OK, correct me if I am wrong here, but did anyone really enjoy the last two Fantastic Four movies so much that a third installment is really necessary? I guess when the last film raked in $131,921,738, Fox figured they might as well take another shot. IESB recently got the chance to speak with Ms. Invisible herself, Jessica Alba, about the possibility of a third film. For those of us out there who thought the first two were a waste of time and celluloid, don't worry, it looks like we might have the writer's strike to thank for a delay. Alba tells IESB, "I know the writers strike and the impending actors strike has kind of put a wrench in everything production wise. That film takes a lot of prep, a good six months of prep and about six months to shoot. With the strike, I think, maybe it's put on hold."

The first two films were directed by Tim Story, who is currently working on the feel-good sports movie, Patriots, with Forrest Whitaker. So, if a Fantastic sequel is delayed, there is still plenty of time to get Story back at the helm for a third film. News of a third Fantastic film first surfaced back in June; however, while most reports pointed towards a reunion with the Silver Surfer, Alba made no mention of it in her interview with IESB. As for the rest of the cast, Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic), Michael Chiklis (The Thing), and Chris Evans (Human Torch), I can only assume they would all be on board for another film. As long as there is some "gold in these hills," it looks like Fox is going to milk the quartet for all they are worth.

A conversation arose in the screening room the other day about the sorry state of young, romantic performers in movies today and the overwhelming blandness slathered across our movie screens. Pretty, plastic, chiseled faces smile at one another and sometimes kiss, and their efforts leave everyone cold. Critics and audiences often use the word "chemistry" to describe these encounters; either the characters have it or they don't. Strangely, there's really no way to tell if it's even there until the movie is finished. You can put two actors in a room together, or screen test them, but none of it comes together until the audience becomes a factor.

One reason most movie couples have been so bland lately is the ever-increasing control that studios are demanding of their product. Every aspect of filmmaking must be regulated and stabilized, and so, to make the most of their romantic stories, these same studio people very simply cast the most beautiful actors they can find. Beautiful people sometimes explode on the movie screen with lots of personality and star power, but just as often, they don't, looking more like polished statues without so much as a heartbeat. James Dean was very handsome, but he had a surprising element, a kind of unpredictability, as well as world-heavy sadness. But James Franco, who played Dean in a TV biopic, has only the looks. As shown in his most recent film, Spider-Man 3 (151 screens), where there should be passion and danger and excitement, there's only grooming. At times I honestly can't tell the difference between him and Paul Walker.

During Thursday's Comic-Con International in San Diego, I sat in on a pretty interesting panel comprised of some of the most talented and successful screenwriters, comic book writers and producers working in the business today. The panel was called Adapting Comics for the Screen and the list of people offering opinions and insight were the perfect group to be asking about this topic.

On the panel were Mark Verheiden, Kevin Feige, Mark Fergus, Don Payne and the legendary Stan "The Man" Lee who even at his age, was just as sharp, funny and charming as he could be and shows no signs of slowing down. As a writer myself, I was particularly interested in this panel of experts and how they have taken comics and translated them for the big screen.

First off each of the panel was introduced by moderator Jeff Goldsmith of Creative Screenwriting magazine and as he read the list of the assembled people's credits, films like Iron Man, Children of Men, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Battlestar Galactica and most of the major characters of the Marvel Universe, I grew even more interested to hear what these very accomplished men had to say.

In this day and age you can do anything with special effects. But can you do it well? I believe that you can, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be in agreement with my belief. Studios continue to put out movies with special effects that disappoint, and I think it is disrespectful to audiences. Either figure it out, or leave it out. Every time I see a bad effect in a movie, I know it could have been done better, or more imaginatively, and it frustrates the heck out of me. The worst is when I see a bad effect in a movie with mostly great effects, such as in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

A visual effect doesn't have to be great or even realistic as long as it works with the story and is believable -- I'll take Harryhausen or Henson over most of the CGI attempts lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to half-heartedly strive for greatness and realism with every movie, and more often than not it fails to achieve either. In my thirty years I've seen some terrible visual effects, some only terrible in retrospect, some only terrible in perspective with what else has been done. I'm not usually surprised by bad effects, though, because I've developed a cynicism about effects, particularly about CGI, that causes me to expect the worst. Nonetheless, I've picked seven movies that did actually surprise me -- a lot.

