Fatigue and Fandom and the Future of the MCU

Whether it be in the Marvel Universe of the 616 or that of the MCU's Earth-199999, Uatu of The Watchers is a figure that sees all, knows all and perceives all concerning the various branching realities that lead to consequences both good and bad. While we can't have Uatu's clarity of vision, we can still play armchair Watchers ourselves and try and divine the possible paths ahead for the MCU. 

With the Phase 5 releases of Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 not performing at or above the out sized expectations set by some previous MCU releases, the cries of "superhero fatigue," which have been heard since the early '00s, are once again being thrown around in the same old kneejerk fashion. To that, let's say first that anyone who would think that the MCU needed to or feasibly could sustain the same momentum of the Infinity War/Endgame era in order to prove its viability is not a serious commentator on pop culture trends. You can handily disregard any box office pundit who expresses faux concern at the fact that a cinematic universe now in its fifteenth year and that currently encompasses thirty two films along with eight television series (far more than that if you consider series like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter and the Netflix shows to be in MCU continuity) and two Special Presentations is going to experience peaks and valleys of viewer interest. 

Yes, Avengers: Endgame represented a peak for the MCU. But getting to that point was the result of eleven years of build-up over the course of twenty one films. In a pop culture world where fads and trends quickly go in and out of fashion, the fact that the MCU was able to hold the level of engagement it did for as long as it did is extraordinary. To try and keep the audience's interest at that same peak level would be impossible. While hardcore fans will continue to stay engaged, a segment of the broader audience is naturally going to step back a bit. They're either going to get off the train altogether for a time or they're just going to become more selective about what specific aspects of the MCU still excite them. The MCU can continue to be massively successful for awhile without matching the high of Endgame. 

This is a cycle that the comics have experienced for decades, the ebb and flow of sales in relation to big events and reboots and so on. Some readers who have ditched comics for a time will jump back on board when some line wide event happens that calls upon the shared might of the Marvel universe to rally against an opponent of singular power. Or when a superhero team gets a spiffy new line-up, or when a hero gets a new costume or a power upgrade or a new #1 issue looks like an appealing point of re-entry. This is the dynamics that we're going to see mirrored in the MCU going forward. It's going to experience ebbs and flows of interest. And that's ok. It shouldn't be treated as a case of the sky falling when a new MCU movie doesn't break box office records. 

We might be at a point where every new MCU release isn't necessarily going to drive the same stampede to the theater but that said, it's also clear that there's a level of hardcore interest that remains locked in and, as the Multiverse Saga continues, it's just going to be a matter of getting the broader audience back on board for the bigger swings. Some might choose to sit out this movie or that in the post Endgame era but, just as with the comic crowd who might wait for an event to draw them back in, if these lapsed viewers see something that piques their interest, they'll have a renewed itch to check out what's new in the MCU. 

The biggest issue Kevin Feige is going to have to contend with going forward in regards to keeping a wider audience hooked is determining how much having a shared universe is both a selling point and a hindrance. Prior to Phase 4, there was a linear simplicity to following the MCU. It was one film and then another, one building block on top of the other, and the trajectory of each Phase was simple for a mainstream audience to understand. 

Phase 1 built up to the forming of The Avengrers and then Phases 2 and 3 were about the emerging threat of Thanos, the search for the Infinity Stones and the ramp up to Infinity War. It's with Phase 4 that things became much more complicated, to the delight of many fans but to the frustration of casual viewers who haven't been able to easily wrap their heads around Where It's All Going. 

Adding to that sense of complication and confusion is the fact that now there are a multitude of TV shows and specials that inform the movies and vice versa. If following the movies was becoming a hardship for some viewers, the addition of the Disney+ shows has made it feel impossible. It didn't help that due to the delays caused by the pandemic, Phase 4 crammed seven movies, eight shows and two specials into two years. That's a lot. For fans, it's a feast. For less dedicated viewers, I think it's been overwhelming and off-putting - especially when it's difficult for them to determine what the road map ahead is.

Comic fans naturally have a better sense of where concepts like "incursions" are going to lead as the Multiverse Saga continues but for non-nerd viewers, watching a lot of the Phase 4 and 5 content likely feels like running into a wall of gobbledygook. Fair enough, I suppose, even though there's really no more gobbledygook at play here than there was during the Infinity Saga. 

