(Still) Not Unlikely

Two years ago I whipped up the fake poster on your right as a gag for late-night Twitter. Chuckles were had, then I and everyone else on Earth forgot about it.

Then today, a funny thing happened on The Internet: Deadline reported that someone at Warner Bros. had decided to actually go an make this movie: A 20 years later sequel to "SPACE JAM" - a movie adapted from a sneaker ad-campaign about Michael Jordan playing basketball with The Looney Tunes which, in an act of singular strangeness, actually tries to be a semi-dramatic "What If?" take on Jordan's return to the NBA following his shocking 1993 retirement to play minor-league baseball in reaction to the murder of his father (the film essentially posits that battling aliens alongside Bugs Bunny was the push Jordan needed to rekindle his lost passion for basketball) - with LeBron James (presumably) becoming the new human leader of The ToonStars.

And then Twitter. Went. APESHIT.
Well, LeBron's people have already denied it - so it's probably not real. But the sudden explosion of excitement on social media means it probably could be in the near future. It would not surprise me if Warner Bros. were looking to "reboot" the "SPACE JAM" branding (say, maybe a cartoon-basketball movie without a human guest star) as a way to turn the Looney Tunes mega-marketable again and floated this "leak" as a way to do test the waters. If so, consider that test a success - it seems pretty goddamn clear that if Warners was to release "SPACE JAM 2" in the near future, they'd have the attention of more starry-eyed 90s Kids than a Buzzfeed click-gallery of cats belonging to the rediscovered castmembers of "HEY DUDE!" reacting a Power Rangers reunion.

"SPACE JAM" is one of those movies that works as a cultural dividing-line between Gen-Xers and Millenials. In my own circles, it's really only ever spoken of as a relic of that moment where Jordan probably could've run for President and as the low-point symbol of how Warner Bros. had gutted and drained Bugs and company of their original personalities to become empty marketing vessels. But there's a younger audience for whom this was an unironic VHS touchstone - nothing makes me feel older than running into people who remember it as a good movie... except maybe when those same people are surprised to learn that "the baseball thing" actually happened.

To be honest, the only part of this I could actually not imagine really happening is LeBron being in it. Unlike MJ, he's largely failed to parlay his on the court success into the same kind of self-marketing machine. Jordan was, at the time, every bit as much of a cartoon-character (off the court) as the ToonStars were, which is why the movie worked. If they did do another one of these, I'd expect it to be just the cartoons - maybe rangle Jordan for a cameo, since he really will do just about anything.

Escape to The Movies: "POMPEII"

Blows.

On the higher-end, I interviewed writer Inkoo Kang about her controversial criticisms of Hayo Miyazaki's "THE WIND RISES."

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : Pompeii

Tough But Fair

I'm not the hugest fan of MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. He feels, too often, like a solid radio talent who has been given a TV show but no on-camera training; hence the way his sanctimony-oozing vocals don't really fit with his smug, Bill Maher-esque expressions. But here and there he delivers some compelling editorializing, and this bit of business from Thursday night tying together Vladimir Putin, The Olympics, Pussy Riot and Edward Snowden is definitely that - some real throwing-up-of-hands, lesser-of-two-evils, tragedy as parody, "world of gray" stuff that most cable news avoids like the plague.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Start Lowering Your Expectations For "FANTASTIC FOUR"

Sigh...

The whole "Marvel Studios doesn't own it's entire universe" thing gets a lot of ink and makes for fun, juicy stories about Disney and Fox deliberately trying to fuck eachother's Marvel projects over (which, however childish, is apparently quite a real thing); but as a fan and a general moviegoer it honestly doesn't bother me that much. I'm not 13 and this isn't 1996 so I have no desperate "OH MAN I WANNA SEE WOLVERINE FUCK ______ UP!!!" need in my life, which would be the only vaugely compelling reason to not let the X-Men just be their own pocket-universe cinematically - hell, in the comics the fun detail of Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch being Magneto's kids has surprising little regular effect on their lives as Avengers. Even if the current Spider-Man movies weren't awful, I'd be okay with him being off on his own because he and The Avengers generally run in different circles (or they did before Marvel decided he should be an Avenger, which is dumb even if there have been some decent Avengers stories since) and don't interact all that often.

The Fantastic Four, on the other hand? Their absence from the Cinematic Universe feels like a genuine missing piece.

See, Marvel heroes have always had "cliques." Spider-Man, Daredevil, Luke Cage, etc; those are the "renegade" heroes - the good guys with a problematic relationship with the public/police/etc. The X-Men and other mutants have the more extreme persecuted-minority version of that. The Avengers and The Fantastic Four are, jointly, The Establishment. They're the "accepted" heroes. They go to the same parties, know the same people, attend eachothers weddings/funerals, all of that. If The Avengers have a tool or piece of technology not built by Tony Stark, it was built by Reed Richards. The public loves them, the government/military/cops respect and work with them, they do magazine shoots and TV appearances... that's basically why other heroes want to become Avengers in the first place: it's THE mark of legitimacy in their business.

They "fit together," is what I'm saying, which is why I'm not really all that thrilled that Fox is still going ahead with the "FANTASTIC FOUR" reboot. Yes, I like that they got "CHRONICLE's" Josh Trank to direct, and I actually really like the early-announced (so that they could get everybody's bellyaching out of the way) casting of Michael B. Jordan for Human Torch. But as of today, we have a full cast announcement from Variety and... egh.

So. Michael B. Jordan, as announced, is Johnny Storm/Human Torch. Miles Teller is Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic. Kate Mara is Sue Storm/Invisible Woman and Jamie Bell is Ben Grimm/The Thing.

Let's get this out of the way: I have zero problem with Johnny being black. In fact, since Kata Mara is white, that probably means one of them is adopted which is potentially an interesting angle. I also don't think it's a huge problem that Ben Grimm is being played by a skinny young British kid and not a stocky, surly, Jewish (look it up) Noo Yawk'a - The Thing will almost-certainly be a mocap/CGI creation, so it doesn't really matter what Bell really looks like.

No, what bugs me about Bell's casting is what bugs me about the entire cast excluding (mostly) Jordan: They're all too young. I know that's an eye-roll thing, usually, when it comes to this material: Some adult fanboys will never accept that Superman can't look exactly like a father-figure to them anymore because they're father-aged themselves now. I don't necessarily "need" Reed Richards to look like a 50s sitcom dad. What I do need (or, rather, think is important) is that he look like an adult - because that's the core dynamic of this thing: The FF are a family, Reed and Sue are the parents, Johnny and Ben are the kids even though Ben is technically the oldest and Johnny is Sue's younger brother.

