Emotions and Fictions: How Do I Give A Shit?

In an earlier article entitled "Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of An Immoralist, which can be found here: http://cliffsmovietalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/siding-with-murderer-confessions-of.html, I asked a question concerning my tendency to cheer or root for Jason, Freddy, or Michael of Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween, respectively.  The question was: am I immoral, bad, wrong, evil etc. because I cheer for Jason to murder his victims even though Jason and his victims are fictional?  Built into this question, and the article as a whole, is an assumption, namely - that real people are in fact able to have real emotional reactions to fictional characters and fictional happenings.  So, the purpose of this follow-up article is to address that assumption and elaborate on it because it's an important piece of our experience when we watch movies, listen to songs, and/or read novels etc. that goes unnoticed and ignored.

If you have ever read a novel, poem, watched a movie, or heard a song and were moved emotionally

by it, then you have experienced what is commonly referred to as the fictional paradox.  The fictional paradox, to put it simply, is when a real person has a real emotional reaction to something that happens to a character, who is fictional or not real, in a movie, song, poem, novel, or painting etc..  This is called a paradox for one primary reason which can be stated as such: how and why is it possible for real people to have real emotional reactions to non-real characters in a fictional space?

If you have ever experienced this paradox, then you should be bothered by it because it should disturb your rationality a little bit.  Essentially what the paradox is implying is that every time you have an emotional reaction to a fictional movie character in a fictional space, your feelings are irrational.  However, I doubt that you would would accept that your real emotional reaction is irrational (I know I don't accept this).  My emotional reactions are real when I watch any SAW movie and the tortures that the characters endure gets under my skin.  I do not want to deny that those reactions are real.  I want to say that they are real and rational, but the paradox slaps me in the face and screams:

"No, your emotions are irrational, nobody is REALLY being tortured.  Those characters are NOT REAL."  Yet, I still want to argue that my emotional reaction is REAL despite my knowing that the characters are fictional and in a fictional space.  But how and why????

The 'how and why' pieces of puzzle are so crucial because without the 'how and why,' we basically have a huge gap in our understanding of the human condition; our condition.  I don't know about you but I am hostile to the notion that I am unable to explain a part of my own self.  In other words, since I have access to my own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and moods, then I should be able to explain why and how it is that I can have an emotional response to a scary movie, romantic comedy, poem, or novel.  However, this task seems to be endlessly complicated, yet we go on watching movies, reading poems and novels, listening to music without giving the paradox any considerations.  I find this part of the human condition dissatisfying, in that, we can be aware of something that needs explanation but because its hard we just ignore it.

So, the bottom-line is that the paradox lingers in and around us all the time and we ignore it. However, I challenge anybody to attempt to enter the ring and spar with the paradox and explain how and why we are able to have real emotional responses to fictional characters in a fictional space.  I am eager to hear thoughts and opinions on solving this paradoxical puzzle.

What Are Your "go to" Scary Movies?

Late one night, I found myself looking for a movie to watch.  It was between that time where you're sleepy, but not tired enough to go to sleep. I decided that I wanted to watch a good horror movie, which is very hard to find these days.

As I was going through my Netflix and Hulu account, nothing looked enticing. So, I went inside my memory warehouse (I got that from Stephen Kings 'Dreamcatcher', great movie by the way) and looked for my "go to" horror movies that creep me out when I watch them by myself.  You know what I'm talking about, the movies that make you paranoid enough to always look over your shoulder, or run up the steps to your room when you turn off all the lights, or when every little house noise turns into a life and death situation.  If a horror movie can do this to me, then I know it's good. Here are two movies (more to come) that consistently scare and creep me out no matter how many times I watch them.

