RumorMonger »

When we hear a ridiculous rumor, it's quite easy to become either incensed at the sheer audaciousness of the claim, or laugh it off as too stupid to be true. Take this latest goodie: Cinema Blend reports that a source at Universal Pictures claims that since audiences are expecting more from their movies, the studio wants to tap into the franchise pile for 3D magic, and are "strongly considering" a remake of Jaws "in hopes of dazzling younger audiences with new special effects."

The notion makes sense. If there's one movie that would look downright gorgeous in Real D 3D, it's Jaws. However, folks, that's not all. That same insider claims that Tracy Morgan has been considered for the role of Richard Dreyfus' Matt Hooper, but it's "uncertain" whether he's still in the running. To hedge their gossip bets, Cinema Blend states that this is a new source and could be hooey just as much as it could be truth.

It's easy to shudder when thinking of a comedic Jaws led by Morgan, because the thought sounds downright terrible, but let's back up. See that shark up there with the super-visible robot metal in his mouth? That's the big beast of Jaws 4. After that monstrosity of moviemaking, is it really that ridiculous to imagine Morgan facing off against a 3D shark?

It's either the stupidest, most moronic rumor of the year, or a sad reminder of where Hollywood is heading in the future. You make the call ...

It's a bird, it's a plane ... it's Warner Bros. asking Christopher Nolan to pretty please resurrect their Superman franchise and do something cool with it! According to Deadline Hollywood, Nolan has been asked to come in and sort of "mentor" the next Superman movie, and it won't be a sequel to Superman Returns, but instead the beginning of a brand new franchise. Furthermore, DH says Nolan probably won't direct -- especially since David Goyer, Jonah Nolan and Chris Nolan are all busy planning and writing the next Batman installment as we speak -- so what will he do, exactly, when it comes to the new Superman? That's not clear yet, and DH stresses that the film is still in its real early stages of development (ahem, I think they're bringing him in to lay the groundwork for a Justice League movie, but we'll see ...)

Still, knowing Nolan is somehow involved in the rebirth of Superman should at the very least breathe some excited life into a franchise that a lot of folks have kinda lost faith in because, let's face it, the fans feel Warner Bros. had lost faith in it, too. One insider told DH, "We know what we don't want to do. But we don't know what we want to do. We learned a lot from the last movie, and we want to get it right this time." Obviously Nolan has success in rebooting a DC Comics franchise, as evidenced by the work he's done with Batman. But Superman is a different beast all together, and one imagines they'll start with trying to ground the franchise a bit more with a freakier set of villains and perhaps a more relatable, down-to-earth storyline. Not that we need Clark Kent making MySpace references for 120 minutes, but I could see them focusing more on the burden Superman is carrying -- that "weight of the world" angle -- and less on his little romance with Lois Lane.

What do you think? What would you like to see them do with the new Superman?

Everyone has been mildly interested to see who would win the Terminator franchise rights after Halcyon Holding Corp. went into bankruptcy. (Come on, we all wanted Joss Whedon to get it.) Last we knew, Lionsgate was the leading contender to win the rights to making more chronicles of John Connor. But according to Deadline Hollywood Daily, the bidding has ended, and the winner? Pacificor, the Santa Barbara hedge fund that had loaned Halcyon the money to buy Terminator in the first place. Halcyon failed in their loan payments, forcing Pacificor to come after them, which they tried to head off by filing their own lawsuit. But now the slate has apparently been wiped clean to the tune of $29 million dollars.

Sony and Lionsgate did place bids, and even united to bid together once the first round was over. But both dropped out at $29.5 million when it became clear that Pacificor was willing to pay any amount necessary to win the Terminator rights. Reportedly, Sony's Peter Schlessel was "furious" at how the auction went down and stormed out of the building. Was that because he really, really wanted Sony to have Terminator? Was he just mad that he wasted his evening? Or is everyone as weirded out by the shadowy business practices as we on the outside are?