At the very least, Reed should look/feel old enough to have become a world-renowned professional scientist. A grown-up. And Miles Teller (who may or may not be a good actor) looks like he's maybe 13. Jamie Bell looks - at least when he's not clean-shaven - like a 19 year-old who kind of has a tough job, like landscaping or something. Kate Mara... is a step up from Jessica Alba, at least, but both of them are too young. One of the main thing that makes this group interesting is that, apart from the powers, 3/4s of them don't "feel" like conventional heroes - they're squares. Grownups. Mom n' Dad types. This makes it just one more Sexy Teenagers Action Movie (in the same way that "STAR TREK" now looks like a bunch of clerks from American Apparel walked over to hang out in the Apple Store), and we've got more than enough of that as it is.

At least, that was my initial objection. Then I read further down in the piece and things all fell into place:

"Based on the comic “The Ultimate Fantastic Four,”

Ah. Well, then, now it all makes sense. In "Ultimate Fantastic Four" they were, in fact, a team of college-aged kids (Reed and Sue are both "child prodigies") working for Sue Storm's father with a completely different, less interesting origin story and personalities. That's one noteworthy thing about "Ultimate Fantastic Four." The other noteworthy thing is that it was god-fucking-awful. Dogshit. Bad even for an "Ultimate" series - and that's pretty damn bad.

Blegh. What a (exceedingly likely) waste of talent, effort, material and money. If anyone needs me, I'll be watching THIS on a continuous loop for awhile.

Five Hi-Res GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Screencaps

Yeah I know, everyone is posting screencaps from this. Here's my five:

Rocket Raccoon getting booked. Note the name LYLLA under his known associates. Lylla is Rocket's girlfriend. She is an otter.

John C. Reilly as a member of the Nova Corps. It is flat-out, no-bullshit embarassing that Nova Corps looks this much cooler than the Green Lantern Corps. did.

NEW RULE: If you can accurately describe any portion of a film's trailer using the words "Green Alien Sideboob," it's probably a good movie.

Karen Gillan as Nebula - and before you ask, this character both existed and was blue, hot and bald at least a decade before either MASS EFFECT or FARSCAPE.

The big fella getting hoisted up is named Drax the Destroyer. The guy lifting him is named Ronan the Accuser. This is going to be amazing.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Trailer

At long last, the trailer - which handles it's number one task (tell audiences who these people are) in a refreshingly direct way: Introducing all of The Guardians in extended medium-shot in the context of getting booked into space jail. It's also being very upfront about the real thing that differentiates this from the prior Marvel movies: Instead of an action film with comedy bits, this is a full-stop comedy with an action movie setting. That's Karen Gillan as Nebula aka "the blue chick," incidentally. This is gonna be nutty:

For Science

I don't generally post "cheesecake" on this blog, but when I do it's for something like this.

For those of you who say that the study of manned flight in Outer Space has nothing left to offer us, that our money would be better spent elsewhere, that nothing new and good can be attained by continuing to look to the stars, I give you: Kate Upton in zero-gravity.

BIG PICTURE: "Ripoff Cop"

The "ROBOCOP" franchise is... not really "back" now in the way the people who paid for that shit remake were probably hoping it would be. Still, let's look at some weird ripoffs of the original movie from the 80s and 90s:

The Escapist : The Big Picture : Ripoff Cop

Second Teaser For The First Trailer For "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY"

Is it hypocritical to rail against the rampant bullshittery that is commercials for commercials and then excitedly post one when it's for something you're into? Probably, if you're into trying to apply broad philosophical concepts like ideological consistency to real life. Fortunately, I'm a realist, which means I'm also fundamentally a pragmatist: Things are "good" when they and/or their results are good, things are "bad" when they and/or their results are bad - everything else is just so much academic masturbation.

Anyway, "trailers for trailers" is a stupid marketing thing, but it's a stupid marketing thing that's now part of the landscape and all marketing is kind of bullshit so we're really just arguing degrees. Bottom line: Marvel is making some of the most dynamic mainstream genre movies right now, everything they release is movie-newsworthy, "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" looks awesome, this 15 second tease at the trailer set to premier on Jimmy Kimmel tonight shows you some of that awesome, so it's a good thing. Enjoy it:

Heroine

Yeah, well... in my imagination, at least, Kitty Pryde was always a lesbian.



In all seriousness, though, this is fantastic. And before you jump in with "What's the big deal???," remember: Kansas - a part of a first-world country in 2014 - is trying to make it legal for businesses to refuse to serve gay people. You bet your ass this sort of thing still matters - it's huge, in fact, because Ellen Page isn't a former celebrity of some fringe TV persona; she's a major Gen-Y star at probably the peak of her career. Her visibility as an openly gay woman, as cliche as this sounds, absolutely will give strength to people of her generation and younger to accept themselves, and the importance of that cannot be overestimated. No matter how many strides are made legally and otherwise, the first hurdle for LGBTQ youth is still finding a way to cast off the pressures of society and tradition and bullshit primitive superstitions about gender and sexuality and accept that they are who they are. And this helps. Every little bit of this helps. Today, this woman is a hero.

Escape to The Movies: "ROBOCOP (2014)"

Sorry, folks - "not as bad as it could've been" is not the same thing as "not bad."

Also hideous? "A WINTER'S TALE" - but in a way that means you should make it a point to go see it, as soon as possible.

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : Robocop

BIG PICTURE: "Why Robocop Still Rules"

The remake is terrible, you'll hear more from me on that later. Until then, here's this:

The Escapist : The Big Picture : Why Robocop Still Rules

Escape to The Movies: "THE LEGO MOVIE"

How did they get away with this?

Also, "THE MONUMENTS MEN," which is okay.

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : The Lego Movie

Paul Bettany is THE VISION in "AVENGERS 2: AGE OF ULTRON"

When you think about it, it's kind of odd that Paul Bettany seemed to recede as a leading man just when he was blowing up a decade ago. I think a lot of us just figured that we also wouldn't find a lot of reasons to leave the house if we'd married Jennifer Connelly.

In any case, his most prominent mainstream role for about the last decade has been as the voice of Tony Stark's omnipresent digital servant J.A.R.V.I.S. in the Marvel Studios movies; and as of an hour ago the long-term planning logic of hiring an upscale-accented Brit who's also movie-star handsome for that role makes a lot more sense: He'll stepping in front of the camera in "AVENGERS 2: AGE OF ULTRON" as robotic superhero The Vision.

Well, that's interesting.

