, but its finale was deeply disappointing in the sense that it was less an ending than a setup for the second season.

Movies have not fared any better

In movies, the much-delayed 'Black Widow' released finally last year, and most fans wished it had better not. Poor Scarlett Johansson had to face not just the Dreykov and his lieutenant Taskmaster, but also leaps of logic. She was great, and so was Florence Pugh. But the movie suffered for being an MCU product. A more grounded take, in which Natasha Romanoff did not die after falling from multiple stories and her did not explode after being smashed on blacktop road, would have been more appealing.

'Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings' had another MCU superhero with daddy issues. There was the same old exoticisation of Chinese culture in the film, and the makers had the gall to call it a step forward in terms of representation.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jE2GhxMDdAk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Apart from some stunning imagery Chloe Zhao's 'Eternals' was a mess that suffered from uneven editing, pacing, and thinly sketched characters.

'Spider-Man: No Way Home', which received a response nearly as much as 'Endgame' relied on its two cameos to sell it. Still, it was better than MCU had been for a couple of years. It had a heart and a classic Spider-Man in Tom Holland (with bonus additions of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield).

And then 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' released. Despite a Sam Raimi directorial, the film had only vague nods to his style and sensibilities, but was in fact a traditional MCU product and did not have any meaningful identity of its own.&nbsp;

Does the Marvel formula need reworking?

The trouble is the now-famous Marvel formula, which has now begun to feel outdated. A person gets superpowers, overcomes personal and familiar conflicts, and defeats the villain (who may&nbsp;also be a family member, mind you) in a messy CGI finale. Along the way, the hero and supporting characters ridiculously crack jokes and mouth one-liners, in the middle of fighting bad guys sometimes -- as you do. Even in the MCU movies that call themselves different, such motifs are very much present. Add to that, there are alternate&nbsp;and successful takes on the superhero myth like 'Peacemaker' and 'The Boys' that are much inward-looking and more nuanced, not to mention far grittier and adult-friendly. MCU is exclusively PG-13, probably because Disney wants it to remain so.

Marvel Studios will have to do something radical to garner the interest that MCU enjoyed around the release of 'Endgame'. The entry of X-Men, particularly Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool&nbsp;(which we are told will be R-Rated) may freshen it up a bit.

All signs suggest that Chris Hemsworth's fourth movie in the 'Thor' franchise, titled 'Thor: Love and Thunder', will likely be a huge commercial success, perhaps managing to cross the $1 billion mark, or at least will its box office journey at around $800 million, a respectable amount during the Covid-19 affected times.

