Is The Curse Of La Llorona A Good Or Bad Step For The Conjuring Universe?

Is The Curse Of La Llorona A Good Or Bad Step For The Conjuring Universe?

While it hasn’t been advertised as such, Michael Chaves’ The Curse Of La Llorona is most definitely a part of The Conjuring Universe. Its posters may only say “From The Producers Of…” instead of referring to it as the next chapter in the franchise (as was the case for both Annabelle: Creation and The Nun), but its actual connection is very clear – specifically through the return of Tony Amendola's Father Perez from the original Annabelle. Given the popularity of the brand, this might strike some as odd, but there arguably is a good reason for it: it’s the first non-Conjuring title that’s neither a direct spin-off nor a sequel to a direct spin-off.

Simply put, the film doesn’t fit in with the same development strategy that has established The Conjuring Universe to date. The reason why John Leonetti’s Annabelle and its follow-ups exist is because of the immense popularity the titular doll earned from her small part in James Wan’s original The Conjuring; and Corin Hardy’s The Nun got the greenlight because of the response to the habit-sporting demon from Wan’s The Conjuring 2. The Curse Of La Llorona, meanwhile, has roots in urban legend, but no actual connection to the other movies beyond Father Perez’s small role. It’s a surprising move for sure – but it’s also hard to say if it’s a good or bad one for the future of the franchise.

Certainly the biggest positive featured in this development is the increased potential for more diverse storytelling. As successful as The Conjuring Universe movies have been, the limitations present in its choices thus far are pretty obvious, as the “spin-off only” idea does put filmmakers in a box of a certain design. Every new property has to not only follow certain rules previously established by different writers and directors, but there is also a certain expectation for a degree of narrative dovetailing that basically forces every story to end in a specific place that matches up with a previous title.

To his credit, Gary Dauberman – who wrote the scripts for Annabelle, Annabelle: Creation, The Nun, and the upcoming Annabelle Comes Home (which he’s also directing) – has made this work for the most part, but the creative freedom offered by the Curse Of La Llorona approach is clear. While it’s cool that Father Perez makes his second big screen appearance, it’s really more of an Easter egg than anything, and everything else about the movie is able to really do whatever it wants – including establishing the “rules” for its eponymous evil spirit and how it concludes the arcs for its characters.

Following the release of The Curse Of La Llorona, really any horror film that shares The Conjuring Universe’s perspectives on “good” and “evil” and approach to the supernatural could arguably be included in the larger continuity – and that could lead the franchise in a lot of new and interesting directions.

Where this becomes a drawback and potential hazard for the brand, however, is the subject of identity and specific definition. Since 2013, the core of The Conjuring Universe has been Ed and Loraine Warren – the protagonists played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga based on the real life demonologist duo. Albeit very loosely, the films in the franchise have to this point been based on the legends surrounding their exploits, and have always tied back to them in one way or another.

With The Curse Of La Llorona now being an exception, it raises an important question: what is The Conjuring Universe really about? If stories aren’t specifically expanding on the myths and terrors that the Warrens personally experience, does that mean that the franchise will eventually develop into being simply a collection of titles that share a genre and maybe the occasional single character? That’s far less interesting, and could eventually dilute the whole enterprise into nothingness.

How things move forward from this point will definitely be interesting. As of right now there are seemingly only spin-offs and sequels in development – including the aforementioned Annabelle Comes Home, The Conjuring 3, The Nun 2, and The Crooked Man – but given the way The Curse Of La Llorona was promoted it’s possible any horror title currently being developed by Warner Bros. has the potential to be brought into the continuity. Ultimately it may be the audience’s response to the new release that determines everything, and you can be sure that we’ll be keeping a close eye on it.

How Ma Became A Completely Different Movie When Octavia Spencer Got Involved

How Ma Became A Completely Different Movie When Octavia Spencer Got Involved

Tate Taylor’s Ma is a clear-cut high-concept film. Octavia Spencer stars as Sue Ann, a lonely woman with a traumatic past who sees an opportunity for popularity when she is approached by a group of kids in search of alcohol – but things turn terrifyingly sour when the group starts to find her a bit overbearing and obsessive. On its feet it’s a classic setup for a horror movie… but that just makes it all the more surprising how much it actually changed through its development.

