Two years (sometimes more) is the amount of time that most fans expect to wait between installments in a popular movie franchise – unless we’re talking about one of Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth trilogies – but that same waiting period can seem like an eternity for a TV show audience. As such, members of the Sherlock fanbase has been struggling to keep it together over the two years since the final episode in season 2, “The Reichenbach Fall,” ended on a cliffhanger note (though, not quite literally) that has left viewers desperate and yearning for answers ever since.
Fear not, though, for U.S. Sherlock fans now have a set date for when they can get their next fix. We’ve been hearing for some time now that season 3 would begin showing on PBS in early 2014 (after it airs in the UK), but now we have official confirmation and a formal date to go along with it.
Here are the air dates for each installment of Sherlock season 3 on PBS, in addition to the cast and creator lineup (as summraized in the official press release):
MASTERPIECE “Sherlock, Season 3” — Sundays, January 19-February 2, 2014, 10:00 p.m. ET — Benedict Cumberbatch (The Fifth Estate, Star Trek Into Darkness) and Martin Freeman (The Hobbit, The Office UK) return as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson in three new 90-minute episodes — “The Empty Hearse” (January 19), “The Sign of Three” (January 26) and “His Last Vow” (February 2) — of the contemporary reinvention of the Arthur Conan Doyle classic, written and created by Steven Moffat (Dr. Who) and Mark Gatiss (Game of Thrones). The Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated “Sherlock” has been a television sensation since the first season aired in 2010.
Sherlock season 3 will get started by finally revealing just how, exactly, Sherlock did manage to survive his roof plunge in season 2, shortly after his (former) arch-nemesis Moriarty called it quits on their deadly game of wits (permanently, it would seem). Thereafter, the eponymous high-functioning investigator/sociopath will face a number of new challenges and opponents, including a new daring fiend to battle – and by that, we mean Charles Augustus Magnussen (Lars Mikkelsen), not Watson’s potential new wife (Amanda Abbington, who is Martin Freeman’s real-life partner).
As for when Sherlock season 3 premieres in the UK, the show’s co-creator Mark Gatiss (who also plays Mycroft, Sherlock’s older and more responsible brother on the series) recently took to Twitter, in order to say the following:
You may have noticed there's a US airdate for #Sherlock but we DO NOT have one yet for the UK. I don't know how much plainer I can be.
Regardless, there’s little to no question that Sherlock season 3 will be shown to UK audiences before we here in the U.S. get to have a proper look, so there ought to be an update coming on the situation – from mini-series’ co-creator Steven Moffat, Gatiss and/or the BBC – at some point in the near future.
Until then, you may continue to pass the time by pondering the many perplexing questions about the Sherlock-verse that remain to be answered this next season – like, what on Earth would prompt Watson to grow that mustache, rather than finding some more sensible way to express his grief over Sherlock’s (apparent) demise.
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
Keeping track of the continuity between all the various films in the Marvel cinematic universe can be tricky. 2012′s monster hit The Avengers brought together four existing franchises, and in the next few years the world of superheroes will only expand further as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man join the fray (along with future unannounced titles to fill Marvel’s two-movies-per-year quota).
Despite their co-existence, the Marvel movies have so far managed to at least have independent storylines for each member of the superhero team, and the upcoming release of Thor: The Dark World will feature a return to Asgard and a new threat in the form of Malekith the Accursed (Christopher Eccleston), who apparently harbors some kind of plan to plunge the Nine Realms into darkness. Thor: The Dark World will be followed next year by Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which will show Steve Rogers’ continued relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D. and Natasha Romanoff, and which will also introduce Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon.
