There's all sorts of madness going on at Marvel right now in the wake of Iron Man's ridiculous opening weekend. Marvel's Kevin Feige was promoted to God and now it's time to start looking toward the future. While we await the release of Marvel's second self-financed flick (The Incredible Hulk) later this summer, The Hollywood Reporter tells us Matthew Vaughn is no longer directing Thor (currently scheduled to arrive in theaters on June 4, 2010, not July 4 as previously reported -- unless HR made a typo). According to HR, Vaughn's holding deal expired. In the meantime, Marvel is waiting for a script polish from writer Mark Protosevich (I Am Legend).

On what we should expect from Thor, Feige says, "It's very much a Marvel superhero story but against the backdrop of nothing you've seen before. " He then described the flick as a "period fantasy in the vein of The Lord of the Rings." Sounds pretty cool to me. Who do you think they should get to direct Thor? Heck, why not throw Peter Jackson on it -- I'm sure fans would freak over that one.

Additionally, and this is just a rumor right now, HR also claims that Hulk might be featured in Iron Man 2 (due out April 30, 2010). They don't go any further than that except to say we should expect cross-referencing in all these films now that Marvel has control over the movies its characters are in. However, one thing's NOT for sure right now -- and that's Robert Downey Jr.'s participation in the Iron Man sequel. He's signed on, but HR says Marvel may have to "sweeten the pot to reward the movie's star." Oh, they'll sweeten ... or else millions of fans will look to bring on a world of hurt.

Yesterday, Eric D. Snider mentioned an interesting exercise by The New Republic's Christopher Orr. Annoyed at the recent glut of trailers that give away the entire film, he decided to write a review of 21 (which hits theaters today) based only on the trailer. Eric thought the "review" was actually pretty accurate, and I agree. I also agree that the trailer is egregiously inconsiderate of people who'd have liked to go into the movie unspoiled at least as to the third act. It's a shame.

But I'm sure you agree that it doesn't have to be that way. Trailers don't have to give away the game, and they don't have to be tacky and ham-fisted either. They're a marketing tool, of course, but trailers are also -- or can be -- an art form in their own right. Sometimes a trailer is such a skillful composition of images, sounds, words and music that it winds up having more of an effect on me than the movie I'm in the theater to see. (Often, too, the trailer turns out to be better than the movie it's advertising, which is always a disappointment.)

So while yesterday Eric asked you for examples of trailers that pissed you off because they revealed too much, I'd like to know which recent trailers you've loved. Not necessarily which ones you think advertised their movie in the optimal way, but which ones have been great in themselves -- scary, rousing, moving, beautiful. Take a look at some of my favorites and sound off after the jump.

As a die-hard Lost fan, I'm going to miss "Charlie" (or as Claire says, "CHAHlee"), the character played by Dominic Monaghan. But at least I'll get to see the actor return to the big screen in Pet. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Monaghan has been cast as the lead in the psychological thriller, in which he plays a deranged animal shelter employee who kidnaps his teenage crush and obsessively holds her captive as his pet. The only other plot point provided by the trade is that the woman he's imprisoned is "not who she seems to be." That could mean anything, from her being an alien to her being a shape-shifter who turns into an actual animal to her being something more realistic, such as a female "MacGyver" who ends up escaping her cage and wrecking vengeance on "Seth", as Monaghan's character is called.

For Monaghan, Pet seems like a big step further into unlikable roles. Most of us became familiar with the actor as one of the lovable Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then we fell for his flawed rocker on Lost, though except for in the very end, we were made to lose favor for "Charlie", as he continually lied, shot up heroin and acted like a spoiled little bitch. Then he frustrated many male Lost fans by becoming the unlikely boyfriend of his co-star Evangeline Lilly (I'm unsure if they are still a couple -- anyone know?). Now as a creepy "Buffalo Bill" type, he's sure to lose even more of his appeal -- at least on screen, anyway. Pet begins shooting sometime in the next few months under the direction of Irish filmmaker Edna Enda McCallion (at least I think she's the director, the trade doesn't make it entirely clear), who can be seen in this clip giving a behind-the-scenes look at the making of his music video for the Nine Inch Nails song "Deep".

