Fixing The Spider-Man Film Franchise

Collectively, the Spider-Man movies are definitely the most lucrative superhero franchise in Hollywood history. Audiences can't seem to get enough of that wacky wall-crawler. Still, all the money in the world doesn't stop a franchise from falling apart. If anything, it only seems to speed the process along.

The Spider-Man franchise hasn't fallen apart, but it was hurt fairly significantly by the release of Spider-Man 3. This sequel was a definite step down from the first two. Even if the box office report remained rosy, it was clear to many devoted fans that Spidey had reached a turning point.

In recent weeks, news has surfaced that Sony and director Sam Raimi are in talks for another sequel. Not just one, either, but two sequels filmed back-to-back. This announcement fills us with equal part anticipation and dread. After the last movie, should Raimi really be trusted to guide the franchise forward? Are the actors up to the challenge?

With those questions burning in our minds, we've assembled a list of ways Sony can fix the Spider-Man franchise. In our opinion, these are the guidelines the studio needs to follow in order to put the franchise back on track. We may not be Hollywood big shots, but we've read hundreds and hundreds of Spider-Man comics, and that has to count for something.

---

Recast When Necessary

Collectively, the Spider-Man movies have done a lot of things right, not least of which including almost singlehandedly kindling Hollywood's love for superheroes. However, they're not perfect, and one area Sony might want to look into changing is the actors.

As Peter Parker, Toby Maguire was an inspired choice. However, as the movies wear on and the characters get older, we're not sure that Maguire continues to be the best fit for the role. His voice in particular makes Peter still seem trapped in high school. It doesn't help that his chronic back problems have threatened to derail production in the past.

Far more problematic is Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. Dunst has always felt like the weak link in the cast. By all indications she doesn't even enjoy working on the films, so why jump through hoops to keep her on as Mary Jane? Better that Sony find a new actress to play the part. It worked for the Rachel Dawes character in Dark Knight, and it can work for the Spidey franchise as well.

Better Choice of Villains

Perhaps the greatest challenge moving forward in the franchise is the selection of villains. Both the Green Goblins are out, as well as Doc Ock, Sandman, and Venom. The next movie is going to need to find the right villain to play off an older, slightly wiser Peter.

We're not sure any one remaining villain can support a movie on their own. At the very least, the script will need to fiddle with the villain's origin in order to create a greater sense of emotional resonance. Spider-Man 3 did this by tying Sandman's origin to the death of Uncle Ben. It made the character more suitable as a lead antagonist, and was a change to the Spidey mythos that worked well. What didn't work well was shoehorning Venom into the script at the last minute. If Spider-Man 4 is going to have multiple villains, they need to do more than just trip over each other and hamper the flow of the story.

As for specific villain choices, we'd recommend any of the remaining members of the Sinister Six. Electro could certainly work, and his displays of power might rival what we saw of Sandman. Mysterio is a possibility, though we'd be worried that villain might only worsen the series' slide towards goofy camp. Previous films have set up both Man-Wolf and Lizard as candidates. Unfortunately, even working in tandem, those two probably can't carry a movie on their own.

One thing we're absolutely sure of is that Carnage is a no-no. That's the last thing this franchise needs at the moment.

Tone Down the Camp

The Spidey franchise has always carried a certain campy quality. That's just comes with the territory when Sam Raimi is the director. We can appreciate camp when it's used sparingly and effectively. Case in point – the "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" sequence from Spider-Man 2. It was a silly interlude, but a charming one.

We don't really need to say where Spider-Man 3 went wrong in this area. Peter Parker cavorting down the street, the entire club sequence - a huge bulk of the second half of the movie was just bogged down in silliness. These sequences weren't the only flaw of the movie, but they were a major contribution. Moviegoers don't expect their superhero films to always be dry, serious affairs. They do, however, expect the characters to behave in logical, believable ways. Black suit or no, for much of Spider-Man 3, Peter was woefully out of character.

Less Studio Interference

It's a well-known phenomenon that superhero movie franchises fall apart in their third installment. Just look at the history. Superman 3, Batman Forever, X-Men: The Last Stand, the list goes on and on. This trend isn't coincidence. Rather, it's a sign that studio interference is quite possibly the worst thing that can happen to a franchise.

By all accounts, Sam Raimi didn't want Venom to be a part of Spider-Man 3. He's admitted to not understanding the character or even liking him very much. However, Sony chose to take a heavier hand in the development of the movie, and they insisted that Venom (whom they perceived to be a massive draw) play a starring role. The result should have been obvious. Venom never felt like a necessary or legitimate element of the film. He could have made for a compelling villain in Spider-Man 4, but instead was rushed out the door and dragged the entire movie down with him.

Raimi has proved himself capable of earning hundreds of millions of dollars for the studio. If they're wise, Sony will learn from their mistake and just leave it at that.
Build Towards a Larger Conflict

One of the more disappointing trends across all superhero franchises is the tendency to kill major villains at the end of each film. For franchises with serious legs, this severely limits storytelling potential in future installments. The X-Men movies got it right. They kept Magneto alive and well for multiple sequels, and his continued presence in the series has never been a complaint of ours.

Spider-Man 3 also bucked this trend, leaving return appearances by Sandman and Venom as possibilities. We hope it continues going forward. We'd like to see a clear progression towards a bigger conflict in Spider-Man 4. With Sony strongly considering filming 4 and 5 back-to-back, it would be a crime not to connect the two movies. Naturally, we're envisioning a gradual build-up to the Sinister Six. Spidey needs a major threat to truly shine as a hero, and it doesn't get much more major than that.

