Hopefully you received all that you wished for this holiday season, but now it is time to reflect on the less fortunate in Hollywood. Pick one each and tell us what you wish for them in 2009:

1. Actor

Scott: Ben Affleck – A return to stardom as a serious, dramatic actor. It’s been too long and he’s due for a comeback.

Travis: What to consider when thinking of actors? Maybe you want a particular actor to resurrect his or her career and find a new audience. Or, maybe you just want an actor to stop acting altogether. I’ll go with option two. Sometimes an actor - and for this exercise I use the word “actor” loosely - will skirt around on screen just because of appearances. The actor hasn’t done anything remarkable, save for one performance, and just keeps churning out crap again and again. I call it the “Paris Hilton effect.” This could describe any number of actors. For this hardball spiel I’ll go with Kate Hudson. Honestly, Kate, take a look at your filmography. Eight years ago you got an Oscar nomination (Almost Famous). Since then it has been one romance comedy train wreck after another, with a poor supernatural thriller thrown in for good measure. Granted you might like working with Matthew McConaughey or Matt Dillon or even Dane Cook. But look at the end result. Who knows, you may not even be a producer’s first choice for a role. Maybe a third or fourth. Fire your agent or something, because the scripts you are getting aren’t all that. Sadly, it looks like you’ll be part of another rom-com disaster this January: Bride Wars.

Take a break, reassess your career, and hope that your role in next fall’s Nine is a step in the right direction.

John: I recently wrote in another publication similar sentiments about Kate Hudson and I couldn’t agree more Travis. But I, like Scott, feel it is time for an actor to reclaim some former glory. Tom Cruise: I wish for you to take a serious re-evalution of your career in 2009. I don’t mean you should make Oscar bait or play against type. While your role in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I feel it was the equivalent of putting a band aid on an amputated limb. What I want for you Tom is a complete transformation of your career. Start playing villains more often, act your age, do a movie that is typically off your radar. Everything you do is a prestige piece in some way (even Tropic Thunder) and if you can’t start taking yourself a little less seriously then it might be time for you to just get the hell out of the way.

2. Writer

Scott: Matthew Michael Carnahan – A huge hit in State of Play.

Travis: Was 2008 a good year for the writers in Hollywood? Well, let’s see. At the beginning of the year you guys were still in the throes of a writers’ strike. Not a good start. You were arguing over DVD residuals and union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers (Wait. Reality TV is scripted? NO WAY!), and compensation for new media (i.e., Internet streams, et al.) I understand the plight of the writers, all twelve-thousand strong. But come on. Had it occurred during the economic recession, there would have been those screaming bloody murder. Man up, writers. It’s not all about you! Understand what the strike was doing to the below-the-line talent, like the catering services that supply productions with food and beverage. On the bright side, the strike made the American public realize that the loss of new TV episodes wasn’t the end all be all of civilization.

But when the writers went back to work, we heard announcements about retooling old classics and more remakes. Ah, to be a writer in Hollywood. Where originality isn’t a job requirement.

John: I’m afraid Scott will be the only one here with a straight answer as my wish for writers is sort of abstract. I wish for any aspiring writer with a good idea to get their project made before any one of the writers of Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, and the like. I won’t name them because they don’t deserve it and when I refer to them as writers I am stretching the boundaries of the very definition of the word “writer”. Each time one of those movies comes out I die a little inside and when people go to see them they get a little of the blood on their hands. I hate that these chumps get their garbage made and I don’t even have a script written; I can’t imagine how a writer with a legitimately good idea who is shopping his project around must feel. In 2009 I hope at least one of you struggling artists gets a shot over this group of antichrists.

3. Director

Scott: Uwe Boll – A chance to direct a serious, dramatic film that will single-handedly redeem an entire career of schlock.

Travis: What do I want to bestow directors for 2009? How about putting an end to all these split-second, quick-cutting action scenes that do nothing but leave us wanting pills for motion sickness. Directors, who are you trying to appease? The MTV generation that is used to such technical wizardry in the shows they watch? Believe it or not, there are those who watch movies that remember when MTV actually played music.