All signs suggest that Chris Hemsworth's fourth movie in the 'Thor' franchise, titled 'Thor: Love and Thunder', will likely be a huge commercial success, perhaps managing to cross the $1 billion mark, or at least will its box office journey at around $800 million, a respectable amount during the Covid-19 affected times. But the reviews of the 29th entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are mixed, a rarity in MCU. It has scored only 67 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes, which is touching the much-derided second entry in the franchise, 'Thor: Dark World'. The score will likely go lower, and may even touch the dreaded 'rotten' mark. There was great anticipation for 'Thor Love and Thunder' Directed by Taika Waititi, there were a lot of hopes from this film for multiple reasons. First, it was directed by Waititi, who had delivered a gem in the form of 'Ragnarok', the last movie in the series. Second, the film had two Thors for the price of one. Natalie Portman made a comeback as not just Jane Foster, but also assumed the mantle of Mighty Thor. Third, the film marked the MCU debut of Oscar-winner Christian Bale as the supervillain of the movie, Gorr the God Butcher. 'Love and Thunder' has not been able to recreate that response that marked 'Ragnarok'. Also Read: 'Thor Love and Thunder' review: Chris Hemsworth's film disappoints, proves 'superhero fatigue' exists MCU, in general, is struggling In 2018, James Cameron hoped that the world will finally get 'Avengers Fartigue. In an interview with IndieWire, he said, "Not that I don't love the movies. It's just, come on guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking cities in the process. It's like, oy!" He has been proven true just in time for 'Avatar' sequel, 'Avatar: The Way of Water', slated to be released later this year. It is not just 'Love and Thunder'. MCU, in general, has been struggling to maintain momentum after the big finale of 'Avengers: Endgame'. The 2019 film ended the so-called Infinity Saga of MCU and Thanos' threat. We were told the MCU will get bigger, and in a way it is. There are several new superheroes belonging to more diverse backgrounds instead of white males from New York. Despite opening avenues for newer kinds of heroes and fresher approaches to storytelling, the appeal of MCU is slowly but steadily waning. Marvel Studios' experience with TV format has been mixed to bad. 'WandaVision' looked interesting and then squandered all that setup in favour of a terrible finale. Both 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier' and 'Hawkeye' were bad from the beginning and got worse. Loki was overall good, but its finale was deeply disappointing in the sense that it was less an ending than a setup for the second season. Movies have not fared any better In movies, the much-delayed 'Black Widow' released finally last year, and most fans wished it had better not. Poor Scarlett Johansson had to face not just the Dreykov and his lieutenant Taskmaster, but also leaps of logic. She was great, and so was Florence Pugh. But the movie suffered for being an MCU product. A more grounded take, in which Natasha Romanoff did not die after falling from multiple stories and her did not explode after being smashed on blacktop road, would have been more appealing. 'Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings' had another MCU superhero with daddy issues. There was the same old exoticisation of Chinese culture in the film, and the makers had the gall to call it a step forward in terms of representation. Apart from some stunning imagery Chloe Zhao's 'Eternals' was a mess that suffered from uneven editing, pacing, and thinly sketched characters. 'Spider-Man: No Way Home', which received a response nearly as much as 'Endgame' relied on its two cameos to sell it. Still, it was better than MCU had been for a couple of years. It had a heart and a classic Spider-Man in Tom Holland (with bonus additions of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield). And then 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' released. Despite a Sam Raimi directorial, the film had only vague nods to his style and sensibilities, but was in fact a traditional MCU product and did not have any meaningful identity of its own. Does the Marvel formula need reworking? The trouble is the now-famous Marvel formula, which has now begun to feel outdated. A person gets superpowers, overcomes personal and familiar conflicts, and defeats the villain (who may also be a family member, mind you) in a messy CGI finale. Along the way, the hero and supporting characters ridiculously crack jokes and mouth one-liners, in the middle of fighting bad guys sometimes -- as you do. Even in the MCU movies that call themselves different, such motifs are very much present. Add to that, there are alternate and successful takes on the superhero myth like 'Peacemaker' and 'The Boys' that are much inward-looking and more nuanced, not to mention far grittier and adult-friendly. MCU is exclusively PG-13, probably because Disney wants it to remain so. Marvel Studios will have to do something radical to garner the interest that MCU enjoyed around the release of 'Endgame'. The entry of X-Men, particularly Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool (which we are told will be R-Rated) may freshen it up a bit.

After 'Thor Love and Thunder', has the 'Avengers fatigue' finally set in?

If not for that baffling, frankly weird 'The Boys' season 3 finale, titled "The Instant White-Hot Wild", that did not mark a significant change in the state of affairs from the last season, I would have heartily recommended every fan of the show to binge-watch the entire thing in one go. It is like finale brought the story back to square one. But then, there is plenty of supe-on-supe action and trademark moments in the hour-long episode that serve as chilling analogues to the real world that make 'The Boys' head and shoulders above any other superhero show at the moment. If action is one of the main reasons you are a fan of this Eric Kripke creation, you would likely have fun.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

If you are yet to see the finale, do that and then come back.

