Ten Deep 01.14.09: Ten Films You Can't Wait To See!

Posted by Lucas Huddleston on 01.14.2009

To infinity and beyond, 411's Lucas Huddleston picks the films that he's anticipating the most in the oncoming years!

Hello, and welcome to Ten Deep: Week 17! Now, first things first, I'm going to get to some comments from not just last week, but from the week before, as well. I had intended to do comments from the finale of my Fantasy lists last week; however, I had originally intended for last week's list to be rather short and contrite, with only a paragraph devoted to each entrant on the list. As such, I put starting work on the list off until late in the weekend…and, of course, I went on a bit longer than I had planned. So, here are some answers to comments from the Fantasy stuff, two weeks removed, though I'll have to keep it short due to length…

First off, I was SHOCKED (SHOCKED, I say, all in bold, capital lettering) that such a rift seems to divide fans of the Star Wars series and the Lord of the Rings series. I love both, and I guess that I'd just assumed that everybody else is the same way. Silly me, you know what they say about ‘ASSuming'… Can't we all just love our multi-gazillion media cash-cows as one? (By the by, I just read that George Lucas is intending to redo all six Star Wars in 3-D for theatrical release…is that true? Now taking bets on whether or not there's new content added in as well!)

Guest#9333 accused me of being a LotR mark…well, DUH. I thought that I'd telegraphed that exquisitely over the five week unveiling of the list! All I was missing was Rankin/Bass' Return of the King and I would have made a clean sweep for EVERY Rings movie ever crafted!

Guest#7565 asked if I've ever heard of Heavy Metal, and yes, yes I have. I like Heavy Metal, but it was one of the unfortunate many that was shunted off the list in favor of things like The Hobbit and The Black Cauldron…most of the movies that appeared in spots #50 to #40 were the hardest part of the list for me to assemble. As for the film itself, though it's been quite a while since I've watched the movie, my favorite episode of the anthology was the final segment (of course), with second place being the one where John Candy voices a super-stud. But, don't ask about Heavy Metal 2000. I watched it one time, and remember absolutely NOTHING bout it.

Mattheaper said that in most cases we can judge how great a film is off of how over-rated the majority proclaims them to be. I think there's some truth in that, honestly.

Commie and Kent Adams stand as being the first two (and only two) people I've ever heard say that they didn't like The Princess Bride. You see? I knew people like that existed in the dark corners of the world!

Got Pop? brought up Return to Oz. That one was indeed on the list at one point as well, and, like The Beastmaster, I ultimately dropped since it had been so long since I've last seen it that I couldn't remember much about it. On another Oz related note, I had even entertained the thought of putting the recent Sci-Fi mini-series, Tin Man, on the list. It suffered from some of the usual misgivings that accompany being a Sci-Fi Channel Production (i.e. bad special effects at times, bad acting at times), but on the whole, I enjoyed the film for striving to be starkly different with its re-imagined characters and happenings from the original film…although is it a re-imagining, or a pseudo-sequel? I won't spoil it for anyone.

Alan wondered why ‘old' films, such as The Thief of Baghdad, Scarlet Sails, and 1944's Beauty and the Beast weren't on the list. I assure you it wasn't because they were old. I always try to give what came before a fair shake in things, and old films have never bothered me; in some regards, I prefer older films. It's a simple case of haven't having seen them, and in the case of Scarlet Sails, not having heard of…though the title has now been logged into my memory banks.

Ok, and now here's some responses to comments from last week's list (also, I have to applaud everybody on their comments last week, as they were all nicely thought out arguments for/against certain films and their status, with most of them pertaining to the Prequels)…

mojo-x wanted to know why the Masters of the Universe film had to fit into the continuity of the 1980's cartoon series, and that he preferred the pre-Filmation canon where He-Man was more or less a barbarian. Well, it doesn't HAVE to fit into the universe that was set by the cartoon series; I personally prefer it to, so I put forth an argument to make it fit…but, by and large, the film mostly doesn't fit unless you try to make it fit. It might even have more in common with the original canon than the cartoon canon, to be honest. Now, I know of the original backstory to the franchise, but I grew up on the cartoon, so that's what I adhere to. It's my understanding that the rumor is (I've heard some say it's true and some say that it's not) that originally the He-Man toy line was supposed to be derived from the John Milius film, Conan the Barbarian. However, due to that film's levels of violence and sexual situations (i.e. orgy scene), the Conan tag was removed, and thus He-Man and his original canon were born (interesting side note: Skeletor has a skull-face, and in the original Kull stories where he appears, Thulsa Doom, the main antagonist of the Conan film, also had a skull-face…though I doubt that that means anything). Filmation top-dog Lou Scheimer was approached by Mattel to produce a cartoon on the toy-line, and he agreed as long as Filmation was able to create their own continuity for the show…hence the diverging canons. Once the peak of the cartoon show climaxed into a full-blown phenomenon, the mini-comics that you spoke of would adopt the Filmation continuity (and even have an impact on the canon created by the series, as that's where the notion of Keldor came about…), and from that point on, the Filmation continuity would be considered the recognized one. As for why Prince Adam existed…well, I believe that it's simple: because super-heroes have secret identities. I could on in that vein detailing how Filmation brought He-Man to be as he is through lessons learned via their previous Blackstar series, but that'd be too lengthy. Though, I should note, you should check out the 2002 series, where in the second season of that show, a character from the past called King Grayskull (who essentially IS He-Man) was the subject for a show detailing Castle Grayskull's past; it also introduces Hordak into the story, and the character of King Grayskull makes me believe that he's intended to be tied to the original canon for the toy-line, as he's more-or-less a barbarian pitted against a demon (like He-Man to Skeletor in that canon). Whew, went too long there, I think.

