Sony »

At a press junket earlier this summer for 2012, Roland Emmerich told reporters he's not doing any more blow-'em-up flicks. "I would not know how to top this... It's just one of these things, you know. I had a hard time deciding to do another disaster movie, but... you cannot make a disaster movie if there's not something --- an idea in this disaster which elevates it to something more than a disaster. And so it was this idea, you know, that there will be a global flood and it's a retelling of Noah's Arc."

Later he added, "It's not my last film, it's my last disaster film. And that's because I wouldn't know what else to do. It's just, you know what, I really didn't want to do this movie at first... But when I decided that the idea was too good to not do it for the reason I had done before, I said, okay, if I do it, I will do it in such a spectacular manner that nobody can top it for a long time. I have that pride in my work."

Watching the trailer for 2012 I couldn't help but get the feeling that Roland Emmerich was trying to tell me something. There was a lot of camera shaking and screaming and really big objects rolling over, but I think it was seeing the entire state of California lift into the air like the climax of Titanic before sinking into the depths of the Pacific ocean: Roland Emmerich hates civilization. Sure, 2012 is bound to be full of roaring musical cues that signal the triumphant survival of a tiny, tiny percentage of people on Earth, but I think it's pretty clear that his movie is going to literally rip our world apart at the seams.

But apparently that's not all that big of a deal, because Emmerich has revealed to Entertainment Weekly that a sequel to 2012 is already being plotted. Yes, a sequel to the end of the world; kind of redefines the whole 'end' part of his film's synopsis. Tentatively titled 2013, he tells EW that the follow up to his story won't be a film, but rather a television show:

"It is about the resettling of Earth. That is very, very fascinating. (2012 writer/producer) Harald Kloser and I came up with the idea and we have the luxury of having a producer on the film who is a big TV producer, Mark Gordon. We said to Mark, 'Why don't you do a TV show that picks up where the movie leaves off and call it 2013?' I think it will focus on a group of people who survived but not on the boats ... maybe they were on a piece of land that was spared or one that became an island in the process of the crust moving. There are so many possibilities of what they could do and I'd be excited to watch it."

Sony's thriller The Tourist just keeps sending its talent packing. Originally set to be a vehicle for Tom Cruise and Charlize Theron, it shifted gears last month and was re-cast with Angelina Jolie and Sam Worthington. But once again, The Tourist finds itself without travel arrangements for a male lead as Variety reports that Worthington is out due to "creative disagreements" and Johnny Depp is in.

Depp is still in talks to play the hapless American tourist, and with the way this film is going, one can't assume it's finalized. But if it is, it might just be the casting coup of 2010. A Depp-Jolie pair-up has been something dreamed about by a lot of producers and studios over the years. Once upon a time, rumor even had them attached to play Cathy and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. People want to see them having onscreen sex. It'd be the hottest thing since ... well, Brad Pitt and Jolie having sex onscreen. (And off. Hey, I'm just being honest. There was a reason everyone wanted to see their offspring.)

The Tourist is also on the hunt for a director. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck was circling the project, but departed alongside Worthington over those whispery creative differences. Reportedly, a lot of directors are interested, including Alfonso Cuaron. While shake-ups can be be a sign of a bad film, I'd like to think that a thriller that winds up with Jolie, Depp, and Cuaron came together exactly as it was meant to.

We've already explored the history of 2012 here on Cinematical and what you need to know to see the movie (hint: the world might blow up!), but here's what 2012 stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, and Woody Harrelson and director Roland Emmerich have to say about the end of the world. Do they believe the world will end with a whimper or a bang, T. S. Eliot-style? Will we go out in fire or in ice? Do they even believe the world will end in 2012? Let's find out.

Roland Emmerich: It's always great if you find some sort of belief people have and put it in your movies, as fantastic as they may be. For example, Independence Day, I used Area 51 and centered my whole story around Area 51 because I found out in my research that people really believed in it. And in this movie, as we discovered the phenomenon of 2012, because some culture, the Mayas, gave the end of the world a date. An exact date. The 21st of December, 2012. And that's just so incredible and so interesting that a lot of people are fascinated by it and there's believers; there's people like you [who] just find it fascinating. I hope it will not happen. But when you research it a little bit deeper, you kind of find a lot of other cultures [that] believe the same thing. They only don't put an exact date to it, but they have other predictions which all point to 2012. It's quite eerie...