If I am being honest, I had fun with the episode too but it was a far cry from the great writing in preceding episodes. The character motivations in&nbsp;"The Instant White-Hot Wild" were all over the place, particularly in the confrontation at Vought Tower, there were some hurried developments, and again, the status quo, more or less, remains the same. The mostly character-driven season suddenly became plot-driven at the very end.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3WC9yoH5zfI" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Jensen Ackles' radioactive and terrifying Soldier Boy, in the end proved to be something of a stand-in for Stormfront that like her, a threat that proved to be a bigger threat than Homelander. So Anthony Starr's psychopathic quasi-Superman once again emerged safe and sound (sort of). Perhaps ending the season with the outstanding 'Herogasm' episode would have been better.&nbsp;

In the penultimate episode, Billy Butcher (Karl Urban), Soldier Boy approach the Vought Tower for their respective targets -- Black Noir (Nathan Mitchell) and Homelander. Meanwhile, Hughie (Jack Quaid) joins Starlight (Erin Moriarty), Mother's Milk (Laz Alonso), Frenchie (Tomer Capone), Kimiko (Karen Fukuhara), and Maeve (Dominique McElligott) to stop Soldier Boy and Butcher. Of course, Maeve's prime target is Homelander.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-boys-season-3-episode-7-review-a-corker-of-an-episode-sets-up-an-exciting-finale-493865">'The Boys' Season 3 Episode 7 review: A corker of an episode sets up an exciting finale</a>

When Butcher and Soldier Boy reach Vought HQ, Homelander has turned Ryan (Cameron Crovetti) against Butcher by just being a better father (a lesson there, Butcher). And when Soldier Boy attacked Ryan and bloodied him, both Homelander and Butcher teamed up for a while against the 'greater threat' that was Soldier Boy.&nbsp;

Now, Soldier Boy targetting Ryan was not out of place, he was just protecting himself, but Butcher missing the chance to kill Homelander? That was out of place. And soon enough, the Boys and the supes all fought Soldier Boy in a well-choreographed but confusing&nbsp;battle in which characters were doing whatever the plot demanded. Why was Homelander not targetted by anybody other than Maeve when he was off guard? Why was Soldier Boy the prime target&nbsp;when Homelander has killed so many innocents in cold blood? MM did have reasons to hate him more than Homelander, but what was the excuse of Starlight and Hughie, the latter of whom spent the entire season figuring out how to end him?

Still, despite the finale, this was another strong season for 'The Boys'. In one moment towards the end, Homelander lasered a man in front of his adoring fans, and after a bit of lull, they applauded as the top half of the man's head melted to the ground. It was clearly a direct parallel to the words of a certain former US president that he could shoot somebody and not lose voters. 'The Boys' may be imperfect, but it continues to capture the zeitgeist of the times like no other show, superhero or otherwise.&nbsp;

If not for that baffling, frankly weird 'The Boys' season 3 finale, titled "The Instant White-Hot Wild", that did not mark a significant change in the state of affairs from the last season, I would have heartily recommended every fan of the show to binge-watch the entire thing in one go.