That Vision would turn up in the sequel was something of a foregone conclusion, being that his origins are tied to titular villain Ultron and his longest-running character-arc is a human/android romance with Scarlet Witch, previously announced and set to be played by Elizabeth Olsen (incidentally, I'd put serious money on her and Aaron Taylor Johnson's Quicksilver showing up an establishing walk-on either in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" or "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.") For a long time, the popular fan theory was that he'd be a robotic revival for Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson (in the comics, Vision is created by Ultron using the brain-patterns of dead superhero Wonder Man and the chassis of the original android Human Torch) but "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D" has taken that character in a markedly different direction.

So the smart money now says that Vision (whom I imagine will still start out as a henchman and either go good by the finale or be trending that way for "AVENGERS 3") is some permutation of J.A.R.V.I.S, which is what a lot of people assumed would be Ultron's origin - even after it was revealed months ago that James Spader, not Bettany, would be doing the voice. In the comics, Ultron is the gone-wrong creation of Hank "Ant-Man" Pym, but he won't be showing up (so far) until "ANT-MAN" which comes out after this. So where does Ultron come from?

Given that the SDCC teaser for the film was an Iron Man helmet violent morphing into Ultron's head, I think it's still pretty safe to assume that Tony Stark will be the human creator Ultron turns on in the Cinematic Universe version of his origin. It just makes the most sense, and my expectation remains that "AVENGERS 2" will probably wrap-up with the team in a dark place ("EMPIRE STRIKES BACK," "WRATH OF KHAN," etc) and Iron Man in particular left in a defeated position from which to make some kind of triumphant swan-song in Part 3 (RDJ's full-time Marvel contract runs out after that point.)

But if he (apparently) isn't "Evil J.A.R.V.I.S," what is he? An Iron Man armor with a mind of it's own? Some new thing they'll make up just for this film? Plausible. My own pet theory - which I've been joking about for awhile but now feel like they just might actually do - is that, since Ultron in the comics starts out as more-or-less a Roomba that builds itself a humanoid body, movie-Ultron could well be DUM-E (aka "Dummy"), Tony Stark's loyal but mostly-useless pet robot-arm from the "IRON MAN" movies. How fun would that be, for The Avengers next big enemy to be a clumsy workshop-bot that finally gets sick of Tony making fun of it?

I Give Up

So. Here's a trailer for a movie called "ZOMBEAVERS," about killer undead(?) beavers:



Here's one of my "stupid movies I wanted to make, then didn't" columns from The Escapist. Yeah.

There's a lesson in all of this, and it's that whoever told me to think my decisions through and not just go with whatever instinct pops into my head at a given moment was completely fucking full of shit.

Big Picture: "THE DEVIL YOU KNOW - PART II"

The Escapist : The Big Picture : The Devil You Know - Part II

"AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2" Reveals The New Electro

Well, good to see some things don't change. Unfortunately, one of those things is that "AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2" looks awful. Enthusiastically awful, yes, but awful all the same. This new "sizzle reel" trailer basically gives us Electro in a nutshell: He's Jim Carrey's Riddler from "BATMAN FOREVER," (overlooked science dweeb with a stalker-crush on the hero) and he gets his powers from being bitten by radioactive electric eels.

Poor Emma Stone is stuck right in the middle of this mess, putting on a brave face while she waits for a chance to head back to her trailer and shove more pins into that voodoo doll of Jennifer Lawrence.

Second Trailer For "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER"

It occurs to me that "CAPTAIN AMERICA," as his own franchise and as part of "THE AVENGERS," is pretty-much the central 21st century presence of American pride/patriotism on the world stage. I'm pretty okay with that:



Apparently Marvel/Disney are pretty okay with that, too: The post-production buzz on this one has been off-the-charts positive, particularly considering the early head-scratching over the decision to hire Anthony and Joe Russo - a brother team mainly known for directing TV sitcoms and "YOU, ME & DUPREE." But the Marvel people are so impressed with their work here that they've already signed them for Part 3, scheduled to hit sometime after "AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON."

"TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION" Super Bowl Spot

Aaaaand the expectations come back down to Earth.

For awhile the buzz on "AGE OF EXTINCTION" was that it was going to be some kind of serious departure from the previous installments: Not just a whole new cast (only Optimus Prime and Bumblebee are returning) but a different tone and storyline that may or may not involve time-travel and The Dinobots. But eventually, it became a little clearer that the motif here is less "fresh start" and more "we should do one of these, but partially set in China because for whatever reason China looooooooooves the TRANSFORMERS movies:"



Still, those do seem to be Dinobots, albeit blown up to Godzilla scale and monster-ized (I thought the two-headed guy with the wings might be one of the Terrorcons, but it's Swoop); which is a very Michael Bay-sounding approach: "Can we make the T-Rex BIGGER? Also scarier?" It'll take more than the lack of LaBeouf to really sell me on this, but Optimus Prime riding a robot dinosaur is a hell of a start. Also: The big ship thing at the very beginning and the unnamed robot turning into a turret-canon = Unicron and Galvatron?

No Case Too Small

I've observed before that the Disney Company, despite being founded by (and named for!) the guy who practically invented comodifying nostalgia, has been slow to the party in trading on the nostalgia-market for it's own properties. But they're making up for lost time now, with a specific focus on icons especially prized by now-grown Gen-X/Y fans (see: live-action "Sleeping Beauty" focused on fan-fave baddie Maleficent). Now, they've innevitably cast their gaze on the other cash-cow of their legendary 90s Renaissance: "The Disney Afternoon."

90s kids? You're getting a live-action "RESCUE RANGERS" movie.


For those born post-90s, Disney's big weekday/after-school TV "thing" in that era was reworking old characters into then-modern genre frameworks a'la "DUCKTALES." "RANGERS" (which started out as a "RESCUERS" update) was a mystery/action/cop riff built around a team of rodent crimefighters led by the chipmunk duo who'd originated as B-listers in the original Mickey etc. shorts. The new project is an origin story (the series had a feature-length multi-episode pilot) based on a pitch from director Robert Rugan, a commercial director most famous for a Durex Condoms viral ad.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find out which god I have to please and how to get a "DARKWING DUCK" movie out of this...

Noses Don't Look Good On Reptiles

Had to pull down the earlier "leaked" TMNT images because people were getting C&D's from Paramount (which is stupid - you can't fight this stuff getting out, the era of non-plot-related movie "secrets" is dead); but now ComicBookTherapy has a snap up of a merchandise standee that let's the new turtles out of the bag pretty definitively.

Verdict? Same as before: Like `em, with reservations. The differing body-types work (Leo and Raph are bruisers, Mike is small, Donatello is slimmer) and the personalized gear/clothes/etc are a good idea - I even like Don wearing glasses over his mask. A detail I like: Leo and Raph's weapons are actually kind of small for them, proportionally, implying that their using "actual" katanas/sais that would've been designed for humans. I imagine this won't be the case for Mike and Don, since nunchucks and staffs can be more easily made from scratch.