At the start of The Avengers, Steve was hidden away in a gym with a punching bag as a means of coping with his new life in the “future.” He was still struggling to fit into a world of iPhones and The Real Housewives of New Jersey when he was approached by Nick Fury and offered a membership card for Earth’s Mightiest Heroes. By the time Captain America: The Winter Soldier begins, however, Steve will apparently have had quite a bit of time to settle into the 21st century. In an interview with Refinery 29, Scarlett Johansson explained that Marvel fans aren’t alone in waiting two years for the next chapter in Captain America’s story:
“This film is in real time. It’s been two years since [the characters] appeared, and now both are agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. fighting in the streets. We are not superheroes flying side by side. They help each other because we are fighting in a similar way. It’s a working relationship.”
Though all the Marvel movies released so far (with the exception of Captain America: The First Avenger) have taken place in chronological order, they have wavered off the course of real time. Iron Man 3 was released a full year after The Avengers, but was set only six months after the battle in New York. It’s still not clear when Thor: The Dark World – which will be released 18 months after The Avengers – takes place, and Guardians of the Galaxy is even trickier to pin a date on, since it will take place out in space and away from the events of the movies so far (and possibly in an alternate future?).
In short, it’s safe to say that the “real time” approach for Captain America: The Winter Soldier probably isn’t going to become a rule for the Marvel cinematic universe, though it’s likely that the films will continue to take place in chronological order across the various franchises, in order to keep things from becoming overly confusing. This does, however, mean that Captain America: The Winter Soldier will have some explaining to do when it comes to getting the audience caught up with Steve’s movements.
Tell us in the comments what you think Captain America and Black Widow have been occupied with in the two years since The Avengers, and what exactly they were doing while Iron Man was dealing with The Mandarin.
H. Shaw-Williams blogs at Screen Rant.
When Beetlejuice debuted in 1988, it didn’t take long for it to become a legitimate cultural sensation spawning a cartoon series, toys, video games, and almost immediate proposals for a sequel. Though much work was put into producing the dire-sounding Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian, said sequel never materialized.
Despite the failure of Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian in the ’90s, stories and rumors of a sequel have persisted for years. Just two days ago, an unverified source claimed that original director Tim Burton (Frankenweenie) had expressed strong interest in helming a version of Beetlejuice 2 written by Seth Grahame-Smith (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Now, more reliable voices have confirmed that Burton is indeed moving forward with plans to direct the follow-up to his horror-comedy classic.
The Wrap has shared the news that Burton is in active talks to helm Beetlejuice 2. Currently finishing work on his upcoming historical drama/biopic Big Eyes, Burton has apparently begun speaking with the producers at the Geffen Company (who also backed the original film) about the job.
RECOMMENDED: The 25 best movie comedies of all time
If Burton does indeed direct Beetlejuice 2 and Michael Keaton (Birdman) returns as the ghost with the most (it’s not a sure thing yet), it’ll mark the first time he has teamed up with the actor since Batman Returns in 1992. Over the years, nearly every principal actor from Beetlejuice has expressed interest to reprise their roles in a possible sequel. With Burton behind the camera, Beetlejuice 2 could be more of a legitimate reunion and continuation than fans dared hope.
Though it would have to work hard to be worse than the famously bad Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian script, one has to wonder exactly what scriptwriter Grahame-Smith has fashioned for this version of the sequel. The screenplay must have Burton’s confidence if he’s willing to direct it – but given the nature of the scripts for Burton’s most recent projects, this may not be a surefire sign of quality. After all, Grahame-Smith was responsible for the quite tepid screenplay for Dark Shadows.
Nonetheless, any solid news about Beetlejuice 2 is potentially good news. After a spate of underwhelming projects, Burton needs a hit. A return to one of the movies that put him on the map could be just the thing to revitalize a career some say is in sharp decline.
Kyle Hembree blogs at Screen Rant.
RECOMMENDED: The 25 best movie comedies of all time
So here we are Bones fans in the sixth episode of season 9 and while there is a murder to solve, “The Woman in White” refers to none other than Temperance Brennan (Emily Deschanel). As the relationship between she and FBI partner Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) has waxed and waned over the years, critics have been watching a waiting for the Moonlighting curse to rear its ugly head and cause the show to crash and burn.