Once all the pieces start to fall into place, confusion will surely give way to a sense of "oh, so that's where all this was going" as the big picture emerges (Yes, we'll get back to dealing with that Celestial sticking out of the Indian Ocean. No, the matter of Doctor Strange's third eye hasn't been so easily resolved.) but we're not there just yet.     

Being a shared universe has been the MCU's defining characteristic. It's the quality that other studios have tried (and largely failed) to emulate. But as we pass the fifteenth anniversary of the MCU, the question is at what point does a universe that encompasses as much material as the MCU does become too daunting for some viewers? Its interconnectivity has been the MCU's strength but will it turn into a liability? At what point does the MCU's continuity represent too big of a buy in? 

When you look at the massive success of recent films like Top Gun: Maverick, Avatar: Way of the Water, and Super Mario Bros., it's easy to see there's a hunger among audiences for sharply made pop entertainment that requires minimal investment in a larger world. No one had to brush up on their Top Gun or Avatar knowledge to enjoy their sequels and even if they had, we're talking about one movie to get up to speed, not a couple of dozen or more. If there's one major factor in any downturn of audience interest in the MCU, it's likely the perception that it requires more attention than many viewers are willing to keep giving it. 

Whether the MCU actually requires that much attention, however, is debatable. I think, as with the comics, it's easy to pick and choose what interests you. No comic fan reads every comic that Marvel publishes every month and yet it's not a cause for confusion on the part of readers. You can focus on whatever characters that appeal to you and not need to know the details of every other narrative, or be familiar with every corner of the 616. Same with the MCU. You don't have to follow it all to enjoy whatever you do choose to check out. That said, it is true that the movies are now serving not just as sequels to previous films but they're also serving as continuations of the TV shows. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness isn't just a follow up to the first Doctor Strange, it's also a follow-up to Strange's appearances in Infinity War and Endgame and on top of that it's also a sequel to Wandavision. Similarly, this November's The Marvels isn't just a sequel to Captain Marvel but it's also a continuation of Monica Rambeau's story from Wandavision and Kamala Khan's from Ms. Marvel. It's hard to make a case that the MCU is new viewer friendly when in most cases it relies on the audience having made an investment in these characters across both film and TV. For MCU fans, this is an enticement not a deterrent but at the same time it's hard not to sympathize with the casual viewer that just wants to give two hours or so of their time to a movie and not have to be caught up on maybe twenty hours of material before hitting the theater on a Friday night. 

It's going to be interesting to see how Kevin Feige deals with this issue as time goes on. Clearly there is a commitment to keeping the present continuity going through Avengers: Secret Wars at least. The Multiverse Saga is well in progress and I don't think anything, box office wise, is going get that off track. The MCU is still racking up hits post Endgame. In some cases, some of their biggest to date so the path through Phase 5 and 6 seems safe. But after that, what then? Avengers: Secret Wars will be the fortieth MCU movie by that point. That's mind boggling to consider. It used to be that for a movie series to go past four or five entries was a sign that it was probably getting long in the tooth. The Fast & Furious franchise is going to be wrapping things up with its tenth and eleventh installments. So to think about the MCU at forty interconnected movies plus however many TV series by then, you have to wonder: at what point does doing a reset become a necessary move? 

In the comics, the 616 has continued unbroken since its inception and will likely continue as such on into eternity. That's a key to its success, the commitment to one ever-expanding narrative in which continuity matters (even if it has to be occasionally fudged). But comics are a very different medium than film. With characters made of pencil and ink, they can remain at their ideal age forever, can die if the story demands (only to return renewed and refreshed!) and so the task of keeping that universe intact is much easier. Movies are totally different. Actors age, they move on to other projects, and the movie going audience also shifts in ways that make maintaining a single continuity and having the audience stay invested in it over the course of ten, twenty years or more much more difficult. When Secret Wars comes out, if it stays on schedule, not only will it be the fortieth MCU film, but by 2026 we'll be getting very close to the 20th anniversary of the MCU itself. 

You can say that, well, Star Wars is well past forty years already and fans are still invested in that universe but it's also true that there's much less of a buy in to Star Wars. You've got three trilogies and two side films at this point. So, a mere eleven movies since '77. In contrast, there's been nine MCU films just since 2021. And yeah, you could point to the many Star Wars shows that have emerged over the past few years and the animated ones that have been popular as well but I don't think most audiences look at most of the SW material that exists beyond the movies as being essential to their ability to enjoy a new movie.