Leo and Don have better looking heads, because the more humanoid nose/palate don't look right at all on Raphael and Michaelangelo. I've never understood the modern creature-animation conceit of giving nonhuman characters human-like lips. I understand the "logic" behind it, i.e. in reality they'd need human lips to form human syllables when speaking, I've just never really heard from anyone who cared. Movie-monsters spoke "muppet style" (mouth open for any sound, closed otherwise) for decades and I don't recall that ever being a widespread complaint.

We may or may not see them moving around and talking in a Super Bowl ad, though right now Paramount is onlying officially touting a TRANSFORMERS 4 spot.

Escape to The Movies: "THAT AWKWARD MOMENT"

It's still January.

Here, read this instead.

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : That Awkward Moment

WINTER SOLDIER Super Bowl Clip

Super Bowl ads for movies that already have proper trailers generally feel kind of pointless, since they're just short action-beat reels, but this one features what looks very much like a shot of Captain America being back in his proper costume at some point in the present day so I'm glad to have seen that. Also really like how "wing-shaped" Falcon's wings are:

Red-Band "A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST"

I think I've figured out what it is that makes Seth MacFarlane "hard to take" as a persona. I mean "overall," of course - whether he's not your cup of tea because of the subject matter of his humor (or choice of target) is another matter entirely. I'm talking more about why even I, as someone who thinks he's a real comic talent, can agree that a little of him goes a long way:

He's just a little too conventionally-handsome, a little too well spoken and a little too outwardly-confident about it for a comedian.

A modern comedian, anyway. His only semi-ironic affection for the Rat Pack era of lounge-act emcees makes an alarming amount of sense when you consider how well his look, delivery and sensibility would fit in that milieu; i.e. in the era where The Entertainer was The Alpha of the room, with the audience and (especially) "The Other" as his lessers to be humorously judged. The main difference is target: Frank & Dean basked in their superiority over both "squares" and (explicitly at first, implicitly later) the "lower" classes/races, while MacFarlane works basically the same act (right down to the "you think I'm smug now, just wait till I back it up with these pipes!" shift to songman) but with Middle America and/or religious-conservatives as the targets of choice. He's a completely different animal from the self-effacing post-60s face of modern comedy, for better or worse, save that he shares their penchant for self-hate... it's just that he seems to hate his advantages instead of his foibles.

Case in point: The new trailer for "A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST," his Western-spoof follow-up feature to "TED," which features MacFarlane as his own lead in full-on Brian Griffin only-smart-man-in-a-world-of-morons smug mode and also in full-on Brian Griffin douchebag-who's-too-happy-about-being-the-only-smart-man smarmy mode; but here as a snarky Eastern transplant in The Old West cursed with a modern eye-view of the horrible shittiness behind the myth of the Cowboy Era. Looks funny, but I also remember how "WAGONS EAST" failed to stretch the same basic joke to feature-length...

Big Picture: "THE DEVIL YOU KNOW - PART I"

Oh yeah, hey - this went up yesterday afternoon:

The Escapist : The Big Picture : The Devil You Know - Part I

More TMNT: Leonardo, Donatello and SHREDDER Revealed!

UPDATE: The studio has been hitting peopel with cease and desist letters regarding the photos, so they're down for now.

Yup. Consider me onboard, Michael Bay.

As I said re: the earlier image of the maquettes, I'm not "in love" with the jacked-up-badass Turtles as a concept, but this is the best version I can think of FOR said concept. Leonardo looks especially great (love the homemade Japanese fencing-armor look) but then he was always my favorite. The "tech-gear clotheshorse" look for Donny looks a lot less extreme than reported, though we can't really see his shell:

(IMAGE REMOVED)

(IMAGE REMOVED)

But Shredder, on the other hand? Holy shit. Shredder looks fantastic! Not nuts about the overly-busy faceplate (nothing is known about where this Shredder comes from, other than that he'll start out as an American businessman named "Eric Sachs" played by William Fichtner instead of Japanese "Oroku Saki," possibly to avoid Chinese movie distribution skittishness over Asian villains in otherwise western-dominant movies) but everything else looks fantastic. In many ways it's an extreme realization of Eastman & Laird's original "human cheese-grater" concept for the armor - even his cape is made of knives, for fuck's sake!

This is could, of course, all change when we get our first look at how the mocap CGI and voicework used to bring these guys to life works out, which will supposedly be during a teaser set to debut during The Super Bowl.

Here Are (Probably) Your New NINJA TURTLES:

Via ComicBookMovie.com, these are apparently Michael Bay and Johnathan Liebesman's new "TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES;" looking about like you'd expect (i.e. like the originals but on HGH) with Raphael displayed most prominently. Don't immediately hate, but will need some time to process:

"ZERO THEOREM" Looks Like "BRAZIL 2" And That's A Good Thing

By all accounts Terry Gilliam's "ZERO THEOREM" is polarizing as hell, which is of course unsurprising. Pitched as the internet-age successor to his masterwork "BRAZIL," the story finds Christophe Waltz as a dystopian data-entry drone who goes batty(er) when he's assigned to crack a mathematical paradox whereby 0 must equal "100%" - presumably proving that nothing matters:

Mutant? More Like Meh-T... oh, forget it

If Bryan Singer were an X-Man, his codename would be "DIAL-BACK" - born with the amazing power to lower expectations at superhuman levels.

EMPIRE has been doing a goofy day-long promo where they're revealing 25 "character reveal" covers for "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST" once an hour. They look... universally terrible, thus far (we're up to 14 as of this writing); save for the obvious caveats of Jennifer Lawrence hitting my fairly specific fetish for women in bodypaint looking like they'd rather be anywhere else and also who isn't happy to see Patrick Stewart?

Thus far, the only "important" reveal has been QUICKSILVER, looking (to your right) like either the mascot for a line of off-brand Sega controllers from a mid-90s GamePro ad or the leader of the Burger King Kids Club.

Quicksilver, of course, is mainly important as a curiosity item since he's the first instance of a Marvel character being in both the "official" Cinematic Universe ("AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" next year) and in another film played by two different actors in two different contexts: In this version, he'll keep his comics' backstory as the son of Magneto, while the version who turns up in Avengerswill presumably have either a different or unspoken parentage (prevailing fan theory is that he and sister Scarlet Witch will be refitted as the children of Thomas Kretschman's Baron Von Strucker.)

