Digressions

Relocating!

2010-07-07T15:23:00.003-04:00

Moving can be fun. It can also be annoying because of all the packing and the boxes and really wouldn't it just be easier to abandon your possessions and move from city to city, adopting new identities like Don Draper? In any event. If you've enjoyed the comedic stylings of Digressions, mosey on over to this site.

BREAKING: Arbitrary Metric Suggests "Twilight" Is Bigger Than "Harry Potter," World Cup, Entirety of Earth

2010-06-28T07:11:00.005-04:00

I POLITELY SAY "WELL, DUH, SHERLOCK": BREAKING MEGA-IMPORTANT NEWS, that is in no way driven by an desire for easy pageviews and traffic! The "Twilight" Facebook page has more fans than "Harry Potter," "Toy Story," "Transformers" and "Iron Man" COMBINED, according to Nikki Finke! That's 6.665 MILLION fans, people. Do you understand what this means? No, it doesn't mean that a large number of people using this social networking platform have enjoyed the bestselling books or films, and that clicking "Like" is a meaningless action providing no financial benefit to the series or its beneficiaries.

It means that "Twilight" is obviously bigger than religion and now J.K. Rowling just went and killed herself. Good work, "Harry Potter" fans. If you had just "Liked" the "Harry Potter" page we could have avoided this whole thing. "Toy Story 3" might have overwhelming critical support and be well on its way to $400 million in domestic box office, which is way more than what the "Twilight" film will earn, but these are just meaningless "actually relevant facts" that tell you "actual information." What's important here is that each Facebook fan is actually worth $1 million Space Bucks, and sometime today "Twilight" will become the largest holder of weath on the planet and the globe will be renamed "Planet Renesmee." (Also did you know that more Tweets mentioned "Twilight" between the hours of 5 and 6 a.m. last Thursday than mentioned soccer, President Obama and Cheerios? Based on this meaningless and arbitrary number, "Twilight" now also gets a seat in the U.S. Senate and the House of Commons.)

And Nikki Finke is posting this solely because it's newsworthy and relevant information for her audience, NOT because she will post anything and everything relating to "Twilight" (for the traffic) and "Tilda" (for her own benefit, though she's yet to put anything on the site explaining the conflict of interests inherent when she has a financial stake in a show based on her life, which of course says nothing about the PR boost she gets if a show based on her is a success, BUT apparently none of that is important or needs to be said so lets post anything we can about "Tilda," cool?).

The "Mad Men" Season Four Poster

2010-06-21T12:46:00.002-04:00

They say the spartan, modern look was big in 1964. Also, Am I the only one who thinks this is the daytime version of the posters for Christopher Nolan movies? [via Ausiello]

The upside of criticism

2010-06-21T10:31:00.003-04:00

A look at the benefits of tough criticism. Go read it, you ninny. [Chronicle of Higher Education]

Bad words and newspapers

2010-06-21T10:27:00.003-04:00

When a nominee for the Supreme Court has used lots and lots of bad words in the past, the news articles are sure to be fun. And they are! Watch the NYT squirm to avoid actually using a naughty word out of fear that somebody under 18 might read the story or something.

New Radiohead Album Almost Done?

2010-06-21T10:25:00.003-04:00

The new Radiohead album could be done in "a matter of weeks." Just in time to get a song on the soundtrack for the next "Twilight" movie, I begrudgingly suppose. [This via that]

"Shakedowns" aren't what they used to be

2010-06-21T10:08:00.003-04:00

Just to clarify. Curious what a "shakedown" entails?

BP successfully argued it shouldn't be liable for most of the broader economic distress caused by the president's six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And it fended off demands to pay for restoration of the Gulf coast beyond its prespill conditions.

After the high-profile meeting of administration and BP officials on Wednesday, it was in the interest of neither to discuss such details. BP wanted to look contrite and to make a grand gesture, and the White House wanted to look tough.

Okie doke.

[WSJ]

Summer Begins!

2010-06-21T10:05:00.002-04:00

Happy First Day Of Summer, everybody! It's hotter than hell outside. Might even top 95 degrees in the District this week! Global warming officially exists again, until it doesn't later this year when temperatures inexplicably cool.

"Toy Story 3" Drinks Your Milkshake (Because I Haven't Said That In A While)

2010-06-21T07:42:00.002-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE ROUNDUP | JUNE 18-20, 2010

As expected, "Toy Story 3" dominated the box office this weekend. As expected, nobody remembered "Jonah Hex" was coming out. Let's get to it. There will be a LOT of numbers here, so if that's not your thing feel free to skip this one.

Amazing news in the world of popular cinema this weekend. A movie came out -- a surefire summer blockbuster! -- and it WASN'T terrible. Predictably, it had to be the work of the mad geniuses at Pixar, who simply refuse to make something that isn't simultaneously A) good-or-really-really-really-great and B) insanely profitable. Their movies typically open big, but when you factor in the sequel aspect (and, therefore, the built-in audience) and the 3-D ticket prices (which are still atrocious and not worth it but if people will pay, I suppose that's life), this was gonna be a big one.

"Toy Story 3" was obviously the runaway champ this weekend. How big? An estimated $109 million big. That set some records, which we'll get to in a moment. But let's pause for a second and recognize the rareness of the feat we saw this weekend. Not just Pixar's streak of 11 straight commercial and critical hits (yes, even "Cars" wasn't that bad). But the fact that a threequel came out and was terrific -- living up to the significant examples set by its predecessors. And the fact that a good -- possibly great -- film came out, and people showed up in droves. That's...well, that's unusual.

SO, the good news. As I said, an estimated $109 million for the weekend. (Assuming, for the rest of this post, that the number holds.) That's the 10th-biggest opening weekend in box office history, and the fifth time in the last year a film opened to at least $108 million. (For the record, no, that's never happened before. The biggest stretch of openers beforehand was the span from July 2006 to May 2007, wherein four films opened with at least $114 million, or the span from May 2007 to May 2008, wherein five films opened with at least $98 million, but that's besides the point and I don't want to bore you with too many numbers.

Again, assume it remains the 10th-biggest opening in box office history (a number which is less than $1 million ahead of "Transformers 2," "Star Wars: Episode III" and "Shrek 2," so if the estimate is too high it will dip to no worse than the 14th-biggest opening ever; and it is $5 million behind the ninth-biggest debut ever, the third "Pirates of the Caribbean," so it's unlikely to take that slot). That makes it the second-biggest cartoon opening ever, following "Shrek the Third." (Also, amusingly, it is the fourth threequel to notch one of the 10 biggest debuts.) If the number holds, it is the biggest June debut ever (ahead of the $108.9 million opening of "Transformers 2," and way ahead of the $93 million debut for the third "Harry Potter" back in '04).

The film also posted some incredibly impressive daily numbers. The $41 million opening day gross on Friday (counting midnight showings, because, yes, people showed up for a midnight showing to what is ostensibly a movie for children) is the eighth-biggest Friday take in box office history. It's the 12th-biggest opening day ever.

And it is, obviously, a record for Pixar. Their previous best opener was "The Incredibles," which earned $70.4 million on the first weekend in November 2004. During the last decade, they have reliably oepned their movies in the $60-70 million range, failing to do so just once before ("Ratatouille," which opened with $47 million in 2007).

However. While this debut is impressive -- and it IS, and it's HUGE, et cetera -- there are some reasons to pause slightly.

Take the day-to-day numbers this weekend. While the opening day was nearly twice as big as that of any other Pixar movie opening over the summer (they all opened in the $16-23 million range), it wasn't all good news from there. The Friday-to-Saturday decline was bound to be larger, because sequels intrinsically have more audience turnout on Fridays, but that was in direct opposition to the Friday-to-Saturday uptick for family movies (which stems from families turning out for matinées).

This movie dropped 9.8 percent from Friday to Saturday, earning $37 million in its second day. While that's still good -- and, again, that is bigger than any other day any other Pixar film has had -- the dip was more than twice as big of Pixar's previous biggest Friday-to-Saturday dip for a summertime hit. In 2008, "Wall-E" debuted with $23 million (Pixar's previous best Friday debut in the summer) and fell 4.5 percent on Saturday. The other films all saw increases of the minor to major variety -- "Up" rose 22.9 percent, "Finding Nemo" went up 38.6 percent and "Ratatouille" went up 3.2 percent.

There's something telling in those digits. "Nemo" and "Up" -- the two biggest Pixar films at the box office -- saw the two biggest Saturday upticks. They also had negligible second weekend drops (between 33 and 35 percent). "Wall-E" -- which, like "Toy Story 3," set a record for a Pixar opening day, opening weekend and Friday-to-Saturday dip -- fell 48 percent in its second weekend.

(The Sunday numbers will be important, but they are an estimate right now so it's hard to gauge them. The $31 million estimate suggests a Saturday-to-Sunday dip of 16.2 percent, which is smaller than any of the other films. "Wall-E" and "Ratatouille" both fell 19 percent on Sunday; interestingly, "Up" and "Nemo" fell 23 and 21 percent, respectively, suggesting they reaped the benefit of their good buzz on Saturday. With Father's Day falling on Sunday, I have to think the dip will be bigger than estimated. However, the word of mouth is so golden I don't think it'll hit the 23 percent of "Up." Even a 20 percent dip would push the gross down to about $30 million on Sunday and $108 million for the weekend.)

Of course, I'm not suggesting "Toy Story 3" is going to fade fast. For starters, the $109 million already puts it halfway to topping "Wall-E" and "Ratatouille" (which finished with $223 million and $206 million, respectively). But it makes it unclear how far this one goes. "Wall-E" had the smallest opening weekend-to-final-domestic-tally ratio of the above films (and the opening-to-final multipliers are phenomenal for Pixar movies. )It earned 3.5 times its debut. Compare that to 4.3 for "Up" or 4.8 for "Nemo."

What does this mean for the long term of "Toy Story 3"? It's hard to gauge. Obviously it's going to be a gigantic hit and make big bucks and all that. As I said, the word of mouth is positively glowing. The reviews are preposterously good. And there is little direct competition coming down the road. But just HOW big will it be? As always, the second weekend dip will be crucial. Will it be Pixar's first 50 percent decline over the summer? Possibly. Next weekend's films -- Adam Sandler & Co. in "Grown Ups," Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz in "Knight and Day" -- are star-packed but not directly competing with this film. After that, the movie loses 3-D screens and audience members to "The Last Airbender" and "Despicable Me."

In the long run, this is still going to be Pixar's biggest film. "Nemo" holds that crown with $339 million (in unadjusted 2003 dollars). This flick is guaranteed to hit $300 million and then some. If it has the 3.5 multiplier of "Wall-E" -- a film it appears to resemble, based on the day-to-day percentages -- it approaches $380 million. (I don't want to live in a world where this and "Transformers 2" open with the same amount, and the Michael Bay film hits $400 million.) In my head, I think it will slow before that (closer to $350 million) based on the day-to-day dips. But I look at the track record, the release schedule and the likelihood people encourage their friends to go see this -- especially in lieu of another similar release -- and I think this could get closer to the $380-400 million mark. So I haven't given up on thinking it's Pixar's first $400 million release, no. At the very least, it's going to top "Nemo" -- as well as this spring's "Alice in Wonderland," which is still the No. 1 movie of the year (with $333 million).

ALSO at the box office:

-- "Jonah Hex" earned a horrid $5 million this weekend, averaging an atrocious $1,800 per screen and debuting at No. 8 this weekend.

-- "The Karate Kid" tumbled an impressive 47.9 percent in its second weekend, earning $29 million (impressive because of the family demographic it lost to "Toy Story 3," plus it's a remake with a built-in audience) (and seriously, if this film only dips 48 percent, no way Pixar can dip more, right!?). With $106 million in the bank so far, this thing is gunning for $185-190 million.

-- "The A-Team" actually fell less than "The Karate Kid," dipping 46 percent for $13 million in its second weekend. But when you open with that much less, it's not so impressive. The $49 million gross so far suggests it's heading for an unimpressive $75-80 million.

-- "Get Him To The Greek" declined slightly (just 38 percent this weekend), adding $6 million to give it $47 million after three weekends. The competition from next weekend's "Grown Ups" will hit it hard next weekend, but finishing with $60 million after a $17 million opening isn't that bad.

-- "Shrek No. 4,148" was hit hard by "Toy Story 3," falling 65 percent to earn $5.5 million in its fifth outing. The $222 million gross thus far is impressive, considering it opened so much weaker than its predecessors, but it's still going to top out at $235 million -- a franchise worst.

-- "Prince of Persia" earned another $5 million this weekend, and now it's earned $80 million! Slowly but surely, it is catching up on "Sex and the City 2."

-- Killers" fell a decent 36 percent, and the $5 million weekend take pushes its gross to $39 million. WORLD'S BIGGEST SUPERSTAR Katherine Heigl can make ANYTHING profitable. This $75 million production will be hit hard by the similar-but-made-by-better-talent "Knight and Day" next weekend.

-- "Sex and the City 2" fell out of the top 10 this weekend, coming in at No. 11 with $2.4 million. It fell 55 percent in its fourth weekend. The $100 million production has earned $90 million so far and is going to top out at $95 million.

Vuvuzelas have caused one (ONE) good thing, I guess

2010-06-21T07:01:00.002-04:00

Just see the gif. [via TBL]

"Toy Story 3" Opening Huge, In Spite Of Armond White

2010-06-19T12:00:00.002-04:00

TOYS AHOY, IS WHAT I GUESS I WILL LEAD WITH: Pixar's "Toy Story 3" opened with $40-41 million on Friday. The weekend take will probably hit $120 million, cracking the top seven all-time opening weekends. All this despite lacking an endorsement from the People's Critic, Armond White.

Weekend Box Office Preview: "Toy Story 3" Breaks The Summer's Streak By Being Non-Sucky

2010-06-18T11:11:00.006-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE PREVIEW | JUNE 18-20, 2010

Sweet merciful Lasseter, a real, actual, no-bones-about it movie to be excited about! A summer movie worth actually leaving the house to see! Are we dreaming? Is it real? Could it be? It is!

"Toy Story 3" hits theaters this weekend, and it is possibly the most-anticipated second sequel to a 15-year-old genre-altering children's film to come out this year. Pixar is on an unparalleled streak right now, churning out critical and commercial hits at every turn. According to the reviews -- 99 percent positive! -- the critical streak ain't ending here, and neither is the commercial one.

So how much is it gonna make? My prediction: $115-120 million. And I very easily see how I could be highballing or lowballing it, but that's where I see it opening.

The rationale: The Pixar movies have opened in the $60-70 million range for six of their last seven features (from "Monsters, Inc." in 2001 to "Up" last summer). That has included a grand total of zero sequels. They've turned movies about senior citizens and mute robots into $63-68 million openers. Their one opening misstep, "Ratatouille," debuted with a relatively pedestrian $47 million -- but because it was so good, after the word-of-mouth kicked in, it had the best opening-to-final ratio of all but one of the other Pixar movies since 2001 (the exception, "Finding Nemo," had absurd legs).

They've done this without a sequel. Their brand name makes their movies de facto sequels, which means the Pixar name helps an audience get over a concept like "Wall-E" -- to a certain extent. The audience still shows up, but it takes more time. This time, they are finally giving Disney the manna they've wanted since the 2000s began. Sequels have the entrenched brand identity that helps franchises like "Batman," "Transformers," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Shrek" and many others outdo themselves in terms of debuts from film-to-film.

Then you factor in the 3-D ticket prices, which are good to goose prices another hard-to-quantify percentage. And mix all that together and look at the most recent comparison: "Alice in Wonderland."

That film had a known brand, the 3-D prices, star power (in that case, Depp; in this case, Pixar) and was providing something different and unusual to an audience starved for it. That movie opened with $116 million this spring. This one is going to top it. It's also going to usurp that film's throne as the biggest movie of 2010 ($333 million) -- and top "Finding Nemo's" $339 million. Grand predictions, I know, but I stand by it: This will be their first $350 million film, and I bet good money it is their first $400 million film.

All of the factors are lined up for it. The summer movie season has left audiences metaphorically starved for anything good. So you've got an audience with nothing else to see. The brand and film identity are going to give it a huge leg up, with the Pixar/"Toy Story" brand reminding people why they like to go to the movies. The 3-D prices are an obvious financial boost. And the film will appeal to young kids, with families providing repeat business. The reviews are already sterling, as noted above, and word of mouth will be the same.

Oh, and there is another new opener this weekend! "Jonax Hex," which will make like $10 million. Did you know it was coming out this weekend? Me neither.

Lakers defeat Celtics for NBA title

2010-06-18T07:33:00.003-04:00

The L.A. Lakers beat the Boston Celtics last night in Game Seven of the NBA Finals. Overcoming a 13-point deficit -- and their own atrocious shooting (they shot worse than 33 percent in the series and won) -- the Lakers won 83-79 in a game that came down to the wire in the way NBA games often do (a.k.a some exciting basketball is played, threes being traded and what not, before things ground to a halt with the intentional fouling to keep the clock going).

This was, to say the least, a bizarre series. Sportswriters will try to find meaning and poetry in the outcome, and they will write their paeans to Kobe's greatness and Boston's collapse and all that jazz. But there was no deeper meaning. There was no commonality. Each game was weirder than the next. In one game, one of the NBA's best pure shooters set a Finals record for three pointers made; in the next game, he couldn't land one. Random role players won one game, then stars won the next. This thing might have made for interesting television, but it was as inconsistent and bewildering as any playoff series I can recall.

(Ironically, the series that pops to mind for a comparison is the one ESPN's talking heads seem to forget existed -- the 2005 Finals matchup between the Spurs and Pistons. You know, the last Finals series to go seven games. Those teams traded two blowouts apiece before things turned around and got interesting in the last three games. But I am probably reaching for a comparison, since that series at least had a main storyline -- two methodically-coached, defensive-minded teams grinding each other to a halt -- that this one sorely lacked.)

If the 2010 Finals had been played between almost any two other franchises, it would have lacked the gravitas and excitement it attained. That was largely a legacy thing; nobody thinks either of these teams are All-Time Greats, but because they are the two most storied et cetera et cetera, things got much more amplified.

So we wound up with a puzzling Finals series. In the end, the Lakers won and Kobe Bryant was -- of course -- named the Finals MVP. This despite shooting 6-for-24 in the deciding game (!!). Who were they going to give it to, Artest? Had to be Kobe.

Alas. In the matchup between two infuriating fan bases, there were really no winners in the rest of the NBA kingdom. The second that buzzer sounded, the talking heads went to work on What It All Meant, but in reality it could mark a curtain call for the last few years in the league. If the summer of 2010 is as game-shifting as it could be -- if superstars team up and switch cities, boosting some teams to superpower status -- this could be the last stand for an older guard.

Of course, two things need to be remembered: A) The roster changes this summer probably won't match up to all of the hype (i.e. we won't get three or four marquee free agents on one team), and B) Most of the teams in play are in the Eastern Conference, so it marks a curtain call for the Celtics, but not for the three-time conference champion Lakers. They've got another few years in them. So in reality, it means everything to the Lakers and nothing at all. Sounds about right.

"Toy Story 3" Prepares To Storm Your Emotional Beaches

2010-06-18T07:29:00.004-04:00

"You know what's hard? To actually make a funny movie, and a sad movie, and an exciting movie, and a thoughtful movie, and an artful movie, and a challenging movie, and a sophisticated movie, and a surprising movie, all at once. To make it with integrity and wit, to never insult your audience — whether that audience is five or 35 or 65 — and to do it again and again and again, eleven times and counting. That's a miracle.

"That's why the people of Pixar are currently America's most important filmmakers. And that's why Toy Story 3 is the best movie of the year."

-- Dan Kois on "Toy Story 3." Says it all.

Let's Mythologize A Team Built For A Three-Year Run, Shall We?

2010-06-17T12:13:00.004-04:00

GREAT MOMENTS IN POMPOUS AGGRANDIZING: "Take a good look at your Celtics when they break from their huddle and walk on the Staples Center court for Game 7 against the Lakers tonight. This will never happen again. Not with this group. ... This is it. The last stand for the old guard." Emphasis added. Bask in this long-earned moment for a team with a core assembled less than 23 months ago! [Thanks, Dan Shaughnessy]

Germans, Puppies, Hell's Angels and...wait, what?

2010-06-17T11:36:00.001-04:00

JOURNALISM CAN SHUT IT DOWN, THE BEST LEDE EVER HAS BEEN LOCATED: "A German student created a major traffic jam in Bavaria after making a rude gesture at a group of Hell's Angels motorcycle gang members, hurling a puppy at them and then escaping on a stolen bulldozer." There's simply nothing to add to that. [Reuters]

NFL to further devalue the outcome of games and seasons

2010-06-17T10:31:00.004-04:00

Do you like watching NFL teams get decimated by injuries to the point that the regular season and playoffs are decided based on what team can, through luck and more luck, drag their wheezing, battered carcass across the finish line? You're in luck! The NFL presented a proposal to the player's union yesterday that would extend the regular season to 18 games. The idea is it would cut out two preseason games (which are wildly overpriced), and other changes on the table could involve a bye week between the preseason and regular season and altering the off-season schedule.

It is, of course, all about the cash. Quoth the times:

The union has also suggested that players’ compensation should be boosted because of the addition of two regular-season games. The league’s position is that because the overall number of games does not change, player pay should remain the same.

That is a very reasonable point. Why increase the pay for two games tacked on to the regular season, where players are giving their all due to frantic playoff pushes, when it's really no different than two scrub games nobody cares about in the preseason and most people just try not to get injured?

Of course, this will almost definitely happen. As Packers president Mark Murphy says: “It has a lot of momentum among the owners. It addresses a real problem we have in our league, the quality of the preseason.” An easier way to address the quality of the preseason would just be to cut the two games, unless the actual problem is a way for the league and owners to wring more money out of the games? Remember, two more regular season games -- especially given the import they will have on the playoff chase, since divisions and wild card berths could be dramatically swung with two additional games -- are two highly-televised opportunities for the NFL to market their product, while owners can get big crowds to come buy concessions and jerseys at their stadiums.

