One of the strangest things in the movie blogosphere is the trend to write articles about things that are not going to happen. Actress XYZ will not star in movie ABC. Director DEF will not be directing movie GHI. The latest topic of conversation is that DC Entertainment's Diane Nelson told MTV the newly formed company doesn't "have any current plans for Superman." The only reason this is news is because it simply means the B.S. rumors that have been swirling since Bryan Singer's 2006 effort have all been a waste of time. Big surprise.

However, that doesn't mean other sequels aren't getting underway. How about Silent Hill 2, which The Hollywood Reporter says just got the greenlight at Columbia Pictures with Roger Avary and Samuel Hadida of Davis Films ready to pick up where they left off on the 2006 video game adaptation with an expectation to shoot the movie next year after Resident Evil 4, which it's now prepping.

Still on the sequel front a bit of non-news comes in the form of word Spider-Man 4 will hit IMAX theaters on May 5, 2011. How some people turned that bit of news into seven paragraph articles is beyond me.

Michael Moore alludes to the fact Capitalism: A Love Story may be his last documentary ever in an interview with The Huffington Post saying, "I am tired of feeling like I�m doing this alone. All through the eight years of Bush, you Google 'Bush' and 'nemesis' and I'm the first name up. And there aren�t a whole lot of other names... It doesn't work with Michael Moore and Sean Penn and Ted Kennedy and a few others. The people have got to get involved in their democracy." Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter has him saying his next doc may be focused on Obama depending on how things play out saying, "A year from now, the next movie may be about him."

Aaron Johnson as 'Kick-Ass' in Kick-Ass
Photo: Lionsgate

With the recent news Inglourious Basterds star Christoph Waltz has replaced Nicolas Cage and will play Chudnofsky, the villain in Michel Gondry's The Green Hornet, Cage talked to The Canadian Press about his decision to turn down the role and said:

"[I] wasn't interested in just being just a straight-up bad guy who was killing people willy-nilly."

"The Green Hornet was something that I wanted to do, I think Michel Gondry is very talented and I had hoped it would work but I think Seth Rogen and Michel had a different take on the character... I had to have some humanity and to try to give it something where you could understand why the character was the way he was but I don't think there was enough time to develop it."

Concept art from Mute (left) and The Cross (right)
Photo: Liberty Films / The Quiet Earth

Slate has a couple of interesting features related to this week's release of Dan Brown's latest Robert Langdon novel "The Lost Symbol," and both are worth a look. The first is "Can You Really Be a Professor of Symbology?" and the second is a little sillier titled "The Dan Brown Sequel Generator".

Finally, I leave you with what could be considered new art for Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones as the cover for the new trade paperback has found it's way online featuring Saorise Ronan as Susie Salmon meeting Stanley Tucci as George Harvey for the first time... creepy eh?

I don't condone the crew letter to Megan. And I don't condone Megan's outlandish quotes. But her crazy quips are part of her crazy charm. The fact of the matter I still love working with her, and I know we still get along. I even expect more crazy quotes from her on Transformers 3.

The Road director John Hillcoat talks about the misleading trailers for the film with Movieline telling the site:

[We] always discussed a two-pronged marketing attack. Which was one, for the people who hadn't read the book. Their argument was to give them a little more context, and try to show the more genre elements to that audience. And then, in time, with other stuff � there are going to be a few more teaser trailers to come � they were going to refer more to the book. So it's those two [approaches], and I can understand that from a marketing point of view. [...] I personally think it doesn't make sense to use footage that you haven't shot.

Speaking of telling it like it is, George Clooney got in on the action as the Daily Mail gets in on the action with George Clooney writing an article headlined How I feel about manners" recounting a recent encounter with an unhappy... "fan"?

"The other day I was at a party and a woman I didn't know came up to me and said, 'I hated your last movie.' I said, 'Oh. OK. Uh, thank you for your opinion.' She said, 'And I don't agree with your politics.' I said, 'OK. Well, we all have our own point of view, right?' She said, 'And you're a lot older in person than you seem on screen. She was just standing there saying all these things to me and, at last, I'd had enough. I smiled very politely and said, 'You know... those 35 extra pounds of weight you're carrying... they look just fantastic on you.'

She was astonished. She said, 'What did you just say to me?' I said, 'I'm paying you a compliment. I think all that extra weight looks terrific on you.'

She was furious! Called me an a***hole. I said, 'No, look here, I was just standing here minding my own business and you walked up to me and insulted me. Which one of us was out of line here?'

Thus ends our look at celebrity reactions. Here are some movie-related details with a book review to lead us off...

Next we have the first book review of Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol," the follow-up to "The Da Vinci Code," a book that ended up being looked at as controversial by people that obviously can't separate reality from fiction. What will happen this time? Well, the The New York Times has apparently fired their editors and Janet Maslin posted a two-page review right here. How soon before Hanks and Howard have the theatrical version in cinemas?

Apparently it's a big deal that director/star Drew Barrymore is kissing her Whip It! star Ellen Page in the pages of "Marie Claire". What I think is more interesting is the fact I'm linking to Marie Claire.

Six-time Grammy champ Justin Timberlake added a second Emmy to his shelf as the first "Saturday Night Live" host to win an Emmy. Tina Fey pulled one in for her Sarah Palin impression and Michael J. Fox won his first Emmy on the drama side for a recurring role on "Rescue Me".

Bruce Campbell as Snooty Usher in Spider-Man 2
Photo: Columbia Pictures

Coming Soon reports Sony Pictures has moved The Smurfs Movie out of the December 17, 2010 slot in an effort to avoid competition with the likes of The Green Hornet, Tron Legacy and Yogi Bear to the new date of July 29, 2011.

The Cheapest Muppet Movie Ever Made will be the title of the Jason Segel penned Muppet movie for Disney. Word on the story is nil although Dark Horizons points out the title refers to an unproduced idea for a film Henson had in 1985 in which Gonzo becomes a film director and quickly blows out the film's budget.

Disney also recently revealed Timothy Dalton will voice a character in Toy Story 3 named Mr. Pricklepants while additional story details have now been revealed letting us know Andy's toys have been donated to a daycare center where they are abused by the little kids there and they must find a way out and a new owner. I wish the G.I. Joe toys I gave to the kid next door when I was younger had had the same ability.

It was removed from my last update so here it is again... the trailer for Twilight: New Moon which will air tonight at the MTV Video Music Awards:

Finally, here is a teaser trailer for the upcoming Disney attraction "Star Tours II" proving the events of the prequels will never go away no matter how many times people say they didn't enjoy them:

SlashFilm breaks down the details right here.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/disney-buys-marvel-for-4-billion-and-the-internet-erupts The only real news here is the fact a lot of big numbers changed hands and a new company will be shelling out movies featuring men in spandex.

The current deal in place with Paramount to distribute Iron Man 2, Thor, The First Avenger: Captain America and The Avengers remains intact. That deal, which was made back in September of 2008 saying Paramount would distribute Marvel's next five self-produced feature films on a worldwide basis. With the four films already listed, it leaves one more, which would most likely be Iron Man 3 in my estimation.

Under the deal, Disney will acquire ownership of Marvel including its more than 5,000 Marvel characters. Mr. Perlmutter will oversee the Marvel properties, and will work directly with Disney's global lines of business to build and further integrate Marvel's properties.

In more interesting news, Newsarama listened in on the investor conference and quoted a response when someone asked about the possibility of a Marvel/Pixar team-up. "We actually have had some conversations internally, and [Pixar's] John Lasseter met with some of the key Marvel creative executives fairly recently and the group got very excited pretty fast," Disney's President and CEO, Bob Iger said. "We had to say, 'slow down guys, we haven't done this deal yet.'" Still, Iger said, "You can put a lot of creative, enthusiastic people in a room that can appreciate the value of great characters and interesting worlds, a lot can happen... sparks can fly, is the expression that comes to mind."

So, while I assume the majority of the more mainstream Marvel features will most likely find their way to Touchstone and seemingly remain no different than they were in the past, this does afford Marvel far more creative outlets than they had when they were operating on a solo basis. Of course, that seemed to be the way Marvel was heading and they were sitting pretty after the success of Iron Man and its $585 million worldwide take, but this move seems just as good as any.