It hasn’t. In point of fact, Bones never really deserved the comparison and has done a good job of taking a small, core audience that followed it all over the schedule map, to a broader, bankable fan base who have established it as a veteran show. Also, creator and showrunner Hart Hanson has never hidden the fact that from the beginning he intended for Booth and Brennan to end up together. The line, “Everything happens eventually” becoming something of a promise between he and the fans that he wasn’t out to be the next Joss Whedon.
And so, “The Woman in White” is something of a payoff piece. A showcase of a journey almost a decade in the making. Like any “big” episode, it attempts to pack as much as possible into forty-five minutes without making things feel rushed and by and large it accomplishes this. The casting department also scores big, drawing back old familiar faces for old and new fans alike.
One of the episode’s huge strengths is that it walks the fine line between painting with broad strokes for the masses while providing exquisite detailing for those who have been following every second of the show since day one. Meanwhile the writing is masterful, and nothing short of a love letter to the fans and the same is true of the cast’s performance.
For even as the couple moves forward in their formal relationship, the show takes time to nod at the past. Booth’s mother, son, and grandfather are all present, as is Brennan’s dad, Max (Ryan O’Neal), with nice little character moments all around. The wedding itself is initially to take place in a church, allowing the audience a giggle at the bumbling priest, played by Emily Deschanel’s husband in real life, David Hornsby. In the end they are married where it all began, the gardens at the Jeffersonian. Booth’s vows hearken back to the Pilot, and Brennan’s references a letter highly debated since season 2′s, “Aliens in A Spaceship” that feels like it could have been written at that point in their relationship.
Aside from the two leads, the rest of the ensemble provide plenty of entertainment. Hodgins (TJ Thyne) and his wedding pool juxtapose nicely against Angela’s (Michaela Conlin) keeping Brennan focused on getting married instead of on the case. There is also a beautiful moment between Ange and Brennan about love and poetry. Meanwhile, full hilarity ensues as all of the squinterns step up to the plate to solve the case, still trying to prove who’s the best while bemoaning the fact that none were invited to the wedding save Arastoo (Pej Vahdat) as Cam’s (Tamara Taylor) plus one. Brennan reconsiders and invites them after they help solve the case and they get their own, slow-mo hero shot in full period regalia.
How about you? Did the wedding meet your expectations or did it get too saccharine? Did you tear up at the vows or Avalon’s (Cyndi Lauper) slow, sultry rendition of “At Last”? What’s your favorite fan shout-out? Do you think any major shifts lay ahead now that they’ve officially tied the knot?
Heather Donmoyer blogs at Screen Rant.
Walt Disney Animation Studios – the restructured Walt Disney Feature Animation – has, so far, provided audiences with a healthy diet that includes the sort of fairy tale movies that’ve long been the Mouse House’s bread and butter, along with quality original content like Bolt and Wreck-It Ralph. This year’s offering from the studio, titled Frozen, is a slight break from tradition; not so much in terms of source material (it’s loosely based on Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen), but because the female lead is neither a princess nor a princess-to-be…. well, as far as we know, anyway.
Frozen revolves around the awkward, yet plucky and spirited, young woman Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell), who goes on a dangerous journey in order to attempt and break the endless winter spell cast upon her home kingdom of Arendelle – inflicted by Anna’s not-well-adjusted sister, Elsa (Idina Menzel). The previously-released teaser trailer focuses solely on the comical relief sidekicks in the film – including Olaf, a shrimpy snowman with a incongruously-sized carrot nose – but the newly-unveiled theatrical trailer offers a nice and simple outline of the story, in addition to glimpses at the main characters and even more slapstick antics from Olaf (hey, it ain’t easy being made of crystallized water).