What do you do when your best-grossing movie franchise is near its end? You try to prolong it, of course. This may be what Warner Bros. has decided to do with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the adaptation of the seventh and final book in J.K. Rowling's series. According to The Mail on Sunday, "crew working on the sixth Potter film, Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince, have been told J.K. Rowling's seventh book, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, will be released in two halves." But the decision -- if true -- is claimed not to be about squeezing more money out of the boy wizard. Instead the studio would split the final book over two films because the book of Deathly Hallows is way too long to appropriately condense it into one feature-length release. Of course, the book of Order of the Phoenix was even longer and they made that one into a single movie.

The move to extend Harry Potter 7 so that it's Harry Potter 7 and Harry Potter 8 seems to make sense for both financial and artistic reasons, and it also seems appropriate after the confirmation that The Hobbit would too be spread out over two films. Considering none of the other attempted fantasy franchises have been received very well, the idea that both the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings franchises would be extended appears to be a good one for both Hollywood and the fans. Who cares if Warner Bros. does want to do this for the money? You hardcore Potter lovers know you'd rather have another movie to watch, especially one that allows more of your favorite scenes from Deathly Hallows to make it in. Apparently Rowling agrees that the adaptation of her book needs to be at least longer than 4 hours -- and anybody thinking they can keep the kids seated for a single, 5-hour movie would have to be crazy. And speaking of crazy, that's exactly what The Mail on Sunday is for thinking Steven Spielberg could be the "big-name director" expected to helm the two-part Deathly Hallows and for thinking that Warner Bros. could seriously be hoping for an Oscar-worthy finale.

Imagine a villain who's like a female Darth Vader, only more evil, and she'll invoke the worst nightmares for children since the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This is how Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw has described Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter in his review of The Golden Compass (aka His Dark Materials: Northern Lights, as it's titled in the UK), which he's given a rating of four stars. As if that's not appealing enough, he also claims the character is Kidman's "juiciest" role since To Die For. According to Bradshaw, it seems Kidman is the main reason to see the movie. His only other highlight is the look of the movie's universe, which he calls "wonderful" and "Gilliamesque." He also points out how it's obvious the movie is aiming for association with Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia. Well, that isn't very surprising.

For a "four star" movie, The Golden Compass, according to Bradshaw, sounds like a mess plot-wise. Aside from looking nice, the movie's universe is apparently "crowded" and "alienating" and the audience is expected to get used to it as best it can, despite a lot of missing background material included in the book. Also, it's apparently more "absurd" than the source novel. Of course, confusing plots and universes aren't always a bad thing to audiences -- just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean series. What could be bad for the movie's box office is its violence; Bradshaw claims a significant polar bear battle could be too much for younger viewers. I have a good feeling that other critics will be less favorable considering the faults that this review seems to address, but of course even with terrible reviews, The Golden Compass could be a hit -- again, just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Now that The Hobbit looks like it will actually happen, it's time to once again talk about the film's casting. And it appears Sir Ian McKellan will most definitely return as Gandalf. He is quoted in The Guardian as saying that he would be "very pleased" to return to the iconic role, which he played in the three Lord of the Rings movies. He also stated that he will do it regardless of whether or not Peter Jackson is brought back to direct the "prequel". In fact, McKellan claims he has received Jackson's blessing to do the film without him. And so the actor said that if he's physically capable of playing the character, he will certainly do so. Of course, he hasn't officially been asked to return, let alone cast, in The Hobbit. But surely he will be offered the part, right?