Butters4Prez was the first of a few to put forth the idea of having Anakin be around Obi-Wan's age (and so, I'd assume, around Luke's age in A New Hope) when he was introduced in Phantom Menace. A friend of mine brought that very thing up not too long before I did the list, and I'd have to say that I agree with that notion.

DangerDale noted that I should check out some of the Secret Invasion tie-ins before I declare Final Crisis the winner. I actually did check out a few: I read the Thor tie-ins, as I enjoyed Matt Fraction's one-shots that he did for the character; I read the ‘Sacred Invasion' tie-in through the Incredible Hercules book, which is my guilty pleasure book; I read the Black Panther tie-in, due to Jason Aaron writing it (he's had a good run on Ghost Rider); both the Mighty Avengers and New Avengers tie-ins, which were indeed excellent supplemental material; and a few others here and there that I didn't complete, including Frontline and X-Men (which I got only to see Cary Nord's artwork). The ones that I mentioned first I enjoyed quite a bit, the others I did to varying degrees. But still, I think that the main book for Invasion became weaker as it went along, particularly towards the final couple of issues where it just felt as though things were spinning their wheels, so to speak. And yes, the whole Batman RIP thing has kept me engrossed, and I can't wait to find out what happens to him in the final issue of Final Crisis (though I do find it a bit irritating that the finale to RIP isn't even IN RIP). My friend Guyburns has put forth the theory that the events that have occurred in RIP are happening inside Batman's own mind as it's being probed by the Lump, during Batman's imprisonment at the hands of Darkseid within the pages of Final Crisis. An interesting theory to be sure, and probably not too far from the truth.

TEN MOVIES THAT I WANT TO WATCH RIGHT NOW!

This week's list, again, should be rather self-explanatory. This is a list of upcoming movies not relegated to merely being released in 2009, and ones I simply cannot wait to see, for whatever reason. Obviously, this leaves the choosings wide open, so these ten represent my own personal movies. Also, please excuse the lack of photos this week, as you'll have to merely put up with drab, dreary, BLAND text. My apologies.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: Not too much room for HM's this week, so I'll just list as few here rather tritely -- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Friday the 13th. Yeah, that was pretty trite, though there are more, but those two pretty much round out the bundle of the ones I'm expecting the most.

10. The Three Stooges (supposedly November, 2009)

Now, just in case you don't know, I'm a lifelong Stooge-nut. I first was baptized in the way of the Stooges when I was a kid, and I've been devoted to them ever since; I'd even go so far as to say that they're my favorite (and thus, the greatest) comedians of all time. As such, it didn't take me too long before I happened upon the news of this movie, of which at this point there's still not very much known about it. When I first heard of it, I immediately thought that the picture would be a biopic, as…well, what else could it be, really? But a biopic on the lives and careers of the Stooges would be a bit odd, I reckoned, seeing as how in 2000 there was a made-for-television biopic on just such a thing. However, then I heard that the names of the Farrelly Brothers were attached to the thing, and that bit of news threw the whole ‘biopic' idea out the window. I mean, no disrespect to the Farrellys, but their names aren't exactly the first that come to mind when the words ‘serious biopic' are thrown about…yet, I figured it might work well enough in parts and in theory, as the type of comedy that the Stooges are known for (absurd physical comedy) applies itself very well to much of the Farrelly-style of comedic film, such as Dumb and Dumber, or Me, Myself, and Irene. So maybe, just maybe, this new proposed film could work, as the comedy bits (such as perhaps bits of actors portraying a bit of the old Stooge act) would allow the directors to produce what they're known for, while at the same time go a little bit more serious with others (such as Curly or Shemp's death), allowing the Farrelly Brothers to dip their toes a smidge into the dramatic side of things…broaden their horizons, so to speak.

But then came news that could be potentially DIRE for my own personal enjoyment for this film. You see, the Farrellys have since stated that their film isn't going to be a remake of the 2000 made-for-TV film, nor will it be a biopic at all, really. Instead, the new Stooges film is instead going to stand as new Three Stooges episodes set in the present day, utilizing a plot that circulates around the characters of (presumably) Moe, Larry, and Curly…except that it won't BE Moe, Larry, and Curly (to give you a taste of the disaster waiting in the wings, Antonio Banderas was the early rumor for being cast as Moe, which I hope was a joke). This is kind of a weird situation for me, as the ACTORS behind Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, etc. transcend the CHARACTERS of Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, etc…probably because they ARE the characters. Doing an actual Stooge film that's intended to be in the vein of their classic shorts, using the classic Stooge lineup from the 1940's but with different actor representing the familiar characters/actors of said classic lineup…well, I don't think that I have to tell you that the possibility of this film being a complete and utter disaster is exceedingly high. But still, my interest is still piqued somewhat…and, I should say, even moreso than when I thought that the film was to be just another biopic.

