As far as I'm concerned, all discussion about the merits and viability of 3-D technology must be put on hold until we get a look at James Cameron's Avatar. By all accounts, Cameron is genuinely trying to turn 3-D into a storytelling tool instead of the equivalent of a theme park attraction, and I think highly enough of the guy to suspect he might be able to pull it off.

Meanwhile, cinephile concerns notwithstanding, 3-D's mainstream popularity continues to surge. Guillermo del Toro now won't rule out the possibility that we'll be able to see his Hobbit films in three dimensions. "Right now what we have is, you don't have two filmmakers and two screenplay writers -- you have four screenplay writers," he says. "We'll be talking about 3-D, on IMAX -- but [not] right now."

IMAX, I think, is probably a foregone conclusion. But 3-D? The first Hobbit is slated for release in December, 2011, which is two years post-Avatar, thank goodness. My pre-Avatar brain revolts at the notion of seeing Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films in 3-D. At the moment I'm not thrilled about the prospect for The Hobbit, either -- but there I go again, breaking my own rules. James Cameron sees all, and knows all...

[via The Envelope]

As is often the case with the translation of any geek property to the screen, this Friday's release of Max Payne seems to elicit just as many hopes and doubts as one would expect from a big-screen adaptation of a popular video game (well, one not directed by Uwe Boll, that is). So, coming from a position of relative ignorance when it comes to most titles (trust me, my PS2 gathers more dust than yours does), what's the current reading from fans on a film proudly rated PG-13, although based on a series of M-rated games?

And for which upcoming projects are you most hopeful: Halo -- that is, with or without Peter Jackson? Gore Verbinski's BioShock? Jerry Bruckheimer's Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? (And just when is The Rock's Spy Hunter coming out anyway? Do you care?) (Should I?)

As for my fellow ignorati: does this look to you like an appealing action movie regardless? Which video-game movies worked best despite your lack of familiarity with the source material? My vote goes to the first Resident Evil, with some moderate supporting love going to Silent Hill and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within -- no great blasphemy intended.

Oh, and just to keep things jumping, any thoughts on the following titles, or any left out, are more than welcome: DOA: Dead or Alive, Doom, Double Dragon, Hitman, the Mortal Kombat films, Street Fighter, Super Mario Brothers, the Tomb Raider franchise, Wing Commander.

Middle Earth fanatics have long debated what the heck this whole "second Hobbit movie" would entail. Arguably, there's enough material for a prequel, with Gandalf leading battles into Mirkwood to fight Sauron, who was slowly rebuilding his dark kingdom. But recent news has suggested it is more of a Hobbit sequel, where Tolkien's material is scarcer.

Well, MTV News caught up with director Guillermo del Toro, who attempted to shed a little light on the topic. "The reality is that we stopped talking the first movie and second movie, and we just started taking about the movie - the two episodes, or two parts, as if they were a single piece of narrative. We don't even call it the bridge movie, we just call it 'The Movie.' And this is great. When we found what reverberated, and we found it in one of our virtual meetings -- we understood. It's a movie. We all agree that if we do our job right, it should all feel like a continuous journey. That's what we're striving for."

Is that any clearer? No, I didn't think so. But actually, del Toro dropped one hint, one riddle in the dark that might just solve everything -- he let slip where the first movie would end. "We are finding out. I think Smaug dies in the first movie. So draw your own conclusions."

And my conclusion would be that with Smaug's death concluding the first movie, the second would deal with the Battle of the Five Armies, where everyone from elves to the men of Esgaroth have an eye on claiming Smaug's gold. It's pretty epic and vicious, and could easily take up an entire movie. In fact, I'm not sure how they could get all of that into one Hobbit film. I think this is going to turn out to be a sensible move that does the book justice -- not the cash grab we all took it for.

The reason everyone loves Guillermo del Toro can, I think, be summed up in this new Hobbit related quote. "Believe me, I am jumping up-and-down inside this fat body!"

Yes, del Toro teased us all with Hobbit talk when he appeared at the Director's Guild of America recently and spilled all kinds of information regarding Middle Earth and his adaptation of Frankenstein. ComingSoon has the whole delicious thing, but I'll post my favorite bit -- his research into the mind of J.R.R. Tolkien: "I find you have to discipline yourself to write in the morning, and then watch and read in the afternoons stuff that seems relevant, even in a tangential way. For example, reading or watching World War I documentaries or books that I think inform The Hobbit, strangely enough, because I believe it is a book born out of Tolkien's generation's experience with World War I and the disappointment of being in that field and seeing all those values kind of collapse. I think it's a turning point that you need to familiarize yourself with."

And naturally, he sounds most excited about tackling Smaug. "Essentially, Smaug represents so many things: greed, pride ... he's 'the Magnificent,' after all. The way his shadow is cast in the narrative you cannot then show it and have it be one thing, he has to be the embodiment of all those things. He's one of the few dragons that will have enormous scenes with lines. He has some of the most beautiful dialogues in those scenes! The design, I'm pretty sure that will be the last design we will sign off on, and the first design we have attempted. It is certainly a matter of turning every stone before figuring out what he looks like, because what he looks like will tell you what he is."