As was said by the podcast crew, debuting the Sinister Six in Spider-Man 6 opens up a mine of marketing gold. Raimi won't be able to mange that, however, if the individual members are killed off before they can ever get together.

Stronger Supporting Cast

Spider-Man may be a largely solo hero, but he never swings very far without a strong supporting cast. We think back to the classic days where Peter used to hang out with the likes of Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn, and the rest of the gang. Unfortunately, Harry died at the end of Spider-Man 3. Many supporting characters like Flash Thompson and Liz Allen have never had a strong presence in the series. In some ways, all the movies really have going for them in this area is J. Jonah Jameson. That's a huge boon, but it's not enough.

Gwen Stacy was wasted in the last movie, so we want to see her back and in a stronger role. There's no reason characters like Flash and Liz can't be brought back as Peter begins to rekindle old high school "friendships." Should Raimi want, he can even use some of the more recent additions from Brand New Day. What he shouldn't do is create another character along the lines of the Osborn family butler. Where was this old coot in the other movies? Why did he need to be in the third film anyway? In any case, Peter needs more characters to play off of than just Mary Jane and the villain of the week. What it doesn't need is more poorly conceived, shoehorned characters.

Create a Memorable Musical Theme

We love humming along to our favorite superhero themes. Unfortunately, Batman and Superman seem to hog all the best ones. Despite the fact that Danny Elfman has composed all three Spider-Man films, the music has never been a particularly strong point. With that in mind, we're hoping for a stronger effort in the next sequel. Elfman has crafted some truly memorable themes in the past, particularly with the likes of Batman and Edward Scissorhands. What makes Spidey so different?

All we know is that we're tired of the '60s Spider-Man cartoon theme popping up in our heads whenever we hear the character mentioned. We're also tired of the movies being remembered more for their bad alternative rock soundtracks than the actual score.

Don't Go the Dark Knight Route

It's an increasingly worrisome trend in Hollywood right now. Various studios, salivating at the the thought of their own Dark Knight-style money maker, are using Christopher Nolan's film as a template for crafting the upcoming slate of comic book movies. No. No. No, no, no, no...

It shouldn't have to be explained to anyone why the Dark Knight approach doesn't work for all superheroes. Batman is a dark, gritty character, and the movie was bleak even by his usual standards. Spider-Man is not bleak. Sure, his life tends to suck at any given moment. He's constantly fretting about bills, keeping his web shooters full and his costume in one piece, and fending off a legion of New York's worst villains. At the end of the day, though, Spider-Man has to come out on top. Fans identify with him so readily because he overcomes great obstacles and never loses that happy-go-lucky charm.

That's why the sequels don't need Carnage. The character is dark, sadistic, and would just drag the movie dangerously close to an R-rating. Moviegoers don't want to see Mary Jane blown up in a warehouse or Aunt May gunned down in the street. They certainly don't want to see Spidey lose control and drop Kraven from a fourth-story balcony.

We said it in the Superman feature, and we'll say it again. What works for Batman doesn't necessarily work for other heroes. Studios are going to learn this lesson the hard way if they continue in their current direction. We'd just as soon not see the next Spider-Man movie be one of those casualties.

---

We'll be honest, the Spider-Man franchise got a lot right. That's one of the reasons we only have eight bullet points here - we couldn't even find enough to get to ten (let alone more). Most of our problems with the franchise arrived in the third installment and seem relatively clear and easy to avoid.

But we are curious what you think of Spider-Man. What do you hope to see in Spider-Man 4 and 5? Did you like 3 at all? What would you change about the franchise? Do you think Sony should restart? Do you like the darker tone? The questions are endless, so sound off on your thoughts in the comments below!

Battle Over ‘Watchmen’ Surrounds a Producer

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Visible through the glass door of the film producer Lawrence Gordon’s office here, a poster for his coming movie “Watchmen,” framed and ready for hanging, was propped against a wall this week.

Still to be determined: whether the black-and-yellow artwork, its distinctive happy face spattered with blood, will have some of its most important credits revised before joining Mr. Gordon’s crowded poster gallery.

A rapidly escalating legal fight between Warner Brothers, which has already shot “Watchmen,” and 20th Century Fox, which claims to own rights to the graphic novel on which it is based, is headed for trial in federal court in Los Angeles next January. That is just two months before Warner is scheduled to release the film in the United States, while Paramount Pictures distributes it abroad. (Legendary Pictures helped finance the film.)

The collision is extraordinary. Major studios have rarely if ever been known to sue each other over a $100 million-plus picture that has already wrapped.

The fight is still more puzzling in that it centers on Mr. Gordon, a 72-year-old show business veteran behind movies like the “Die Hard” and “Hellboy” franchises and “Field of Dreams.” This is a man, after all, who has taught more than a few producers how to work the studios without getting crushed between them.

“To a whole generation of us, Larry was our mentor,” said John Davis, whose producing credits include “Norbit,” “I, Robot” and, 21 years ago, “Predator,” on which he collaborated with Mr. Gordon and the producer Joel Silver.

During his brief tenure as president of Fox in the mid-1980s, Mr. Gordon built a staff that included now-prolific producers like Laurence Mark (“Dreamgirls”) and Scott Rudin (“No Country for Old Men”). Amy Pascal, currently co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, was another executive mentored by Mr. Gordon at Fox. And James L. Brooks — whose Fox film “Broadcast News” picked up seven Oscar nominations — began working as writer, director and producer at the studio under Gordon.

Mr. Gordon declined to be interviewed for this story, as did lawyers from the Beverly Hills firm Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette & Feldman, which has done much of his legal work over the years. Executives at both Warner and Fox also declined to comment.

