By now, anyone who follows movie news on an even semi-regular basis knows about the lack of William Shatner in the next Star Trek movie. The original Captain Kirk has been all kinds of vocal about this fact, which recently led him to a spot on Cinematical'sLame in 2007 list. Now, even though production is well underway, Sci Fi Wire says that there's still a chance. It seems that Roberto Orci, the co-writer of the latest installment, says that the first Kirk could still get a spot in the film, but that it's less of a possibility. Considering the fact that it didn't sound like much of a possibility to begin with, aren't we talking about almost none from almost none?
Although Orci says that they're still trying to find a way, they've struggled with the Trek sticklers and how to deal with Kirk's death in Star Trek VII. Now things are further complicated by the writers' strike -- they can't make script changes until the whole thing is settled. To me, it seems like they're just trying to appease Shatner as much as possible, although I don't see why. The way everyone is talking, you'd think that they're trying to figure out how to write a vampire into an historic war drama or something.
If they want to have Shatner at least pop up, without being able to write it into the script, they could always have Kirk look in a mirror, or some reflective surface and see Shatner, and what Kirk will become. Back when they could still mess around with the script, it wouldn't have been hard for Spock to muse about what his life would be like had Kirk not died, or the Vulcan seeing the different crew members morphing into his once-friends. Or heck, even a daydream where he talks with an imagined Kirk about whatever his role is in the film. But the "possibility" will probably just sit there until the production is finished, and when the Enterprise zooms onto the big screen once again, it will be without Shat.Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."
ThinkFilm is prepping an appeal to the MPAA, but this one doesn't concern a film's rating. It's about a poster. The poster art for Taxi to the Dark Side -- a documentary about the pattern of torture practice that is on the short list for Academy Award consideration -- is causing a stir due to its depiction of a hooded man being led by American soldiers. The original news photo was taken by photographer Shaun Schwarz, and had been censored before -- when the military erased it from Schwarz' camera. (He later retrieved it from his hard drive.) Variety is reporting that the MPAA has officially rejected the poster, and if ThinkFilm goes forward with the marketing, they could have their "R" rating revoked. Taxi to the Dark Side is due for release on January 11th.
An MPAA spokesman says "We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration." Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), the film's writer, producer, and director says, "Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real." I've got to side with Gibney on this one. This isn't horror movie imagery cooked up to sell tickets, this is really happening in the world today. And considering the explosive subject matter, I feel the poster is tastefully done. What do you guys think?
Let joy reign supreme in Middle Earth and online role-playing communities everywhere: New Line and Peter Jackson announced today that they have resolved their differences and that Jackson will executive produce not one but two movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit". If all goes according to plans, the first film will be in theaters sometime in 2010. I'm guessing the fanboys have already set up tents outside the box office.
More info to be found at the just-sprouted official "Hobbit blog." I'm glad for the closure, but the phrase "get a life" keeps popping into my head.
Still: Who to play Smaug? I nominate Amy Winehouse. And while we're at it, when will someone finally make a movie of the Harvard Lampoon's deathless 1969 paperback parody, "Bored of the Rings"?
As was expected, Hollywood's two major awards shows are starting to feel the sting of a prolonged strike, and if both sides do not make a deal before The Golden Globes and Academy Awards air, expect utter chaos. Last night, the WGA denied wavers from both the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes) and AMPAS (Oscars) that would allow writers to prepare material (in the case of the Globes) and clips from old Oscar telecasts as well as films (for the Oscars). AMPAS has not yet asked for a waiver to use writers to help pen their telecast, but it's believed the WGA will deny it once that happens. Additionally, a final decision to picket outside the Globes has not been made, but if the WGA do picket, there's a chance actors and actresses will not cross the picket line.
What does this mean for you, the viewer? Well, it potentially means that both awards shows will turn out pretty horrible. In the case of the Globes, if the writers were to picket, a good amount of stars would not show up. And the show's script would have to be written by non WGA members (the guy who cleans up the bathroom?). Oscars? Well, Jon Stewart's opening monologue would go something like this: "Um ... yeah." Here's part of a statement from WGAW President Patric Verrone:
"Writers are engaged in a crucial struggle to achieve a collective bargaining agreement that will protect their compensation and intellectual property rights now and in the future. We must do everything we can to bring our negotiations to a swift and fair conclusion for the benefit of writers and all those who are being harmed by the companies' failure to engage in serious negotiations."
The signatories producing the Golden Globes and the Oscars are West Coast signatories. The WGAW's Board of Directors concluded, reluctantly, that granting exceptions for the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards would not advance that goal."
Here's my question to you: Knowing all this, will you opt to not watch the telecast or will you tune in regardless of who shows up and who's writing the script?