Originally, Quicksilver's role was said to be minor - possibly only one or two scenes (that may be par for the course - despite appearing in the first trailer, Anna Paquin's Rogue has since been cut entirely by the removal of a single scene) - but gossip swirls that his screentime has been beefed up to try and make the character's role in "AVENGERS: AOU" problematic for Marvel Studios. And yes, by all accounts the relationship between Disney and Fox really is that childish.

Here's a Sentinel From "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST"

From Bryan Singer's personal Twitter account, which just promised to join the cast in tweeting all 25 Empire Magazine covers promoting the film:

First up, here's a look at the #Sentinel Mark I, circa 1973. #XMen #Empire25 @EmpireMagazine pic.twitter.com/gNcwwc68FX
— Bryan Singer (@BryanSinger) January 27, 2014

This is, apparently, The Sentinels as they'll appear in the 1973-set portions of the film - which is good to know since, if you go by the film's marketing thus far, you might've assumed the film was comprised entirely of slow dissolves between closeups of returning familiar actors, Z-list Mutant barrel-scrapings nobody asked for ("OMG! Blink and Warpath in the SAME MOVIE!!??") and unsettling reminders that Singer can't really direct action or scale to save his life.

"X-MEN: DOFP" will be out in the U.S. on May 14th. For those of you playing along at home, this will be the sixth of seven movies centered on a subset of the Marvel Universe comprising almost (probably more-than, really) 700 characters that short-shrifts basically everybody to focus on Hugh Jackman With Muttonchops.

This Took Long Enough...

I needed this.

Escape to The Movies: "I, FRANKENSTEIN"

You, not so good.

Better? "RETURN TO NUKEM HIGH."

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : I, Frankenstein

Slow News Day

Since I don't get to go to Sundance ::grumble:: this is a slow news week here. So have you seen what The Game OverThinker has been up to lately? Well, it's about Nintendo... and it ain't happy times.

New TMNT Look Revealed... Sort Of

I understand the nostalgia that some filmmakers have for being able to turn things like "what does so-and-so look like?" into the equivalent of a plot-twist... but I really don't know why anyone bothers today except in cases where a character's appearance actually IS meant to be a surprise. There are too many moving parts to big movies now, and trying to keep something like what your main character(s) look like secret isn't practically feesible: It's going to get "revealed" by merchandising materials or production art or a thousand other things, and suddenly you lose control of your all-important "first-impression" moment and instead people's first exposure is a potentially subpar version.

Case in point: According to a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fansite, the thing at the right is a children's Halloween costume-kit for Michaelangelo in the new Michael Bay-produced TMNT movie... and if so, it now gets to be the way we'll be introduced to Bay's (and director Johnathan Liebesman's) version of the heroes:

First reaction: Not loving the basic idea of the head - too human, too much from the school of "people can't relate without a humanoid face to focus on" creature-design - but a plastic Halloween mask is no way to judge that. The rest of the suits (the fansite claims to have pics for the other three), apparently, are a stretch-fabric onesie with a "stuffable shell" that functions as an attached backpack - making these the most utilitarian-useful Halloween costumes ever ("Just put the candy in my shell!")

Otherwise? It's instantly recognizable as "Mikey" orange mask and all but with extra accountremants (workout shorts, a sweater worn as a belt, sunglasses, tattoos, surfer/skater neck jewelry) that reflect his familair personality. I don't hate this at all. I'm fond of the "identical but for colors/weapons" look from the comics etc for how it ties in with the Japanese/American fusion aspect of the characters, but as an alternate take this makes sense. And the DIY-grubbiness of it fits - I like the implication that these guys have "scavenged" their own personal looks.

The look also lines up to-the-letter with a written description of toys from awhile back, which also matched up with most of what I'd been hearing about the production post-"Alien" script: That the aim for the look was to keep the masks, weapons and standard looks but further differentiate them by body-type (Mike being smaller than the others, Raphael being a "tank," etc) and clothing/gear choices. This Mikey looks exactly as described, so I imagine subsequent pics will confirm the others: Leonardo wearing Japanese/samurai-style fencing gaurds to some extent, Donatello wearing/carrying lots of tech and gadgets, Raphael in Muy-Thai style cloth/rope padding, etc.

Big Picture: "Blecch, Dull Tests"

Huh. Knew I forgot to post something today...

The Escapist : The Big Picture : Blecch, Dull Tests

War Pigs

It's pretty-much impossible for "300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE" to be as good as it's trailers have been, right?

Where To See MovieBob At #ARISIA 2014

Hey guys. Just a head's up, I'll be working my butt off all weekend on panels at Boston's ARISIA scifi/fandom convention. Only had one yesterday evening, but I've got 13 more spread out between Saturday and Monday. Here's where/when to come look for me:


SATURDAY:
11AM "Man of Steel, Plot of Kleenex?" (Otis Media 442)
4PM "DC Comics: The New 52" (Adams Comics 382)
5:30PM "Enders Game" (Paine Media 513)
7PM "Why Do So Many YA Franchises Bomb Onscreen?" (Paine Media 458)
10PM "Remembering Roger Ebert" (Paine Media 458)

SUNDAY:
10AM "2013 Games Consoles: The Review" (Adams Gaming 176)
1PM "The Year In Marvel Comics" (Adams Comics 565)
2:30PM "Star Wars: What's Next?" (Paine Media 471)
4PM "State of the Star Trek" (Otis Media 469)
5:30PM "Marvel Cinematic/TV Universe" (Burroughs Media 262)
7PM "Up, Up And Away With Superman!" (Adams Comics 570)

MONDAY:
10AM "Race and Identity In Fandom" (Burroughs Communities 548)
1PM "Transformers: A 30 Year Retrospective" (Otis 139)

So, yeah. If you're already at the Con or were considering swinging in for a day-pass, you can show to these times/places and watch me either work panels or collapse from exhaustion - whichever comes first :)

Round 1: MARVEL. Warner Bros. Blinks, Moves "SUPERMAN VS. BATMAN" To 2016

Yikes.

Everything I've heard regarding the production of the "MAN OF STEEL" sequel - both stuff that's widely known and not-easily-confirmed insider gossip - has added up to one conclusion: They don't know what they're doing. Not in an incompetent way, in a "We haven't really settled on what this movie is" way. It's fairly clear that they had a definite plan in place well before "MOS" ever came out, that that plan involved a new Batman showing up, and that they were already working on it to some degree as the first film was rolling out in theaters.

What's equally clear is that Warner Bros. had a Karl Rove on Election Night 2012 reaction - in slow motion - in regards to "MAN OF STEEL's" performance, which they'd forecast as a huge moneymaker and a game-changing fanboy lovefest. Instead? A hit, but not an "AVENGERS" or even an "IRON MAN 3." The audience? Bitterly divided... between "ruined forever!!!" and merely "deeply flawed" - hardly anyone, as far as the pop-culture tea-leaves are concerned, thought it was great.

