On November 15, at 3:02 PM

I am a bit obsessed with true crime, specifically serial murder. This isn’t a bad thing I don’t think, although it isn’t necessarily something that you want to shout from the rooftops, especially not in mixed company. Succinctly, serial murder is something you have to ease into a conversation, and I’ve done that pretty well until very recently. It’s starting to seep into my everyday life. Uh oh?

For example, I’m finding it hard to not shout out instances of true crime when someone mentions the name of a town: Gainesville, Florida? You ever heard of Danny Rollins? Gainesville Ripper? Killed five college students in three days? It’s not hard for me to restrain myself from dropping knowledge on people, but I shouldn’t prevent myself from happiness, right? Although I can’t talk to everyone I meet about true crime–get with the program people!!–I can have the outlet of writing thankfully and, if I really have the hankering to get some murderously creative juices flowing, I can turn to the word processor on my computer and get going.

My affinity with true crime likely stems from my preferred types of literature and film/television. As a kid, I was never shielded from movies like Scream and The Silence of the Lambs, and my early literature also dealt fairly heavily with death and murder. It’s only natural that I began to read actually cases of true crime–like Ann Rule’s The Stranger Beside Me and a novel about the murders of the Camm family right across the water from Louisville–and these horrifying scenarios have influenced my writing recently, too. I suppose my most recent story “Dances with Chainsaws” is my earnest attempt at a true crime story; it’s based on something that actually happened and focuses on both the victim and the perpetrator. Still it’s heavily fictionalized, of course. I have yet to dabble in creative non-fiction, yet this story, and another that I’m currently drafting, are half-hearted attempts to write a true crime story. Eventually I’ll get there, and I will happily use true crime as a stepping stone to non-fiction.

I’m thinking about creative non-fiction a lot lately because I’m trying to broaden my horizons and tackle a new genre of writing to diversify myself a bit. This is easier said than done, but there are certainly wonderful non-fiction items to model myself after: the aforementioned Ann Rule, the non-fiction book Mindhunter that the Netflix television show of the same name is based on, Raymond Carver’s essays in Fires, and podcasts like Serial and S-Town that make non-fiction way more fun than I originally thought it was. If anyone has further recommendations, I’d love to hear them!

Advertisements

On October 17, at 7:00 PM

After finishing Herman Koch’s The Dinner and having a class discussion about the novel, I wondered why likability is such a prominent word (and goal) in our society. From characters in our literature and film, to our politicians–I just finished Hillary Clinton’s What Happened, so likable politicians are on the brain–Americans have an affinity for likable people, although that term, in my eyes, means everything and nothing.

Simply put, likability is overrated; I say this as a person who makes a genuine attempt to be “likable” on a daily basis, but also as one who knows that there is no one thing that is considered “likable” to the grand spectrum of people. The most likable and unproblematic person I can think of, Tom Hanks, is probably not liked by at least one sorry person in this world. In literature and film this is still a divisive topic, and I was surprised by how passionate my classmates were about likability in The Dinner. Many of them, and other reviewers of the novel, were turned off by Paul and his supreme un-likability, and I do get that. Paul is a problematic and difficult character, as written by Koch, and his actions in the novel are hard to wrap your head around, and impossible to support. Still, I found his narrative voice to be utterly compelling, and, although of course he’s unlikable, I was drawn to Paul nonetheless.

In a more general way, what defines likability as a character? A persistent and overwhelming niceness? A constant need to be and do good? A morally right person? I’m not sure if a concrete definition exists, but I’ve personally always been attracted to unlikable characters—the George’s, the Saul Goodman’s, and the Llewyn Davis’ of the world. In John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, George doesn’t come off as very likable; he’s mean and dismissive to his friend Lennie, and, although he’s been tasked with Lennie’s care, he seems to put himself first more often than not. The lawyer Saul Goodman, in the television series Breaking Bad and its prequel Better Call Saul, is downright smarmy and uses the wrong side of the law to advance his own legal activities. The title character of Inside Llewyn Davis is rude, lazy, cold-hearted, and arguably untalented as the folk musician that he perceives himself to be. I mention these characters, and their specific attributes, to give a wide spectrum of things that can make a character unlikable. But, as the vivacious reader and filmgoer I am, I would also call these attributes fun. I’ve read Of Mice and Men a dozen times, and each time I do I find something else about George to enjoy. I’ve re-watched the aforementioned TV shows and film plenty of times as well, and each time I’m amazed at just how compelling and relatable the two characters are. When pressed to think of a likable character, I turn to Scott from To Kill a Mockingbird. Would anyone press me on that? Probably. There is a spectrum of likability, and it makes great conversation to see where characters fall for particular readers or viewers.