I guess what I am most curious about is where do deals with characters such as the X-Men franchise lie? How about that Wolverine sequel or Magneto, both at Fox? Are the Fantastic Four still held by Fox? What about The Incredible Hulk and Universal? Sony seems to want to make Spider-Man movies forever with Spider-Man 4, Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6 already in the works. Disney said in the investor call they would like to self-distribute down-the-line, but I guess the full meaning of that is yet to be known. There are a few loose-ends and I am sure enough licensing agreements out there to keep everyone busy for quite some time, but I really don't expect this to be a deal movie fansites should get too worked up over.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/vanderbilt-set-to-pen-spider-man-5-and-6 Spider-Man 4, which will begin production early next year for a proposed May 6, 2011 release, but will they stick around for the now announced Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6?

We learned back in June 2008 that Zodiac screenwriter James Vanderbilt was the first writer on Spider-Man 4 followed up by work from David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross, but Variety now announces Vanderbilt has been quietly engaged by Sony to begin work scripting 5 and 6.

Michael Fleming at Variety says Raimi didn't embrace all of Vanderbilt's ideas, but execs at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios have. Vanderbilt has been hired to pen the fifth and sixth movies, which have an interconnected storyline. That's what was originally discussed when Vanderbilt signed on to write Spider-Man 4, but the idea of shooting a fourth and fifth film back to back with the original cast was scrapped.

As for my earlier question regarding Raimi and Maguire, Fleming adds it is unclear whether they will be back for the fifth and sixth installments, but if they aren't, Vanderbilt's script would be the blueprint for a franchise reboot. The goal appears to ensure more Spider-Man films are turned over from year-to-year since the time between sequels has continued to grow with each installment as four years will have passed between Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 4. Fleming also mentions we should expect the success of this weekend's District 9 to spawn a sequel as well expect an Angels and#038; Demons follow-up based on Dan Brown's forthcoming Robert Langdon novel "The Lost Symbol" this September. No surprises there.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/forget-spider-man-4-in-3-d-heres-the-real-news Spider-Man 4 "could be" released in 3-D. Want to see what they are taking this information from? Here's the exchange without any paraphrasing from the Forbes.com article headlined "Sony's Chiefs On What's Next For Movies":

Are you considering doing any live action movies in 3-D? What about Spider-Man 4?

Pascal: Could be.

Lynton: People are paying a premium to see movies in 3-D and that's a very big deal. It's never been done before that someone says you have to pay more to see Spider-Man than a romantic comedy.

Before we address the fact a studio head has finally been honest about the reasoning behind why they are supporting this latest wave of 3-D films let's look at a few of the other statements from the interview such as when Amy Pascal says theatrical returns are still holding up, but DVD is not: "The problem is the DVD market is down from where it was before," she says. "Since we are very dependent on that as a studio, that is a problem for us."

Pascal's approach to the DVD problem is understandable, but Lynton takes it much further once Blu-ray is brought up:

Do you think DVD sales are down for good?

Lynton: What you see happening is that every time a new technology or means of distribution show up, about every decade or so, there's an enormous growth in the business because there's another way to exploit the library. We just went through one with DVD. Now we need the next one. I don't mean to sound Pollyannaish but there's always a next one.

There are a lot of concerns that if the next big thing is distribution over the Internet it will hurt revenue.

Lynton: I think DVD has been a real gold mine for a lot of reasons. You were selling a packaged good in a big mass market so you could make it huge. You were selling or renting a thing that people didn't consume. You go to Blockbuster, rent five movies and only watch two. That's a good business to be in. The potential problem with the Internet is that people are going to buy only what they watch and we are going to get paid only for what they watch. It may be a smaller window from a financial standpoint but it will be incremental to the windows we already have.

Do you think Blu-ray will make up for lost DVD revenue?

Lynton: That's the hope, but I'm a little skeptical. The question is whether people will really replace their libraries. Plus it would appear there's already price erosion in Blu-ray, so we're not making the price point we originally hoped for. The entertainment industry at large has pretty much given away high definition to consumers. They haven't really charged a premium for it on television. That makes consumers more likely to buy Blu-ray but less likely to pay a premium for it.

EXPLOITATION:

Let's look at the first response when asked if Lynton thought DVD sales were down for good. He replies by noting how new advances in technology are not a way to bring a better product to consumers, but yet another way to "exploit" their library, which really means another way of getting people to pay for something a second time, but it gets even better with a quote I could hardly believe when I read it, "The potential problem with the Internet is that people are going to buy only what they watch and we are going to get paid only for what they watch."

Yup, Lynton considers it a "problem" for people to only pay for what they watch. How dare you not pay for more than you actually wanted to watch. This is the reason I believe Netflix is soon going to run into trouble with their Instant Play feature as cable providers won't enjoy losing ground to a service in which you simply have access to a library of entertainment at your fingertips. I heard Netflix was trying to (or may have already secured) a deal with HBO where Instant Play subscribers could pay an additional fee and add HBO programming to their list of options. Isn't this what all cable subscribers have been asking for for years? The ability to pay for only the channels they watch as opposed to hundreds of channels they will never even tune to?

DVD VS. BLU-RAY -- WILL YOU PAY?:

Lynton next explores the "problem" with Blu-ray, which is people have become so used to getting high-definition along with standard definition television for no extra cost that they aren't willing to pay more for it on Blu-ray even though they will buy Blu-ray as long as it is the same price as DVDs. "That makes consumers more likely to buy Blu-ray but less likely to pay a premium for it," he says.

This is where I will give Lynton some slack since I have read it costs more than double to replicate a Blu-ray disc versus a DVD even though from what I understand the cost of Blu-ray replication is coming down. However, you could probably say this wasn't a problem if studios didn't charge so much for their DVDs in the first place considering it costs about $0.50 per DVD compared to what I understand to be in the ballpark of $1.30 for Blu-ray. Of course, these prices all depend on the size of your order.

A brief bit of online research also leads me to believe the replication costs of Blu-ray is causing smaller houses to have to abstain from taking advantage of the high-definition format as regulations such as mandatory AACS encryption licensing are hurting the potential of Blu-ray replication from ever dipping down to DVD prices. So, the fact Blu-rays cost so much means they are lording the price over what consumers are/were obviously willing to pay for DVDs, but there does seem to be a level to the insanity as $35 for a movie in high-definition compared to its $15-20 DVD counterpart just seems a bit silly, and I can't blame anyone for thinking that way.

When I look at the whole DVD/Blu-ray conundrum currently facing studios I can't help but place the blame squarely on their shoulders. If DVD windows weren't so short the demand for these movies on home video would be much higher and the likelihood of getting more people into theaters as a result would be inevitable. Some people simply see what appears to be a mediocre trailer and just say, "I'll wait for it to come out on DVD." When that day is likely to be only three months away who could blame them? However, what if studios reverted back to old school windows and movies weren't seen on the shelves for six months or even a year? Hmmmm, skipping a film and waiting doesn't seem like such a great idea anymore and once that movie finally hits shelves it has been so long since most people saw it the demand would obviously be higher.

An attempt to curb piracy is obviously one of the major factors in DVD release windows, but what the studios ultimately did was cheapen the appearance of their product. They also do the same thing with every unrated edition they release on DVD. They are saying to the consumers, "The version we showed in theaters was crap, but on home video you get the real deal." The consumer laps it up and says, "Thank you, I'll remember that for the next time I see a PG-13 horror come to my cineplex." Ticket sales lost, theater owners screwed and the quality of movies dwindles as gimmicks must be employed to get people back into theaters.

3-D FOR A PRICE:

Enter 3-D. A studio manufactured excitement and everyone is eating it up. Movie news sites clamor over the useless quote at the opening of this article regarding the potential Spider-Man 4 will be released in 3-D all while dismissing the comment immediately after it basically saying, Of course we will look at 3-D, people are willing to pay more for it. This acts as evidence showing studios are considering 3-D because it's more expensive, not because it makes a better movie.

Based on this model I am surprised NBA teams don't charge more when Kobe or Lebron are coming to town, or pitch the idea of saying the court is now equipped with additional lighting making for a much brighter and therefore better overall fan experience. The chances Kobe or Lebron have an off game doesn't matter in this model just like it doesn't matter if a 3-D movie is actually any good. It's not like theaters are reimbursing ticket prices because the movie you saw was no good just as I don't expect the NBA to offer money back should Lebron sit out because the playoffs are just around the corner, or on the off chance adding additional lighting doesn't in fact make for a better fan experience. Who woulda thunk it?

In an effort to create a working example, let's say Spider-Man 3 had been released in 3-D and let's say the ticket mark-up was something like 20% per. Spider-Man 3 made just over $336 million domestically in 2007. In 2007 there were roughly 580 screens that showed Meet the Robinsons in 3-D so I will say of the $336 million Spider-Man 3 made in 2007, about 13% of that would have come from 3-D compatible screens. (Sorry, I have no way of converting the screen number to actual theaters, but I assume this number will be close enough.) This means we take $43.68 million and turn it into $52 million with our 20% mark-up.