Then you have long running franchises like Bond and Godzilla but in both those cases, even though these franchises go back to the fifties and sixties, there's no obstacle to just jumping on board with a new entry. There's been 37 Godzilla movies to date (with a new one from Toho due this year) and 27 Bond films (if you count 1967's Casino Royale and 1983's Never Say Never Say Never Again) but with minimal continuity between them. All you need to be up to speed on going in is that Bond is a secret agent and Godzilla is a giant lizard. That's it. Now imagine if the Godzilla series had been telling one long narrative since 1954. On the one hand, I say that'd be pretty cool. On the other, it would have required an insane amount of coordination over the years on the part of studios and filmmakers as well as an uncommon level of commitment on the part of the audience. That we'll still have MCU movies in another twenty or thirty years seems certain to me. The question is whether they'll still be telling one big interconnected story by then. 

What I'm wondering in regards to the MCU is whether Secret Wars will be used as a reset point for the universe. In the comics, the Jonathan Hickman 2015 Secret Wars series saw the 616 destroyed and reformed. If the movie follows suit, it would be the perfect opportunity to start over while still preserving the previous continuity. Whatever new Marvel U that emerges in the wake of Secret Wars could acknowledge the existence of the previous one and retain certain aspects of it while also allowing for a square one reset. There could be a new Tony Stark, a new Steve Rogers, a new T'Challa even. The opportunity to start anew could also allow for the X-Men to be a part of the new MCU from the start. It could also allow for a young Peter Parker to be there from the beginning as opposed to joining midway in. That aspect could be tricky as we don't know what path the new set of Spidey films will be taking and how tightly they'll line up with the MCU. I don't think Sony or Marvel has any desire to shuffle Tom Holland off the stage too quickly but at the same time a reset would be the perfect time for a recast.

 

Whether any of this will happen is anyone's guess, of course. This is nothing but pure fan speculation on my part but I have to imagine that Kevin Feige is thinking along these lines. At the very least, he's got to be considering all the options of how to maintain a shared universe while still making it accessible to a wider audience that can't help but become a bit indifferent to it as it grows past the point where it's easy for casual viewers to follow. 

It's possible that overcoming that obstacle might not require a reset at all. While a reboot could be on the horizon, I truly feel like we've just seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ongoing MCU narrative. I mean, the scope of Secret Wars is going to be so massive it will dwarf Infinity War/Endgame. I would be surprised if Secret Wars wasn't a two part film with the first film ending not with half the population of the universe turning to dust but the whole damn multiverse itself fading into oblivion (although I admit that this might be a beat too similar to Infinity War to go with) and the universe not being restored until Part 2. 

If they follow Hickman's Secret Wars from the comics, between the two films, we could have a whole run of movies and shows that take place in a "Battleworld" that encompasses many different regions that reflect the various aspects and genres of the Marvel universe, from sword and sorcery to Westerns to magic to mutants to high technology. Upon a reassembling of the MCU, if the previous continuity remains intact, there's so much that's been laid down that is still there to follow up on. 

We could eventually have the Defenders on the big screen, Marvel's contentious, oddball answer to The Avengers, compromised of Hulk, Namor, Silver Surfer, Doctor Strange and Valkyrie. And if there's a Defenders, it's inevitable that we'll have an old school Avengers/Defenders War. There's also the potential still there for a World War Hulk movie (even more so should Harrison Ford's Thunderbolt Ross become Red Hulk). And with Kate Bishop, Kamala Khan, America Chavez, Cassie Lang, Billy Kaplan and Riri Williams all in place there's a Young Avengers team and/or Champions team ready to go. There's also a street level aspect to the MCU that has barely been touched on that could possibly be the focus of the next Spider-Man film if the likes of Daredevil, Punisher and Jessica Jones get involved. And we haven't even gotten to the Fantastic Four or the X-Men yet. Both of which represent huge entire universes unto themselves. 

In addition to all that, I think it's inevitable that once the X-Men are established, that an Avengers vs. X-Men movie will be in the cards. How could they not go with that? You think Endgame was big? Please. An AvX movie would handily crush it. It'd make Civil War look like a playground squabble.   