As I recently learned during an interview with the film’s director, while some of the ideas for the story were in place from the start, it’s a project that really didn’t come together as we see it in its final form until both he and Octavia Spencer got involved. Originally it was more of a serial killer story, featuring a white woman luring teenagers to a horrific fate, butt in the hands of the long-time collaborators it ultimately became much more.

I sat down with Tate Taylor earlier this month during the Los Angeles press day for Ma, and it was when I asked about how much the movie changed from the first draft of the script to the final cut in the editing room that I learned just how much it evolved thanks to the creatives developing it. It started with a bit of “crazy” serendipity, with the director simply taking a meeting with producer/studio head Jason Blum, who presented him with a screenplay that he admitted still needed quite a bit of workshopping. Said Taylor,

A month before, Octavia told me she was sick of only being offered the same role and never getting to be a lead. A month later, I go to – Jason is a friend - I go to his office to talk to him about what we could possibly do together. And they're thinking like a drama, you know, they branch out, and I said I want to do something fucked up. And he's like, 'Really?' I'm like, 'Yes!' And the day before they had gotten Ma and he goes, 'This needs work. See if you could do anything with this.' And it was written for a white woman.

But just because the early draft of the script was written specifically for a white woman didn’t stop Tate Taylor from seeing it as a potential vehicle for his best friend, former roommate, and longtime collaborator – with whom he has worked now on four of his five features as a director.

Coming out of the meeting, Taylor’s first instinct was to call Octavia Spencer and gauge her interest in making the movie with him – and while she was initially hesitant about taking on a horror project because one of the more significant and outdated tropes of the genre, she quickly got more interested when he started to describe what kind of role he had in mind for her:

The first thing I did is I called Octavia, and I said, 'Would you want to be in a horror movie?' She's like, 'Am I the black person who gets killed first?' I go, 'No, you get to kill the people.' She goes, 'Yes.' She goes, 'Fuck yes, I don't need to read it, I trust you!' 'Well, you're gunna read it.' So I came back to Jason, and they were like, 'Really?' And I'm like, 'Yeah!'

That simple hook was apparently enough to draw Octavia Spencer to Ma, but Tate Taylor further stressed that what he had in mind for the project was a lot more than just having her as a psychotic serial killer who murders teens for essentially sport. And in that sense, the script needed a lot of work. It was a crumb of an idea that he enjoyed for nostalgic reasons, fondly remembering his time as a kid hanging out in front of liquor stores trying to get adults to buy booze for him and his friends, but where his interest really took hold was in exploring Sue Ann as a real character and giving her not only real motivation, but an in-depth backstory.

According to Taylor, none of that was present in the Ma script he originally got from Jason Blum, which was apparently had a lot more focus on body horror than it did on character and drama. Said the director,

There was no back story. It was not in the script at all. A woman buys beer and then they end up... well, the script then had their heads being chopped off and sewn on different bodies. So then I'm like, 'Well, you got to keep it in reality, you know?' So that was the journey. The shifts in the script came from me creating her backstory, which has empathy, and as it came in some of the scenes just had to reflect that.

To explain the exact beats that were ultimately injected into Ma and its backstory for Sue Ann would be giving away too much prior to the film’s release, the film really did become something much different than what was initially envisioned before Tate Taylor and Octavia Spencer became involved. And while the project evolved to become the first horror feature developed by them as a director/actor duo, the work really did become more familiar to them as the themes and proper story developments emerged. Taylor explained,

I said this needs to be about something - about trauma, and the sins of our parents and how we treat people, and then I wove that into it. For me, when movies are successful your lead is not so honorable. You relate to them, and you feel bad for them.

Like any film, Ma took months of work to become what it was ultimately meant to be, but now audiences will be able to experience it all for themselves. The movie, which co-stars Diana Silvers, Juliette Lewis, Luke Evans, Missi Pyle, Allison Janney, McKaley Miller, and Corey Fogelmanis, arrives in theaters this weekend – and be sure to stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for more about the film from my interview with Tate Taylor!