This will all be moot if a labor stoppage occurs in 2011, of course. Then the owners will be able to do whatever they want. I look forward to a 20-game regular season.

[NYT]

The Posthumous Nicholas Ray

2010-06-17T10:27:00.003-04:00

The lost film of Nicholas Ray, director of "Rebel Without A Cause." Also, tidbits about an alternate ending to "Rebel Without A Cause" involving, for some reason, a live grenade. [NYT]

Casting Can Really Make A Movie

2010-06-17T07:41:00.003-04:00

SO IS HIS LITTLE SISTER A REDHEAD, OR WHAT? Taylor Lautner is making a movie where he realizes his parents aren't his real parents. The casting director decided to have a little fun with this premise. I guess Carrot Top and Betty White weren't available? [Movieline]

Real Gummi Bears Would Hug Katy Perry

2010-06-17T07:37:00.001-04:00

"Those are definitely not Trolli Gummi Bears in the video because Trolli Gummi Bears would never be that rude," John Leonardo, senior brand manager of Farley's and Sathers (which owns Trolli), told MTV in a statement. "Trolli bears would extend their chubby little arms and give Katy a big old bear hug and whisper, 'Everything is going to be alright.' "

-- Those Gummi Bears in Katy Perry's "California Gurls" are not The Gummi Bears. Just in case you were worried/curious about why Gummi Bears would react to that bewildering video with middle fingers. [via]

Sure, Play A Game 7, Why Not

2010-06-16T07:30:00.003-04:00

Sigh. The Boston Celtics and the L.A. Lakers continue to keep the 2009-2010 NBA season going, despite the fact that LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and every other marquee free agent-to-be are just sitting at home, waiting for the free agency everyone's been writing about since the dawn of time. Don't the Celtics and the Lakers know people have been waiting for YEARS for this summer? For this chance to see which stars sign which contracts with which teams? For the chance to see how this will forever alter the professional basketball landscape, or at least tweak it so that a different set of teams can disappoint their fan bases each spring?

No, no, no. That's not good enough for Boston and L.A., the winners of a combined 32 NBA titles, who just insist on pushing the NBA Finals to a Game Seven. It's just the second-most exciting occurrence in professional sports -- A GAME SEVEN, BETWEEN THE TWO MOST STORIED FRANCHISE, HISTORYGASM, CUE THE BLACK AND WHITE MONTAGE, et cetera [/ESPN] -- following only the fun of free agency.

But don't sweat, fan bases of the other 28 teams in the league. The fans in Boston and L.A. (and the legions of May-June fans that wear L.A./Boston gear this time of year, and also own gear supporting the Cowboys, Yankees and Duke), they've been where you are. Their fan bases will remind you, they know how it feels, fan bases of Cleveland/New York/Chicago/Miami/Toronto/L.A. Clippers/Dallas/every other team waiting for the free agency dominoes to fall. I mean, L.A. went a whole three seasons between NBA Finals appearances. (THREE SEASONS. The fact that professional basketball still exists in Los Angeles is appalling.) Boston had to wait 22 years -- 22 years! -- to add the 17th championship banner to their ceiling. Can you imagine? (Well, of course you can, if you're a fan of literally any other team in the league.)

Obviously, what matters is what happens after this season ends. Ugh. But no. They insist on keeping up the charade, playing the games, pushing the season to an event so exciting and different for the league it's happened just twice in the last 20 years. Does ANYBODY even care about the actual outcome of the game on the court? About who will be crowned champion? Of course not. Let's just focus on whether or not LeBron has been spotted anywhere near Chicago.

Trailer Park: Sofia Coppola's "Somewhere"

2010-06-15T10:22:00.003-04:00

It's hard to believe it, but it's been more than six years since Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" had its Moment. Well, the moment mostly belonged to Coppola (winner of the Best Original Screenplay Oscar) and Bill Murray (who came up short against Sean Penn for the Best Actor trophy). Since the film hit theaters, she's divorced, had children and presumably done numerous other things that didn't relate to marriage, children and her personal life.

One thing she hasn't done: make a true follow-up to "Lost in Translation." Her only film since then, 2006's "Marie Antoinette," had some things going for it (the beguiling costumes, which rightly won Milena Canonero an Oscar) and some downsides (uh, the rest of it?). While that film -- much like her prior major work, "The Virgin Suicides" -- dealt with the existential ennui and loneliness that can describe much of the human experience but be best depicted with a Phoenix song playing in the background, it didn't feel tonally like the next step from the "Translation" director.

Enter "Somewhere," her latest film. It appears to be similar enough to "Translation" to warrant the comparisons between the two films, but different enough to appear new and different. While "Antoinette" was, in its way, interesting by virtue of seeing this auteur take on a part of history, her latest appears to be a more original work from an original filmmaker. The kind of film that speaks to her life and experiences but finds a world of its own on-screen. Anyway, it looks terrific.

"The Karate Kid" [insert kung fu pun] The Competition

2010-06-14T11:49:00.006-04:00

NEPOTISM PAYS: Because life is an unknowable cosmic riddle, "The Karate Kid" opened atop the box office this weekend with an estimated $56 million. If it holds, it's the eighth-biggest June debut in history. Jaden Smith's flick also opened bigger than all but two of his dad's films; in fact, it took 14 starring roles before Will Smith opened a film with a bigger haul (the $77 million debut of "I Am Legend" in 2007). Astonishingly, the movie's box office increased from Friday to Saturday, so this thing is clearly going to earn $200 million and the world makes no sense anymore.

The key is, obviously, Jackie Chan. This debut is the second-biggest martial arts opening ever, following Chan's "Rush Hour 2" (67 million in 2001). Just kidding, the key is the brand name/source material -- just well-known enough to have fans, not so beloved it can't get remade for no good reason -- and the fact that this summer movie season is an unending, bleak pit of despair.

Speaking of pits of despair, "The A-Team" also opened this weekend, notching $26 million for the No. 2 slot. That is not good. The fact that it had less than half the earning power of "The Karate Kid" -- when both are remakes of 1980s brands that didn't need remakes -- either means young adults remain a powerhouse at theaters or it means nobody knows anything, ever, and this summer is probably going to wind up with "Cats and Dogs 2" out-grossing "Toy Story 3." (Probably not, but you see my point.)

There were also other movies out this weekend! The fourth "Shrek" notched $15 million, pushing its gross to $210 million and it's fighting damn hard not to be the lowest-grossing installment yet (the $267 million gross of the original is in its sights, but "Toy Story 3" opens next weekend and that augurs poorly for this flick).

"Get Him To The Greek" added another $10 million in its second weekend, dipping 42.5 percent (not bad) and earning $36 million in 10 days (not great). It'll wind up with about $58-60 million. It cost $40 million (same as "The Karate Kid"!), so that's not terrible.

You know what is terrible? "Killers," which fell 48 percent (not terrible) to earn $8 million in its second frame (that is terrible). Why is this bad? Because the movie cost $75 million to make and bunches more to market and it's earned $30.6 million so far and will be lucky to crack $45 million.

It's okay -- next weekend's big release is "Toy Story 3," so the hopes and dreams of movie fans everywhere rest on the second sequel to a 15-year-old film.

The Problem With Winking At The Audience

2010-06-11T07:22:00.003-04:00

"[I]f audience members were to take a shot every time Jackson pities a fool or expresses reservations about air travel, or Neeson expresses his supreme satisfaction with a scheme being successfully executed, they’d pass out within the first half-hour."

-- The terrific Nathan Rabin on "The A-Team" and, really, the entire sub-genre of self-refrencing remakes and reimaginings.

Weekend Box Office Preview: Four New Releases, "Shrek" Still Gunning For No. 1

2010-06-04T06:19:00.004-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE PREVIEW | JUNE 4-6

A quartet of new releases dutifully trudge into theaters this weekend, trying to disprove the notion that this summer movie season is somehow a weak, retread-filled exercise in lackluster films with mind-numbingly dull, tired premises. One of the new flicks is the goddamn "Marmaduke" movie. So let's just lean on each other and maybe we can get through it together.

Four new releases and just one (ONE) looks even mildly promising. "Get Him To The Greek," only opening on the third-biggest screen count of the four flicks, is a spin-off/semi-sequel to 2008's "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." Whereas that film centered on Jason Segel (who also co-wrote it), the breakout character was Russell Brand's boozing Aldous Snow, the rock star we were supposed to hate (because he stole Segel's girl) but wound up liking (because he was comedy gold).

The new movie ups Brand to leading man, keeps director Nick Stoller and brings back Jonah Hill. (Weirdly, Hill plays a different character than the last time around. In that film, he was a minor supporting player; in this one, he's the co-lead, the straight man tasked by P. Diddy to bring Brand's character to L.A.) Everybody else is gone, making way for ladies from acclaimed TV shows (Rose Byrne, Elisabeth Moss).

The 2008 film opened with a decent $17 million and finished with a decent $63 million. It was a charming enough movie, and Brand's fame has only risen since the movie, so him anchoring the movie makes sense. Are he and Hill big enough names to create a bigger follow-up? Eh. Not exactly. The film could easily open with $19-20 million, but finishing with more than $65-75 million seems unlikely.

STILL, it actually looks funny and stars funny people, which puts it in direct opposition to the next big opener this weekend: "Killers." Stop me if you've heard this one before: He (Ashton Kutcher) is secretly an assassin, but his wife doesn't know about it! And when she finds out, wacky comedic antics ensue! OR, if that premise doesn't grab you: Katherine Heigl plays a high-stress, career-oriented Type-A woman who Just Can't Land A Man. (I know, it's innovative and smart casting, and when she mocks this movie's writers in two years we will know it's their fault she keeps playing the same role again and again and says nothing about her personality or what type of roles studios think she can perfectly fill.)

Ugh. This Frankenbeast of an "action"-"comedy," pairing two genetically gifted but not exactly A-list stars together, wouldn't look original or promising on its own. But in three weekends, Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz's "Knight and Day" opens up -- another movie about a pearly-toothed suave assassin and the frantic blonde comedienne who unwittingly gets mixed up in his world -- and while that title is terrible and it looks silly in its own right, it plays like the A-list Real Version to this movie's cheapie direct-to-the-DVD-bin-at-Wal-Mart knockoff.

That being said, there are people who keep turning out to see Heigl's movies, and Ashton Kutcher presumably has some fans who will show up to his intermittent movie career. So this one will probably debut in the $19-20 million range as well, before plummeting badly next weekend and finishing up with less than "Greek."

For reasons unknown -- possibly punishing humanity for transgressions large and small, or as a form of penance required by those seeking absolution and trespass unto perdition -- there exists a "Marmaduke" movie. There just isn't anything more to say beyond, there is a "Marmaduke" movie. Because people have kids and it's nice for parents to sit inside an air conditioned theater for two hours while their kid stares at a screen, this thing will earn about $12 million this weekend.

Also opening is your usual "horror movie plopped into summer to grab spare change from bored high schoolers on summer vacation" counter-programming. This year's entry: "Splice," starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley -- an Oscar winner and an Oscar nominee, in what seems like two names picked out of a hat were somehow plopped into a horror movie -- about scientists who create some kind of genetic monster. "We didn't mean to create it," "It has human emotions, and it has learned to feel," "It's our responsibility," et cetera, et cetera, inevitably ensue. If this thing opens with $10 million, I will be surprised, so let's say $9.5 million.

But! None of these movies is going to hold the top spot this weekend. That honor falls to the 19th "Shrek" installment, which tries a new tack by seeing how long audiences can sit in the theater before they pass out from sheer, unfiltered terribleness. After a reasonable dip kept it atop the Memorial Day frame, another sub-50 percent fall could give it $25 million for the weekend and more than $180 million domestically. Repeat after me: Just two more weekends until "Toy Story 3"...just two more weekends until "Toy Story 3"...

Two movies opened last weekend. Nobody really liked them, and they are both in for a big tumble this weekend. First, we have "Prince of Persia," the misbegotten wannabe-franchise opener starring Jake Gyyylleeennhaaal, which opened with about $30 million over the three-day weekend. A fall of more than 50 percent will cut that film's earnings below $15 million for the weekend.

The ladies of "Sex and the City 2" are also in for a fall, because fanbase-dependent flicks draw a huge portion of their revenue upfront; the first film, which a lot of audience members didn't actively despise, fell 63 percent in its second weekend. This one opened a lot weaker than its predecessor, so it has a shorter fall in store, but nonetheless a dip of 60 percent (or more) will give it about $12 million for the weekend. It's likely to come to a grinding halt just shy of $100 million.

A Ringleader With No Rings

2010-06-03T12:53:00.001-04:00

"Free agency was forever LeBron James’(notes) chase, the Championship of Me, and how fitting that he uses the most vacuous vehicle of our time – the “Larry King Show” – to upstage an NBA Finals rich with such history and substance. As the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers gather for a championship series to remind us of what built the league, what made it great, here’s LeBron James with a public ode on LeBron James."

-- Woj is just getting started on LBJ. More at Y!

Running A Network Into The Ground Is Worth $30 Million, Apparently

2010-06-02T11:20:00.002-04:00

Jeff Zucker, NBC Universal president and CEO, ruiner of a once-great network, bungler of a late-night war, hirer of Ben Silverman, guy who rose to fame by making "The Today Show" what it is, kicker of puppies, slayer of dreams and hellbeast bent on destroying the joy engendered by the escapist medium of television...is getting $30 to $40 million to leave when Comcast takes over. THIRTY TO FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. The entire Internet just collectively ground its teeth down to the gums. [NYP]

Loveliness

2010-06-02T08:05:00.003-04:00

There are some things in life that get old very quickly. Snow, when you need to drive someplace. Strawberries, especially when purchased from godawful stores that clearly keep the berries under a radiator until they have to sell them. The whole "cougar" meme. There are also some things that will never, ever get old. Such as:

Weekend Box Office Roundup: "Shrek" Wins Contest Between Pitiful Blockbusters

2010-06-01T10:50:00.002-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE ROUNDUP | MAY 28-30

So, it turns out box office predictions can sometimes be hilariously off the mark! You win some, you lose some, strikes and gutters, et cetera, et cetera. I was way off on the order for the Top Three this weekend, which either means I am dumb, or it means I am dumb and this was a very wacky weekend. HOWEVER, I got the "Shrek" numbers correct -- I was just way off on the two new openers. Let's get to the digits.

Surprising everybody who doesn't have kids, "Shrek Keeps Making Pop Cultural Jokes To Keep Audience Members From Hanging Themselves" is your No. 1 movie of the weekend. I know! The franchise is done! Cooked! Extinct! And yet. And yet, there are still people with kids and people looking to escape the heat and sometimes these people have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and that is how "Shrek No. 95" earns $43 million over the three-day weekend and $55.7 million over the four-day holiday. (My prediction: $43-44 million for the three-day weekend, $55 million for the holiday. A broken clock, twice a day, yadda.)

What does it all mean? It means there is a black, gaping maw in the marketplace, kind of like the one in Guatemala except instead of being terrifying, this one is just exhausting. It means the competition is lackluster, and people still want to go to the movies, so they go with the Devil they know ("Shrek" and its patented, exhausted, tiresome, wheezing brand of pop culture and fart jokes) instead of the Devil they look at quizzically as if to say, "Really? Jake Gyllenhaal? Really?" (He tried to be an action hero this weekend. More on him in a moment).

This flick fell just 38 percent from weekend-to-weekend (three-day weekends here), much closer to the 33 percent dip of "Shrek 2" in 2004 than the 56 percent dip of "Shrek the Third" in 2007. Both of those films, like this one, debuted the weekend before Memorial Day. Stating the obvious: "Shrek the Third" had its second weekend thunder stolen by the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" (which earned $139 million over the four-day weekend), while "Shrek 2" saw just the $85 million debut of "The Day After Tomorrow" (Gyllenhaal again!). In other words, competition matters. "Shrek the Third" was up against a behemoth; the top three films this weekend after "Shrek No. 4" failed to earn a combined $100 million. This helps stave off huge declines.

Where does the flick go from here? It currently has $145 million in the bank after 11 days, well behind the second and third films in the franchise at the same point ($260 and $217 million, respectively). And while the legs were impressive in Weekend No. 2, this flick has just two more weekends to itself before "Toy Story 3" sucks up all the oxygen. ("Shrek the Third" held on reasonably for several weeks after its second-weekend drop, suffering a big fall again when "Ratatouille" opened up.)

Assuming it performs closer to "Shrek the Third" -- and it sits about 32 percent behind that film at this time, so let's project that it winds up the same amount behind -- the film is heading for a $218 million domestic final. I'll even boost that a few notches, because the next few weekends are depressing, but a $225-230 million final haul is not what DreamWorks was hoping for.

Moving onto the runners-up, two films are separated by just a few hundred thousand dollars and a pocket full of dreams. For the three-day weekend, "Sex and the City" is your No. 3 movie, earning $31 million over the Friday-to-Sunday frame, $37.1 million over the four-day weekend and $51.3 million since its Thursday launch. (Whew.)

Where does this movie stand on the Flop-Or-Smash-O-Meter? Considering it took five days to earn less than the first film netted in three days ($57 million) just two years ago, I'm gonna say it's a bit of a misfire. Yes, $51 million is not a bad debut for so-called "counterprogramming" (i.e. female-oriented) opening opposite the mammoth Bruckheimer/"Shrek" behemoths.

But let's be honest. Expectations for this film were sky high. The first one grabbed $57 million in three days, which would be terrific for all but a very select number of films. This one was supposed to be money in the bank, a blue chip sure thing, a Can't Miss proposition. What happened? The bad buzz, for one thing. The movie earned horrendous reviews, enough to make some fans think twice before venturing to the theater. (Remember, no matter how much you might love a movie or franchise or character, why would you go watch them be treated horribly? This is why people who love Batman did not see "Batman & Robin.")

And there's the freshness angle. In 2008, the film came after a four year vacuum filled by DVD purchases, basic cable syndication and the general lionization of the brand amongst longtime fans and people who finally caught up (on TBS or other reruns, on DVD, etc.). In 2010, the film is scratching an itch that was already taken care of when the first film came out. Was there a need for this film? Was there a craving in the audience? This is the difference between Super-Smash (which is what the 2008 film was) and decent success (which is what this film will be).

I had this one pegged for a huge debut (a five-day total of $85-$90 million, so yes, WAY off). I also thought it would make it to $140 million domestically, a few notches below the $152 million of the first film. I was clearly optimistic on both fronts. This one will finish up in the $110-115 million range -- fine for $50-million budgeted "Valentine's Day," not for the $100 million-budgeted franchise-to-be.

Your No. 3 film over the three-day weekend (and no. 2 over the holiday frame) is "The Prince of Persia: Sands of Time," which will spawn countless "Seriously, you bet your $300 million investment on Jake Gyllenhaal? And a videogame?" stories in the coming days. And they couldn't be more right. To break through, mega-budgeted unlikely blockbusters need some sort of X-factor to overcome expectations. Maybe it's the 3-D ("Avatar"), maybe it's Johnny Depp as a drunken Keith Richards ("Pirates of the Caribbean"), maybe it's Zach Galifinanansiskis in his underwear ("The Hangover"). But if your pitch is, "It's based on a videogame and stars Jake Gyllenhaal," that's probably not money you're seeing again.

My prediction ($35-37 million over three days, $45 million over four days) -- which I labeled as optimistic -- turned out to be just that. It earned $30 million over three days and $37.8 million over the four day holiday. The reasons this missed -- the subject matter, lackluster marketing, a nonstarter of a story -- are all obvious. But a lot of this has to go on the casting of Gyllenhaal. Sure, if you put Matt Damon or Leonardo DiCaprio in front of the camera, the thing might not have cracked $50 million. But your odds would have been damn better.

Gyllenhaal, an Oscar-nominated actor who was almost Spider-Man once upon a time, has a fan base and some fine films to his credit. But to anchor a major movie like this, you either need an established track record the studio can exploit (i.e. casting Christian Bale or Sam Worthington as your franchise lead), a better film around you (i.e. the Orlando Bloom in "Pirates" strategy) or a Cameron/Spielberg behind the camera. At the very, very least, you need to be a draw to audiences. Gyllenhaal has starred in one big moneymaker ("The Day After Tomorrow," an instantly forgettable film that made $186 million in 2004) and one word-of-mouth success ("Brokeback Mountain," which earned $82 million over 2005 and 2006, but wasn't really HIS movie any more than "The Dark Knight" was Christian Bale's movie).

Of course, you can't just blame him. This thing looked downright Xeroxed from other, better, more star-powered films of yore. It'll wind up finishing in the $85-90 million range, earn much more overseas (it's already topped $100 million worldwide) and is the first of this summer's big flops to come.

But it's okay. Next weekend, we get to see the B-list version of "Knight and Day" (not to say that film looks tremendous, but it's a huge upgrade in star power and directorial talent), the sure-to-suck "Killers." Awesome.

Professor X Gets Younger, Irisher

2010-05-28T10:57:00.003-04:00

PROFESSOR McX: James McAvoy, the scrawny star of "Atonement" and "Wanted," is your Young Professor X in Fox's "X-Men: First Class." (Yep, they're rebooting the decade-old franchise, while still moving ahead with a "Wolverine" sequel. Makes perfectly logical sense.) For the record, McAvoy played Mr. Tumnus in the "Narnia" movie and is an omnipresent rumor to play Young Bilbo in "The Hobbit," both the kinds of pitch-perfect casting labels that remind you he's a Q-tip. [Via the LAT]

Weekend Box Office Preview: [shakes head] "Sex and the City 2," "Prince of Persia," A Wave Of Sadness Overtakes Cinema

2010-05-27T12:02:00.003-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE PREVIEW | MAY 28-30

This weekend's big new releases are "Sex and the City 2" (opening today) and "The Prince of Persia" (opening tomorrow). They both look terrible. They will both make buckets of money. This sucks, so let's get this over with.