When I wasn’t musing about likability, I had a few pop culture items to keep myself busy: the four original Friday the 13th films, two Netflix Originals (Mindhunter and American Vandal), 2 Chainz’s Pretty Girls Like Trap MusicLed Zeppelin III, Chance the Rapper’s 2016 masterpiece Coloring Book, and (shameless plug) my own podcast I created with my colleague TBA with Brent and Nicole (now available on iTunes!).

On September 25, at 9:58 AM

In my mind, film and literature walk hand-in-hand–after all, this blog began as one for my Senior Capstone film class while at Western Kentucky University, and I spent most of my time reviewing episodes of Big Little Lies and Better Call Saul. Throughout my undergraduate experience as a film major, I often turned to studies of literature and adaptation, as well as film criticism, to enter into the academic conversation, so to speak. There were no official “tracks” to guide me during my pursuit of a film degree, yet there were two that I noticed: the “production track,” where students were molded to enter the industry directly, and the “education track,” where students were shuttled into the exciting world of academia. Although I have production experience, I gleefully took the second track. And now here I am in an English Graduate program. No regrets.

The idea of adaptation is one that is fraught with debate, not only among me and my friends, but among culture as a whole; if I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, “yeah, but the book is always better,” I’d drop out of school and pay people to tell me how good my writing is. The thing is that no, the book isn’t always better, and oftentimes that comparison is wholly unjust. The book/comic/essay/whatever and the film/television show/whatever it’s based on are two different things, and should be evaluated as such. In my apartment my book shelf and media shelf are standing right next to each other, and I’m looking at how many titles appear in both. The previously mentioned Big Little Lies is a superb novel, but an awe-inspiring television series that is among the best I’ve ever seen. Still, I don’t see the series as any less than the novel, and vice versa. Stephen King’s The Green Mile is very similar to Frank Darabont’s adaptation of the same name, but I find myself appreciating both of them. Books and film make people feel connections to the works, in different ways. I can’t spend my life lessening one work of art in service to another so I won’t do it. If I were in consideration for a directorship in some English-Film department in the future, I’d campaign on a pro-fidelity criticism platform. (More on that later in my graduate school life, I’m sure.)

This is all an extended introduction to what I’m currently working on now. I won’t spoil it for anyone, and I’d like for whoever to read it to enter the reading experience semi-blind, but I’ll say that it’s a kind of a reverse adaptation: taking something from film into a heavily fictionalized piece of short fiction. Maybe it’s a foolproof answer to the question if the source text is better than it’s adaptation? I won’t get ahead of myself.

Pop culture that has made me happy these past few weeks: The Dinner by Herman Koch, for class; The Best American Short Stories of 1999, for pleasure; the audiobook version of Hillary Clinton’s What Happened, for peace of mind (politics aside it’s a remarkable tale of a woman dealing with a supreme loss, and it’s helped me get through a confusing time in my life); Insecure, because Issa Rae is a wonderful writer-actor; American Horror Story: Cult, because I’m a sucker for television that I fully acknowledge is not of great meritand the works of Stevie Nicksbecause if I were alive in the 70’s my celebrity crush would have been too much for me to handle.

 

On September 4, at 6:51 PM

I’ve been discussing and thinking about my writing a little more than usual lately, particularly over this long Labor Day holiday weekend. From submitting a recent story to various literary magazines and journals, to celebrating the recent publication of my short story “{Reminiscent of Sugar}” in Western Kentucky University’s undergraduate literary magazine Zephyrus, to exposing my writing to someone new and being excited by their feedback (which, as of right now, I have not yet received), it has been a productive weekend for the writing of Brent Coughenour.

The extent to which I’ve talked about writing is a new one for me. Until very recently I was quite hesitant to discuss my writing with anyone else, let alone allow them to read it–what a terrifying thought!–but now it’s something I welcome and revel in. Why has this change occurred? I haven’t necessarily grown any more confident in my writing, but now I’m comfortable with sharing it with others, and in the case of one particular person, anxious to hear what she has to say about it. I’ve grown as a person, sure, and I’ve realized that if I ever want to publish my writing anywhere else I have to let my guard down just a little bit, but that doesn’t mean I have to enjoy hearing feedback. Still that’s just what has happened, and I think it’s likely because of the workshop model that I’ve come to know and love in both my undergraduate education, as well as my graduate level learning.

