Tagged: warner bros

That “Dark Tower” movie is probably not happening

Remember that movie version of “The Dark Tower,” Stephen King’s series of books about publishing eight novels that I have zero interest in reading? Ron Howard had this crazy ambitious plan to make movies and a related TV series, and Universal had this wacky idea about not investing a huge amount of money in something that’s not really a sure thing. So Howard turned to Warner Bros., which is so desperate for a franchise they made “Green Lantern,” and even they turned him down.

There are three ways this is likely to play out. Option A: “The Dark Tower” doesn’t happen and everyone just goes on living their “Dark Tower”-less lives. Option B: Howard somehow finds someone willing to spend their money on this thing, which seems highly unlikely, but not impossible. Option C: This version of “The Dark Tower” doesn’t happen, but studios are so desperate for something approaching a brand name that someone, somewhere, decides to greenlight some version of this thing, even if it isn’t exactly the wildly ambitious plan Howard had in mind. It’s like a Choose Your Own Adventure, only it involves a movie that no studio seems to want to make.

Share

Warner Bros. gives Ben Affleck a chance to say no to “Justice League”

Warner Bros. reportedly wants Ben Affleck to direct its planned “Justice League” movie (their version of “The Avengers,” but more boring and with Superman and Batman). This information was reported by one news outlet, and another news outlet responded poorly to being bested by a competitor, but we’ll get to that in a second.  Continue reading →

Share

Final trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises”

Well, that was unexpected. The third and final trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises” has arrived online earlier than anticipated, giving us our best look yet at what appears to be the basic story of the film.

I say the basic story because we still don’t really know the full plot of the movie, which is quite something. We know that Bane (Tom Hardy) attacks Gotham City and Batman (Christian Bale). We know Batman is badly injured and maybe/probably taken out of the game for a while. We know Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman and we know Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a Gotham police officer. This trailer gives us a much better glimpse of Hathaway and Gordon-Levitt, while also showing a bit more of what happens after Batman faces Bane. (I am oddly pleased this trailer seems to give us an idea of the basic story structure without giving away every major detail. I am also pleased that Christopher Nolan and whomever cut this trailer opted to shy away from the excessive BWAAAAM-ing that has taken over every post-”Inception” trailer.)

What else do we know? We know the city descends into chaos and Batman eventually flies his Chris Nolan-fied Batwing. We know Marion Cotillard is in there, and that is all one can say about that without spoiling anything. We know Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are back. We don’t really know the overall stakes of the story, nor do we know the backstory behind some of the things we saw photographed on-set when the movie was filming. We also don’t know perhaps the biggest lingering issue: We don’t know if Nolan truly wraps up his series — i.e. kills Batman — and leaves the franchise to completely reboot in his wake. July 20 cannot come soon enough.

The trailer is appearing in front of “The Avengers” this weekend, and Warner Bros. began pushing out some so-called “viral” marketing campaign on Monday that revealed images from that trailer. (One enterprising fan even turned these released images into a GIF.) It was expected that the actual trailer wouldn’t appear online until sometime after “The Avengers” came out. The second trailer, last December, hit theaters over the weekend and didn’t officially arrive online until after the weekend was over; as a result, many people watched crappy bootlegged versions that people had recorded in theaters. I’m guessing Warner Bros. wanted to avoid a repeat of that. And if this trailer makes “The Avengers” an afterthought, however briefly, in the week leading up to its release…well, I’m sure Warner Bros. doesn’t mind that.

Share

Warner Bros. is eyeballing a “Batman” reboot and a “Justice League” movie

Ben Fritz profiled Jeff Robinov in today’s L.A. Times. Robinov is about to succeed Alan Horn as the top film exec at Warner Bros., and is one of the main candidates to replace studio chairman Barry Meyer after his contract is up in 2013. So it’s worth taking a look at the man who would run Warner Bros., the studio that finished among the top two studios in market share seven times between 2001 and 2010. And he has some big plans for the company’s comic book properties.

