Bruce Willis generally puts out at least one big, servicable action movie wherein he plays Bruce Willis: Unflappable Actio Hero of a Certain Age amid whatever pyrotechnic scenario the filmmakers have opted to place him in. Sometimes, they decide to call his character John McClane so it can qualify as a “Die Hard” sequel (both “Hostage” and “Tears of The Sun” were at one point supposed to be “Die Hards,” for example.) Here’s another one:

Eh, look okay. The thing you can’t deny is that Willis is just GOOD at this schtick: Stunt/weary “seriously?” face/quip. It works. The “007” line is cute, but apparently it’s in reference to McClane’s grownup son who’s some kind of spy/soldier/agent in this, likely setting up a “cute” modern gov-trained operator versus oldschool cop dynamic.

Probably, yeah. Though not necessarily because of THIS or any other rumors about to be referenced – it’s just kind of an easy call. If and when Carol Danvers eventually turns up in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it’ll be the least surprising “surprise” for fans since Captain America turning up in the present day.

Marvel, on the comics side, has had a decade-long obsession (coupled with very successful execution) with turning Danvers, aka “Ms. Marvel,” into one of it’s A-list heroes ever since someone figured out that she could easily be their answer to Wonder Woman (re: highly-marketed Strong Female Hero) sans all that problematic “Love-Powered Animated Clay-Doll From The Island of Immortal Lesbian Warriors” baggage.

She’s been a big part of most recent Avengers iterations, features in most crossovers and was most-recently promoted to “Captain Marvel” (short version: She started out as the surprisingly more-popular distaff-counterpart to the original MALE Captain Marvel. Long version HERE and then HERE) Also, the Avengers DO kind of have a diversity problem and, let’s face it, action-heroine, Joss Whedon movie, etc. So yeah… when/if she turns up in the movies the only thing less shocking will be the chorus of dissapointed sighs when/if Marvel decides her costume needs to be another teardown/rebuild job a’la Hawkeye.

That said, I’m not necessarily inclined to fully dismiss this particular rumor because it makes sense given a lot of what’s already known about the now-unfolding buildup to “Avengers 2.”

Here’s the thing: Ms. Marvel’s setup is a touch on the complicated side (given how Marvel Films has operated up to this point, one has to assume keeping her backstory and “arc” close to the basic source is a priority.) There’ve been some retcons as to how “important” she is pre-powers, but the general idea is always that she starts out as a military and/or government agent who gets powers similar to Captain Marvel after being caught in an explosion during one of his battles.

Going by the way Marvel Films has operated up to this point, it’s a safe bet that she’d probably get introduced “normal” in one of the next pre-“Avengers 2” movies… Or maybe more than one: it’d make perfect sense to make her a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, and they are in need of a new movie-to-movie connector character i.e. Coulson. If “Agent Carol Danvers” were to turn up for an introduction in one movie, then get zapped full of cosmic space-powers in a subsequent movie (like, oh… “Guardians of The Galaxy,” the cosmic space-power focused movie already positioned as the direct lead-in to “Avengers 2,” perhaps?) she’d be all primed and ready to turn up in “Avengers 2” as the “newcomer team-dynamic shakeup character.”

Here’s the other thing: The story that started the rumor said they were looking specifically at British actresses, one of whom is Emily Blunt (originally cast as Black Widow before she had to bail and Johansson got the job, so theres history with the producers) who was also mentioned as being in the running for another Marvel role – the as-yet unnamed female lead in “Captain America 2.” Most people have been assuming that role would be Sharon Carter, daughter (granddaughter?) of Peggy from the first movie, but it could just as easily be Carol Danvers.

Not so good.

“Intermission” has Frankenweenie.

Below, the trailer for Rob Zombie’s long-promised 70s-style Satanic Cult movie “Lord of Salem,” which for some reason did NOT get picked up for release by this Halloween (it’s due next year.)

I’ll defend Zombie to the end. He’s a remarkably gifted filmmaker, if not necessarily as gifted a storyteller yet, and even his “bad” movies are more interesting than many people’s good ones.

Cleanse your palette from the experience of watching Obama refuse to give Mitt Romney the pummeling he needed to with this new “Lincoln” trailer, which looks MUCH better than the first one:

Very briefly, because I have work to do:

1.) Neither guy got knocked out, which means Romney did “better” by default because as the challenger he’s the one who only needed to prove stamina. This will move the needle – not enough to “save” Romney outright, but it moves it.

2.) Jim Leher should have been given the power to cut mics – dude got run over all the time by both guys, and it’s bullshit. The debate moderator is the guy who holds the participants accountable to the audience which in this case is the voters. He should’ve put them in their respective places – re: two guys vying for a job from us – and he didn’t.

3.) Obama’s team obviously expected Romeny to put his foot in his mouth. He didn’t. Romney’s team obviously expected Obama to hang back and not show aggression. He did.

4.) As of now, Obama is probably still “winning,” but he had the opportunity to settle the election tonight and he didn’t take it.