Obviously, he must be cast. Aside from the fact that he's iconically associated with the character, McKellan was even recognized with an Oscar nomination for playing Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring. But the main reason for McKellan to return -- and I'm sure he recognizes this, as does Jackson -- is for the fans. Some fans will be extremely disappointed if Jackson doesn't direct The Hobbit, but nearly all of the fans should boycott the film if the production goes with a new cast. It will be hard enough accepting someone other than Ian Holm playing Bilbo Baggins, which could very well happen since Baggins is much younger in the earlier story of The Hobbit than in the LOTR trilogy. But if Jackson didn't come back to direct, the film could end up in the hands of Sam Raimi, who we can assume would do the project justice by casting McKellan. Yet despite the new healthiness of The Hobbit, we still can't be sure it will happen very soon. So, if for some terrible reason McKellan isn't "functioning," as he says, who could possibly be considered to replace him? Michael Gambon, perhaps?

Aside from the long-in-the-works adaptation of Good Omens, Neil Gaiman would like all of his works made into movies by Terry Gilliam. He told Empire last week that he would "always give anything to Terry Gilliam, forever." That includes Sandman, which the writer said should be Gilliam's if he wants to do it. Currently, though, Gilliam is shooting an untitled movie about the "band" The Gorillaz, and then he's back to familiar territory with The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, about a travelling theater production, which reunites him with screenwriter Charles McKeown (Brazil; The Adventures of Baron Munchausen) and stars Heath Ledger, Tom Waits, Verne "Mini Me" Troyer and Lily Cole. But according to Gaiman, Gilliam is still trying to make Good Omens, based on the hilariously comic fantasy novel by Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Gilliam is having trouble getting financing for the project; Gaiman said he needs about $70 million, if anybody is interested.

It is great to see Gaiman have so much faith in Gilliam. After the barely tolerable (I did enjoy it) The Brothers Grimm and the barely watchable (I hated my first Gilliam film!) Tideland, I'm a bit worried about my longtime favorite filmmaker. But I must agree with Gaiman that Gilliam would likely be a better choice to adapt his works than anyone else in Hollywood. Certainly better than Joel Schumacher. Gaiman told Empire that he wants the person directing Sandman to have the same passion that Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi had with The Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man, respectively. And that Zach Snyder seems to have with Watchmen. Would Gilliam have that passion? Is he a huge Sandman fan? Who knows? I guess Gaiman, who also said he'd rather have no Sandman movie than a bad Sandman movie.

Picking up a ring and frolicking with hobbits made Peter Jackson a mega-star director, and everyone wondered if he would go back to the days of the The Hobbit after finishing The Lord of the Rings. Not quite. As I'm sure you remember, he doesn't think he was paid all that he should, and he and New Line started warring. From there, things went all over the place and everyone weighed in. Here are some of the reports -- he was blacklisted, he responded, Bob Shaye calmed down a little, Hobbit plans went bye-bye, Saul Zaentz would have none of The Hobbit without Jackson, Greg Wright also spoke up for Jackson, as did James Cameron, but Sam Raimi was a possible alternate, then Jackson said the possibility of him working on The Hobbit was remote in May, but to make things interesting, New Line starts having problems and Shaye sings a different tune.

What could there possibly be to say after all of that? According to EW, the war has come down to a simmer, and sources say that things are looking good for the Hobbit project -- of course this is second-hand, as the main players are now tight-lipped. There's nothing like appeal of money to calm tensions! But I imagine that if this goes through, Jackson will be a stickler about his contract, and there's going to be a lot of eyes watching New Line's accounting. God, can you imagine what they can rake in if they make films comparable to the Rings? Sweet, merciful crap!

Since this is all just gossip, which doesn't leave much to discuss, EW also dipped into the background behind the first films, and has a great primer about the quest to make the Rings, and what has transpired since then -- from Jackson trying to get three films made about the rings, rather than two (can you imagine how much they would've had to cut with less movies?!), to the money, the tensions, and the raving words. So the future might once again be bright. Will we see more hobbits on the screen? Do we care? And when will Jackson even have time? He's got The Lovely Bones and Tintin to worry about!