“The Dark Knight Rises” and the new “Superman” are both due out next year. Looking beyond that, Robinov is talking up a “Justice League” film in 2013 as well as a rebooted “Batman” in the post-Nolan era. Yes, the new “Batman” hasn’t even started filming, and he’s already plotting for a reboot with Nolan and Emma Thomas producing. The “Batman” thing is unsurprising — at this point in time, the two biggest comic book movie properties are “Batman” and “Spider-Man” (no, “X-Men” and “Superman” don’t make the top two) — but the “Justice League” tidbit was unexpected. After all, a “Justice League” movie (directed by George Miller and starring Adam Brody and Armie Hammer, among others) was thisclose to production before the writer’s strike of 2007 and 2008.

Robinov is clearly watching Marvel (and their new parent company, Disney) rev up for “The Avengers,” and has decided to take the same road but in the opposite direction. Whereas Marvel is rolling out solo flicks for Captain America and Thor before they join Iron Man on-screen next year, Robinov wants to put everybody together in a “Justice League” movie and give The Flash and Wonder Woman solo adventures afterwards. (This doesn’t include “Green Lantern,” already heading for theaters this summer, but that film is mentioned as one of their big comic book properties.)

This guy has an intriguing history. He likes big-budget “tentpoles,” as you can tell from the comic book movie thing. He closed the specialty movie division in 2008 and infamously passed on “Slumdog Millionaire.” According to the story, people say “Robinov’s greatest strength is his willingness to take creative risks on ambitious movies — a rarity in a business that increasingly plays it safe.” This is defined as hiring Chrisopher Nolan, Guy Ritchie and Zack Snyder to direct major properties, and I guess those are creative risks. Nolan’s “Batman” movies were stripped-down, realistic affairs about vigilantism and terrorism; Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” devoted an entire film to the unconsummated love between Holmes and Watson.

He takes over movies during a crucial moment for Warner Bros. The “Harry Potter” gravy train ends this summer, and next year brings Nolan’s final “Batman” as well as the potential relaunching of “Superman.” Nolan’s film is a sure thing, but Snyder’s “Superman” has a lot of work to do to achieve the megahit status Warner Bros. wants. Meanwhile, Marvel properties should soak up lots of the attention next year, with “The Avengers” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” looking to be two of the biggest films on the schedule. It’s interesting to see how Robinov is choosing to bank on his company’s established, but often cinematically troubled, stable of characters. After all, if Marvel and its affiliated studios can make two “Hulk” movies, a “Daredevil” flick and two “Punisher” movies in a matter of years, why shouldn’t iconic characters like Wonder Woman and the Flash get their shot?

Share

It’s impossible to spoil the new “Harry Potter” film, but part of it leaked anyway

Warner Bros. is super duper pissed that somebody pirated and posted the first 36 minutes of their forthcoming blockbuster, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part I.” Except, you know, everybody read the books and knows exactly what’s going to happen. What’s the big deal — they spoiled something that is otherwise eminently readable in a huge other number of forums? This is being compared to last year’s “Wolverine” leak, which, A) That movie still made a huge amount of cash and B) Any cash the leak cost the movie wasn’t just because people saw it, but because people saw it and it was awful and they told everybody they know to stay away from the damn thing.

If there was ever a movie that was spoiler-proof, it’s the “Harry Potter” films. Yes, there are minute changes from the books to the films. Yes, there are people who watch the movies but haven’t read the books (and, seriously, the books were a worldwide phenomenon and the last one came out three years ago, and if you don’t know by now that Harry was dead the whole time while Anthony Perkins was really Voldemort and it was all a dream while Hermione was really a transsexual played by Jaye Davidson the whole time and also Ron was Keyser Soze and did you know Al Pacino was really Satan and his father the whole time!? Craziness, and anyway, if you haven’t read ‘em by now you deserve to be spoiled). But these things are bulletproof. They could release the entire thing, for free, online, while also digitally adding Kevin Costner and Nicole Kidman in scenes for no good reason, dubbing the entire thing in Inuktitut and intentionally blacking out 30 percent of the film and it would still make more than $800 million dollars worldwide.