"Sex and the City 2" is the sequel to the 2008 hit and also follows the HBO show and blah blah blah you know this already. The first film opened to an absurd $57 million over this weekend two years ago, en route to $152 million domestically and $415 million worldwide (!). This film has that fan base locked in, it has no real competition and it has the usual publicity.

Really, this film has only two drawbacks. One, there was a freshness element the last time around that's missing; the series went off the air in 2004, the anticipation was stoked by months of leaks and gossip and paparazzi photos, culminating in that great ovular release in the form of mass ticket purchasing. So this one might not have the same "oomph." The other drawback is that the movie is, apparently, excruciating (just 14 percent on Rotten Tomatoes!) (at least the original came in close to 50 percent).

Here's my guess: This film opens bigger and drops more and winds up with slightly less than the '08 version. I'm guessing a weekend debut in the $68-70 million range, a five-day opening of about $85-$90 million and a final haul closer to $140 million.

Also opening this weekend is "Prince of Persia," Jerry Bruckheimer's science experiment to see what life would be like if you made "Pirates of the Caribbean" without any of that bothersome Star Power and Charisma and Interesting Acting brought to the table by Johnny Depp. Because what people who saw the last "Pirates" movies all said was, "I hope they remake the third one, just excising Depp and focusing more on the effects and the wooden straight man."

The buzz on this film is in the vicinity of nil. There are videogame fans, sure. There are people fooled into thinking it's another "Pirates" or "Mummy" or "Indiana Jones" movie, maybe. There are Jake Gyllenhaal fans (they exist, I assume?). And there are people who will go to theaters this weekend to escape the oppressive heat and play a cinematic game of Russian Roulette, trying to guess which theater offers the least dangerous avenue.

This thing will probably earn about $35-37 million over the three day weekend and hit $45 million for the weekend. And that's the most optimistic outlook I can provide. Really, this thing will wind up coming up just shy of $100 million domestically, but will probably make enough coin overseas to warrant the effort.

Also around! "Shrek Keeps On Shrekking," which will tumble but not too badly because it's Memorial Day Weekend and kids need a movie to go to and families need a break from their children and this is why you release a cartoon the weekend before Memorial Day. It will probably fall to about $43-44 million for the weekend, far below the $53 million its predecessor earned over three days in 2007, and about $55 million for the four-day holiday. Which will put it north of $140 million after 11 days.

NEXT WEEKEND: OH, and next weekend gives us Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl in "Killers," so there is literally no light at the end of this tunnel. Counting this weekend, it's four full weekends before the next legitimately excitement-worthy movie ("Toy Story 3"). But that's okay, because they remade "The Karate Kid"!

The Only Classroom In New York City

2010-05-27T11:39:00.002-04:00

Scouting NY takes a look at the Columbia University lecture hall that has appeared in the "Spider-Man" movies, "Kinsey" and "Mona Lisa Zzzzzz." The exterior was also used in "Ghostbusters," so I now want to move into this building. [Scouting NY via The Awl.]

NBA Playoffs Update: Yep, We Still Might Get LA-BOS In The Finals

2010-05-27T10:05:00.002-04:00

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF NON-UGH: The NBA playoffs are down to the Final Four, who are in turn down to their Final Five. There are, at most, five games left in the conference finals. The L.A. Lakers and Phoenix Suns are tied at two games apiece after both teams won all of their home games. Unfortunately for fans of entertainment, good basketball and seeing what damage Steve Nash could incur in the Finals, the Lakers are still too deep to count out. I'd love to see Phoenix win, and I see this going seven, but the Lakers are just too stacked. Dammit.

More interestingly, despite the fact that it looked like a rout just days ago, we turn our attention to the Eastern Conference Finals. The Orlando Magic steamrolled their way to the series without losing a single playoff game, and were among the hottest teams in the NBA the latter half of the regular season. The Boston Celtics have an average age of Deceased, looked broken down and just worn out during 2010. Until the playoffs began, when they beat my Heat (understandable), upset the Cavs (still very surprising) and took a 3-0 lead over the Orlando Magic. That last one was, and is, just inexplicable.

But wait! The Magic, a team that looked like the best in the league for a while there, ain't done yet! They won the last two games and now head to Boston down 3-2. Coming back from a 3-0 deficit has never been done in the NBA, but as sportswriters keep reminding us, a Boston team JUST coughed up a 3-0 series lead (the Bruins let the Flyers skate right into the Stanley Cup Finals). Does that remotely matter to this series? Of course not.

But the Magic are on fire right now, Dwight Howard seems to have found another level and the Celtics are -- and I can't stress this enough -- old. The core of this team is old and has logged a lot of hours on the court. Some folks think they got hot again because of veteran moxie and good coaching and High Basketball IQs. Regardless of why, it involved a certain amount of energy, and energy wears off. If this series goes seven, it's Orlando all the way. They have the momentum and all of the pressure is on Boston at this point.

And yes, I would love an Orlando-Phoenix Finals matchup. It's one of the best outcomes we could have gotten this postseason, perhaps only besting the Cavs-Lakers matchup. Boston-L.A.? Old news. I want to see the young guns go at it.

Roundup: Ellen Page Heading To HBO

2010-05-27T06:58:00.004-04:00

A roundup of the news and tidbits floating around today...

-- Ellen Page, two years removed from a Best Actress Oscar nomination, two months away from starring in Christopher Nolan's "Inception," is doing TV. Well, it's "not TV," etc., etc. She'll be joining Diane Keaton in "Tilda," about a blogger who is not Nikki Finke as long as they pay Nikki Finke.

-- Because Marvel is making their team-up movie "The Avengers," Hasbro wants to make their own team-up movie: "Hasbro Factory." Basically, "Night at the Museum" in a Hasbro factory. Nothing kids like more than being terrorized by man-eating Play-Doh.

-- Carl Rinsch, who was supposed to direct the "Alien" prequel before Ridley Scott decided to keep it for himself, is directing the "Logan's Run" remake that Bryan Singer talked about for years.

-- "Atlas Shrugged" is heading into production...without a lead.

-- Ken Kwapis, who has directed episodes of "The Office" and Robin Williams's terrible movie "License to Wed," is going to direct a live-action "Dilbert" movie.

-- In the wake of Cannes, an interesting look at Mike Leigh vs. Woody Allen, who both showed films there.

"Transformers 3" Goes On Without Fox

2010-05-27T06:46:00.002-04:00

Megan Fox isn't doing "Transformers 3" because A) She referred to Michael Bay as "Hitler," so she was fired, B) She's pretty sure "Jonah Hex" will be her new franchise, so she quit because she's too young to remember the "Wild Wild West" movie, or C) The intricacies of the character-driven story, as conceived by Michael Bay and a team of one-eyed chimps after a three-day acid trip, require delving deeper into the complex and thought-provoking relationship between Shia The Beef and Any Female Who Looks Hot In A Tank Top.

The official reason given? "Story." The resulting irony? The replacement female lead has never acted in a movie before, and filming starts in two weeks. Story is most certainly king on this set, where she will learn to act by being told which tennis ball on a stick is the racist caricature and which is not.

Weekend Box Office Roundup: "Shrek Forever After" Drops Nearly Half Its Predecessor's Opening Haul

2010-05-25T11:51:00.005-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE | MAY 21-23, 2010

Apologies for the tardiness of this post, but I've been traveling and unable to discuss just how excited I am there's a new "Shrek" movie in theaters. How excited? So excited I would rather eat a bucket of fried broken glass and sauteed rusty nails than see this worn out pony and its lone trick taken out for one more interminable ride.

Can you tell I'm excited yet? Ugh. This is the Summer Movie Season we get? It's just May, and we've already got a "MacGruber" movie, a second "Sex and the City" movie, a fourth "Shrek," the 19th "Robin Hood" feature and that truly abominable-looking "Prince of Persia" adaptation. I AM NOT HARD TO PLEASE. I like stupid popcorn. I like pop cinema. I eagerly await the summer movies. I will willingly pay money to see "The A-Team" movie. And even I find this summer's slate just tired.

Anyway, onto the numbers. The weekend's top movie and big new release is "Shrek Forever After," a.k.a. "Shrek: The Final Chapter," a.k.a. "Shrek Four," a.k.a. "You Really Regret Having Children Now, Huh?" Topping the box office with $70.8 million would be, for most films, pretty good! It's a decent amount of money. It's not a franchise low or anything. But it's still a bad opening.

Why? History. The first "Shrek," a fresh and fun CGI charmer that debuted in the overcrowded summer of 2001 and wound up topping that season's box office charts, earned a decent $42 million in its first frame. But it had legs from here down to the floor, going on to earn $260 million domestically -- meaning the flick earned six times its opening weekend. That's absurd. That's Monopoly money.

The second "Shrek" came out in 2004 and blew the doors off the box office. Opening with $108 million -- then the second-biggest debut ever -- the flick proved absurdly popular. It dipped just 32 percent in its second weekend, topped $20 million in each of its first four weekends and spent 10 weekends in the Top 10. When it finally left theaters, parents bludgeoned and bloodied into submission by the relentless pop culture jokes, the thing had $441 million in the bag. It wasn't just big -- it was the third-biggest movie in North American history. "Titanic," "Star Wars" and "Shrek 2" -- that was the film's cultural legacy.

And three years later came Part 3. And it sucked. It still was the third-biggest debut of all time ($121 million), the 18th-biggest movie in domestic history ($322 million) and proved that this thing wouldn't stop soaking in the bucks.

The only problem? The first film wound up with six times its opening weekend. The sequel earned four times the debut. The third installment roughly tripled its opening weekend. Diminishing returns weren't just evident in the storytelling -- they were right there in the numbers.

This film had huge brand recognition. It had 3-D ticket prices. And it was the only kiddie flick for miles ("How To Train Your Dragon" is two months old). But after setting the standard for CGI animation at the box office (and in literally no other way, but that's besides the point) -- the second and third films owned the two biggest debuts in CGI animation history by a long shot, and this one comes in at No. 3 (just ahead of "Finding Nemo") -- these numbers are a lot more pedestrian. In fact, they are a lot like 2006's "Ice Age 2," which opened with $68 million, and 2008's "Madagascar 2," which pulled down $63 million. Neither of which opened in the summer, nor had 3-D, nor were following such successful first installments.

Sure, the $70 million still puts it ahead of Pixar, which has opened its last three films at $68, $63 and $47 million. But those films went on to earn between four and five times their openings. And later this summer, Pixar has their own franchise coming out with 3-D price tags, sky-high title recognition and a longstanding rep for quality. "Toy Story 3" is a shoo-in to open bigger and finish much higher than this thing.

For the long haul, "Shrek Still Stinks Up Cinema" will probably earn a franchise low. Even if it triples the debut, that's $210 million -- behind "Kung Fu Panda" and this spring's franchise-launching "Dragon." Not the performance you expect from the brand stalwart.

Why the decline? The obvious answer is that the last film sucked, the one before it wasn't that great and people have grown wise to this flick's shtick. There is also more marketplace saturation with these CGI animated movies, so they're no longer events. And there is also something to be said for lackluster marketing and awareness; sure, people know the brand, but did they really create sky-high audience anticipation? Did this feel like a film everybody knew was coming?

And most of all, there's the timing factor. The first film came out in 2001. After a decade, a 'toon franchise aimed at young audiences coming back for more isn't going to cut it. The kids who powered these movies in 2001 and 2004 are in high school and college now. They're over it. The newer audiences don't care about a Scottish ogre. Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers don't have vocal star power (not that vocal star power helps in most flicks). This franchise's window has closed.

(Of course, you could make similar arguments for this summer's "Toy Story 3," which is more than a decade removed from the fan base that made the last one a hit. There is a difference, though -- it's closer to an "Indiana Jones 4" situation than a "Shrek" one. The gap of 11 years means they aren't just chasing the same audience as last time. The two "Toy Story" films birthed the CGI animated movie craze, and they still remain among the brightest gems in modern animation (CGI or otherwise, those movies were and are classics). And like "Toy Story," Pixar has only grown in esteem. They've notched hit after hit, a seemingly invincible golden streak, and most recently took a movie about a cranky old man and made it their second-biggest grosser and a Best Picture nominee.)

LeBron is Gone

2010-05-14T09:11:00.002-04:00

There's really no doubt. Now the discussion begins in earnest -- well, more in earnest? More relevantly? -- about which team will snag him.

There are three tiers:

THE CONTENDERS (in no order):

-- Chicago

-- New York

-- New Jersey

-- Miami

THE POSSIBILITIES

-- Cleveland

-- L.A. Clippers

-- Dallas

And then there's everybody else. My prediction? As much as I'd love to see him go to Miami, I think he winds up building his own team in New Jersey. Chicago's ready-made, but it's MJ's town. N.J. puts him close to -- and, soon enough, inside -- the New York bubble.

Weekend Box Office Roundup: "Iron Man 2" Overtakes Original, Falls Short of Expectations

2010-05-11T08:17:00.005-04:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE ROUNDUP | MAY 7-9, 2010

"Iron Man 2" opened with one of those inimitable "FAILURE!"/"SUCCESS!" storylines only major blockbusters can accomplish: The fifth-biggest opening weekend in history! One of the fastest movies to ever hit $100 million! Already profitable worldwide! And yet, more than $100 million in, it's already a horrible misfire and everybody at Marvel needs to panic immediately. Sigh.

To the numbers. Kicking off the 2010 Summer Movie Season with a bang, "Iron Man 2" obviously topped the box office this past weekend. It opened with $128.1 million over its first three days in domestic release, which is either tremendous or horrific, depending on where you're sitting.

Why was it good? Well, that's $128.1 million more than the movie had made domestically at 12:01 a.m. Friday. That's the fifth-biggest opening weekend in history, trailing "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man 3," "Twilight: New Moon" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest." That's an increase of $30 million over the first "Iron Man," which debuted over the same frame two years ago. Sequels don't always open bigger than their predecessors, though this is a wildly varying point (the "Harry Potter" moves ticked upwards to parts 3 and 4, then dipped for parts 5 and 6; "Spider-Man 2" opened more than $30 million below its record-setting predecessor).

So, why the grumbling? The hype and expectations. People were discussing/theorizing that this movie could beat "The Dark Knight's" $158.4 million opening weekend record, and if it didn't hit that mark it could at least come close, right? The danger of such hype -- and the reason studios always lowball their tracking and predictions -- is because failing to live up to it can render even a tremendous debut as a poor showing. This was a very, very good opening weekend, and while it did underperform (yes, it could have/should have at least cracked $140 million and gotten close to "Spider-Man 3"), it's on such a different scale that it still counts as a rousing success.

One hitch: The weekend estimates were nearly $5 million off, pegging this movie's three-day take at $133 million. After a Saturday dip of just 10 percent, the movie dipped 32 percent on Sunday, which is not just more than expected bit a mite troubling. It's more than several comparable movies: Last year's horrendous and frontloaded "Wolverine" movie fell 27 percent on Sunday and "Spider-Man 3" fell 22 percent (both movies received less warmly by audiences than this one), while "The Dark Knight" fell just 8 percent on Sunday. This would suggest bad word-of-mouth poisoning the Sunday screenings, but the first "Iron Man" fell a comparable 30 percent on Sunday (albeit after actually going up six percent on Saturday), and that movie had golden buzz.

The big test -- next weekend. Admittedly, the competition is middling (that Ridley Scott-Russell Crowe redux of "Robin Hood" that nobody seems to care about). But if the film is going to crack $375-$400 million -- and I think it will, based on the positive reception and lackluster competition for a few weeks -- it needs a hold closer to "Iron Man" than "Spider-Man 3."

The first "Iron Man" fell 48 percent in its second weekend, and while that is unlikely for this one, at least keeping it close to 50 percent (rather than the 61 percent collapse of "Spider-Man 3") would be a huge victory. The first "Iron Man" didn't suffer a 50 percent decline until its 12th weekend -- the weekend "The Dark Knight" came out, unsurprisingly -- and it was that longevity and good buzz that kept the movie chugging along to $318 million, more than triple its debut. "Iron Man 2" won't triple its opening, but it's going to at least hit the $318 million mark of the original and then some. But if it tumbles badly next weekend, doing far better than the original is out of the question.

And studios should get used to seeing disappointing openings this summer. "Robin Hood" probably won't crack the $35 million of "Gladiator" a decade ago, flicks like "Prince of Persia" and "The A-Team" aren't looking like new franchise starters, and it's going to be a pretty weak summer.

"Iron Man 2" Opening Weekend Prediction

2010-05-07T16:44:00.003-04:00

I initially said it wouldn't top "The Dark Knight's" $158 million from July 2008. I stand by that. I'm predicting $155 million, enough for a solid No. 2 all-time opening weekend. (The current Top Five: "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man 3" with $151 million," "Twilight: New Moon" with $142 million, "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" with $135 million and "Shrek the Third" with $121 million. The "Twilight" film has the lowest domestic gross of any film on the Top 10 openings chart; make of that what you will.)

Could it hit $160-161 million, the far reach I thought this movie could touch? Sure. I just don't see it. It has a lot going for it -- sky-high anticipation and awareness, a cast packed with big names who can spread out and do the interview circuit, huge positive goodwill from the first film, prime real estate with zero competition and a long gap since any big film opened. But it doesn't have that ZOMG! factor "The Dark Knight" had. I see it more as "Spider-Man 3" with a boost from more screens and higher ticket prices.

"Nightmare" Debuts Decently [Weekend Box Office Roundup]

2010-05-03T10:08:00.002-04:00

WEEKEND OF APRIL 30-MAY 2, 2010

This weekend's big debut, the remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street," opened decently atop the box office. "How To Train Your Dragon" continued its quiet, determined quest towards "New 'Shrek'" status, while Brendan Fraser continued his quiet, determined quest towards a starring role in his own TNT show. Let's dig in to the final pre-summer box office frame.

It's one of those "tough to properly gauge" openings, where it falls somewhere between "career-ending failure" and "resounding success," sits Freddy Krueger's estimated $32.2 million debut. Let's examine the evidence in the "Success" and "Failure" categories:

SUCCESS:

-- The production budget is rumored to be in the $35 million dollar range. It opened with nearly that amount, so that's nice.

-- It's already the fifth-biggest entry in the "Nightmare" franchise. And since it'll finish with well over the $49 million of the fourth "Elm Street" (the highest-grossing of the original films, and the second-biggest Freddy movie behind '03's "Freddy vs. Jason"), it's going to be the biggest solo outing for Krueger.

-- It's probably going to crack the top dozen horror remakes, which is something.

FAILURE:

-- The opening was predicted for the high-$30 million range. It did not achieve that.

-- Even then, it was predicted to open worse than last year's "Friday the 13th" remake, despite having arguably the more famous monster.

-- The poor opening weekend means more in the long term for a film like this; while opening weekends are crucial for almost every film (the No. 2 film at the box office notwithstanding), a horror movie with horrible reviews and poor word-of-mouth and exactly ONE weekend to perform before the summer movie season opens and it's instantly forgotten...well, this was the one chance to scrape up whatever spare cash moviegoers had lying around. Didn't work so well.

The long-term prospects aren't so rosy. Next weekend, "Iron Man 2" will open and suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere. Last year's "Friday the 13th" remake plummeted 80 percent in its second weekend, when the big debut was the $41 million haul of "Madea Goes To Jail." So...yes. There's that. "Friday the 13th" also opened over President's Day weekend, giving it an extra day and boosting the four-day take to $43 million (an extra $3 million), skewing the numbers.

That being said, "Friday the 13th" is the most instructive example to draw from. It earned $40 million in its first three days, which represented 62 percent of its eventual $65 million gross. If "Nightmare" performs the same way, it'll wind up with about $52 million in domestic booty. However, it might not even have legs that strong. Comparing the Friday numbers for both films ($19 million for "Friday" versus $15 million for "Nightmare"), we see that both were staggeringly front-loaded and earned nearly half their money in the first 24 hours. But while "Friday" fell 25.9 percent from Friday to Saturday, "Nightmare" dipped 33 percent. The Sunday dip for "Friday" (51.1 percent) is better than the estimated 45 percent Sunday drop for "Nightmare," but that's a studio estimate -- I would expect the dip to rise closer to that of "Friday" (say, 49 percent).

Other horror flicks with similar Friday-to-Saturday drops to "Nightmare" -- entries like "The Grudge 2" (48 percent), "Saw VI" (49.3 percent) and the Oscar-labeled horrors of "Twilight: New Moon" ($50 percent) -- earned between 48 and 53 percent of their final domestic haul during the first 72 hours. Assuming the Sunday dip is a bit bigger and the movie winds up with a $31 million debut, we can assume a final domestic haul of between $58 and $65 million. I'd err on the lower side of that span, given the second weekend plummet sure to ensue.

(For the record, the trend line for Michael Bay's horror remakes is not good. From $80 million for "Texas Chainsaw" in '03 to $65 million for "Amityville Horror" in '05 and "Friday the 13th" in '09 to a likely sub-$60 million tally for "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Worth noting for anybody thinking about greenlighting a "Birds" remake from these people.)

However, the No. 2 film continues to be a bucket of positivity and sunshine. "How To Train Your Dragon" netted $10.8 million and continued its remarkable run. In its sixth weekend, it declined a mere 29.5 percent, and that's the biggest dip since the second weekend's 33.7 percent fall. (It dipped 14, 21 and 21 percent in the interim weekends.) The film now has $192 million in the bank and a tad more overseas ($196 million) for a worldwide haul of $388 million (from a budget of $165 million).

Here's a sign of how remarkable this film's run is: The $43.7 million debut, which as everybody noticed lagged badly behind the $59.3 million haul of "Monsters vs. Aliens" a year earlier, was the 131st-biggest debut ever. The film then notched the 86th-biggest second weekend, 28th-biggest third weekend, 16th-biggest fourth weekend and 7th-biggest fifth weekend. That's a positive trend line right there. (The sixth weekend, if estimates hold, is the 16th-biggest again. The films ahead of it are a roster of the long-running, the high-grossing and a littany of high-$200 million/$300 million performers.) At a similar point in the run of DreamWorks's other non-"Shrek" movies, no other film had more than half of this flick's weekend gross.

