Producer Scott Faye is keeping the faith -- but fans of the Electronic Arts video game American McGee's Alice will have to wait an indeterminate amount of time to see a movie version. According to McGee's own blog (and thanks to Shock for the tip), Mr. Faye has announced that Universal has placed the project into turnaround -- which essentially means it's comatose until another backer snags the property. (IF another backer snags the property.)

Here's what the producer had to say: "Jon and Erich Hoeber have written a very compelling feature film screenplay adaptation of the Alice game. Their screenplay will certainly serve as a jumping off point as we find a new studio home for the project. In terms of the realistic chances of seeing the Alice project being produced, all I can say is that I have invested (along with Julie Yorn and Karen Lauder, my producing partners on the project) a lot of time and effort in this project. We will get it made." Just not at Universal, unfortunately. Earlier reports indicated that actress Sarah Michelle Gellar and director Marcus Nispel were attached to the project, but as Inspector Clouseau used to say "Notennymore."

For those who are unfamiliar with American McGee's Alice (I really should play this game already), it's sort of a dark semi-sequel to Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (or Alice in Wonderland, if you prefer). Filmmakers previously (and temporarily?) attached to the project include director Wes Craven, screenwriter John August, and actress Jean Marsh. (Thanks to Wiki for the reminders.) So to those who've played (and hopefully enjoyed) this video game, here's my question: Who should direct the thing?

Universal was out in full force over the weekend, hosting panels for The Incredible Hulk (see our report here), Wanted and Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Though less attention has been given to Wanted and Hellboy II so far, both films will provide, perhaps, some of this summer's most spectacular visuals.

Wanted

We mentioned it the other day, but prior to the Wanted panel at NY Comic Con, Cinematical was invited to Universal's suite high on the 52nd floor of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to hang with director Timur Bekmambetov and watch the Wanted Comic Con footage a drop early. Following the brief screening (on a monstrous flat screen TV), I caught up with Timur and spoke to him about the film. One thing, in particular, was whether he planned on a Wanted franchise, or if this would be a one-off film. Timur laughed when I asked, and said we'd have to wait to see if people go to see this one first. Also of note, when I asked if he planned to continue his very successful Night Watch/Day Watch series of films, Timur shot back: This [meaning Wanted] is it! This is the third film. Even though it has different story, the tone is the same from the other films."

Oh, and then came the footage ...

Looking to get in on the -- well -- game, Universal has partnered with Hasbro to develop feature films based on at least four of their branded properties. Those include Monopoly, Candy Land, Clue, Ouija, Battleship, Magic, the Gathering and Stretch Armstrong. The move comes after Paramount snatched up Transformers and G.I. Joe, which means neither is part of this new deal. There's already been talk that Ridley Scott will direct a film based on the Monopoly board game, and the director even spoke about it recently -- but the others are all completely up in the air as of now.

Out of these, I could honestly see a very cute Wonka-ish film coming from Candy Land, and Stretch Armstrong could be fun if it was developed as a comedy for someone like, say, Jim Carrey. Clue was already made into a film, so the framework is there, and Battleship could go a number of different ways (though ship movies never seem to excite us all that much unless Leo DiCaprio is involved). I don't know much about Magic, the Gathering, except that it's very popular and would probably entice the teen audience, and Ouija could go either the comedic route or the haunting thriller route. As much as I'd like to trash this entire deal, fact is I really can see some potential in these games, assuming they bring onboard the right talent, the right director and the right creative minds.

What about you? Which game could you see becoming the next big motion picture?

I know, I know, Wes Craven's always got a few projects on the burner, right? But it looks like he's finally settled into the director's chair again -- this time on a Rogue / Universal horror (oh, sorry, thriller) flick called, strangely enough, 25/8, (I assume it's a play on the phrase "24 / 7," as in "That Weinberg dude is watching horror movies 24 / 7" -- or maybe it means August 25 in the UK. I have no idea.

According to Variety, 25/8 represents Mr. Craven's "first original horror script since 1994's New Nightmare," which is a specious way of skipping over the fact that Craven co-wrote last year's Hills Have Eyes 2 AND that atrocious Pulse remake. It will be his first directorial feature since 2005, when he gave us both Red Eye (yay) and Cursed (boo). The source indicates that "the film unveils a signature villain, a serial killer who turns up 15 years after his purported death, to kill the seven children born on that fateful night." Gee, not straying all that far from Elm Street, eh?

For his part, Mr. Craven says "It's more a thriller than slasher film, and revolves around a young kid with a very dark past involving his family and his father." Regarding those remakes, he will be involved with the Last House on the Left re-do, but not so much on Platinum Dunes' Freddy re-fit.

Oh, and in slightly-related horror news, Rogue has found a director for their remake of George Romero's The Crazies: Breck Eisner, who last gave us Sahara.

"He's a male bimbo. He's a mimbo!"