Or, rather, the backlash against slavish media articles about the "Juno" screenwriter (above left, with actors Olivia Thirlby and J.K. Simmons) and her stripper past. Film.com says enough already, some local Minneapolis bloggers are starting to get disdainful, and various movie boards are rife with second-guessing about whether 16-year-old girls really do talk like Juno. (Maybe yes, maybe no, but wouldn't it be great if they did?).
Well, of course the backlash has kicked in. Cody's been famous for five minutes already. Best part about the dust-up? The revelation that her real name is Brooke Busey-Hunt. Doesn't really scream "badass," does it?
Here's Diablo's own blog, heavy on the Junoesque sass. Enjoy it now; it might start looking a little thin once her new gig as EW columnist takes off.
$76 million worth. A $21,000 per-theater-average in 3,600 theaters worth. Either that, or "I Am Legend" affords the world yet another chance to watch the destruction of New York City -- always boffo box office. It's Smith or apocalypse; there's nothing else in the movie.
Even more shocking: "Alvin and the Chipmunks" (photo, above) made $45 million, much more than expected. People seem to like the thing, which means A) cultural standards continue to plummet, B) the appeal of CGI rodents speaking in cute high-pitched voices shouldn't be underestimated, C) families were going stir-crazy with the weather and were willing to watch anything, D) all of the above. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.
"The Golden Compass" tanked, down 65% in its second week. Better read the second book if you want to know what happens.
Things are cooking in limited release land, though: the latest knocked-up farce, "Juno," broadened from seven theaters to 40 and still pulled in an assured $36,000 per house (must be all those heavenly reviews), while "Atonement" expanded to 117 screens and averaged $16,000 per -- those seven Golden Globe nominations undoubtedly helped. "The Kite Runner" debuted this week in 35 theaters and did a $12,000 per-theater-average -- quite remarkable for a foreign language movie with no known stars. Thank benevolent critical buzz and a halo around the source novel's reputation.
Over the years, lots of news has come out about lusting directors wanting more than just a read-through during casting calls. This is nothing new, but it may be surprising to hear about it regarding Helen Mirren. The Guardian reports that in a recent television interview, she spoke harshly of director Michael Winner (Appointment with Death) and a casting session back in 1964 -- a few years before she even had her first feature role in Herostratus.
She says that he treated her "like a piece of meat," and asked her flaunt her body and spin for a casting session. "I was mortified and incredibly angry. I thought it was insulting and sexist, and I don't think any actress should be treated like that -- like a piece of meat -- at all." The director-turned-restaurant critic, meanwhile, has an entirely different story, or at least, he seems to think so. He shared his version of things over at The Mail, and it is, well, interesting.
In his story, she was an actress with "sagging bosoms" who refused to wear a bra. Her then-agent supposedly was at a loss, so she convinced Winner to help try and convince her. But even after this whole story about how he was just trying to be of help, he said: "Now I don't mind that Helen looks back on those days as humiliating, but I'll tell you something else, Helen: even after that period, for years after I still asked girls to stand up away from my desk so I could get a good look at them." Okay, Winner, thanks for sharing.
Really, it's not like Mirren shied away from racy fare. She isn't complaining about sexist troubles when she read to star as Caesonia in Penthouse's Caligula, or as a prostitute in Hussy. If she isn't complaining about a Guccione production, that says something.* We'll never know what happened for sure, but at least its an entirely strange story for the weekend.
*Edited thanks to the catch by Rich. You're absolutely right!
At first glance, the screenwriter who gave the world Troywouldn't seem like the natural choice to adapt a literary novel of childhood joy and adult challenges. But David Benioff isn't just the writer behind brawny action films like Troy and the upcoming Wolverine: Origins; he's also a novelist, who adapted his own book for Spike Lee's brilliant, overlooked 25th Hour. After screening The Kite Runner at the closing night of the Mill Valley Film Festival, Benioff spoke with a roundtable of journalists in San Francisco about collaborating with novelist Khaled Hosseini, the challenge posed by certain cultural differences and the combination of brute force and finesse required to fit an epic novel onto film. Cinematical's questions are indicated.
I guess I'll start with the obvious question, which is: Given that this is a film about a culture completely different from our own, how instrumental was it having (author Khaled Hosseini) on-hand to support you?
David Benioff: It was a great help, and I think I got really lucky, because I've had friends working on adaptations where the relationship between the screenwriter and the novelist is ... tense. And sometimes you have a writer who writes a book and sells the film rights and says "Thank you for the money ..." and just doesn't want to be involved -- and sometimes they want to be so involved -- I can think of examples, like the Sahara guy. (Clive Cussler).
But in this case, Khaled (Hosseini) was both very supportive, but very understanding that the movie was going to be very separate from the book. And he was a great resource; I mean, I could do as much research as I wanted and read books about Afghan history and so on, but I'm not from there, I'm not a Muslim, I didn't grow up in Kabul ... and to be able to call Khaled or e-mail him -- it was mostly a lot of late night e-mails -- and then to wake up in the morning and to have a response from him, a very detailed response from him, explaining what the movie theaters were like in Kabul in the '70s, or what the protocol would have been in a certain situation ... it was a great resource. It was incredibly helpful, and I think it made the script much better than it would have been otherwise.