Rounding out the voice cast for Frozen are such people as Jonathan Groff (Glee), Josh Gad (Thanks for Sharing), Santino Fontana (Submissions Only), Patricia Lentz (The Bling Ring) and fan-favorite Alan Tudyk, who also voiced a key character in Wreck-It Ralph last year. By comparison, Bell will be playing in the world of Disney animation for the first time, while Menzel is no stranger to this sandbox – following her appearance in both live-action and cartoon form in Disney’s Enchanted.
Chris Buck (Disney’s animated Tarzan movie) co-directed Frozen with Jennifer Lee (a co-writer on Wreck-It Ralph), with the latter having written the film’s screenplay in collaboration with Shane Morris (The Dukes of Hazard: The Beginning). Judging by the trailer footage and talent involved, Frozen probably won’t be a revolutionary addition to the Mouse House’s animation filmography – be it in terms of character archetypes and/or narrative themes – but it seems like a cute movie for the whole family; not to mention, one that keeps the studio on the upper-middle track, in terms of storytelling quality (following Wreck-It Ralph‘s example – read our review).
In related news, Frozen will feature original songs composed by husband-wife team Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (Winnie the Pooh), in addition to a score composed by Christophe Beck, who also scored Disney’s acclaimed “Paperman” short – screened in front of Wreck-It Ralph in theaters – and is providing orchestral accompaniment to go with Bret McKenzie’s songs for next year’s Muppets Most Wanted. Finally, as you probably noticed, the animation style in Frozen is the same Rococo-inspired hand-drawn/CGI hybrid technique used on Tangled (used to produce a 3D animated final product).
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
The team assembled for Captain America: The Winter Soldier just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Already boasting a cast rivaling that of The Avengers, Robert Redford is without question the most distinguished of the pack. It certainly came as a surprise when Redford was signed not only to appear in Captain America 2, but in what appeared to be a relatively small role. A great get for Marvel, and an actor capable of playing the head of a shadowy government organization with plenty of class and grandeur.
But as actors unfamiliar with the spoiler-sensitive nature of comic book films often do, Redford has opened up about his role in the next Captain America, revealing more than Marvel likely wishes he had.
In an interview with The Straits Times (courtesy of Here Be Geeks), Redford spoke at length about his career to this point, and the need to constantly challenge himself as an actor. Appearing in a comic book blockbuster definitely fits that bill, even if he would only appear as a superior to Col. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) as a higher-up in the S.H.I.E.L.D. agency.
Now it seems new information regarding his role in the film, and what it could mean for the overall plot and inclusion of source material from the “Winter Soldier” story arc has arrived. Those not wanting to be spoiled should stop now.
In the interview, Redford explained that he sees no reason to slow down just yet; in fact, there’s no time like the present to try roles or films he might not have in the past:
“I think a career requires a certain amount of reinvention. If you get caught in one track I think that can be dangerous. Success has a dark side to it. you want to be careful if you’ve had success at something, that you not try and follow it by just duplicating it. That’s why I’m doing this Captain America thing.”
Knowledge we’d expect coming from such a veteran leading man, and a positive look at the comic book movie craze that would hopefully convince some more established actors to crop up in either DC or Marvel films in the future (Sir Ben Kingsley already has, but…maybe some others with more discriminating tastes).
But it’s the next words out of Redford’s mouth that will grab the attention of fans:
“I like the idea of playing a villain…I did that just because it’s a different thing for me to do.”
Don’t say we didn’t warn you. Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, it’s worth reminding that the term ‘villain’ can be used interchangeably (but incorrectly) with antagonist. For Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), there may be more than a few characters that fit that description in the events of The Winter Soldier. Described by Kevin Feige as something of a “political thriller” the writers behind the script have also called it a “conspiracy story” that will determine loyalties for The Avengers 2 and beyond.
Rogers showed in The Avengers that his loyalty is to what he knows is right, not to who’s telling him what is and isn’t. So it isn’t hard to picture that pits S.H.I.E.L.D. agents against one another, Cap and Fury included. In that setting, it’s possible that Redford’s character, ‘Alexander Pierce’ is simply an authority figure who has gone too far. But those familiar with the comic book arc that the film is based on know something else is also possible.