Okay, a little less than $9 million is added so we aren't talking about anything major in 2007. However, consider for a moment this past March Monsters vs. Aliens opened in 4,136 theaters, which equaled approximately 7,000 screens (including IMAX) and 2,100 of those screens were equipped with 3-D technology. Suddenly that $9 million bump is looking a bit bigger and should Spider-Man 4 make its way to theaters in 3-D on May 6, 2011 I would expect the number of theaters to be even higher, along with ticket prices... Say good-bye to Titanic's box-office record, the studios just found a way to topple the record books and it starts by pillaging your pocket book.

So you tell me, are you still excited about a potential Spider-Man 4 in 3-D? Does it add enough to your movie-going experience to justify an additional $3.50, $5.00 or $7.00 to your ticket price?]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/raimi-finally-starts-dishing-on-spider-man-4 Spider-Man 4, which was recently confirmed for a May 6, 2011 release date, but I guess that's what happens when you don't particularly care for a specific superhero franchise, which is the case for me and Spider-Man. However, now the cat's out of the bag, Raimi and Tobey Maguire are aboard and pre-production is underway and with Raimi currently attending the South-by-Southwest Film Festival to debut a "work in progress" version of his upcoming horror Drag Me To Hell he is doing a bit of press and MTV cornered him and got a bit of Spidey non-information, but at this point I would think any kind of information would be interesting for Spidey fans. So who would I be to deny you of the pleasure?

When asked about the status of SM4 Raimi said, "The writers, producers and I are working out what the story will be, but we haven't been talking in terms of Part 4 and 5. I've read that [about Spider-Man 5] also, but right now we're just working on the story for Spider-Man 4, just that one film."

As for the story he is keeping that close to the chest and perhaps they haven't even quite figured it out as he says, "We're definitely talking about working from all the material in the comic books and nothing [invented] outside of that. All the characters or villain or villains, whatever we decide to do will be from Stan Lee's creations or those that came after him."

Of course the "villain or villains" comment is going to spark interest with all inquiring minds and Raimi does say he has a "pretty good idea" of who/what the villain will be "but I'm just not a liberty to say yet," he finishes.

Finally he comments on the casting of Kirsten Dunst, who is not yet confirmed for the cast, and says, "I can't imagine making a Spider-Man movie without Kirsten... Of course it can be done because Spider Man has existed without the character of Mary-Jane but she's one of my favorite parts and it would be a shame not to have her in the picture. I'm hoping she'll be in it and I'm planning on having a story with her in it."

So there you have it. With Drag Me To Hell hitting theaters on May 29 I can only imagine Spider-Man 4 rumors are going to become more and more frequent as Raimi does press, the story gets fleshed out and real casting begins. Stay tuned, I am sure this isn't the end of it.

As for the villains, any Spidey fans out there have a preference? We have all heard the possibility of The Lizard and I have also heard rumors of a villain named Morbius the Living Vampire, but anyone have any other ideas out there? I am clueless when it comes to comics, as the regular readers know, but I welcome the idea of being enlightened. Have at it in the comments.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/marvel-updates-favreau-directing-avengers-and-a-fantastic-four-remake nine-picture deals with the likes of Sam Jackson (and possibly Scarlett Johansson) and recently set the geek world on fire by announcing new release dates for Spider-Man 4 (May 6, 2011), The Avengers (May 4, 2012), The First Avenger: Captain America (Jul. 22, 2011) and Thor (Jun. 17, 2011). Yes folks, fanboys are so rabid they even get excited over films that are over three years away, which is why news Jon Favreau may go from directing Iron Man 2 (May 7, 2010) to directing The Avengers in a new report from a Marvel insider over at Ain't It Cool News:

Avengers is delayed a year because of financing issues but also because the plan is for Favreau to helm it. Everybody here loves the guy and he wants to do it, but it would have been impossible for him to do before the date change given his Iron Man 2 commitments. Also partly the reason why he agreed to do the Stark sequel on such an accelerated schedule was so he could get given first dibs on this. It would still be a punishing schedule for him, so hes not firmly confirmed yet, but he is certainly the presumptive director at this point.

Word hast it the casting rumors surrounding Alexander Skarsgard as the lead for Thor are true and there is a possibility his father, Stellan, would have a cameo appearance as Odin in the film as well. On top of that the talk of Josh Hartnett as a likely contender for the role of the baddie Loki is apparently true as well as director Kenneth Branagh is a "big fan of the Othello adaptation O where Hartnett played Iago who is very similar character wise to how he sees Loki."

Other superhero news making the round recently included talk of a Fantastic Four remake to which the AICN insider also responds saying:

Fox is serious about doing remakes of Daredevil and FF. They have to make new movies with these characters every few years because otherwise the options will revert to us. This point is kinda obvious but Im not sure people realize it �I haven't seen anybody pointing it out anywhere. The mood around here is pretty negative about Rothman's potential to execute these properties properly, (I'm sure you know why it might be particularly negative at the moment) but we are all hoping his recent promotion will mean hes kept away from direct control of these movies.

The movies will seriously be better for it, for instance how many times have you heard this sentence, "that movie was kick ass, except I didn't like Kirsten Dunst," or "X-Men was so awesome but I wish they would have found someone else to play Storm." It's not just girls who complain about this. Did you ever stop to think that it isn't just the actresses who sully your favorite movies but the comic book movie industry's lazy attitude towards women characters in general? The actress is only as good as her material, and the material is seriously lacking. We need to take a good look at who is really responsible for this boy's club trend and how they can fix it. Who's to blame may shock you.

THE PROBLEM: There are so many amazing female characters in the Batman universe yet none of them seemed interesting enough to include in the otherwise brilliant Batman Begins. Granted, the inclusion of Rachel Dawes paid off big time in The Dark Knight, but you have to admit, the first time around she was a bit of a head scratcher. Why not Talia Al Ghul? She could have been a much more compelling love interest for the first movie. Adaptations don't have to be exactly like the comics, but they do serve the purpose of effectively capturing characters we love and putting them on screen, so why ignore the women?

THE SOLUTION: Catwoman! If God is listening and Christopher Nolan does make a third movie within the next few years, then our friend Batman's gonna need a new love interest, it would be great to have one that doesn't need to be rescued all of the time (although once is fine). And for all of you who think that miss Selina Kyle is too obvious a character to include, well, so was The Joker and look how that turned out. After Michelle Pfeiffer's interpretation, which while entertaining was not an accurate portrayal of the Catwoman we know today, and of course Halle Berry's debacle, this iconic character needs to be redeemed something fierce. If anyone can do it, Christopher Nolan can.

THE PROBLEM: Well, he gave the ladies powers in the X-Men series, he just forgot the personalities. He turned the sexy, sassy southern belle Rogue into a mopey teenager, the diabolical Mystique into a naked mute, and the strong, regal storm into Halle Berry. If you're going to take liberties with classic characters, why would you choose to make them less interesting? While the male characters got fully fleshed out personas for the most part, every female character got a moody emo-bitch makeover, Jean Grey is the only character that came away unscathed, but she was already a moody emo-bitch to begin with.

THE SOLUTION: Well, the damage is done, so nothing short of a complete retooling a la Batman Begins will give us the X-Women we fondly remember. But the next time Singer gets the chance to make a female heavy ensemble picture, it would do him well to make the femmes more interesting to watch.

THE PROBLEM: Not only did he pull a Bryan Singer and desexify our beloved Mary Jane Watson, he completely undermined his reasons for doing so in the third film. Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane was originally conceived as an amalgam of Spidey's two great loves, the fiery Mary Jane Watson and the sweet Gwen Stacy. That made sense, until they for no good reason added Gwen in the third movie to contrive an unnecessary love triangle. If they needed a love triangle, they should have gone with the second love interest who made sense, Felicia "The Black Cat" Hardy. She may be more or less a Catwoman clone, but her addition to the story would have been a lot more exciting then adding yet another generic damsel in distress to the picture.

THE SOLUTION: Work on Mary Jane, and stop making every female character in the series a catalyst for the destruction of Spidey's relationship, they have better things to do.