1. King Kong (2005)

In The Return of the King, Peter Jackson has some bad effects shots, but at least they're just shots. In his next film, King Kong, he has bad effects sequences. And as with The Return of the King, they are all the more apparent and all the more frustrating because there are actually some great effects shots and sequences in King Kong (it did deserve the Oscar). The worst example in Kong is the dinosaur stampede. At first the sequence is tolerable because the dinos are rendered beautifully and the weak green-screen compositing is not any worse than what many of us grew up with. But as the sequence progresses, the interaction between the actors and the computer-generated dinos looks too fake, too much like something made long ago, before computers were even used. Both the part on the cliff and the part where the animals fall over each other are sloppy and unacceptable. It is a completely ironic sequence, too, since it begins with an exchange about movies looking real. At least someone thought to score the thing sped up with "Yakkety Sax" or it wouldn't be completely useless.

Over on Deadline Hollywood Daily, Nikki Finke has a piece up about the anticipated weekend box office for Transformers that pretty much sums up why Hollywood's summer blockbusters (with some exceptions scattered here and there) tend to be so darn bad: because no matter how bad they are, and no matter how many critics write scathing reviews warning people how bad they are, audiences still flock to see them.

Transformers is a case in point: Finke notes that pretty much everyone on the planet expects the film to gross $125 million this weekend -- now stop a moment and ponder how many butts you have to put in seats to gross $125 million -- except for Paramount, which, according to Finke has back-pedaled to predicting a mere $100-125 million take.

That's a whole lot of moolah for a film about robots that disguise themselves as cars. To be fair, in spite of the fact that Cinematical's James Rocchi and Scott Weinberg thought the film was utterly wretched, it is sitting relatively pretty with a 60% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes (a surprising 69% from the Cream of the Crop), which isn't going to hurt the film's box office any, especially for those folks who are inclined to actually take a look at what critics are saying about a film before plunking down their cash for a $10 movie ticket and some snacks.

With school officially out for summer recess, I figured now might be a good time to take a look at what this highly-anticipated ("the biggest summer in history!") season has shoveled out so far. I'll also let you at home play along and tell Hollywood exactly what they're getting right, as well as what they're getting wrong, when it comes to providing its customers with satisfying summer entertainment. But first off, here's how my summer report card is shaping up (keep in mind, I've only included the more talked-about releases):

1. Spider-Man 3 (grade: C) -- I'm being generous with Spidey 3, because I'm certain there are tons of fans out there who would fail this film without giving it a second glance. But as far as amped-up summer popcorn flicks go, this third installment provided all the necessary ingredients needed to entertain those of us with severe cases of attention deficit disorder. There may have been a lack of focus, and the villain count was a tad high, but the fight sequences were definitely fun to watch.
2. Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End (grade: B -) -- I'm not sure why a film based on a theme park attraction has to have such a convoluted plot, but it seemed the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise managed to confuse more than it entertained. That being said, the special effects, coupled with Johnny Depp's colorful Captain Jack Sparrow performance, have given fans enough of a reason to keep coming back for more ... and more ... and more. Obviously, Disney is doing something right here -- when I figure out what that is, I'll let you know.
3. Shrek the Third (grade: B - ) -- Visually, the film looked stunning. However, sadly, that was the only thing Shrek the Third had going for it. The jokes seemed old, the voice acting wasn't anything special and the plot was jam-packed with so many characters, we never had time to enjoy the ones we've grown to love. Was it just me, or did it seem like Shrek the Third was spoofing itself?
4. Knocked Up (grade: A) -- Although the premise has been around forever, Judd Apatow and his gang of clever comedic magicians somehow found a way to make this thing pop. The jokes were raunchy but hysterical, even though the majority of them were geared toward a younger crowd. Tack on a heckuva lot of heart, and Knocked Up passed with flying colors.
5. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (grade: B) -- Yup, I happen to be in the camp that believes this sequel was not only better than the original, but it was better than the other sequels that opened up before it. Why? Well, read my review.
6. Ratatouille: (grade: A) -- Just when you think Pixar is due for a dud, they come at you with anything but. Most definitely a film for all ages (but, quite possibly, more geared toward adults this time), perhaps Pixar should strap Brad Bird to a chair and force him to write and direct the next three films as well.
7. Live Free or Die Hard (grade: C) -- As a summer action film, this flick certainly provides more bang for your buck. But it's not a Die Hard film; not even close. So what's more important: That the film entertains or that it stays true to the installments that have come before it?

So, I ask you: What does your summer report card currently look like?

