IESB Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Sin City is the series that just can't catch a break. Last week, IESB.net was reporting that the Weinstein Company / Dimension had lost the rights to Sin City, and that the franchise was being quietly shopped around. The rumors were hotly denied by the Weinsteins ... but now The Hollywood Reporter is saying the same darn thing.

While the Weinsteins continue to maintain that they hold the rights, producers all around town are saying that Frank Miller's "estate" has been shopping around those same rights. It's unclear if they have lapsed due to the failure to renew or move on the property, but it seems strange that they could have expired so soon.

This is a rumor that I think we all hope comes true. I'd like to see Sin City land at a studio willing to actually put A Dame to Kill For into production instead of just talking about it. It's been four (count 'em, four) years since Sin City, with "production starting in a matter of weeks!" reports being issued every three months or so. The talent remains enthusiastic and attached. Fans are clamoring for the rest of the sleazy series. It's a no brainer for any other studio, but the Weinstein Company seems to believe delaying films until the end of the world is a sound business principle.

What would you like to see ultimately happen with the next Sin City movie, and who do you think would take the best care of it?

Who else is preparing a Friday the 13th marathon this Friday? If you are, you'll be reminded that baddie Jason Vorhees does not wear the iconic hockey mask until Part III. He barely even shows up in the first installment (it's his mom, Pamela Vorhees doing the killings, remember?), and then in the first sequel he's wearing a burlap sack over his head. Finally, in the third film Jason acquires the hockey mask when he kills its original owner. So, here's the question that's been burning inside all horror fans since the announcement of a Friday the 13th reboot: what will Jason be wearing to cover his face? And here's the answer: both sack and mask.

The surprising yet satisfying answer was found out by IESB.net during a visit to the Austin, Texas set of the movie. Producers Brad Fuller and Andrew Form admitted to condensing the events of the first three films so that we can see the moment when Jason puts on the mask for the first time. But apparently there will be an actual switch from sack to mask, which will make the sequence different from the events of Part II and Part III. Another reporter on set referred to this new switch sequence as Jason's "Darth Vader Moment." Also, IESB learned that the switch will be shot twice, once from behind and once from the front, revealing Jason's ugly mug. However, it supposedly has not yet been decided which one (if not both) shots will end up in the final cut.

The remake/reboot of Friday the 13th arrives in theaters on the next Friday the 13th to occur after this week: February 13, 2009.

It is now official: Stuart Beattie is the new screenwriter for G.I. Joe. As I told you a week ago, IESB already had the scoop that Beattie would be writing the live-action adaptation, joining newly appointed director Stephen Sommers (who IESB also had announced first) on the project. Beattie has sort of a strange resume, so it is hard to tell if he's really the best to tackle the movie. He started out as co-writer of an Australian family film about a boy and a kangaroo. Then he did a couple of badly received Australian movies before landing a gig as one of the story writers for the first Pirates of the Caribbean. After that, he scripted the mostly excellent Michael Mann thriller Collateral (his ending could have used work) and penned the adapted screenplay for the so-so thriller Derailed. Since, he's co-written a documentary about a surfing gang and had something to do with Baz Luhrman's upcoming epic Australia and the long-in-works video game adaptation Spy Hunter. The thing to look for, to see if he's worthy of an action-packed pic is next month's vampire movie 30 Days of Night.

Of course, G.I. Joe could be more of a thriller -- one for the whole family, that is -- but I guess it is doubtful. Beattie is probably just a writer for hire who will not have much to say. The basic idea for the movie has already been set up, and not just because at least three other writers have worked on drafts in the past. Paramount has given the simple plot as being about a Brussels-based, co-ed force that battles an evil arms-dealing organization. One thing I hadn't noticed the first time I wrote about that homogenized update is that the head of COBRA is double-crossing Scot. Funny, I never knew this when I was growing up, but after looking up COBRA on Wikipedia, I learned that, yes, Destro was a Scottish arms dealer. But was he head of COBRA? Well, no, that was Cobra Commander, but I at least thought he was a member of the organization. Now I'm confused, but I guess the movie is combining COBRA with something called M.A.R.S. (Military Armaments Research Syndicate), which was in fact led by Destro. Isn't it interesting how much of this specific stuff we don't pay attention to as children? I should go and check out an old episode to see how much I didn't understand the first time.

Apparently neither Christian Bale nor Brandon Routh are doing Warner Bros.' Justice League movie. Does that leave the studio desperate to find replacements? Not according to IESB, which always seems to have the best scoops before everyone else (to paraphrase The Joker: Where do they get these wonderful sources?). The movie site, which also broke the news that Stephen Sommers would direct G.I. Joe, claims Tom Welling is filling the cape of Superman in Justice League. This should be good news to a lot of Smallville fans -- as my comic-obsessed buddy says: "That's who they should have gotten in the first place [for Superman Returns]" -- but it hasn't been confirmed yet, so no celebrating just yet. Still, IESB seems more sure of this rumor than any the site has ever announced. They admit over there that they haven't gotten a reply from Welling's people and that the WB people have denied it, but they're still positive that it is true, because of the sources they've heard it from.

Supermanhomepage.com got an official response from Smallville producer Al Gough, who said this casting "hasn't happened, won't happen, he is under contract to Smallville through Season 8." But IESB has recognized this debunking and still isn't backing down. The site insists Welling has the role and even points out that Smallville may even revolve production around the movie's shoot. As for Bale's replacement, IESB claims to also know who's playing Batman but doesn't have a good enough amount of sources to reveal it. Meanwhile, CHUD has a sarcastic response to the whole thing. The site has a joke post up claiming that Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson (poor guy) have been cast in the movie, the former as Batman and the latter as Superman. The post also brings back the old floater that Jack Black would be Green Lantern. Of course, CHUD is obviously making fun of IESB and wonder if they could get a lot of hits by just making up casting rumors, such as Jamie Bamber as Superman and Gerard Butler as Aquaman. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if IESB's latest, including the tip that Justice League will only be partially motion capture (like every other fantasy movie these days), is true.