THE PROBLEM: If you haven't heard of these filmmakers there's a very good reason. They helmed Elektra, Supergirl: The Movie and Catwoman respectively. Granted they did exactly what I'm claiming hasn't been done, they made superhero films centered on women, but they did it wrong in every possible way. They diminished the chances of strong box office numbers and therefore hurt the willingness of studios to invest in further female centered comic-book adaptations by making them about heroines who were originally sidekicks or love interests, disregarding all of the perfectly good heroines who operate alone. Nobody would want to watch Aqualad: The Motion Picture, would they? Especially not if it were as poorly made as these three. If people think that female centered comic-book movies inherently suck, then they will never get made. Why do you think the Wonder Woman movie has been shelved more times than the comics on which it's based? A quality comic book movie can be made about a female hero, we just need a filmmaker who will put forth the effort.

THE SOLUTION: First of all, never let these three make movies again. Second, find someone who can not only make a film based on an iconic stand-alone superheroine, but who can make it brilliantly.

Women in comics are complex, strong, smart, beautiful, sexy, adventurous and perfectly lovable. If only the movies based on comics would portray them as such. Comic book movies may still be more of a guy thing, but women are a large part of the audience too, sometimes we just need to feel empowered. And you know that guys are still going to watch. Boobs and explosions are the most guy friendly combination imaginable, as long as there's a good story to go with the boobs and explosions, men will watch. So what are the studios hesitating for? ]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/angels_and_demons_goes_viral_pattinson_in_ashes_planet_of_the_apes_reboot_and_more_20081031

Devin Faraci at CHUD has word of a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes called Genesis: Apes that was written by Rick Jaffa (The Relic) and Amanda Silver (The Relic and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle). The film is something of an origin story centering on a baby monkey that is raised in a human household and shows signs of great intelligence and the ability to talk. The monkey grows up and sees mommy getting attacked, kills the attacker and is subsequently shipped off to an Ape Conservatory where he and the other apes are abused mercilessly. Get the rest of the story at CHUD.

Darren Aronofsky says his reboot of RoboCop will be a "real reinvention." Yay!

Brandon Routh talked about a sequel to Superman Returns and the idea of a darker story with IESB:

"I don't think the character necessarily has to be darker, I think he is kind of dark in a sense, emotional dark, in Superman Returns, and the movie as a whole was slightly dark, they could have had more prowess in it I suppose, and I think that's one thing that can be done in the sequel, so I don't know how much darker you want to make it necessarily. There are all kind of dark places to explore. But, I don't think Superman should ever be dark and brooding, that's not is nature. And that's now what people what to see."

FAKE OR REAL? MoviesOnline.ca has a picture from S. Darko featuring Daveigh Chase (The Ring) as the title character Samantha. The picture looks real to me, but the poster below it is obviously fake.

J. Michael Straczynski (Changeling, Ninja Assassin) is working on writing a remake of the 1956 sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet which featured the introduction of Robby the Robot.

David Lindsay-Abaire, who won a Pulitzer in 2007 for his play "Rabbit Hole," is in final negotiations to write Spider-Man 4 for Columbia. There is no word on whether this is a page-one task or a rewrite of James Vanderbilt's previous script.

Maggie Cheung and Samuel L. Jackson have been cast in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds as Madame Mimieux, the French matron of the Cinematheque and the narrator respectively.

IGN has yet another age gated top ten, this time it is Top 10 Halloween Kills.

According to a survey from MovieTickets.com this is the list of the most anticipated films of 2009:

1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Warner Bros)
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox)
3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Paramount)
4. Public Enemies (Universal)
5. Angels and Demons (Sony)
6. Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian (Fox)
7. The Informant (Warner Bros)
8. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Fox)
9. The Day the Earth Stood Still (Fox)
10. The Taking of Pelham 123 (Sony)

Chris Nolan was asked about Justice League in relation to his Batman films (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and came to the conclusion that in his films "superheroes simply don't exist" making the case for why a crossover such as Justice League just wouldn't work in his story. For a complete look at the quote in context click here.

Even more set pics from Sherlock Holmes are now online.

Ron Perlman is supposedly in line to take over for Bruce Campbell in Bubba Nosferatu. So says Paul Giamatti.

POSTERS: Fanboys, five new posters from Hotel for Dogs (one, two, three, four, five), Seven Pounds, Adam Resurrected and Cadillac Records

MTV has a first look at Robert Pattinson as Salvador Dali in Little Ashes.

Bloody-Disgusting has a tiny first look at George A. Romero's next zombie film. Big whoop...]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/adding_to_ews_nominees_for_worst_movie_lines_ever_20081014 Entertainment Weekly has put together a pretty fun list of 15 bad lines of dialogue from a variety of films including Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Ever After, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, X-Men, As Good as It Gets and two Julia Roberts flicks.

My personal fav they listed is when Padme (Natalie Portman) says, "Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo," to Anakin in Star Wars 3, that is just classic. You can check out their list here, but I thought I would add a few personal favorites to the nominees. Any of you have any you would like to add?

	THE SCENE: After meeting with the Merovingian and being escorted out with no luck Trinity says, "Maybe we did something wrong." Morpheus then utters this "happened" filled line. THE LINE: "No, what happened, happened and couldn't have happened any other way."

	THE SCENE: M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening not only has some of the worst read dialogue it has this gem of a line delivered by Mark Wahlberg to his class of kids. The confusion in his voice is what really puts it over the top. THE LINE: "You're not interested in what happened to the bees?"

	THE SCENE: After going 12 street rounds with Tommy 'Machine' Gunn, Richard Gant as George Washington Duke delivers this encapsulating line. I am not sure if the line itself is what is so great or when Rocky says, "Sue me for what?" after he hits him with a Shoryuken uppercut. THE LINE: "Touch me and I'll sue. C'mon pug... Touch me and I'll sue." BONUS: Rocky's son yelling, "Come on, knock the bum out he took my room!"

	THE SCENE: An exhibition battle between Rocky and Hulk Hogan as Thunderlips has an abundance of awful lines, here are a couple. THE LINES: "To all my love slaves out there: Thunderlips is here. In the flesh, baby. The ultimate male versus... the ultimate meatball. Ha, ha, ha." "No one can believe the superhuman strength of Thunderlips!"

	THE SCENE: I can't remember exactly where or when this happens in the film, but I know it is Anakin discussing something with Padme and it causes him to say the following. THE LINE: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."

	THE SCENE: After declaring war on Spider-Man, hating him throughout Spider-Man 2, driving a wedge between Harry and Peter's friendship and almost resulting in Harry's death the clueless houseman finally lets Harry in on the "big secret" in Spider-Man 3 in what may be one of the worst bits of lines ever forced into a film to get to a desired outcome. THE LINE: "If I may, Sir, I've seen things in this house I've never spoke of... The night your father died, I... I cleaned his wound... the blade that pierced his body came from HIS Glider. I... I know you're trying to defend your fathers' honor, but there is no question that he died by his own hand. I loved your father, as I've loved you, Harry... as your friends love you..."

	THE SCENE: Just before the big finale Johnny Castle walks over to the Houseman family table and snatches up "Baby" with one of the corniest lines ever. It's a classic line, but it is also a bad one. THE LINE: "Nobody puts Baby in the corner."

	THE SCENE: This is not a good film and the following couple of lines are just a sampling of why. You can watch the video below the quotes for even more fun. THE LINES: "Is this hers? How'd it get burned? How'd it get burned? HOW'D IT GET BURNED, HOW'D IT GET BURNED?" "OH, NO! NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES! AAAAAHHHHH! OH, THEY'RE IN MY EYES! MY EYES! AAAAHHHHH! AAAAAGGHHH!"

Now, you tell me what you think are the worst ever.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/madonnas_movie_men_in_black_3_and_dunst_in_spider_man_4_20080930

RUMOR: Supposedly a Men in Black 3 is at the scripting stage.

When asked about Spider-Man 4 Kirsten Dunst said, "I'm in," followed by, "I'm not saying anything, I know there's rumors..." Talk about a genius at work.

There are eight Iron Man DVD related store exclusives, here's the lowdown:

1. Circuit City - Access to exclusive Marvel Digital Comics featuring the artwork of Adi Granov.
2. Best Buy - Custom Lithograph created by Marvel artist Gerald Parel.
3. Target - Target Deluxe Edition includes exclusive Mark III mask packaging. Available on both the Ultimate 2-Disc Edition and 2-Disc Blu-ray.
4. Costco - Giftset includes the Ultimate 2 Disc Edition DVD and 3 Iron Man Bobbleheads, with all 3 Iron Man suits from the film. Giftset includes the �Battle Damaged Mark II�, available exclusively in this giftset at Costco.
5. Walmart - Two exclusive SKUs. Ultimate 2 Disc Edition packed with an exclusive comic book chronicling the Nick Fury story. The single disc giftset is packed with the 1st episode of the new Iron Man animated series.
6. Kmart and#038; Sears - Save $5 on the Ultimate 2 Disc edition with any $25 Craftsman purchase.
7. Trans World - FYE and Suncoast Exclusive Steelbook Package available on the Ultimate 2- disc Edition. (pictured above, left)
8. Borders - On pack collectible book featuring original sketches by Bob Layton and the top 24 comic cover of Iron Man.