Simply, I have no choice but to participate in workshop. I could always hide under the desk every time a piece of mine was up to bat, I guess, but my early workshop experiences, which started about two years ago, were immense learning experiences and they helped me pull off the proverbial band aid. The workshopping experience has not only made me less afraid, but has also given me an outlet to read a ton of stories (from my classmates as well as professional writers) and to think and discuss these stories in a setting where I felt like my ideas mattered. What a relief that was! Being involved in a writer’s workshop at least once a semester for the past two years has been a completely revealing experience, and one that I have strived for ever since the very start. If workshopping were a drug, I might be addicted to it.

On the literary front I’ve stayed busy, which I’ve come to discover is what I need to do in order to produce material that I enjoy–if my mind is always working with something new, it normally spells good news for my own creative output. Last week I submitted a new story “lagartija” for future workshop and have begun brainstorming ideas for its follow-up. I’m reading Rebecca by Daphne de Maurier for class, which has taken up a fair bit of my reading time, but I’m also reading Careers for Women by Joanna Scott and listening to the audiobook It by Stephen King in preparation for the newest cinematic adaptation. On television, I’m still working my way through Game of Thrones. Movies that I’ve watched and enjoyed this week include It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (Kramer, 1963), Blow (Demme, 2001), Logan Lucky (Soderbergh, 2017), and 12 Angry Men (Lumet, 1957).

 

Review: Better Call Saul, Episode 305: “Chicanery”

In the days since the fifth episode of Better Call Saul‘s third season aired I’ve convinced myself that it’s one of the best episodes of television that I’ve had the pleasure of seeing. “Chicanery” is great, almost in spite of how little action actually happens on the screen–most of the action takes place during one scene inside the courtroom of Jimmy’s disbarment hearing–although these characters advance exponentially over the course of 45 minutes. It’s cliche to say that lines are drawn and things will never be the same, yet it rings true for this episode of monumental importance.

The action in the courtroom is what surprised and impressed me that most on both a narrative and cinematic standpoint. Director Daniel Sackheim and his cinematographer Marshall Adams manage to make every shot from that tight courtroom feel claustrophobic and vital, never extraneous and consistently gorgeous. There’s a real struggle with realistically lighting dark rooms due to Chuck’s sensitivity, yet the crew of Better Call Saul does it each week with aplomb. This week it’s not only the courtroom, but  Chuck’s home in a cold open flashback to a dinner with Rebecca, now Chuck’s ex-wife. Not only is the the cold open lit almost entirely by candlelight as Chuck lies to Rebecca about his condition, but it’s also tinged with blue, a unique choice for flashback, but one that the show has used so well.

Each scene in this episode is heart-wrenching, but the cold open with Rebecca might take the prize. The show tries very hard to make Chuck relatable, or at the very least understandable, and it succeeds, yet it still can’t make Chuck likable. I don’t think that’s necessarily the intention of the writers–his actions are insufferable and his motives are often frustrating, but we understand that his tumultuous relationship with his brother and with the Law define who he is. These two come to a head during the episode’s final act, as Jimmy cross-examines his brother.

The entire episode builds to this one set piece. Watching the episode again, days later, “Chicanery” has a narratively cinematic vibe that is unparalleled. Each character gets their own scene before the dramatic tension of the hearing–Jimmy as he employs the familiar Huell Babineaux, Kim as she saves face to Mesa Verde by opening up to them about her legal predicament, and Hamlin telling Chuck, in lesser words, that he cares most about his firm, and not the man whose surname follows his own in the firm’s name. Unlike other episodes this season, the absence of characters from our other storyline (Nacho, Mike, Gus) doesn’t feel jarring, and indeed it feels necessary. Rhea Seehorn, Michael McKean, and Bob Odenkirk are remarkable in this episode, and all should submit this episode for consideration for this year’s Emmy nominations.

The tension between Chuck and Jimmy holds this episode together. They little ways they one up each other is both petty and awesome in the truest sense of the word. Jimmy’s actions in this episode have the potential to ruin Chuck’s life; Jimmy embarrasses him publicly in the legal setting that Chuck most admires, and he also embarrasses him in front of the woman he still loves when Jimmy brings in Rebecca to view the proceedings. Jimmy may have tainted Chuck’s life in a way that he cannot recover from, yet Chuck has been striving to do the same thing throughout the series. It’s Chuck’s own folly that he’s not as quick as his brother is.