Following last week's Wolfman fiasco, a friend of mine asked me whether I thought Brett Ratner would ever direct another big-budgeted film again. And when I say big-budgeted, I'm talking action, adventure, big stars -- the type of film with franchise potential. It's no secret the internet pretty much despises this man. For those who might not remember, director Mark Romanek dropped out of The Wolfman recently, and a whole bunch of directors were in talks to replace him. At the top of that list was Brett Ratner -- and once sites like AICN got hold of that news, all hell broke loose. Harry Knowles (in an un-Knowles-like hate-spewed rant) went off on Ratner, how he's a cruddy director and that Universal would be idiots to bring him on. Eventually, Jurassic Park III director Joe Johnston took over the project.

But not before the internet (including sites like ours and many others) went off on the Ratner decision. Word is Universal was pretty taken aback by all the hostility, and, in the end, it may or may not have played into their decision to go in a different direction. After all, do they really want months of Ratner bashing when their film has been awarded with nothing but love up until this point? I wouldn't want that. Who would? And that's what brings me to this question: With all the major movie sites in agreement that Ratner is the worst choice for practically any film, will this hurt the dude's future career behind the camera?

It's a very weird place to be in for a major studio, because, in all honesty, the guy's films bring in lots of money. Mass audiences are attracted to his name. But, going forward, will there be a studio willing to deal with all the Ratner web bashing in order to make it to theaters in the hopes that their marketing department could defeat all the bad word of mouth? Rush Hour 4 aside, do you think Brett Ratner will ever direct a big-budgeted fanboy film again?

I always love it when Brett Ratner's name gets tossed into the pot with regards to a new, hip fanboy-ish project, because the fanboys run out to cry foul. It hasn't seemed to hurt his career, though, since moviegoers still flock to his flicks because the studios tend to sell them well with flashy trailers and whatnot. The latest flurry of Ratner rage was brought on by a story over at AICN which claims the director is Universal's choice to replace Mark Romanek on The Wolfman. Harry Knowles, who broke the news (and says it comes from a very reliable source), makes a pretty good argument as to why the studio should let Ratner's name go in one ear and out the other.

Knowles says, "Brett Ratner makes watchable films. Movies that go through your system as if consumed off a soapy plate. They're empty - hollow works. He's a terrible ACTOR's director. His basement is a disco, and the Wolfman has no disco in his soul. This is a PERIOD film - to make a convincing period film you need a director for an eye for details... Someone that knows this world and period. X3 was a financial success - but that was based on an incredibly successful franchise by Singer. Ratner killed it." Although I'm not as attached to The Wolfman as others are, I completely agree with Knowles opinion of the guy. Ratner's a joke -- he'll make your film look pretty, like the last girl left in the bar after six hours worth of vodka shots. But when you wake up next to her the next morning, the guilt -- coupled with a massive hangover -- leads to regret. Why, exactly, did I pay $10 bucks to watch that piece of sh*t? Oh yeah, the trailer looked good.

While the news is not official yet, there's definitely enough here to hurt your ears. Here's hoping Universal listens to the cries and goes in a different direction. What do you think?

If there's one thing I've ever learned in life it's that you should try to keep your personal life and business life separate. Once they collide, sh*t almost always hits the fan, and it will only be a matter of days before that big $100 million picture you were supposed to direct gets the shaft. Yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Robert Rodriguez. According to The New York Observer, Universal will no longer back Rodriguez's planned Barbarella remake because the director insists on placing his woman, Rose McGowan, in the lead role. Here's how their source describes the scene: "It's sort of embarrassing for everyone involved. No one thinks Rose can carry the movie, but Robert won't listen." (I can hear the sounds of the whip in the background as we speak.)

Other names that have lingered around the role include Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry and Jessica Alba. However, Rodriguez wants McGowan, and it doesn't appear Universal wants to shell out $100 million for a director who's whose last film bombed and a girl who's never amounted to anything more than playing "the hot slutty girl" in each of her films. Funnily enough, the original Barbarella starred Jane Fonda and was directed by her husband (at the time) Roger Vadim. Since Rodriguez and McGowan are engaged, I suppose it only makes sense to keep things in line with the source material. Apparently, Universal will still fund the film, but not at $100 million. They'll do $60 million, yet Rodriguez is said to be shopping the project around to other studios in the hopes of securing more money. Here's my question to you: If you were Universal, would you stick with the $100 million budget and take a chance on McGowan? Or do you think Rodriguez is too whipped to see there are better actresses out there?

My sister and I used to watch Land of the Lost all the time. Even at the tender ages of 7 and 9 we could tell how amazingly chintzy the series was -- and yet we watched it all the time. The sketchy dinosaurs and the slimy Sleestaks. That freaky little hairy dude and those strange little booths with the glowing buttons. Ah, that was fun junk. (I actually reviewed one of the LOTL season sets a few years back, and my opinion of the program is pretty much the same: Broad, silly kitsch that's fun enough, but best consumed in small doses.)