People can talk about superhero fatigue all they want but the fact of the matter is, the MCU isn't going anyplace. Whether or not there will be some course correction here and there, the idea that the MCU might end is ridiculous. Warners has been floundering with their DC universe for over ten years now with no talk of throwing in the towel, despite all the mixed results. So if anyone thinks that failing to break box office records with each new release, while still being successful, is going to lead to Disney and Marvel giving up on the MCU, that person is nuts. I'm telling you now, strap in for years and years more of the MCU. The option for individual viewers to get off the ride is always there but people shouldn't confuse whatever personal apathy they might feel with the reality that the MCU is not going anywhere. It will be up to Kevin Feige and his creative collaborators to make the shared universe aspect of the MCU feel like an asset rather than an albatross if they choose not to ever hit the reset button but I expect everyone involved will be more than up for that challenge. 

If anything, I think it's fair to say that in another ten years or so we might look back at this era as the point when the MCU was just getting started. 

Rust Proof: Iron Man at 15

Here in 2023, we're still a long way off from the golden anniversary of the Golden Avenger's first solo film but I say the fifteenth anniversary of the release of 2008's Iron Man is still a momentous occasion. Not only is it the anniversary of Iron Man but it's also the anniversary of the MCU. Being the first release from the newly minted Marvel Studios, the first time that Marvel itself was fully in charge of bringing its characters to the screen, a lot was riding on Iron Man. And by "a lot," I mean everything. It's no exaggeration to say that the success of Iron Man changed the course of modern popular culture. It's impossible to imagine the current pop culture landscape without the MCU and none of it would have been possible without Iron Man having forged the foundation. 

To put Iron Man's success in context, you have to first consider that by 2008, the superhero wave had been going strong since 2000, much of which had driven by the success of adaptations of Marvel characters like the X-Men and Spider-Man. 

By the time Marvel Studios got to work on Iron Man, the most popular, best known aspects of the Marvel universe had already been well represented on screen and those characters were still in the hands of other studios. The characters that Marvel Studios had access to were largely thought of as B-listers at best, characters with little chance of becoming household names. In a CNN Money article, "Marvel goes Hollywood" from 2007, writer Devin Leonard asked "Can Marvel prevail with a slate of characters - Thor, the recently deceased (but sure to be resurrected) Captain America, Ant-Man - that, beloved as they are to longtime comic fans, are mostly unknown to today's kids?" Most of the talk surrounding Marvel Studios prior to Iron Man centered on the fact that Marvel was, in the eyes of many, being forced to work with scraps. 

Added to the challenge of launching a film series with lesser known characters was the fact that the entire superhero trend could possibly have been starting to wind down by 2008. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy had concluded in 2007, the X-Men trilogy had ended in 2006 and as much as other films were in the pipeline, there was a case to be made that we might well have already seen superheroes peak. Just over a month before Iron Man's release, the spoof Superhero Movie came out and while it was only a moderate success, usually once a genre receives its own parody, it's a sign that the genre is starting to wane. Was there even going to be an audience for Iron Man?    

Cut to today where the MCU is far and away the biggest entertainment franchise in the world and where millions of people who have never cracked open a comic know the details of the Marvel Universe. As much as the phrase "superhero fatigue" is often trotted out, that supposed fatigue is seldom is reflected in the enthusiasm of ticket buyers. What superhero films were before the release of Iron Man, as successful as they often were, looks downright piddling compared to the heights that the MCU has reached. Some might say the MCU peaked with Avengers: Endgame in 2019 and will never reach the same heights again but I say don't bet on that. Even if that were the case, though, what an unparalleled run the MCU has had, none of which could have been imagined when Iron Man was released on May 2nd, 2008. 

As a fan, I remember feeling that the first real encouraging sign when it came to Iron Man, back when it was just ramping up into production, was the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. It seemed so perfect, just the ideal match of actor and character, and I believe that casting Downey Jr. was the decision that really put everything in place early on. It gave the project an automatic stamp of legitimacy and ever since then, the continued strength of the MCU has always come down to casting. Even when the films themselves have been so-so, the appeal of the characters always pulls them through. The first Thor wasn't anything more than ok but yet Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston as Thor and Loki were so terrific in their roles that it elevated the entire movie and created a demand to see more. Casting has been the ace up Marvel's sleeve throughout the MCU, their steady saving grace, all the way up to today with the instantly likable Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan, and it all started with Iron Man. 