Ralph Fiennes Doesn't Want Anyone Else Playing Voldemort In Fantastic Beasts

Ralph Fiennes Doesn't Want Anyone Else Playing Voldemort In Fantastic Beasts

The Fantastic Beasts franchise, which initially seemed to be just a Wizarding World spinoff, has morphed into something of a Harry Potter prequel, trading Harry and Dumbledore’s battle against Lord Voldemort for Newt and Dumbledore’s battle against Gellert Grindelwald. Johnny Depp’s villain seems like he will be the antagonist throughout the five-film series, but if there is an opportunity for Voldemort to show up, actor Ralph Fiennes doesn’t want anyone else playing him, as he explained:

I feel a kind of affection for Voldemort. So if there was a world in which Voldemort came back, I would be very possessive about wanting to reprise that.

Ralph Fiennes understandably feels possessive of Lord Voldemort, having played him in four movies over the course of the series. He spent a lot of time inhabiting the Dark Lord and has some affection for his iconic villain. Therefore, as he told BBC Newsnight, Ralph Fiennes would hypothetically want to reprise the role of Voldemort if the character were to return in Fantastic Beasts or some other Wizarding World spinoff versus allowing someone else to take on the mantle.

It is cool to hear that Ralph Fiennes has such a sense of ownership over the Harry Potter villain, especially considering he almost turned down the role. For countless Potterheads that grew up with the films, Ralph Fiennes is Lord Voldemort, both the cinematic version and the face they see when reading J.K. Rowling’s novels. Not many people can say that they were a generation’s Darth Vader in a beloved property, so he understandably wouldn’t want to just hand that off.

Of course, despite Ralph Fiennes' possessive feelings about Voldemort, he isn’t the only or even the first actor to play He Who Must Not Be Named. In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Richard Bremmer played You-Know-Who when he was living on the back of Professor Quirrell’s head and in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets actor Christian Coulson played the teenage Tom Riddle that came out of the diary that would prove to be a Horcrux.

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the only film post-Goblet of Fire and Voldemort resurrection that Ralph Fiennes does not appear in, we see a young Tom Riddle in memories in the Pensieve, played by Frank Dillane and Ralph Fiennes’ own nephew, Hero Fiennes Tiffin. So, although Ralph Fiennes is certainly the most recognizable one, he hasn't been the only Voldemort.

In his discussion with BBC Newsnight, Ralph Fiennes mentioned the Fantastic Beasts films when asked if he could do any more Harry Potter movies because they have done all the books. Although this was just a hypothetical question, and there’s no reason to think that Voldemort would show up in Fantastic Beasts, it is an interesting possibility.

If Voldemort did show up he would definitely not be played by Ralph Fiennes, since You-Know-Who would still be a child during the Fantastic Beasts timeline, but he was alive so it is possible. The Fantastic Beasts films will take place over 19 years, from 1926-1945. Tom Riddle goes to Hogwarts in 1938 and he graduated in 1944. We’ve already seen something of this time period in Half-Blood Prince, though, so there will likely be no need to rehash those events.

What we haven’t seen is when Tom murdered his father and grandparents or when he worked at Borgin and Burkes post-graduation, or his time in Albania, but it’s hard to see how those events would factor into the Fantastic Beasts story beyond just being fan service. Besides, there are already plenty of things for this series to cover, especially after the doozy of a movie that was Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

Filming was recently delayed on Fantastic Beasts 3 so we don’t know for sure if it will hit in 2020 as originally planned. There are plenty of movies worth seeing this year, though, and you can check them out in our 2019 Release Schedule.

James McAvoy Would Play The Riddler For DC

James McAvoy Would Play The Riddler For DC

It's no secret that superhero movies are everywhere. The comic book genre has proved the most profitable and popular genre in the industry, so plenty of studios and filmmakers are trying to get in on the fun. With multiple cinematic universes battling for box office supremacy, a ton of talented actors have adapted iconic characters from the page to the screen. In fact, actors like Josh Brolin, Peter Dinklage, Chris Evans, and Ryan Reynolds have played multiple comic book characters in their careers.