1.Silent hill

This entire movie had weird all over it from the first time I watched it in theaters. The eerie music, dim environment, and the people that lived in Silent Hill, at least to me, could be based off a real town in backwoods USA somewhere. But the icing on the cake is the little girl who plays 3 different characters in the movie (two if you want to get technical). She was basically an innocent child that was bullied and tortured because her and her mother were the outcasts of the town. When she was burned alive (and lived), a witch or demon came to her and made a deal to make the people and the town itself suffer. Creepy!

2. Rob Zombie's Halloween

Rob Zombie did an excellent job with this movie, taking the Micheal Myers that everyone knows and giving him the perfect origin story. First of all, that kid who played Micheal just had a face that had serial killer written all over it. They showed his crappy home life, being picked on, and seeing him killing animals for the fun of it. Just watching a kid grow up with all those issues gives me some justification for accepting Micheal as a murderer. The adult Micheal was just a huge, strong, violent guy with no remorse. No matter how many times I watch this movie I cringe at the shear brute force of the way he kills someone.

What is your "go to" scary movie? What do you do when you get scared?

Movie Reviewers Need to Worry About Grammar, Here's Why...

My fellow movie reviewists: we are engaged in content warfare.  A battle for views, traffic, and acknowledgement.  Our weaponry consists of words, periods, commas, and the occasional semicolon (not to leave out the 'oh-so-important' parenthetical).  However, our weaponry is dull, gunky, and perpetually jamming because of poor grammar, punctuation, spelling, and other linguistic errors.  It is time to clean and sharpen our weaponry so we can continue fighting the good fight.

After spending about an hour and a half reading through various movie review blogs and comments, I have become skeptical that the individuals writing these blogs and comments are not equipped to do so, at least linguistically speaking.  This skepticism has prompted this post, which is directed at anybody, especially movie reviewists, who attempts to compare two things or rate one thing over another.  Enjoy.

In the movie review business, we are constantly comparing and contrasting two or more things and rating one thing over another.  So, having a strong grasp on the elements of language that allow us to accomplish these goals is crucial.  However, as I scroll through many movie review posts and blogs, both amateur and professional (believe it or not), I am constantly seeing the misuse of 'then' and 'than.'  Thus, I thought a post about the correct uses of both of these terms is warranted and hopefully movie reviewists, who are confused about when to use 'then' or 'than,' will stumble across it and correct their errors.  Obviously, this post is directed at English speaking people; however, I suppose someone who is a non-native English speaker and trying to improve their English could find this helpful as well.

The difference between the two is simply really.  The two most common instances when 'then' is used is when talking about temporal relationships between happenings or in conditional statements.  A couple of examples of the former are as follows:

1) I woke up this morning and then I ate breakfast.
2) Sally told her boss to screw himself and then she walked out.

A couple of the latter instances are as follows:
1) If I woke up this morning, then I ate breakfast.
2) If Sally walked out, then she told her boss to screw himself.

The use of the word 'than' is primarily used, at least in movie reviews, to indicate that the writer is contrasting two things, preferring, or rating, whether actually or hypothetically, one thing over another.  A few examples are as follows:

1) I like this movie better than  that one.
2) I would rather watch this television show or play this game etc. rather than watch any other show or play any other game.
3) Movie (X) has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than on the IMDB; or
4) I would rate movie (X) higher than movie (Y).

If one can master these simple differences, then they are more likely than not to demonstrate to their readers that they have a strong grasp of the English language. This is a good thing because readers who have a keen eye for grammar foul-ups are likely to stumble through posts with multiple inaccuracies.  So, the writer risks that particular reader not returning to his/her website.  If one is okay with the consequences of the risks taken by faulty grammar, then simply disregard this post altogether.  However, my guess is that most writers want their readers to return.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil - Review

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a horror/comedy that lives up to both genre labels, but is more heavy on the comedy than the horror. You're not going to be scared, but you are going to laugh.