If not for that baffling, frankly weird 'The Boys' season 3 finale, titled "The Instant White-Hot Wild", that did not mark a significant change in the state of affairs from the last season, I would have heartily recommended every fan of the show to binge-watch the entire thing in one go. It is like finale brought the story back to square one. But then, there is plenty of supe-on-supe action and trademark moments in the hour-long episode that serve as chilling analogues to the real world that make 'The Boys' head and shoulders above any other superhero show at the moment. If action is one of the main reasons you are a fan of this Eric Kripke creation, you would likely have fun. SPOILERS AHEAD! If you are yet to see the finale, do that and then come back. If I am being honest, I had fun with the episode too but it was a far cry from the great writing in preceding episodes. The character motivations in "The Instant White-Hot Wild" were all over the place, particularly in the confrontation at Vought Tower, there were some hurried developments, and again, the status quo, more or less, remains the same. The mostly character-driven season suddenly became plot-driven at the very end. Jensen Ackles' radioactive and terrifying Soldier Boy, in the end proved to be something of a stand-in for Stormfront that like her, a threat that proved to be a bigger threat than Homelander. So Anthony Starr's psychopathic quasi-Superman once again emerged safe and sound (sort of). Perhaps ending the season with the outstanding 'Herogasm' episode would have been better. In the penultimate episode, Billy Butcher (Karl Urban), Soldier Boy approach the Vought Tower for their respective targets -- Black Noir (Nathan Mitchell) and Homelander. Meanwhile, Hughie (Jack Quaid) joins Starlight (Erin Moriarty), Mother's Milk (Laz Alonso), Frenchie (Tomer Capone), Kimiko (Karen Fukuhara), and Maeve (Dominique McElligott) to stop Soldier Boy and Butcher. Of course, Maeve's prime target is Homelander. Also Read: 'The Boys' Season 3 Episode 7 review: A corker of an episode sets up an exciting finale When Butcher and Soldier Boy reach Vought HQ, Homelander has turned Ryan (Cameron Crovetti) against Butcher by just being a better father (a lesson there, Butcher). And when Soldier Boy attacked Ryan and bloodied him, both Homelander and Butcher teamed up for a while against the 'greater threat' that was Soldier Boy. Now, Soldier Boy targetting Ryan was not out of place, he was just protecting himself, but Butcher missing the chance to kill Homelander? That was out of place. And soon enough, the Boys and the supes all fought Soldier Boy in a well-choreographed but confusing battle in which characters were doing whatever the plot demanded. Why was Homelander not targetted by anybody other than Maeve when he was off guard? Why was Soldier Boy the prime target when Homelander has killed so many innocents in cold blood? MM did have reasons to hate him more than Homelander, but what was the excuse of Starlight and Hughie, the latter of whom spent the entire season figuring out how to end him? Still, despite the finale, this was another strong season for 'The Boys'. In one moment towards the end, Homelander lasered a man in front of his adoring fans, and after a bit of lull, they applauded as the top half of the man's head melted to the ground. It was clearly a direct parallel to the words of a certain former US president that he could shoot somebody and not lose voters. 'The Boys' may be imperfect, but it continues to capture the zeitgeist of the times like no other show, superhero or otherwise.

'The Boys' season 3 review: A superb season ends with a whimper of a finale

The Indian High Commission in Ottawa has urged Canadian authorities to withdraw "disrespectful depiction of Hindu gods" in the ‘Under the Tent’ project at Toronto's Aga Khan Museum. &nbsp;

In a press release, Indian High Commission in Canada said, "We urge the Canadian authorities and the event organizers to withdraw all such provocative material."

The controversy began after the poster of Leena Manimekalai's documentary titled 'Kaali' was unveiled. The poster depicted the titular Hindu goddess of destruction smoking a cigarette and clutching the rainbow flag, the international symbol of LGBT.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/goddess-kaali-smoking-in-film-poster-sparks-outrage-compliant-filed-against-director-leena-manimekalai-494396">Goddess 'Kaali' smoking in film poster sparks outrage, complaint filed against director Leena Manimekalai</a>

The poster immediately drew adverse criticism from the netizens. One quote-tweeted the poster and wrote, "This act of depicting our goddess Maa #Kaali in such derogatory form deserves strong condemnation. I don't think twitter will take down this tweet, but the least we can do is get this account withheld (in India)."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Super thrilled to share the launch of my recent film - today at <a href="https://twitter.com/AgaKhanMuseum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AgaKhanMuseum</a> as part of its “Rhythms of Canada” 
Link: <a href="https://t.co/RAQimMt7Ln">https://t.co/RAQimMt7Ln</a> 
 
I made this performance doc as a cohort of <a href="https://t.co/D5ywx1Y7Wu">https://t.co/D5ywx1Y7Wu</a><a href="https://twitter.com/YorkuAMPD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@YorkuAMPD</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TorontoMet?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TorontoMet</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/YorkUFGS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@YorkUFGS</a> 
 