9. The Expendables

By now, it should be common knowledge that the proverbial ‘Golden Age' of the Action film was during the early-80's to around the mid-90's, as the Action films from that particular era were stocked from head to toe with a notion that it seems that a lot of Action films from more recent years have left behind: pure, unfiltered testosterone. Or, maybe it's because that I was raised during said ‘Golden Age' that things seem that way to me. But I'll tell you, back then, we didn't have to worry about no sappy, half-hearted love story tacked onto our Action pics. Maybe sometimes the hero would get laid during the film, but mostly he was too busy kicking ass to worry about getting any split-tail. The heroes back then weren't conflicted with things like ‘emotions'…you got in his way, or came after him, he'd shoot, strangle, stab, smash, and snap you a thousand times over. Heroes in the vein of John Matrix, John Rambo, and John McClane seem to be in short order in today's movie landscapes (and yes, they're all named John for the mere reason that ALL bad-asses are named John…and yes, we give Jon Lovitz some slack, even though he dropped the ‘h', because after all, he whipped Andy Dick's rear-end). However, within the past year or two, those old-time Action heroes have been dipping their toes back into the pool of public perception, starting with John McClane's return in Live Free or Die Hard, and then the (honestly quite surprising) success of the Rambo-ner's return in the aptly titled Rambo. They were the kind of Action titles that I was weaned on from a very early age, and those two films began a re-ignition in my bones for all things smotheringly manly. It must have done the same for others as well, because now, we have this movie looming on the horizon…a movie that stands as perhaps being potentially the greatest Action movie ever made.

Yeah, I said it. Just look at that cast, and then try to argue the point with me. Sylvester Stallone – directing, writing, and, naturally, starring in (in case you're wondering, he's directed: all the Rocky films after the first one; the last Rambo picture; Paradise Alley, a film about professional wrestling; and…uh, Staying Alive, the sequel to Saturday Night Fever, but still manly, possibly. He's written the entire Rocky series, the entire Rambo series, Paradise Alley, Staying Alive, Cobra, Over the Top, Cliffhanger…actually, he's written quite a bit more than what I had thought). But it doesn't just end with Sly's involvement. Oh no, not at all. In The Expendables, we'll also see: Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, and Mickey Rourke, as well as ‘serious' actors Ben Kingsley and Forrest Whitaker (notice the ‘serious' is in quotes, please). Man, just ogle that lineup, just absolutely popping with Action-stars! All the thing lacks it seems are names like Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Seagal, and Norris, in which case this film truly WOULD be the single greatest Action film ever created. Still, even without those heavy-hitting Action-stars from my childhood, The Expendables is well on its way to having potential to be the greatest ever, and, hopefully, a throwback to the days when Action films were all manly, all the time. And I don't know a thing about it other than the names involved!

8. Masters of the Universe (probably never to be released)

Now, those who keep their interests in such things probably already know that the upcoming live-action He-Man film, whose visual imagery was set to mimic that of the film 300 (which could've worked, I think), has been canned, perhaps never to be made. In truth, that was my intention with putting the He-Man movie on my list – knowing full well that it won't see the light of day, but still wishing for it to happen nonetheless … however, it's not the since-canned, live-action MotU film that I'm talking about. The He-Man film that's in question here is one that has never even been rumored as being thought of to come into existence…and that, of course, would be a feature length, animated film that would effectively conclude the storyline of the 2002 cartoon series (I think I've brought this up before…). God, how I love that show!

For those who don't know, the Mike Young Productions ‘remake' series that aired on Cartoon Network back then pretty much trumped the classic 1980's Filmation series in all categories, save for music and nostalgia, and a few of the voices. Other than that, the MYP series ruled Filmation's (and I adore the Filmation series). However you want to break it down, the 2002 series owned it, whether it be by way of stories, characterizations, animation, a majority of the voicework…perhaps it's sacrilege, but it's true. Perhaps one day I'll give this series a more proper breakdown to its awesomeness, but for right now, suffice to say that one reason that the story was incredible is that there was this constant build through the two seasons that the show ran. In the first season, Skeletor and his cronies were the main antagonists, but near the end of that season, Kobra Khan came aboard and the name of King Hiss (or Hsss in this series, for some reason) was bandied about. In the second season, King Hiss and the Snake Men became the main villains of the show, causing strife for both the Good and Evil Warriors (in fact, they kicked Skeletor out of Snake Mountain). Eventually, with help from Zodak, He-Man and company would rid the world of the Snake Men…but the true awesome was yet to come, as the seeds had been planted for the coming of Hordak in the third season. For those who don't know, Hordak has developed the reputation of being the true badass villain in the He-Man universe over the years, even though he was She-Ra's villain and had little to do with He-Man (though in the Secret of the Sword animated film that introduced She-Ra, Hordak and his Evil Horde made He-Man look like a bitch by capturing and overpowering him easily). As such, the third season for this show looked to be nothing short of astounding…until it was cancelled, that is. Since then, I've rued the day that this series was cancelled before the truly great storyline hit, and I've told anyone who would listen about not only the greatness that was this show, but the absolute horridness at how we (meaning I, since I don't know any other people who're big fans of the show) were robbed of a potentially great third season. Since it's pretty clear by now that we won't be seeing the show get picked up and continued, the most that I can hope for is a direct-to-video animated film that ties up the third season (and, thusly, the series as a whole). And, if I'm being honest here…that probably won't happen either.

7. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Whenever I watch the first Transformers film on DVD nowadays, I can't help but think to myself how much of a ‘big-screen' film it is, how much it seems to have been created to specifically enjoy it at its utmost watching it at the theater. The reason that I think that, of course, is because I'm unfortunately one of the bitter, pessimistic few that paid the film little attention whilst it was in theaters, even going so far as to ignore all the glowing reviews for the film, as well as all the praise that the movie was garnering from my own friends that, like me, were into all things Transformers in their childhood. I even avoided the thing for a good time AFTER the movie was released on DVD; it wasn't until my girlfriend more-or-less forced me to watch the film that I finally realized that it wasn't the putrid degradation of my childhood that I imagined it to be. Needless to say, I ventured out and bought my own copy of the DVD shortly thereafter. Of course, since the film did so well at the box-office and was treated well enough that it was embraced fans, it should've came to the surprise on no one that a sequel was announced shortly thereafter…and now, that sequel looms larger and larger on the horizon as the summer months for the big blockbusters like Transformers creeps ever closer.

Of course, most people chalk up the mantra of sequels to be ‘bigger and better'. However, I'm going to state right here and right now that I get the feeling that perhaps this movie may be trying to go TOO big, almost by way of the amount of Transformers that are said to be featured in this film. Now, I knew that the most obvious way to go for the sequel would be to offer up more Transformers, and I'm not saying that it couldn't work, as a large number of robots worked in the classic cartoon series, but in a film? I kind of have my doubts. Already in the last film there were several of the robots whose personalities were nearly non-existant (mainly the Decepticons…and in particular Starscream's personality, save for one throwaway line, which was an absolute travesty and by far the only thing in the movie that annoyed me), and so how many more Transformers will fail to be anything more than just ‘there'? Or how many of the Transformers that appeared in the previous film will be forgotten, like Ratchet or Ironhide (which it better not be Ironhide, as he's my second favorite outside of Starscream)? As well, this film will serve to introduce the Fallen, who's a servant of Unicron, which begs the question as to whether or not this film will harbor the planet-sized Transformer, or build him up for a third film (I'm having visions of Galactus in Rise of the Silver Surfer). Unfortunately for me, I have a lot of pesky, pessimistic questions about this movie, questions that have nearly caused my anticipation for this movie to revert back to the feelings that I had had about the first film. The only difference is that this time, I WILL be seeing the movie in the theater.

6. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

After the fairly enormous success of the first Transformers film in 2007, I can't really that I was all that surprised to hear rumors about a G.I. Joe film being pushed into development. Steadily throughout this decade, I've witnessed the rebirthing (if you will, though some would say ‘pillaging') of my childhood loves and memories. Of course, Joe existed long before I was born, in a series of twelve inch tall action figures…but that's not the Joe that I know. I was raised on the flexible, three-and-three-quarter inch toys, the ones that came prepackaged with a storyline concerning the Joes in their struggles against the evil Cobra organization, and their leader, fittingly named Cobra Commander. It was easy enough for a young boy like myself to buy into the storyline, and there for a while, I was Joe crazy, probably like a lot of people. However, I wasn't too sure that a G.I. Joe film would work all that well in today's world; not that it would've been too fantastical, but, at the same time with all wars and whispers of wars that we've seen and heard this early into this bright, new millennium, I felt that at the least a Joe film might've been in bad taste to make fantasy of something that's very real right now, or at the most, try and fight the Joes into the Iraq War, which would've been borderline propaganda, in my opinion. So it is that I find myself approaching this film with the same amount of timidity that I had when Transformers was released.

Of course, by now the major plot points of the film have been released and/or leaked (same thing, really), and it appears that my worries about bad taste or propaganda were somewhat unfounded, as the picture is set to take place in the future. With that out of the way, I immediately began wondering as to whether or not the film will remain even somewhat true to the series, rather than just taking the names of well known characters from the toyline/cartoon series/comics and doing what they wanted with them. Again, that seems to be somewhat unfounded, as the creators of the film brought in one Larry Hama as a creative consultant; Hama was responsible for writing the G.I. Joe comics in the mid-80's, and by-and-large was responsible for the creation of much of that particular line of Joes' universe (by far the most well known of the Joes). Hama even urged for changes in the script in order to remain as true to the source material, in order to appease the fans. In all honesty, everything seems to be lining up for a fairly decent G.I. Joe movie that should remain true to all the memories that much of my generation has for it…but I still can't shake the feelings of pessimism. Perhaps it's due to the casting of one Marlon Wayans, but I'm really not sure…well, no. That's a good reason to be pessimistic about the movie, I figure.

5. The Avengers (20??)

When I went to the theater and watched Iron Man on its opening night, I went with my girlfriend and my good friend Guyburns. Once the end credits started to roll, I stood up and prepared to leave, only to have Guyburns stop me and instruct me to sit back down. As he'd already seen the movie before (*ahem*), he informed me of there being a nice little goodie awaiting us at the end of the film…and he was right. From the moment that Samuel L. Jackson stepped out on screen, proclaimed himself to be Nick Fury, and spoke the words ‘Avengers', I desperately wanted to see the Avengers movie. Of course, this film's still quite a ways off, though I'm exceedingly optimistic about it. I find the concept of building each character of the team up through their own sets of films to be intriguing, and yet so simple that one wonders how it was never dreamed in the first place.