Given where the MCU is now, with a multitude (and a multiverse) of narrative balls in the air, it's wild to think back on what a simple thrill it was to see that first post credit scene with Samuel L. Jackson making his debut as Nick Fury, coming to talk to Tony about the "Avengers Initiative." As much as the Marvel Universe had already been well served by the first two X-Men movies and the Spider-Man films, that thirty second or so appearance by Fury promised so much more. If you want to point to a single moment where nerd culture truly took over the mainstream, that might be it. Star Wars, Star Trek and previous superhero films were instances where nerds and mainstream audiences happened to find common ground. The MCU, however, put everyone on hardcore nerd turf. After Iron Man, being comic literate became key to navigating pop culture in a way that it never had been before. 

Last year, Iron Man became the first MCU film to be inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. To be eligible to be inducted into the Registry, a film must be at least ten years old and be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant," the first two of which Iron Man definitely qualifies as. Aesthetically, Iron Man isn't exceptional but it is an example of top notch mainstream filmmaking, a piece of pop cinema where all the components are in harmony (special shout out to the work of Stan Winston Studios who brought Iron Man's armor to the screen so faithfully - including the initial gray Mark 1 suit). It's a testimony to the craft that Jon Favreau, Kevin Feige and co. brought to the initial MCU outing that even stacked up against the celebrated likes of Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Endgame, it still ranks as a top tier MCU entry. Fifteen years later, Iron Man's gleaming red and gold armor doesn't have a speck of rust on it. 

Nerd Notes: April 2023

Apparently some people had problems with this season of The Mandalorian but, you know, I say those people are clowns. I think the current era of serialized storytelling has ruined many viewer's ability to just enjoy an episode of television for what it is rather than getting agitated when it isn't immediately apparent how an individual episode progresses the larger arc of the season. Sure, you could say that this was the weakest of the three seasons but yet it was still freaking awesome and it's crazy to me to see people bitching about it. I'm so stoked that Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau are going to be getting their chance to bring their corner of the SW universe to the big screen.  

Is this movie a one off or is it the start of a new horror franchise? Time will tell but as mediocre and middle of the road as this movie is, I'm kind of rooting for it to get a couple of sequels. Russell Crowe strikes just the right note of sincere hamminess here and I'd be very game to see him continue to go up against various occult forces a few more times, with The Vatican sending him on missions that only he can handle. The shameless, blatantly commercial set up for more at the end of The Pope's Exorcist is actually one of the most appealing aspects of this movie so I'm pulling for a follow up. I do hope they step their game up a bit if the opportunity to do a sequel should arise but far worse movies than this have spawned franchises. 

It's always a bummer when something looks like a slam dunk on paper but then proves to be kind of unsatisfying. Such is the case with Renfield. Telling the tale of Dracula's eternally put upon assistant, giving Reinfield's plight as a bug eating lackey a comedic slant, sounds terrific. It sounds even better to know that Nicholas Cage will be playing the Count. In reality, though, this movie is just ok. The main problem is that rather than being content to be a funny tale about Renfield, it also wants to be a kick ass action film and a semi-serious character study as well. The tone of this movie is all over the place. Some movies can smoothly veer from serious to funny but here it's jarring. Adding to the jarring aspect of Renfield is how weirdly plot heavy it is. Aside from telling Renfield's story, there's the story of a cop played by Awkwafina who is up against her corrupt, paid off precinct and she's also trying to take down the mob family responsible for killing her honest cop dad. Then there's another subplot about the adult son of the matriarch of the mob family who is trying to prove himself to his mother and who becomes an adversary to Renfield and Awkwafina's character. It's just a lot of story bogging down what should have been a simple, quirky tale. For splatter fans, this does offer up a ton of over the top gore but all the hard R bloodshed is just another indication that this is a movie that never quite knows what it wants to be or what master it's trying to serve. 

"Mid" Marvel

With today marking the fifth anniversary of Avengers: Infinity War and with news on Ant-Man & The Wasp: Quantumania's streaming debut also hitting today, I think it's worth taking stock of where the MCU has been and where it's going. Four years ago, all of the narrative dominos that had been placed over the course of Phases 1 through 3 were starting to fall as Earth's Mightiest Heroes were finally throwing down against Thanos and excitement for the climax of the Infinity Saga was off the charts. Today, news of Quantumania's home release is accompanied by an assessment of its status as a box office disappointment. Quantumania's unsteady kick off to Phase 5 has only fed into the arguments that arose throughout Phase 4 that, post IW/EG, that the MCU's best days were over and that the public appetite for Marvel movies has waned. To that I say "feh." 