As a result, whatever the Big Plan was for the sequels and tie-ins has been getting revised on the fly (cameos expanded to supporting characters, plans to split the production in half with the second film being "JUSTICE LEAGUE,") as the studio and filmmakers try to figure out what it is the audience actually wants to see since "More 'Man of Steel" has become clearly not the answer.

Added to all that: The film had been scheduled to hit mid-Summer 2015 - just two month's after "AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" - as part of a cluttered field what was already making that year a blockbuster bloodbath waiting to happen. So it's only a little bit surprising that Warner Bros. has bitten the bullet and moved the film almost a full year ahead to May of 2016. For the kind of money involved, that's a really big deal... but it's probably the best news that could've possibly hit the project. Now they can, potentially, work out a functioning screenplay instead of whatever half-rewritten mess they'd been working from thus far (on the down side: David Goyer is moving with the movie.)

I wonder how much playing release-date tic-tac-toe contributed to this decision. Across town from WB, Disney is still having problems with "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII" (the buzz: nasty power-struggle between J.J. Abrams and LucasFilm boss Kathleen Kennedy for control of the franchise.) They've already moved the film once, from the series' traditional May release date to XMas 2015, and I'd been hearing some say they'd be better going all the way to the following May. The only thing really stopping them was that Big Boss Disney had already staked May 2016 for "Untitled Marvel Project" (presumed to be either "DOCTOR STRANGE" or an unannounced character possibly spinning-off directly from "AGE OF ULTRON") and that they'd promised shareholders they'd meet a 2015 target. Disney would almost certainly have moved the Marvel project to make room for "EPISODE VII," but now they're blocked. This stuff is simply Byzantine, after awhile.

I also wonder if this will lead to any major cast or crew defections. Henry Cavill has really nothing else as major going on (ditto Gal Gadot), but Ben Affleck had another prestige-project movie scheduled to start after he was done shooting this - would he walk and hand back his Batman money to keep that commitment? They've been aggressively pursuing certain actors (The Rock, Jason Momoa, possibly Denzel Washington) and characters (Green Lantern, AquaMan), are any of those commitments solid enough for this to not displace anyone? Goyer's script was already getting a rewrite by Affleck's pal from "ARGO," does he move on? Is this room enough for the Nolan Bros. to wash their hands of the DC movies at last? Hell, does even Snyder maybe depart to make room for someone to helm both movies? There's a lot that can happen here.

Escape to the Movies: "JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT"

Shabby Reboot.

ALSO: "RAZE."

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

"BATMAN" Returns

"Holy About-Fucking-Time-Bat-Time, Batman!"

Art print by Dave Collinson

I've maintained for awhile that one of the reasons the Adam West "BATMAN" still hasn't gotten a fair shake even though Dark Age comics' need to use it as a whipping boy has faded into memory is that it hasn't been widely available to buy or watch outside of scattered reruns. A lot of people have really only seen the theatrical movie spin-off, which is fun but doesn't really capture how sly, clever and subversive (both of the material and of 60s pop-culture) the show actually was underneath all the surface-level camp.

Well, this year that can finally start to change: It has just been announced (via Conan O'Brien, of all people) that Warner Bros. will bring "BATMAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES" to DVD in 2014! Granted, now we have to wait for the other shoe to drop and see which music rights or celebrity estate will innevitably keep certain episodes from appearing either in edited form or altogether... but most is definitely better than nothing. Yay!

Big Picture: "STARS, WORN"

J.J. Abrams Presents "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - RETREAD OF THE JEDI"

The Escapist : The Big Picture : Stars, Worn

Just Imagine How Great This Would've Sounded Six Or Seven Years Ago

CORRECTION: Originally wrote that RDJ's contract only has one more movie, which was incorrect - he has two left until he has to renew.

Short Version: LATINO REVIEW, who've been to Marvel/Disney this decade what AICN was to Warner Bros. in the 90s, reports that the superhero hitmakers are talking to Johnny Depp for DOCTOR STRANGE.

Marvel Studios is on top of the world right now, Hollywood-wise. They're a hit-making machine - the branding/franchise/cross-promo model that the entire rest of the industry now wants to emulate - but they also manage to do so while making fanboys squeal, mainstream audiences cheer and critics go "Huh. That was pretty good, actually."

But they're also staring down the barrel of their first big existential crisis: Robert Downey Jr's contract runs out after two more movies (presumably, "AVENGERS 2 & 3.")


Let's not pussyfoot around it: All the Marvel movies so far make money, but the ones with Iron Man tend to make twice as much. Yes, Marvel made RDJ an A-lister, but he's still the sole A-lister in their toybox - the only (lead) actor in their Cinematic Universe more famous than the character. But since they've only got him for two more appearances at his current rate and will want those appearances to be "AVENGERS" sequels*, they're either going to have to hand him the biggest paycheck ever or settle for expensive cameo appearances while he pivots toward finding the post-Marvel project that'll make his career-rebirth story complete by turning him into "Academy Award Winner Robert Downey Jr."

Marvel does not want to spend that kind of money. They are the cheapest, corner-cuttingest outfit in the business right now. So if keeping an A-lister is going to cost more than casting the nets for another A-lister - maybe one who's hit a bit of a rough patch recently - then casting the net is what they'd be overwhelmingly more likely to do. Enter: Johnny Depp.

Real talk: Once you get over the ringing sounds of Tonto-speak leaping out of your subconscious at this prospect... this is least surprising thing that Marvel could announce other than "Stan Lee will probably have a cameo." Marvel is now a Disney brand. So, more or less, is the blockbuster-starring "funny hat" version of Johnny Depp. Disney and Depp both know that audiences are sick of Jack Sparrow, and want a new PG-13 action/fantasy franchise to work with - that's what "LONE RANGER" was supposed to be.

So do I believe that Marvel wants Depp for the part? Of course, because I believe Marvel would like any name actor to take any part - and I know they've talked to him before about possibly voicing Rocket Raccoon and a few other parts. But, realistically, Johnny Depp as a wizard who does elaborate hand-gestures and shouts made-up magic gibberish while futzing with a big floppy cape and tumbling through (inevitably) 3D/CGI surreal landscapes? It's like he was born for it.

My question: If "DOCTOR STRANGE" - which will, presumably, join "ANT-MAN," "THOR 3," "CAPTAIN AMERICA 3" and maybe some yet-to-be announced projects like "MS. MARVEL" for Phase 3 - is going to become, in addition to a Marvel project, as Disney/Depp joint... is it even a question that the very next offer will be to Tim Burton to direct? And before you ask: I doubt Marvel would make any overtures to Gore Verbinski, who's notorious for spending too much money and triggering delays. Again, fans my recoil at the thought, but Burton's (aesthetic) sensibilities are rather uniquely well-suited to this particular character, and Disney can likely still pop a raging-semi thinking about how much money the Depp/Burton team made them on that godawful "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" thing.