When Michael Jackson died a few months ago, I didn't have an opportunity at the time to write down any of my feelings about his passing, much less his career, his legacy, and his impact on my own life. I didn't cry, I don't remember being "shocked," and I didn't really react at all, to be honest, except with some mild degree of incredulity over the way so many people were just wracked with sorrow over the death of someone many of them would have vilified the day before it happened.

But a couple of weeks later, I spoke to my mom, whose well-worn vinyl copy of Off the Wall still takes up a place in my record collection, and who gave me Thriller when I was seven. She mentioned that I was the first person she thought of when she heard the news. Somehow that actually affected me more than his actual death, and I really started thinking about how much his music really meant to me. While that ongoing reflection has mostly manifested itself in repeated plays of both of the albums mentioned, as well as Bad, it made me both curious and apprehensive about This Is It, the documentary Kenny Ortega put together about his final tour.

Last Wednesday I went to see the film, and I wasn't deeply roused by it, either as a Jackson fan or a general filmgoer. Part of this can no doubt be attributed to the fact that the footage was by all accounts never intended to be seen by anyone other than Jackson himself, so any real structure or polish applied to its rough edges in order to create dramatic momentum was done posthumously. But even though I never judged Jackson for endlessly transforming himself into an almost literal shell of his former self, watching him on stage in this documentary, struggling to maintain the energy and focus that once came so easy and natural (or at least looked that way), I couldn't help thinking that Michael Jackson was a figure better celebrated in our memories, even before he passed away.

Given the topic at hand, I'd like to make it clear up front that neither I nor Cinematical are taking sides in this story about Roland Emmerich's forthcoming All Landmarks Must Die opus, 2012; I just find it a curious insight into the mind of the man who knows how to make a building fall over but good.

The trailer for 2012 plays like a highlight reel of civilization falling apart all over the world, but it's religion that gets the brunt of Emmerich's digital pounding: A Buddhist temple gets hit by a tidal wave. The Sistine Chapel crumbles to pieces as a split tears right down the middle of Michelangeo's painting of God touching Adam's finger. St. Peter's Basilica rolls over onto a crowd of devoted worshipers. Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Reedemer statue falls to earth as its wracked by shockwaves. The White House is even crushed by, of all things, an aircraft carrier. But eagle eyed fans of watching organized religion get its disaster porn comeuppance will have noticed that there are no Islamic landmarks on the CGI chopping block.

That wasn't always the plan, however. Emmerich explained to SCI FI Wire that he had originally hoped the Kaaba, one of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion, would join the visual wrath of 2012, but that his co-screenwriter Harald Kloser talked him out of it:

Back in August, we reported that the Terminator franchise was in some serious legal and financial trouble. The rights are currently owned by the Halcyon Company, who have managed to make more court appearances than they have films. They were in danger of losing the rights to their hedge fund, Pacificor, who was poised to claim them if Halcyon defaulted on their loan.

But according to The Financial Times, Halcyon has now filed for bankruptcy after their lawsuit with Pacificor, and is selling off the rights to Terminator. It would appear that filing for Chapter 11 afforded their precious franchise some protection from the hedge fund, and they can now sell it to bail themselves out. The sale will be conducted by FTI Capital Advisors, and does not cover rights to the earlier Terminator films.

The Times notes that this auction is coming at a particularly tough time for Hollywood, who is feeling the economic crunch just like everyone else. But it notes that Terminator is one of the rare "blockbuster brands" not controlled by a big studio, and that alone has may drooling at the chance to control future properties. Summit is said to be particularly interested (they can probably pay for it just out of Twilight proceeds), as is Sony and Media Rights Capital. But remember, this is America! Everyone has a chance at destroying mankind, and if you have millions (estimates put the sale beyond $60 million, the benchmark set by the sale of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), you can buy them for yourself. I would have faith in something other than John Connor if a Cinematical reader took the reins of this franchise.