But people on both sides of the dispute — who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing complications of the court fight — said Mr. Gordon was in a particularly delicate position.

Even though he has not so far been named as a defendant in the suit, Warner insists that Mr. Gordon is ultimately responsible for the validity of his claimed rights to the project. If Warner does not prevail in court, or chooses to settle, the producer could be pressed to cover any losses. .

Crusty and charming by turns, Mr. Gordon, a Mississippi native, is no stranger to Hollywood roughhouse. In a 1983 go-round, for example, he secured a temporary restraining order against Paramount when its executives tried to throw him off the lot. Only a year after his spectacular success with “48 Hrs.,” studio executives had changed the locks and shut off the phones at his producer’s office in a tiff, according to news reports at the time, over his dealings with competitors.

As early as 1980, Mr. Gordon was already known for his skill at using the studios’ competitive instincts to get his movies made.

“Larry seems to have the record for setting up ‘turnaround’ projects,” read the studio notes for “Xanadu,” a Universal Pictures film that was released that year after first being developed at Warner. The notes referred to the complex process by which a studio may let another adopt one of its projects — sometimes to its embarrassment, if the resulting movie is a hit.

A dispute about turnaround now lies at the heart of the fight over “Watchmen.”

Beginning in 1986, Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, about superheroes who have fallen into disrepute. The plan at one point was for the film to involve Mr. Silver, a young producer who worked at the time in partnership with Mr. Gordon, whose tour as Fox president had been cut short by heart surgery.

But Mr. Gordon had soon formed Largo International, an independent company with Japanese backing — and he had a falling-out with Mr. Silver. In 1991, Fox, accommodating Mr. Gordon, granted Largo its rights in “Watchmen.” The studio was paid $320,000, according to recent court filings, and retained the right to distribute any movie Largo might make from the book.

Three years later, however, Mr. Gordon left Largo. And Fox again accommodated him, with a new agreement that granted Fox a right to become involved with the project any time a star, director, budget or other material element changed.

Warner now questions how Fox could have created a turnaround in rights it had already given to Largo. Fox argues that it still had rights under its original agreement, and consented to let go of the project both in 1991 and in 1994 only under conditions that were never met.

In any case, according to a person briefed on the dispute, the 1994 turnaround agreement did not find its way into Universal’s pile of documents when that studio checked the movie’s rights before putting “Watchmen” into development.

When the project hit a dead end at Universal, Mr. Gordon, well versed in the art of turnaround, moved it to Paramount. In keeping with industry practice, Universal’s paperwork regarding the rights followed — still without the 1994 agreement.

In 2006, “Watchmen” moved again, this time to Warner. Again, the documents arrived without the 1994 turnaround agreement.

“Watchmen” picked up heat early in 2007 when Mr. Gordon, having been through a series of prospective directors, Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass among them, signed a new director: Zack Snyder, who had just delivered Warner a surprise blockbuster with “300.”

Meanwhile Fox, after remaining passive for years, grew restive — perhaps because no one before had come close to starting principal photography. Shortly after Mr. Snyder announced his plans to make a “Watchmen” movie amid great hoopla at San Diego’s fantasy convention Comic-Con in 2007, Fox lawyers sent Warner a letter claiming rights under both the 1991 agreement and the later turnaround.

Fox has said in its court filings that Mr. Gordon never complied with a requirement that he resubmit the project to the studio when elements changed. Warner is expected to contend that Mr. Gordon offered “Watchmen” to every studio in town, including Fox. Still, Mr. Snyder came aboard and the entire cast was recruited after that contact, so elements had again changed.

Warner executives, according to people briefed on the matter, have privately speculated that Fox, faced with weakening performance at the box office, was angling for a small cut of the movie — perhaps 5 percent of its gross receipts. But Fox executives, also according to people briefed on the matter, were put off by what they saw as Warner’s failure to take their claims seriously, and delivered a shock by filing suit in February. As of this week the studios were jostling each other over what Fox now claims is Warner’s slow and inadequate compliance with orders to supply documents and witness lists under a schedule that may well put the movie — and at least four studios — in front of jurors rather than fans.

Mr. Gordon, meanwhile, appears to have made good on a philosophy he described almost 30 years ago.

“Most pictures are made because somebody else wants to make them,” he was quoted as saying in a 1979 issue of Screen International.

“As a producer, the only club you have is to have something that somebody else wants.”

Will Ferrell says he's done with sports movies

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Will Ferrell is giving up athletics — at least in movies.

"I will no longer attempt to do any sports movie, anymore. Any sports," Ferrell said Friday before playing in a charity golf tournament hosted by one of his fraternity brothers from Southern California.

Ferrell was dressed almost as if he could step right into a golf movie.

"No, no golf movie. Yeah, I'm retired from sports-genre films. You know, I think I filled my quota," Ferrell said.

Among his sports-themed movies are Blades of Glory, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby and Semi-Pro.

Ferrell spoke to reporters before joining Craig Pollard for the 15th annual College for Cancer Golf Classic at the Rancho Bernardo Inn. Pollard, a two-time survivor of Hodgkin's lymphoma, uses the tournament proceeds to fund college scholarships for cancer survivors and amputees.

Ferrell was wearing loud black and white shorts, garish gold shoes, green socks and a white polo shirt that said "Army Guy The Movie."

Asked about "Army Guy," he said: "I don't know. I just put the shirt on."

And the shoes? "The shoes will definitely help my game. They're actually built for me from scientists at NASA, so I can actually levitate for 30 seconds, up to a height of 15 to 20 feet. I don't know how they'll help me with my golf game, but it's a cool trick."

Eminem 'Banging Out Tracks' on a New Album

It's the return of Slim Shady!