It's already the seventh-biggest DreamWorks performer, and it'll surpass "Monsters vs. Aliens" and "Madagascar" in less than two weeks. There's a very high likelihood it also eclipses "Kung Fu Panda" ($215 million in '08) to become the biggest non-"Shrek" 'toon in DreamWorks history. No wonder they're planning sequels, a TV show, an arena show, an iPad app and a Subway sub.

But where there are winners, there shall be losers. Debuting in No. 6 is Brendan Fraser, whose "Furry Vengeance" earned a paltry $6.5 million bucks. Remember the rumors he was considerng not returning for a "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" sequel? Methinks his advisors will not recommend that course of action.

Get excited for next weekend, when "Iron Man 2" blasts off (GEDDIT?) and ignites (SEE WHAT I DID THERE?) the summer movie season. [INSERT OTHER BAD PUN HERE] People still seem to think this flick is going to top "The Dark Knight's" opening weekend record of $158 million from two years ago. I still don't see it, which means I am probably totally wrong and it's on track for $160 million. I'm still calling the $150-155 million range. So, again, wrong. But it's also going to be the biggest movie of the summer and the year and get pumped, because possibly-entertaining cinema is hopefully back.

"Nightmare" Returns To Theaters [Weekend Box Office Preview]

2010-04-30T13:07:00.005-04:00

This year is jam-packed with remakes or "reimaginings." The spring already gave us "Alice in Wonderland," "Clash of the Titans," "The Wolfman" and "Death at a Funeral" reduxes, and there are plenty more to come this summer and year. (Hell, one of my most anticipated movies -- "True Grit" -- is the second cinematic adaptation of the novel, and the John Wayne one spawned its own sequel.) But before the summer movie season kicks off, Warner Brothers wants to make one last pre-summer cash-grab by mixing equal parts remake (brand recognition!) and cheapie horror (an affordable, reliable moneymaker!) this weekend.

The big new release is "A Nightmare on Elm Street," the culmination of Platinum Dunes's entire existence until now. Michael Bay's production company has tested the waters with remakes of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Amityville Horror," "The Hitcher" and last year's "Friday the 13th." But with all due respect to Jason, this is the mack-daddy pop horror franchise. There's a reason they're doing this now, rather than earlier. It's the apotheosis of their entire resume.

Their big "get," insofar as things go, was Jackie Earle Haley as the nightmare-haunting Freddy Krueger. The Oscar-nominated Haley, after reemerging with 2006's "Little Children," cashed in as the gravel-voiced go-to badass in last year's "Watchmen" and, now, "Nightmare." The rest of the cast is filled out with nobodies and generic teenyboppers (plus Beaver from "Veronica Mars," who seems to really like this horror thing).

The premise is pretty simple: Take the 1984 version (kill potential child molester; child molester kills their children in their dreams), either strip out or directly mimic any of Wes Craven's flourishes, darken the color palette and hit frappé. But while the original version was notable for the freaky add-ons Craven crafted (see: Johnny Depp's infamous geyser-o-death), this one is going to follow the same tactics as the other Platinum Dunes flicks. Dark, drab, dour and humorless, their goals are to freak you out just enough so you tell your friends it's a decent scary movie, with no aspirations towards social commentary or anything beyond "Saw"-esque torture porn.

So! How's it gonna do? Well, if the very recent history of cheapie horror remakes is any indication, it's going to makes its money back and be instantly forgotten by everyone who sees it. (While Haley was an inspired choice as Krueger, there's little chance his growling villain will match the quip-happy energy Robert Englund injected into the series, turning it into a horror-comedy mashup early on in the original seven-film series.)

For the opening weekend, let's look at recent points of comparison -- horror remakes opening in the first third of the year. Last year's "Friday the 13th" debuted to a stronger-than-expected $40 million in February (and promptly fell an astonishing 80 percent in its second weekend). Films with lesser brand recognition also did decent business -- "Amityville Horror" ($23 million in '05), "When A Stranger Calls" ($21 million in '06), "Prom Night" ($20 million in '08), "The Last House on the Left" ($14 million last year) -- while there were also underperforming flicks like "Black Christmas" ($3 million debut). And in 2003, the first horror remake from Bay & Co. -- "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with Jessica Biel -- opened with $28 million en route to a solid $80 million domestically. (By comparison, "Friday the 13th" opened with $12 million more but finished with $65 million.)

So this film has the rock-solid brand recognition, zero direct competition and an audience that's had their appetites whetted with lesser horror like the forgettable flicks I listed above. End result? A decent debut, followed by an immediate plummet. I'm going to assume a debut of $38-42 million, but next weekend's "Iron Man 2" will cause a decline in the 80 percent range. The harsher summer climate will also nip this film in the bud, and it could end up falling short of the $65 million for "Friday the 13th."

(Conventionally, this could be a $40 million debut en route to $80 million -- if it were opening in October. But, apparently scared off from the until-recently-rock-solid "Saw" claim to the Halloween season, Platinum Dunes prefers the relatively emptier spring period. Less direct competition, tons of screens, no similar films afoot to confuse viewers. But people don't go see horror movies over Memorial Day weekend, you know? This one's got a short shelf life.)

Oh and hey Brendan Fraser has a movie! It's called "Furry Vengeance" and he plays with animals. Seriously, that's his new movie. In some alternate universe, there's a wildly successful Brendan Fraser who made a "Superman" movie and has his choice of scripts. Alas, in the real world, he plays with animals. Somebody took a wrong turn somewhere. Anyway, it'll open with $5-6 million and then disappear.

Get excited for next weekend -- "Iron Man 2" debuts. Early estimate without breaking down the numbers: $150 million at least. Can it beat the $158 million of "The Dark Knight"? Possibly, but a part of me doubts it. There's just not the same "gotta see it" fervor. That being said, it's a shoo-in for the top three all-time opening weekends (it'll easily top the $142 million "Twilight: New Moon" debut, and challenge "Spider-Man 3's" $151 million). Time will tell.

Can Sequelitis Doom "The Avengers" Before It Starts?

2010-04-28T10:34:00.004-04:00

The early critical word on "Iron Man 2" is pretty awful. How does it compare to the critical reception to first sequels in recent memory?

-- "Batman Begins" had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 85%. The 2008 sequel, "The Dark Knight," netted a 94% rating. That +9 percentage points is nothing compared to the Top Critics marks: The '05 flick had 60% from critics for the major publications, while the sequel hit 90%. So +30 points among the top critics, that's a nice upswing.

-- "Spider-Man" was a popular and critical hit, notching 90% positive ratings. The superior 2004 follow-up -- for my money, the best comic book movie before "The Dark Knight" -- nudged that up to 94%.

-- The better-than-expected "Transformers" scored a 57% rating in 2007, Michael Bay's career second-best mark (after the 65% for "The Rock," my favorite Bay film). The craptastic 2009 follow-up, which violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, received 20% praise.

-- In 2000, the modern comic book era got its start when "X-Men" earned an 81% rating. (It's an oddly high rating, given the slightness of the movie itself, but remember this was a different era. This was just three years after "Batman & Robin." The genre was basically dead and buried. For a superhero movie to come out, treat the characters and story sensibly and mildly entertain you for two hours...well, that was astonishing at the time. It's important to remember how spoiled we are nowadays, since the ensuing decade gave us "Spider-Man," "X2," "Spider-Man 2," "Batman Begins," "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man" and the underrated "Hellboy" flicks and "Blade II.") Where was I? Right, the sequel: 88%, recognizing the leap forward.

-- Tim Burton's first "Batman" had a 71% rating, while his sequel notched 77%. While both films pale in comparison to Nolan's more serious work, the conventional wisdom has it that the 1992 film was Burton's superior effort. The overall movie eclipsed the original, Jack Nicholson notwithstanding.

-- The first "Pirates of the Caribbean" is probably the closest thing to a cinematic antecedent for "Iron Man." It had a concept nobody thought would translate to the big screen, a director untested in big-budget, special effects spectacle and an actor more known for arty weirdness than being an A-list box office draw. And when the first "Pirates" opened, it steadily kept chugging along from good word-of-mouth and was powered by a buzzworthy and electric performance by the leading man. Same story. Anyway, the original scored a 78% rating, largely on the basis of, "Hey, it wasn't as bad as I expected, right?" reviews. The sequel dropped to 53% and set box office records. It's a weird world.

-- The "Shrek" movies, notable for entering a franchise level of success unheard of for a cartoon, notched 89 and 88 percent ratings. A dip of 1 percent is pretty meaningless.

So, there are some numbers to keep in mind. The original "Iron Man" had a 93% rating on RT, making it one of the most lovingly received comic book movies on record.

People forget nowadays, with all the discussion of "Godfather, Part II" and "Empire Strikes Back" and "Wrath of Khan" and "Aliens" and "T2" and "X2" and "Spider-Man 2" and "The Dark Knight" and everything, but the word "sequel" used to be synonymous with "suck." Follow-ups were just cheap cash grabs, meaningless rehashes meant to evoke positive memories by basically remaking the original. These obviously still exist. A perfectly decent "Transformers" can spawn a horrid follow-up. Sometimes, bad movies beget bad movies. A "National Treasure" begets a "National Treasure II." The history is all over the map. Sometimes, a "Jaws" begets forgettable follow-ups; sometimes, a sequel eclipses the original, as in the recent comic book movies.

But this recent run of "The second chapter's always the best" ignores the problem of sequels. You're trying to recapture what the audience liked the first time around, which is an impossible task. Hew too close, you're rehashing. Stray too far, you're forgetting why they liked you. There's a narrow path to tread, and just because recent comic book movies have managed it doesn't mean it's the likeliest or easiest outcome. I feel like people forget that, with all of the luck we've had recently.

Sometimes, somebody has a good story in mind and can notch it in the sequel. Other times, they churn out "The Matrix Reloaded." There's no telling what will happen. So there's a reason, a real reason, to have some concern about the whole Marvel "Avengers" master plan. This entire enterprise centers on this interlinked universe, which means they have seeds planted in one chapter for the next. But since sequels are so tricky to manage, and these films become de facto (albeit independent) sequels with the interconnected threads, are we watching a doomed endeavor? Not sure. Time will tell. But if the whole thing sucks, maybe it'll be because they tried to make it one big series -- and forgot that "LOTR" notwithstanding, movies work as individual chapters.

Lost, "The Last Recruit"

2010-04-21T11:21:00.004-04:00

After this episode, three episodes until the two-hour series finale.

Well, that was spirited. While this wasn't one of the deeper episodes of the show, nor was it the most answer-packed, it had something going for it that few episodes have had so far: progress. Movement. Actual forward motion of the plot. You could argue that, save the season premiere, no episode has moved more players this season. That's a good thing.

(Of course, that inexorably reminds me that so much of this season has been so free-floating and ambivalent. Sure, the flash-sideways will wind up serving some greater good. But spending about 10 hours of the season with next to nothing happening -- with the main characters largely standing around for a few episodes, moving and standing around for a few episodes -- will probably tar this season forever. Will it work better on DVD in a decade? Probably. Will a kickass series finale distract from the wasted time? Of course. The third season finale was one of the show's best, and the first half of that season was rudderless. But ultimately, it was poor storytelling, because there are things to be done and they simply weren't doing it. It's made more annoying because these folks can kick the story into high gear when they need to. This isn't the first season of "Heroes," where the setup is enjoyable and the climax is horrid. But, I digress.)

Desmond clearly can't be dead. Right? Right. Even if he is, does it matter? The dude's in another timeline. Are dead people in one timeline alive in another? Does it matter? The point is, I don't think he's dead.

The titular last recruit has to be Jack. I'm on board with the theory that Jack is the next Jacob. The series-long focus on him, combined with his Jacob-esque willingness to let people die so he can pursue his theories and follow his vision, means it makes sense. It's a lot more dramatically satisfying than, say, Sawyer or Hurley or Kate -- people for whom the job would be, ultimately, shackles keeping them in place.

But this episode was about FauxLocke recruiting him. I suspect the reason that there are two lists -- the cave and the lighthouse -- is that one belongs to Smokey and one to Jacob. (Clearly, with this show's track record of subtlety, the cave (IT'S DARK AND UNDERGROUND AND DANGEROUS) has to belong to Smokey, while the lighthouse (LIGHT, IT'S ABOVE IT ALL, ETC.) is Jacob's.) All this talk about candidates has made us think they are Jacob's candidates. But what if they're also Smokey's? What if the reason he needs them all is because one person needs to stay behind to take his and Jacob's places? Smokey needed the body of a candidate (Locke) to get off the island; maybe he also needs a live one to stay behind in his stead. Maybe that's where his season five visage as the Man in Black came from -- the first candidate who took his place? Eh.

The point is, Jack is being recruited by Smokey, but we can already see he's been successfully recruited by Jacob. Guiding people, leading them, often into dark and despairing times, mixed with his faith (his sledgehammer-subtle Leap Of Faith from Sawyer's boat) -- it all adds up. Which is why Smokey needs him. Smokey either wants him because he's the most analytical and scientific -- i.e., the most likely to understand his facts -- or because he's now the most Jacob-esque.

In other news, Jin and Sun reunited! Finally! And I was terrified that something bad was about to go down. Were the sonic pylons off!?! Were Widmore's goons going to shoot someone!?! WAS A DHARMA FOOD DROP GOING TO LAND ON THEM? WHAT IS HAPPENING!? An excellent tense moment.

Lost, "Everybody Loves Hugo"

2010-04-14T07:27:00.003-04:00

Hey, Actual Plot Developments! On "Lost"! What are the odds?

Oh, according to the episode count, we're through 12 of the final season's 18 episodes. Two-thirds of the way through the season = plot development time. Just like "24" and many other serialized shows (as well as non-serialized ones), "Lost" has its own little internal narrative clock. Things begin interestingly, questions are posed, nothing happens for a month and then the story actually takes off for the last third of the season. It happened in Season One (the raft gets burned down, Boone's plane falls), Season Two (Ben's introduction), Season Three (Locke joining the Others), Season Four (the mercenaries attack) and Season Five (Sayid shoots Ben, the Jack/Kate group start impacting the past).

So it stands to reason that things are finally happening now. It's a mite frustrating because the last couple of seasons -- after the end date was announced between the third and fourth seasons -- have had a much faster plot clock. There was no standing around, idly waiting for something to happen. Well, there was, but it didn't last so goddamn long. Ponder this: the Jack/Hurley/Richard group that finally left the beach this episode? It took nearly five full hours of "Lost" for that to happen. They gathered on the beach at the end of the sixth week of the season, and only departed with a purpose during this 11th week. That's Season One or Two-esque in its long, languid plot development. Sure, they distracted us with a Sawyer episode and Desmond's reemergence, but five hours spent with pivotal characters just standing around on the beach, waiting for something to happen? It's understandable when your show is in its second season and you have no idea how long the clock's gonna run. It's less understandable when it's nearly a third of your final season.

But, bygones. Because we are at that crucial juncture -- after this week, just five episodes remain (four episodes and the two-part finale) -- things are happening. And in both universes, to boot! Of course, our boy Desmond is the crux, the link, the anchor and the conduit between the worlds. I don't know if he was off the show for a prolonged chunk (mid-season five to mid-season six) due to the sexual harassment lawsuit, or what, but the show is just better when he's around and involved, so I'm glad the character is back.

Noteworthy:

-- Ilana goes boom! With nary a warning, Ilana goes sky-high thanks to that always-unstable pirate ship dynamite. It's the same gag they pulled in the Season One finale with Arzt. So I ask: Is this a wry nod to the show's first season (continuing the mirroring this season has done to the structure of that season), or are they just recycling gags? Next week, are a group of mysterious, bearded weirdos going to show up to kidnap the youngest cast member? Time will tell!

-- This show can be frustratingly slow, mind-bogglingly obvious, subtle as a ton of bricks and twice as well-executed, but there's a reason we all still watch and are invested. Mostly, it's the time spent and the show's well-honed tactic of screwing with our minds (giving just enough hints to keep us invested, doling them out with expert theatricality). But when FauxLocke and Desmond were at the well, even though Locke was saying something mythologically important (though it didn't seem like new info, I thought), I was barely paying attention. My only thought was, "Please don't throw Desmond down the well." Just proof the characters have earned some investment over the years. Gotta give 'em credit for that.

-- Of course, then you had sequences where characters like Frank, Miles, Sun, Kate and Sawyer would, essentially, just stand around, waiting for the plot to move around them. So there's both sides of the coin -- they can develop characters when they want to, but they orchestrate overarching plots with oft-plodding pacing.

NBC Just Gives Up

2010-04-13T12:55:00.002-04:00

NBC has been on such a roll since roughly 2004, when "Friends" went off the airwaves, "Joey" took over and Donald Trump was the network's shining star. As you may have read, things took a bit of a downward turn. But all isn't lost! The net is going to add a fourth "Law & Order" to their schedule, because "Law & Order: L.A." is the one that'll TURN EVERYTHING AROUND. [via]

Science Explains Why The Japanese Can Easily Digest Sushi

2010-04-13T10:43:00.001-04:00

An enzyme called "porphyranase" explains why the Japanese easily digest sushi. The More You Know. [Via]

Bond Girls And The Numbers

2010-04-12T11:24:00.001-04:00

"End-of-film mortality is predicted by sexual activity, ethical status (good vs. bad), and attempting to kill Bond." Basically everything in the James Bond series boils down to sex and death. Who knew? [via]

Irrelevant Non-CGI People Continue To Clutter Up "Transformers 3"

2010-04-09T07:04:00.003-04:00

Obviously "Transformers 3" is the MUST SEE movie of 2011, based solely on the fact that it will cost a lot of money, make a lot of money and be really, truly, irrevocably terrible. How bad can things get? We already saw racist robots and robot balls. Is there really anywhere to go? Anyway, the far-better-than-this-material actors who cash quick paychecks as Shia LaBeoeoeuf's parents are going to return to this movie. In case you cared. In case this changes, in any way, your stance on the movie. Or maybe you're more like the actors, who don't care and are happy to make an easy buck. [via]

People Bought Some Terrible Books Last Year

2010-04-09T06:57:00.004-04:00

The bestselling fiction books of 2009: "The Lost Symbol," Dan Brown's latest treatment for a terrible waste of Tom Hanks's time, was the obvious No. 1. It sold 5.5 million copies, five times as many as the No. 3 installment. I would judge the horrendous books people bought, but I spent actual, real money on "Game Change," so...glass houses, et cetera. [via]

Taylor Kitsch boarding "Battleship"

2010-04-08T10:28:00.003-04:00

Tim Riggins is really taking the big screen by storm. The onetime Dillon Panthers fullback -- who grew from supporting player to central character as "Friday Night Lights" evolved -- will headline "Battleship," according to THR's Heat Vision blog. (Which, by the way, has been doing yeoman's work with the exclusives lately. They had the "Tron: Legacy" sequel greenlight, Jason Segel headlining the "Muppets" flick and, biggest of all, Chris Evans as Captain America. And they somehow break big news without being obnoxious; they're like the Bizarro Deadline Hollywood Daily.)

All I know about "Battleship" is what I learn from CHUD. It's based on the game, but takes the boring-on-the-big-screen premise (big ships in the wide open ocean shooting at one another) and makes it almost interesting by adding aliens to the mix. It's directed by Peter Berg, so you can be guaranteed the camera will shake, rattle and roll until you vomit all over the person in front of you.

And, of course, Jeremy Renner was rumored for the part. The Oscar season buzz had it that Renner was up for multiple projects, among them "Battleship" and Paul Thomas Anderson's Not-At-All-Scientology-Related "The Master" (or whatever it's called). The talk was that Renner had to pick, because both projects are filming at the same time, so he could either join PTA's "There Will Be Blood" follow-up or the 2012 potential-blockbuster-in-waiting "Battleship" action. (And there was also the buzz about him playing Hawkeye in "The Avengers," but that talk never seemed to go anywhere.) If Renner signs up for PTA's film soon, I suppose we'll find out if he bailed on "Battleship" or if they just got tired of waiting.

As for Kitsch, the dude's clearly on the rise. It makes sense that Berg would tap him, given their "Friday Night Lights" history (Berg directed the pilot and produced the series). Since the show's 2006 premiere, Berg has gone on to bigger things, directing Will Smith in "Hancock" in 2008 (which was a decent flick for the first half, a terrible idea for the second half but a resoundingly successful movie financially) before getting his own other potential franchise.

Kitsch, meanwhile, supported Hugh Jackman as Gambit in the "Wolverine" movie last year and moves up to the big leagues with "John Carter of Mars." Pixar's first live-action film, directed by Andrew Stanton ("Finding Nemo"), is also scheduled for 2012. If Kitsch had two big budget blockbusters scheduled for the same year -- why, he'd be like Sam Worthington circa 2010, except his films would probably be better and he'd be better in them. It's wild to think about -- instead of a blank slate like Worthington, big franchise directors are going for interesting, watchable stars. (And let's just be thankful Shia LaBeouf has already done his action-figures-come-to-life movie, shall we?)

NBC Is Cool With Fourth Place. No, They're Good

2010-04-05T18:57:00.003-04:00

NBC is at a crosswords. They can rigorously search for the best, strongest pilots, stacking their schedule with qualitative shows and trying to rebuild their shattered reputation. Or they can double down on crap. What's that? Oh, I see they've made their choice.

Baseball's Opening Day Arrives!

2010-04-05T13:13:00.002-04:00

BREAKING NEWS: Baseball is still boring. Watching in person? Lots of fun. Watching on TV? Torturous. And now it's time to mute ESPN for much of the next six months, since 98% of their airtime will be Red Sox-Yankees-centric.

(And for no reason at all, my World Series picks: Dodgers over Red Sox in six. None of that will be correct! Enjoy.)

