At a recent panel on the future of filmmaking, CEO Michael Lynton said, “I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet. Period.” He further goes on to claim the Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.” This coming from the former President of AOL International.

Yes, yes, we all know that movie piracy is one of the biggest threats to the survival of planet Earth. Bajillions and cajillions of dollars of revenue are lost every year to the stupid, evil, disrespectful bastards on the Internet. Yeah, we already know about that. I’d imagine if someone in Hollywood took half a second to look away from the mirror they’re staring in, maybe they’d notice that there are other things in the world besides movies. And maybe, juuust maybe, a couple of those things might be beneficial to humanity. Certainly the worldwide dissemination of information and ability to collaborate in disparate locales are beneficial, and I’d imagine Hollywood relies on those two aspects of the Internet every damn day. But those studio execs would rather we go back to newspapers and telegraphs. That would get those pirates but good!

Anne Hathaway was also on the panel, likening blogs to the writing on bathroom walls.

For some reason occasional writer/director/producer Nora Ephron was there as well, echoing Lynton’s sentiments: “We’re in the last days of copyright, if you want to be grim about it… Stop it. I dare you.”

It’s terrible, all the destruction the Internet has wrought. But fret not, we’re the people hellbent on ruining our environment. I’m sure there are plenty of ways we can kill off one piddly little Internet. Obesessing over movie piracy might be a good place to start.

But Mandoki couldn’t just stop by saying “it is sad that so many fans won’t be able to see the film.” No, he had to keep on whining by claiming “I’m certain the decision will mean more illegal downloading of the film.”

Hearing a studio exec bitch and moan about someone not being able to see a movie, that’s nothing new. No, they’d probably serve up porn to preschoolers if it could turn a profit. They really don’t seem to care who’s in the audience as long as they’ve paid for a ticket.

It’s a little disgusting that a studio executive would feel they should point out that they’re losing money by preventing kids from seeing a movie. They would rather expose them to violence the censors deem too excessive than lose out on the chance to make a dollar. I love my violent movies as much as the next guy, but has violent entertainment proliferated our lives to the point that the CEO of a company would try to gain public sympathy by crying about how access to their violent material is restricted? Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say keeping violent images away from children is generally a good idea.

But then claiming that a rating will promote piracy of the movie, that’s a new low. Suggesting assigning a rating to a movie will cause more people to obtain an illegal copy suggests they might just claim any impediment to seeing a movie will prompt people to jump on the Internet and hit up their favorite torrent site. Everyone that wants to see a movie should be able to, otherwise they’ll have no choice but to obtain an illegal copy of the movie. And the implication of the quote is that it’s a bunch of kids who will run home and download the movie. Yes, movie studios assume all kids are criminals.

Are movies and studio bank accounts so important that anyone should be able to see whatever they want so they won’t have ANOTHER excuse to see the movie illegally? Based on what studio execs say and the lengths to which governments go to enforce laws to curb the illegal possession of a movie, then the answer has to be yes. Obtaining an illegal copy of a movie is one of the worst possible crimes a human can commit. It’s worse than baby raping. Movie pirates are eviler than real pirates.

Imagine a world where everyone could see whatever movie they want and always bought a ticket. A world like that, it’d be better than Heaven, Paradise, Nirvana, Valhalla, and the Elysian Fields all rolled into one. A place where movie studios could finally maximize their profits.

At the moment, 3D movies are hot. Hot, hot. Hot to the point that it can take a warmed-over remake like My Bloody Valentine and turn it into a box office monster.

Well yeah, duh, of course movies are going to keep turning up in 3D if it can result in an 80% boost in the gross. The problem Hollywood has is getting these 3D movies into the home. The most workable solution so far has been to give you an analglyphic presentation of the movie and make you wear the red-blue glasses. It’s inelegant and annoying, but it gives something that looks 3D. And of course that always leaves you open to get teased for looking like Dr. Jacoby from Twin Peaks.

The solution, which sounds more like collusion, is to get you to buy a new TV capable of throwing a 3D image at you. Some DLP TVs have been able to do this for awhile, but not many and you still have to wear glasses, though they aren’t as goofy looking as the freakout red-blue paper glasses. This seems a fairly reasonable proposition for Hollywood and electronics manufacturers, as well as the Holy Grail of creating TV that shows a 3D image without the need for glasses, though even to a layman that smacks of pie-in-the-sky.