Since we know nothing about the Avengers movie, other than the possibility of the Avengers being assembled for the first time to stop the Hulk, we can only hope that the ensuing films that are produced between now and then are as awesome as the Iron Man and Incredible Hulk films of this past summer were. When Kenneth Branagh was attached to the Thor film, I felt highly optimistic, as Branagh as built himself as being a director who can craft a very good costume drama picture, and that's what I figured that the Thor film would be: taking place in Valhalla, quasi-medieval setting, Shakespearian lingo. But recently reports came in that the whole Valhalla thing was dropped, as the powers that be (Vince Russo?) decided that a setting like Valhalla would cause the film to not coalesce very well with the other films and their more modern settings (and the same goes for Thor's powers, which is ludicrous to me…I mean, my God, they've created a world where the f'n HULK exists, for crying out loud). Of course, I still think that all that could be dealt with easily enough, as they could meld a bit of the Ultimate Thor with the current J. Michael Straczynski Thor. Have the opening ten minutes be about Valhalla, then Ragnarok hits and Thor is cast down into the earthly, mortal body of Donald Blake. Blake wakes up with powers, proclaims himself to be the Norse God of Thunder, and everyone thinks he's a wacko. Simple. As for the villain for the film, they almost have to be as mystical as Thor is, so I'd go with a female, if only for the reason that we've been lacking strong female super-villains in films lately – either the Enchantress, or take a page out of JMS' book and cast Loki as a female. As for the Captain America film, well, it seems as though the obvious route would be the best, having the film take place in World War II and dealing with the Red Skull. This wouldn't bother me in the least…just so long as I get some Crossbones goodness. And as for the Ant-Man film that I heard about once before never hearing about again…if it is indeed made, I'd have to go with my friend Guyburns' suggestion, and, with all due respect to Hank Pym, bring in the Robert Kirkman crafted Irredeemable Ant-Man, where the comedic craziness can properly ensue. Personally, I have no reason to believe that any of these films will do bad enough to prevent the Avengers from happening, and why should I? Marvel's two-for-two thus far in the build to the picture.

4. The Hobbit

Two weeks ago, at the end of my Greatest Fantasy Films list, somebody asked me in the comments section as to how I felt these upcoming, Guillermo del Toro-helmed prequels to the Lord of the Rings trilogy will be. I think that I can answer that question in two words or less: instant classics. Of course, I'm also biased towards anything Tolkien, but still, as should be evident from my placing del Toro's own Pan's Labyrinth at my Number Three spot on my Fantasy list, Guillermo has my out-and-out faith when it comes to his being hired to do The Hobbit. And while I'm sure some others won't share my feelings on this, I feel that with del Toro at the helm, backed up by Peter Jackson (who directed LotR) as a producer, TRIPLED with Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens taking on writing duties again…well, I really fail to see how The Hobbit could falter. In fact, I think that they have a strong to chance to even surpass the Rings films. I picture it going down like this: with a new and more-than-capable director working with the director of the first classics, The Hobbit should be familiar to the trilogy, but at the same time feel completely different and fresh. It might even be better.

Of course, perhaps what was most surprising when The Hobbit was officially announced was that not one, but TWO films were proclaimed to be in the making. The second film has since been dubbed The Hobbit 2: Back in Action! by some on the message boards here on 411 (used with affectionate reverence, I'm sure, though I prefer There and Back Again), and it seems that its very existence has led to some confusion, particularly as to what exactly would be occurring in the second film. For my money, here's how I see it all coming to fruition. For those who don't know, the entire plot of Tolkien's novel centers around Bilbo Baggins accompanying thirteen dwarves and Gandalf the Grey as they journey towards the Lonely Mountain in order to confront the dragon Smaug in order to take back their ancestral home (which is indeed the Lonely Mountain, as Smaug has long since ran the dwarves out of its halls). As such, I believe that it would make the most sense to have the first film end directly after Smaug's death at the hands of Bard, during the dragon's attack on Lake-town (by the by, since Smaug is my favorite dragon of all time, I'm expecting nothing less than perfection when it comes to him). That would leave the second film to open with a flashback taken from some of Tolkien's unpublished writings where Gandalf meets the dwarf leader Thorin, and the two discuss bringing down Smaug; however, Gandalf's want to slay the dragon has NOTHING to do with the Dwarves regaining their kingdom, as Gandalf has foreseen the War of the Ring and knows that if Smaug was called to Sauron's cause, then he'd be even more nigh unstoppable (this is mentioned in Tolkien's Unfinished Tales, though whether or not it's acceptable canon due to its not being finished, I don't know…and yes, Gandalf knew that Bilbo's ring was a magic ring, he just didn't know that it was the One Ring). After that, the film would go through the Battle of the Five Armies bit, then Bilbo's journey back to the Shire with Gandalf, at which point Gandalf would leave and meet with the White Council in order to destroy Sauron, who, it should be revealed in the first film, is lurking in Mirkwood Forest. After that, it could focus on Gollum's travels, and on Gandalf and Aragorn's search for Sauron and Gollum…I better stop there, as I could ramble on a bit more about what happens. Either way, there should be nothing to worry about when it comes to the second prequel, as Tolkien has laid out more than enough information on what happens to pad out a movie plot.

3. The Wolf-Man (2009)

Now, anybody that was reading my stuff during my big Halloween Extravaganza should know that I'm a life-long devotee to the old Universal Studios Monster films. They should also know that I claimed on a couple of occasions that The Wolf-Man just happened to be one of my top three favorites of the lineup of Horror films. As I said back then, I was unfortunate enough to completely and utterly under-appreciate the original 1941 classic Wolf-Man film; though werewolves were (and still are) my favorite of the classic Horror monsters, I'd always felt that werewolves lacked the quintessential story. For example, vampires had Dracula, and zombies had Night of the Living Dead. It wasn't until years later after having seen numerous werewolf films that I finally realized that the classic Universal Horror film, featuring the story of Larry Talbot, was indeed the quintessential werewolf story that I had bemoaned for years for not having existed. The Wolf-Man is a classic movie, to be sure, and I usually stand strong in the ideal that the true classics should never be remade, even if I do end up liking the remake. However, in this case, I happen to be welcoming it.

