“Bob, why won’t you just stop talking about this movie based on stuff you’re a huge fan of in an insanely popular genre in the medium that you make a living reporting on???”

I really like the way this opens. The rest? I can go either way – with apologies to every other genre filmmaker on the planet, Spielberg only makes the “scenes of people looking in lieu of content” thing look easy. It doesn’t look anything like director Gareth Edwards “MONSTERS,” which I hated, so I’m thankful for that. Big overhanging question remains: Apart from the big-name main star, what is this going to offer that “PACIFIC RIM” didn’t already deliver ten times over?

Interesting just how much this looks/feels like the buildup to the previous 1998 remake, minus the self-aware 90s humor. It’s odd that two attempts to re-do “GODZILLA” for the U.S. now have (seemingly) focused exclusively on repurposing the original, which is really the extreme outlier of the franchise in terms of tone and focus. There was a period in my life when “Originally, Godzilla was meant to be DARK and SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!” was a really vital, noteworthy thing I wanted the world to know. These days? I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t be more pumped right now if this trailer (which does look good, don’t get me wrong) featured a little less ominous portent and a little more giant-lobster punching.

We’ll see.

The first teaser for The Wachowski’s follow-up to “CLOUD ATLAS,” which is alleged to be a more “conventional” (for The Wachowski’s) sci-fi/space-opera narrative. Still closely-guarded story features Mila Kunis as a human woman targeted for assassination by an unknown-to-Earth interplanetary empire because she possesses a unique DNA signature that would allow her to usurp the current Queen of The Universe. She is protected by Channing Tatum, whose makeup and prosthetics are being downplayed by this trailer but is supposed to an albino human/wolf hybrid. Me, I want to know what’s going on with the bulky winged-reptile guy at 1:29.

Oops. Forgot to post this Friday. Was preoccupied with the BOFCA Awards.

Intermission talks the soon-to-be new Wonder Woman.

Why, hello there, new most favorite movie I haven’t seen yet ever…

h/t BAD

Seriosuly. I’m pretty sure I just saw the “To Be Continued in Part 3” in the trailer for Part 2.

Buzz on ASM2 is that it’s another problematic production in terms of what was set out to be made versus what Sony now wants, and some of what I’ve seen/heard floating around in the ether is supported by this new trailer, in which Peter Parker continues to explore the shitty revised backstory nobody cared about from the first reboot. From the look/sound of things, Richard Parker was killed because he stumbled on Oscorp’s nefarious plans to create boring, catch-all “unified” origins for uninspired versions of classic Spider-Man villains – THE FIENDS!!!

Short version (because I’m on my way to work) is that the film really was/is supposed to primarily be about Spider-Man versus Jamie Foxx’s Electro, with worldbuilding subplots (and maybe a cliffhanger finale) laying track for an ambitious (in terms of scale) third movie that may or may not feature an Unpleasant Half-Dozen of some kind; but that Sony is hot to have more of that stuff in the forefront of the movie – or at least it’s marketing. Apparently a lot of the “Oh shit, is that…??” stuff prominently on display here was actually written/shot to be late in the game reveals, background gags and possibly even post-credit easter-egg materials but is now being shown off to make it look like the main movie isn’t just “Spider-Man versus Boring Robot & Hoodie Smurf.”

I can’t confirm any of that, but look at pretty-much all the stuff involving Oscorp’s lab (like those SIX doors sliding open, or those two “appliances” in the background) and tell me you don’t feel like you just saw most of this movie’s version of Steve Rogers running out into present-day Times Square.

I’m a baaaaaad widdle boy…

Y’know what surprises me the most about Paul WS Anderson’s upcoming disaster movie, other than that it took someone this long to make what is effectively “GLADIATOR” meets “TITANIC?” That they didn’t call it something else to prevent the average American audience from thinking “Uh… hey, babe? Did we ever see ‘POMPE I?”

The “big” value of Wonder Woman as a character and icon is that everyone has heard of her. They probably haven’t heard anything else, but they know the name, the look, the basic idea and – most importantly – that she’s supposed to be the female equal to Superman: THE female superhero. What that means in terms of this current age of comic-hero movies is that, whereas Marvel/Disney will actually have to make and release a full movie for somebody like Ms. Marvel, all Diana has to do is show up and DC/Warners gets a certain amount of credit/cultural-cache re: overtures to female fans.