The sale must be approved by bankruptcy court, so there could still be another chapter to the sad saga. What Pacificor plans to do with the franchise is anyone's guess, but I suspect that Terminator will be something so tied up in legal red tape and rights that we won't see another film for a long, long time.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who likes Doug Liman's Mr. & Mrs. Smith. But I might be the only person who considers it a masterpiece. The problem is, I don't really know how to defend it without sounding like a bad combo of fanboy and academic. Saying it's the best action movie interpretation of the comedy of remarriage subgenre since Twister surely isn't bringing anyone to my side, even if they are fans of both Twister and classic screwball comedies of the '30s and '40s.

Regardless of my inability to properly convince people of how perfect Mr. & Mrs. Smith is, I'm sure I can get enough people to agree with me that Fox should not dismiss the film by trying again with a sort of remake/reboot. According to Vulture, the production company New Regency, which operates out of the Fox lot and through its distribution, and original producer Akiva Goldsmith are hoping for a new franchise this time around with a prequel/origins movie (now titled Mr. and Mrs. Jones) that recasts the title characters, originally played by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

As the writers slave over another draft of the Ghostbusters 3 script -- with production hopefully beginning later this year -- some more news regarding the film's storyline has slipped out across these internets, with one aspect being an exclusive to Cinematical.

Possible spoilers for Ghostbusters 3 to follow ...

First up is the news that Bill Murray has confirmed his other-worldly role in the film. A few months back, Sigourney Weaver had let slip that Murray was going to be playing a ghost in the film -- a rumor that was later squashed by folks who claimed that particular storyline was featured in a very old draft. However, Murray has now gone on record as not only disliking the second Ghostbusters movie (something he's said before) and thinking that Groundhog Day should've been a bigger hit, but also noting that he would only return to the Ghostbusters franchise if they made his character a ghost. He says, "I said to them, 'I'll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.' So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film." Murray as a ghost? I hope it works. What do you think?

Meanwhile, as most talk revolves around the returning actors and the identity of the new recruits, little has been said about the film's mythology and who (or what) the Ghostbusters will be battling this time around. Well, Cinematical has it on very good authority that as recent as this past summer, the central mythology of the sequel was being based on Zoroastrianism, which is one of the earliest religions on record. Like with most religions, the war between good and evil is at its central core, and in terms of evil there's Ahriman: the god of darkness, the eternal destroyer of good, personification and creator of evil, bringer of death and disease.

Is Ahriman the film's villain?

"Damn the Gods"? Nah, more like "Damn the Suits" who opted to give Clash of the Titans a 3-D upgrade in the wake of Avatar's popularity, unaware or unfazed by the fact that A) that film was actually shot for 3-D, not just given layers in post-production, and B) that film didn't succeed massively because of star Sam Worthington (no offense, fella).

So Warner Bros. has bought themselves a week, moving Clash back from March 26th to April 2nd in order to capitalize on Easter weekend and give How to Train Your Dragon a whopping week before squeezing in on its 3-D screens. This move has left other studios to scramble to avoid competition (or fill the gap left behind), and so far as B.O.M. is concerned, here's how things have settled at the moment:

• Fox's family-friendly Diary of a Wimpy Kid has moved to March 19th from 4/2
• Universal's sci-fi actioner, Repo Men, has moved to March 19th from 4/2
• MGM's raunchy romp, Hot Tub Time Machine, has moved to March 26th from 3/19
• Disney's Nicholas Sparks/Miley Cyrus vehicle, The Last Song, opens on March 31 instead of 4/2
• Summit's kiddie comedy, Furry Vengeance, has moved to April 30th from 4/2

In an unrelated move, Screen Gems' Takers (which was supposed to open this month once upon a time) has moved to August 20th, instead of going right up against Universal's Robin Hood in mid-May. They may be thieves, but they ain't about to steal money from Russell Crowe, believe me you.