And to acknowledge a specific director for 2009, I guess I’ll go with Quentin Tarantino. It’s put up or shut up time for a project that’s been in writer’s block hell for many years. That’s right, Inglorious Bastards, Tarantino’s so-called World War II epic hopes to make its way to theaters in 2009. Even with a star like Brad Pitt, there’s no telling what the film is going to be like. I do know one thing, however. There will be critics who will praise its originality, despite it (like all of Tarantino’s films) being of borrowed parts.

John: I think Scott’s answer is our first selfless wish so far unless, of course, he is being sarcastic. Myself, I wish for Gus Van Sant to get a richly deserved Oscar. While I haven’t seen Milk, I have heard good things and his body of work really calls for some sort of proper recognition. Granted it would technically be for work done in 2008, but it’s my wish so I can do what I want with.

4. Next let’s look at resolutions. Certainly you have resolved to improve your life in the New Year. Now, what should Hollywood resolve to do for you?

Scott: Make more great films. 2008 was kind of weak and I want them to resolve to have more great films coming out. I want to go to theater and have that era of magic again, like in the two years prior.

Travis: It’s simple, Hollywood. Stop making so many crappy movies. A few are stomachable (is that a word?). But when you have twenty-plus then it gets to be a bit ridiculous. Though, I guess, quality is in the eye of the beholder. If people keep shelling out ten or twelve bucks a ticket to see such cinematic abortions, then they would be better off just throwing their money in the trash. While it’s true that we can’t all like the same movies, a little quality control is in order.

On a related note: So far I see no projects on the horizon for the duo of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, of Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans fame. Excuse me while I go do the “Happy Happy, Joy Joy” dance.

John: Don’t get your hopes up Travis, the Wayans Brothers are back with Dance Flick. Also, Spellchecker tells me “stomachable” is not a word.

Now, on to Hollywood’s resolution to me: I think that Tinsel Town should resolve to give me more high quality movies during the summer. I hope that someday Best Picture winners are being released sometime between May and September. Also, they should promise me less sequels and remakes and more original fare or I am going to have to come in there and do it myself.

5. What movie slated for 2009 are you most excited for and which do you hope will be the biggest success?

Scott: State of Play. Loved the BBC serial and the film adaptation has so much going for it including a trio of Oscar winners (Ben Affleck, Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren), a top notch screenwriter and a director who did a great film already in Last King of Scotland. My gut thinks this could be an early Oscar contender.

Travis: 2009 has an interesting lineup of films, with plenty of sequels to look forward to. My most anticipated 2009 release is a no-brainer: Michael Mann’s Public Enemies. The star power alone - notably, Johnny Depp and Christian Bale - make this an easy must-see. Then you factor in Michael Mann, who directed one of the great crime epics in Heat, as well as Collateral with Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx, now you are getting somewhere. Here’s hoping for a crime-drama period piece that’s every bit as excellent as The Untouchables and L.A. Confidential.

As for what film I hope is the biggest success, well, whatever it is, it won’t eclipse The Dark Knight’s performance for 2008. Looking at Box Office Mojo (love that site), there aren’t really a lot of films that could match even half of TDK’s domestic gross. The film that I hope is big in 2009 is Sherlock Holmes. I want to see if Guy Ritchie can make a film that is aimed at an American audience. His previous efforts were big successes in England, but only generated modest returns in the States.

Sadly, it comes out the same day as the Twilight sequel, New Moon. Ah crap.

John: I’m going with Watchmen for both. That movie looks awesome and mostly faithful to its material. Its success is important if comic book movies want to continue establishing themselves as more than just popcorn flicks. It has the toughest challenge so far, though, as the subject matter is very dark and decidedly not universally appealing. Plus there has been much protest about the film having been made at all, and a slight possibility that the release date will be pushed back. Still, I hope for the best as the comic book genre grows by leaps and bounds every year while most other genres and franchises remain quite stale.