The story is as follows: two backwoods country guys (Tucker and Dale) are taking a trip to fix up and renovate a vacation cabin that Tucker has just bought.  While Tucker and Dale are fixing up the cabin, they encounter some stereotypical dimwitted teenagers common to the horror genre.  Quickly, Tucker, Dale, and the teenagers find themselves in a situation wherein the line between who is good and evil is blurry at best.  Tucker and Dale think the teenagers are out to get them and at the same time the teenagers think the same about Tucker and Dale.  There's a kidnapping, people start dying in gruesome, but creative and  hilarious ways.  The movie basically rests on a HUGE misunderstanding due to a lack of communication.  

As I said at the beginning, this movie is classified as a horror/comedy.  However, the only thing about this movie that strikes me as being "horror" is that there is a lot blood, guts, gore, and death.  I suppose that could qualify as horror, but the story that is being told throughout the movie quickly dilutes any elements of "fear" or "scary-factor."  If you wanted to count the fear of dying as consistent with the "fear" representative of the horror genre, then this movie is within its classification.

I recommend this movie primarily because of the story and its hilarity, not necessarily because its scary in any meaningful sense.  There isn't great acting either; however, there are enough characters representing enough personalities that you get a little bit of everything in the way of character development, but don't expect anything deep.  So, if you like exaggerated gore and decent effects that are expected from a horror film and idiocy from characters and if you have an hour and a half to kill one day, then give this movie a shot.

It is currently available on Netflix as of 1/25/2016.   

Uncovering Systemic Pedophilia: A movie review of 'Spotlight'

First and foremost, I want to say that this movie and review is not attacking the Catholic Church or any religion in any way, shape, or form. If you know, know of, or even have children yourself, this movie review will hit home and open your eyes. Even if you don’t you’ll be able to understand and relate to the issues they bring up in this movie to your everyday life. These issues include favoritism, entitlement, privilege, buddy-buddy hook-ups, quid pro quo (this for that), the list goes on. Let’s get started and you’ll be able to see what I’m talking about.

Spotlight is a very small team of investigative journalists that are a part of the Boston Globe newspaper. They tackle challenging stories that could take a year or more to investigate so they can report it with as much accuracy as possible. A new editor comes to the paper and starts go through previous articles and investigations that were written. He stumbles across a story about a priest who had molested 80 children and wants to dig deeper.  He assigns Spotlight to the story and they go deep into the community by talking to victims, unsealing court documents, and challenging the Catholic Church as a whole.

They state in the movie that Boston is 60% catholic and almost everybody is involved with the church in one way or another. While the investigation was going on they found out that there was an enormous number of priests and children involved and that almost all the priest involved were still active. Needless to say this movie will keep you interested and have you thinking beyond your viewing of this movie.

  

Resurrecting a comedy classic: Tropic Thunder

Booty sweat, bust-a-nut-bar, Robert Downey Jr. acting in black face, Ben Stiller going full retard, Tom Cruise behaving like a raging hairy (why is he so fucking hairy?) psychopath.  This movie came out in 2008 but, is nonetheless, still hilarious and worth another watch or a first for those who have not seen it.

The plot, without any spoilers, is as follows: five actors, Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, and Brandon Jackson play the roles of five melodramatic and abysmal actors making a Vietnam war film based on a Vietnam veteran's war experience.  The five actors, after failing to cooperate with their director on scene, are dropped off in the Vietnam jungle and told to follow a map to a location where they will be evacuated from the jungle.  Along their journey, the five man platoon is supposed to encounter simulated wartime explosions, gunfire, and other battle like activities.  However, they are lead off course and Stiller is captured by a gang of Vietnamese drug lords.  The rest are left to fend for themselves in the jungle dealing with Jack Black's character going through heroin withdraw, and Downey Jr.'s character alienating Jackson's character (a black guy by nature) by staying in character as black face, among other things.

This movie is a comedy through and through and not meant to be any kind accurate telling of the Vietnam War or a depiction of true events.  Although there is some blood, guts, and gore, it is related to the shenanigans that these characters find themselves engaged in due to their own dumb-ass antics, not because of any meaningful battles during the Vietnam War.  This is not a Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers type movie so do not come into it thinking it is.