Ending a four-year break from music, rapper Eminem says he may release a new album this year.

"I'm concentrating on my own stuff right now – just banging out tracks," Eminem said in a recent interview on Sirius satellite radio station Shade 45.

The rapper, 35, will continue to produce for other artists on his label, Shady Records.

"The more I keep producing, the better it seems I get. I start knowing stuff, learning the boards like the back of my hands."
Eminem may have shelved his professional life since 2004’s Encore, but he's stored up a lot of personal material for his next album.

In 2005, the rapper entered rehab to treat a dependency on sleeping pills. In 2006, he re-married his ex-wife Kimberly Anne Scott, only to file for divorce three months later.

His mother, Debbie Nelson, who famously sued her son for $10 million over alleged slander in his debut The Slim Shady LP, has written a memoir titled, My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem, to be released in November.

"I do truly believe that Marshall will be back,” Nelson writes in the book.

"I'm sure he's biding his time, waiting for the right moment, and when he does return, he will be bigger and stronger and more successful than ever. I know my son, and he just doesn't give up that easily."

Metallica, Death Magnetic, and the Glory Days of Heavy Metal

by Reg Seeton

After checking out Metallica's newly released Death Magnetic, I've had it up to my eyeballs with the twenty year schoolyard shouting match fans have had over old Metallica and new Metallica. Thankfully, with the release of Death Magnetic, Metallica has finally put an end to the debate once and for all. Death Magnetic is not only an album that sees the band return to their Metal and Trash roots as much as they possibly could over two decades removed from Kill 'Em All, but it's also a 10-song release that gives fans much more than what they bargained for, this one included. As I write this article, I'm listening to Death Magnetic in its entirety for the fourth time and can safely say it ranks as one of Metallica's best albums.

Initial Reaction to Death Magnetic:

After checking out Death Magnetic for the first time, I set my headphones on my desk and reflected on Metallica's return to form. From start to finish, Death Magnetic simply gets better with each song. The most surprising aspect of the album is that the first single, "The Day That Never Comes", is the weakest song on the roster yet it still kicks ass. There's not one Metallica fan who could convince me "Cyanide", "The End of the Line", "Broken, Beat & Scarred", or "My Apocalypse" aren't as aggressive, tight, and explosive as their early songs. Each song is completely in the "Battery" and "Four Horsemen" wheelhouses with roots in the Black album and heavy layers of Ride the Lightning. Listen to "My Apocalypse" a couple of times and you'll understand why a lot of naysayers are eating their words. To those who continue to whine about how Metallica has never been nearly as great their early days... Grow up already! The days of Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, and And Justice for All are gone. They're never coming back, and I'll tell you why...

A Changing of the Guard:

Metallica's sound, songwriting, and style could never ever be the same as their early days because Heavy Metal and Trash died a sudden death with the emergence of Grunge. The dark, epic and melodic anthem aspects of metal (ie: Fade to Black, Sanitarium... even most of Iron Maiden's tunes) gave way to a more uneven and experimental alternative Seattle sound from bands like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains. Don't the fans of Metallica's early years get it by now? Very few bands of the traditional Heavy Metal and Trash eras survived. Many once unstoppable Monsters of Rock of the glory days of Heavy Metal were kicked to the wayside somewhere in time (<-- Iron Maiden nod for those who care) around 1990, with several fading into obscurity and many never to be heard from again. Dio, Dokken, Sepultura, Exodus, Saxon, King Diamond, Napalm Death, Kings X, Merciful Fate... the list goes on and on into Venom, W.A.S.P. and more. They were all amazing, but the times changed. As a new era of hard and heavy riffs emerged in the '90s amd '00s, bands like Cannibal Corpse, Nine Inch Nails, White Zombie, Korn, Deftones, and Slipknot can hardly be called traditional Heavy Metal in the same light as he bigger bands of the '80s. Alternative, Industrial, and "Nu" Metal, sure.

The first concert I ever attended was back in the mid-80s at a 20,000 seat arena to see Iron Maiden on their Peace of Mind tour. Ten years later, after front man Bruce Dickinson left the band only to be replaced by Blaze Bayley, I bought tickets to Iron Maiden who were playing at a venue that held 2000 at max capacity. It was a stark reminder that Metal was dead and how far the mighty had fallen. Yet Metallica was still alive and kicking at one of the best live outdoor gigs I've ever seen when they played headliner to The Ramones and Soundgarden at Lollapalooza. Although the controversial decision to include Metallica on the tour marked the beginning of the end for the Alt-Indie flavored Lollapalooza, there they were in the thick of the hottest tour of the '90s.

Survival of the Fittest:

While most of the Metal bands from the glory days can be found in the "where are they now graveyard", bands like Slayer, Megadeath, Pantera, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden didn't have an easy time of staying relevant over the past twenty years. Although we said goodbye to Pantera's Dimebag Darrell a few years ago, they somehow found a way to survive throughout the '90s and into the '00s. Hell, even Lemmy and Motorhead survived. So too has Metallica, only they've survived as the top heavy metal band in the world in the past 20 years despite the many transformations they've undergone. Some changes were good and some were bad, but Metallica has been selling out the same stadiums and arenas as they were as openers in the glory days of Heavy Metal. It wasn't Dokken, Dio, Megadeath, Maiden or Sepultura headlining Lollapalooza at a time when Metal and Trash were dead, it was Metallica.

The fact that Metallica has been giving fans new music for the past two decades since the death of Heavy Metal, have also found a way to stay relevant in a vastly different music landscape, and are still releasing #1 selling albums with Death Magnetic is something fans should be thankful for. When you stop for a second and think about it after listening to Death Magnetic, it's truly amazing.