McNabb Traded To Redskins

2010-04-05T06:12:00.003-04:00

PHILLY FANS EXCITED FOR A DECADE IN THE NFL WILDERNESS: The Philadelphia Iggles have traded Donovan McNabb to one of their hated divisional rivals, the Washington Redskins. McNabb, who turns 34 this season, has six Pro Bowl selections to his name and quarterbacked the Iggles to five NFC championships and one Super Bowl. Philly received a second round pick this year and a fourth rounder next year that could turn into a third rounder, depending on McNabb's performance.

The early verdict? Good for Washington, bad for Philly. Remember, Andy Reid & Co. drafted QB-in-waiting Kevin Kolb in 2007 -- likely on the basis that McNabb was getting older, the team had just made the playoffs without him and McNabb had taken them as far as he could. Reid's job is firmly on the line now: with McNabb and Westbrook gone, the only cornerstone of the team remaining is Big Walrus. Will Kolb be a McNabb-level success? Probably not. Nor will Vick. For all the bluster about his failure in big games (the puking during the Super Bowl, the 1-for-5 record in NFC title games), McNabb has been an excellent quarterback for the team and the quintessential bedrock upon which a franchise can be assembled.

But, of course, Philly fans are notoriously insane. They wanted a title OR ELSE, and at some point, the ubiquitous success of the team (postseason in eight of McNabb's 11 seasons, the four consecutive NFC championship games from 2001 to 2004) gave way to an annoyance at not winning the Big One. McNabb, for some reason, became the scapegoat. And now the team is likely to go through at least a few seasons of uncertainty. With the Giants, Cowboys and Redskins all poised to stay strong for a few seasons (on the backs of their QBs, management, coaches, whatever), the Iggles aren't seeing the playoffs until 2012 or, more likely, much later. (Of course, that's a gross generalization. If they use their second round pick to snag Colt McCoy, we could almost say they know what they're doing.)

Meanwhile, Washington is still a pit. McNabb improves them immensely at the QB position, but it's no use having a top-ten signal caller if his offensive line is four or five guys short of actually protecting him. They really are hoarding up on mid-'00's talent, adding McNabb to already-signed Larry Johnson. This is more about giving them a solid QB for a few seasons while they draft some project and Shanahan works his Shanahan mojo. If they draft well and his famous running back system is still worth its rep, the 'Skins could be a playoff team in two seasons. (Seems they were really convinced Bradford wouldn't be around at No. 4.) At the very least, they have a good QB for the first time in a while.

Breaking News: Moviegoers Will Pay To See Crap In Any Number Of Dimensions

2010-04-04T18:28:00.003-04:00

The unnecessary and pricey "Clash of the Titans" remake was the No. 1 movie this weekend, earning an estimated $61.4 million. Tyler Perry scored his latest hit, topping the big screen debut of Miley Cyrus and winning the showdown between crappy projects from awful, awful purveyors of terribleness.

"Clash," which positioned itself as another "300," performed ably. It withstood a Krakken-sized critical assault and performed within the realm of expectations (which ran between $55 and $65 million). But it will not be a "300"-sized hit. That better-reviewed flick cost $65 million and opened with $70 million (en route to $210 million domestically and $450 million worldwide). "Clash" cost $125 million, and despite the 3-D boost and higher ticket prices opened with $61 million -- and it won't crack $175 million domestically.

This is neither a huge success nor a gaping flop. Like so many mega-budgeted would-be blockbusters, it will land safely within the realm of "did just about what it could have done." Sometimes movies out-earn their logical totals (like "300" and the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" films topping $200 million). But sometimes movies earn just what they should, a sensible amount right in line with their mix of appeal and content. This is one of those films. Like Louis Leterrier's last film, "The Incredible Hulk," it will earn some cash, beget no sequel and be instantly forgotten.

As for the film's star, Sam Worthington notches yet another box office success. Unlike his predecessor in Foreign-Born Chiseled Macho Man Action Stardom, Gerard Butler, he didn't try to branch out and try roles in other genres. He saw where his "Avatar" check came from and signed up to a pair of (bad) sci-fi projects. For a poor man's Russell Crowe, he's doing fine for himself, but his gaping lack of screen presence is going to be a problem when he's done with the "Avatar" films by 2016.

In second place, for some ungodly reason, is Oscar-presenting writer/director/actor/auteur, Tyler Perry. Despite the fact that his movies are a pit of despair and blandness from which humor nor joy can ever escape, he notches his third consecutive hit with "Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too" earning $30.1 million. A sequel to a film nobody cared about, this is the eighth "Tyler Perry" film he has directed since 2006, and this is the sixth that opened with more than $20 million. Ugh.

A sequel to his 2007 film, this installment is about something or other, blah blah blah, let's face facts and admit it actually doesn't matter, people don't go to his movies for some semblance of plot or story, they go because they found his prior works enjoyable or maybe because they can't watch TV anymore thanks to the omnipresent ads for his terrible TBS shows. I don't know. But the damn thing opened with $30.5 million and it's going to earn double that and he will release 12 more movies before the "Avatar" sequel and does he really get enough goodwill for "Precious" to outweigh that any cinematic atrocities? I don't know. I just don't know.

In third place, the critically-beloved "How To Train Your Dragon" dipped just 33 percent to earn $29.2 million in its second weekend. With $92.3 million in the bank after 10 days, the flick's heading for $165-170 million, which would be nice if the thing didn't cost $165 million. Sure, it'll make back its money with this, worldwide receipts and DVD sales. But the exorbitant costs of films like "Dragon," "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs," "G-Force" and "Monsters vs. Aliens" tends to cut off the odds of sequels, which sucks for the studios but at least keeps more "Shrek"-type monstrosities off our screens.

And opening in fourth place, trying to outdo Tyler Perry for sheer badness, Miley Cyrus tried out acting. Apparently she was terrible! "The Last Song" opened with $16.2 million, which is almost half the $30.4 million debut of Nicholas Sparks-adapting "Dear John" in February. (That film starred Amanda Seyfried, because apparently acting helps sell movies or something.) However, the flick opened on Wednesday and has amassed $25 million so far. After five days, "Dear John" had $34 million. Odds are, this film winds up in the $50-52 million range of Sparks's lesser output, not the $80 million range of his more successful adaptations.

Rounding out the top five was "Alice in Wonderland," falling 53 percent due to direct competition from "Clash" and "Dragon." With a gross of $8.2 million in its fifth frame, the movie has earned $309.7 million, which is pretty astonishing. (That just edges out the $309.4 million gross of the third "Pirates.") It'll likely finish up with about $320-325 million. After starring in one (1) movie to top $100 million during the first 19 years of his career, Johnny Depp has cranked out five blockbusters earning between $200 and $400 million over the last seven years. And he adds a fourth "Pirates" to that list next year.

Next weekend, "Date Night" enters the marketplace. Just four weekends stand between us and "Iron Man 2" and the beginning of the Summer Movie Season. Get excited.

Dog Plays Basketball, Warms Heart'

2010-04-02T17:34:00.001-04:00

Here is a video of a dog playing basketball. It is precious. That is all

It's April Fool's Day, So Everything, Everywhere Is A Lie

2010-04-01T11:13:00.002-04:00

A helpful guide to April Fool's Day news stories and how to avoid them. Interestingly, some of the rules -- avoid British media, too good to be true -- are also good on a day-to-day basis. [Slate]

Latest Quote About President Obama That's Totally Not Bigoted, Promise

2010-04-01T11:01:00.002-04:00

This Week In Political Discourse: “You’ve got the black one with the reading thing." You'll be unsurprised to learn a political campaign in Florida is somehow involved with stupidity. [via]

Actor Leaves Show Because Network Standards Allow Too Much Sex, Too Little Violence

2010-04-01T07:48:00.004-04:00

TRYING TO KILL "DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES" IS FINE. KISSING VIRGINIA MADSEN? OH HELL NO: Relentlessly creepy actor Neal McDonough was dropped from his new ABC series, "Scoundrels," because he refused to do love scenes with Virginia Madsen. This was because he's "a family man and a Catholic, and he's always made it clear he won't do sex scenes." Apparently he's fine with playing a murderer ("Desperate Housewives"), a drug-dealing/murdering bastard ("Walking Tall") and generally Creepy-Eyed Dude (real life). [via]

Pogue: "The Apple iPad is basically a gigantic iPod Touch"

2010-04-01T06:59:00.003-04:00

HEY, SOMEBODY MADE THAT "MODERN FAMILY" THING IN REAL LIFE: David Pogue reviews the iPad for techies and non-techies alike. Choice quote: "If you've already got a laptop and a smartphone, who's going to carry around a third machine?"

Uma Thurman Could Cause "Harry Potter" To Flop

2010-03-27T12:46:00.003-04:00

Uma Thurman has a new movie out. A grand total of 12 people bought tickets during its opening weekend. Somewhere, Nicole Kidman is chuckling and saying, "Hey, at least my horrid flops can crack a baker's dozen in sales."

Cleveland Cavs Want That Money In Advance, Okay?

2010-03-16T13:20:00.002-04:00

LeBron James is the best player in the NBA. Due entirely to his presence, the Cleveland Cavaliers are a successful team and a very profitable enterprise. On July 1, LeBron might leave the Cavs. But the Cavs want season ticket holders to decide this very month if they want to re-up for next year! It's almost like they're trying to lock down that money just in case the fans are slightly less interested in a 2010-2011 Cavs squad headlined by Ray Allen and The Larger Shaq That Must Have Eaten The Real Shaq.

Could "Twilight" Lure A Good Director To A Bad Series?

2010-03-16T12:27:00.004-04:00

Sometimes great directors can do wondrous things to a moribund franchise. Alfonso Cuaron turned the "Harry Potter" flicks around by focusing on a crazy idea -- "Hey, maybe a director with actual talent could focus on making an actually entertaining movie?" Sometimes great directors never get their shot (here I'm thinking of Spielberg almost directing the first "Potter," or David Lynch almost directing "Return of the Jedi"). Other times, talented filmmakers misstep when taking on franchise material (most recent example: Marc Forster on "Quantum of Solace"). Still up in the air are talented directors taking the reins of franchises old (Rob Marshall on the fourth "Pirates of the Caribbean") and new (Kenneth Branagh semi-inexplicably directing "Thor").

But here's the thing: "Twilight" is a terrible series. It's not a "good for what it is" series, it's not an "entertaining if you don't think about it too much" series, it's not even a good "get drunk and watch it with a senior citizen offering their critiques" movie. It's just bad. Bad and insanely profitable.

Which brings us to the directors that Summit apparently want to lure for the final chapter of the five-film series (the fourth and final book, Breaking Dawn, will be split into two separate films, "Potter"-style, so they're looking to hire somebody for the last installment):

-- Sophia Coppola (Oscar-nominated director of "Lost in Translation")

-- Gus Van Sant (Oscar-nominated director of "Milk" and "Good Will Hunting")

-- Bill Condon (almost-Oscar-nominated director of "Dreamgirls")

The one thing they have in common? They are, uniformly and without question, talented filmmakers. And therefore, they are far too good for this hellhole of horrid dialogue, shallow characterization, blatant propaganda and staggering emotional manipulation. And whoever takes the reins of this film doesn't just have to deal with forever taking on the mantle of "Yeah, I'll do anything for the right paycheck" -- they also have to deal with a movie that features a C-section performed by vampire teeth, an adult falling in love with a baby and other bewildering plot elements. OH, and the movies and writing suck.

The main problem here is that none of these directors seem liable to actually take the job. Van Sant's had a commercially successful movie ("Good Will Hunting"), so it's not like he's hard up for the money; ditto Coppola (she is the heiress to a wine fortune, of course) and Condon (who produced last year's Oscar ceremony, the actually-well-received one with Hugh Jackman). Coppola and Condon write their own movies, and quite well.

Yet the real problem is that if Summit offers them mega-money, can a director really turn down $8 million for a few months' work shepherding kids from mark to mark? (Note: I pulled that number out of my ass. But it's the kind of money Summit could afford if they're trying to buy prestige.)

So why go after legit directors? There are two possibilities:

(1) Summit really believes that the source material in the final book is so out there, requiring such a deft touch, and undoubtedly requiring some changes from page to screen -- which will piss off the fan base immensely -- they need the shield of an Oscar-caliber director to cover them. "Hey, don't blame us, we brought in an auteur and they wanted to change things!" If the director is some no-name they pulled off of a cheapie horror movie, everybody involves catches hell when the fans get pissed and revolt. Somebody coming off a "Saw" movie can't handle these crazed fans. Somebody with the last name "Coppola" probably could give a squirt, and could handle the press, the fans and the attention (or so they hope).

(2) They actually, truly, sincerely believe they have an Oscar caliber movie on their hands. I KNOW. I know.

If it's the former, you've gotta admire Summit's business savvy (and if nothing else, they've shown they have business savvy). They know they have a ticking time bomb on their hands that has to be handled with precision, since it's both a cash cow and the biggest X-factor in the series. If it's the latter, you have to assume nobody at Summit has ever actually watched these movies.

* NOTE: No, I didn't even want to touch the rumor that Brian De Palma might direct the second "Paranormal Activity." That's an entirely different animal. De Palma's career is in a different place, that's a sequel where nobody knows what'll actually happen, et cetera.

Sony Pictures Wants Kids To Eat Healthy While Watching "Paul Blart"

2010-03-16T06:32:00.003-04:00

The guy in charge of Sony Pictures wants movie theaters to offer consumers healthier snack options. Michael Lynton, head of Sony Pictures Entertainment, says they should add healthier options than just relying on popcorn, soda and candy.

But! Movie theaters overwhelmingly make their money off of concessions. They sure don't make it off movies where, often, more than 50 percent of the ticket sales go back to the studios. Nor do they make it off of some of the crap Sony peddled in recent years, like "Year One" and "The International." They make it off the popcorn, where they earn 90 cents of profit for every dollar of popcorn they sell! (Same source, two different publications.) And, sure, they benefit when audiences waddle in to see the likes of "Paul Blart" and "2012," some of the more unpredictable Sony successes last year.

Morning Roundup: Captain America Is Doomed

2010-03-12T10:46:00.002-05:00

Hugo Weaving, a professionally creepy dude, is apparently tired of puttering around the house, terrorizing his family and scheming against his mailman (or however he spends his non-working time). So he's in line to play the heavy in yet another big-budget blockbuster movie -- specifically, to portray the Red Skull in the forthcoming "Captain America."

Weaving is a sure thing when you're casting a villain. Creepy, smart, cunning, a good screen presence and -- key for this role -- an excellent Bad Guy Voice. He just worked with "Cap" director Joe Johnston on "The Wolfman," he's got big-budget experience from "The Matrix" and "Lord of the Rings" trilogies and he can be effective even when his face is hidden by a mask (as in "V for Vendetta"). So all around, this is good news. Except for two things:

1) The Red Skull is a difficult character to get right. Is his head actually just a red skull? Is it a mask? Does he speak with a German accent? Will he just resemble Ghost Rider, sans the flaming skull? So many ways to go wrong with this. Obviously, tough-to-nail-down villains can be badly screwed up and the movie can still succeed -- see: the first "Spider-Man" -- but this is very tricky ground.

2) Hey, you know what'd be nice? If they could cast Captain America. Because then we'd know if it's an actor capable of standing toe-to-toe with Weaving's screen presence...or, y'know, not. At this stage, it's hard seeing many of the candidates being viable foils. Which makes this yet another comic book movie where the villain will be more interesting and likable than the hero.

In other news...

-- A lot of news about the "Planet of the Apes" prequel over at CHUD.

-- Clint Eastwood will direct Dustin Lance Black's script "Hoover," about J. Edgar, not Herbert.

-- Jabba the Hutt + "Parks and Recreation" = Awesomeness.

-- If you thought "Avatar" would have been better had it been just a teensy bit longer, you're in luck!

Robert Pattinson Will Only Make Horribly Manuplative Movies

2010-03-10T11:28:00.003-05:00

Robert Pattinson, otherwise known as the mop of hair and paleness that is the star heartthrob of the "Twilight" movies, obviously has no compunctions about making horrendously manipulative drivel. (See: "Saga, The Twilight.") I'm not clear if this is simply overstating things, given that two-thirds of his major starring output has consisted of vampire movies explicitly meant to manipulate the emotions of that book's fan base, but his newest movie makes it clear this is more a trend than happenstance.

To whit: His new movie, "Remember Me," wherein he falls in love with Claire from "Lost" in New York City. The movie is spoiled over here, if you are so inclined to go click and read. Go ahead. I'll wait.

...

I know. I KNOW. That might just be the worst ending to a movie since "Avatar" inexplicably ended with that recreation of the Armenian genocide (note: kidding). There's an easy explanation for why Pattison keeps making bad movies that make horrid, bald-faced grabs for the viewing audience's emotions as though they're a pair of balls that need to be grasped and twisted counterclockwise: his fan base is the "Twilight" fan base. These are people who have made it clear, with the money they've spent and the energy they've invested, that they want to be toyed with and batted around and treated like a plaything. And they're going to power this movie to an opening weekend of at least $25 or $30 million dollars. THIS IS A BAD THING.

Seriously, I hope movie critics are so pissed at this they reveal the "plot" "twist" in their reviews. At least that way, when parents read about it, they might be so scandalized they don't give their pre-teen daughters the money to go see it.

Cornell Realizes Its Greatest Asset

2010-03-10T11:26:00.001-05:00

It took them a few years, but Cornell University -- Big Red, if you will -- has finally settled on a mascot better than the bear: The Nard Dog.

Morning Roundup: Corey Haim Dead At 38

2010-03-10T08:02:00.004-05:00

Morning Roundup:

-- Corey Haim, who rise to stardom with "The Lost Boys" and was most recently on a reality show with Corey Feldman, has died at 38. The cause is believed to be an accidental overdose.

-- The first trailer for the next "Twilight" movie will hit the Web on Thursday. So you've got that to look forward to.

-- Jude Law talks about the "Sherlock Holmes" sequel, the Soderbergh flick "Contagion."

-- Christoph Waltz is out as Sigmund Freud in a new David Cronenberg movie, and will be replaced by Viggo Mortensen, Cronenberg's recent muse. The flick stars Michael Fassbender (delightfully scotch-swilling in "Inglourious Basterds") as Carl Jung. Waltz is going with the film adaptation of "Water for Elephants" instead.

-- Well, this was inevitable: a new "Wizard of Oz" is being discussed.

-- Pete Hammond has the answer for why "Avatar" lost Best Picture. Terrible dialogue? Nope. Bland characters? Nope. The pieced-together-from-other-works story? Sigh, nope. He thinks it's the actors, which makes sense since they are the largest branch of the Academy and have the most to lose by computers taking their jobs.

-- This might be the last season of "24," giving the creative crew enough time to prep the bad idea that is a "24" movie.

-- John Krasinski isn't just up for being horribly miscast as Captain America -- he's also joining a romantic comedy called "Something Borrowed." That's much, much more fitting.

-- De Niro will play Vince Lombardi in a movie from ESPN Films. If Pacino plays Tom Landry, I am setting my goddamn computer on fire.

Lady Kanye and South Florida

2010-03-09T13:29:00.005-05:00

Well, it was only a matter of time before Crazy Red-Haired Oscar Lady was revealed to have some kind of connection to South Florida: she was a features writer at the Miami Herald.

"Tron: Legacy" Teaser Trailer

2010-03-09T06:36:00.008-05:00

The teaser trailer for "Tron: Legacy" is also burning up the Webs, capitalizing perfectly on Jeff Bridges's Oscar win by showing him for 0.0003 seconds. Check it out.

(For what it's worth: Still haven't seen the original "Tron." I'm obviously going to check it out before the December release of this sequel/reboot. If all the buzz is correct, it seems like Disney thinks this is their next "Pirates of the Caribbean" -- and their slow burn rollout, discussion of an animated series, plans for a new trilogy and general marketing strategy are strongly suggesting that. Talk about serendipity. Looks like they picked the perfect year to hinge a $200 million franchise-in-waiting on making the long-rumored sequel to a Jeff Bridges movie.)

David Chase Hitting The Big Screen [Morning Roundup]

2010-03-09T06:13:00.004-05:00

* David Chase has committed to his first major project since "The Sopranos" ended almost three years ago: a movie he'll write and direct about a "music-driven coming of age story" set in the 1960's. For his directorial debut, expectations will be sky-high. And as the movie's release date approaches, expect him to get peppered with endless questions about the "Sopranos" cut to black. Have fun at those press junkets! (Via)

-- The crazy Oscar lady? Still not talking to the director of that movie. Not even to apologize. Yeesh. Even Kanye posted an ALL-CAPS APOLOGY.

-- "Lars and the Real Girl"/"Mr. Woodcock" director Craig Gillespie is going to helm the remake of "Fright Night."

-- What the world needs is a 3-D movie about the Book of Genesis.

-- The "Moneyball" movie -- minus Soderbergh, plus Bennett Miller and Aaron Sorkin, still with Brad Pitt as Billy Beane -- had a casting change: Demetri Martin is out and will be replaced by Jonah Hill, according to Rob Neyer (who says he got it directly from "Moneyball" author Michael Lewis).

-- Liam Hemsworth, kid brother of the guy playing Thor next year, is joining Chuck "The Mask"/"Eraser" Russell's "Arabian Nights," which will be -- say it with me now -- 3-D.

-- Yes, Zach Galifianakis shaved his beard during "SNL" on Saturday night.

-- Variety chief film critic Todd McCarthy, an industry bellwether and one of the most influential critics still penning reviews to paper, has been let go.

Boom City: New "Iron Man 2" Trailer

2010-03-09T05:44:00.004-05:00

The new "Iron Man 2" trailer debuted on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" after the Oscars on Sunday. It hit the Webs shortly thereafter. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. This thing looks quite kickass. Does it look like a "Dark Knight"/"X2"/"Spider-Man 2"-level step up in quality? Maybe not. But it doesn't have to deliver that, so long as it matches the high quality of the first.

The awesomeness: Everything Mickey Rourke. Sam Rockwell doing his Sam Rockwell thing in a major blockbuster movie. Don Cheadle, who'd be an upgrade over seemingly almost anyone, joining the cast. "I want one." Samuel L. Armor in a box.