In the late-90's, Universal remade another of their classic Horror films, The Mummy. Any and all who have indeed seen both the remake and the classic know full well that, while not entirely true to the older film, the remake held fast to several aspects to the story of the classic Horror film, including the ‘origin' of Imhotep and his woman that he's attempting to resurrect. However, that film took a turn and made the film into what I believe many people nowadays consider those old Horror films to be – it remade The Mummy into an adventure film. This remake of The Wolf-Man, however, seems to be attempting to stay true to the roots of the original entirely; it looks like it's going to be mainly a Horror film, and the best news here is that they seem to be keeping in line with the story of Larry Talbot, who, for those who don't know, is perhaps the strongest and deepest character that the old Universal Horror films ever happened to produce. The cast looks strong, and from what still-photos of the film that I've seen, the film looks as though it's going to be quite excellent. This film comes out in November, and you better bet your bottom dollar that I'm eagerly awaiting its release with bated breath.

2. Batman 3 (20??)

Obviously, this film's still a ways off from even having anything substantial put in place for it (i.e. actors, sets, or even if director Christopher Nolan will return), but that still doesn't alleviate my want to see the thing in the slightest. Naturally, I loved The Dark Knight, and the way that the film ended (with Batman being on the other side of the law, so to speak) left me wanting more, which is what a film should strive to do, in my opinion (also, if that spoiled anything for you, then tough titty…go out and see the damn movie already). I find the potential ‘Batman vs. the World' storyline, where not only the more villainous characters and the police are against and hunting the Dark Knight but even possibly Gotham City's citizenry as a whole, to be incredibly intriguing. Of course, another reason that the film makes this list for films that I already wish were released is due to all the speculation that we've ALREADY been subjected to. I mean, literally days after the theatrical release of The Dark Knight, the ‘net was already bombarded by rumors of supposed villains for the third film, and in some cases, even actors ‘set' to portray said villains. While some of the casting calls have been intriguing (hopefully Johnny Depp as the Riddler will indeed be booked), all in all it has already become incredibly tiresome and a bit of overkill…so, of course, this would be a good time to put forth my own little bit of speculation! Hypocrisy, you say? You bet, but that doesn't mean you're going to be spared. However, I'm going to go a bit deeper in thought than just merely tossing names and scenarios out there at random. After all, to know where we're going, we have to understand where we've been. (Also, allow me state right here, right now that if WB wants to correlate all their DC franchises on film in a similar manner that Marvel has, they need Nolan's films to end and introduce an different Batman film continuity, as Nolan's vision simply wouldn't work alongside the likes of Green Lantern and Superman fighting Mongul, or something. It's sad, but true.)

Firstly, I believe that the basic themes that are to be explored in this third film are as such: one, the depth of the relationship between Batman and Commissioner Gordon should be examined; and two (and most importantly), this film should explore the darker side of Batman, as, plot-wise, he'll be effectively caught between the proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place (i.e. an entire city out to get him, and presumably a villain wreaking destruction on a massive scale)…and thus, Batman could find himself discovering just how long he can toe the line between order and chaos before he finally crosses that line (a theme that was touched on in TDK, but here the script could really run with it). Now, onto the villains, where we'll be sticking mainly to Batman's Rogues Gallery and excluding mob bosses and corrupt CEO's (who will still no doubt play a role in the movie, as they have in the first two). Whether it was intentional or not, Christopher Nolan has laid out for us a basic blueprint for the types of villains that he wants to use, a blueprint that essentially covers two points: one, they mustn't have any super-powers (as that has been established that it wouldn't ‘fit' into the continuity of Nolan's films); and two, the villains thus far (Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, and The Joker) have all been darkened reflections of Batman himself, whether on the surface or in psychology (examples: Batman and Scarecrow both utilize fear as a part of their arsenal…Ra's al Ghul essentially wishes to rid Gotham of its vileness as Batman does…Two-Face and Batman standing as near-identical characters in their structure before Two-Face's accident, with him basically representing what Batman could have become had he gave in to despair after his own personal loss of loved ones…and the Joker stands as being the mirror opposite of Batman, one made of chaos and the other of order). So, all super-powered villains should be ruled out, a list which would include the likes of: Man-Bat; all iterations of Clayface except for the original; Poison Ivy; and even Mr. Freeze should be ruled out, due to the fact that his freeze-ray would be too farfetched in Nolan's continuity. So, who does that leave?