The Past Meets the Future:

The more I listen to songs like "Cyanide", "All Nightmare Long", and "The Unforgiven III", Death Magnetic should have been a follow up to the Black album. But at that time, Heavy Metal and Thrash were dead. So would Metallica have died, too? It's certainly highly possible since the evidence is there with other bands of the era. If anything, Metallica has never been predictable. Can you fault a band for trying to adapt to the many changes in music over the years? Although Metallica purists loath Load and Reload, even St. Anger, would a Master of Puppets sound have worked for the band from 1990 to 2008? Should James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich have been forced to write songs as if they were 18 years old when none of us are the same as we were in high school? As its original fan base grew up and entered adulthood, so did the members of Metallica.

Death Magnetic is as close as we're going to get to revisiting the past and Metallica's reign during the glory days of Heavy Metal and Trash. But how does Death Magnetic shape up now that metal-heads of all ages have had time to digest the goods? In simple terms, it's already my pick for album of the year.

Original here

'Righteous Kill' review

Email Picture

It seems an imposition on somebody's part to ask Robert De Niro and Al Pacino to use their iconic power to prop up and inflate "Righteous Kill," a tricked-up and often turgid police thriller. At least these two aging virtuosi of the Method don't altogether submit to the temptation of mailing in their performances. And they seem comfortable enough in each other's company on-screen to make you wish there were more scenes that allowed them to just kick back and riff. It'd be a lot more enjoyable than watching the movie strain for clarity -- or cleverness.

De Niro and Pacino play, respectively, Turk and Rooster, veteran New York Police Department detectives whose skills have stayed sharp while their fortitude has been worn down by decades of sordid criminal behavior. Once (though it's not clear how long ago), Turk crossed the line by planting evidence on a child killer who'd been freed from custody by that handy-dandy leitmotif, the legal technicality. Turk's gambit puts the scum back in the hole, but it springs open a growing impatience on his part with due process that leads him and his partner to some late-career snafus and botched arrests.

Now there's a serial killer on the loose in their precinct who leaves calling cards with doggerel. The victims are all criminals who somehow got away with murder, rape and other heinous activities. Turk and Rooster aren't trusted by their superior (Brian Dennehy) to handle the case alone. So another, younger duo (John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg) is brought into the investigation. Through their eyes -- and Rooster's -- it begins to look as though the killer could only be "one of their own," i.e., a rogue cop. And when that child killer turns up dead after the courts have once again set him free, the suspicions become more -- how to put this without spoiling things? -- specific in their focus.

"Righteous Kill's" script is credited to "Inside Man's" Russell Gewirtz, and you wonder how the sleek, nuanced flow of that earlier movie evaded this one. The movie seems so intent on deploying its gimmicks that it clumsily shoves aside any genuine character development. Turk's girlfriend and colleague, Karen (the habitually intriguing Carla Gugino), carries a few quirks that would have been worth fleshing out even just a little bit more.

But everything, even logic, is sacrificed in favor of the movie's main event: the commingling of De Niro and Pacino's thickening personas. There's no getting around the fact that the erstwhile young lions are long in the tooth. The pouches beneath Pacino's eyes, for instance, look deep enough to carry his laundry -- and yours. But those eyes can still burn a hole through the screen, even in what for all practical purposes is a "Law & Order" episode bent and stretched beyond all hope or reason.

"Righteous Kill." MPAA rating: R for violence, pervasive vulgarisms and brief drug use. Running time: 1 hour, 41 minutes. In general release.

MySpace sets music free

(Fortune Magazine) -- Myspace founders Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson have had an uneasy relationship with the music industry. Nearly every music act has a MySpace page; some of them, like British pop diva Lily Allen and American psychedelic-funk purveyor Gnarls Barkley, have used the social network to become stars. But two years ago Universal Music Group discovered unauthorized songs from U2 and Jay-Z on MySpace and sued the site in federal court.

Well, that relationship is about to improve. In August some of the industry's most prominent executives - including Universal's Jimmy Iovine - showed up at MySpace headquarters in Beverly Hills for a visit that couldn't have been more cordial. "It was almost like we were all singing 'Kumbaya' together," DeWolfe says.

It was the first meeting of the board of directors of MySpace Music, an unprecedented joint venture between the social network and three of the Big Four music companies: Universal, SonyBMG, and Warner Music (WMG), which together account for 77% of all U.S. album sales, according to Nielsen SoundScan. MySpace is also in talks with the fourth biggie, EMI, whose U.S. market share is 9%.

MySpace Music, scheduled to launch in September, promises to be the most significant rollout of a digital-music service since Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) iTunes. It will enable MySpace users to listen to any song from the catalogs of the three music giants free. There will be on-screen ads along with that music, but yes, it will be free. And that includes U2 and Jay-Z-and Christina Aguilera, Kid Rock, and rap superstar T.I.

DeWolfe says the key to the new service is this: Users will be able to visit the pages of major label artists and click on the songs they like as they listen. Then they'll be able to create playlists on their own pages made up of those tracks: "There will be a button that says, FOR THE FULL CATALOG, CLICK HERE," he says. "That's what's never been done before." The idea is that people will use the playlists to personalize their MySpace page, which, in turn, boosts traffic. "Think about why people go to a music service," he says. "They go to iTunes because they just want to get the songs and get out. MySpace is different. It's like going to your friend's house, and they have cool music playing in the background that makes the experience that much better."

"This is how people discover music now," says Luke Wood, executive VP of Universal's Interscope Geffen A&M. "It's not happening through people reading Rolling Stone. It's not happening through the radio. It's happening through social networks online."