In short: A great, great looking preview. My guess remains what it was last year -- this is the year's top-grossing movie, with at least $375-$400 million in domestic box offfice (and double that amount worldwide).

82nd Annual Oscars: The Rundown

2010-03-08T06:31:00.003-05:00

And so it ends. Just 12 short months until the 2011 Academy Awards, folks. In the meantime, let's run through some of the most noteworthy parts of the evening:

"HURT" HAUL: Despite a bevy of controversies (the producer e-mail flap, the accuracy criticisms) and the fact that it was a box office blip compared to the behemoth of "Avatar," the big winner was obviously "The Hurt Locker." It netted six of the nine trophies for which it was nominated, winning Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Editing and both sound categories. (It lost Cinematography, Score and Actor.) This is pretty astounding when you consider the film's journey -- from little-seen, critically-beloved summer film to the standard bearer at the Academy Awards -- and even moreso when you consider the genre.

Whatever you might think of recent Best Picture winners "Braveheart" or "Dances With Wolves," they weren't straight-up War Movies. The last war movie to win the top trophy was "Platoon" in early 1987, and that happened a dozen years after Saigon fell. "The Hurt Locker," on the other hand, was doomed from day one: Iraq War movies just don't succeed at the box office. People don't want to see them, they don't want to spend money on them and that's that. Summit knew this, and the film was pretty unceremoniously dumped in theaters last summer (the fact that it wasn't given a major rerelease -- 274 theaters this weekend!? -- is almost comically stupid). It was the "critically-acclaimed summer film that was an early Oscar contender," which of course means nothing; contending for an Oscar is meaningless in August and means everything in January.

But a strange thing happened: People just wouldn't forget this movie. The critical acclaim only rose as the year went on and the supposed frontrunners -- "Invictus," "Nine," "The Lovely Bones" -- didn't pan out. Folks kept returning to this little, mini-budgeted gem, the one that seared their memories and stayed in their minds. (I'm not going to discuss whether it was realistic or not, because I obviously can't speak to that. I know that no matter how fictionalized the story was, it was a powerful film. Personally, I thought it was more a movie about addiction, like "The Dark Knight" was about terrorism; the genre was simply a setting. But this movie put the Iraq War into the headlines and cultural awareness in countless ways it might not have registered otherwise. Sad though it is to say, people often seem to forget about the Iraq War, and the few headlines focused on the troops fighting are focused on the Afghanistan situation. This movie at least put the movie forefront in people's minds. That's something -- at the very least, it's got people talking and thinking about it.)

Not only did it somehow last from July to make it to the stage at the end of the night, "The Hurt Locker" was David to a very formidable Goliath. Despite the story, dialogue and characters, "Avatar" earned more than $700 million, was a cultural phenomenon and an epic moviegoing experience -- coupled with the James Cameron name, that put it in a prime spot for the Best Picture race. Pitting a movie budgeted at $15 million (earning $21 million worldwide) against the Biggest Movie Of All Time ($300-to-$500 million budget; $2.5 billion worldwide haul) didn't even seem fair.

But it does sync up with the Academy's history a bit, doesn't it? Epic "Star Wars" bested by character-driven "Annie Hall." Crowd-pleasing "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "E.T." lose in consecutive years to "Chariots of Fire" and "Gandhi." (And even the preposterous wins, like "Saving Private Ryan" losing to "Shakespeare in Love.")

Still. For this movie, of this genre, with that box office, that small nature, that lack of A-list names, with that storyline, without any blatant Oscar baiting elements, and pitted against what it was up against, to wind up taking home the biggest trophy (and more) is a fantastic storyline. And for what it's worth, a damn deserving movie.

BIGELOW'S CAREER RESURRECTION: Of note in an entirely separate section is Kathryn Bigelow's historic win as Best Director. Remember Bigelow? She made crowd-pleasing fare in the '80s and early'90s that was so very of its time; "Point Break," "Blue Steel" and "Near Dark." But somewhere after "Strange Days," her Cameron-penned sci-fi oddity, she seemed to lose her way. I can't speak for her non-directorial work, her frame of mind, her personal life, anything like that. I'm just saying that as a director, her career kind of went to hell: She directed episodes of TV ("Homicide," "Karen Sisco"), a Ciaran Hinds movie and that turgid Harrison Ford-as-a-Russian-sub-captain flop "K-19." (Remember that movie? It was a big, horrible mishap, lost lots of money, et cetera. It was her last major film, and it came out in 2002.)

And talk about a comeback. The woman didn't just reemerge, she kicked the door down with both barrels a-blazing. Bigelow has gotten much note, and rightfully earned, as being a lady directing so-called "guy movies." You don't really envision the bank-robbing-surfers movie, or the Kentucky-Fried-Bill-Paxton vampire movie, or the submarine movie, or the bomb-defusing war movie, to be directed by a lady. That's largely because there are simply fewer female filmmakers working in Hollywood, which couples with gender bias to give those gigs to lesser directors that happen to have male genitalia. But Bigelow's movies have balls, and that's evident in every shaky, grimy, gritty, uncomfortable shot of "The Hurt Locker."

That this was an historic win didn't make it any less deserved. Sure, some people probably voted for her for the Let's Make History! aspect the Academy loves so much. But others voted for her because, simply put, she did the best job of the nominees this year. And the fact that she beat her ex-husband -- also one of the best pure action directors in the business -- just makes it a bit more interesting.

THE ONE LEGIT UPSET: Was "Precious" for Best Adapted Screenplay. Of the major categories, Best Adapted Screenplay was one of the most shooed-in of the shoo-ins, with Jason Reitman and erstwhile "writing" "partner" Sheldon Turner locked into that award from the get-go. Instead, the tough adaptation of tough source material got the nod, and in retrospect it makes sense. The Academy clearly had a lot of people pulling for "Precious," and it was likely to produce an upset in one of its categories. Best Picture and Best Director weren't happening, and the long-shot candidacy of Gabby Sidibe just couldn't keep up with the Bullock-Streep storyline. So here was a perfect way for them to reward a film that clearly moved them. Which leads us to...

ALWAYS THE BRIDESMAID, NEVER THE BRIDE: This one goes to Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air," which was so much of its time and of the zeitgeist that it went zero-for-six. Yep, you may not have noticed because the movie faded from relevance about two months ago, but the film tied for the third-most nominations brought home zero actual trophies. Reitman might be on an insane career-starting hot streak -- two Best Picture and Best Director nods in three years -- but he's also lost in every category he's ever seen. (Is this an inopportune time to point out that for Reitman's three films so far, he's actually not been responsible for the best aspects? The things people loved were not things he created; the commentary of "Thank You For Smoking," the script/Ellen Page for "Juno" and Clooney in "Up in the Air." Sure, he helped assemble these parts and got them together and got out of the way and all that. But Christopher Buckley, Diablo Cody, Page and Clooney were responsible for what people remember about those films.)

This film's frontrunner-to-empty-handed arc was one of the more fascinating, and little-noticed, stories carrying through this awards season. While attention has been paid to the general unlikability Reitman has striven so hard to project (and kudos for that, buddy; hope your ski cap collection is going nicely), this film was at one point the predicted champ of the Picture/Director/Actor/Supporting Actress/Screenplay quintet. Now? It's forgotten, just to be a line in Reitman and Clooney's bios when their next nominations are announced.

BIG HOPES, EMPTY HANDS: "Up in the Air" wasn't the only film to leave empty-handed. It was just the most-nominated one. "Inglourious Basterds" had eight nominations and just one win; "Nine" and "District 9" both had four nods and zero wins; "An Education," "The Last Station," "The Princess and the Frog," "Invictus," "A Serious Man," "The White Ribbon" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" each had zero wins and at least two nods.

Of course, that's because "The Hurt Locker," "Avatar," "Precious," "Crazy Heart" and "Up" -- the only films to win more than one trophy -- accounted for 15 of the 24 awards handed out. But even "Avatar" did poorer than expected, going three-for-nine.

THE BEST PICTURE DOUBLE DOWN: Okay, so now it's all been said, done and written. Ten nominees, et cetera, et cetera. Did it actually matter? Yes and no.

It's hard to tell, of course, how much the doubling of nominees helped or hurt the films involved. Did "Avatar" voters who would have gone blockbuster instead toss their support to "Up" or "District 9"? Did the preferential ballot system, giving added weight to the non-No. 1 choices, wind up giving the trophy to "Hurt Locker" because disparate voters agreed it warranted high consideration (even if they went elsewhere for the top choice)? Did "Inglourious" or "Precious" lose out because the additional candidates meant films like "An Education" and "A Serious Man" took their indie-ish cred? Or did it not matter, and "The Hurt Locker" would have won whether there were two, five or 25 nominees?

I subscribe to the latter theory. When you broke it down, there were five legit contenders -- "The Hurt Locker," "Avatar," "Inglourious Basterds," "Precious" and "Up in the Air" -- and it was evident everywhere from the Best Director nods to the unspoken status separating the two tiers of films. There were Happy To Be Nominated films like "An Education," and there were We Could Win This Thing hopefuls like "Inglourious." Ultimately, it was a two-film race ("Hurt"/"Avatar") with one dark horse ("Inglourious"). Same as almost any other year.

On the other hand, those bottom five did mean attention was paid to less-noticed films. The films like "Up" and "District 9" and (sigh) "The Blind Side" were big box office hits, but got the attention of some Academy voters and film snobs who might not have otherwise noticed. And a few less-seen films got a boost: "An Education" added $3.2 million to its box office, accounting for a quarter of its total domestic grosses so far; "Up in the Air" netted $9.5 million; and "The Hurt Locker" and "Precious" boosted their takes by about $2 million.

The same problems remain, of course: Ultimately, most of the tacked-on nominees will never seriously contend. This will complicate things and, in a very tight race (see: "Crash"/"Brokeback"), that could lead to problems or salvation -- and the fact that nobody knows for sure how it would settle things is a pretty big issue (would it have solved the "Brokeback" fiasco? Probably not, but who knows how the other films could have sifted some "Crash" votes). And there will be years when it's tough to find 10 truly worthy films. Pixar can't come out with a flick every year, people.

And onto the bullet points:

Did you see the small, close-knit, hugging "Hurt Locker" celebration after they won? That's the kind of thing you get with a small film like that. If "Avatar" wins, you get 50 people crowding the stage and Cameron praising them (a.k.a. himself) for creating a world, capped off with some stupid-ass made-up line in his Na'vi language. I'd rather see the three leads who sweated through "Locker" jumping for joy on the stage.
Eleven films took home trophies. After all the hubbub about spreading the wealth -- 42 different films netted at least one nomination -- "The Hurt Locker" took home a quarter of the awards.
"The Hurt Locker" was just the third film in the last 14 years to win Best Picture despite coming out over the summer. It's the lone July release to win the trophy in the last 30 years, too.
As I said before, five films won more than one trophy -- "The Hurt Locker," "Avatar," "Precious," "Crazy Heart" and "Up" (which all won 15 of the 24 awards). Three of them didn't crack the top 60 films at the box office in 2009 -- "Precious" (No. 65), "Crazy" (No. 93) and "Hurt" (No. 126). The other two were both in the top five: "Avatar" (No. 1) and "Up" (No. 5).
Academy Award Winner Sandra Bullock. That will now appear in the trailer for every bad romantic comedy she ever makes. I don't know what's weirder: that Bullock just beat Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren for an acting trophy, or that everyone knew it would happen and the Academy voters didn't do anything to stop it.
I don't want to seem like I'm reveling in someone's loss or anything, but I was really hoping for a Reitman-Cam during the Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture speeches. Seriously, think this award will make him more humble? Or at least more likely to ditch the ski caps? Hopefully next time he'll explain to more writers how "movies are meant to be told."
I subscribe to the school of thought that the Oscars really should be handed out several years after the fact. I understand why this can't happen, obviously, and I understand why it would make it an entirely different set of awards with an entirely different set of criteria (can you imagine, little things like "made a ton of money" or "topical without being too political" or "it was in the news a lot, had a lot of momentum" being taken out of the equation? Perfidy). But even just a few years helps add perspective: Will this be viewed as a good or bad year? Were these worthy or unworthy films? I think a few years later, there's no way "Brokeback Mountain" or "Saving Private Ryan" (the two biggest upsets of the modern Oscar era) lose Best Picture. There's a good chance "There Will Be Blood" wins the 2007 trophy (and, by the way, what a goddamn great year that was for cinema; "Blood," "No Country" and "Michael Clayton" were all perfectly-formed gems, the kinds of films that would roll the competition any other year. I'm still happy "No Country" won, but it's an impressive slate). This year, I think films like "Precious" and "Hurt Locker" will only grow in esteem several years hence; "Avatar's" long-term reputation does rest on how the 3-D craze unfolds.
The rest of the ceremony? The hosts were perfectly passable. Baldwin's been on autopilot for the last two years, doing his impression of someone doing an impression of Jack Donaghy, but Martin seemed enlivened by their partnership and they both did a fine job (I liked Martin's previous solo jobs, too)... The "Paranormal Activity" bit was pretty funny... You know who looked out of place? The "Twilight" kids. Just saying, one looked petrified and the other looked miserable... Also out of place? The horror montage. That, coupled with the prolonged "Let's do interpretive dance to the scores of the Best Original Score nominees!" thing, boggled my mind: Oscar winners were told they could talk for 45 seconds just to make time for some stupid-ass dancing thing? I get that the producers have dance backgrounds. But weren't these the Oscars? Didn't priorities come into play?... Oh, hi, Miley Cyrus and Zac Effron. Make yourselves at home, you'll be presenting until your careers flame out in five years.
If I keep blogging, the crazy red-haired lady will jump out and Kanye me, so I'll wrap it up with this: a largely inoffensive awards ceremony.

"Alice in Wonderland" Soars

2010-03-07T14:40:00.003-05:00

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE ROUNDUP: "Alice" exploded out of the gate with an estimated $116 million in its first three days. This is thanks to 3-D ticket prices, the lure of a crazed Johnny Depp, the brand name and zero competition. (Most notably a lack of Oscar movies gunning up the charts. Usually, there's a few big Oscar contenders racking up money as people see 'em before the awards are meted out; besides "Avatar," no contender ranked higher than No. 14 or earned more than $1.5 million.) No, I am not considering Tim Burton a factor; his name matters when paired with particular source material ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") and Depp doing his best Peter Sellers-on-acid.

The $116 million, if it holds up (and it will, because the Oscars aren't keeping the kiddies home this afternoon), is the largest non-sequel debut in history. The previous record holder is "Spider-Man," which earned $114 million in 2002 (when prices were lower all across the board, and you only had to pay for two dimensions). It's the sixth-biggest debut in box office history, following "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man 3," "Twilight: New Moon," the second "Pirates" and the third "Shrek." (It's also, obviously, the biggest March debut, the biggest spring debut and the biggest debut outside of the typical box office strongholds of summer and November-December.)

The only name common among the biggest six openers? Depp. There have now been 14 different films to open with $100 million in a single weekend. Depp is the only person involved in three of those films. There's another blog post to be written about how Depp and Will Smith have emerged as the singular box office phenomena of the last decade, since the other major openers coasted on brand name ("Spider-Man," "Shrek," etc.)

The final haul for "Alice"? Difficult to peg without seeing the precise drop-off next weekend. But the predicted 30 percent dip on Sunday isn't an optimistic sign. It's bigger than the Sunday declines for the second "Pirates" and for the first "Spider-Man," but smaller than the 34 percent Sunday dip for "New Moon." It likely won't have the crushing decline of "New Moon" (which barely doubled its gross) or even that of "Spider-Man 3" (which doubled its opening and then a small hair more). The film isn't precisely a sequel, nor will it drop off that calamitously. I think it will hit the $270 million mark with a shot at $300 million.

Of note: This is the fifth film since 2006 to debut in March with at least $55 million.

Also, "Avatar" dipped below $10 million for the first time in its 12 weekends. The $7.7 million haul brings it to $720 million, and $750 million is still in the cards. A big Oscar haul likely won't do that much; people who want to see it have seen it and are making their way.

Oscar Predictions! 2010 Edition

2010-03-07T12:38:00.007-05:00

The 82nd annual Academy Awards are tonight! You know what that means, don't you? We're just 24 hours away from beginning the 2011 Oscar campaign season. Marty Scorsese, get ready for a lot of banquets.

There's one big, glaring problem for picking the winners of the Big Awards: history. The frontrunners are so far ahead in three of the four acting categories, plus pretty-locked-in Best Actress, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay contenders, that the only suspense is left to Best Picture ("Avatar" or "Hurt Locker") and Best Original Screenplay ("Inglourious Basterds" and "Hurt Locker"). That's it. You could bet frontrunners on the Big Nine awards (counting Best Animated Feature as a big award this year, by the way) and you've almost definitely got seven-of-nine correct. Best Picture and Original Screenplay, you've got 50/50 odds in each one.

The problem? The last time every frontrunner won was, charitably, 2003. That year, Renee Zellweger winning for Best Supporting Actress over Marcia Gay Harden in "Mystic River" was the closest thing to a major upset, which is pathetic. Every other year recently has offered some out-of-left-field moment -- Marion Cotillard, Adrien Brody, Rachel Weisz, "Gladiator," and, of course, "Crash." The fact that actors so overwhelmingly make up the biggest bloc in the Academy often means preconceived notions can get thrown out the window when other factors are mixed in (i.e. "Crash" wins, in part, because so many people have friends or colleagues in that movie. The huge cast also helps it become a bewildering Netflix phenomenon).

Anyway. Onto my predix for the major categories. There are some smaller categories where I feel strongly (namely "Hurt Locker" for Editing, "The White Ribbon" for cinematography), but here we go:

BEST ANIMATED FILM

"Up" in a landslide. Unless people view the Best Picture nod and it splits votes, allowing "Kells" to sneak in, there's no way this loses. Pixar's fifth trophy of the nine that have been meted out (they've lost twice, with "Monsters, Inc." and "Cars" losing to "Shrek" and "Happy Feet").

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

"Up in the Air" is cruising to this one. A onetime frontrunner in more categories, it took major hits along the way. But this trophy, to be awkwardly shared between two people who were forced together in a marriage of guild arbitration, is going to be given to the film so many people think was the Zeitgeist Movie of the Year. I know "In The Loop" has a strong fan base, but I don't see it pulling off the upset.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

This one comes down to "Inglourious Basterds" versus "The Hurt Locker." A "Locker" sweep would carry it to this trophy, despite the recent protestations of inaccuracies and the general anti-"Locker" fervor. But my pick is Tarantino's "Basterds" screenplay, which is the movie's second-strong asset (after Christoph Waltz, naturally).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

There's no way Mo'Nique loses this. Simple as that.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Again, Christoph Waltz has this one locked up, and with good reason. The only hitch: Like I said, there are always upsets. And they often happen in these two categories, where the smaller nature of the roles and grander nature of the Academy can come into play; in other words, somebody who votes for "Basterds" for screenplay or picture might opt for somebody else in Supporting Actor and spread the wealth. (Note: Such a person would be a moron, but that's besides the point.) Waltz is against Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson and Christopher Plummer (in his astonishing first nod) -- any of whom, on their own, could be enough of a sentimental favorite to pose a challenge. But since there are three such sentimental favorites, they split the bill and Waltz has no difficulty. (If any one of them were against Waltz and a bunch of Damon-in-"Invictus"-type roles, there'd be a more significant race here.)

BEST ACTRESS

This, and Best Picture, are the two closest major races. This one comes down to Bullock -- the frontrunner, due to her longstanding positive appeal in Hollywood, her career of moneymakers, her career year last year and her film's overwhelming success due in large part to her -- versus Streep, the Grand Dame of the Academy. If Streep's "Doubt" performance was this year, it might be closer; her Julia was terrific, but not necessarily so strong to overcome the "Let's give it to the gal who's made us all lots of money." It should be said that Bullock's role will be the weakest, and the weakest film, to win the trophy since probably Julia Roberts nine years ago. But if they split the bill, "Precious" heat could propel Gabourey Sidibe to the trophy. I predict Bullock, but I wouldn't be shocked if Sidibe pulled off the upset

BEST ACTOR

Jeff Bridges, the sentimental and deserving favorite, in a landslide. The dude isn't just due -- he's reached that fantastic career apex most couldn't dream of landing after four decades in the business. Later this year: his second blockbuster in three years!

BEST DIRECTOR

Kathryn Bigelow for her extraordinarily-rendered film. The fact that she'll get some votes merely for being a woman up for Best Director, and a woman directing a tense war movie (a.k.a. the kind of movie most often directed by a man), doesn't take away that she did the best job of the five nominees. She single-handedly guided this wondrous little film's journey.

BEST PICTURE

I'm betting on "The Hurt Locker." I think "Avatar" could have won, but I have faith in the actors' branch to propel the better movie to the trophy. I would prefer it if "Inglourious" or "Up" pulled off the upset, personally. I still have doubts -- "Avatar" has the momentum and the money, not to mention the scope and the span -- but I can't overcome how sheerly bad the "Avatar" story was. It's a moviegoing experience; "Hurt Locker" is a great film. (I'm almost always wrong, so at least I know one thing for sure: "The Blind Side" gets the lowest vote total, right? Right!?)

The Bears Go For Broke (Literally)

2010-03-07T11:50:00.002-05:00

BEAR MARKET: Last season, the Chicago Bears were considered by some a Super Bowl team. Didn't work out that way -- they went 7-9, finished third in the NFC North and watched the Vikings come within one Favre interception of the Super Bowl. Highly-touted mega-armed Jay Cutler threw 26 INTs and 27 TDs. The team had a pitiful 6 rushing TDs. They had the 19th-best NFL offense and the 21st-ranked defense. They also mortgaged their 2010 draft in the Cutler trade, so they were going to be in the same boat unless they made a big free agency splash.