Especially since the central villain of Ed Brubaker’s “Winter Soldier” also happens to be named Alexander — sorry, Aleksander Lukin.
A general in the Soviet Union, Aleksander Lukin eventually rose to oversee many Russian military assets, including the Winter Soldier himself. We’ll spare you the details of the entire story line, but suffice to say that Lukin is the mastermind behind the run-in between Winter Soldier and Captain America. It also happens that his character bumps up against Arnim Zola (Toby Jones), Sharon Carter (Emily Vancamp), and the Cosmic Cube of the first film.
To this point, the villains assembled to take on Cap, Maria Hill, Fury and Black Widow are hard to classify as ‘headlining’ villains – even if we’re looking forward to seeing both Frank Grillo’s ‘Crossbones’ and Georges St-Pierre’s ‘Batroc the Leaper’ in action. Even the Winter Soldier’s fight with Rogers is one that hinges on him obeying his master’s will; a master that has seemingly been missing. Until now.
If Redford has spilled the beans, and is in fact playing a disguised Aleksander Lukin, or variation on the character, then Marvel has added another incredibly promising villain to their movie ranks. Not to mention the mounting evidence that the writers are getting creative with the source material, even if calling on the comics for a new Captain America costume.
Andrew Dyce blogs at Screen Rant.
Marvel fans sit less than a month away from the release of Thor: The Dark World, the second chapter after Iron Man 3 of Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The next two releases from Marvel Studios are both in post-production with Captain America: The Winter Soldier wrapping in June and Guardians of the Galaxy finishing up shooting late last week, and all of these lay the groundwork for Joss Whedon to return to the director’s chair early next year to begin principal photography on The Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Thanks to a recent (and curious) release date change, Marvel Studios will also be shooting the first Phase 3 film, Ant-Man, around the same time for a summer 2015 release as well, just two months after The Avengers sequel hits theaters, and director Edgar Wright revealed that he’s back on Los Angeles to begin production.
According to Variety, Marvel may already be far along in the casting process for the lead in their next solo character film and that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Paul Rudd are the top two candidates for the Ant-Man part, with potentially a third unnamed actor.
This is the first time we’ve hard of funnyman Paul Rudd being namedropped in association with a Marvel movie, so his casting would be as outlandish and comedy-focused as the film itself may prove to be. That being said, Gordon-Levitt may be more of the long-term franchise guy (he’s 12 years younger) and his name repeatedly showed up in association with Guardians of the Galaxy when director James Gunn and the studio were searching hard for the actor to play Star-Lord, a role that also went to a proven comedy talent.
And what a perceived steal from Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment that would be, even though JGL wasn’t going to come back to play Batman after his appearance in The Dark Knight Rises anyway.
Rudd’s got Anchorman 2 coming up this December and a relatively clean schedule going forward, while Gordon-Levitt is celebrating the release of his directorial debut Don Jon, a film which embraces a unique comedic style and stylistic format – something Edgar Wright may appreciate given his resume of unique works. Levitt’s comic book movie background also includes Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, which hits theaters next year.
Both names do confirm that Marvel Studios is looking for a familiar face and someone proven to have acting chops in drama and comedy, so we’re very curious as to who that third contender may be if they are also looking at someone else. In the meantime, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Paul Rudd are soon meeting with Marvel decision-makers so expect more news soon.
JGL or Rudd – who do you prefer? Is it possible both are being looked at for different roles in the film? For all we know, they could both be playing different characters who wear the Ant-Man suit (i.e. Hank Pym and Scott Lang from the books).
For other names we liked for the role, check our post list of 10 candidates Marvel should look at for Ant-Man.
Rob Keyes blogs at Screen Rant.
