Unlike Ryan, who has written most of the info on The Dark is Rising up until now, I am not familiar with Susan Cooper's fantasy novels. So, as is often the case, I'm looking at a poster with a fresh mindset. I have read some bits and pieces about the adaptation, though, and have seen some of the disappointed comments regarding the choice of director and the changes made from book to movie. I can't imagine that this new poster, which MTV shares with us, gives any new hope to fans.

First of all, the title and credits in the middle is just not pleasing to the eye. It could just be my being used to seeing them on the bottom, but something about their placement there makes all the stuff beneath seem unimportant yet distracting. Obviously the placement is to divide the two groups of characters, but they seem so contrasted that each makes the other appear kinda silly. The top section looks like a cheap Lord of the Rings knockoff -- Christopher Eccleston's Rider even seems to intentionally evoke Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn -- while the bottom section looks more Clockstoppers than Harry Potter, which is what I imagine the studio would prefer (though this didn't work for Eragon).

This is the kind of one-sheet that makes me wish Drew Struzan could paint every poster. The style, though more photoshop/photorealistic, is totally his, with all the little plot details represented in the background, but the composition and design is nowhere near as good. It isn't even as good as most of those influenced by his style these days. Whoever made it should have paid more attention to the original Fellowship of the Ring poster, and learned how to copy correctly. If this artwork does have you intrigued, take a look at the production stills we released last month. And make sure to see if the movie does the books justice when it comes out this October.

At least once a day we hear about this or that project being "the next big franchise," but following the disappointing performance of Eragon, it is hard to tell which one(s) will actually pull it off. Despite 20th Century Fox already having a potential series on its hands with Night at the Museum, it has brought on that film's director, Shawn Levy, for another attempt at building a brand of blockbusters. This one is based on another children's fantasy novel, the not-yet-published The Seems: The Glitch in Sleep, which seems to need a new title. Part of an eventual series, the book involves a parallel universe in which things like sleep, weather and memory are designed and manufactured. The plot of the first installment follows a boy who must save this world from a glitch in that world. The script for the movie will be written by the book's authors, John Hulme and Michael Wexler (I guess it will be awhile before the next book then?)

Although Levy is on my list of the worst working directors, he isn't much worse than Chris Columbus, who got the ball rolling with the first two Harry Potter movies. He could very well make another hugely successful fantasy film, as he shockingly did with Museum. But at the same time, he has so many projects in the pipeline right now, including Hardy Men and The Flash, that he probably won't devote enough time to any one project to make it really worth our time and money. If he couldn't respect simple historical facts for Museum like Atilla the Hun's race, then he probably won't bother doing any other preparation for The Seems. I guess with a fantasy world, he doesn't have to worry about making errors, but still.

If ever there was a case of statistics being, how to put it politely, skewed, its showcased in this article in The Hollywood Reporter. According to a recent Arbitron survey which asked moviegoers their opinion of pre-movie advertising in theaters, a rather unbelievable 53% of "frequent" moviegoers -- those that attended more than five movies in the past three months -- said that advertising before a movie is acceptable. Compare that to the 46% of people who responded that TV advertising is acceptable.

According to the article, the study also showed that 59% of moviegoers recall the experience of watching onscreen advertising before the movie on their last trip to the theater. To those statistics I just have to say "huh"? I don't know about you, but I and pretty much everyone I know find advertising before a movie to be very unacceptable. So much so that its one of the reasons I pretty much stopped going to regular theaters to see movies. That and the parents who insist on taking their five-year-old to R-rated films and then wonder why they keep crying.

Fortunately, there is still a theater here in Los Angeles that doesn't have adverting -- its called the Arclight and its the only place I will go, other than screenings, to see a film anymore. Now, I'm really trying not to be so negative these days but in my mind, the only thing these statistics, if true, seem to prove is that 53% of "frequent" moviegoers need to have their heads examined. They're probably the same rocket scientists who think Ghost Rider and Eragon are the epitome of cinematic excellence.

Following up, and in direct contrast to, my earlier post about data from the MPAA indicating that 2006 reversed the "slump" from 2005 and was a record year for box office and ticket sales, comes this new article at Variety showcasing the fact that production costs for studio films also rose in 2006. According to the article, members of the Motion Picture Association of America spent an average of $65.8 million to produce a motion picture last year -- up from $63.6 million in 2005. This increase is the first one since 2004.