The Bears spent more than $100 million bringing in Julius Peppers, Minnesota back Chester Taylor and bruising tight end Brandon Manumaleuna. Did they overpay? Of course. Sinking that much money into players of that age -- especially when Peppers is 30 and they are contracted through his 36th year -- is dumb. But it was the only card they had to play, even if it was notably un-Bears like (two offseasons in a row, they spent big and bet on passing. What a world).

Does this make them immediate NFC North contenders? Not on its own. But when you mix it with the aging Favre, the still-years-from-contention Lions and the Vikes now being without Taylor, the Bears are a contender for the division title or a wild card berth. That's progress.

"Alice in Wonderland" Box Office Preview

2010-03-05T14:42:00.001-05:00

The first legitimately big movie since "Avatar"! Woo. Even if it looks like a visually-enticing, wholly-unnecessary retread of familiar stuff (remember when Tim Burton made original movies? Sigh, those were the days). With the 3-D and the Depp and the Oscars and the "Alice" brand name all factored in, I'm guessing an opening weekend of $72 million is in the cards. It'll get hit by the Oscars on Sunday, but not by that much; after all, people who are going to watch the Oscars wouldn't be going to a movie on Sunday night. Tomorrow will be a packed day at movie theaters, especially with the youngins. Enjoy that.

(Also, "Avatar" will crack $725 million this weekend, just for funsies.)

Nikki Finke Will Rhyme, If She Has The Time

2010-03-03T13:04:00.003-05:00

GREAT MOMENTS IN MOMENTOUS JOURNALISM | Nikki Finke's headline about "Hurt Locker" producer Nicolas Chartier being banned from the ceremony: "OSCAR BARRED: Academy of Shame Makes Decision That's Lame." You see what she did there? That's how you beat Gawker. Or not. [link]

David Denby Is Nothing If Not Topical

2010-03-01T12:29:00.003-05:00

David Denby writes about the films of Clint Eastwood for this week's New Yorker. Just in time for the Oscars, for which he is personally nominated for zero trophies, and just five years after Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" triumph. The week before the Oscars next year, expect Denby to regale us with the cinematic odyssey of Ron Howard.

"Raging Bull," 30 Years Later

2010-02-24T10:18:00.004-05:00

"Scorsese just couldn't understand De Niro's enthusiasm for this story."

-- Vanity Fair on "Raging Bull," three decades later. Their lengthy features looking back on classic movies is always like catnip to me.

Bissinger On Favre

2010-02-24T10:08:00.002-05:00

"Pain in public has always been dependable publicity"..."hubristic fool"..."wasn't heroic...wasn't a warrior"..."an arrogant braggart who...perversely reveled in his pain"..."clinically grandiose"..."relished the soap opera"..."acting like a general being begged to return to the field of battle"..."schizophrenic career"... "delusions of magnificence"..."Favre has crafted his public persona as carefully as Tiger Woods."

-- Buzz Bissinger, who is 98 percent spittle, on Favre in The New Republic, of all places.

Comic Con Fans Might Have A Different Beautiful Host City To Ignore

2010-02-23T07:53:00.002-05:00

Could the San Diego Comic Con really depart from America's Finest City (which is apparently its nickname)? The annual dweeb bonanza's contract is up in 2012. Insert requisite joke about how the nerds will have to find some other way to get their only annual exposure to sunshine (during their walks to and fro the convention, of course). Oh, they might go to Anaheim? Scratch that. [via]

Ian McShane Looks To Up The Badass Quotient Of "Pirates 4"

2010-02-23T07:35:00.002-05:00

Ian McShane, who was born to play a foulmouthed pirate, is in talks to join "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." The fourth flick in the series would awesomely see him playing Blackbeard, foil to Jack Sparrow in his quest for the Fountain of Youth. No word yet on what role Penelope Cruz is rumored to be up for, though it's some kind of romantic interest/equal to Johnny Depp. And this casting news means that the franchise kept Depp on board (obviously), but replaced Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom with Cruz and McShane. (Plus, they replaced the director of "The Mexican" with Rob Marshall.) Is there any way that's not an upgrade? [via]

The Gift and the Curse of Meryl Streep

2010-02-22T10:56:00.003-05:00

A.O. Scott wrote lovingly in the New York Times about Meryl Streep, Superwoman. She can act! She can open a hit! She cured a leper with a single deftly-accented monologue!

None of the things he writes are erroneous, of course. Streep is the foremost actor in the business. Streep has notched more hits over the last four years than almost every major movie star in the business. (Since 2006, she has three $100 million hits and "Julie & Julia" came in just shy at $94 million. That's more hits of that size -- three, almost four, $100 million films -- than Tom Hanks, Eddie Murphy, Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford have in that span.) Streep can, will and does do it all.

But, something of note: With "Julie & Julia," Streep earned her 16th Oscar nomination. This further eclipses the second most-nominated folks in Oscar history: 12 nods apiece for Kate Hepburn and Jack Nicholson. However, Streep hasn't won since picking up her second statue for 1982's "Sophie's Choice." (She went two-for-four from 1978 to 1982.) She's lost 11 consecutive Oscars since then and has lost 13 times overall. In other words, Streep has lost more acting Oscars than anyone else has ever been nominated for.

It's sometimes hard to determine what caused this loss or that one, since in any given year there are factors at play. She's up against Kate Winslet in a "It's Finally Her Time" role, she's up against Kate Hepburn for her final Oscar, et cetera. But ultimately, it's impossible to come to any conclusion to explain that 13-consecutive-losses-and-counting statistic other than sheer ubiquity. She's won twice, and she won early, so every other time there's always somebody else who must be considered.

The Oscars, unlike their slower-witted siblings the Emmys, reward newness and freshness. The Emmys generally give out awards like they're really into environmentalism and want to reuse and recycle their winners' list until the thing crumbles into dust; think Helen Hunt's four consecutive wins, John Larroquette's four consecutive wins, Candice Bergen and Kelsey Grammer netting five awards, et cetera.

By comparison, there are just two actors to earn more than two acting Oscars: Hepburn has four and Nicholson has three. Thirty-four actors are tied with two Oscars (and that spans the leading and supporting categories; I think just the casts of "Frasier" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" have more Emmys than that). Among them is Streep. Also among them are Hillary Swank, Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington.

The Oscars have a stigma of being predictable and dull. This confuses "We know who's going to win" with "It's always the same people who win." With the Emmys, the same people win; with the Oscars, we have three months of ceremonies and awards and build-up, so we know most of the big winners. But generally, the same people almost always fail to win an Oscar multiple times.

Just fifteen directors have two or more Oscars. Spielberg has two Oscars and has directed just one Best Picture winner; Coppola has one directing trophy but two Best Picture winners; Nichols, Scorsese and Woody Allen are among those with a lone directing trophy. The Billy Wilders (two directing trophies, four other ones), Fords (four wins), Capras and Wylers (three apiece) are the rarities; more likely are the Soderberghs, Mendes', Howards, Redfords and Costners who win once and never notch another nod (so far, obviously). And this isn't even discussing the ubiquitous "never won an Oscar" list, a.k.a. the Kubrick/Hitchcock Honorary Snubs (from which Scorsese just barely escaped three years ago).

Consider: Of this year's 20 acting nominees, 12 of the 20 are first-time contenders. That includes three of the four frontrunners (Bullock, Mo'Nique and Waltz). And yes, Streep is likely heading for her 14th straight loss.

Streep has lost to some monstrous talent and wondrous performances over the years. She lost to Jodie Foster for "The Accused" and Helen Mirren in "The Queen." She's lost to Kate Winslet and Hepburn and Kathy Bates for "Misery." She's also lost to Cher and Gwyneth Paltrow and Hillary Swank and Nicole Kidman in a prosthetic nose. She hasn't won since April 1983, and 27 years is a pretty Lucci-esque streak. She hasn't won during a window where Helen Hunt won a damn Oscar.

And it's not that every one of her losses has been a crime or that every one of her competitors has won wrongly. It's just that she hasn't lost because they've been better and she hasn't always lost because of who they are. She's lost pretty much every single Oscar because she's Meryl Streep. And while that is a gift, it's also her curse, and the reason she's probably going to lose her next Oscar to the star of "All About Steve."

Oscar Portraits

2010-02-18T11:46:00.005-05:00

The New York Times Magazine takes wonderful portraits of Oscar nominees (and non-nominees, too, just for funsies). There's even a whole section of just Jeff Bridges, so obviously I would love this. Go, bask.

Gabourey Sidibe Is Pretty Well-Adjusted For A Suddenly Famous Oscar Winner

2010-02-18T08:14:00.004-05:00

Some people have an issue with the bone-white Vanity Fair cover touting the brightest of Hollywood's new stars, provided those stars are (A) white, (B) young starlets and (C) really skinny. You know who doesn't really have an issue? Oscar-nominated "Precious" star Gabourey Sidibe, who told the New York Daily News that her inclusion in the magazine's hidden-from-newsstands inside (and exclusion from the Pale Force fold-out cover) briefly crossed her mind.

"I mean, I come from a world where I'm not on covers and I'm not in magazines at all," she said. "And so I was happy to be in the magazine."

What a gem. Meanwhile, the nine actresses that made the cover have to deal with the Vanity Fair Cover Curse, wherein at least five of them will flame out terribly and have no careers by 2012. Thanks for saving her that indignity, Vanity Fair!

Can't Wait Til This Is Adapted For The Big Screen

2010-02-17T14:13:00.003-05:00

For the legions of fans out there who think James Cameron's masterly writing is too literary and intricate for the big screen, you're in luck: He's writing a novel. A prequel to "Avatar," in fact. A special treat for the one of you* who believes his writing is the best part of his movies. I look forward to chapter titles like "Who's bad?" and "You're not in Kansas anymore" and "Seriously, HarperCollins published this because 'Avatar' made their mutual parent company News Corp a bazillion dollars? Aren't there starving novelists out there who could use these pages? It's not the environmentally conscious, Pandoran way to kill so many trees to create a future discount bin book, you know."

* That's just Cameron, obviously.

Lost, "The Substitute"

2010-02-17T11:39:00.003-05:00

After last week's empty, boring filler fluff, the show wisely turns to a surefire crowd-pleaser: a Locke episode. (It is written on a walking stick, below a psalm and above a map to the Island golf course, that episodes centered on Locke, Desmond or Hurley are guaranteed successes.) Terry O'Quinn knocked it out of the park, of course, technically playing three iterations of his character: evil, alternate universe and dead. Josh Holloway and O'Quinn were a fantastic Odd Couple. There was progress, tiny increments of plot handed out and nice character moments for a few people.

But most importantly, this show -- never known for narrative subtlety or implying something when LOUDLY BLARING IT ACROSS THE SCREEN WILL DO JUST FINE! -- had one of its smartest and subtlest moments last night. In a sequence most fans probably didn't get because it was so fleeting and implicit and ethereal, we saw a pair of stones (one light! one dark!) on a scale, and we saw the bad guy toss the light stone into the ocean. I KNOW. SO SUBTLE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? I bet most of the crazed "Lost" fans didn't even notice this moment, it was so buried in the background and shrouded in mystery.

(In terms of "Lost's" forehead-smacking obviousness, this lands somewhere between naming a mysterious character "Miss Clue" and naming characters Locke, Rousseau, Hume and Faraday, among others. Of course, if Faux Locke turns out to have daddy issues, or if his name is Loose Ipher, the circle will be complete.)

The New York Times Writes About Paterson?

2010-02-17T07:34:00.002-05:00

Apparently the New York Times ran a story today about Gov. David Paterson. Amazing they were able to keep that quiet for so long.

Looking At Miami's Free Agency Position At The All-Star Break

2010-02-12T10:55:00.004-05:00

"When it comes to the current trade season and this summer's free-agency season, Miami is ground zero. While there are other teams that will be major players in the action...no other franchise offers the tantalizing combination of blockbuster trade potential, outrageous free-agent possibilities and spectacularly awful worst-case scenarios that the Heat can offer."

-- John Hollinger's ESPN Insider story on the 2010 Free Agency Maelstrom. (Via.)

Worth noting: Hollinger, like me and you and everyone we know outside of the Chicago Bulls front office, thinks Wade is returning to Miami. Also worth noting: Hollinger discusses the Amare Stoudemire trade rumors, which would land STAT back in South Florida. If that were to happen, the (slim) likelihood of a Wade-Bosh-LeBron trio disappears entirely (not that that was a probable outcome in any event, but it's nice to dream). However, depending on how Amare approaches his contract renegotiations this summer, if he were on South Beach it's possible the team could (A) still afford Bosh or (B) afford a second-tier free agent -- the ones Hollinger names being Boozer, Rudy Gay or David Lee.

Of that trio, David Lee is (improbably) the best bet. Amare and Wade can handle the offensive output, so they don't need a scorer, and Boozer isn't the most stout defender. But Lee, a rebounding machine, would provide the perfect balance to Amare (offsetting Stoudemire's weak defense, while Amare more than handles the offensive output for two players). Bosh remains the best player in the mix outside of Wade and LeBron, and he's both a scorer and a defender, so he's still the gold standard. But having Lee and Stoudemire (or Bosh and Amare, even better) up front against the likes of Dwight Howard, Al Horford and Gerald Wallace for the next few years...that's a lineup. (Yes, I didn't list Kevin Garnett or Shaq in that, since neither will be big factors in a couple of years.)

Stop The Printing Presses! Wait, The Printing What Now?

2010-02-11T11:18:00.003-05:00

"Apparently, each day, someone is tasked with printing up all of the stories published that day, so that Brown might have some way of reading them, and delivering them to her by hand. And if she's, say, visiting her old London stomping grounds? Then this sheaf would need to be faxed to wherever she's staying..."

-- Gawker's Ryan Tate, on Tina Brown and The Daily Beast. Definitely worth a read.

Nolan Actually Working On New "Batman" Movie?

2010-02-10T12:03:00.003-05:00

Buried inside this NYT article about Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Bros. Pictures, is this intriguing tidbit about the status of a follow-up to the biggest movie in Warner Bros. history: “He is trying not to cling to the things that have worked in the past,” said Christopher Nolan, who directed “The Dark Knight” and is working on another Batman sequel. Well then.

A "Dark Knight" sequel was always in the offing. But this is the closest to official confirmation we've ever had that Nolan is, in fact, cracking the next "Batman." Is he just concocting a story? Can he dream up a story worth filming and NOT film it himself, or will "Inception" remind him of the fun of dreaming up original stories? This is all speculative. But this is the closest we've come since the July 2008 release of "Dark Knight" to hearing anything close to reality regarding a follow-up.

"Lost" - Week Two, or "The Writers Barely Hide Their Desire To See Kate In Handcuffs"

2010-02-10T05:57:00.005-05:00

A new thing I'm pondering trying - writing briefly about "Lost" the day after it airs. Final season and all that jazz. Why not.

Last night's episode of "Lost" had two pretty big things going against it:

1) Not much happened

2) It was Kate-centric

This isn't really a minority opinion amongst "Lost" fans. The general theory is that Kate episodes, focusing on her various criminal escapades (in her flashback days particularly) are aimless, unnecessary fluff. And while I know folks presumably care about the Kate/Sawyer/Jack love triangle (though I believe the majority of people who find it interesting are the "Lost" writers), I find it boring as sin and downright unbelievable considering where the characters are now. Kate chasing Sawyer, despite the fact that his long-term girlfriend just died? Jack and Kate sharing a "Moment," as though their closeness is what is most important, while sitting next to their friend who was just resurrected. Et cetera.

That was always the problem with the romantic stuff, particularly the show's dreaded, momentum killing, soppy Love Triangle -- it always seemed jarringly out of place, grinding the show's progression to a halt and generally taking up airtime that would have been better spent on other things.

Anyway, last night's episode was pretty obviously filler-full. "Lost" co-chief Damon Lindelof heard as such via the Twitterverse, so he posted this as soon as the episode ended: "For those of you complaining of "filler." Seriously. PLEASE WATCH NCIS: LOS ANGELES. I promise not to hold it against you."

For somebody who's watching how people react to the episode in real-time on Twitter, you'd think he'd have been better prepared for possible criticism. Rather than getting uppity and holier-than-thou and breaking out the "If you unwashed masses don't get the GREATNESS that is seeing Kate get out of handcuffs for the 487th time, then you can go watch your Chris O'Donnell procedural!" But hey, at least he's not looking down his nose at the very audience members he is slavishly monitoring.

But yeah, this episode was pretty useless. We got very little in the way of mythology or interesting characterization, outside of Sawyer (the show's unheralded MVP since early season 5). The plots were downright plodding:

-- Sayid wakes up, gets tortured, Jack confronts the guy in charge and finds out Sayid is "infected" (with presumably whatever infected Rousseau's crew way back when, as depicted briefly in that season 5 episode where Jin palled around with them).

-- Jack has a crisis of faith, a.k.a. the same thing he had last week. Oh, but Sayid seems different. -- Sawyer goes off to New Otherton, Kate follows, Kate and Jin split up and get away from their Other hostage-takers (including MAC! from "It's Always Sunny," which was a randomly great callback to his appearance in season 3). Sawyer weeps, Kate uselessly stands around. She claims she came back to the island to find Claire.

-- In the Alternate-Universe-Side-Whoosh, we get an excruciatingly extended series of "Kate's on the run" bits that involve her stealing a cab, kidnapping Claire, letting her go, getting her handcuffs off, accompanying Claire to her perspective adoptive family and then taking her to the hospital.

Seriously. That was it. Half of the episode -- a full 1/32 of the final chunk of the season -- is taken up with exciting plot developments like "Watch Kate get out of handcuffs!" and "Look, Claire's doctor is Ethan! From the island! How weird!" This episode would have been useless if not for the minor revelations: Sayid's "infection," Sawyer's going rogue (and subsequent heartbreaking proposal revelation) and then Claire showing up at the end.

This last development is the only thing in the episode that passes for progress. After all, she disappeared late in season 4 and only reappeared now, looking very Rousseau-like. The mention of her infection is fascinating, because if the infection is related to the black smoke and to the Man in Black, and she was sitting with Christian when we last saw her, that pretty much confirms that Christian has been an agent of the Man in Black. Which means all those apparitions over the years leading people places have been the agents of Smokey. Which means, technically, that a lot of the show's movement can be traced back to the bad guy. Which is nifty. Anyway, what happens with Claire now is obviously of huge interest -- is she a black hat? A crazy person? Possessed by the Man in Black? Not sure. But her setting the traps (as she obviously did) shows hope her character is more interesting than the last time around, when she spent her time tying messages to birds and the like.

Overall, this episode was the definition of filler. The wheels were spun, some stuff happened, but for the supposed "EVERY WEEK CHANGES YOUR LIFE FINAL SEASON FINAL SEASON FINAL SEASON" closing chapter of the show, there was a whole lot of nothing. But then, I also felt last week's episode was lacking in the forward plot movement. There were some cool revelations, nice moments and overall table-setting intrigue, but the plot barely inched forward. Ditto for Week 2. Since the premiere, the plots have moved ahead in microscopic ways (all that's happened to the Jack group is they went to the temple, then some of them left, for instance). I guess when they said this season would resemble the first season, they weren't kidding -- a lot of vagueness and mystery filling airtime. Hopefully it leads to something. I still have faith it will, which is something I didn't have a few years ago, so there's that.

POSTSCRIPT - One more thing. When the most intriguing, exciting and nifty part of an episode comes in the preview for next week -- "I thought you were dead." "I am." -- you know this was an episode that won't invite much rewatching.

Christopher Nolan To Play Role In Future Warner Bros. Comic Book Properties, Says Shocking Report

2010-02-09T12:09:00.002-05:00

Nikki Finke's Internet chat room for studio execs looking to post spin on the Web without any actual analysis or consideration raised a few eyebrows on Sunday by claiming that David Goyer was leaving "FlashForward" in part because he "is now writing the third Batman installment with Chris Nolan's brother Jonah." I say "raised eyebrows" because she more than likely changed the article 12 times in the time it took most people to read it, so who knew the validity of what we were reading. (Of note: Goyer is represented by the William Morris Agency. As with all things Finke, whomever fed her the information knowing she'd post it without a second thought clearly has a motive here.)

But! Finke apparently really, really enjoyed the number of hits any "third Batman + Nolan" story got her. So today we get this bombshell from Finke and Mike Fleming, the secret identity she created in order to post comments on her own blog: Christopher Nolan is set to "mentor Superman 3.0 and prep 3rd Batman." Holy vague headlines, Bat-hack!

EXCEPT, there's a few problems. To whit:

You know what's awesome? How her headline and story say two different things. Her headline says Nolan will mentor and prep the two films. Her story, by comparison, just says he's been asked to oversee a "Superman" reboot. That's it. Just asked. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the 11 paragraph story is taken up by rehashing the history of Nolan overhauling the "Batman" movies, his "Inception" project, the legal troubles faced by "Superman," the botched 2006 "Superman Returns" reboot and rehashing the stories about how Warner Brothers is dealing with this. Nolan taking over the project gets a few mentions, while the rest of it is rehashed, reheated and reiterated things we already know.
The article references the "mediocre" quartet of "Superman" movies that came out between 1978 and 1985 (I presume she means 1987, when the fourth film actually came out). Except that "Superman: The Movie," released in 1978, is considered something of a classic, served as the template for the entirety of the comic book movie sub-genre and earned an adjusted-for-inflation $436 million dollars. The sequel is considered to be even better. But that's okay, we'll ignore any knowledge of the actual film series in place for cut-and-pasted paragraphs from prior stories about the "Superman" legal squabbles.
She again references Goyer and Jonah Nolan off writing the movie. It's entirely possible they are working out a story they conceived in concert with Nolan (a reference is made to him hatching a story), and that Nolan (knee-deep in "Inception" from now through the end of the summer at the earliest) plans to turn his eyes to this after he finishes promoting that film. But isn't it weird for writers to go off writing a movie without a salary from a studio? Isn't it weird for Warner Brothers, which is owned by a mega-conglomerate corporation with a publicly-traded stock and shareholders and a bottom line, not to promote the hell out of the fact that the story for "Batman 3" is in the works? The film earned more than a billion dollars worldwide. It's one thing for them to keep mum on the fact that Nolan is finally considering returning, since they might not want to publicly rush him; but it's quite another not to even mention anywhere, ever, publicly that the movie is moving forward in some way.
It's pretty well known that while Marvel Studios has exploded at the box office, and has this elaborate "Avengers"/"Iron Man"/"Captain America"/"Thor" web set to shatter the nerd Richter scale over the next few summers, Warner Brothers is in the dumps. Just "Batman," long the jewel in their cinematic crown, has been doing well, so they are hoping to jump back into the game with their "Green Lantern" flick. They also obviously need a new "Superman" so the rights don't lapse. But! Just like Fox is rebooting "Daredevil" and "X-Men" out of a sheerly financial desire to keep the properties from reverting to Marvel, Warner Brothers can simply say they're tooling around with "Superman" scripts to show they are actively engaging with the project, and boom -- the rights are still theirs. This needs to go nowhere.