For those of you who have not seen it, I highly recommend this movie if you are not uber-sensitive to people making fun of mentally retarded folks or have low tolerance for race induced humor.  For those of you who have seen it, then I recommend watching it again because, simply put, it's freaking hilarious.  I would almost go as far to say that Robert Downey Jr. should have won an award for his performance because how many other actors can do black face and get away with it without being chastised and publicly ruined for it?

Anyway, let us know what you thought about this movie in the comment section below.

IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Movie Reviews and The Electoral College: An Unlikely Pair

Analogies are fun because sometimes comparing two things that seem, prima facie, utterly dissimilar can actually influence and enhance perspective of those independent things in light of one another. Today's analogy will compare the electoral college and movie reviews.

In the United States system of government, there is something called the electoral college.  In a nutshell, the electoral college is comprised of elected officials in charge of casting a vote for a presidential candidate.  Presidential candidates are often thought to be elected in accordance with the popular vote coming from the general voting population.  However, this is only partly true.  The electoral college has a major influence in deciding who will be president. For example, if a candidate receives 270 electoral college votes but loses the majority vote, then the candidate receiving those 270 votes from the electoral college becomes president in spite of losing the popular vote.  In U.S. history there have been four presidents elected to office despite losing the popular vote, the most recent being George W. Bush in 2000 defeating John Kerry.  This means that a majority of  U.S. voting citizens elected John Kerry, but because George W. Bush accumulated the required 270 votes from the electoral college, George W. Bush won.

Like the U.S. voting system, movie reviews comes in a couple different forms.  There is a popular vote and a critic vote.  The popular vote could be thought of consisting of the average movie enthusiast not really versed in academic theory, is not affiliated with a view consistent with a particular way of viewing movies, and/or has no political filter.  The professional critic can be thought of as being  analogous with members of the electoral college, in that, both are professional voters.

Sometimes a movie is reviewed by professional critics, and their views for why a movie is the way they say it is, is different from the popular vote.  For example, if one looks at websites such Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDB, then one might find that there are separate categories for movie reviews. One category belongs to the professional critics and the other belongs to the general populace.  Often times the professional critics, using different styles of argumentation, will conclude that a film is poor which is the opposite of what the popular vote concludes.  Therefore, we have a similar situation concerning movie reviews as with the governmental system of the U.S.

Now that the analogy has taken form, the question then becomes what exactly is the take-away or what can we learn?  One argument, that applies to both the electoral college and movie reviews, is that both seem to be arbitrary systems of evaluation derived by doing a synthesis of quantifiable data.  Both require leaning heavily on statistical data showing how a majority and minority of professional voters/critics and amateur voters/critics compare and contrast against one another.  Whether a candidate is chosen by the popular vote or by the electoral college or a movie is determined good/bad etc. by professional critics or amateur reviewers, we rely heavily on numbers to tell us what the bottom line is.  If a majority of critics vote a movie to be poor, but the popular vote indicates that the movie is good, then how do we really know if the movie is good or bad?  Is there a separate criteria for evaluating movies other than reducing the value of a film to a dichotomous relationship and applying a percentile rank?

We could consider a qualifiable method of evaluation instead of reducing a film's worth to a quantified snippet.  This is where the electoral college might be able to teach us something about movie reviews.  The U.S. governmental system needs numbers, statistical data, and a synthesis of qualified feelings into quantified entities.  The democratic system arguably depends on having people's views of issues reduced to a 'yes' or 'no' 'this' or 'that' type reduction for the sake of efficiency. Due to this necessity, and a nuanced technicality of the U.S. governmental system, the electoral college teaches us that a few can contradict the views of a majority.  However, is this the same in movie reviews?  If professional critics all vote a film favorably but the popular vote is unfavorable, do the critics triumph?  The 'true' value of a film may not be buried in the synthesized for consumerism statistical data that companies such as IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes provide us.  How could a method incorporating qualified measures assist in bringing together the professional critic view and amateur movie enthusiasts view in order to unify the dichotomy?  If this last question could be answered, it may be possible to arrive at a film's true value.