5.) In the end, this has always been the problem with Obama: He’s just NOT a fighter. He doesn’t like to get dirty, he doesn’t naturally view ideological opponents as mortal-enemies, he doesn’t like to take the killshot. These are admirable qualities in a person, but weaknesses in a modern politician and major flaws in a guy I’m ultimately counting on to continue the Good Work of saving this country by dismantling the “traditional values” patriarchy (which Romney both embodies and supports) through judicial appointments and policy-pushing.This is why the best modern Democrat is still and will always be Bill Clinton: Clinton relished the fight. Clinton enjoyed hurting his opponents. He had a liberal brain but he had a conservative’s bloodlust – oh, to have him back.

Here’s a surprisingly pleasant example of a major corporation coming out explicitly for equality, in this case travel-booking outfit Expedia.

Good on them.

And now, before you start having too nice of a day, here’s Breitbart stooge and repellant excuse for a human being (check the DATE he published that headline) Ben Shapiro taking issue with the ad for featuring attractive gay women, which he seems to consider suspect.

Hoo-boy.

Armie Hammer stopped by the Jay Leno show tonight and brought with him the trailer for Disney’s new “Lone Ranger” movie, in which he plays the title role opposite “real star” Johnny Depp as Tonto. You might recall that the script and budget for this were considered such a disaster-in-waiting that the whole thing was scrapped for awhile, but they decided it was too big to fail and threw more money at it.

E! has the online version of it (there’s no embedable version yet) in case you want to see what America’s 50-and-over sports bar patrons will be sputtering with outrage about tomorrow afternoon. (Seriously, the only interesting thing about this will be the innevitable spectacle of older dudes who would never be considered “geeks” of any kind freaking the fuck out about Depp’s Tonto costume, the lack of the William Tell Overture in the trailer, etc.)

The movie, though? Wow… does this look horrible; and Depp being the clear focus of the trailer means they’ve already decided to pre-Jack Sparrow the production which is probably a mistake. I’m getting the sense, perhaps too optimistically, that this could wind up being a major dud for Disney (it’s being positioned as their big 2013 July 4th movie) as the tidal wave of “we’re sick of this shit now!” that should’ve hit the fourth POTC movie finally catches up with the Depp/Verbinski cash machine – when it hits, it’ll be competing with both “Man of Steel” and “Iron Man 3” having already opened.

Schlocktober Returns!

Seth MacFarlane, creator of “Family Guy” and newly-minted theatrical heavy hitter in the wake of “Ted,” has been chosen to host this year’s Oscars. Everybody take a moment to get some snotty digs at “Manatee Jokes” out of your system…

…done? Good, because the more I think on it the more he sounds like a great choice.

The problem The Academy has had for years in terms of hosting (and, to be frank, audiences) is the unending generational gap. Old comics playing it safe is one thing (a “prestige” show generally won’t have cutting-edge material) but the fact is The Oscars are grounded, conceptually, in a quintessentially Old Hollywood vibe – that unique fusion of soaring pomp and schticky vaudevillian deflation that defined “big celebrity party time” in the era when the show came into it’s own. In it’s heyday, The Oscars looked and sounded like a bigger, more elaborate version of what every other big live presentation was expected to look and sound like – who was “Mr. Oscars” before Billy Crystal? Bob Hope. Exactly.

Problem is, the rest of entertainment culture moved on in dramatic fashion over the decades… but Oscar didn’t. It couldn’t, because the Golden Age Hollywood paean is built into the production’s very DNA. The reason Crystal was so electric for so long at this gig was that his natural stage persona was an inspired modernization of that classical “feel,” making his routines a sly mix of gently ribbing and sincerely celebrating the legacy of the show. Unfortunately, it’s now been long enough that Crystal’s brand of “goofing on the oldsters” now feels a little old itself; and the “send up of the Golden Age” formula he turned into Oscar’s modern default-setting has ill-served present day hosts (see: Hathaway and Franco) for whom it feels just as ancient and unfamiliar as the Golden Age itself.

This is where MacFarlane’s selection starts to look inspired. Just on the basics he makes a surprising amount of sense: A naturally gifted comedian, a terrific Stage Voice, occasionally brilliant comic-writer and (this is The Oscars, after all) a legitimately great singer. But what I think could make him an inspired choice (providing he’s given a long leash and use of his own material and/or writing staff) is that he so demonstrably “gets” the rhythm and the appeal of the oldschool theatrical sensibilities that simply “are” Oscar.

Think about how much of “Family Guy’s” more elaborate jokes have been grounded in classical “lets put on a show” musicals and upgraded takes on ancient comic routines – this is, after all, series that splurges on yearly tributes to the Crosby & Hope road movies; something that most present-day audiences don’t know or care about… but Oscar certainly does.

This could, of course, still get fucked up on the producer side, but as host? This is a great pick, and must be a hell of an honor for a guy who (like his shows or not) has paid a lot of dues to get here.