After watching a video concerning Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine standing in for Ellen Page’s Kitty Pryde, I suddenly felt an unrelenting frustration and confusion with regard to the choice made by the writers of X-Men: Days of Future Past.

In the video, we see one of the screenwriters, Simon Kinberg, explain to Total Film that Wolverine is “the protagonist of the franchise, and probably the most beloved character to a mass audience,” but he went on to say “obviously in the book it’s Kitty… But you’re talking about an actress who, in the age of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, would have been negative 20 years old. So we started thinking again, and the first reflex response to that was a character who doesn’t age. Wolverine is the only character who would look the same in 1973 as he does in the future.”

After listening to this, one can’t help but wonder if they telling us, of all the changes that have been made to the film already (i.e. Gambit existing in the wrong time line in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, when he’s supposed to be part of the infamous relationship between he and Rogue), that the filmmakers are simply incapable of handling the issue of Kitty Pryde not existing in the film’s 70’s era? They could have, perhaps, enabled her to travel back in time by the same means Bishop arrives to the present, thus accommodating the use of her character?

Seeing as how Bishop is going to be introduced into the present day X-Men anyway, could that not be one of many other ways in which to depict Kitty as the main protagonist, as opposed to ending up with Wolverine as the main character again?

If that seems unsatisfactory, then perhaps the writers could alter the timeline a little further, showing her character as a slightly more mature woman, currently married to Colossus.

Using Wolverine again sounds a little nonsensical and, to be honest, a little lazy at this point when you consider the creative liberties many adaptions have taken in the past for various reasons. An example of such changes occurring in adaptions would be the Harry Potter films in which Dobby is absent (between Chamber of Secrets and Deathly Hallows) when, in fact, he is present in the books, mentioning Winky the House Elf and her drinking problem, among other things.

The writers were given a golden opportunity to expand on Kitty Pryde’s character, a female no less, but instead it feels as though they chose what appears to be the easy way out by opting for Wolverine to take centre stage once again. Considering Cyclops is, at times, thought of as the “leader” of the X-Men (yet the whole group seem to be individual leaders, enabling them to work effectively as a collective group), why Wolverine was initially chosen to be the protagonist of the whole series is beyond me.

While he is a complex enough character with a unique past, he is not, in my opinion, so interesting to deserve the spotlight once again after receiving so much of it already.

Looking through a retrospective eye on things, the first film is the only exception with the introduction of his character; the second film was not as good because his backstory and his feelings for Jean Grey were given a little more attention, in addition to the general mutant-capture-and-rescue plot line. In the third film, he receives the spotlight again after the death of Cyclops, giving him more camera time to act as more of the tortured soul while his mind is plagued by Jean’s voice. Finally, there were two stand-alone films to add to the list of many other male superhero films which exist today.

These films, and others like Man of Steel and The Avengers, will continue to overshadow the overwhelmingly small amount of superheroine-centric films that are badly needed. Not just for more female representation for younger audiences, but simply because films which follow the usual tropes and consist of male-dominated casts are becoming increasingly boring, i.e. The Avengers, merely consisting of one superheroine and (the immediate) Justice League, in which a lot of the time the men outweigh the women in numbers depending on what issue you’re reading.

I thought X-Men: First Class was much better than its three predecessors (not a perfect product but better than the others), and was hoping it was a starting point for the franchise to move into a more updated and improved direction from then onward. I still am hopeful about this upcoming film, but I’m starting to think that hoping is all that I’ll ever be able to do for a good while until, by some miracle, the X-Men films are rebooted.

Please bear in mind that this is strictly my two cents on the issue of underrepresentation of female characters.

The final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars will air starting in April 2017.

The news was announced via Facebook Live by the Pretty Little Liars creator, Marlene King, along with the stars of the show, Troian Bellisario, Ashley Benson, Lucy Hale, Shay Mitchell, and Sasha Pieterse. You can still watch the video on the official Pretty Little Liars Facebook page.

The conclusion of the show has been rumored for quite a while now, with King even stating earlier in the year that season 7 would likely be the end of Pretty Little Liars “as we know it.” However, up until now, speculation continued about how the show could potentially continue past its seventh season.

Read full article

The final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars will air starting in April 2017.

The news was announced via Facebook Live by the Pretty Little Liars creator, Marlene King, along with the stars of the show, Troian Bellisario, Ashley Benson, Lucy Hale, Shay Mitchell, and Sasha Pieterse. You can still watch the video on the official Pretty Little Liars Facebook page.

The conclusion of the show has been rumored for quite a while now, with King even stating earlier in the year that season 7 would likely be the end of Pretty Little Liars “as we know it.” However, up until now, speculation continued about how the show could potentially continue past its seventh season.

A possible film was previously discussed as an option to end the series, but that seems to be off the table now. The series finale will now be a “two-hour, drama-filled television event.”

As for what we can expect for the final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars, it will “continue to be filled with homecomings and reunions.” We’ve already seen so many familiar and forgotten faces in season 7, so it will be nice to be able to say a final goodbye to even more characters.

On top of the returning characters, we can also expect a wedding! Obviously Ezria is the couple to watch for this, since they recently got engaged, but you never really know with Pretty Little Liars.

The summer finale of Pretty Little Liars season 7 is airing tomorrow, August 30, so we will have a long wait before the final 10 episodes air in April 2017.

The series finale will be followed by the premiere of Marlene King’s new series, Famous In Love. If you need a Pretty Little Liars fix after the show ends, this may be a good show for you to check out!