While it's inevitable that after eleven years of sustained cinematic storytelling that some would want to get off the ride after a climatic chapter, what a lot of people who aren't comic readers don't understand is the ebb and low of comic narratives. After a major line wide event in comics, it isn't immediately followed by another big event. You can't keep going from one massive high to another. You have to have peaks and valleys. You can have an event like Secret Wars but then you have to go back to smaller stakes (by comic book standards, at least) and regroup, introduce new characters, new elements, slowly start putting the pieces in place for what the next big event will be. 

That's where the MCU is at now. They spent years getting to Infinity War/Endgame, building to it film by film. They couldn't go right from the conclusion of that right into something on the same level. The MCU has always been about playing the long game and that's the strategy they're still pursuing. There's some audiences who don't get that or don't have the patience for it. They just want that bigger and bigger high, every time out. They also want to know what the plan is and where everything is heading and rather than enjoy the journey they get frustrated if the big picture isn't immediately clear to them. But that's not how storytelling works in comics. The big moments take time to ramp up to. To arrive at the kind of pay offs that matter, you have to put the time into building towards them. 

Some complain that too many movies in Phase 4 were "mid" and that's why they weren't Endgame level hits but I say that's bullshit. Movies like Infinity War and Endgame are never going to be commonplace. That can't be the goal every time out. That's not how the MCU got there. They got there by patiently putting out one solid performer after another and never jumping the gun. Some entries did better than others but most were not massive hits. They just did well enough to keep the MCU viable and to pave the way for more. And the fact is, a lot of the movies throughout Phases 1 through 3 were every bit as "mid" as anything found in Phase 4 MCU. They were fun but not exceptional. Just a good time at the movies, not a reinvention of cinema. Some were on a higher level but the majority were not. And that's fine. Most movies in general, across all studios, across all genres, are "mid." Most movies in the history of movies are just ok. Most action movies, most comedies, most dramas. To believe that every MCU movie must be an exceptional example of filmmaking in order to justify their existence or earn the audience's continued interest is just silly. 

Some of what was in Phase 4 ranked among the best that the MCU has delivered to date. Some of it was mid to lower tier. But you could say the same all through the MCU's history. The key to the MCU's longevity isn't about hitting home runs every time, it's about scoring base hits and staying in the game. Just as you can't get to Infinity War and Endgame without a Thor: Dark World or Ant-Man, the road to Avengers: Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars doesn't happen without Quantumania. 

Five years ago, the MCU was at a popular peak. Five years from now, they well could be at another one but the takeaway of Infinity War shouldn't be to look to that as what every MCU movie should be but to realize that those crescendos only work when you take the time to build up to them.   

Rise Rules

From today's perspective, it's odd to remember that, for a long time, The Evil Dead existed only as a trilogy, a cult trilogy at that, one whose audience was once deemed to be so microscopically niche that the marketing for Army of Darkness was based on the belief of Universal Studios that it even wasn't worth acknowledging its connection to the previous two films. For many years it was generally accepted by fans that after 1992, we had seen our last Deadite and that we'd have to be satisfy our Evil Dead itch going forward by dutifully buying each new Special Edition of each film in the trilogy on every new home video format. Sure, there was always the hope that Ash would return in an Evil Dead 4 but it seemed more far likely that AoD marked the end of the road for all things Evil Dead, save perhaps in comics and games. 

But proving that nothing Evil ever dies, there was the Fede Alvarez big screen reboot in 2013, shepherded into existence by producers Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell, a movie that revived the hardcore spirit of the original in grand, gory fashion, followed by three seasons of Ash vs. Evil Dead on Starz from 2015 to 2018 that gave us more Ash than the movies could have ever given us and here we are in 2023 with yet more big screen ED action with Evil Dead Rise. What was once three films with a devoted cult following is now a still-thriving franchise. Not just still thriving but arguably, pound for pound, the finest modern horror franchise. We'll see that be put to the test if they start to pump out movies with more frequency but for now, you've got five movies and three seasons of a TV show without a single miss in the bunch. Whether you put Evil Dead Rise towards the top or the bottom of your ED rankings, it still kicks ass because they all kick ass.  