Feeling pumped with my CREW❤️ <a href="https://t.co/L8LDDnctC9">pic.twitter.com/L8LDDnctC9</a>
— Leena Manimekalai (@LeenaManimekali) <a href="https://twitter.com/LeenaManimekali/status/1543200394477805568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 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;

One asked for the filmmaker's arrest. "Arrest #LeenaManimekalai for showing Maa #Kaali smoking cigarette &amp; carrying LGBTQ flag in her movie poster," they tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This act of depicting our goddess Maa <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kaali?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kaali</a> in such derogatory form deserves strong condemnation. I don't think twitter will take down this tweet, but the least we can do is get this account withheld (in India). 
 
CC: <a href="https://twitter.com/GoI_MeitY?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GoI_MeitY</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/HinduITCell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HinduITCell</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KalingaForum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KalingaForum</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Rajeev_GoI?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Rajeev_GoI</a> <a href="https://t.co/Yg4cN6geuu">https://t.co/Yg4cN6geuu</a>
— MM (@MratunjayMishra) <a href="https://twitter.com/MratunjayMishra/status/1543943786891341824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 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;

"Arrest those who make fun of religion or reprimand them well, Sanatanis (sic)," another user said.

"This is not freedom of speech, this is an attack on our culture, our sentiments (sic)," added one more.

"I have nothing to lose. Till the time I live, I wish to live with a voice that speaks what I believe without fear. If the price for that is my life, it can be given," Manimekalai wrote in Tamil on Twitter as her response to an article on the controversy.

The Indian High Commission in Ottawa has urged Canadian authorities to withdraw "disrespectful depiction of Hindu gods" in the ‘Under the Tent’ project at Toronto's Aga Khan Museum.

The Indian High Commission in Ottawa has urged Canadian authorities to withdraw "disrespectful depiction of Hindu gods" in the ‘Under the Tent’ project at Toronto's Aga Khan Museum. In a press release, Indian High Commission in Canada said, "We urge the Canadian authorities and the event organizers to withdraw all such provocative material." The controversy began after the poster of Leena Manimekalai's documentary titled 'Kaali' was unveiled. The poster depicted the titular Hindu goddess of destruction smoking a cigarette and clutching the rainbow flag, the international symbol of LGBT. Also Read: Goddess 'Kaali' smoking in film poster sparks outrage, complaint filed against director Leena Manimekalai The poster immediately drew adverse criticism from the netizens. One quote-tweeted the poster and wrote, "This act of depicting our goddess Maa #Kaali in such derogatory form deserves strong condemnation. I don't think twitter will take down this tweet, but the least we can do is get this account withheld (in India)." Super thrilled to share the launch of my recent film - today at @AgaKhanMuseum as part of its “Rhythms of Canada” Link: https://t.co/RAQimMt7Ln I made this performance doc as a cohort of https://t.co/D5ywx1Y7Wu@YorkuAMPD @TorontoMet @YorkUFGS Feeling pumped with my CREW❤️ pic.twitter.com/L8LDDnctC9 — Leena Manimekalai (@LeenaManimekali) July 2, 2022 × One asked for the filmmaker's arrest. "Arrest #LeenaManimekalai for showing Maa #Kaali smoking cigarette & carrying LGBTQ flag in her movie poster," they tweeted. This act of depicting our goddess Maa #Kaali in such derogatory form deserves strong condemnation. I don't think twitter will take down this tweet, but the least we can do is get this account withheld (in India). CC: @GoI_MeitY @HinduITCell @KalingaForum @Rajeev_GoI https://t.co/Yg4cN6geuu — MM (@MratunjayMishra) July 4, 2022 × "Arrest those who make fun of religion or reprimand them well, Sanatanis (sic)," another user said. "This is not freedom of speech, this is an attack on our culture, our sentiments (sic)," added one more. "I have nothing to lose. Till the time I live, I wish to live with a voice that speaks what I believe without fear. If the price for that is my life, it can be given," Manimekalai wrote in Tamil on Twitter as her response to an article on the controversy.