The story of two star-crossed lovers seems to be everywhere at the moment, with a new film version adapted by “Downton Abbey” creator Julian Fellowes opening this week, a Broadway version of the show starring Orlando Bloom having opened Sept. 19, and an off-Broadway incarnation starring Elizabeth Olsen set for an Oct. 16 opening.
Just about every person who passed through freshman year of American high school knows the story of "Romeo and Juliet." Warring families, two teenagers meet at a party, missed messages, poison, dagger, curtain.
And isn’t that kind of the problem by now? Movie adaptations of the play have been inexhaustible, to say nothing of the stage versions. The most remembered film adaptation today may be the 1968 movie starring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey (which also seems to be the version everyone watches freshman year of high school), which was directed by prolific Shakespeare helmer Franco Zeffirelli. That version is a good one and it’s one of the last movies to adapt the story traditionally.
RECOMMENDED: Shakespeare: a short quiz on the work of the Bard
Besides that, movies adapting Shakespeare’s play around that time and after seemed to need some kind of gimmick. The 1961 film version of “West Side Story,” which is of course an updated, musical version of “Romeo and Juliet,” set the action in 1950s New York and cast the two warring families as gangs, one American and one Puerto Rican, fighting over turf. The characters followed the beats of Shakespeare’s story, mostly, but spoke in present-day language. (The musical and movie are, of course, both brilliant.)
When “Great Gatsby” director Baz Luhrmann took on the story for his 1996 movie, he called it by Shakespeare’s title – well, kind of; he added a “+” between “Romeo and “Juliet” to make it cool for the kids – and set the action in what was then the present day, late ‘90s California. The actors wore Hawaiian shirts but spoke in Shakespeare’s original words.
The newest movie starring Douglas Booth and “True Grit” actress Hailee Steinfeld is set in Renaissance Italy and boils down Shakespeare's words a bit. This doesn’t help the film, though, according to critics – the movie has a score of 42 out of 100 so far on the review aggregator site Metacritic and Monitor reviewer Peter Rainer gave it a C-, writing that the movie “lacks heat, romance, eroticism, or lyricism.”
Reviews for Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad’s stage version of “Juliet” have been middling as well, with New York Times critic Ben Brantley calling it “lopsided” and writing that it “never acquires the fiery, all-consuming urgency that 'Romeo and Juliet' should deliver,” though he called Bloom “first-rate” and Rashad “gifted.”
Many factors make up the whole of a movie or play, and it’s easy to say that with a different director or different actors, the current film version or Broadway play might have gone better. But could we just give “Romeo and Juliet” a rest for a little while instead? Joss Whedon just took on the comedy “Much Ado About Nothing,” but we haven’t had a good version of “Midsummer Night’s Dream” in a while or “Twelfth Night.” Or if audiences want a tragedy, how about “Antony and Cleopatra” or “Macbeth”?
Let’s leave those poor teenagers alone for a little while.
RECOMMENDED: Shakespeare: a short quiz on the work of the Bard
Fans of the Fantastic Four were given something to look forward to when it was announced over one year ago that Chronicle director Josh Trank would be rebooting Marvel’s first family. Recently, Simon Kinberg had been tapped to do rewrites for the upcoming reboot, and now rumors have surfaced on who might be joining the cast.
Over the last few months, there have been plenty of rumors regarding who might play each member of the Fantastic Four. The most noteworthy rumor was that Michael B. Jordan was up for the role of Johnny Storm a.k.a. The Human Torch. Since Fox wants to start the production on the Fantastic Four relatively soon, it makes sense that a shortlist would pop up for the lead roles – namely that of Reed Richards and Sue Storm.
According to Deadline, Fox is testing Kit Harington (Game of Thrones), Miles Teller (Divergent), and Jack O’Connell (300: Rise of an Empire) for the role of Reed Richards a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic. Meanwhile, Saoirse Ronan (Hanna), Kate Mara (House of Cards) and Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street) have joined Alison Williams (Girls) on the rumored list of actresses testing to play Sue Storm a.k.a. The Invisible Woman.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Fantastic Four, Mr. Fantastic is the leader of the group and one of the most brilliant minds in the Marvel Universe. He possesses the ability to stretch his body into any shape. Sue Storm is given the name The Invisible Woman because of her ability to render herself invisible (she can also project force fields).