In other words, the likeliest answer for what all of this is can be found in the previous bullet point -- an exec at Warner Brothers knows they need to push for movement on "Batman 2.3" and "Superman 2.2" in order to appease their bosses or keep the rights, respectively, so they plant this story at the most fertile garden on the Web and then that's it. They've done their job. It's just an added bonus if Nolan actually accepts this offer; Marvel has people specifically overseeing their projects, like Kevin Feige, to keep the universe coherent and the continuity fresh.

The point? We'll believe it if (but likely "when," because nobody leaked this out of nowhere; unless Finke changes the entire post to read "Online sources that should be immediately ignored said that..." and absolve herself of responsibility, this could actually be legit) we see it. But now Finke can claim she knew this ahead of time no matter what happens -- if Nolan concocts a story but doesn't direct "Batman 3," if Nolan does direct it, if he oversees the "Superman" reboot, if he doesn't, she can say that he was offered these things and opted to do whatever. In other words, there's a really, really annoying TOLDJA in the offing. How exciting.

NBC Decides To See If They Can Do Any More Damage To Comedy

2010-02-09T09:09:00.004-05:00

Hey, remember when Paul Reiser wrote that epically horrid defense of Jay Leno? It seemed a bit weird that he would stick his neck out and get involved, even though he has a history with NBC and obviously a longstanding friendship with Leno. I mean, who would be dumb enough to take NBC's side during their blatant PR catastrophe, right? In completely unrelated news, Paul Reiser is on the verge of signing a "big" deal for an NBC pilot.

"Avatar's" Latest Challengers: A Chick Flick And Travolta?

2010-02-05T06:13:00.002-05:00

After seven weeks atop the box office, it's probably tough for any film to harbor big dreams of besting "Avatar." It's probably doubly tough if the films in question look so awful, like both of these weekend's releases.

The first is "Dear John," the latest "Nicholas Sparks is a master manipulator and is playing your heart like a cello" soppy love story. This interchangeable story stars Amanda Seyfried and Channing Tatum. Despite what some people would have you think, it's unlikely this one edges "Avatar" for the No. 1 slot.

Opening it over Super Bowl weekend is an ostensibly smart move: it's a chick flick debuting against the biggest football game of the year, a weekend with a testosterone-driven event wherein the female demographic is looking for alternatives. So goes the theory, anyway. In reality, of the three films to open with $20 million or more over Super Bowl weekend, just one of the three was squarely aimed at the ladies: "Hannah Montana" in 2008. "Taken" last year and "When A Stranger Calls" in '06 were the other two; an all-action guys' movie and a horror remake.

In recent years, romantic/female-driven films outside of "Montana" have floundered over this weekend: "Because I Said So" ($13.1 million in '07), "The Wedding Date" ($11.1 million in '05), "New in Town" ($6.7 million in '09), "Over Her Dead Body" ($4 million in '08).

By comparison, a guy-oriented film like "Taken" opened up to a completely unexpected $24.7 million en route to a shocking $145 million domestic gross. So the conventional wisdom -- women want an alternative over Super Bowl weekend -- is null and void. The big game takes up several hours on Sunday; people of both genders need films to see the rest of the weekend, and women also obviously watch the game.

Of course, a massive snowstorm bearing down on the northeast might put an overall dent in the box office. The snow hitting the region on Friday and Saturday, leading into the game on Sunday, means attendance overall will be pretty low.

Which brings us to "Avatar," which has declined 15, 18 and 10 percent in the last three weekends. Sitting at $603 million going into its eight weekend -- just days after it notched nine Oscar nods and became the biggest film in U.S. history -- an eighth straight weekend as No. 1 seems likely. Thanks to those factors, the decline was likely going to be closer to 12-14 percent had it not been for the twin negatives of the Super Bowl (a lot of the audience won't be willing to spend several hours at the movies on Sunday) and the snowstorm (just like the one that stunted the film's opening weekend over Dec. 19-21!).

Assuming "Avatar" falls 20 percent -- its biggest decline since weekend No. 4 -- it would still earn $24.9 million (putting its domestic gross at the $628 million mark). That's not very unreasonable, and given this film's sturdiness I wouldn't be shocked if the decline is a percentage point or two smaller.

(Worth noting: Sunday grosses will be pretty abysmal for this one, and that'll be true all over the place. But the Saturday-to-Sunday declines of "Avatar" haven't been consistent -- 27, 41, 26 and 33 percent over the last four weekends (ignoring the holiday weekend decline of 12.3 percent, which is an outlier) -- with the film earning more than two-thirds of its take over Friday and Saturday. [Basically, Sundays account for a disproportionately lower share than they should as a third of the weekend and the second of two completely work/school-free days. This is far from unusual, but relevant here.] Looking at the recent Friday-to-Friday declines -- how much the film declined on one Friday from the date a week earlier -- a decline of 19 percent an a gross of $6 million is likely. The Saturday-to-Saturday declines hint at a dip of 18 percent from last weekend, giving it $11.2 million for that day. Then a dip of 45 percent on Sunday -- probably lowballing it, but whatever -- gives it another $6 million or so. That puts the gross closer at $23 million. Of course, I'm probably low-balling Friday, which could be closer to $6.5 million, but that sounds reasonable overall.)

By comparison, "Dear John" is probably going to open with closer to $17-19 million. "When In Rome" opened to a surprising $12.3 million last weekend, proving that people really will see just about anything, and this film comes with a built-in fan base thanks to the book. That film will siphon away some of this film's audience (especially for such similar romantic duos: it's either the lead from "Veronica Mars" and the generic hunk from "Transformers 2," or the lead's best friend from "Veronica Mars" and the generic hunk from "G.I. Joe").

Also opening this weekend is "From Paris With Love," a more direct attempt to do what last weekend's "Edge of Darkness" attempted -- mimic the "Taken" success of a year earlier. Pierre Morel, the director of that awesome Liam Neeson flick, helms this one with the much less interesting John Travolta - And He's Bald! headlining. They're obviously opening for a repeat of Morel's "Taken" debut, but this won't happen because A) the film looks much, much worse, B) it was interesting to see Neeson in a cheesy action movie; Travolta does this every three weeks and C) much tougher competition going for the same audience. An opening of $11-12 million is in the cards.

The Scots Come Up With New, Interesting Way To Gain Self-Confidence

2010-02-04T06:20:00.002-05:00

To whit: Buckfast Tonic Wine, which can be summed up in this sentence: "One person’s helpful mood improver, though, is another’s worryingly effective stimulant. The drink is 15 percent alcohol by volume, a bit stronger than most wines. Also, each 750 milliliter bottle contains as much caffeine as eight cans of Coke." That's about right.

"Avatar" Passes "Titanic" And Achieves Domestic Supremacy

2010-02-03T17:50:00.003-05:00

What was once unlikely, bordering on impossible, has become fact: "Avatar" has officially become the top box office earner in domestic history. Yesterday, on a Tuesday that saw the film notch nine Oscar nominations, the alien epic earned $2.6 million to cross the sextuple century mark at the domestic box office: $601,141,551.

Of note: It took "Avatar" 47 days to accomplish what "Titanic" needed more than 250 days to do. "Titanic" needed 37 weekends to hit the $600 million mark, "Avatar" needed seven weekends and a pair of weekdays. Of course, "Avatar" had the triple crown of benefits: inflated ticket prices (2009 prices versus 1997 ones), even more inflated prices due to 3-D and the availability of even more inflated IMAX prices. So ticket sales -- which aren't precisely known because Fox isn't being forthcoming with that -- are not even close to the tickets "Titanic" sold over the course of its run to $600.7 million.

But after 47 days, "Avatar" isn't just the champ in every box office metric (domestic box office, overseas box office and worldwide box office, where it sits north of $2 billion). It's an astonishingly resilient movie. After 47 days, the film is still clearing $2.6 million on a Tuesday. After 47 days, "The Dark Knight" sat at $505.4 million and was pulling down about $536,000 on a Tuesday. "Titanic" was earning $1.7 million on its 47th day/Tuesday, but had earned $311 million. It was a slow burner compared to this one.

The real feather in its blue, catlike cap has to be the weekend-to-weekend declines, that surefire marker of staying power and long-term prospects. The declines for "Avatar" have been 1.8, 9.4, 26.6, 14.9, 18.3 and 10.5 percent. (The film has yet to dip below $30 million for a weekend.) "The Dark Knight," which had considerable staying power over the summer of 2008, had declines of 52.5, 43.2, 38.8, 37.3, 35.6 and 18.2 percent. (Of course, it opened with $158 million compared to "Avatar's" then-not-amazing $77 million debut, so the declines are partially owed to the fervor which with people saw that film.) "Titanic," the champ of staying power at the modern box office, had bewildering weekends -- it was up 24 percent, down six, down 14, up 4.5, down 16 and then back up 2.6 percent. (It didn't have three consecutive weekends with declines until its 10th, 11th and 12th weekends.)

So this thing would be a long-term player even if you didn't factor in the nine Oscar nods it just got, including Best Picture and Best Director. If there are people left who stayed home because of (accurate) reports about its (abysmal) story and (seriously drink a bucket of bleach because it'll be better for you than these lines) dialogue, this last "prestige" kick will finally bring them to theaters. A major snowstorm reportedly brewing for the northeast could spell trouble (just like the film's first weekend, which coincided with that big snowy mess for the northeast), but still: assuming this film settles into dips of 20 percent (which it won't at least not for the next two weeks, when it'll be closer to the 15-17 percent range) for the foreseeable future, we could be looking at the $700 million domestic mark in about five and a half or six weekends.

This was pretty hard to predict. I'm going to use that as my justification for how this film's mega-success caught me, like everybody else, off guard. That being said, the perfect storm of factors -- inflated ticket prices, must-see-in-theaters buzz, James Cameron's return, lackluster direct competition, the perfectly-timed release date and, of course, that technological magnificence -- had to take place for this movie to do what it's doing. Just like "Titanic" and plenty of other mega-hits over the years. That was the first movie to cross $600 million; this one could be the first to hit $700 million, if it's lucky (it's still a shoo-in to top $650-675 million). Comparisons are almost null on this -- you can't really use the '"Dark Knight" had 94 percent of its money by this point' comparative, because the declines were so dissimilar; nor can you compare it to "Titanic," which had 63 percent of its eventual gross at this point, since this film will clearly fade faster (the nature of the marketplace, the decreased 3-D screens when "Alice in Wonderland" knocks it off in a month, the difference in core fan bases offering repeat viewings).

Still. This film is a mammoth success, everybody knows that. But the fact that it's earning so much, so quick, hints that it could create more of a change in the industry than "Titanic." After all, a big part of the success isn't just the ticket sales (which are great, but wouldn't be $600 million-level great without the 3-D/IMAX prices). Hence films like "Clash of the Titans" and other interlopers taking the 3-D tack. If it's a fad, and people stop ponying up for it for subpar products, it'll obviously fade. But if it works, if people are willing to pay more to see their special effects bonanzas in three dimensions (and the inevitable "Valentine's Day"-esque film turned to 3-D for some reason), this could be an evolutionary shift for the business. Not for audiences or for the films themselves, but for a business that might have found a way to charge consumers for a full third more per ticket due to this technology. It might not work -- people might not care enough to see "G.I. Joe 2" in 3-D, so it won't work everywhere -- so time will tell. But in addition to all that money, this movie might change some things.

Mike Martz Your Next Former Bears Offensive Coordinator

2010-02-02T14:16:00.002-05:00

Mike Martz is the new offensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears. He's either going to be a tremendous success or Cutler's TD/INT ratio will remain apocalyptic. Hint: Cutler's TD/INT ratio will get better, but will still be awful.

Can they recreate the Greatest Show on Turf? Of course not. Cutler has the arm strength of a mini-Hulk, but Martz's greatest success -- Kurt Warner -- had a precision Cutler can't touch. Cutler is much more Favre-like -- can hurl the ball long distances, but whether or not it's on the field or in the stands or in the parking lot, that's not his problem. That being said, the Bears will still win 10 games. And then they'll be one season closer to legitimately contending in 2011!...or being forced to trade Cutler.

David Brown, R.I.P.

2010-02-02T13:12:00.002-05:00

David Brown, a Saturday Evening Post journalist-turned-producer who helped create films like "Jaws" and "The Sting," has died. Says Aaron Sorkin, whose "A Few Good Men" was produced on stage and screen: "He was the last great gentleman producer. You're not going to see his kind again."

The Oscar Nods Are Here. Let's Discuss.

2010-02-02T10:36:00.004-05:00

The Oscar nods are out this morning, with "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker" leading the contenders as expected. Let's get to it.

The leading Oscar nominees are "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker," which will face off in seven of the nine categories for which they are nominated. (The outliers are Actor and Original Screenplay for "Hurt Locker," while "Avatar" is up for Visual Effects and Art Direction.) Obviously the two biggest categories for this pair are the Best Picture and Best Director races.

For weeks, all the Oscar buzz been leading up to an "Avatar"/"Hurt Locker" showdown. And the most intriguing stories of the 33 days between the nominations and the March 7 ceremony are almost all in this bout. It's almost theatrical in its construction, packed to the brim with subplots: A big-budget blockbuster frontrunner versus the small-budget, little-seen indie movie. The boisterous popcorn epic versus the tightly wound thriller. The overtly political messaging of a parable versus the war movie without a pretense or political statement. The special effects spectacle versus the human drama. And, of course, ex versus ex.

You're likely going to see this referenced in a few places, but what the hell: exactly three decades after "Kramer vs. Kramer" made divorce the subject of that year's big Oscar race, James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow are doing the same here. The exes, who are on good terms, helmed wildly different movies and now find themselves on even footing going into the Oscar race. (Well, not even financial footing, but even in terms of nods and ways they are matching up.)

Just based on the buzz and awards season so far, it's a smart bet to plan on a split decision in Picture/Director match-up. "Avatar" is the likely Best Picture winner, while Bigelow snags the first-ever Best Director award won by a lady. Cameron nabbed the Golden Globes for Best Drama and Best Director, but Bigelow won the Directors Guild award and pretty much every other one; meanwhile, "Avatar" has won more Best Picture trophies or accolades than the other contenders at this point.

[Of note: The last time we had a split decision in the Picture/Director races was 2005, when Ang Lee won for "Brokeback Mountain" but "Crash" took home the big trophy. It's happened four times in the last decade -- Spielberg in 1998, Soderbergh in 2000, Polanski in 2002 and Lee in '05 -- after happening just once in the 15 years prior, when Oliver Stone won in 1989.]

Interestingly, 2005 was also the last time all six major categories (Picture, Director and all four acting trophies) went to six different films. That was the third time in Oscar history, and the first since 1956, to see that happen. This year, it's very possible: "Avatar," Bigelow, Bridges, Bullock, Mo'Nique and Waltz could all win for different flicks.

The expansion of the Best Picture category to 10 films -- the so-called "Dark Knight" Rule, meant to let popular hits (a la "Dark Knight") make it in and keep them from getting nudged out by Academy-tailored films nobody saw (maybe we should call this the "Frost/Nixon" or "Reader" rule instead?) -- did what it was supposed to do. The artsy Oscar-ready movies are joined by popular hits that wouldn't have made it in otherwise.

Let's do the obvious first: which half of the Best Picture nominees wouldn't have made it in under the old rules? It's pretty clearly tiered here, with "Avatar," "Hurt Locker," "Precious," "Up in the Air" and "Inglourious Basterds" as the Legitimate Half; "Up," "District 9," "A Serious Man," "The Blind Side" and "An Education" were the J.V. team that got called up. (Admittedly, doesn't that second half start off terrifically and then plummet? Swap "Up" and "District 9" into the Best Picture race, and you've got a good one.)

That being said, the whole goal of getting movies people actually saw into the race worked like a charm. Five of the nominees grossed upwards of $100 million; "Up in the Air" could accomplish that with an Oscar boost. Obviously, it's helped by having the closing-in-on-$600-million "Avatar" in the race. But surprise summer smashes ("Basterds" and "District 9") join big-ticket blockbusters ("Up" and "Blind Side") here, so at least there are movies people remember seeing.

But it's been six years since the top five Best Picture nominees earned more than a combined $400 million -- this is reminiscent of the beginning of the decade, when the "Lord of the Rings" films ensured that the nominees had a combined gross of $600-700 million. Of course, "Avatar" and "Up" alone have that beat, but bygones.

If you look at the Best Picture showdown as a two-movie race, what could be the dark horse looming in the wings? Perhaps surprisingly, Quentin Tarantino's "Basterds" fits that bill. With eight nominations -- the second-biggest haul -- it's clearly top-shelf in enough categories to resonate with voters. But more importantly, with all that talk about actors being turned off by "Avatar" (since it renders their pretty, pretty faces useless), and with nobody huge in "Hurt Locker" (i.e. no movie star to draw their attention), "Basterds" is the obvious third choice. Actors love Tarantino; his movies are writers' films, first and foremost, but he gives his cast something fascinating to do and always manages to create interesting showcases for his stars.

And it's instructive to look at the fallen frontrunners, "Precious" and "Up in the Air." Both were seen as, at one time, the films to beat. For "Precious," the unrelenting nature of the movie might have contributed to the lack of audience growth (personally, I heard it was a "Requiem for a Dream"-level punishing film, which made me hesitate to see it). That's an artistic choice and not much can, or should, be done about it. It's simply the nature of the awards season to be fickle. But for "Up in the Air," the fact that it's a lightweight truffle seemed outweighed by the fact that Jason Reitman is a big turd. (Seriously. From the entitlement, to the New York Times thing ("Is Tom Ford hitting on me?"), to the massive ego, to the fighting his co-writer, to basically his whole persona...Reitman probably cost his film as much as any director could.)

The biggest other race is Best Actress. Admittedly, the deck is stacked pretty highly in Sandra Bullock's favor. The last decade is packed with "Let's reward this person for their hard work" choices, ranging from the worthy (the Coen Brothers for "No Country," Jackson for "Lord of the Rings") to the questionable (Denzel for "Training Day"? Really?) to the bewildering (Julia Roberts, obviously). And Bullock's movie was a much more popular hit, earning $237 million to date -- anchored solely by her star power.

The unexpected Best Picture nomination for "Blind Side" -- suggesting that populist sentiment accounted for a lot among voters who tossed it onto their ballots -- only helps her case. Bullock was the driving force behind that movie, that movie was a huge hit, it was a huge hit worth of Oscar consideration, therefore Bullock = worthy of Oscar consideration.

Her main opponent here, Meryl Streep, has two big things against her:

(1) She was great in a movie nobody loved (that'll happen when half of your movie sucks)

(2) She's Meryl Streep, the most acclaimed actress in the history of anything and everything. So why does she need it? She's won enough.

The latter is a problem for Streep, a boon for Bullock and -- most importantly -- it's pretty stupid. Streep's record 16th nomination this morning puts her even further ahead of her competition; Kate Hepburn and Jack Nicholson both trail her with 12 nominations apiece, and it's pretty unlikely for either to catch her. She's won it twice, has now been nominated in four different decades.

But Streep hasn't won an Oscar for nearly 30 years. She won Best Supporting Actress for 1978's "Kramer vs. Kramer," and then Best Actress for 1982's "Sophie's Choice" (her fourth nomination in five years). Since then, she's lost an impressive 11 consecutive times.

Consider that: she's lost 11 straight times. She's lost more trophies, consecutively, than all but two other actors have ever been nominated for. When you factor in her two other losses, Streep has lost 13 different times -- she's lost more competitive acting Oscars than anyone else has ever been nominated for.

It's also worth noting that while having two Oscars isn't something to sneeze at, it's also not a particularly good batting average to go 2-for-15. While she has the most nominations, she has fewer Oscars than Hepburn (four), Nicholson (three) and Bergman (three). There are 33 other actors with two Oscar wins; 23 of those performers have 5 or fewer nominations. Only Bette Davis, who has two wins and 10 nominations, even comes close, and she competed in a far different era. Hell, Streep has so many nominations you can break down things in weird ways (like, for instance: this is only the fifth time she's ever had back-to-back Oscar nominated roles. She did it in 1978-79, '81-'83, '87-'88 and '98-'99. Who knew? Also, her 13 Best Actress nominations are more than any other actor even when you allow for supporting and lead performances).

I'm not saying that Streep deserves one because she's long overdue. I'm not saying she deserves one because losing would make her 1-for-13 in the Best Actress category. I'm just saying that her "She's Meryl Streep, she's been honored plenty" rep is kind of ridiculous. Also, because she really does nail that Julia Child character.

The only other major race with some uncertainty is Jeff Bridges vs. Clooney. Really, it's not a question. Clooney might be beloved and terrific in that movie, but (A) his film's luster has faded, (B) Bridges has the four other nominations, zero wins and lengthy, beloved career and (C) Clooney won just four years ago. That being said, Bridges isn't a sure thing here. We've seen the beloved actor lose out to the younger edition a few times recently: Peter O'Toole in '06, Julie Christie in '07, Daniel Day-Lewis and Nicholson in '02. So it's possible. Bridges is almost a lock...just shy of being definite.