This would not be my first or ideal choice for this... but I don't hate this. If this is how it was to go down, I can see it working.

*P.S. Pure conjecture: I'd say the odds are pretty good that Iron Man doesn't make it out of "AGE OF ULTRON" with Tony Stark still in the suit. As is, he's supposed to have soft-retired from being Iron Man at the end of his own third movie, and if the movie version of Ultron is - as many expect - a rogue Stark creation (everyone's guess is "Evil J.A.R.V.I.S," I want him to turn out to be "Evil Dummy;") it'd make sense for Stark to either be killed, crippled or otherwise incapacitated doing whatever it takes to destroy a villain he's sort-of responsible for. They've already announced that Don Cheadle will be in the film as War Machine/Iron Patriot, and it'd be well in keeping with the spirit of things and the history of the character for him to take over the Iron Man identity after that. They don't have to make more "IRON MAN" movies after that if they don't think audiences will turn out for a non-RDJ actor, but it'd give them somebody on-deck to wear the suit for, say, a "ressurect and/or rescue Tony" plot in "AVENGERS 3."

Michael Douglas is *Also* ANT-MAN

When Marvel announced that Paul Rudd was the lead in Edgar Wright's "ANT-MAN" without giving the character a proper name, people just kind of assumed he was playing a version of Scott Lang, the second Ant-Man, and not Hank Pym, the originator of the role. Now that appears to be official, as newly-minted Golden Globes winner Michael Douglas has been cast as Pym.

This was sort-of expected anyway: Pym is a difficult character, in that he's been kept prominent through connections to other more important figures but writers have consistently struggled to find anything to do with him (outside of having him change power-sets and secret-identities like pants) since the Marvel Universe isn't really hurting for super-scientists and Bruce Banner, Tony Stark and Mr. Fantastic are all kind of more popular. Eventually an overzealous artist overdrew a scene of Pym lashing out at his wife ("The Wasp," who has the same shrinky-powers but also has wings and is a lady) and "wife-beater" became a running fandom gag and his defining characteristic for decades now.

Wright has described the film as a "heist movie." In the comics, Lang was a reformed burglar who "borrowed" Pym's Ant-Man gear to pull a job to save his sick kid; Pym let's him keep the gear and the name provided he only continue to use it for good - which, once balance, actually qualifies as sensible decisionmaking on Pym's part. Variety briefly "mis-reported" that Douglas was actually playing the villain in the film, but I wouldn't be surprised if Pym was the antagonist for the movie, or became one (he will likely not, it's already been stressed elsewhere, be the creator of Ultron for "AVENGERS 2.")

TGWTG, Chez Apocalypse & Me @ MAGFEST

Realized I didn't post it here before (busy month for me) but here's a movie panel from MAGFest mainly stocked by cool cats from That Guy With The Glasses and Chez Apocalypse that I wound up getting invited to join at the last minute - literally, I saw the group hanging out and went to say hello, they asked if I was on the panel too, I said no, they said I should be, so I did:

Escape to The Movies: DHOOM 3

Don't even ask me about "HERCULES."

Also: Five *Entertainment* Reforms Millenials Should Be Fighting For

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : Dhoom 3

"STALINGRAD" Coming To U.S. Theaters

2013's "STALINGRAD," alternately known as "STALINGRAD 3D," is Russia's first natively-produced IMAX 3D action the highest-grossing Russian movie in history. Basic pitch: An ultra-stylized (think "300") war epic set during the famous six month battle between Nazi and Soviet forces during WWII. In yet another sign of blockbuster filmmaking's new era of globalism, the film is getting a U.S. release to IMAX screens in February.

And, holy shit... it looks pretty fucking good:

Seriously. I don't care what language or format it's in (or even how good the rest of the movie is), I can't forsee a scenario where that last bit (starting at 2:25) doesn't end up being one of the best action beats ever. Wow.

Big Picture: JUNK DRAWER 2014

The Escapist : The Big Picture : Junk Drawer 2014

Unsoliticed Advice From Nobody

The "big little story" in Hollywood at the moment is that "DHOOM 3" - a Bollywood action movie with a U.S. setting (Chicago, where it was also shot) that was made with a very specific eye on hitting with American audiences - actually pulled off it's mission; becoming the first Indian film to crack the U.S. top ten (9th place!) and netting the highest U.S. gross ever for a Bollywood production. It's also a massive hit in the rest of the world, yes, but it's the American crossover that's the big story...

It's the third installment of an ongoing franchise, but it's mostly a showcase-vehicle for Indian megastar Aamir Khan, who's new to the series and plays the ostensible "villain" except he's really not and also the main character (it's kind of hard to explain without spoiling a huge twist that divides the film's two 90-minute halves.) U.S. studios are watching this movie, which means they're definitely watching big Indian leads like this guy - wondering if there's anyone who can be scooped for Hollywood productions and more of that lucractive international boxoffice.

With that in mind, let me point something out to Disney/Marvel-Studios: On the left, Khan - for context, he's basically playing Indian Criss Angel in "DHOOM 3." On the right: NAMOR: THE SUB-MARINER.

Just a thought.

Is This How David Goyer Will Ruin WONDER WOMAN in "MAN OF STEEL 2?"

This story went around a bit last week. I didn't pay it much mind because it originated on BatmanOnFilm, which has basically zero substantial credibility on news items, but now it's getting some attention from more reputable sources, so it deserves at least a look.

Anyway. BoF's gossip is that Wonder Woman's actual role in "MAN OF STEEL 2: SORRY ABOUT MAN OF STEEL 1 BUT HEY LOOK WE'RE GONNA DO JUSTICE LEAGUE WE PROMISE" will be more of an extended cameo akin to Black Widow in "IRON MAN 2." That actually sounds plausible, and goes with what I've been hearing all along - that the original plan was for other Leaguers to turn up as wink-wink bit-players in their civilian identities, with "Oh, shit! That was actually Wonder Woman/Flash/Lantern/Whoever!" as a stinger or a post-credits sequel tease, but that WW and maybe others were being expanded to full onscreen cameos by producers who are anxious for anything that will help market this as something closer to the popular "AVENGERS" than the profitable-but-divisive "MAN OF STEEL" (real-talk: like it or not, the writing is on the wall: 2013 ended with MOS as a punchline/whipping-boy for gloomy, bloated, poorly-scripted genre movies - it's this year's "PROMETHEUS.")