A+. Television critics and scholars will be talking about this episode long after Better Call Saul has ended. 

Review: Better Call Saul, Episode 304: “Sabrosito”

In the few days since this episode has aired (it’s taken me a bit longer than usual to digest this one), I have called it one of the most satisfying episodes of television I’ve ever seen. Three days after its initial airing, I’m sticking to my initial praise: “Sabrosito” is the best episode of Better Call Saul‘s third season, so far, and manages to piece together the show’s interweaving storylines in a way that I knew was capable, but was itching to see since the first second of the season’s first episode “Mabel.”

As per usual, Mike Ehrmantraut is the glue that holds these two superficially different shows together. The first half of this week’s episode focused solely on Mike’s new friendemy Gustavo Fring and his dealings with Hector Salamanca, as well as Don Eladio (Steven Bauer, yet another Breaking Bad reprisal). We see the initial jealousy form between Hector and Gustavo here, a brilliantly intelligent touch that I never really thought we’d see explored in such detail, as Hector realizes that Gus is quickly becoming Don Eladio’s favorite drug smuggler, even though Hector has named his ice cream business after Eladio–“The Winking Greek. ”

Something that I’m frequently amazed with while watching this show is how well it makes you care for characters whose fates you are already aware of. The teaser of “Sabrosito,” which is entirely in Spanish, features no characters whose fates we are unsure of–Hector, Eladio, and Gus will all die within the decade. Still, I care for these characters, especially Mike, who doesn’t appear until a bit later. I’m captivated by their actions, thanks in large part due to the consistently wonderful ways they’re written–this episode was written by Jonathan Glazer.

After leaving Don Eladio’s home, a location I never though I’d see again, we’re transported back into Los Pollos Hermanos, where Nacho appears for the first time this season. I’ve missed him dearly and, although he doesn’t do much, his presence is always appreciated as Michael Mando just has a way about standing there and looking menacing. The scene in Los Pollos where Hector intimidates the customers and employees is so well done and so captivating on numerous levels that I had to remind myself I was watching Better Call Saul and not an episode of Breaking Bad. Show co-creator Vince Gilligan is on record as saying that “Sabrosito” is like the 64th episode of Breaking Bad, and I can see why.

Part of this feeling is because Jimmy and Kim do not appear until more than halfway through the episode, an incredibly brave choice that I’ve noted in Better Call Saul before. Even when Jimmy does appear though, the presence of Mike continues to remind audiences that much more is at work in this universe than Jimmy’s conflict with his brother. Mike posing as a handyman and fixing Chuck’s broken down door, all the while playing spy for Kim and Jimmy is hilarious and comically jarring as he and Chuck had never appeared in a scene together before. There is more going on in this storyline than meets the eye, as evidenced by a fair amount of suspicious conversation about the price of a cassette tape, yet the writers and directors of Better Call Saul will reveal this information slowly, milking every second of their limited ten episode per season run.

Although it is a near perfect episode of television, “Sabrosito” still feels like two separate television shows in many ways. There’s not quite the same kind of concrete uniformity as in Breaking Bad (everything revolved around Walter in that show), yet that can be attributed to the fact that there are two main characters in Better Call Saul: Jimmy and Mike. For now I’ll enjoy getting two TV shows for the price of one, but I anxiously await the moment when Jimmy is drawn into the Gustavo Fring cycle of scum and villainy.

A.

Review: Better Call Saul, Episode 303: “Sunk Costs”

I’m of the opinion that there will never be any kind of equilibrium for any of these characters, at least not for the duration of Better Call Saul. Even Saul Goodman won’t get much equilibrium in his future, as Walter White will certainly come along, yet in this timeline, too, it feels impossible. There will always be a case, always something to work out, and always something to prevent Jimmy, our flawed hero, from succeeding in his life.