Producer Donald De Line said the Green Lantern film is "gearing up to start shooting early spring."

Apparently Daniel Craig is to blame for the awful film title Quantum of Solace.

Ann Peacock (Nights in Rodanthe) is set to write an adaptation of the John Grisham novel "The Partner". The last Grisham novel to be adapted was the insufferable Christmas with the Kranks in 2004, before that Runaway Jury in 2003.

Thomas Dekker plays John Connor on TV's "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" and now he will play the lead role of Marco in the Fame remake.

WOMEN BE SHOPPIN': USA Today has the first image gallery of Isla Fisher in Confessions of a Shopaholic.

Big surprise, Real Networks is being sued by the MPAA for their RealDVD software which allows consumers to make copies of their DVDs. Real Networks battled back saying, "Nuh uh!"

Finally, here is the trailer for Madonna's directorial debut Filth and Wisdom and you can check out three pics from the movie right here.

Thanks to The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, ShowbizSpy, FirstShowing, MTV and Parade for contributing to this report.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/maguire_pulling_in_50_million_for_spider_man_4_and_5 Times Online Tobey Maguire will receive approximately 5,000,000,000 pennies to reprise his role as Spider-Man/Peter Parker in Spider-Man 4 and 5, which the Times says will be shot "back-to-back over six months next year." On top of the $50 million the site reports Maguire will also receive profit shares from the two films. The site compares it to what Keanu Reeves earned for filming Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions back-to-back, a shoot that Reeves said left him exhausted.

From what I could dig up during an online search it looks as if Reeves received $30 million and 15% profits on the two Matrix sequels, which truly would mean Maguire is earning some serious additional dough. On top of the money Tobey is said to have asked for some family time with his 22-month daughter, Ruby Sweetheart. Word is he will be taking early mornings and evenings off so he can play with his "favorite blonde".

This is the second time recently we have heard word on the two Spider-Man sequels being shot back-to-back and furthers the confirmation that Maguire is signed.

Back on September 5, Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood set the fanboys' into a frenzy as she reported director Sam Raimi and star Tobery Maguire were "locked" to star in and direct the next two installments. As of now it is only reported screenwriter James Vanderbilt has penned Spider-Man 4 and there is no word on plot even though online speculation leads many to believe Dylan Baker, who played Dr. Curt Connors in Spider-Man 2 and 3, will play The Lizard. For more on that story click here.

Spider-Man 4 is tentatively set for a May 2011 release.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/internet_responds_to_spider_man_4_and_5_maguire_raimi_chatter Deadline Hollywood saying director Sam Raimi and star Tobery Maguire are locked for Spider-Man 4 written by Zodiac scribe with potential for a fifth film to be shot simultaneously. Production is apparently set to begin next fall for a 2011 release for Spider-Man 4.

DH's source wouldn't reveal the fourth film's villain but did say "once you find out who the villain is, you'll know who's playing it." This comment already has the fanboy sites proclaiming Dylan Baker, who played Dr. Curt Connors in Spider-Man 2 and 3, as the villain named The Lizard.

Speculation began on the fourth film when last week a posting on eBay with the title "Spider-Man 4 Premiere, Meet and#038; Greets, Walk On + More". The current bid is $14,544.44 and it ends at 7 PM PST today, September 5.

I debated whether I should get the article up quickly and spout off about how I dislike the entire Spider-Man franchise and wouldn't care if another film was ever made. However, that didn't sound like it would be too interesting so I waited to see what the fans had to say. The fanboys that run the other movie websites and blogs around the Internet.

CHUD's Russ Fischer is happy the Spidey franchise isn't going to aim at going down a "dark" path a la The Dark Knight and is also happy to see the script being used will be Vanderbilt's and not another Raimi bros. script. However, he is a bit wary of the script for the fifth film but does allow for some room since production on 4 won't begin until late '09.

Strangely, Hunter Stephenson from SlashFilm, who typically has a lot to say, didn't even offer up an opinion and only decided to say how SlashFilm had similar scoops already. Cinematical's Erik Davis pretty much did the same thing.

Alex Billington at FirstShowing is also relatively mum when it comes to an overall opinion saying, "Two more back-to-back Spider-Man movies directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire?! I'm not sure whether I'm excited by this news or just baffled." Personally I read this as code for Jesus no, this isn't necessary, but that may be my own jaded opinion seeping in.

Quint at Ain't It Cool News says he loves "the idea of a fresh set of eyes on this series" saying "Raimi has earned one slip up... I'd love it if the next flick is Lizard and he shoots it a little like he shot his horror movies."

The only opinion I can agree with comes from Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere. Perhaps the fact Wells isn't a fanboy may be the reason I agree with him when he says, "Zero excitement on this end...sorry."

When I asked our very own Oscar Oracle, Larmey Legel, his thoughts he could only respond, "WILL THERE BE MORE DANCING??"

What about you guys? Any interest in this series still?

My negativity toward the idea does not preclude me from wanting to see it, but it does mean I wouldn't think twice if I never heard the name Spider-Man again.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/numbers_show_dark_knight_will_smash_several_box_office_records

I could have written an article when Warner Bros. sent me a press release telling me, "Just past the stroke of midnight, Warner Bros. Pictures' The Dark Knight broke the record for a 12:01 a.m. film opening, earning an unprecedented $18,489,000 at the box office... That total does not include the grosses from the subsequent 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. showings."

But I didn't...

I could have written an article around 5:30 PM on Friday when Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood wrote, "Warner Bros sources tell me The Dark Knight is opening to a humongous $60M today."

But I didn't...

Instead I held off and can now tell you it looks like The Dark Knight did not only break the midnight release record with $18.4 million, but it also broke the opening day record with an estimated $66 million, passing Spider-Man 3's previous record of $59.84 million. This is an early estimate number so it could change, but it will remain a record.

The next record in its path is the all-time opening weekend record also set by Spider-Man 3 last year of $151.11 million. Mason reports tonight that The Dark Knight will not only break that record, but considering the loft of the numbers it will smash the record earning an early estimate of $157 million. Our Box-Office Oracle was one of the lone (if not the only) box-office prognosticators to predict Knight would break the record as he predicted it would take in $152.1 million. He was modest with that number, if not timid, but it proved to be the right call.

It's nice to see a good film at the top of those record books as opposed to the overhyped crap pile that was Spider-Man 3.

However, crap still floats as Universal's awful musical Mamma Mia! also performed well in the counter-programming slot with an estimated $10.5 million for Friday and it is expected to hit $28 million for the weekend. Not bad numbers considering the poor reviews, but I expect word-of-mouth to flush that crap quickly.

Hellboy 2 fell to fourth on Friday behind Hancock and will likely slide to fifth for the frame with an estimated $3.3 million on Friday and $10.3 million for the weekend. Plenty of folks are going to blame the fall on Dark Knight, which is true, but something has to be said for a film so highly praised by many critics when it can't even beat Hancock in its third weekend after the Will Smith film was critically panned. Perhaps one day, maybe a year from now, critics will finally realize admit how bad Hellboy 2 really is and not simply give it a pass because it is a Del Toro film and it looks pretty. It's okay guys, you don't have to say something just because you think that's what people expect you to say.

The only other new release to hit the top ten this weekend was Fox's ignored Space Chimps, which earned $2.5 million on Friday and is expected to reach the $8 million mark for the weekend.

The big news, as Mason points out, is that not only will three records be broken this weekend by one film, the record for the best box-office weekend ever is likely to take place as the top 12 films could hit $250 million together making it bigger than the top 12 for any 4-day Memorial Day weekend in history. Of course, when a film does the numbers Dark Knight is doing that isn't a huge surprise, but the films behind it, such as Mamma Mia!, definitely deserve credit. However, I don't think it is "great news for the industry" as Mason puts it, since it is only one movie causing the majority of the noise.