It looks like another quiet week in the land of the geek -- particularly since all my friends are off at Fantastic Fest. If you're one of the lucky people attending, eat a Wild at Artichoke Hearts pizza for me at the Alamo Drafthouse. I lie awake at night thinking about it, and wishing for the skill to replicate it.

• The biggest news of the weekend was a story that hit Variety late Friday night: Stephen Chow has landed the role of Kato in The Green Hornet and the director's chair. Rumors and Seth Rogen's wishes have attached him for some time, but now it's official, and definitely shows that the project is going to be heavy on the comedy. (Incidentally, I never realized before now what huge Green Hornet fans my geek parents were -- let's just say Rogen's ears must be burning.) The movie is scheduled to be released June 25th, 2010.
  

• Tintin has run into some major financial problems. According to the LA Times, Universal has passed on the film, leaving Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson to scramble for a new studio to financially back them. It's as embarrassing as you can imagine -- not only because its two of the biggest names in the business, but because Spielberg may have to make nice with Paramount (who's financing half the film) just as he and David Geffen are trying to extricate themselves from it. It also leaves Spielberg without a project to direct, as Tintin was supposed to be next in line, and it delays the whole thing even longer. But hey, at least struggling directors the world over can now do something they never thought possible -- feel just like Spielberg!
  

Today will be partly cloudy with a chance of kick ass!

The Hobbit: Not long ago Guillermo Del Toro told fans that his next move was to begin work on The Hobbit script very soon. Well guess what? To our complete shock and surprise, the dude actually followed through on all this "writing script nonsense" and -- wait for it -- started working on the script (along with LOTR partners Frank Walsh and Philippa Boyens). YES! And this is, like, the BIGGEST news online today. "NEWSFLASH: Del Toro is on page 12 and he's already introduced 750 new creatures!" I give up ... call me in 12 years when the film is finally complete and ready to hit theaters.

The Dark Knight: You've watched the movie countless times, followed hundreds of viral sites, read thousands of stories on Heath Ledger and why he deserves to square off against Jesus up in heaven for a chance to be God's new (and much more well-liked) son -- so, what's left? Well, if you still haven't overdosed on The Dark Knight and/or are in desperate need of another Batman fix, feel free to feast your eyes on the film's script. Yes, JoBlo managed to snag a copy of the entire thing (read it here) for you to save, print out and do whatever it is you freaks do with stuff like that. Personally, I enjoyed reading it to see where they trimmed and cut and called Wonder Woman a whore. Kidding! Just wanna make sure you're paying attention.

Poltergeist remake: Because in this one she's watching a reality show, gets pulled into the television and subsequently bores herself to death. [Writes down notes for Poltergeist 2 pitch ...] Anyway, THR tells us that Boogeyman writers Juliet Snowden and Stiles "I wonder how many Teen Wolf jokes he got growing up" White will pen the script for the remake of this classic spooky flick. "Too soon!" yelled a nobody movie blogger, but alas it was too late.

Speaking with Cinematical in Los Angeles, director and writer Guillermo del Toro was enthused and excited to talk about the challenges and triumphs of his latest film. "The biggest challenge (for Hellboy II: The Golden Army) was to say "Let's remain loose and interested and happy and crazier and more free in the second movie. ... And the second-biggest challenge was to make a 200-million dollar movie with 85 (million). ..." Del Toro also spoke about the film's mix of slapstick and the supernatural, the pleasures and pitfalls of practical effects and what he'd say to someone concerned that his upcoming task of directing The Hobbit would mean too much time spent away from him crafting his own unique visions for the big screen. (Warning: Brief snippets of foul language included within.)

Cinematical's podcast content is now available through iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

At yesterday's press day for Hellboy II: The Golden Army, the eloquent, elegant Guillermo del Toro had plenty to say about crafting the sequel to 2004's Hellboy, which we'll have at Cinematical closer to the film's opening; he also dropped a few facts and thoughts about his upcoming job helmingThe Hobbit. On the 'facts' front, del Toro mentioned that The Hobbit (which may be two films, one adapting the original novel and the other bridging The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings with new material) will have a very different look than some of his other films: "The Hobbit will be (presented) in 2.35-to-1. ..." Translating cinematographer to English, that means that The Hobbit will be presented in widescreen, all the better to capture the hills and dales of the Shire.

Del Toro also spoke about the potentially tricky task of making his two Hobbit films in the wake of Peter Jackson's wildly successful trilogy, as well as what kind of material he might bring to a second movie -- and the tricky question of what Tolkien-created material Peter Jackson has the rights to (and can be used to create the two Hobbit films) and what material Jackson does not own the rights to (and can't use in a film). Del Toro's answers may have been short on detail, but they were long on vision. "What we're talking (about) is, obviously, utilizing the materials that are available to us, and the discipline has been to try and know, for my part, everything else -- not to know it and use it, but to know it and not step on those things.