My hope, in the end, is that the electoral college method does not apply to film, however, I'll save any true conclusory remarks for another time. 

'The Guest' movie review & recommendation

Actor Dan Stevens, most notably from the television show Downton Abbey, plays David in this psychological thriller.  The premise of this movie is as follows: David arrives at the home of a deceased soldier, whom David claims he served with in the military, and is greeted by the deceased soldier's grieving family consisting of a father, mother, brother, and sister .   David explains to the family of the deceased soldier that his dying words were for David to reach out to his family and simply let them know the soldier loved them very much.  The mother initially suggests that David stay in their home while David search for a more permanent situation.  After the father learns of the invitation, there is a scuffle between the mother and father as to the arrangements offered to David.  Eventually, the father concedes and extends the invitation for David to stay; David accepts.

The brief summary of the happenings in the very first moments of the film seem quite mundane and undramatic.  However, I must say that the acting by Stevens playing the character of David is, from the very outset of the movie, in a word: creepy.  Not overtly creepy like Jack Nicholas in The Shinning , but much more subtle like when the high E string is plucked on a guitar that is slightly out of tune; it's disturbing to the ear but not enough to make one cringe.  David's stature, square jaw, piercing blue-eyes, calming voice, and aloof personality in conjunction with his polite demeanor and overall charisma make David a complex character.  When David's character is viewed in the context of the scene describe above, one can easily infer that there is more to the story than David is letting on.   David's persona, throughout the entire film, has calming yet unnerving effect in every situation, which makes earns the film its 'psychological' piece of psychological thriller.  I would venture to say that if Stevens' acting was not on point for this film, then I would not have bothered to watch it or recommend anybody else watch it.

So, in order to not give any spoilers, I shall simply summarize the rest of the story just enough to where you can make an informed decision about whether to give it chance or not.  David infiltrates the deceased soldier's household and begins develop relationship with the members of the soldier's family.  David, furthermore, becomes the healing presence for the family's grief, but simultaneously being an object of skepticism.  The plot is ingrained in David's ability to befriend the members of the deceased soldiers family: the brother, who has a tendency to be the object of others' ridicule and aggression, ally with the daughter, who is still in adolescent stage of life wherein the consequences of life have not set in, the mother, who has just lost a son and is ignored by the father, and the father, who is an alcoholic drinking to suppress whatever pity he may have for himself.  These relationships are crucial to David's intentions and thus have significant importance in how the story-line plays itself out.

There are, of course, twists and turns within the plot.  Some of which will be anticipated by the viewer who is a frequent watcher of this genre of film.  However, there is one plot twist that is especially noteworthy (I will not detail it any further) and almost changes the direction of the entire film.  I caution the viewer of this not to spoil anything, but to exploit a potential hiccup in the film's plot that may leave the viewer with a bad taste in their mouth.  There is some gore involved but nothing over the top.  The film proceeds at a steady pace most of the time; however, there are scenes that seem to drag on longer than necessary where a shorter scene could be just as effective.  Overall, it's a decent film for those who like character development depth (nothing too deep though)  and appreciate a manipulative plot with some action scenes thrown in for good measure.

I am interested in reading future comments about what everybody thinks who has either seen this movie or sees it in the future with regards to their reaction toward the ending.  Particularly, I am interested in reading thoughts on the response to this question: Did the ending make or break the movie?

This movie as of 1/17/2016 is still available on Netflix for those of you who hold a subscription.

Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of an Immoralist.