As I watched Michael Jackson's This Is It, I found myself wondering exactly what I was supposed to be reviewing. It's nearly impossible to separate the context of the film from the film itself -- that it was supposedly never meant to be a documentary and is only now being seen by public eyes because of Michael Jackson's death in June as he was preparing for his last tour. And, as difficult as it is, I'm obviously not reviewing the person himself. Was I reviewing his performances? That's not it, either, because they're rehearsals and Jackson was saving his voice and strength for the tour. The documentary itself is a strange, confusing look into Michael Jackson's world, or at least the version of it that his friends, family, and/or estate wanted us to see.

Producer Randy Phillips is quoted in the production notes as follows: "What makes this footage so compelling is that Michael is so open and unguarded. From March 5 when we did the press conference [announcing Jackson's tour] to June 25 when Michael died – we had a three-person crew with HD cameras." The production notes also say they shot "more than 100 hours of rehearsal footage shot in Los Angeles." Why were three people shooting with HD cameras, producing over 100 hours of footage that "was never intended for wide release"? And if it was eventually going to be part of a behind-the-scenes doc, then why did it often look blurry or shaky, and why, if there was so much more footage to choose from, are we seeing rehearsals that seemed to be from a handful of different days, judging by the different clothes Jackson wore?

So here's some "less is more" comic book flick news* that may make you feel a little better about Spider-Man 4: Apparently A) there will be only one villain, which would be great, and B) that villain will (finally!) be Curt Connors aka The Lizard. And here's the best part: We don't have to wait for some gimmicky casting ploy, because the franchise already has the excellent Dylan Baker playing the role! Yes, Peter Parker's one-armed college professor will, after waiting patiently through three villain-packed films, get to shed his humanity and terrorize our favorite web-slinger with cold-blooded reptility. (Reptileness?)

Both MarketSaw and Collider have more information, but of course details are very sketchy at this early point. If these early reports are true, I offer a back-pat to Sam Raimi and his writing / producing team for trying to scale the next sequel back a bit, instead of trying to wedge six baddies into the flick just to sell a few extra Happy Meals. It's safe to assume that Mr. Raimi considers Spider-Man 3 the weakest of the series, and if the new goal is to simply deliver an old-school mano e mano face-off between a man-spider and a man-lizard, well I'm just fine with that.

Odds are you'll see more Spider-Man 4 news at this very website as it becomes available.

*MarketSaw.com seems pretty confident that their source is accurate on this information, but of course we should take it all with a grain of salt until we get word from someone on the production team, and on the record.

Last summer, it was reported that Columbia was setting up a remake of My Fair Lady and that Keira Knightley was pursuing the iconic, Cockney role of Eliza Doolittle. While Knightley has been "attached" ever since, The Telegraph reports that Scarlett Johansson was also vying for the role. But Knightley won out, and the Telegraph not only confirms that she's got the role, but that Joe Wright will be directing. Emma Thompson is writing the script.

Knightley has been taking singing lessons ever since the possibility came up (and I actually think she proved she had a good voice in The Edge of Love), and I think she'll be absolutely charming as Doolittle. But then I'm biased towards her. Even if you aren't (and I expect many "too skinny!" comments), I think the combination of Wright and Thompson pushes this into very, very promising territory. Thompson can do no wrong by me.

What will really tip the balance is who they cast as the grumpy, misogynist Professor Henry Higgins. The Telegraph reports that Daniel Craig is being considered, and he'd certainly be ideal as the grim Higgins, probably moreso than the dapper Hugh Jackman. I wouldn't mind seeing Patrick Wilson become a contender, and I half wonder if Gerard Butler's vocal chords were trotted out on Saturday Night Live as an audition. Just you wait, and practice your R's, and we'll see whose face Knightley must become accustomed to.

UPDATE: Screenrush caught up with Joe Wright, who says he never signed on, and is uninterested. Given the shakiness of the initial report, it's unclear whether Knightley's casting is official either.