If listeners really like a particular song, they can buy it with one click and have it routed immediately to iTunes or Windows Media Player via a download service created by Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500). To Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the alliance makes perfect sense: "MySpace, with its hundreds of millions of users, is an important place for music discovery, just like the Amazon MP3 store."

Bezos sounds excited, and no wonder. He's confident that Amazon's alliance with MySpace will increase his company's share of the music-download market. The market research firm NPD says that Amazon's year-old MP3 store is already the nation's second-largest digital-music retailer, after iTunes. MySpace's music company partners are also pleased that the joint venture will strengthen Amazon's hand. Although they won't say so on the record, they aren't happy with iTunes' current domination of digital music. Says Ivan Gavin, COO of SonyBMG's BMG Label Group: "Competition isn't the worst thing in the world."

DeWolfe believes that MySpace Music could generate enough money through ad sales, downloads, and eventually music-related e-commerce like T-shirt and concert ticket sales to put the industry back on its feet again. The music labels, of course, could use some new revenue streams right now. The industry is in a state of upheaval. Last year alone, CD sales declined an astonishing 20% - that's $2 billion in revenue gone. Digital sales rose by $500 million - nowhere near enough to make up the difference. "We think this has the ability to change the economics of the music industry and create a revenue stream that replaces lost CD sales," he says.

Yet for MySpace Music to succeed, it will have to sell ads - lots of them, and at commanding prices. Its label partners want a penny each time someone listens to a song on an ad-supported service. That means MySpace Music needs to charge $10 for every 1,000 ad impressions just to break even. Think how many MySpace pages automatically play a tune when you land on them; each one counts as an impression. MySpace won't comment, but media buyers say it has been able to charge only $3 per 1,000. Why? Because there's a glut of social-networking ad inventory on the market. That's one reason Fox Interactive Media, MySpace's parent, missed its revenue target for the fiscal year ending in June by an estimated $100 million.

DeWolfe promises that MySpace Music will have no problem selling ads. He points to his company's 300 ad salespeople, most of whom are working on the new music service. Toyota, McDonald's, and State Farm are sponsoring the launch. "We recognized that this is a groundbreaking addition to the music industry landscape," says Doug Frisbie, national media manager for Toyota Motor Sales.

In a way, MySpace Music was something that DeWolfe and Anderson had to do. Their site had a huge audience of music fans, but it wasn't making enough money. So nine months ago they pitched the idea of an ad-supported service to News Corp. (NWS, Fortune 500) CEO Rupert Murdoch and his deputy, COO Peter Chernin. The two executives took a typically contrarian stance. They weren't bothered that other major media companies have been fleeing the music business. "This venture marries the largest music community in the world with the biggest music catalogs in the world," Murdoch tells Fortune. "We're confident it will be a big success."

"It's not like we were going out and starting a record label," says Chernin. "This is something we'd been talking about for a while."

Here's a big question hovering over MySpace Music: Will it actually improve the music industry's slumping overall sales? "We believe that you can't just have ad-revenue-sponsored content," says Michael Nash, Warner's chief digital strategist. But why will people buy more music when MySpace will be offering so much for free? DeWolfe says people will still need to buy tunes to play on their iPods.

The truth is, MySpace et al. are making a leap of faith by pushing free music. Dalton Caldwell, CEO of imeem, an ad-supported music social network that has 27 million users, warns that DeWolfe is setting the bar too high. "I don't know if we can be superheroes and save the world," says Caldwell. "I think it would also be difficult for anybody to say they can replace lost CD sales."

Don't tell that to DeWolfe. He's already talking cultural juggernaut. "Think about MTV," he says. "Not necessarily what they are right now, but how they created pop culture in the late '80s, early '90s. I think that's what MySpace Music will do now." Maybe he should get those lost CD revenues replaced first.

Original here

Favreau Talks "Iron Man 2" & Beyond

Paramount pulled out no stops for the Iron Man DVD launch this week with Jon Favreau sitting down with a major contingent of online press to talk about plans for the sequel and beyond. Amongst the facts gleaned: - Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard are all set to reprise their roles.

- The "Demon in a Bottle" storyline, if included, will form the basis of the third film and not the immediate sequel.

- Rhodey (Terrence Howard) may become 'War Machine' in the next one with the armor being developed for the character.

- Iron Man's armor may also be updated for the next film.

- There's hope to include IMAX 3D sequences in the sequel depending upon budgeting concerns.

- Favreau sees 'The Mandarin', the Asian crimelord arch-nemesis from the comics, as this film series equivalent of the Emperor from the original "Star Wars" trilogy. He'll likely be in the background more visibly in the first sequel but won't show up in full until a third or fourth film.

- The reason for the delay is that Favreau is trying to avoid over-exposing the character, and figuring out how to fit his mystical elements into a real world context.

- Favreau does intend to include background links to the likes of Hulk and Captain America in the sequel, but finds Thor a little difficult to do so.

- Justin Theroux and Favreau are at work developing the story right now.

- Favreau's Happy Hogan character will be involved more extensively.

A full-on transcript of the interview can be found at Superhero Hype.
Original here

NIN Dazzles With Lasers, LEDs and Stealth Screens

Trent Reznor is silhouetted by undulating orbs of light during a performance of "The Warning."
Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

A vast wall of swirling static dances appears on a giant screen as Trent Reznor and his band launch into their song, "Only." Initially obscured by this sea of visual white noise, the Nine Inch Nails front man intermittently appears to push through the particles of snow with his hands and body, popping in and out of view and opening up random tunnels in the chaos.

"Sometimes, I think I can see right through myself," he sings.