Not only that but the MPAA only counts what member studios actually put into a film's budget -- something known as total negative cost. Often there are other cost associated with the production of a film that never make it into the actual budget, Consequently, the total negative cost of many studio films could be even higher than reported. Plus, as the article states, the MPAA also doesn't count money used by production companies that are not member studios so that isn't figured in their statistics either.

With all the hoopla about cutting star salaries -- including Tom Cruise being ousted from Paramount -- and trimming costs its a little hard to believe that movie production spending actually increased in 2006. Sure, things happen but at some point you can't cry about high prices and still spend more than you did the year before. After all, the money has to come from somewhere. One gigantic hit like Pirates of the Caribbean; Dead Man's Chest doesn't really justify all the the money wasted on films like Eragon, Date Movie or The Black Dahlia, does it? Maybe the studios think it does.

American theater owners might want to learn from the European markets, because Italy (as I reported in November) and now Germany have won terrific battles in the release-window war. This past weekend German exhibitors put a ban on the Fox blockbusters Night at the Museum and Eragon in order to protest the studio's plan to put the Eragon DVD in stores three months after its theatrical release date. Fox has given in, stating that it will put a minimum of six months between its movies' cinema and video dates.

Both of the movies put on hiatus had been playing in Germany for awhile, and probably earned a majority of their grosses, but Fox still suffered as Night at the Museum fell from the #2 spot to #8 with a whopping 75% decrease in ticket sales. Also, surprisingly, Fox's just-released John Tucker Must Die was hurt; it fell from #4 to #13 with a 72% decrease -- though I can't imagine it would have done too well two weekends in a row. Another incentive for Fox, however, was its need to get Rocky Balboa into German cinemas next weekend. Exhibitors had threatened not to open the film if Fox didn't agree to demands.

Unfortunately for American cinemas, it probably isn't that easy to halt exhibition of any titles they choose to boycott. For some reason studios have a lot tighter hold on the theater business in the States. This news also shows how much Hollywood is more concerned with international box office than domestic. And I guess studios aren't worried about Germans importing American DVDs. If a movie like John Tucker Must Die can do so well over there, when it has been available on video here since November, then there's no worry if Eragon hits stores in the U.S. prior to six months from now.

I'm all for these guild awards, with their specific categories and distinct recognitions, but I'm not sure I understand the Costume Designer Guild's honor for "Distinguished Actor." If the reasoning is that the recipient of this award is someone who looks good in costumes, or makes costume designers look good, then Helen Mirren makes sense as this year's winner. But this reason doesn't explain why the guild is also giving Sandra Bullock an award. Suddenly, the logic falls apart -- especially for anyone who has seen Miss Congeniality 2.

The costume designers don't need to give actors any more praise. And Mirren certainly doesn't need any more trophies this year. To me, the guild's recognition of the different genres of costume design is interesting and appealing enough without some unnecessary star-kissing.

The categories for the Costume Designer Guild Awards separately acknowledge achievements for modern costume, period costume and fantasy costume. The lumping of these genres together into the Best Costume Design Oscar doesn't give credit to the differences between them, and it often ignores the difficulty of modern costuming, which many people assume is as easy as the everyday act of getting dressed in the morning.

I don't know about you, but this holiday weekend knocked the crap out of me. Man, I woke up this morning and my body hurt ... from sitting and eating for two days. Scary. Obviously, Christmas was on the minds of everyone this past weekend, but it was also a big three days at the movies -- with pics like Night at the Museum, Rocky Balboa, We Are Marshall and The Good Shepherd all opening in time for Santa. However, it was Night at the Museum who KO'd the box office, taking home $30 million over the three-day weekend to arrive at number one.

Will Smith fell short with his pursuit of another number one weekend, though The Pursuit of Happyness did manage to beat out all the other new releases to hang onto second with $15 million. And what about Rocky? The 60-year-old Italian Stallion opened up last Wednesday with a little over $6 million, tacked on $12.5 million over the weekend (for a grand total so far of $22.1 million) and stole third place in true underdog fashion. Since the kids were all too busy opening presents, The Good Shepherd ($10 million) managed to steal fourth place from Charlotte's Web ($8 million), despite the latter's rave reviews (Kim and Scott both adored it). And even the big Harry Potter 7 announcement couldn't help Eragon hold onto a place in the top five for a second week; it dropped into sixth with $7.1 million. Poor poor dragon.