Then there’s that little fact that you have to buy one of these TVs. Buy a new TV. After they just convinced you to buy an HDTV. Because you needed HD. Now you need 3D, so buy a new TV. It sounds so simple and reasonable and it’ll get you that 3D picture you so badly want, even if you don’t realize how bad you want it.

Me, I’m in love with high-definition and have zero regrets about buying an HDTV. At times the definition is so high it blows my mind. There are a lot of people like me. There are also a lot of people who were told they would love HD and bought a TV, only to never hook it up to an HD source. They dropped a big chunk of change on a TV they didn’t really need because they were told all about how much they really did need it.

The same thing will happen with 3D. There will be some who’ll have no qualms about dropping a couple grand on another new TV so they can watch 3D movies. This will also require buying the required players, discs, glasses, and whathaveyou to bask in all the 3D goodness they can. Then there will be others who will buy a 3D TV because it’s what they’re told they need. They’ll drop a big chunk of change (or ANOTHER big chunk of change) on a TV they’ll never use to it’s full capability.

At this point it’s unclear whether 3D is something that really enhances the movie-going experience for most people or if it’s just a novelty that’ll wear off. Wear off like it already did once. Until that point it cleared up, you’re going to be told that 3D is the future and you better get on board and buy a new TV, relegating your new HDTV to the rumpus room or the kid’s room or something.

Just, before you buy, think about how much you’ll actually watch 3D on your TV and how much you’ll enjoy wearing glasses or trying to wear glasses over your prescription glasses. Or how much it’ll cost to buy 3D glasses for the whole family. Or buy a 3D-capable DVD player. Or a 3D-capable Blu-ray player. You get the drift: it’s more about a new revenue stream than a new presentation platform. Caveat emptor.

The problem Hollywood has is that not every movie is financially appropriate for 3D. Using Monster vs. Aliens (the biggest digital 3D release to date) as a case study, if you’ve got a big tent pole movie that’s going to be released into over 4,000 theaters, then investing an extra $15 million on the movie is kind of a no-brainer, especially if that can increase the gross by about 20%. But if the movie only cost $20 million to make and will only hit 1,000 theaters, then the cost/benefit ratio doesn’t really look so hot. Sure a few more people would have gone to see Miss March in 3D, both those three people wouldn’t have made that a worthwhile investment. It needs to be a high-profile movie that people want to see, not something someone needs to be convinced to see.

So what can Hollywood do to keep you spending your money on those 3D ticket premiums while trying as little as possible? They’ll do what they always do when they want to make a quick buck: give you the same thing you’ve seen before. The twist is that instead of going to the trouble of remaking movies in 3D, they’re just going to convert the original to 3D. They’ve already been working on Titanic, Transformers, and The Matrix, and Disney has plans for Sleeping Beauty and both Toy Story movies.

Aside from just being a gimmick, it’s a nice little business idea. Take a movie everyone is familiar with and try to give them a reason to see it again. They can 3D retread these mega-budget movies for a fraction of the cost with the possibility of huge profits. When the Special Edition of Star Wars was released in 1997, it made over $250 million- that’s about $400 million at today’s ticket prices. I don’t know what the cost was to add those super swell special effects, but even if it was $100 million, they still made a killing. Some people may have grown a bit tired of Star Wars after all those prequels, but don’t you think if they could 3D it and market it for like $50 million total, George Lucas would make another ton of money and be able to milk the whole franchise for another few hundred million dollars.

Maybe it’s just that everything I’ve ever seen in 3D was just a gimmicky there’s-something-flying-at-your-face-neat-huh kind of thing, but this 3D-ification sounds like something along the lines of colorization, when Ted Turner made people use crayons to color black-and-white movies. It was supposed to bring these old-timey movies up to date so people who associate a lack of color with an abundance of crap would find these movies approachable (i.e. make more money by releasing the same thing again).