Arriving in theaters on the heels of the not bad but kind of ho-hum possession yarn The Pope's Exorcist, Evil Dead Rise is a masterclass in showing 'em how it's done. Director Lee Cronin picks up the gauntlet from Fede Alvarez and confidently puts his own bloody stamp on the ED franchise. As a horror fan who remembers the battles genre filmmakers fought throughout the '80s with the MPAA and how neutered much of the splatter output of the '80s was, it will never not seem crazy to me how much bloodshed a R rating can get away with now. For whatever reason, the MPAA long ago straight up stopped giving a shit about graphic violence and horror fans are reaping the benefits. I know some horror fans find gore to be a bore and, hey, that's fair but these recent ED films aren't made for that crowd. 

No, Evil Dead Rise is a movie designed to cater to gorehounds who bought their ticket secure in the knowledge that the people involved in making this movie weren't going to waste time getting cute with them or tease shit and then not deliver. This is a movie made for the crowd who, when they spot a tree mulcher in the background of a scene early on, know full well that the next time they see it, someone's going to be getting fed into it. Some might shrug at the promise of that kind of carnage and it's safe to say that if splatter isn't your thing, or if you just feel like you've already had enough to last a lifetime, Evil Dead Rise won't be your kind of party. For those whose enthusiasm for gore remains insatiable, though, EDR is cause for celebration. As an old school gorehound who always lamented the way that chainsaw mayhem was always teased in movies like Motel Hell, Pieces, and The Evil Dead but never really shown, I have to say I find the explicit chainsaw related gore in the modern ED's to be very satisfying to behold. Hey, we've all got our things, right?   

At this point, Evil Dead is a series comprised of five movies that form two trilogies. The first trilogy consists of the 1983 original, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness. There the emphasis is on Ash and his adventures against the Deadites. The other trilogy is the original, the 2013 ED and now Evil Dead Rise and in that trilogy the star of the show is the Necronomicon itself. That evil tome is the linking device across those films and if you just watch those three, it's about people encountering that book and unleashing hell upon themselves and everyone in the immediate perimeter. 

In retrospect, the original has only become perceived as campy because of the turn towards comedy in Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness but that was not how The Evil Dead was seen in '83. Back then, it was serious hardcore horror, devoid of laughs (but not devoid of fun!) and I love that the two recent films have reclaimed that OG ED vibe. I love Ash and I love the splatstick humor of Evil Dead 2 and AoD (and the TV series) but I also love that Raimi, Tapert, and Campbell have been able to make Evil Dead a viable ongoing franchise without Ash while still being completely true to the "dead by dawn" spirit of the original. If we keep getting more movies like this where the Necronomicon wrecks havoc in different locations (and perhaps even different times!), I'm all for it. 

Most point to the change in location from a cabin in the woods to a apartment building in LA as being the big shake up in Evil Dead Rise but while that is notable, I think the bigger change is in having a family in peril. Sure, we've seen adult siblings pitted against each other, caught up in the throes of demonic possession but this stuff hits very differently when you see a mother and her three young children going through it. It's emotionally grueling and disturbing in a way that no previous Evil Dead movie has been. 

We spend enough time with Alyssa Sutherland as single mom Ellie and Gabrielle Echols as older daughter Bridget, Morgan Davies as brother Danny and Nell Fisher as the youngest sibling, Cassie, to feel genuinely horrified when this family literally starts ripping each other apart. Even though you know going in that this is where the movie is likely to go, it's still unsettling to see kids being tormented by their possessed mom and in turn being possessed themselves and trying to butcher their siblings. Beyond the bloodletting, it's strong stuff on a character level. Lily Sullivan as Ellie's sister Beth rises to the challenge of being the latest ED hero to stand against the Deadites and in true ED fashion, grows stronger through suffering. 

I know some fans balk at seeing Evil Dead becoming a slick commercial vehicle but Evil Dead was never art house stuff. It was always intended to be commercial. It's just that the audience for this type of material has grown beyond the cult cul-de-sac over the years, where what was once considered the extreme edge of horror has become more acceptable, and with decades of experience under their belts, Raimi, Tapert and Campbell have developed expert eyes for knowing what Evil Dead needs to be. They're doing a great job of bringing the right directors in and the loosening of the MPAA has meant that these new movies can go even farther than the original while still getting a R rating that allows them to play to a wider audience. It's impossible to have a new Evil Dead with the same raw energy of the original. What Evil Dead is now is a Book of the Dead that's still being written, chapter by bloody chapter.