It’s good to hear that Trank is opting to test some fresh faces for the reboot instead of finding veteran actors to play the parts. Kit Harington is the most recognizable of the actors on the shortlist for his popular portrayal of Jon Snow on Game of Thrones. Harington could be a great Reed Richards if given the opportunity, but word is that Miles Teller’s performance in The Spectacular Now was pretty fantastic, too.
Fox has also rounded up a great list of actresses to test for the role of Sue Storm. Kate Mara (sister to Rooney Mara of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo fame) has been in a few films and shows, but her breakout role was that of Zoe Barnes in House of Cards. She stole every scene she was in and could easily play the part of The Invisible Woman.
Of course, there’s no denying that Saoirse Ronan is one of the best young talents working in film, but if rumors are true, she may already have her hands full with another blockbuster franchise.
Though producers are only testing these actors at this time, it’s possible we may see one or two of them cast in the Josh Trank directed reboot soon. Stay tuned to Screen Rant as more news becomes available.
Al Mannarino blogs at Screen Rant.
As far as responses to last week’s bloodbath go, the deaths of Lee Toric and Otto wind up being filed under “inevitable” – which is pretty much where they should be filed, considering the half-cocked and foolhardy way Toric was conducting his revenge against the Sons. And, well, there really wasn’t much of Otto left by the time ‘Wolfsangel‘ rolled around, so his demise felt more like putting a wretched creature out of his misery than anything else.
But Otto’s final actions managed to bring another inevitability to season 6 of Sons of Anarchy, by allowing CCH Pounder’s Tyne Patterson to take point on the growing legal case against SAMCRO, which stems from their connection to the gun used in the season premiere’s school shooting. So far we haven’t seem much of Tyne that would make her more of a character than Donal Logue’s Toric – who wound up being more of a complication than a fully fleshed-out personality – but aside from a similar level of drive and desire, the DA seems to share few qualities with the unruly marshal.
That’s a good sign; just to keep the series fresh, the Sons sometimes need to tangle with opposition that isn’t willing to do anything in pursuit of their goal, and as the issue with the Irish Kings escalates, having a more grounded adversary who is limited in her line of attack because she also wishes to uphold the law makes for a more compelling conflict and character. Again, we don’t know too much about Tyne at this point, so she could wind up being as bent as Toric was, but so far that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Speaking of the Sons’ conflict with the Irish Kings, while Galen continues to descend further into the realm of grinning madman, his rival attempts to broker for peace. But rather than depict Jax’s attempt to call a truce with the rest of the Kings’ white-haired decision makers as a shift in the character’s thinking about moral concerns stemming from the KG-9 used in the school shooting, it’s depicted more as a logical and practical move.
Ultimately, the move blows up in his face (literally), as Jax’s attempt to pass off the gun business to August Marks is seen as an insult by the Kings and also puts SAMCRO’s president in a bit of hot water with his veep. Seeing a character’s good intentions – driven by self-preservation as they were – come back and bite him could result in some compelling drama. It will be very telling in terms of Jax’s growth how he responds to the bombing of Teller-Morrow and, more importantly, why he chooses to do whatever it is he plans to do.
The conflict with the Kings leads back to the issue of guns. Thus far the Sons have attempted to get out of the business primarily for the purpose of avoiding future legal worries. That works well within the context of the series and this season’s narrative, but the storyline hasn’t really discussed the ramifications of the larger gun culture outside the somewhat limited framework of Jax & Co. not wanting to go to jail. And for a series that seems to have certain storytelling goals, that aspect continues to feel like a great opportunity that’s just waiting to be seized.
Kevin Yeoman blogs at Screen Rant.