Using only the relative ‘heavy hitters' from the Gallery, here's a list of potentials. The Mad Hatter: Personally, I would like to see this character be given a suitable big screen iteration, as I've always enjoyed his Lewis Carroll-inspired antics. However, I don't think that his little eccentricities would fit very well into the (presumably) heavy plot, or even into Nolan's canon. Hugo Strange: Strange could work, if he was given a bit of an overhaul/re-imagining to his character. His M.O. is basically mind control, or genetic or robotic research, and I'm not sure he would fit into Nolan's continuity in that regard. Killer Croc: Yes, I know that he appeared in Gotham Knight, but I'm of a mind that Nolan could ignore that as being canon if he so desired. Whether or not Croc has super-human powers seems to depend on what era of his existence you're pulling him from, but I believe that if you strip away the super-strength, healing factor, and reptilian appearance (replete with tail), and just showcase him as what he really is (being a physically strong ex-pro wrestler who has filed his teeth and nails into points, with a skin deformity that gives his skin a scaly texture) I think that Croc would fit fine within Nolan's Batman universe. At the same time, however, I think that the story would call for something fairly large scale. The character of Croc just wouldn't ascribe itself very well on a larger level, as he's basically a low-life thug. Bane: Bane shouldn't be used, as I believe that, due to the character's status in the annals of Batman's history, he holds such a place of high regard that there's a great chance that fans would be turned off by anything OTHER than Bane breaking the Batman. I think there's a 75% chance, if not greater, of Bane failing, and even though he's not Batman's arch-nemesis, he's a beast of a different, nigh-untouchable breed (for example – see Batman: Joker: Bane, then see also Superman: Lex Luthor: Doomsday, or Spider-man: Green Goblin: Venom). So, no Bane. Clayface (the original character without powers): I think he should be avoided, as the shape-shifting iterations of the character are the ones that fans care about nowadays. The Penguin: I doubt he'll make an appearance, as Nolan has stated that he wouldn't fit into Nolan's universe…but I disagree on that point. I think that the Penguin would fit perfectly if he was used as what he essentially is in his most basest of forms – a mob boss. He could work in a plot where he bands all the separate gangs in Gotham together under one banner, especially after the events that took place during TDK that left the gangs in disarray. Place him on the ‘potential' list…ESPECIALLY if it's announced that Nolan and Co. would be returning for a fourth film (which is unlikely), as they could build him up here for a future film. Catwoman: Rachel Dawes' death has left a huge void, in that not only does Batman now lack a love interest, but the third film also no longer has a main female lead. Of course, Selina Kyle/Catwoman could potentially fill said void. Personally, while I feel that she could indeed work, I personally wouldn't utilize her for just one film. She's a burglar, and one not set on destruction on a major scale, like all previous main antagonists in the series have. Again, if Nolan was planning to go ahead with a fourth film, I would bring her in simply as Selina Kyle for a love interest for Bruce, with maybe just hinting at Catwoman's existence, but save the actual use of her as a villain for a fourth film. She'd work best as a character that would be recurring over a few films, rather than just being relegated to a one-shot appearance. Deadshot: Now, Deadshot has intriguing potential (again, I'm sure that if Nolan was wanting to use Deadshot here, Gotham Knight would be stricken from the record). You see, Deadshot is essentially an assassin, and with the police after Batman, I'm sure that there would be a large reward for his capture, or even death. Enter mercenary Deadshot, intent on collecting the reward on Batman's head. He could potentially exist on a smaller, more personal conflict with Batman throughout the proceedings of the third film, since Deadshot is almost literally the living embodiment of the gun…which, of course, represents the most pivotal instrument in the creation of the Dark Knight. You could even bring him into the story in accordance with his first appearances in the comics, where he's intending to replace Batman. Mark Deadshot as a potential villain, as well. The Riddler: Possibly the strongest candidate to be used in the third film, even with or without Depp playing him. It would make sense to use him here, as with Batman on the run and unable to utilize all of his techniques because of it (i.e. crime scene investigation), the Riddler could enter into the story as a man bent on destroying Gotham for his own financial gain and be nigh unstoppable, since the only man who could solve the riddles of the world's greatest puzzle master would be the world's greatest detective…who, again, would be on the run, and lacking all of his resources. I personally think that the Riddler would make the most sense as the main villain, and should be an almost definite selection…though I should note that they should be careful if they put forth a similar scenario that I did (which is a basic scenario for the character), lest they run the risk of more-or-less repeating the events that the Joker inflicted in TDK. Perhaps they could even present the character as he exists in comics today, as a private investigator, though in this case he'd be hunting Batman (though highly unlikely).

Ra's al Ghul: I believe that for all intents and purposes Ra's al Ghul is dead, so he shouldn't even be a consideration. The Scarecrow: We're pretty much left to assume that both of these characters are currently incarcerated, either in jail or in Arkham Asylum, and thus could return for the third film. Personally, I think that the Scarecrow's contributions to the story in an even speculative major capacity is pretty much over, as even though he appeared in TDK, he was treated almost as an afterthought – so let's rule him out. Two-Face: The question as to whether or not Two-Face is actually dead or not has, at this point, been the most speculated aspect to the potential third film. Personally, I prefer to think that he is indeed dead, if only to put forth some new villains. However, he would indeed make sense in that his still being alive would pave the easiest road to Batman's redemption, though it might also belittle the ending of TDK by making it seem somewhat pointless in retrospect, in my honest opinion. So, as far as I'm concerned for the purposes of this breakdown, Harvey Two-Face is dead. The Joker: I got the feeling that at the end of TDK, where he was presumably taken into custody, his story was yet to be concluded in the series, since it was firmly established in that movie that the Joker cannot be incarcerated for very long, as he'll no doubt get loose. This leads me to believe that he would've originally had some part to play in the potential third film…but, of course, Heath Ledger's death throws a rather hefty monkey wrench into the cogs of that thought. So we're left with three options in that regard: one, they merely just ‘forget' the Joker, and he plays no part in the third film, save through mentions of his name; two, Warner Bros. hires another capable actor to portray the Joker, which probably wouldn't go over that well (and isn't much of a possibility)…though in the hands of perhaps a personal friend of Heath's, using an actor that would essentially emulate Ledger's performance and not diverge from his respective portrayal, it could work (like, say, Jake Gyllenhaal); or the third option, have another character with ties to the Joker stand in as a replacement for the character during the remainder of his supposed story, which leads us to… Harley Quinn: Here's another that I think could work. If indeed the Joker's story was yet to be concluded, it could be possible to bring in his acolyte to continue his philosophies on Gotham City in his stead. Of course, the main drawback here is the risk of having backlash due to replacing Joker with Harley, but I think that it has potential. After that, if they REALLY wanted to go with ‘obscure' villains, names like Anarky, Hush, Black Mask (perhaps in a role similar to that of what I proposed for the Penguin), Maxie Zeus, Zsasz, The Ventriloquist and Scarface, or even Killer Moth or Red Hood could be used…though all of those characters I wouldn't give any amount of serious consideration to, except maybe Hush, who could represent an attack on Bruce Wayne as well as Batman (since he knows he's Batman).