Still, the ending of “Sunk Costs” almost feels like it could be happy one. Kim and Jimmy share a cigarette, hatch a plan, and hold hands to form an “M” with their arms, an undeniably sweet moment in an episode that hadn’t been full of them for Jimmy. He’s already been arrested, booked, and released on bail, so this moment with Kim feels all the more important to him. He’s realized that Chuck is likely aiming to disbar him, yet he and Kim have a line of defense. Only time will tell if it succeeds–smart money is that no, it will not–yet there’s a semblance of happiness among the partners at law, and maybe that’s what they need as troubled waters sit in their way. Speaking of Kim, there’s a brilliant Bond-esque montage of Kim getting herself ready in the morning, as she’s sleeping in the office and getting ready for her day in the gym across the street. She walks out of gym, clean and refreshed, along with the people covered in sweat from working out. I half-expected the building to blow up behind her as she left.

Mike, on the other hand, seems to be willing to wade in the troubled waters. Towards the beginning of the episode, Gus, who has still not been officially given his name, offers Mike the chance to get out, and to leave the Salamancas behind. Gus doesn’t want Hector Salamanca dead, not yet at least, but he doesn’t want Mike messing around with him either. Giancarlo Esposito, who has been promoted to the main cast starting with this episode, is still so terrifying as Gus, especially when he’s dressed in all black and framed against the desert. Again, the show is phenomenal at de-escalating and not giving us what we want. It would be all too easy for Gus and Mike to willingly team up together yet that isn’t the case, although Mike certainly pulls off an elaborate stab at the Salamanca ice cream truck/drug dealing operation. It’ll take a while for Gus and Mike to fully embrace each other’s unique talents, just like everything else on this show.

Chuck continues to become one of the more despicable villains in the Gilligan-verse, which is saying a lot when people like Gus Fring and Walter White are walking around. I think the reason that Chuck’s villainy feels so cold is because he still thinks he’s doing something good for Jimmy. Keeping Jimmy in the mailroom is exactly the same thing as pressing charges against him, with he methodically does this episode, and Chuck justifies his own actions by saying that he’s helping his brother out. I anticipated Jimmy to call Chuck a “pig fucker” in this episode, yet his ice-cold assessment of Chuck’s future health issues is even worse.

I briefly noted last week that certain characters have yet to make any kind of impact on the show so far this season, specifically Michael Mando’s Nacho (and Patrick Fabian’s Howard Hamlin was also absent this week). There is a delicate balance that shows with large casts of characters have to juggle week-in and week-out to effectively showcase all of its working pieces, and I do think Better Call Saul does that well, yet this week it felt a little off. An “off” episode of Better Call Saul is better than just about anything on television though, and the show barrels on to the ever-promising future.

B.

Review: Better Call Saul, Episode 302 – “Witness”

I often find myself asking what I want from this series. I have not been shy in saying that I think the first two seasons of Better Call Saul were superior in almost every way to Breaking Bad and I have loved watching characters like Kim and Nacho go toe to toe with BB stalwarts Saul and Mike, yet I still love the thrill as BCS gets closer to its predecessor. Last night’s episode, “Witness,” directed by Vince Gilligan and written by Thomas Schanuz, was no exception to my perilous situation and I say without irony that I had a big, dopey smile on my face the entire time. Better Call Saul got as close as possible to Breaking Bad last night, yet I don’t think it will stay that way as the season progresses. It sure as hell was a fun ride, though.

As everyone with a pulse knew would happen, Giancarlo Esposito and his character Gustavo Fring made their triumphant return to the world of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the extended scene of his return is one of the best the show has ever done. Eager to explore his criminal side, Jimmy agrees to help Mike spy on a man whom he has tracked to Los Pollos Hermanos, a familiar sight. Jimmy, whose willingness to break bad makes him very much like Saul Goodman but whose inability to stay innocuous makes him very much like Jimmy McGill, almost stumbles into the chicken restaurant following the man that Mike has tracked. Ordering food and a coffee, Jimmy sits down yet keeps his eyes on his man the entire time, a rookie mistake in the world of tailing and an obvious one under the watchful eye of Gus Fring. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention how often I laughed at Jimmy try to stay under-the-radar and how funny I found this entire scene to be. Why would Jimmy think it’s a good idea to move closer to someone and then stare at them the entire time if he’s trying to not be obvious? Bob Odenkirk’s performance here is perfectly awkward and one almost forgets that Gus Fring is about to pop out and confront him. It’s great to see Esposito in this character once more, yet my eyes were on Jimmy and his almost-transformation. He doesn’t know just how far this path will take him, but his youthful innocent exudes and he’s more than willing to let the criminal side of his character break through the legal facade he tries to show the world. Jimmy even wants to tail the target, and barely takes no for an answer when Mike tells him he doesn’t need his help. “I’ve got your back,” this eager Jimmy/Saul hybrid says to Mike. Jimmy is no Saul, not yet, and this is an early lesson in stealth and criminality that bites Mike quite immediately and will no doubt implicate Jimmy in the long run.