And now, show up she will: Warner Bros. has officially announced that the Gal Gadot, the former fashion model best known as Miss Israel 2004 and as Gisele in the “FAST & FURIOUS” movies, will play Wonder Woman in the mad scrambling clusterfuck to do something, ANYTHING with the DC properties as-yet untitled sequel to “MAN OF STEEL.”

This has been underway for awhile – it’s been “known” that Wonder Woman was in this movie to some degree pretty much ever since Warners started casting around for actresses who can aquit themselves in action scenes and wouldn’t confirm or deny that this was the role. For awhile, the steady gossip was that Wonder Woman and possibly The Flash (not the same one about to get his own TV show, because DC/Warners just isn’t good at this stuff) would be showing up in the film as cameos in their “civilian” identities, with their true selves being revealed either late in the game, post-credits or in subsequent movies. Maybe that “intel” was always wrong… but it wouldn’t surprise me at all that this is a pretty recent development.

The fact is, this is a movie being assembled in free-fall. Warners was caught completely off guard by the reception to “MAN OF STEEL.” The studio went gaga for what Snyder/Nolan had gotten up to on the feature (particularly that massive, meaningless-carnage finale that’s now the most criticized part of the fiilm) and went into this Summer convinced that not only did they have their “AVENGERS”-killer but that they had the new answer to “TRANSFORMERS.” Instead, while the film was still a HUGE moneymaking hit, it failed to meet their (foolishly made-public) sky-high projections and is now best known for generating a year’s worth of trend pieces about how badly the iconic hero was mangled and who in the production is most to blame.

So while I have no doubt in my mind that “the plan” was always to start laying track for “JUSTICE LEAGUE” by having Batman show up in the sequel, I absolutely believe the stories that they made the decision to make him a co-star (at least in terms of promotion/title/etc) literally just days before announcing it at comic-con. By the same token, it wouldn’t surprise me at all that Wonder Woman’s presence in this film started out as “easter egg,” got bumped to “surprise cameo” as the bloom continued to come off the MOS-rose and became “role we’re going to hastily expand announce a year in advance” when the “Female-Led Movies Set Thanksgiving Records” trend-pieces started hitting on monday morning.

Honestly? It’s really difficult for me to get excited about any aspect of this production so long as everyone guilty of“MAN OF STEEL” is still at the wheel. There was a moment there, right after “WATCHMEN,” that the notion of Zack Snyder putting the DC Trinity onscreen would have been the biggest, coolest, most-exciting news to hit this genre since “they’re giving Spider-Man to Sam Raimi!” Now? Tainted goods, and I blame Goyer (who has never been good) and Nolan (who is good, just not at this) for the most part. Just for one example: Not that it’s anywhere near the most important thing, but look at the overall visual/design aesthetic of “MAN OF STEEL” and try to imagine a Batman and Wonder Woman who would “fit” into that. Not terribly exciting, if you ask me.

I hope this is good. I hope this works out. I hope whatever lightning struck to make “THE DARK KNIGHT” happen amid Warner Bros. utter incompetence within this genre can hit again. I have no real opinion on Gadot’s casting – she’s very pretty and you can easily picture her in the part, which are exactly the same qualifications Henry Cavill had for Superman, and I don’t think it’s particularly noteworthy (good or bad) that she was a beauty pageant contestant before being an actress. It’s tempting to start in with “it’s too early to have an opinion at all,” but since they seem to be making this one up on the fly in response to whatever is currently-trending at the boxoffice, I’m not sure when it won’t be “too early.”

Because none of you listened, “ALICE IN WONDERLAND” was a huge hit and Disney has decided that live-action do-overs of it’s fairytale back catalogue is the new hotness; hence “MALIFICENT” next year and similar updates of “PETER PAN,” “LITTLE MERMAID” and more in various stages of planning. They haven’t actually announced it yet, but it goes without saying that a revisiting of “BEAUTY & THE BEAST” – widely considered to be the best film of the studio’s 90s Renaissance if not their best film period – is likely in the offing.