However, one thing Mason points out that is very interesting is when he says, "If Academy Awards voters are interested in keeping their show relevant, they would do well to recognize not just Heath Ledger, who deserves to win Best Supporting Actor for what I think is a landmark performance, but also nominate The Dark Knight for Best Picture." Remember when Return of the King took the top prize at the Oscars? Well the biggest audience in the last five years, an estimated 43.5 million, according to Nielsen Media Research, watched in 2004 when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was crowned best picture (source). Sounds to me like a "For Your Consideration" pitch all by itself.

Below is the complete top ten early estimates for Friday from Fantasy Moguls and Laremy will be here on Sunday afternoon for a complete recap. I will update this article should any of the numbers change (which they likely will).

1. The Dark Knight (Warner Bros) - $66 million
2. Mamma Mia! (Universal) - $10.5 million
3. Hancock (Sony) - $4.4 million
4. Hellboy II (Universal) - $3.3 million
5. WALL-E (Disney) - $3.26 million
6. Journey To the Center of the Earth (Warner Bros) - $3 million
7. Space Chimps (Fox) - $2.5 million
8. Wanted (Universal) - $2.05 million
9. Get Smart (Warner Bros) - $1.16 million
10. Meet Dave (Fox) - $760,000

The news comes as a result of Ziskin addressing theater owners from California and Nevada on Thursday, saying while there was no finished screenplay, that she and Sony Pictures were hopeful Spider-Man 4 could be ready in three years' time.

You may remember that Sam Raimi gave a choice quote to ComingSoon two weeks ago saying:

"James Vanderbilt is writing the script and I'm excited to read it. I think it's going to be done in a few months," Raimi told us, adding, "I'm hoping it's as great as our discussions were about it and I'm hoping it feels right for me because I love Spider-Man. I'm hoping I'm well rested enough to embrace it and I'm hoping Sony wants me to do it. If all of those things come together, I would love to do it. There are a lot of unknowns about the future."

Should Raimi decide to make Spider-Man 4 it would be one film of several the director has on his plate. He is currently helming his return to horror with Drag Me To Hell, is attached to a new Jack Ryan feature at Paramount and is expected to develop and direct a film adaptation of Dennis Lehane's upcoming book "The Given Day." Busy? Yes.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/transformers_2_subtitle_and_spider_man_4_jibber_jabber Some news for the fanboy in yah hit the Net over the past 48 hours and here is a recap of the miniscule multitude.

First up Sam Raimi talked with ComingSoon about Spider-Man 4 and he was just about as optimistic about returning to the franchise as I have ever seen:

"James Vanderbilt is writing the script and I'm excited to read it. I think it's going to be done in a few months," Raimi told us, adding, "I'm hoping it's as great as our discussions were about it and I'm hoping it feels right for me because I love Spider-Man. I'm hoping I'm well rested enough to embrace it and I'm hoping Sony wants me to do it. If all of those things come together, I would love to do it. There are a lot of unknowns about the future."

That's not the end of the Transformers 2 tidbits as set previews, spoilers and pics seem to be sprouting up everywhere. You can read this, look at these, watch this or look at these. And I am sure there are more, but as far as I am concerned that is enough.

We also have the new tie-in site for The Dark Knight hosted by Comcast featuring a new IMAX featurette.

Beyond that we have Jon Favreau talking about Iron Man 2 right here.

Oh, damn, I almost forgot. There is even another bit from Transformers 2 as Michael Bay offers this with regards to his film not being a set up for a third:

"You know how those sequels they do the second one so you go see the third one? [Transformers 2] is it," he said, indicating that "2" would be its own story free from the duel shackles of set-up or resolution. "First one was just introducing, setting up stuff, so we can go a lot farther. Let's just say [this] is not a lame sequel."

TrekMovie has a quick quote from Star Trek scripter Roberto Orci saying, "I can give you a spoiler about the Studio�s state of mind (not about the movie itself). The spoiler is that they already want to lock us down to write the sequel. Take that as you will." He goes on to say it is pretty much standard procedure.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/fanboy_links_november_28_2007

Universal just debuted the First Look at "Liz Sherman" from Hellboy II: The Golden Army on the production site. [HellboyMovie.com]

Sam Raimi talks about Spider-Man 4 and says the entire story, including the villains, is up to the writer they are hire to pen the script. [ComicBookResources]

MTV caught up with Seth Rogen and he discussed The Green Hornet and said, "Just a few weeks ago, [co-writer Evan Goldberg and I] laid out our outline for the movie to the studio, and before the phone call, Evan and I were like, 'This is not like any superhero movie � they might just hate that it's not using any of the normal superhero movie formats. It's not an origin story. It's more like a regular action movie.' [But] they really liked it and told us to go for it." [MTV]

Shock Til You Drop has a source that says the new Friday the 13th film is not a remake, "Imagine if there was a story to be told somewhere between parts two and four, just add water (from Camp Crystal Lake, duh), insert a leaner, meaner, faster Jason Voorhees, set to 'blend' and you've got the recipe for what Dunes, writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift and director Marcus Nispel got cookin'." [Shock Til You Drop]

These Photoshopped faces of celebrities as Star Wars characters is rather fun. That's Shrek as Darth Maul to the right in case you didn't know. [Cinematical]

Word has it that the trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is showing at The El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood with Enchanted and NarniaWeb has the description. [NarniaWeb]

The official site for Rambo has been updated. Luckily it takes FOREVER to load and I left before it finished... therefore, no screenshot. [Lionsgate]

Advanced Dark has a whole bunch of info on the upcoming Incredible Hulk. [Advanced Dark]

Rumors that there may be more X-Men: Origins movies going straight to DVD. [ComicBookResources]

J.K. Rowling is entertainer of the year? Really? She wrote a book and... [EW.com]

Go behind-the-scenes of I Am Legend. [Entertainment Tonight]

If you have a link to some fanboy content that I missed please be sure to forward it on and I will be sure to get it up... the link that is.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/whos_writing_spider_man_4 Spider-Man film I hold out hope and some good news comes to the hopeful few as Entertainment Weekly is reporting that James Vanderbilt, the writer behind one of this year's best films - Zodiac - has been hired to pen the script for Spider-Man 4.

For those of you that thought David Koepp had been penning the script, the article actually makes no mention of David whatsoever so I have no idea if he has been officially involved in any way.

However, the article does say that even though there is an upcoming writers strike and there are no assurances that Sam Raimi will be back to direct that Sony Pictures plans on a 2009 release for the film.

Vanderbilt also worked on the screenplay for The Rundown, Basic and Darkness Falls.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/spider_man_3_fun_continues Spider-Man 3 this time around since I have done it enough and no one wants to hear it. However, it is nice to see that a group of talented people have taken the time to point out the flaws in the film that everyone saw and chose to ignore because they love comic book movies. I understand what it is like to enjoy something and overlook its flaws so for the Spidey fans you may want to skip this one, for the rest of you this is a great video and you should have a couple of good laughs.

Spider-Man 3 will also be available in a high-def trilogy version for $89.09. The sets don't hit the shelves until October 30 so you better get in on that DVD trilogy now before Amazon jacks the price up.

The only thing I do not know is if this DVD set contains the 2-Disc Special Editions or simply the three movies on their own without special features. I assume it is the movies alone based on the Blu-ray trilogy specs, which also is said to include Spider-Man 2.1 the extended version of the film. The artwork is featured below for both the DVD and Blu-ray versions. The back art image for the Blu-ray version is also featured below, which shows there are a few special features, but not the complete list available on the 2-Disc editions.

]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/revisiting_spider_man_3_with_a_review_worth_reading
Unfortunately I think RopeofSilicon has fallen out of favor with several fanboys due to our firm stance that the Spider-Man franchise is not all that it is cracked up to be. People got a little excited when I pointed out the flaws in the first two films and then I added Spider-Man to my list of Top Ten Worst Movies That Made Over $100 Million. Suffice to say I wasn't trying to earn fans, just trying to be honest.

Then, today, I was sent a link to a blog where some poor unsuspecting soul ended up watching Spider-Man 3 during an international flight over the Atlantic Ocean and mainland America. Unfortunately for him, he too wasn't so excited about what he ended up seeing.

Here are a couple of snippets:

Let's see, where do I start? Ah yes, plot. In short, there wasn't one. There were at least three hundred and twenty seven sub-plots, but for the life of me, I could never figure out where the movie was going. It was like watching a series of short films, all with the same characters.

The primary protagonist is our old friend Peter Parker, aka Spiderman, who was played by that same guy who was made famous in those movies where he was a Hobbit carrying a ring around. What's that you say? That was a different guy? Really? Hum, that's too bad. This movie could have been greatly improved with the addition of an actual POINT. As well as some orcs, wizards and elves thrown in for good measure...