Full numbers after the jump.

Here's a list of things I never again need to see in a movie:

• A wizened old mentor teaching a young pupil to let something "flow" through him.
• A scene in which someone rides the back of a dragon while whooping and cheering.
• A young hero rushing off to save his friends despite being warned that such actions spell d-o-o-m.
• An explanation from a henchman to a villain detailing why he came back empty-handed.

...basically, all 90-some minutes of Eragon represent a list of things I need never see again in a movie. Why? Because I've already seen them 1,332 times and there's very little chance that such redundant and tiresome cliches will ever be sufficiently polished to make them feel fresh again. Again, Eragon is 99 minutes of this paint-by-numbers, oft-regurgitated genre blather.

While it might be a little too early to begin talking about a follow-up to Eragon, Fox 2000 originally dove into this fantasy novel with the intentions of turning it into a franchise -- one that would hopefully garner the attention from the teens who love Lord of the Rings and the pre-teens who love Harry Potter. Unfortunately, Eragon ran into Will Smith and his kid on the way to the office, and fell short of taking the weekend's top spot at the box office; it finished with $23 million. However, Eragon did manage to kick Casino Royale to the curb and take number one overseas with an estimated $30 million.

Yet, those numbers were nothing compared to The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring ($47 million domestically in its opening weekend) and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ($90 million domestically in its opening weekend). Seeing as its $23 million will probably be Eragon's largest take in one weekend (especially with films like Dreamgirls, Rocky Balboa and Night at the Museum heading our way), will its final numbers (let's say $54 million domestically) be enough to warrant a sequel? Keep in mind, Eragon's budget was somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. So, what does Fox 2000 do with Eldest, Christopher Paolini's follow-up to Eragon and the second book in his Inheritance trilogy?

Based on some reviews, folks aren't too keen on Eldest (which is essentially The Empire Strikes Back of Paolini's trilogy). Add that to the critical lashing Eragon has received over at Rotten Tomatoes (13%???) and Fox 2000 will have a very difficult decision to make, one that could ultimately tarnish Elizabeth Gabler's (President of Fox 2000) fantastic record (Unfaithful, Walk the Line and The Devil Wears Prada to name a few). With every passion project that succeeds, there's one that fails -- where does Eragon fit in?

So, I ask you: Should Fox 2000 cash in its chips and forget about Eldest? For those that have seen Eragon and read Eldest, would you be interested in seeing the follow-up make it to the big screen? Or not so much?

What's that joke about the talking farm animal who gets caught in a web and can't seem to move anywhere? Turns out I was way off on my predictions this week, as The Pursuit of Happyness held on to its early lead and finished with a very respectable $27 million. Sure, it's not the biggest opening for a Will Smith film, but you have to hand it to the guy (and his son) for beating two highly anticipated kids films. (Was Charlotte's Web highly anticipated? I don't even remember.) Oh, but Smith and Smith Jr. weren't the only ones who had a marvelous weekend ... and, for those of you who have friends at Sony, you might want to act really nice towards them this holiday season seeing as their bonuses will be ginormous.

With its 13th number one opening this year (the most ever for a studio in a single year), Sony has grossed $1.573 billion at the domestic box office -- yes, the most ever for a studio in a single year. What's that joke about the guy at Sony with a drug habit who was just awarded a ginormous holiday bonus? With that said, Eragon managed to pull off a decent $23 million landing it in sole possession of second place (But is it enough to continue the trilogy?). And what the hell happened to Charlotte's Web? $12 million? A lousy $12 million? Dakota? Are you there? Do you see this girl? Did you not smile enough during the film? Heck, your smile alone should guarantee at least $17 million. Those Happy Feet ($8.5 million) penguins and The Holiday ($8.2 million) rounded out the top five. And, although curiosity and Braveheart fans helped it walk away with last week's number one spot, Apocalypto dropped down to sixth place this week, finishing with $7.7 million.

Full numbers after the jump.