I bet you didn't see any of this coming. According to Moviehole, Dreamworks has already greenlit a sequel to Transformers and 20th Century Fox has done the same for its Fantastic Four franchise. Transformers was a no-brainer; that film is bound to make a ton of money once it's finally released theatrically in the states next week. No word yet on whether Michael Bay will direct again, but if they want to get the ball rolling right away, I imagine they'll look to fill his shoes. Expect tons of people to cry foul once Brett Ratner's name is mentioned. With Fantastic Four 3, Moviehole's source says the film will again be dependent on who they can "team the Fantastic Four up with." Seeing as Silver Surfer's presence worked, expect another superhero to take his place and join forces with The Four. Here's where you fans get to tell 20th Century Fox what you expect out of the sequel.

And then comes TMNT. Marvel's Steve Murphy recently shared the following info with readers on his blog: ""As of two weeks ago Imagi Entertainment (the TMNT movie animation studio) informed Mirage Studios that there was a 50-50 chance of a CGI film sequel. Last week they upped the odds to 70-30 in favor of a sequel, as talks between Imagi and their distribution partners Warner Brothers and the Weinstein Group seem to be heading in a positive direction..." I'm pretty stoked about this one; TMNT surprised the hell out of me when it hit theaters this past spring, and assuming they bring back Kevin Munroe (a must, in my opinion), expect a lot of good things out of the sequel. And, based on my conversation with Munroe, there's a fairly good chance we'll see an old nemesis show up to wreak some havoc.

Everywhere you look this summer, there's a poster for another movie sequel: a third Ocean's installment, a second Fantastic Four, a fifth go-around with the hapless Hogwarts crew of Harry Potter ... So in honor of 95% of the season's flicks being part twos, threes or fives, Moviefone decided to rank the 25 worst movie sequels of all time. Why be so negative, you may ask? Why focus on the steaming piles of cinematic horse manure when we could focus on all the gleaming gold? Well, for one, Moviefone has already ranked the 25 best movie sequels of all time. And for another, there's a whole lot of crap out there -- and it's damn fun to write about it.

In fact, there's so much excrement in the vast universe of sequels that we had to be a bit discerning when coming up with our "top" 25 worst. As much as it broke our hearts to omit Teen Wolf, Too and Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood (yes, that is a real movie), we had to limit our picks to sequels that we actually thought -- even for a brief moment -- might be good. And although we admire Jennifer Aniston's stellar work in the original Leprechaun, our hopes weren't exactly high for any of the follow-ups. On the other hand, we were super stoked for Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace before George Lucas crushed our spirits by introducing us to the most galactically annoying character in movie history (damn you, Jar Jar!).

What do you think are the worst sequels of all time? Did we miss any on our list? And, most importantly, when can we expect another Leprechaun movie?

Superhero fans have got it made these days: You want dark and gloomy, you head for the newest Batman movie. You crave earnest and wholesome, you pick one of the three Spider-Man flicks. Whatever mood you happen to be in, there's now a superhero movie (or series) to pick through: Hulk, Daredevil, Hellboy, Superman, Ghost Rider, you name it. Just about all the classic superheroes are now available in cinematic form, some good and some bad, some "dark and gloomy" and others all "touchy feely" ... but where's the "family friendly" superhero movie? The one that doesn't deal with tortured psyches, metaphysical angst or some form of anguished misery? Well heck, here's one: It's called Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and while it's often a pretty goofy little movie, it's also a perfect flick for young dads and their 9-year-old sons.

To call FF2 an improvement over its predecessor would be damning the sequel with faint praise. Aside from a few editorial missteps and a leading lady who still couldn't act warm if you set her hair on fire, there's quite a lot to enjoy in Fantastic Four 2: The actors seem a lot more comfortable with their strange roles, the jokey material is a lot less dorky, and (best of all) the sequel has an actual STORY that's both cohesive and surprisingly compelling. Sometimes it's OK to enjoy a mindless piece of popcorn escapism, one that's as broadly silly as it is colorfully exciting -- and maybe it's just a case of "lowered expectations" (seeing as how I didn't much care for the first FF entry) -- but there's something strangely infectious about the Fantastic Four sequel. (Plus, the flick clocks in at 91 minutes and is firmly PG-rated, which should be double good news for the movie-hoppin' parents out there.)