The next part of the "rumor," though, doesn't thus far seem to have any substance backing it up beyond "Yeah, I can believe this production team would screw up in this specific way." According to BoF, the plan is to sidestep having to explain Wonder Woman's more whimsical/mystical background... by making her another Kryptonian.

Yup, that sounds entirely believable. Maybe (hopefully!) not true, but 100% in-line with the reductive small-universe "streamlining" that too many people still think is needed/preferred for these movies.

The "full" pitch is that The Amazons are actually descendants of survivors from that crashed/abandoned Kryptonian outpost Superman found in "MAN OF STEEL," with Krypton's genetic-engineering angle explaining how they managed to create an ongoing all-female society. I imagine that there'd probably be some throwaway lines about wandering-Kryptonians being the basis of the Greek Pantheon (among others) itself dropped in as well. Magic? Mythology? NO! That's too much, you can't start doing magical stuff when it started as a scifi-franchise! "Too many audience buy-ins," to use studio idiot-speak.

Setting aside the fact that this would rob the character of everything that makes her unique and interesting, reducing her to just Supergirl with a different name, it's so bloody pointless. The main, all-important advantage that the "big three" JLA heroes have over everything else in the genre is that everyone already knows them. Maybe not the specifics, maybe not the whole history, but if Wonder Woman shows up midway through this movie and starts throttling bad guys NOBODY who was going to see this in the first place is going to be taken out of the movie in bewilderment: Everyone has heard of Wonder Woman, everyone knows throttling bad guys is what superheroes "just DO," you can even get a laugh (remember those?) by setting the origin-story aside for later with a line or two:

"And you are...?" "Wonder Woman." (or "Diana," if we're still doing the "heroes embarassed by their nicknames" bullshit) "Where did you...?" "It's complicated. Shouldn't you be punching Luthor/Doomsday/Parasite/whoever?" Ha ha. Audience giggles, action resumes, toss in a couple "Great Hera's!" to nudge the fans, end on a "We should totally start a club, you guys!" and figure out how to explain "Magical Island of Immortal Hellenistic Lesbians" in the next one (or in WW's solo featu... oh, right. "Girl movies don't make money." I forgot.)

Now I wonder if this has been part of the plan all along, hence the constant go-nowhere reminders of Krypton's abandoned space program in the first movie: A handy way to explain any number of brand-name metahumans without having to get into the various magical/alien/interdimensional backgrounds that inform the DC multiverse. Hawkman/Hawkgirl? Kryptonians plus wings. Aquaman (and maybe all the Atlanteans)? Water Kryptonians. Darkseid? The New Gods? Ditto.

All conjecture, of course, but like I said... it's all so depressingly possible.

What Just Happened to Michael Bay? (UPDATED)

UPDATE I: Bay has posted a brief response to the event on his personal site, in which he puts the blame on himself for stepping on the emcee's lines and confusing the teleprompter by doing so. He also reaffirms that "TRANSFORMERS 4" footage will be being used to promote the new TV technology on tour.

ORIGINAL POST: So. Michael Bay was the celebrity speaker (which is odd in itself, since he's not especially known for being a public speaker - for his own work or otherwise) for the reveal of Samsung's new big-ass "curved screen" HDTVs at CES a few minutes ago. Something went wrong, and... well, watch the video:




So... what's going on here? Anxiety? Panic-attack? I'm hardly an expert in that kind of thing, but this looks like something significantly more than just "the prompter broke so I'm out." even if that's what set it off. Did he take something? Forget to take something? Get some really terrible news moments before he had to go on? It's definitely uncomfortable - whether you like this guy or not, what most people still call "stage fright" can be the manifestation of real, serious problems for a lot of people that are often invisible to those around them - until they aren't.

This isn't (or, at least, doesn't appear to be) a case of karma catching up with a douchebag like fellow TRANSFORMERS alumn Shia LaBeouf's recent meltdown; this looks like something is "going on." Forget whatever I or anyone else thinks of his movies, I hope he's okay.

Escape to The Movies: LONE SURVIVOR

Yes, it's sad they all got killed. No, the movie isn't very good.

ALSO: Looking ahead to 2014...

The Escapist : Escape to the Movies : Lone Survivor

"A Shining Example"

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET was the best movie of 2013. Everything about it just simply kills, from the acting to the directing to the script to the editing to the simple fact that it's a film with the crackling, in-the-moment, balls-out energy you'd expect from a bold young voice fresh out of film school... made by a living-legend in his 70s.

Unfortunately, it's also a movie getting dogged by some critics (and audiences) for what some see as an insufficiently clear-cut condemnation of it's title character; by which they generally seem to mean that the film doesn't go out of it's way to make all of the fun stuff Jordan Belfort and company did with their ill-gotten millions look "not fun" in order to make a point. This, of course, displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the film, reality, how movies are made, etc. Simply put: A.) On a basic narrative level, if these guys' "playtime" doesn't look enjoyable to the audience, you're undercutting the fundamental story/character question of "why did they DO this???," and B.) Not to be crass about it, but neither Martin Scorsese nor anyone else needs to "make" cocaine-fueled orgies with top-dollar call girls "look like fun" - that stuff already looks like a ton of fun - that's just the movie being honest.

This, on the other hand, is a little trickier to deal with...



That's a promotional clip recorded by Leonardo DiCaprio for Keppler Speakers, a talent/booking agency for motivational speakers that has the actual Jordan Belfort as a client, in which the actor endorses his real-world counterpart's skill at the motivation game.

It's pretty meta, when you consider that Belfort effectively returns the favor by playing an emcee introducing DiCaprio as himself at one of these motivational gigs in the film, but I can't imagine DiCaprio or the film's producers are happy to see this clip (which has been around since August) going viral now. There's nothing especially "bad" going on here (the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that this bastard was a hell of a salesman) but it certainly won't help quiet the moral-wailers to be on tape talking glowingly about Belfort as an example of "the transformative power of ambition and hard work" playing opposite the more recent party-line of "he sucks and our movie clearly shows that he sucks."

Me, I'm mostly amused by it because it's effectively a real-world continuation of the film's overall point: These guys get away with it. They do short stints in white-collar "prison," they stay rich, they get played by handsome movie stars in big Hollywood movies (Belfort already had a foot in the film industry via executive producing Hulk Hogan's Christmas movie - really), and it all happens because "we" are always and forever complicit in it. Of course this guy (who literally cheats death and all other karmic punishments multiple times in the film) gets the actor playing him (as a raving sociopath) in the movie to make a commercial for him. That's just how it works - the perfect post-credits stinger; though one that could likely help cost DiCaprio his Best Actor statue.