Share

Mel Gibson won’t be in “The Hangover 2″ after cast and crew protested

Alas, Mel Gibson will have to look elsewhere for a role rewarding him for being an anti-Semitic rage monkey. Deadline is reporting he won’t be in “The Hangover 2″ after all.

Interestingly, the statement from director Todd Phillips says he and Warner Bros. were all for Gibson’s appearance. “But I realize filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and this decision ultimately did not have the full support of my entire cast and crew,” Phillips says in the statement.

Hmm. Weird timing. The Page Six story broke on October 17. The next day, Vulture noticed star Zach Galifianakis seemed to voice some issues with “The Hangover 2″ on a comedy podcast this month (emphasis added):

But a movie you’re acting in, you don’t have a lot of control — you just show up and vomit your lines out. I’m not the boss. I’m in a deep protest right now with a movie I’m working on, up in arms about something. But I can’t get the guys to [listen] … I’m not making any leeway.” Galifianakis cut Aukerman off with an abrupt warning sound as the host began to mention the film’s title, but after Aukerman pressed, “I know you’re filming The Hhhhhhhh … ” Galifianakis admitted, “It has something to do with a movie I’m working on, yeah. I’ll tell you about it later. It’s very frustrating.”

Commenters on the Vulture story noted that it was likely the Gibson thing. It does seem like too much of a coincidence to be anything else. It’s nice to know that Galifianakis (and anybody who vocally agreed with him) still has some moral grounding. Not to say Gibson never can/should work again, because the world is the world and he will get movie roles down the line (Jodie Foster will make damn sure of it), but it’s not like he did something wrong, went to therapy, did anything to remotely show penance or remorse, etc. Not sure that will help terribly, because he has a bit of history as a Jew-hating/woman-threatening/gay-bashing Aussie Hulk, but I’m just saying. The dude’s latest bout of dangerous behavior is still news to some people. It’s recent. It’s fresh. Why reward him?

While Bradley Cooper might be getting the bigger movie roles, Galifianakis is the lynchpin of this pseudo-franchise, so it’s admirable that he’d take a stand on this. And it’s nice to know Phillips and Warner Bros. are full of the kind of integrity and sound judgment that you would expect from people who want to make “The Hangover 2.”

UPDATE: TMZ reports discontent from cast members, not just one, so there’s that.

(By the way, two notes on Deadline’s weird little mini-story: A) They call it “The Hangover Part II,” which, is it the 1980s? Do people still do the “Part II” thing? and B) They say “despite web rumors.” Uh, pretty sure Page Six is printed? Part of a newspaper? And also has a Web site? OH, right, Deadline is just being dismissive of any other outlets, so they can continue acting like they are the only actual entertainment reporters around, and also because dismissing it as some Web chatter makes their “scoops” all the juicier. Right. Gotcha. Of course, they learned this because Warner Bros. released a statement, but whatever.)

Share

The new “Harry Potter” will be released in 2-D, and then on Betamax

The new “Harry Potter” movie is going to be a throwback! Warner Bros. announced they are releasing it in a piddling two dimensions, because they can’t afford to give us a real, migraine-inducing moviegoing experience. Well, it’s because they said the conversion couldn’t be properly done in time.

(It’s possible they could have delayed it, but after delaying the last movie from November 2008 to July 2009, they probably didn’t want to go through that again. Also, when they delayed the last movie, they were flush with “Dark Knight” money and set for the year. They didn’t know 2009 would bring surprise hits like “The Hangover” and “The Blind Side,” so they guaranteed themselves half a billion dollars by shunting “Half-Blood Prince” to ’09. This time, besides “Inception” they don’t have any other $200 million earners in 2010. And their remaining slate is “Harry Potter,” “Due Date” and “Yogi Bear.” In other words, they NEED a sure thing, hence not delaying it. The more you know!)

I don’t know about you, but I can’t go back to seeing movies in just two dimensions. I want four dimensions. I want the thing to transport me through time and space and bring me face-to-face with the nexus of the universe. I want Smell-O-Vision. Wait, what are we talking about? Right, the seventh and penultimate “Potter” is due out on Nov. 19, and thankfully, they won’t be moneygrubbing with 3-D.

Share