Isn’t converting a movie to 3D just today’s equivalent of colorization? Can it do anything to make a movie better or more enjoyable? Proponents will say yes and opponents will say no, but there’s no argument that the however the 3D version turns out was not what was intended when the filmmakers completed the movie. It’s someone else’s version of how the movie should look. Like it or not, Hollywood is going to reach into the vault and see if they can get you to come back for the same thing one more time. At least until the next time.

Mattel is pulling the old Mason doll out of the bottom of their toy chest, developing it into a movie as a vehicle for Tom Hanks. I’m sure Hanks would fondly remember playing with his Major Matt Mason doll seeing as he brought one along to a development meeting, but I’m wondering why Mattel would make a movie around a toy that many have never heard of, and those that have probably forgot about until they read that it’s going to be made into a movie.

G.I. Joe I can understand. It got it’s start in the 60′s, carried over into the 70′s, and saw a huge resurgence in the 80′s. And now those kids from the 80′s are in their 30′s and presumably have the most disposable income to blow on a nostalgic movie. Major Matt Mason disappeared in the 70′s and hasn’t been seen since. The kids who loved that toy are now in their 50′s and represent a much smaller demographic, as far as spending money on movies goes.

The most likely solution to bridge those age groups is to update the Major Matt Mason universe, bringing it into the 21st century. But then wouldn’t that kill all those childhood memories attached to the forgotten space dude? It seems like it would turn into something along the lines of Thunderbirds, and no one wants that. What made that special was that in the original show they were marionettes. It was different and interesting. What made the movie crap was that it was unmemorable and schmaltzy. Making Major Matt Mason a modern astronaut would seem to do the same thing.

I will admit that it sounds like an immensely better idea than Stretch Armstrong since at least Major Matt Mason has a story and not just rubbery limbs.

DreamWorks Animation’s next 3-D event will be Monsters vs. Aliens, releasing on the 27th. What they hope is that people will get all hot and bothered about 3-D and opt to pay the premium over the archaic 2-D projection. DreamWorks had hoped to get a bunch of new theaters converted to 3-D in time for this movie, but there was a little issue with the economy that prevented it.

DreamWorks wanted this to be the big movie that took 3-D mainstream and would obviously do whatever they could to make it happen. One of these big ideas is to get Bank of America to allow their customers to upgrade from a 2-D ticket to a 3-D for free. So for each of these tickets, the 2-D vs 3-D difference is going towards Monsters vs. Aliens 3-D box office and into DreamWorks’ bank account.

Under most circumstances, this would just be your regular old promotion-type deal, but the problem is that, in case you hadn’t heard, Bank of America has recently received billions of dollars from the government. Now some of these tax dollars are being used to pay BoA customers to see the 3-D version of a movie.

You could argue that this could stimulate the economy by getting people to go to the theater and buy all the overpriced concessions, but the people that get the upgrade already bought a ticket. They’re going to go and buy popcorn and candy anyway. No one is going to spend any more money because of this. Well except BoA.

Could the real reason behind this promo be that DreamWorks really, really wants the 3-D portion of the box office to look big and convince more theaters to convert to 3-D and get patrons to pay that nice little bump that comes along with 3-D. Maybe they were able to swing this deal with BoA since DreamWorks President Lew Coleman was a former Vice Chairman and CFO of BoA. Yeah, it’s pretty hard to believe that a Hollywood studio and a giant financial institution would try to fleece tax payers. It’s inconceivable, really.

So when you go see Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D next week, you might want to ask the person next to you if they got their ticket from Bank of America. If they did, you need to ask them for a thank you since you helped pay for the ticket.

The main plot this nefarious group of heartless jackals is involved in is to remake every single movie that’s ever been made. It wouldn’t be so obvious if they spaced them out further, but when there’s one released nearly every week, it’s just too conspicuous. I think they’re about halfway through with the horror movies.

The latest news in the campaign to destroy any emotional attachment people may feel towards movies is that The Bodyguard needs a remake. The story of romance and personal security just isn’t relevant to today’s audience. Sure it was the seventh biggest movie of 1992, but that just makes it s bigger target.

The remake will reportedly be a “young and sexy take” on the movie. Whitney Houston has enough problems, did they really need to say that even 17 years ago she was old and unattractive?