Superficially, what do Jason Vorhees, Freddy Kruger, and Michael Myers all have in common.  Among other things, they all kill a lot of people indiscriminately.  Arguably, the films are challenging to watch because, if you are like me, I am not sure for whom I should be cheering.  For example, do I root for the ignorant and stumbling teenager who Jason is chasing and is more than likely going to annihilate the face of with his machete?  Or do I root for Jason to slice that kid up into a thousand pieces and continue the rampage and impose his wrath onto his next victim?  The same questions can be applied to Freddy and/or Michael; who's corner am I in?  Let us take this in stride starting from the top.

Jason and Freddy share another crucial factor, namely - they were wronged and are out seeking revenge.  Jason was brutally teased as a child, Freddy was lured by the parents of his victims to a building, where he was set on fire and burned to "death."  Michael, on the other hand, from the beginning of his life was just a sociopath with a murderous personality.  In the case of Freddy or Jason, I can sympathize with their intentional positions in that if I were treated the way they were, I may consider externalizing my rage on the world in a similar fashion.  However, in the case of Michael, it is a little bit harder to sympathize with him because I do not know what it's like to see the human as something to be killed for pleasure.  Though it is harder to sympathize with Michael and easier with Freddy and/or Jason, I still have found myself siding or cheering for any one of the three as they slice, chop, hack, and claw their ways through victim after victim.

If your like me and have ever cheered for Michael, Freddy, or Jason, then we must admit that we have cheered for a murderer.  Regardless of what Jason or Michael's intentions are for why they kill, the fact is that they are murderers.  I have actually watched one of the Friday the 13th films and picked out one of the characters I hated and hoped Jason killed them.  Then when Jason actually did kill that character, I would be excited and thankful as if the character deserved it.  Moreover, if the killing was especially brutal, namely if the character received a machete through the face, this would enhance my excitement.

If you have made it this far, then we probably have similar experiences.  Here is where things get a little complicated, though.  We cheer for Freddy, Jason, or even Michael to slaughter their targets, but would you cheer for the 9/11 terrorists, James Holmes (guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado) Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing), Ted Bundy (serial killer), Jeffrey Dahmer (serial killer), Osama Bin Laden (suspected mastermind behind 9/11), I could go on but you get the point.  Did we cheer as the people, who were stuck in the Twin Towers, jumped out of the windows to avoid being burned to death or die of asphyxiation?  Would we cheer if we were to watch a replay of the Aurora shooting while people were shot in their faces or delight as a pregnant woman has her stomach ripped open by a bullet causing the fetus to ooze out of the wound?  Do you think the juries, who watched the multiple bodies Dahmer chopped up to consume carried out of his apartment, were eating popcorn and relishing in the film?  My guess is that the answer to all of the above is "No" we would not cheer, delight, or relish in any of this.  So why do we do it in the cases of Freddy, Jason, and Michael?

There are going to be some who are chomping at the bit to make this argument, which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are fictitious characters in fictitious movies not grounded in reality whatsoever.  The movies do not even pretend to depict real life events.  In other words, Freddy, Jason, and Michael are just simply not real and neither are the characters they kill or the plots they carry out.  However, those people who jumped out of the Twin Towers, the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing, Holmes' gunshot victims were real.  Those events actually happened and those victims actually died.  Cities, communities, and families were ripped apart, destroyed, and annihilated due to the acts of a few or single actors.  There is a difference between real life events and consequences and fictitious events and consequences.  One should not conflate the two or argue that the two are similar.

While I am sympathetic to this argument, there is a nagging itch I have to make another argument which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are murderers.  When I cheer them for their accomplishments, I am cheering murder.  Yes, the murder is pretend; however, the object of my delight is murder nonetheless.  Murder, I argue, is a concept which transcends the realm of fiction.   Murder is supposed to be bad, wrong, evil, immoral etc. regardless of where, when, how, or to whom it happens.  A note must be made here that justified homicide i.e. self-defense or defense of others is not murder, it is justifiable homicide; there is an argument that they are different both morally and legally.  When I cheer Jason, Freddy, or Michael I am blurring my normal moral evaluations and engaging in behavior that would otherwise illicit condemnation from others and from myself as well.  Yet, when my friends and I watch Jason, Michael, and/or Freddy dice someone up with a cleaver, machete, or in Freddy's case that wicked claw he has for a hand, and cheer we feel neither guilt nor shame or condemn each other or ourselves for this behavior.  Are we immoralists?