James McAvoy has put in the hours himself, playing Professor X for the last four X-Men movies. But with that franchise's future unclear in the wake of the Disney and Fox merger, the time might come for him to hop onto another comic book franchise. When asked who he might like to play on the DC side of things, he recently revealed he was interesting in Batman's Edward Nygma aka The Riddler. McAvoy said:

The Riddler, maybe. Always liked him when I was growing up. I’ve always thought DC does really good bad guys.

Do you hear that noise? It's the sound of countless comic book fans cheering in joy. The Riddler hasn't been on the big screen since 1995's Batman Forever, as Jim Carrey played the character with ample supplies of campy energy-- fitting perfectly in with Joel Schumacher's vision for the franchise.

James McAvoy's comments come from his recent Instagram Live video, which was captured and immortalized on Twitter. While he didn't broach the subject of a DC role by himself, he did reveal which character he would like to inhabit, if given the choice. That was none other than the genius Batman villain The Riddler. He also acknowledged that DC knows what it's doing in regards to villains.

Now might be the perfect time to bring The Riddler to the DCEU, as Gotham City looks like it'll become a more important setting in the shared universe. Birds Of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) will feature plenty of Gotham City denizens, and Matt Reeves is also developing his movie, The Batman. The latter will reportedly feature Batman's rogues gallery, so could that include The Riddler?

The Riddler hasn't been seen on the big screen since back Jim Carrey portrayed him in Batman Forever. Joel Schumacher took over the Batman franchise from Tim Burton, and made it more colorful and kid friendly. As such, Carrey primarily flexed his comedic muscles for his version of Edward Nygma, sharing an over the top dynamic with Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face.

On the small screen, The Riddler is a major character in The CW's Gotham. Played by Cory Michael Smith, fans tuned in every week to see him go from GCPD employee to super villain, as well as his complicated relationship with The Penguin. But with Gotham coming to a close this season, the timing also works out to possibly bring a new version of the character to audiences.

James McAvoy will play Professor X once more when Dark Phoenix arrives in theaters on June 7th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip tot he movies.

Watch Arnold Schwarzenegger Get Drop Kicked And Barely Flinch

Watch Arnold Schwarzenegger Get Drop Kicked And Barely Flinch

There’s a scene in 1984’s The Terminator where a group of punks attacks and stabs Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T-800 in an ill-advised move that is completely ineffective against the machine. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not be a machine, but he also proved some imperviousness to attack over the weekend. At the Arnold Classic Africa sports festival, the actor barely flinched when drop kicked by a local idiot. Take a look:

First of all, Arnold Schwarzenegger let fans know on Twitter that he is totally fine and thankfully unhurt by the incident. He even said that he initially thought he was just jostled by the crowd. And you can understand how he might think that considering how often the famous actor finds himself in adoring crowds and how ineffectual the drop kick was.

Arnold asks if it was a block or a charge, and while that may be a fine distinction in basketball, this is clearly a charge-- albeit a weak one. As you can see in the video, this rando goes fully airborne and launches himself at Arnold, and the actor and fitness icon barely flinches upon impact-- only taking a couple of steps forward.

Arnie was busy taking a Snapchat and interacting with his fans when this happened, so he was completely unprepared for such a cowardly attack and thus unable to prepare or tense up and still he could not be felled. He may be 71-years-old but the muscle-bound actor who played Conan the Barbarian is not so easily moved.

The attacker is quickly subdued by a very large man and handed over to police officers according to BBC News. Since the incident, Arnold Schwarzenegger has let everyone know that he is not pressing charges and hopes that this serves as a wake-up call to the unnamed man to get his life on track. It’s quite merciful on Arnie’s part to not want to draw out the incident any longer or give his attacker any undue fame.

While this fool does not deserve any of the fame he so desperately and pathetically sought, Arnold Schwarzenegger understands the newsworthiness of the story. So he wants to highlight those people who do deserve fame and attention, specifically the athletes that participated in the Arnold Classic Africa sports festival in Johannesburg, South Africa.

As he says in his tweets, the event features 90 sports, from Arm Wrestling and Bodybuilding to Chess, E-Sports, Martial Arts and Deaf Sports, and hosts 24,000 athletes of all ages and abilities in the spirit of physical activity and competition. It is a shame that such nonsense happened there but hopefully it will bring greater awareness to the event and its message.