The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by Dante Alighieri back, oh, in the 1300′s. It’s considered one of the world’s greatest works of literature. Inferno represents the first third of the book and details Dante’s journey through Hell, all nine circles of that bitch. Dante and his guide Virgil get to meet and chat up all sorts of sinners and monsters along the way.

Although it’s not an action/adventure story and there’s no battle to speak of, you could see why someone would want to make this a video game. A journey through Hell gives you an excuse to show all kinds of nasty looking stuff and being based on a significant piece of literature makes gamers feel more intelligent. That’s a win-win. You know why Hollywood would want to make a  movie out of that: it’s a video game. And not only are the story and characters fleshed-out, but the art design is already done.

This wouldn’t be the first time a video game inspired by the Divine Comedy was rumored to get the movie treatment. Devil May Cry and it’s sequels made heavy use of Inferno and the movie may be released in the next couple years. We know that studios like to concurrently develop similar projects, but two movies based on video games based on the Divine Comedy, that’s going too far.

One thing this does do is open my eyes to a whole new channel for remakes and cross-promotion. Just like we’ve got movies based on musicals based on movies, we’ve got movies based on video games based on [fill in the blank]. It’s an epic poem this time, but just wait. Eventully it will happen: see the movie based on the video game based on the movie.

Missing in Action, basically the same as Rambo: First Blood Part II but released a year earlier, was reasonably popular back in it’s day. Vietnam movies were in vogue and everyone loves the idea of a man risking his life to rescue forgotten MIAs. There’s not a more noble premise for a war movie, is there? It was popular enough that the following year a prequel, filmed consecutively with the original, was released, and a sequel a couple years after that. Since Braddock: Missing in Action III, no one’s really given much thought to resurrecting the franchise. Until now.

It looks like the powers of MGM and the WWE are going to combine to give us an updated version of Missing in Action. It’ll be set during the Iraq war and update the storyline accordingly.

You may say “that’s sweet” or you may say “why did they have to go and fuck with Missing in Action,” but once this movie is released, no one else will really care. You see, it’s going to be released straight to video.

Now my question is: why bother? It’s not like there’s this rabid Missing in Action fan base waiting for a sequel. The only time anyone hears about it any more is if it comes up in the odd Chuck Norris joke. It seems a stretch that someone perusing the new releases at their local video store will stop dead in their tracks when they see Missing in Action on the shelf. I would think there are plenty of stories about the Iraq war that would make great movies without having to shoehorn in a story that was relevant 30 years ago.

What this does is really, officially, truly, unequivocally usher in the Age of the Remake. If someone is going to bother remaking a pretty-much-forgotten and somewhat irrelevant war movie and release it on video, is there anything that can’t be remade? Direct-to-video movies are supposed to be the ideas that no one really gets inspired by but can’t completely be dismissed because it might make a couple dollars. If it’s accepted that remakes fit this mold, shit, that’s all we’ll get.

Why bother thinking up a new idea if you can just recycle one and get a similar result? This is the new landscape of cinema.

To beef up the income statement, they’re making movies out of every damn property they’ve got, be it a game for babies or some random damn toy. Monopoly, Candy Land, Stretch-Friggin-Armstrong. Really, there are no depths they won’t plumb.

But for some reason, some shitass fucking reason, that’s not good enough. They can’t just pick some game off the shelf, throw it on the table and call it good. Nooooo. They’ve got to go after the one, THE LONE, SINGLE BOARD GAME MOVIE THAT ALREADY EXISTS and remake that bitch. Oh yes, those bastards, those shitless asshats are re-fucking-making Clue.

Making a movie, and not just a direct-to-video pile, but a full-on theatrical release by a recognizable filmmaker, out of some game or toy that has no real story associated with it is bad enough, but to remake the only board game movie that has ever been made, it’s just, just incomprehensible.

Gore Verbinski is the man they’ve paid off to develop this travesty. He’s made a career of making needless adaptations. The Ring. The first Pirates of the Caribbean, which was based on an amusement park ride of all the stupid things, was okay, but the sequels were incredibly self-indulgent, annoying, and overlong. Then up next, before he starts fucking up the Clue remake, he’s going to do BioShock, based on a video game. This guy.

Ah well, remakes will be made, the Sun will rise, people will die. So it goes.