According to the LA Times today, 20th Century Fox is already prepping a solo spin-off for the Silver Surfer. The Marvel character features in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, opening this weekend, and Fox is apparently hoping that pic performs well enough to give the Surfer his own movie, because the studio has hired comic book writer/screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski to pen the thing. Straczynski has written for a number of Marvel titles, including the new series Silver Surfer: Requiem, he created the sci-fi series Babylon 5 and he recently delivered scripts for The Changeling, to be directed by Clint Eastwood, and the zombie adaptation World War Z. The LA Times article claims the Silver Surfer movie would be darker in tone than the new Fantastic Four sequel, possibly in response to fan criticisms of the sequel's PG rating. I've never actually read the Silver Surfer comics, so I'm not sure how dark is appropriate for the character, but I'll always take a more grown-up comic adaptation than something geared toward young children.

More exciting for me is the news, also mentioned in the LA Times piece, that Thor may soon have a director. Unlike the Surfer comics, The Mighty Thor was a title I followed for years, and so far the closest thing I've had to seeing the hero/god on the big screen is his 'cameo' in Adventures in Babysitting (and I doubt he'll be in the remake). Supposedly Layer Cake director Matthew Vaughn is in negotiations to helm the comic adaptation, which was greenlit last summer and which has a script by Mark Protosevich (Poseidon). I'm not a huge fan of Vaughn's directorial style and I was happy when he dropped out of X-Men: The Last Stand (though now I think he'd have done better), but I'm willing to give him a chance with Thor. I think his style may actually be appropriate for the god of thunder. Besides, we've so far only seen one film from him; his next, Stardust, arrives in August.

[via JoBlo and Moviehole]

What happens to a director who helms three unwatchable films in a row? Well, it depends on how much money they make, obviously. After coming out with the snore-fest Barbershop, then following that up with the universally-panned comedy Taxi and directing a braindead adaptation of beloved comic Fantastic Four, Tim Story is now being handed the keys to another comic franchise, The Losers. The plot, which has gone through several permutations over the years, revolves around a bunch of Army misfits during WWII who are betrayed, then go on a mission to find out who set them up and why. HR reports that the movie "will be a one-off but with sequel potential," which I guess goes without saying. Interestingly, the adaptation that's getting greenlit was written by Peter Berg, who was set to direct but changed his mind for unspecified reasons.

Next week, of course, Story will see the release of Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, a film I really can't believe they let him direct after the way he handled the first one, but there you go. Silver Surfer reunites the original cast and adds a planet-surfing scout for a planet-devouring villain, who has a very familiar voice. We recently conducted a reader Q&A with the co-screenwriter of the film, Don Payne, and you can read some of the questions and answers from that by clicking here.

The last time we spoke with Don Payne, it was just before his screenwriting debut (My Super Ex-Girlfriend) hit the multiplexes. Since that time he's been hard at work as a writer/producer on The Simpsons, finishing up his screenplay for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and bracing himself for a powerful barrage of fanboy nitpickery. So when I spoke with Mr. Payne about spilling some Fantastic beans for the Cinematical readers, he said "Hey, why not open the floor to some questions from everyone?" And so we did. Several readers followed the instructions carefully and sent in some very solid questions. So here they are!


Q: Will Victor Von Doom / Doctor Doom be more like the comic book version this time? Two major shortcomings of the movie version was the tepid romantic triangle with Sue (which never occurs in the comics) and the business mogul backstory that was almost exactly like Norman Osborn's from the first Spider-Man movie. Will Latveria at least be mentioned?

A: Doom is going to be less like the Norman Osborn-esque billionaire and more like the Dr. Doom we all know and love -- with a scientific mind that rivals Reed's. While you can't just ignore how the character was set up in the first film, I think we're getting much closer here to the Doom in the comics. Personally, I would love to see him stride into the U.N. in full armor as ruler of Latveria in a future film.

I don't want to spoil anything Latverian, but we DID see his body being shipped there at the end of the first film. As far as the romantic triangle from the first film goes, that storyline is over. There is no reference to it in this movie.

Q: The trailer seems to indicate Galactus' energies were responsible for the storm that gave the Four their powers. Is this the case? Was this inspired by the Heroes Reborn run, or just something that seemed natural?

A: In my mind, there is mysterious, matter-altering, cosmic "stuff" in the universe which was present in both the storm which hit the FF in the first film and the energy that Galactus wields. However, that's not explicitly stated in the movie -- other than a line where Reed says the cosmic radiation causing anomalies around the world is "not unlike" that which gave the FF their powers. But the cosmic event in the first film and Galactus are otherwise completely unrelated. It was not inspired by the Heroes Reborn run. (But that was a fun run.)