As for the female lead, I personally wouldn't bring in anymore love interests in the vein of Vicki Vale and such, unless of course it's Selina Kyle (or maybe even Harley Quinn if they wanted to go that route, but I would play Harley as a straight-up villain). So, if the film is intended to continue on to a fourth (again, unlikely), I'd go with Selina; if not, I'd eschew the love interest stuff, and use either Harley Quinn as a villain, or bring in Renee Montoya as a more than adept detective hunting down the world's greatest detective…maybe even bring in Bullock and pair her up with him. So, after all that, we've got the Penguin, the Riddler, the Joker, Catwoman, Deadshot, and Harley Quinn as the strongest candidates for the villains. I'd trim off Penguin, Joker, and Catwoman, leaving Riddler (large scale villain), Harley Quinn (large scale villain), and Deadshot (personal villain). Having two large scale villains in the film would easily allow the script to explore Batman's despair at not being able to stop them at his best, due to the hindrance caused by his current public status…but, at the same time, it could be too much villainy running about. So, I'd personally go with bringing in Riddler and Deadshot as the definite villains for the movie (maybe adding Quinn as a side-story that's not concluded at the end of the film), and also introduce Montoya for the main female lead (or Kyle, if another movie is planned). Book it!

1. Watchmen (hopefully 2009)

Watchmen gets first on this list due to the fact that it's so close, and yet potentially so very, very far away. However, I should note that, as we speak, Warner Bros. and Fox are (hopefully still) sitting down at a long, oak table, discussing and hammering out a treaty that would appease both parties, and more-than-likely allow the film to see its theatrical release as intended. Now, I'm a smart guy, and I do indeed harbor some knowledge in my brain…but I'm only ‘smart' about the things that interest me; as such, things like ‘Law' and legal jargon and what-not DON'T interest me in the slightest, and so I won't even pretend to know all about the happenings of what's what and who's who in the Fox lawsuit against Warner Brothers (though I will say that as far as ‘fault' is concerned, both are at fault, but moreso WB for not making sure that they had everything shored up beforehand). However, I do know that if the two parties fail to come to a compromise, then the chances of the film getting delayed in its release is inevitable, as I'm sure that almost any court in the country is going to side with Fox. In fact, it's not entirely out of the realms of possibilities that the film could get pushed back for a long, LONG time…maybe never even seeing the light of day. Of course, I'm sure that it wouldn't go quite that far, but you never know. And wouldn't THAT suck? Though, I personally think that the best bet for a possible deal between the two studios lies in WB being allowed to essentially ‘break even' and make back the money they spent, whereas Fox would get any and all actual profits from the film.

As for the film itself, I'm really not quite sure what to expect here. Watchmen is a seminal work in the field of comics, at one time being edgy and groundbreaking…though what once made the work edgy and groundbreaking has since been integrated into many, many more books that have come out since. As such, there are people out there that have read the work in more recent years that ‘don't see what the big deal is', since the themes and such of Watchmen have been touched upon and emulated a thousand times over since its release. One of my friends put forth the theory that since the original comics were essentially a commentary on comics of the day, that the Watchmen film's best bet would be to stand as a commentary on comic book film adaptations of the past thirty years or so (a theory that could very well be, since the character of Ozymandias is rumored to be wearing a rubber muscle suit with nipples, ala Batman in the Schumacher Batman films). That could be interesting, but, at the same time, that could be the undoing for the film – that fans of the book will be expecting much more than what your typical comic book films offer, and if the film doesn't deliver on that standard, then the chances of the movie being despised by fans of the book are fairly great. I, however, just want it to be GOOD. It doesn't have to be the best ever, as far as I'm concerned; I just want it to be what it is – a very human story about superheroes. I don't have any reason to believe that Zach Snyder is taking the movie lightly, because if he's willing to also create the Tales of the Black Freighter to supplement the movie (then supposedly re-release the film on a second edition DVD with the Black Freighter spliced into the movie), then I'm confident that he's willing to do the source material the utmost amount of justice that he can muster. All in all, I believe that the film will be a success in the theaters (though probably not a big one, as even though the majority of the ads that I've seen for it focus on physical conflict, a majority of the physical violence in the book happens off-panel, so there could be some backlash from people who've not read the book claiming to be ‘swindled'…or maybe the film will include a lot more violence, but I hope not), and I also believe that a majority of fans will be satisfied with the end result.

Well, that's it for this week! After I got into it, I toyed with the notion of just having this entire column be a lengthy breakdown of the possibilities for the third Batman film, as I could have gone on about it…but, at the end of the day, I was hired on to be the list dude, and, dammit, lists are what you'll get! I'm kidding, but maybe one day I'll revisit it and go into more detail. Thanks for reading!