The folks in Dodge City don't let things slack. A Gunsmoke reboot kicked off just last August, and now the star wagons are circling. According to the LA Times, a number of actors are interested in playing the lead role Marshal Matt Dillon (originally played by James Arness on the TV series), but a few big names already lead the pack.

Ryan Reynolds is said to be interested in the role as he continues to make a name for himself as an action star, moving from romances and comedies to the world of Deadpool and the Green Lantern. But there's also the allure of a man who's already seen the grit of the Old West. Brad Pitt is CBS Films' top man, being one of the few stars to actually have a Western under their belt -- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Between star power and experience, it's no surprise that the role could easily be his. However, the studio hasn't nabbed a director yet, which could affect casting.

The new Gunsmoke is being positioned as a new action tentpole eager to cash in on name recognition, so expect a star-filled ensemble. But personally, I hope there's a little room for Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Guy Pearce, and Danny Huston in the mix. If it wasn't for these recent gunslingers, I'm not sure that the Western world would be making such a comeback.

But what about you? Who do you want to see cast in the big-screen Gunsmoke?

Speculation has been rife about the planned "reboot" (yeah, I hate that word too) of the Spider-Man movie franchise, now that Sam Raimi and Toby Maguire have departed that particular Marvel universe. Adding fuel to the fire, Logan Lerman tells Access Hollywood that he's been talking with Sony about playing Peter Parker.

Lerman, 18 years of age, stars in fantasy flick Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, which is due out next week. Previously he's had roles in the 3:10 to Yuma remake and Gamer. (I first saw him in the TV show Jack & Bobby; he was the younger brother and quite good.) Lerman says of Spider-Man: "There has been a few discussions, it's definitely something I'm looking into." He claims to be a huge fan of the character and the series. He acknowledges that talks are in the early stages, but says: "I'd love to focus on the human element a bit more."

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios have said the next film in the series will focus "on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises," though it's not clear if the new, high school Peter Parker will take cues from the original Spider-Man universe or perhaps display influences from Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate version of the comic. Somehow, I don't think Logan Lerman will be the last we hear of possible Peter Parkers in the coming weeks, and possibly months, as the picture gets ready for its 2012 release.

Update: The Hollywood Reporter adds that both the studio and Lerman's reps have denied there's anything to this story, adding there are currently no ongoing discussions with Lerman for the role and that no offers have been made.

When people throw out the "write it yourself" argument, I always shudder on the inside, thinking of the writerly pains associated with Hollywood. Stories get ravaged, nipple-ized, Ratnerized, sequelized, and every bad "ized" you can think of. Not even Watchmen is sacred.

CHUD reports that according to comic industry gossip Rich Johnston, Paul Levitz is stepping down from his post as DC Comics Publisher and President, and Executive Editor Dan Didio, "already hated by fanboys across the globe, has apparently made it his personal mission to ride off the continued sales success of Watchmen with prequels, spin-offs, and possibly sequels." Spoiler alert...

So, I guess Rorschach will just pick up his splattered brains and go back to the world of vigilante justice? Manhattan will just fart around with no one to have blue orgies with (unless he makes a stop at Smurf Land)? Laurie and Dan spawn and start a little soccer team of a crime-fighting family? A romantic, historical drama on the big heart hidden beneath the Comedian's muscles? I shudder to think of the possibilities...

Devin Faraci writes: "You can't be too surprised. What you can do is promise to not buy this," and he's dead on. At some point we have to take some responsibility and stop buying into the crap shoveled to us. We can't expect these things to stop if we hand over our money in curiosity and buy into this schlock. Alan Moore refused to even watch the movie. I wonder how he'll react if Watchmen spin-offs and sequels become a reality.

Doomsday, the return!

Update: Deadline Hollywood says there's "not a chance" of a film sequel, but with the comics, "anything is possible." So really, that means anything is possible for the big screen too, just not right now.