Nine Inch Nails fans are accustomed to such sonic and visual feasts whenever Reznor and company go out on tour. But this time around, NIN has pulled out all the stops, creating a groundbreaking, fully interactive visual display that is as much a part of the show as the band's instruments.

"I'm not really a purist," admits Reznor. "If I'm in the studio working on an album, I try to only please myself. But when it's a tour, it feels a bit more like I have a responsibility to some degree to entertain people."

Reznor and other band members use Lemurs during the "electronic set." The touchscreen devices can be used to control a range of audio and visual aspects of the show on the fly.
Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

For the band's current Lights in the Sky tour, Reznor has not only raised the bar for what's possible in an arena tour, but has also produced what could arguably be one of the most technologically ambitious rock productions ever conceived. Unlike most rock shows, the visuals for about 40 percent of the show (including "Only") aren't pre-rendered. There's no staging, no pantomiming by band members: It's all interactive, live and rendered on the fly.

With more than 40 tons of lighting and stage rigging, hundreds of LED lights, a daunting array of professional and custom-built machinery running both archaic and standard commercial VJ software, three different video systems and an array of sensors and cameras, the tour is nothing if not a lavish display of techno wizardry.

According to Reznor, it all started with a relatively simple idea.

"I wanted to see how I could use video as an instrument," he says, "and try to really make the stage feel like it's organic -- like it's part of the overall set."

Judging from initial reactions to the show, the band has done just that.

Reviews have called LiTS everything from a "vision of splendor" to "the pinnacle of video art," and nowhere is Reznor's showmanship and willingness to tinker with new technologies more apparent than in the band's current tour.

NIN programmer and keyboardist Alessandro Cortini stands in back of the giant stealth screen during sound check.
Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

Transparent Screens

The core of the show is a sophisticated trio of transparent "stealth" screens, which are raised and lowered during the performance.

Using one high-resolution (1024 x 288) Barco D7 screen -- basically, an opaque, computer-controlled screen comprised of a tiny LED system on modular panels -- and two lower-resolution semitransparent screens up front, Reznor and other band members are able to trigger and control various video loops and effects directly from the stage. The musicians can also interact directly with those visuals onscreen during the show, thanks to a sophisticated array of sensors and cameras.

Original here

10 Cartoon Classics to Share with your Kids

Want to elevate your kids to a whole new level of Geekdom? Turn them into animation historians!

By its very nature, animation has always lent itself to science fiction, fantasy, horror and outrageous satire, because – unlike live action film – every animated image is created by the hand of an artist. OK, maybe not as literally as when Winsor McCay was drawing every individual frame of Gertie the Dinosaur on reams of paper with pen and ink. But still more so than live action photography (at least before the advent of CGI).

Anyway, I’d like to present my personal list of landmarks of animation no Geekchild should grow up without. The choices are based on insight gained working with Academy Award-winner John Canemaker, a comprehensive History of Animation class description I found while researching this article, and years of my young life spent sitting in front of my family’s old black and white boob tube.

So here, in chronological order, 10 Cartoon Classics to Share with your GeekKids:

1. Gulliver’s Travels (1939)

Jack Mercer, the voice of Fleischer Studio’s Popeye, was just one of the talents in this feature length, kid-friendly retelling of Jonathan Swift’s satiric masterwork. I saw this many times on TV as a kid, and always loved its Oscar-nominated songs and score and its great comic characters. And I was fascinated by the expressive drawing style of Fleischer's use of Rotoscoping, a more subtle counterpart to today’s motion capture. (Although several public domain versions exist, Amazon customer reviews recommend this remastered edition.)

2. Pinocchio (1940)

As John Canemaker will tell you, Pinocchio was one of Walt Disney’s first big-budget extravaganzas. The use of a multi-plane camera gave the oil painted glass panes over a watercolor background more depth and vitality than the standard celluloid (“cel”) technique. Of course, it didn’t hurt that the little wooden hero plunges viewers from one fast-paced adventure to another. As a kid (I first saw this around age 5 at the Lafayette), I remember being relieved when Pinocchio and friends landed in the belly of the whale after his harrowing escape from Pleasure Island -- an early taste of dramatic catharsis.

3. Bugs Bunny
Disney is about artistry and wonderment; Warner Brothers cartoons are about attitude. And what an attitude Bugs had! Fittingly, my favorite Bugs Bunny cartoons starred Marvin the Martian, in his push-broom Roman Legion helmet, and the giant hirsute monster from Hair Raising Hare (1946).

See the rest in the Extended Post.

4. Gumby (1954)
Stop-motion animation has been used to make models move in everything from King Kong to The Nightmare before Christmas. And the original Gumby TV series used clay animation to good effect. You can find the old episodes on TV and DVD, and they’re fine. But for a real mind-blowing experience, sit down with your kid and watch Gumby The Movie. The 1995 feature includes characters added in the 1980s revival of the show, and it is surreal. Somehow I don't remember TV Gumby being such a freeform experience, morphing into endless shapes and even splitting apart. The freedom which animator Art Clokey brought to stop-motion animation may have been equaled only by Otto Messmer’s original silent Felix the Cat. Get the VHS, not the DVD, which according to Amazon reviews has had scenes deleted.

5. The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (1959)
Rocky is a flying squirrel, and Bullwinkle makes bad puns about the Rubyait of Omar Kayam. What more could a geek want? How about Mr. Peabody, the doggy inventor, his boy Sherman and their Wayback Machine? In the 1950’s and '60s limited animation TV series like The Flintstones and Mr. Magoo -- where only a body part or two would move in any given scene were the norm. But Jay Ward's comedic sensibility made limited animation unforgettable.