There has been a lot of heated debate about that second Hobbit film. Many Lord of the Rings fans will take anything Middle-Earth, even if it's two hours cobbled out of appendices. Others see it as a betrayal of the Tolkien canon, and a blatant money grab by all involved. I readily admit I fall into the first category -- but I certainly don't want to see a bad film just to get a visual Middle Earth fix.

No matter what camp you fall into, however, Guillermo del Toro just made a statement that should please everyone. According to Defamer, he promises they are looking at adapting The Hobbit first and foremost -- and that a second film may not even happen. "We believe there is a second movie," del Toro said. "If there isn't, there will not be. If we find it, we will shoot it, but by God, if we do not find it, we will not shoot it. I am anxious to shoot the book, and I'm willing and able to dedicate myself to shooting the [second film]. In the four books that are in the domain of the copyright, there are appendices and ideas and things that can be traced without risk. But I have to be careful not to overstep. We believe there is a way to create this film and make it interesting, but it's too early."

It's official: more actors need to die. Debra Winger figuratively kicking the bucket in Terms of Endearment, or Jimmy Durante literally kicking the bucket in It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World ... Harold Sakata reaching for his unfortunately uninsulated derby in Goldfinger, Bugs Bunny grabbing for Oscar gold after being mortally wounded by Elmer Fudd in Tex Avery's short "The Wild Hare" ("It's gettin' dark, Doc ... gasp, choke"). One of my favorites: James Mason making it until daybreak during an entire movie-long death scene in Odd Man Out, or the death by, eh, inspiration in Hot Fuzz.

The list goes on at Gawker.com, where a poll got a lot of people talking. Male posters aired out plenty of excuses for crying in movie theaters like whipped little girls. One correspondent has a likely explanation for shedding his unmanly tears at the end of Armageddon: "a piece of meteorite got in my eye." I know how he felt. Ambient radiation made my eyes run when Spock got broiled at the end of The Wrath of Khan. And all that Middle Earth pollen played hell with my sinuses right when Boromir keeled over, begging apology with his last breath. What's your own favorite demise? Cinematical's Monika Bartyzel lists her 7 best here, from an '07 column, mentioning one time Steven Seagal didn't pull through. Incidentally an outfit called movie deaths.com insists on that the one 100 percent rating is the demise of the pugnacious black knight (above) in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Get out the kleenex and weigh in ...

But they aren't going to tell us who it is! Guillermo Del Toro spoke to Empire and revealed a few more Hobbit details. We can all breathe a bit easier because according to the director, it will be "at least a year before we announce any casting." So, this may be the last story you read on The Hobbit for quite awhile.

That doesn't mean they aren't hard at work trying to find the main hobbit himself. Says Del Toro: "We are writing based on [Ian Holm's performance], but other than that, we have ideas [of who could play him]. I can tell you that it's down to a few names that we all agree upon. And that our first choice ...completely, magically, we said the same name. All of us!"

Somewhere, there is an actor who has no idea he's in the running. And it is obviously not an unknown if the entire team came up with the same individual. Who are you, future Bilbo? My old pick was Martin Freeman, who I always thought resembled Ian Holm a bit, and could do befuddled really really well. Jamie Bell always ruled the day with my geek friends, but I think he's become a bit too chiseled for a hobbit. Let's hear your own picks. And toss out some impossible, mind-reading guesses as to who the LOTR team could have landed on. Remember, it will be the last Hobbit story you have for awhile -- especially if Christopher Tolkien wins his court case.

Just when you thought it was safe to get excited, a possible wrench has been thrown into The Hobbit works. According to London's Sunday Times, Christopher Tolkien, the son of J.R.R., is attempting to stop the movie from being made altogether, calling for "one last crusade" in the long running court battle.

Regrettably, the issue at large is still money. Tolkien asserts that the family is still owed £80 million from New Line Cinema, under the 1978 sale of the rights that promised them 7.5% of the profits. Of course, that studio is now defunct, and Warner Bros has no comment on the financial problems.

On June 6th, Tolkien plans to petition a California judge to back his claim to terminate the film rights.

First things first: "From Page to Screen" is a new column I'm trying here at Cinematical. Each week I'll discuss in detail a book that serves as the source material for either an upcoming or a past film adaptation. In the case of forthcoming films, I'll talk about the prospects for the adaptation: the challenges of bringing the particular book to the screen, the casting, the plot, the literary intangibles that so often wind up missing from the resulting movies. In the case of past films, I'll discuss the adaptation's approach to its source: what changed, what stayed the same, what worked and what didn't. Oh, and I'll actually have read the books.

I never tire of repeating my simple philosophy when it comes to adaptations: books are not movies. What works on the page won't always work on the screen. To demand total faithfulness to the book is folly, and will usually lead to a crappy movie. (This is also the case, by the way, for "true stories" and biopics -- people's lives, no matter how interesting, don't always, or even often, make for good films.) But that, I think, makes my task here more interesting rather than less. What does it take for an adaptation to work -- as a film in its own right, or as a translation of the source material?

The idea for this came from a number of discussions I've had here on the site. People are passionate about the books they love, and protective of them. The adaptation process is fun to talk about -- and even more fun when you've read the book and can have an informed conversation. I hope you'll join me, and I plan to be active in the comment threads.