Cinematical: Obviously, you have a very good relationship with Mr. Hosseini -- and this is not asking you to speak ill of the book -- but what in the book made you roll your eyes, thinking "God, I don't know how you bring this to the screen?"
DB: I don't know if there's a moment, particularly, or just the length of certain sections. For me, when I was reading the book, I was completely captivated by the childhood scenes in Kabul and then felt maybe a slight loss of momentum in the American scenes. You know, many of the (American) scenes I actually love -- and many of them are in the movie -- but I felt like I had to compress that. There's no way to keep as much of the early childhood stuff as we did keep from the book and keep as much of the American things without the movie veering into (a length of) three hours and 30 minutes.
So for me, it was really compressing the American scenes in the center section there, and a lot of compression at the end; at the end of the book, after the climactic fight with the Assef in the Taliban compound and they flee into Pakistan -- then a whole other plot starts, where they're trying to deal with immigration, and dealing with an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) official, and that was never in the script. It was really a decision partly because of time, and partly because I felt like once we had the climax, having another 45 minutes of story time post-climax ... I felt like I would be wriggling in my seat. It just felt like, structurally, it would be a mistake.
Just the other day, Christopher Campbell posted that Mary Steenburgen and Sissy Spacek had signed on to play two of the moms in next year's holiday pic, Four Christmases. The movie stars Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn as a couple who try to see their four divorced parents on Christmas day. This latest piece of news isn't who the other father is (Robert Duvall is playing Vaughn's dad), but rather some rumored trouble on the set between the two stars -- who play the couple that's supposed to be sticking together.
According to the Daily News' Gatecrasher, the screen couple definitely haven't been getting along, and won't be the follow-up to Vince's romance with past co-star Jennifer Aniston. Just like her production company's moniker (Type A Films), Reese is coming to set ready to put in lots of work, while Vaughn wants to be laid-back. "Vince rolls onto set in the morning looking like he just came in from a night out, while Reese will arrive early, looking camera-ready. Then, Reese tries to force Vince into blocking out each scene and running through their lines as Vince tries to convince her that he's an ad-libber and wants to play around and see where the scene goes."
So far, however, this clash hasn't stopped production, but the source also says that Vaughn sometimes looks like "he just wants to kill her." Honestly, I can see both of their points. I'm sure it must be aggravating for Reese to have to fight to get cooperation in how she prepares, just as it's probably infuriating to Vaughn to deal with a Tracy Flick-type and not be able to just go along as he wants. Hopefully it won't lead him to the fate of Matthew Broderick in Election. We'll have to wait 12 months and see whether we can spot all that anger in their characters; if the rumors are true, we'll see just how good the two actors really are.
Just how strange are the Golden Globes? Is Atonement a sure-fire, dead-lock Best Picture winner, or has it stumbled with the Academy before the race was even begun? Did Francis Ford Coppola "cut his own throat" with the release strategy for Youth Without Youth? And, speaking of cutting throats, will Sweeney Todd seduce the Academy, or have its hopes been washed away with the arterial spray?Joining James this week is David Poland, the critic, blogger and raconteur behind Movie City News as well as the wildly contentious, always insightful The Hot Blog. Listen in this week as James and David talk about the BFCA nominations from the inside, discuss the tarnished-yet-telegenic schizophrenia of the Golden Globes, and much more! And finally -- new this week on for The Rocchi Review -- you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:
By now, anyone who follows movie news on an even semi-regular basis knows about the lack of William Shatner in the next Star Trek movie. The original Captain Kirk has been all kinds of vocal about this fact, which recently led him to a spot on Cinematical's Lame in 2007 list. Now, even though production is well underway, Sci Fi Wire says that there's still a chance. It seems that Roberto Orci, the co-writer of the latest installment, says that the first Kirk could still get a spot in the film, but that it's less of a possibility. Considering the fact that it didn't sound like much of a possibility to begin with, aren't we talking about almost none from almost none?
UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."
As was expected, Hollywood's two major awards shows are starting to feel the sting of a prolonged strike, and if both sides do not make a deal before The Golden Globes and Academy Awards air, expect utter chaos. Last night, the WGA denied wavers from both the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes) and AMPAS (Oscars) that would allow writers to prepare material (in the case of the Globes) and clips from old Oscar telecasts as well as films (for the Oscars). AMPAS has not yet asked for a waiver to use writers to help pen their telecast, but it's believed the WGA will deny it once that happens. Additionally, a final decision to picket outside the Globes has not been made, but if the WGA do picket, there's a chance actors and actresses will not cross the picket line. 
Over the years, lots of news has come out about lusting directors wanting more than just a read-through during casting calls. This is nothing new, but it may be surprising to hear about it regarding 
Just the other day, 