6. What stars do you think will break out in 2009? Whose star do you think will fade?

Scott: Break out will be tough, but Chris Pine who plays Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek, could be huge if the film is massive. He was terrific in Bottle Shock and seems to be on the cusp of being a major star.

Who will fade? I think this is the year that Jude Law kind of disappears from it all after being poised for superstardom.

Travis: Actors and actresses that should have a breakout year in ‘09: Ginnifer Goodwin (He’s Just Not Into You), Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland), Chris Pine, Anton Yelchin (Star Trek), Marion Cotillard (Public Enemies), Alison Lohman (Drag Me to Hell)

While these stars may have breakout years, I think Renee Zellweger’s star power is all but gone. Slated for three movies in 2009, her last big hit was back in 2004 with a sequel to Bridget Jones’s Diary. It was only a hit overseas, failing to attract huge numbers in the U.S. Since that release it has been bombs like Miss Potter and Leatherheads. And from reading the synopses for New in Town and Case 39, it’s not looking any better for Ms. Zellweger.

John: I’m going to take a gamble on both of these and guess Emma Roberts for breakout star and Brad Pitt for falling star. Roberts has a couple easy-money kids’ flicks (Hotel for Dogs and Winning Season) scheduled for release this year that should move her past being simply a megastar’s niece to a tween sensation.

As for Pitt, I think this is the year that his excellent movie work is finally overshadowed by his tabloid exploits. I don’t know how much more good will fans can offer him when he and his wife (and his ex-wife for that matter) completely over-saturate the market with their constant “newsworthy” interviews and endeavors.

As we take one last look back at 2008, let us take one more opportunity to reflect on things not covered in our top 10 lists.

7. What was the worst film you saw this year? Why?

Scott: Kill Switch on DVD was easily the worst. Steven Seagal doing a Southern accent made me want to shoot myself.

Travis: The worst film I saw this year would have to be M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening. All I have to say is congrats to the editor of the movie trailer. It just goes to show that a two-and-a-half-minute clip can make a M. Night movie look good. Seems like his MO, good trailer…bad movie.

Where do I even start when describing how pitiful this movie is? I think all the casting decisions were randomly selected from a hat. Is Mark Wahlberg convincing as a teacher? Not in the slightest. The expressions he makes in the movie would make a fun drinking game if you pony up for the good stuff. That way you’d only have to watch half of the movie. And the big mystery about all the deaths in the movie (all of which you can see in the trailer) is wind. WIND! ARE YOU F’N KIDDING ME?!

John: To make it more challenging, I will disqualify Meet the Spartans as a movie (which I do anyway, incidentally), and go with the mirthless Four Christmases which was easily the worst movie I saw this year that was at least sort of trying to be good. Vince Vaughn plays out of his range and Reese Witherspoon dumbs herself down considerably. Crappy cameos, stupid ending, no jokes beyond what was shown in the preview; clearly there was no joy in making this thing which is a complement I can actually offer Meet the Spartans.

8. What film were you most disappointed by? Why?

Scott: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. All the good will of getting the band back together for one more go around to piss it all away with a horrid story. I could’ve accepted another Indy serial type film, but it was such a kick to the face I almost wanted my money back.

Travis: Righteous Kill. Waste of two great talents. When you see a film that’s headlined by such renowned thespians like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino you expect quality. Then you see that the film has a screenplay from the writer of Inside Man. Looking good. But when watching the movie, think back to Inside Man. There you had two quality actors paired with a quality director. For Kill, Jon Avnet was at the helm. Not nearly the same pedigree as Spike Lee. Avnet is a producer first and foremost. His track record for films isn’t the greatest (88 Minutes, Up Close & Personal). And it turns out the script isn’t all that great. When you can see the twist within the first five minutes, you know the film won’t work. Even a scantily Carla Gugino couldn’t save it.

John: I’d love to say I saw it coming, but I truly believed George Lucas and company were going to atone for being Star Whores for so many years with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But what do I say when I get fooled four or five times? The sad thing is that if they make another Indiana Jones movie I would totally see it. Stop date-raping me George Lucas!