In a story about this summer's blockbuster franchises and the plans for their continuation, iF Magazine shares this interesting quote from Sony Pictures chairperson Amy Pascal: "If you want the kind of longevity we're hoping for with Spider-Man, you have to think of them as stand-alone movies, not '1-2-3-4'. They're sort of like the James Bond stories." I find this statement quite amusing considering the definite three-part story arc followed in the first few Spider-Man movies. Plus, if Sony didn't mean for us to think of each as a numerical installment, the studio might have wanted to title the sequels differently than Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. They should have done something more along the lines of The Dark Knight or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

But thinking of the Spider-Man series as being like the 007 franchise would make it okay for Sony to replace Tobey Maguire in the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, which could happen if the actor refuses the reported $20 million offer to return. Sony is currently looking for screenwriters to pen Spider-Man 4, though the studio has already been talking with David Koepp, who wrote the first installment, about signing on. Koepp is also responsible for writing the next Indiana Jones movie, a fourth installment in a franchise that does actually consist of stand-alone parts. Whoever is hired for the script, though, it may, according to Pascal's statement, be more of a one-shot rather than the beginning of another trilogy (the studio is apparently interested in at least three more films). Perhaps they can title it one of the following number-less suggestions: Spider-Man: Maximum Carnage; Spider-Man and the Lizard's Tale; Doc Octopussy. Or, if they re-cast and reboot, a la The Incredible Hulk: The Amazing Spider-Man; The Spectacular Spider-Man; Web of Spider-Man; etc.

It seems I no longer need to worry -- or rant -- about the American government selling itself out for ad space. The Silver Surfer quarters that I complained about on Friday were not actually made with any cooperation from the U.S. Mint*. In fact, a press release from the Mint states the coins are "in no way approved, authorized, endorsed or sponsored by the United States Mint, nor is [the movie promotion] associated or affiliated with the United States Mint."

According to a spokesperson from 20th Century Fox, neither the studio nor the Franklin Mint meant to imply the U.S. Mint was involved, and certainly neither meant to break the law. But the marketing stunt may in fact be in violation, because it is illegal to turn federal money into an advertisement. This appears to be exactly what Fox and Franklin have done, since the 40,000 Silver Surfer coins are modified versions of actual U.S. quarters originally minted and circulated by the government in 2005.

It is hard to understand exactly how Fox and Franklin think the promotion, which advertises the website for the movie Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, did not imply the coins are real, legal tender. Though the Franklin Mint often produces collectible and commemorative coins, it does not usually distribute them for free by dumping them into circulation. The Silver Surfer quarters were sent into the currency stream last week and all are expected to be in circulation by the end of the Memorial Day weekend. If neither Fox nor Franklin means for them to be accepted as real money, then how are they to be distributed? So far neither company has been issued a fine or other legal ramification, but we'll see if something more happens with the story once the business week begins.

*Thanks to commenter Alex C. for tipping me off about the follow-up story.

I'm fine with the government providing financial assistance to the movie industry (via subsidies and such), but when it is directly involved with the marketing of a film, I think that's a bit too much. The U.S. Mint has gotten together with * the Franklin Mint and 20th Century Fox to create a limited edition version of the U.S. quarter that features an image of the Silver Surfer on the tails side. These coins, which have already been released into circulation, also include the address for the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer website. There are only a total of 40,000 out there, so if you manage to find one, you might not want to go and use it in a vending machine; you should probably hold on to it. Besides the fact that it's a collectible (people are already selling them on eBay), there's also a contest open only to people who find one of the coins -- with the prize being a trip to the London premiere of FF:ROTSS.

Recently another government agency, the U.S. Postal Service, participated in movie marketing by placing 400 R2D2 mailboxes on sidewalks throughout the country. Of course, this was to celebrate the anniversary of a movie (also released by Fox) that has become something of a national treasure. The Silver Surfer coins are less forgivable because they advertise a new release that may not even be a big success. For that reason, the stunt seems to imply that our government agencies are for sale to advertising agencies. What, now, would stop the Federal Reserve from replacing George Washington with Spider-Man on limited edition one-dollar bills? How about we offer up the sides of government buildings and vehicles (including military vehicles, too) for logos and billboards? And why not have the President tell us to drink Coca-Cola at the end of his State of the Union speech?

*For a follow-up on this story, which points out that the U.S. Mint was not involved, check out the following post:
Silver Surfer Quarters Are Not Legal Currency