..I do have a hard time deciding which was the most absurd aspect of this "character development". Was it the ability to tell which Peter was being portrayed simply by the haircut? Bangs up = Good Peter. Bangs down = Bad Peter. Was it the curious pseudo hipster, wanna-be beatnik, finger snapping walk down the street which oddly enough caused all the women he passed to snap their necks around to stare at our newly transformed little Hobbit? Maybe it was the Jazz Bar scene where Bad Peter, in the span of two agonizing minutes, puts on a performance which mimics such a wide array of films as Bill Murray in Groundhog Day (playing the piano), Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing, any music video by Michael Jackson, and John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever.

No matter if you are a Spider-Man apologist there is nothing he is saying that you can dispute. He is spot on with his thoughts and if you want to read more of his accurate insights just click here.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/barkley_gets_it_right_spider_man_3_sucked Okay, so this might not make the fanboys happy, but I do have a feeling there are plenty of people out there (fanboys included) that thought Spider-Man 3 was a huge disappointment. So, you can imagine my reaction when my boy, Charles Wade Barkley, gave the greatest quote of the year in reaction to Spider-Man 3 after Kenny "The Jet" Smith broke down the movie sequel trend for us on tonight's halftime show during the Golden State Warriors vs. Utah Jazz playoff game on TNT.

Here's what he had to say:

Spider-Man sucked. Spider-Man 3 sucked. That movie made like $400 million. These people in America, they don't know what the hell they want."

Even though Spidey 3's numbers included midnight and 3 AM screenings, those times are legitimately inside the Friday and three-week time frame. With Disney opening the film one day earlier, even if it is only 4 hours earlier, it is still on Thursday, thus not making it a legitimate three-day weekend.

With rumors that At World's End is going to have a running time north of 150 minutes and won't be shown on as many screens as Spidey's record-breaking 4,252 theaters I don't think Pirates 3 stands a chance at breaking the opening weekend record set by the webbed one, even though I do think it will outlast Spider-Man 3 and make a whole boatload of cash worldwide.

The other big opening this month is Shrek the Third, which is sticking to its May 18 release, especially since its audience will be going to school on Friday and not likely out catching midnight screenings the night before.

Can Pirates 3 break the opening weekend record? Doubtful. Will it make more than Spider-Man 3 overall? You tell us in this week's poll.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/spidey_has_the_best_friday_ever Spider-Man 3 and they are mammoth. The webslinger took in $59m at a record breaking 4,252 theaters. Those 4200+ theaters showed Spidey on an estimated 10,000 total screens too, clearly the chains were ready for the mayhem.

For comparison's sake the previous record was Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest which grossed about $56m last July. It should be interesting to see if the Pirates franchise can reclaim its record in two weeks.

What's this mean for you? Well, if you're planning to see Spidey this weekend expect to see a whole mess of humanity at the movies with you. It also means this weekend's projection (by me) of $142m is looking solid.

Oh yeah, one more thing, the other opener, Lucky You, finished Friday in a pathetic sixth place with a sad looking 900k. Dismal.

Check back in tomorrow and we'll recap the whole thing. ]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/buzz_on_spider_man_3 Spider-Man 3 on their "Blog Beat: The Buzz on 'Spider-Man 3'" and I thought I would share as I was happy about the mention and love to throw back love when love is thrown my way. Even if I wasn't throwing love at the movie in questions, but that would just end up in too much loving and we can't have that because - well - I don't know why.

Anyway, the feature gives opinions from such other places as Bullz-Eye, Ain't It Cool News, JoBlo, ComingSoon, DarkHorizons and others and gives you a good read on some quotes giving you an idea of what to expect from the first blockbuster of the summer. Of course I have not hidden my opinion of the film and neither has Laremy, we were not exactly in favor of the film, but this at least gives you a good place to get some more info and see a little pub for RopeofSilicon, which we all like.

To check out the feature click here and if you have seen the film, click here and give us your opinion. We might not have liked it, but that doesn't mean you won't.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/why_im_not_excited_about_spider_man_3
With the coming of Spider-Man 3 I felt I had to right a wrong I made in the past when I was just getting started with this site and was rather vulnerable to the blockbuster. Back in 2004 I reviewed Spider-Man 2 and gave it an "A-" even though I wasn't all that impressed with it. I do say in my first few lines that the second movie is far better than the first, but by no means is it worthy of the "A-" I gave it. In fact, I would probably give it a "C+" now that I am not so swayed by pre-movie hype and the allure of the blockbuster.

So, with that said, I have decided to take the time to revisit both the first Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 with a bit of play-by-play commentary primarily focused on the worst part of both movies... AUNT MAY!

Aunt May, played by the Oscar-nominated actress Rosemary Harris is one of the most annoying characters in comic book film history. Every scene she is in slows down the movie and adds NOTHING to the storyline. As you will soon see she is only in the movie to add a person for the bad guy to abduct or hurt in an effort to piss off Spider-Man. Either that or to give us a long speech on morals and other crap.

While my play-by-play call pretty much focuses on the antics of Aunt May I do add a few bits and pieces on the film along the way. Let's begin with Spider-Man then move on to Spider-Man 2 and then I will add a couple bits of opinion on the third film which hits theaters on May 4.

Spider-Man was released in 2002 to the tune of $403,706,375, which currently places it at #7 all-time on the domestic box-office list. If you adjust for inflation it still holds strong at #33. So basically this was a major success. My only question: WHY? There are so many flaws in this film starting with the casting of Willem Dafoe, who is almost too creepy and scary to even play a villain. Looking at Dafoe and his sinister glare makes me feel dirty every time. You might call that inspired casting, I call it disgusting. Also, whoever thought James Franco was a good actor should be fired and I think Flyboys and Annapolis proves my point here.

To go along with that we start with our typical superhero premise, Peter Parker is a kid that gets picked on and then gets super powers. Peter is in love with the girl next door who happens to be named after our good friend marijuana. You see Mary Jane is the object of Peter Parker's desire but right now she is taken, taken by a guy named Flash. Yup, Flash. What? You got a problem with the name Flash?

Truthfully, most of the scenes with Mary Jane are extremely painful, but since she is an integral piece of the story and Peter Parker's main love interest I am letting this go, but Aunt May I can't let go of. Yeah, she may be in the comics, but she drags these movies WAY down.

Of the 115 minutes in Spider-Man 14:44 involve Aunt May on one level or another. This means Aunt May, who is not super, has no powers, provides nothing and is highly annoying gets 12.8% of the running time. So, I sat down with the DVD and decided to dissect her every appearance, looking for something worthwhile. I found very little... let's dig in:

12:37 - 14:06 (1:29) - Uncle Ben screws in a light bulb and Aunt May tells him how great he is. Riveting stuff.

18:29 - 18:45 (:16) - Rapping at the door from Aunt May, even the voice alone is annoying.

19:09 - 19:30 (:21) - Aunt May reminds Peter he didn't eat breakfast. Thanks May!

33:25 - 33:40 (:15) - Peter is going through some changes and on the other side of his bedroom door comes the question, "What's going on in there? You're acting so strangely Peter." No one ever said May wasn't smart as a whip, she has a spidey sense of her own.

34:15 - 34:32 (:17) - Aunt May knits silently and I am happy even though her presence still irks me.

49:25- 49:41 (:16) - Uncle Ben is dead and Aunt May cries. I'll give a pass on this one.

50:50 - 51:00 (:10) - Peter graduates and Aunt May is happy.

51:55 - 52:19 (:24) - Home from graduation.

52:33 - 53:47 (1:14) - Talking about Uncle Ben.

OBSERVATION: Green Goblin holds Spider-Man long enough for it to go from day to night, but during that time he never takes off his mask to find out who he is. Then he tells him his diabolical plan and takes off without knowing who he is. Even Mary Jane is smart enough to know he is wearing a mask as she unveils half his face to make out with him... what a slut! Nice rain revealing nip shot though. That was for the kids I assume

QUICK QUESTION: Why doesn't the Green Goblin just kill Peter Parker? Why play games with the people that he loves? Green Goblin is easily one of the stupidest villains ever. Also, when Spider-Man punches the Goblin in his face with the helmet on why does it hurt him? Wouldn't that hurt Spidey's hand?

1:25:12 - 1:28:40 (3:28) - Thanksgiving at Harry and Peter's is joyous until Norman Osborn figures out who Spider-Man is.