'Kaali' poster controversy: Indian High Commission asks authorities to withdraw 'provocative material'

The mascot of Disney and one of the most recognisable fictional characters in pop culture, Mickey Mouse, may get out of its owner's grasp. The reason is the US copyright law, as per which the rights to a character expire after 95 years after publication for works published or registered before 1978.

Thus, Disney, which is also called the House of Mouse due to the character, may lose the licence to Mickey Mouse in 2024. The character first appeared in a 1928 film called 'Steamboat Willie'.

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-jurassic-world-dominion-crosses-800-million-mark-worldwide-494542">&nbsp;'Jurassic World Dominion' crosses $800 million mark worldwide</a>

Daniel Mayeda, the ​​associate director of the Documentary Film Legal Clinic at UCLA School of Law, revealed caveats in the copyright expiration.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-fineprint-disney-set-to-lose-iconic-mickey-mouse-character-in-2024-494511/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

He said, "You can use the Mickey Mouse character as it was originally created to create your own Mickey Mouse stories or stories with this character. But if you do so in a way that people will think of Disney – which is kind of likely because they have been investing in this character for so long – then in theory, Disney could say you violated my trademark.”

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BBgghnQF6E4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The character was co-created by Walt Disney himself and artist Ub Iwerks. An anthropomorphic mouse, the character was meant to be a replacement for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, an earlier Disney character. It is best known for its trademark appearance featuring red shorts with two white dots, yellow gloves, and big yellow shoes.

Mickey Mouse holds the honour of being the first cartoon character to have its own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In most of the stories, Mickey appears with supporting characters like his girlfriend Minnie Mouse, his pet Pluto, Donald Duck, Goofy, among others.&nbsp;

The 1941 animated short featuring Mickey, titled 'Lend a Paw' won an Academy Award in the Best Animated Short Film category.

The mascot of Disney and one of the most recognisable fictional characters in pop culture, Mickey Mouse, may get out of its owner's grasp. The reason is the US copyright law, as per which the rights to a character expire after 95 years after publication for works published or registered before 1978.

The mascot of Disney and one of the most recognisable fictional characters in pop culture, Mickey Mouse, may get out of its owner's grasp. The reason is the US copyright law, as per which the rights to a character expire after 95 years after publication for works published or registered before 1978. Thus, Disney, which is also called the House of Mouse due to the character, may lose the licence to Mickey Mouse in 2024. The character first appeared in a 1928 film called 'Steamboat Willie'. Also Read: 'Jurassic World Dominion' crosses $800 million mark worldwide Daniel Mayeda, the associate director of the Documentary Film Legal Clinic at UCLA School of Law, revealed caveats in the copyright expiration. He said, "You can use the Mickey Mouse character as it was originally created to create your own Mickey Mouse stories or stories with this character. But if you do so in a way that people will think of Disney – which is kind of likely because they have been investing in this character for so long – then in theory, Disney could say you violated my trademark.” The character was co-created by Walt Disney himself and artist Ub Iwerks. An anthropomorphic mouse, the character was meant to be a replacement for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, an earlier Disney character. It is best known for its trademark appearance featuring red shorts with two white dots, yellow gloves, and big yellow shoes. Mickey Mouse holds the honour of being the first cartoon character to have its own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In most of the stories, Mickey appears with supporting characters like his girlfriend Minnie Mouse, his pet Pluto, Donald Duck, Goofy, among others. The 1941 animated short featuring Mickey, titled 'Lend a Paw' won an Academy Award in the Best Animated Short Film category.

Why Disney could lose the rights to Mickey Mouse

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.