Famous In Love will be another one-hour drama that will supposedly “put the spotlight on the dark side of fame.” It is based on the novel of the same name, written by Rebecca Serle.

How do you feel about ‘Pretty Little Liars’ ending with season 7?

Behind-the-scenes looks at next year’s live-action Beauty and the Beast continue to leak off the animated film’s 25th Anniversary Edition, arriving in September.

Today we have four new previews. This one’s a particular doozy because we get to see a first look (sort of) at Emma Watson as Belle, who has yet to be unveiled in full. The dress she’s wearing in this concept art may be best remembered from the animated movie for its appearance in the scenes surrounding the song “Belle”:

beauty-and-the-beast-belle-emma-watson

Read full article

Behind-the-scenes looks at next year’s live-action Beauty and the Beast continue to leak off the animated film’s 25th Anniversary Edition, arriving in September.

Today we have four new previews. This one’s a particular doozy because we get to see a first look (sort of) at Emma Watson as Belle, who has yet to be unveiled in full. The dress she’s wearing in this concept art may be best remembered from the animated movie for its appearance in the scenes surrounding the song “Belle”:

beauty-and-the-beast-belle-emma-watson

Three pieces of concept art appear to have been drawn up for the costume department. We’re also getting a look at Gaston (Luke Evans) and Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson):

beauty-and-the-beast-mrs-potts

beauty-and-the-beast-gaston

Finally, we have a shot of Luke Evans and a woman rehearsing a dance scene that appears to take place on top of a table. In the background you can see additional concept art depicting Mrs. Potts (in kettle form), Chip, and a piano (who might be played by Stanley Tucci and named Cadenza):

beauty-and-the-beast-belle

Last week we got to see several other first looks from this same behind-the-scenes featurette, including Dan Stevens as the Beast (human form), Cogsworth, and Lumière.

At this rate, the whole behind-the-scenes look may be spoiled by the time the Beauty and the Beast 25th Anniversary Edition is released to the world on September 20.

The live-action Beauty and the Beast arrives this March and is directed by Bill Condon.

Report: Warner Bros. wants Daniel Radcliffe to return for ‘Cursed Child’ movie

File this one under: Crazy rumor that's also somehow... plausible? (But it's probably not gonna happen.)

10:49 am EDT, August 29, 2016

If Warner Bros. are indeed working on a movie version of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, they’ll likely be looking to bring back the o.g. Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

At least that’s the hot buzz from NY Daily News, whose “Tinseltown sources” also say that a movie version of the play could arrive as early as 2020, and that it might evolve into a trilogy about Harry and his son Albus.

Daniel Radcliffe — the same Daniel Radcliffe who proclaimed in 2010 that “I’m working very hard to establish myself as an actor outside of this series,” and who hasn’t even been to see Cursed Child yet — is reportedly Warner Bros.’ choice to play Harry in the series, which (as unlikely as it is to actually happen) may very well be true.

Read full article

If Warner Bros. are indeed working on a movie version of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, they’ll likely be looking to bring back the o.g. Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

At least that’s the hot buzz from NY Daily News, whose “Tinseltown sources” also say that a movie version of the play could arrive as early as 2020, and that it might evolve into a trilogy about Harry and his son Albus.

Daniel Radcliffe — the same Daniel Radcliffe who proclaimed in 2010 that “I’m working very hard to establish myself as an actor outside of this series,” and who hasn’t even been to see Cursed Child yet — is reportedly Warner Bros.’ choice to play Harry in the series, which (as unlikely as it is to actually happen) may very well be true.

After all, as amazing as Jamie Parker is as Harry Potter on stage, Warner Bros., must be aware that most Harry Potter fans won’t be able to see the play live, and therefore wouldn’t necessarily be as hyped about a ‘Harry Potter movie’ that didn’t star the actors from the original movie series.

Related: Have you read all of Hypable’s original Cursed Child coverage? (There’s a lot!)

As NY Daily News notes, however, Radcliffe is very much doing his own thing, with even the sources admitting that he’d “need some persuading” before agreeing to reprise the role he’s trying very hard to distance himself from.

Aside from this small inconvenience, there are plenty of other reasons why this would not — and perhaps should not — work out.

First of all, Dan Radcliffe is currently 27 years old, and if Warner Bros. was really planning the Cursed Child movie for 2020, he’d have to play the part of a 36-40-year-old Harry in the movie at age >30. We all remember how awkward the Deathly Hallows epilogue turned out, and we’re sure there aren’t many of us who’d want an hours-long version of that (for not to mention the possibility that they’d split this story into two movies).

Second, once they got Radcliffe back, they’d have to get everyone else, too. You couldn’t just have the original Harry back while introducing a brand new Hermione, Ron, Draco, Ginny, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly: Daniel Radcliffe is not Harry Potter. While movie fans will probably always see Radcliffe’s face when thinking about the character, he existed on the pages of the novel series first, which means a potential Cursed Child movie wouldn’t be recasting anyone if they went with new actors — they’d simply pick a new, older set of actors to embody the iconic characters.

Having seen the play on stage, this writer would personally much rather see the original Cursed Child cast reprise their roles for any eventual movie version that Warner Bros. puts together. A lot of the play’s success hinges on these actors’ performances and chemistry, and it’d be a shame to lose that magic on screen.

Would you want to see Daniel Radcliffe back as Harry Potter in a ‘Cursed Child’ movie?