Meanwhile, Jimmy has more important things to worry about than the mustard-colored suit that confronted him in Los Pollos Hermanos. Chuck has played the long con (which only needed eight days to come to fruition) by banking on Ernesto running to Jimmy and Kim to tell them about Chuck’s tape recording. Kim willfully becomes Jimmy’s legal representation, despite the fact that she knows he’s guilty, yet he isn’t interested in legal action. He drives to Chucks, breaks in and destroys the tape, all in front of Howard Hamlin and a bodyguard hired by HHM. This admission of guilt will get Jimmy in trouble, as well as his break-in of his brother’s home, and the wall protecting Jimmy from the world is starting to crumble.

The episode opens and closes with scenes in Chuck’s home, although his villainy shines through the episode. It feels strange calling Chuck a villain, and his evolution into an antagonist of the show is one of the more careful evolutions that Gilligan & Co. have done. I frequently hate Chuck for being a foil to Jimmy, yet I feel bad for him as well. He’s obviously sick, his wife left him (as Jimmy calls out to him in this episode), and his morals are seemingly in the best place. Michael McKean plays him so well, and he’s a sympathetic character, but he’s also a sonofabitch, and his faux-goodness is the worst thing about him.

“Witness” is careful in moving the plot forward, and more or less is an extension of last week’s “Mabel” in its set up of the entire season. In many ways this episode is thrilling and does a perfect job at increasing tension, yet it also continues the ignoring on Michael Mando’s Nacho character. It makes sense that, through his involvement with the Salamanca’s, Nacho would also be involved with Fring, yet I don’t see how he’ll play into this season just yet. Mando’s placement in the main cast has always felt off–he only appeared in four episodes of the ten episode first season–yet he’s a great character and I look forward to seeing more of him. Will that be next week? Will this show become all about Gus from this point on? How will Jimmy worm his way out of the punishment of the law? I can’t wait to find out.

A- 

Marvel Promises More “Guardians,” More James Gunn

In a move which surprised utterly no one, James Gunn announced today that he is returning to the Marvel Cinematic Universe to direct and write the third installment of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, the second of which opens in theaters the first weekend of May. Unlike a usual announcement, which would come from the higher-ups at Marvel, Gunn announced the news himself on his Facebook page, revealing the news to millions of fans who, like myself, were unsurprised at this news.

Marvel (and by proxy, Disney) has proven time and time again that they don’t when to quit, so at this point I have the expectation that they will not quit, regardless of where their storylines go. Gunn mentions in his post that the Marvel Universe has been leading up to Infinity War, in which the Guardians of the Galaxy will appear. Speculation about the nature of their appearance has run rampant both before and after Marvel confirmed they would be in the film, yet these preemptive announcements take a little bit out of the excitement of Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, at least for me. I will, of course, go into Vol. 2 with the assumption that no real threat will befall our heroes and that they will survive  for the events of Infinity War, but I have no idea what to expect from the latter film. Although Marvel hasn’t been known for killing their main characters, or even changing them significantly from one film to another, their persistence that Infinity War is some kind of end-of-the-road film where all bets are off creates a new kind of hype surrounding that film. Anything could seemingly happen in that two-parter, the first part hitting theaters next summer, but now, with this confirmation of Guardians 3, we can safely assume that those characters will make it through the world-defining Infinity War struggle unscathed.

Herein lies my biggest problem with Disney/Marvel. Although superhero fatigue has set in–many of their films have failed to reach the levels of their predecessors–Marvel continues to announce an onslaught of further and further productions. Last week, news popped up that Disney also does not have an end for the Star Wars franchise in sight, although the ninth episode and conclusion of The Force Awakens trilogy will bow in 2019.  The money will continue to roll into the pockets of Disney executives and the studio will pump out further and further adaptations and sequels.

Still, James Gunn expresses desire in his Facebook post that the this iteration of the Guardians will end with the third installment. On one hand, I have absolute faith that Gunn will handle these unique characters with ease and end their story appropriately. On the other hand, I fully expect Disney to announce a new iteration of the series soon after. This is the company which has given the world three Spider-Man series in 15 years, after all.