1:29:43 - 1:29:44 (:01) - "Harry Osborn!" Aunt May takes a quick second to yell at Harry after Harry yells at Mary Jane.

1:30:34 - 1:35:45 (5:11) - Aunt May is saying the Lord's Prayer and gets interrupted by Gobby. "Deliver ussssss.... From evillllllllll!" One of the worst scenes in the film easily. We then move to the hospital where she complains of "Those eyes! Those horrible yellow eyes!" Then she rests, quietly, thank God.

Next Mary Jane visits making this the longest Aunt May scene in the film, even if she is sleeping for a lot of it.

I will admit about 1:30 of this scene is Peter saying how great Mary Jane is, but it is all so bad that since she is in the room I am counting it all. Especially since they keep cutting back to May's eavesdropping ass. Mind your own business woman!

1:37:26 - 1:38:48 (1:22) - Back at the hospital and Aunt May is encouraging Peter to hook up with Mary Jane even though she is dating Harry. "Isn't that up to her?" she asks. Exactly Aunt May, boyfriends are like hurdles, you just gotta get over 'em.

So ends Spider-Man and it is almost midnight and I am wiped, but I have committed to getting this done so let's not delay and pop in Spider-Man 2.

Coming in at #10 on the all-time domestic box-office list is Spider-Man 2, which was released in 2004 and grossed $373,585,825. Over at RottenTomatoes this film holds a solid 93% rating (Spider-Man got a 90% rating), even Roger Ebert called this the best superhero movie ever at the time. I wonder if ol' Roger would say the same now after Batman Begins and considering X2 was released the year prior I can't believe he thought Spider-Man 2 was better than that film.

The major problem with Spider-Man 2 is that it is only two hours and eight minutes long, but it feels like it is at minimum two hours and 30 minutes. Of course Aunt May is one of the major reasons this film drags, especially since she is given a different kind of screen time in this film.

Instead of the staggered and quick moments with May in the first film this time we don't get a single visit with Auntie that is less than one minute. Oddly enough her screen time is only one second more than the first film as she gets 14:45 of the 128 minute feature which gives her approximately 12% of the time yet again. Only this time the length of time she is on screen is brutal as she blathers on and on about sh*t no one wants to hear. Let's take a look:

10:21 - 11:21 (1:00) - It's Peter's birthday! Woo hoo! After Peter has been in the house for approximately 1 nanosecond Aunt May says, "Well say something." How about let me catch my breath woman!

12:23 - 14:26 (2:03) - Uh oh, Aunt May has no money! She is a little behind her payments and considering she doesn't make any money I have no idea how she will get out of her predicament. Maybe a homeless Aunt May will be more entertaining.

OBSERVATION: Twenty-four minutes into this thing and all Spider-Man has done is deliver a pizza and then when he finally comes on screen it is just used as a device to make sure he doesn't make it to Mary Jane's play on time. BRILLIANT!

QUICK QUESTION: How come no one stops for cops in the Spider-Man movies?

46:54 - 48:21 (1:27) - Aunt May is trying to refinance her home and Doc Ock interrupts her transaction, and sorry, no free toaster!

49:50 - 52:46 (2:56) - Aunt May gets kidnapped by Doc Ock. Hey look, the same plot device is being used again.

OBSERVATION: Oh man, an Uncle Ben flashback... this is certainly not needed. Hey Spider-Man is quitting and now Peter Parker is a klutz again. This is all played out with "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head," which means it is highly annoying.

1:10:01 - 1:13:31 (3:30) - Aunt May and Peter visit Uncle Ben's grave. Aunt May blames herself which makes a lot of sense, had she not been so annoying maybe he would have wanted to stay home more. The scene moves back to May's house where Peter tells her it was his fault. Aunt May freaks out and we can only hope it will be the last we see of her, but I am afraid there is no chance of that being true.

1:21:18 - 1:25:07 (3:49) - Aunt May is moving to an apartment and she tells Peter she loves him, but only because it is integral to the story. Then she gives a long ass speech as to why Spider-Man and heroes are important. Thanks May!

QUICK NOTE: What is up with the odd slow move in on Mary Jane's lips?

I WONDER: Would no one on that subway train really tell who Spider-Man was? I envision everyone running straight to get the police sketch artist and asking for A LOT of money from The Daily Bugle.

See, told you there were fewer different scenes with May, but this time around they were so f'ing long it made the movie drag and drag. She doesn't exactly have a pleasant voice to listen to, and people who tuned in for Spider-Man 2 didn't come to listen to an old wind bag give speeches about heroes, they came to see heroes in action.

All this taken into consideration we come to the May 4, 2007 release of Spider-Man 3...

One thing it looks like Spider-Man 3 will try to do is go a little bit darker this time around while maintaining the PG-13 rating. That's okay, dark can be achieved with PG-13, Batman Begins is a great example. However, I don't think they can stick to it as Raimi's directing is too tongue-in-cheek and quirky to go too dark for too long.

Considering I haven't seen Spider-Man 3 just yet, but will be soon, I can't tell you how much of the film Aunt May dominates, but if the 12% of the film history holds true that means this time around we will get a whopping 16:48 of her! We already know that Aunt May is in at least 2:50 of this installment as I have the clip posted right here and it is brutal. So, that leaves just shy of 14 minutes left for her to apprehend.

We will just have to wait and see how it all plays out.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/video_7_spider_man_3_clips
Well folks, if you have been digging through our massive Summer Preview then you already know that the first big blockbuster of the summer is Spider-Man 3 as it hits theaters on May 4. However, before it hits theaters it is hitting RopeofSilicon as we bring you your first look at seven, yup SEVEN, clips from the film. Take your pick from the selection below and enjoy!

By the way, I am already dreading that Spider-Man 3 will again have too much Aunt May, just as Spider-Man 2 did, which is the main reason it was so slow in so many moments. Of these seven clips one of them is with Aunt May and out of these seven clips the only one that runs longer than 1:30 is "Aunt May Gives Ring" which clocks in at 2:50. Who wants to watch that online, let alone in the movie? Buh-oring! Skip it is my suggestion.

Maguire told SCI-FI Wire, "Well, it's possible that we make another movie... It all depends on if there's a story worth telling. I feel very proud of the three movies that we've made. I feel like the stories all deserve to be told, and, you know, if they come up with a good movie, and the whole team wants to get back together, and we feel like we can make a good movie that's worth making, then I'm up for it."

Kirsten Dunst has seemed to be the biggest flip-flopper on the issue and is currently on the same side as Tobey saying, "There's an openness at the end [of Spider-Man 3], which I like, but ... I feel like this is a trilogy unto itself... And I think if we venture into a fourth, it will be some time from now and in a new way. Because I don't think Sam can do that: continuing on this same course. I think he needs to venture as an artist and do other things; otherwise, none of us will have anything good to bring to the fourth. So I think we all need to venture out a little bit, and then maybe we'll come back together one day and do another one."

I read the end of that quote and think Dunst is talking a little more about herself than Sam Raimi. Granted it is certainly odd for a filmmaker to get trapped into one series of films, take Darren Bousman and the Saw series as an example. However, Raimi seems extremely dedicated to Spider-Man and if he has the story and Spider-Man 3 does as well as I think it will I can't see him delaying too long on a fourth film. Especially if he can get the whole cast back. Dunst has already said, "I would work with Sam on any movie he wanted to work on it with me, because I just adore that man." Sounds like dedication to me.

Spider-Man 3 hits theaters on May 4.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/comcast_to_debut_next_spider_man_3_trailer
The week began with the first trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (get that here) and will apparently end with a new trailer for Spider-Man 3 as Comcast has set up a new site ripe to debut a new trailer this Friday, March 23.

The Flash-based website already has up a behind-the-scenes clip, trailers, trivia, a look at the villains, stunts and much more. You can click here or on the teaser image above to check out the page.

Yahoo! also is continuing their trend of exclusives as they have up a sh*tty piece of artwork for the film, check that out here and a new TV Spot that you can get in our trailer gallery for the film here.

Oh, and if you are a trailer person and needed a reason to see The Hills Have Eyes II, Fox Atomic will be debuting the trailer for 28 Weeks Later in front of it this weekend. Just thought I would throw that in since I didn't want to do a full article.]]> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/more_spidey_3_pics
On top of that you also get some new pics from Spider-Man 3 which include a blurry look at Venom. Yeah, you aren't even reading and already clicked away. Fine, be that way! For anyone that continued reading click here or on the teaser pic for DVDRama's gallery.]]>