Later this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger will return to the role that made him famous as another immovable object for Terminator: Dark Fate. That film reunites him with Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor and hits theaters on November 1. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all this year’s biggest movies.

Will Happy Death Day 3 Happen? Here's What Jason Blum Says

Will Happy Death Day 3 Happen? Here's What Jason Blum Says

The Happy Death Day movies have built a loyal fan base with their quirky, Groundhog Day-as-horror premise. The success of the first film resulted in a quick turn around on a sequel, and that sequel left things open for another entry. However, fans hoping for another Happy Death Day movie happening soon may need to readjust expectations. Blumhouse studio chief Jason Blum says that a Happy Death Day 3 probably won't happen. In response to a fan question on Twitter asking how likely a third entry was, Blum said...

Not very but not impossible

Obviously, this isn't the response that fans of the Happy Death Day movies want to hear, and it's somewhat surprising considering the way the second film was green lit so quickly.

While Jason Blum doesn't go into detail in his Twitter response, you don't have to go too far to figure out why the third film is so unlikely. Happy Death Day 2U completely crashed at the box office, especially when compared to the original. The first film made $55 million in North America and $125 million around the world. The sequel's domestic box office dropped by more than half and the global numbers look even worse.

Having said that, Happy Death Day 2U numbers aren't all bad news. The film only cost a reported $9 million to make so even the less than stellar numbers mean the movie almost certainly made money, Hollywood accounting notwithstanding. With Blumhouse's famously low budgets, the sequel probably made enough money to pay for the budget on a third film at the very least.

Of course, one has to take into account that this could be a trend, and if it is, it would be bad news for a third film. Happy Death Day 2U, cost nearly double what the first movie did and brought in a fraction of the ticket sales. A third film, would, almost be necessity, cost more than the second one, and if the box office on that one dropped compared to part two, then the possibility that it won't make money, even though the first two films did ok, is very real.

Still, fans shouldn't give up hope completely as Jason Blum says a third film is not impossible. If it becomes clear that there really is enough of a fan base interested in part three, and a way to keep the budget down can be found, Blumhouse could still green light the project. If the studio thinks the movie will make money, the movie will happen, this is a business after all.

One thing that does seem for certain, however, is that fans should not expect a Happy Death Day 3 to see the same quick turn around that part two did. The sequel coming out so quickly didn't help ticket sales, so the studio will likely take its time with another entry

The Happy Death Day movies have built a loyal fan base with their quirky, Groundhog Day as horror premise. The success of the first film resulted in a quick turn around on a sequel, and that sequel left things open for another entry. However, fans hoping for another Happy Death Day movie happening soon may need to readjust expectations. Blumhouse studio chief Jason Blum says that a Happy Death Day 3 probably won't happen. In response to a fan question on Twitter asking how likely a third entry was, Blum said...

Not very but not impossible

Obviously, this isn't the response that fans of the Happy Death Day movies want to hear, and it's somewhat surprising considering the way the second film was green lit so quickly.

While Jason Blum doesn't go into detail in his Twitter response, you don't have to go too far to figure out why the third film is so unlikely. Happy Death Day 2U completely crashed at the box office, especially when compared to the original. The first film made $55 million in North America and $125 million around the world. The sequel's domestic box office dropped by more than half and the global numbers look even worse.

Having said that, Happy Death Day 2U numbers aren't all bad news. The film only cost a reported $9 million to make so even the less than stellar numbers mean the movie almost certainly made money, Hollywood accounting notwithstanding. With Blumhouse's famously low budgets, the sequel probably made enough money to pay for the budget on a third film at the very least.

Of course, one has to take into account that this could be a trend, and if it is, it would be bad news for a third film. Happy Death Day 2U, cost nearly double what the first movie did and brought in a fraction of the ticket sales. A third film, would, almost be necessity, cost more than the second one, and if the box office on that one dropped compared to part two, then the possibility that it won't make money, even though the first two films did, is very real.