I'm still not sold on this performance-capture stuff (Beowulf looks terrible), but leave it to Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and a little adventuring character named Tintin to change my mind ... hopefully. Dreamworks and producer Kathleen Kennedy (E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial) are busy working on their 3-D animated trilogy based on Georges "Herge" Remi's iconic Belgian reporter character, and I'm really hoping they get it right. Although they haven't yet found a third filmmaker to helm the installment not being directed by Spielberg or Jackson, they have hired a screenwriter. According to The Hollywood Reporter, British television vet Steven Moffat will script all three parts. The guy has written for series' as diverse as Coupling, Doctor Who and this past summer's Jekyll. Is he ready to tackle such a big-deal project?

Personally, I'm not worried about the scripts for the Tintin movies. Herge was such a great storyteller that I can't imagine it would be difficult to adapt his work. What I'm more worried about is how the film will look. From what we've heard so far, they're attempting something that looks realistic (or live-action) while still retaining the look of Herge's drawings (which are cartoons). Sure, I want to be able to trust Spielberg and Jackson (as Scott mentioned awhile back: if you can't trust them, who can you trust?), but then I haven't seen any performance-capture work that I've been satisfied with -- at least not anything that encompassed an entire film and all of its characters. Will it be more like Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf, which looks too much like a video game, or will it be more like Jackson's work with Andy Serkis in both his Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong? Or will it be something totally new, unlike anything we've ever seen? All I have to say is that I hope Zemeckis isn't the third director hired.

After breaking into the big time playing (and modeling for) CGI characters Gollum (in The Lord of the Rings trilogy) and King Kong, it is time that Andy Serkis becomes recognized for his own face as much as for his versatile acting talents. You may have seen him in supporting roles in Hollywood fare like 13 Going on 30 or The Prestige, and you can see him as the villain in the upcoming fantasy Inkheart, but you probably haven't had the opportunity to see him carry a film mostly on his own. Fortunately you may get to soon, as he's just been cast as one of the leads in The Cottage. I say you may get to because The Cottage is being made by a hot, up-and-coming British director named Paul Andrew Williams, who has been receiving a lot of awards and acclaim abroad for his debut feature, London to Brighton, but who hasn't been given any attention from American distributors yet.

The Cottage is to be a black comedy horror film about a botched kidnapping of a crime boss' daughter. Serkis will be playing one of two brothers who perform the failed crime and who then find themselves mixed up in some kind of "rural secret". The other brother will likely be played by British comedy star Reece Shearsmith. Other cast members include Jennifer Ellison and Steve O'Donnell. Since there are no real international stars, the chances of The Cottage getting a release in the U.S. are low, but hopefully enough Peter Jackson fans will want to see Serkis in the spotlight and will give Hollywood a reason to pick this one up.

If Williams' work doesn't get a proper showing over here, there may be other chances to see Serkis in a starring role. It was just announced by HBO Films and the BBC that he will be playing Albert Einstein in a made-for-TV biopic. There isn't certainty that we will be able to easily see this film either, but it definitely shows that Serkis is on the right path to bigger and more well-known things.

For those of you who just can't get enough of the little guys, hope is apparently not lost for a movie of J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel to his The Lord of the Rings trilogy. According to Peter Jackson, the main stumbling block seems to be sorting out the complicated ownership of the rights to The Hobbit, which recently got a little more muddled. Until a few months ago, rights were shared by MGM and New Line - but when MGM was bought by Sony, their ownership rights were transfered as well. As Jackson put it, "Now, New Line and Sony have to talk to each other and I don't think that anyone's going to call me until those rights issues are resolved." While this means nothing is currently going on, it also seems to suggest that he's interested in directing the movie, if it does indeed happen.

Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, artist Alan Lee (who worked on both King Kong and LOTR) told reporters in Italy that he fully expects a Hobbit movie to be made "in three or four years." One assumes that Lee is just talking, since he's probably not on the inside of either Sony's or New Line's legal teams, but his words are at least further evidence that there's a lot of interested in making the Hobbit from the creative team that made LOTR such a success.

[via Digg]