Anyway, we've been hearing vague rumblings about a movie version for quite some time, and according to Variety, Universal is ready to get rolling now. Well, not exactly now, but they've hired a director (Brad Silberling) and they've signed Will Ferrell to star. Plus production begins in March, so I'm guessing it's definitely a "go project" at this point. Fans of the goofy ol' show may notice a few changes though: The adaptation "revolves around a disgraced paleontologist, his assistant and a macho tour guide who find themselves in a strange world inhabited by dinosaurs, monkey people and reptilian Sleestaks."

A macho tour guide? An assistant? What about Rick Marshall? And Will and Holly and Cha-Ka? Eh, who cares? The show was cheesy stuff anyway. If you're telling me that Will Ferrell is starring in a $100 million prehistoric comedy, that's enough to get me (at least a little) intrigued. And I suppose some congratulations are due to TV producers Sid & Marty Krofft. I guess this means we'll soon be seeing movie versions of H.R. Pufnstuf, Far Out Space Nuts, and Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. (Ugh, I just got a nasty chill up my spine.)

[ Amusing trivial tidbit: In Kevin Smith's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Will Ferrell plays a character called Marshal Willenholly. This is an obvious reference to Land of the Lost. Well, it's obvious if you're a pop-culture nerd like Kevin Smith. And me. ]

So now that Halo 3 has officially hit stores (in a ginormous way), folks are probably wondering whether Halo: The Movie would start picking up some pre-strike steam. I swear, it's the oddest project I've ever come across. The friggin' video game is a monster -- I mean a real whale here -- and yet Hollywood is avoiding the movie as if it were the plague. I shouldn't really blame all of Hollywood; primarily we're talking Universal and Fox, both of whom originally attempted to team up on the project. But after months of arguing over who really took the cookie from the cookie jar, the project was put to rest. Now, Neill Blomkamp, the relative unknown who was originally tapped by Peter Jackson to direct the Halo film, speaks out about what happened, where the project is now and what his Halo movie would've looked like.

Blomkamp spoke to Creativity Online, and among other things in the interview, he says, "The film is entirely dead. Whatever happens with that movie, assuming that movie gets made, will be a totally different configuration. It's not so much me as the entire vessel sank. Basically, it was a combination of; there were two studios involved that weren't getting along in the process of making it, Universal and Fox. That kind of stuff happens, it's a fragile industry. So the film collapsed at the end of last year, and it's been dead, ever since then. I'll be curious to see what happens." Blomkamp also talks about the three promotional shorts he made for Halo 3, and how none of them had anything to do with a potential movie. Those were made specifically to promote Halo 3, although fans (like me) looked at them as more of a tease.

It really is a shame, and I hope people from Universal and Fox read this, because this dude Neill Blomkamp would've made an amazing Halo film, unlike any video game adaptation out there. Just check out some of the things he says about his vision: "I wanted it to feel like the most brutal, real version of science fiction in a war environment that you've seen in a while. And Universal was on board with that. I don't really remember what Fox thought about it, but Universal seemed down with it. It would have been cool, it would have been a unique take on things, science fiction in a dirty, organic way." So then what the hell happened? Why couldn't they get this done? Apparently there were budgetary concerns, but I would've taken the chance. Who knows what will happen from here, but rest assured Halo: The Movie directed by Neill Blomkamp will soon join the growing list of films that should've been made, but never were.

[Thanks to Shawn for the tip]

Jon Favreau has really come a long way since Swingers (and thankfully, an even longer way since Made) and I'll be the first to admit that when he was attached to direct Iron Man, I breathed a sigh of ... disappointment. I mean, how could the director of Swingers and Elf possibly do a good job with a massive Hollywood summer tentpole film? My hopes were dashed. I pictured scenes of an over-the-top villain in black hat and mustache chasing Iron Man around with a can opener. Camp style, you know?

However, after seeing the footage from the movie, not once but three times, I'm totally sold on this. In my opinion, this is going to be the big movie next summer. When you first get a glimpse of that armor (both versions), it's chilling and cool at the same time. Plus, hearing Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" is just perfect. You sold me, Favreau. Go ahead and chalk up my ticket and popcorn with a medium soda, please.

Click on Jon to activate the audio, of which the highlights are below.

• On working with Vince Vaughn again: "Vince is riding high on the comedy train right now, and we have a lot of ideas that we could do. The Marshall of Revelation, which is the Western we talked about doing, is a little gritty and darker ... although we're getting a bit too old to play the roles as I wrote them."
• Is Jarvis the Butler in the movie? "Jarvis is in the movie, let's leave it at that. In some form."
• There are three different versions of the Iron Man armor in the movie. In the footage we saw, it's the Mark 1, and Mark 2 armors ... Favreau wasn't giving up the good on the other version, consarnit.
• "I'd love to do some version of Fin Fang Foom, but you can't do that in the first movie. Maybe in the second."
• On showing the footage to the Comic-Con fans: "If you have a misstep ... you could be Catwoman overnight."
• "Downey's not a guy that you cast to put asses in seats in a huge Hollywood blockbuster, he's the guy you put in the movie when you want a great actor who will bring integrity to a project like this."