Still, fans shouldn't give up hope completely as Jason Blum says a third film is not impossible. If it becomes clear that there really is enough of a fan base interested in part three, and a way to keep the budget down can be found, Blumhouse could still green light the project. If the studio thinks the movie will make money, the movie will happen, this is a business after all.

One thing that does seem for certain, however, is that fans should not expect a Happy Death Day 3 to see the same quick turn around that part two did. The seq

The Percentage Of Avengers Fans Who Think Each Main Character Is Going To Die

The Percentage Of Avengers Fans Who Think Each Main Character Is Going To Die

The end is near, my fellow Marvel fanatics. And all that audiences really want to know as we prepare for Avengers: Endgame is… who will survive?

OK, fine. There are a lot more questions that need answered by Joe and Anthony Russo’s Avengers: Endgame. But the mortality rate of the key Avengers characters is top of mind as the culmination movie in the MCU makes its way to theaters. With that in mind, we launched a questionnaire for Endgame fans to make predictions about what's going to happen (you can take the survey here). In all, we talked to more than a thousand readers, and not surprisingly, a lot of fans are worried about a lot of different characters.

Who will live? Who will die? We won't know until the film premieres, but you can head down the page and check out what most fans are thinking.

Captain America (81% Vote Dead)

The fans are pretty convinced that Avengers: Endgame will be Steve Rogers’ last dance in the MCU. And if Endgame requires a mighty sacrifice, few will hit harder than Captain America (Chris Evans), who has been the spiritual and physical leader of the Avengers since the team was formed in Joss Whedon’s initial superhero team-up film.

Thanos (72% Vote Dead)

A lot of fans vote that Thanos (Josh Brolin) won’t just be defeated in Avengers: Endgame, he will be killed. But if Infinity War told us anything about the hulking, purple Mad Titan, it’s that he’s really hard to kill. If only Thor (Chris Hemsworth) had gone for the head…

Phil Coulson (57% Vote Dead)

This would kind of be a running joke, but if Agent Coulson were to somehow return in Avengers: Endgame and then be killed off, we’d have a meme of Dead Coulson on our hands. He “sacrificed” himself in The Avengers, only to return on the S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show. Captain Marvel brought the character back, but that’s a prequel set in the 1990s. Still, 57 percent of y’all think Coulson will eat it in Endgame.

Tony Stark (55% Vote Dead)

Truthfully, we thought this number would be higher. If Captain America stands as a symbolic sacrifice, so too does Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), and we think the odds are high that he trades his life for another team member in Avengers: Endgame. You guys don’t agree, however, with just over half of you thinking the MCU’s latest chapter will end with Stark’s death.

Nebula (55% Vote Dead)

This one makes sense. Nebula (Karen Gillan) largely exists so she can achieve vengeance against her dad, Thanos. Avengers: Endgame puts her on the path to reach that goal, and why wouldn’t she die in pursuit of this personal quest? Her sister, Gamora (Zoe Saldana), died in the previous film. And Nebula isn’t essential to the announced Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This could be her swan song.

James Rhodes (33% Vote Dead)

Justice for Terrence Howard! I’m kidding. If Endgame plays out in a way where Tony Stark has to be compelled into action by the death of a friend, Rhodes (Don Cheadle) could be the victim. However, Marvel had a golden opportunity to take out this character back in Captain America: Civil War, and they opted for temporary paralysis over death, so why kill him off now?

Hank Pym (32% Vote Dead)

Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) is a founding member of the Avengers team in the comics, and he has been a crucial mentor to Scott Lang (Paul Rudd). But the Ant-Man franchise has avoided emotional deaths, and losing Pym in battle could break a few hearts. Also, how much longer do we think Douglas wants to be making these movies?

Carol Danvers (1.94% Vote Dead)

We jumped from Hank Pym all the way down to Carol Danvers (Brie Larson), because the character received the fewest votes total in the poll. Maybe it’s all the talk from Marvel President Kevin Feige about how Captain Marvel will lead the studio into the next phase of films. But only 20 people picked her to die in Avengers: Endgame, so it’s likely she lives on.

The answers are coming. We are less than a week away from Avengers: Endgame opening in theaters on Thursday, April 25. Do you have your tickets for opening weekend yet?