Shortly before Comic-Con started this year, I heard about the Masters of Web panel that would be happening -- a panel comprised of leaders of some prominent movie sites. The panel wasn't originated by Con organizers, it was sold to them, pre-packaged. Cinematical wasn't invited to sit, which on some level I understand since we've been around for two years, while other sites like JoBlo have been around much longer. On the other hand, our traffic triples and quadruples that of many of those who were being invited, so it was a little odd. Check out the traffic measuring site of your choice to verify that. But since I was sending a team to the Con, I felt obligated to find out who was organizing this panel and ask them politely, 'Hey, can Cinematical sit in?' It turned out to be Robert Sanchez of IESB.net, who I considered a friendly colleague. Back when IESB was shut down by Paramount Pictures in May, Cinematical wrote a post saying that was way out of line, and IESB actually thanked us for that.

So I e-mailed Robert, asking him if we could sit on the panel. He wrote me back, saying that the reason we weren't invited was because there were already a huge number of invitees and the Con was asking for numbers to be cut down, not expanded. Okay, sounded reasonable enough, and again, I didn't really care. The panel was considered pretty low-rent anyway -- AICN skipped it all-together. I never gave it another thought, until this morning when someone on my team pointed me to the video IESB is hosting of the event. Imagine my surprise to find Robert completely bashing Cinematical, a site that sends him tons of traffic and never shows his site anything but proper respect. Of course, he doesn't come out and say our name -- he hides behind saying 'blog owned by AOL' as if that could mean anything but us. Last time I checked, we're the only movie blog owned by AOL that turns over millions of hits a month. Here's where we got mentioned, during Robert's diatribe about how no one gives him props:

"It's not only established media ... we're not bloggers, for God's sakes. I'm not a f**king blogger. You know, we might have a blog, but we don't blog. Chud's not a blog. Latino Review's not a blog. And I hate when the established 'quote unquote' media treats us as bloggers. But at the same time, bloggers who live 300 miles away from any f**king studio will pick up our stories and they do the exact same thing. There's even a couple that are owned, by like, AOL -- I'm not gonna mention their f**king names -- that will run stories without giving us credit. Or they'll do a stupid little hyperlink, like 'sources are saying,' you know. But they won't mention your name. We're the ones working our asses off to bring you guys news, and we do. I think everyone here does it full time, or almost full time. You know, we have families to support ... but son of a bitch, these little bloggers who don't do anything but live with their mom will take our stories and not give us credit and they write them up as their own." [We did verify with Robert that he was intentionally referring to us. He owned up to it.]

While folks frantically try to uncover the plot and title for Indiana Jones 4, IESB has arrived with some pretty big news ... if it's true. Up until now, we were pretty positive this would be the final installment in the Indiana Jones franchise, with Shia LaBeouf potentially coming back as Indy's son in a future spin-off installment. Well, according to a "very well respected Paramount studio source" LaBeouf has signed a four-picture deal to reprise his current role in three more Indy-related films. Not only that (and here's the big shocker), but IESB also claims that Harrison Ford signed a three-picture deal, meaning he'll show up (all old and whatnot) as Indiana Jones in two more flicks. Now I'd like to tell you to take this all with a grain of salt (which you should), but know that IESB says their source is "as solid as a rock."

The LaBeouf stuff I can believe, but I never in a million years expected Ford to sign on for more films after this one -- mainly because I wouldn't think Steven Spielberg would be directing, and also because the guy is getting a tad old. And do they really want to stretch this series out into seven films? The first three are such classics, and I have high hopes for the fourth. But three more?! They've got to be kidding. Apparently not. Of course there's always a chance Paramount will wait to see how Indiana Jones 4 does (as well as how much people like LaBeouf's character) before making the move on any additional installments. And there's also a chance Ford's contract only calls for cameo roles, instead of full-on stunt action. But since Ford has never been a "cameo actor," I can't see him agreeing to show up for five minutes to give his son a mission, then bail. Regardless, what do you think about three more Indiana Jones films? Would you be down for that much Indy, or do you want to wait to see the fourth flick before answering?

You may have noticed that, about an hour ago, prominent movie website IESB.net came back to life after being down for an extended period of time. Here's what happened in a nutshell: After IESB posted some spy video and images of Iron Monger on the set of Iron Man, Paramount Pictures went ballistic and sent a legal letter to the IESB host demanding the site be shut down for copyright infrigement. That much was pretty much common knowledge, but I got a more detailed account today from IESB's Stephanie Sanchez. "We were not notified in any way, or asked to take it down," Stephanie says. "We were literally in the middle of posting a story and all of a sudden our server was gone. We called our hosting company, they transferred us to legal and we were forwarded the letter that was sent from Paramount on Friday that demanded the shut down. Note, this is a letter we were never sent and weren't given any warning about."

Stephanie continues: "Here's the kicker. The video and pictures that were in question were in no way property of Paramount. Both were shot from a parking lot of a 24 hour fitness center across the street from the Iron Man shoot that was taking place on a public street in Long Beach, CA. There was no violation of copyright whatsoever. After hours on the phone yesterday with Paramount reps (who had no clue about it) they completely apologized and said this should have never happened. It was the idiots in the Paramount legal department who did this." Stephanie also notes that after this ordeal, IESB has "lost respect for the studio, we lost out financially and most importantly it was just really a blow to our reputation." She also says IESB will be posting a letter to readers today giving more details, and thanks the online community for their support.