6. Yellow Submarine (1968)
Seeing The Beatles’ animated feature in the theater with my parents was cool because it was as much a grown-up film as a kid film. Plus, with its Peter Max poster vibe, it tied in with the Pop Art sensibility that was starting to permeate the country. I bought the video of this movie as soon as it came out to put away and save for my kids, but it didn’t impress on the first showing. Having been saturated in Beatlemania by Julie Taymor’s recent Across the Universe, however, I think they’re probably ready for another try.

7. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)
Arguably the most convincing combination of live action and animation. And still more attractive (and clever) than such recent 3D offerings as Scooby Doo (or, heaven forbid, the Rocky and Bullwinkle remake). A combination of film noir design, comic book evil and Warner Brother's-style zaniness.

8. Toy Story (1995)
With this film Pixar transformed computer animation from a novelty to an art form, ushering in a whole new Golden Age of feature cartoons that continues to this day with great films like this summer's Wall-E. Kids love it, even without the nostalgic frisson of all those Baby Boomer playthings.

9. Kiki’s Delivery Service (1998)
I was never particularly excited by Japanese animation, but this film made me a diehard Miyazaki fan. I disagree with Ken’s advice to start with My Neighbor Totoro; set in a European city and employing symbolism which American kids can understand (black cats rather than Shinto river gods) Kiki is much more accessible -- and like all Miyazak films, a nice counterbalance to boycentric Pixar.

10. Flushed Away
Computer animation meets clay animation, and does it fantastically. Aardman Studios was behind Nick Park’s original Wallace and Gromit adventure, A Grand Day Out, which harked back to Méliès’ early cinematic moon voyage and took the art form to new heights through its meticulously detailed props and deadpan humor. But with Flushed Away, in collaboration with Dreamworks (creator of Shrek, about which more in a future post), Aardman took the Parks look and made something completely unique. Moms will love Hugh Jackman as a hapless James Bond-like mouse. Kids will love the singing slugs. And GeekDads can enjoy the obsessiveness that put computerized fingerprints on the virtual clay. Something for everyone!

Original here

Top 10 Minor Coen Brothers' Characters

Actors perennially name Joel and Ethan Coen when listing their dream directors. And they know when the Brothers Coen do come calling, whatever the part, big or small: You take it. It doesn't hurt that some of the most-memorable characters in the Coen filmography may have looked like insignificant cameos on the page.

The Coen Brothers' latest, Burn After Reading, releases this Friday. As certified members of the Coen Brothers Fan Club (seriously, look it up), we decided to count down the 10 most-memorable "minor" characters in Coen history. We even managed to add a character from Burn After Reading.

Are we missing any of your faves? Drop a comment below and let us know your picks.

	Za-Za (Anna Nicole Smith in The Hudsucker Proxy) The voluptuous Smith got her chance to portray idol Marilyn Monroe, albeit briefly, in this eye-catching moment from the Coen's misunderstood riff on corporate America.
	Howard D. Doyle (Billy Bob Thornton in Intolerable Cruelty) Con artist and trophy wife Marylin Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones) employs the aid of a partner in crime, Howard D. Doyle, in order to make Miles Massey (George Clooney) smitten. Thornton really plays it up as the country bumpkin billionaire, making his later reveal all the more surprising.
	Tommy Johnson (Chris Thomas King in O Brother, Where Art Thou?) King's memorable portrayal of the little-known blues legend thrilled aficionados and offered a fitting tribute to the mysterious bluesman. The fact that King had never acted before didn't faze the Coens one bit. And proving them right, King's performance is spot-on, every bit the nonchalant, cool character the legendary Tommy Johnson is believed to be.
	Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner in Barton Fink) The Coens clearly had a good time poking fun at a blustering studio chief, most likely basing Lipnick on some studio execs they've encountered. Years later, Lerner threw some elements of Lipnick into his producer character on Entourage.
	Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson in No Country For Old Men) Wells is everything the menacing, calculated, and precise Anton Chigurh is not -- wise-cracking, sloppy, and, ultimately, dead.
	Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito in Miller's Crossing) Polito is a Coen regular, also appearing in Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski, The Hudsucker Proxy, and The Man Who Wasn't There. He's great in all of them, but the role of Johnny Caspar gave him the best chance to strut his stuff. Caspar's less-than-menacing appearance is sharply contrasted by great quotes like "You double-cross once -- where's it all end? An interesting ethical question." His cold-hearted murders generally are followed by comical quips. Added to that, he offers one of the most-brutal beatdowns this side of Fight Club.
	CIA Superior (J.K. Simmons in Burn After Reading) Simmons has mastered the quick-talking, angry superior role. In Burn After Reading, we never quite know exactly what his character's rank or job is in the CIA. But it doesn't matter. Simmons' sense of humor, crisp delivery, and pitch-perfect comic timing are key to the utterly preposterous conclusion.
	Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh in Blood Simple) M. Emmet Walsh's sleazy detective is, in many ways, the prototype for numerous shady Coen characters to come: Visser is out for himself and doesn't mind leaving bodies in his path if it gets him more of what most everyone in Coenland is after -- money.
	Leonard Smalls (Randall "Tex" Cobb in Raising Arizona) A former professional boxer and kickboxer, this six-foot-three "warthog from hell" casts an intimidating presence in any form. But never more so than here, where he's in chaps on a Harley with double sawed-off shotguns. And did we mention that Woody Woodpecker tattoo? The perfect touch that could only come from the Coens.
	Jesus Quintana (John Turturro in The Big Lebowski) Two days of shooting and two minutes of screen time were enough to create one of the most-beloved characters in Coen movie history. "Nobody f---s with The Jesus!"

Original here