If you accept the premise that the concept of murder is a transcendental one and is bad, wrong, evil, immoral at anytime in anyplace, as I have been taught through my experience living in the world, then I need to justify my tendency to side with Jason, Freddy, or Michael when they murder their victims.  Perhaps, I side with them because I do not wholeheartedly believe that murder bad, wrong, immoral evil etc.?  Do these kinds of movies speak to a deeper level of consciousness, or perhaps the unconscious, within us?  They may allow us to indulge in our more animalistic tendencies for violence, destruction, and carnage.  Siding with Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael could be a way of appreciating the suppressed inner killer that is shadowed by prohibitive moral judgments.  How many times have you been cut off in traffic and wanted to unleash a furry of anger toward the person guilty of the infraction, but didn't?  Watching Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael murder at will may allow us to vicariously appreciate real unadulterated violence without real consequences.

Creed II: Discussing Potential Plot Points.

Potential Plot for Creed II

With the success of Creed and Sylvester Stallone receiving a Golden Globe, we can almost guarantee that there will be a sequel.  If there is (and I hope there will be), what’s going to happen? Have no fear because I have formulated a series of scenarios that ultimately will make Creed 2 a cinematic triumph.

Have Adonis fight the #1 contender (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler") that knocked him out earlier in the movie

We all know that Adonis only got that title shot fight because the current champ broke the jaw of the #1 contender.  Who’s to say that if the two fought, Danny would beat the champ and take the title. With the intimidation factor of being knocked out and possibly being the better fighter, Adonis would be in for the fight of his life.

Bring in some drama from Apollo’s biological children with his wife Mary Ann

In the entire series of the Rocky franchise the only time Apollo’s children have been referenced was in Rocky II. In the meeting where Apollo said he won the fight against Rocky but didn’t beat him, he said that his kids were being teased at school. There’s a scene before that that shows his children (a boy and girl) running through his house. They looked about 7 or 8 and that was back in 1979, so they would be significantly older than Adonis.  Have them be the bad guys, where they only care about money and didn’t care at all about their father or mother.  Perhaps they were disowned by Mary Ann and the rest of the Creed family for getting into drugs because they couldn’t handle the death of Apollo. Either way, bringing them into Creed II would be very interesting.

Have Ivan Drago’s son fight in the contest for the title

Wouldn’t you want to see Adonis fight the son of the man who killed his father in the ring. That would make out to be an epic fight full of blood, sweat, tears, and emotion. Have Drago’s son grow up with the roughest life possible.  Have his story start off right after the loss to Rocky in Russia. During the fight with Rocky, Drago not only lost but he also disrespected his superiors by talking back to them during the fight. This would cause him to be kicked out of the Russian military, disowned by the entire country of Russia, and become addicted to drugs (steroids). Drago, not able to find work, becomes homeless and abusive to his family. This would fuel Drago’s son to bring back honor to his family’s name and get revenge on the protégé of the man who ruined his father’s life. Now this could be saved for Creed III when Adonis would be training for the World Heavy Weight title instead of the Light Heavy Weight.

Bianca goes full blown deaf

Another obstacle that Adonis will have to conquer is dealing with and supporting his girlfriend through loss of her hearing. As stated by Bianca herself, she has progressive hearing loss that will inevitably result in her being deaf. We see this because she starts wearing hearing aids and learning sign language. This could play out well in the sequels. During the training montage for his next big fight, show Adonis learning sign language or helping Bianca get adjusted to her new deaf life.

What do you think? Do you have any other ideas for Creed II? Comment below