9. What was your favorite movie-going experience this year? Why?

Scott: Wanted. The type of film that loses something when on DVD because it works much better on the big screen.

Travis: It would be easy for me to say it was The Dark Knight since I saw it three times while it was in theaters - twice in IMAX and once in a regular auditorium. But to not go with the norm, I’m going to go with Wanted. I only saw it twice. Yet the amount of time between viewings was less than 24 hours. Timur Bekmambetov’s visuals were off the charts. I don’t think there was a scene where something wasn’t happening. The added bonus of seeing Morgan Freeman in a villainous role made it that much more enjoyable. Excellent popcorn-munching entertainment.

John: You guys are going to be surprised by this one, but I probably had the most fun this year at Mirrors. The theater was packed with the sort of rowdy crowd that cheesy horror movies are built for. The whole audience was yelling directions and warnings at the characters and laughing during all the parts that deserved to be mocked. Much more fun than if I had seen it on DVD.

That’s it for this edition. Happy New Year to you and yours!

Back again for some lightweight political discussion for your reading pleasure. Everyone is no doubt tired of reading columnists’ political agendas over the last couple of months, don’t worry there isn’t much of that here. Just some fun politics related questions being answered by your buddies ML Kennedy and Mike Noyes. Vote first, then enjoy nine stupid questions with the Popcorn Junkies gang.

1. With the election coming, this edition’s focus will be on politics and movies. Start by selecting the cast for movie adaptation of the current election.

Kennedy:
Barack Obama- Will Smith
John McCain - Ed Harris
Biden - David Morse
Sarah Palin - Lisa Ann star of Nailin Paylin

Noyes:
Barack Obama – Don Cheadle, of course!
Joe Biden – Steve Martin
John McCain – John Goodman
Sarah Palin – I think Tina Fey has pretty much proven that there would be no other choice than her.

Price: Well Googling Lisa Ann provided some fairly non-work friendly results. Thank you Kennedy. Guess I should have known with that title. Anyway, my picks:

Obama – The Rock
Biden – Steve Martin. Seems like a great pick actually
McCain – Richard Dreyfus. Because I hate both men equally. Okay, I hate Dreyfus way more.
Palin – Tina Fey. I don’t care if it lacks creativity, it is the only universal choice this election season.

Also, I must hear the logic behind John Goodman as John McCain.

2. Do you think your movie, or any movie, based on this election would appeal to audiences? What would be the best presidential election to make into a movie? Why?

Kennedy: This election is frightfully entertaining. I would wait 15 years
before making a movie about it.

As for the best election to make into a movie, Kennedy/Nixon comes to
mind. It was a close race, had two well known candidates, political
chicanery in Chicago, that stupid “Checkers” speech, and set the tone
of presidential races in the TV age.

Noyes: It would really depend on who was directing and writing the film and what way they went with the film. I suppose it would be possible to make a good film out of this election as it has been a very memorable one, but I think overall a film about any election would probably end up being pretty damn boring. If they made a film about this election it would have to be a long time from now. To make it now would just be superfluous. We’re all living the story as it happens. Filmmakers would have to wait until there is a new audience for it.

Price: I think politics is one of many areas where the reality is more entertaining than anything that could be created in Hollywood. That said I think an election that would make for good cinema would be the very first election slash basically announcing that George Washington would be president. There must be some comedy from the fact that after fighting a war to separate from a monarchy, the newly founded United States wanted Washington to be a king.

3. Political movies, that is to say movies that deal with current cultural issues, don’t typically make much money at the box office and lately haven’t been doing well with critics either. Why do you think that is? Is there a way to change that trend?

Kennedy: One of the draws of movies is escapism. Seeing a movie about the
current problems of the world are anti-escapist in nature. Very often
these movies are about issues which people don’t relate to, and as
such they won’t relate to the movie.

Mostly, though, the problem with these movies is that they are
preachy, didactic, vapid Hollywood crap made by people who think they
know a lot about the world because they have been on television.

The way to get “political” movies more critical respect and bigger box
office is. . . allegory. Throw them in a horror or sci-fi picture. You
can enjoy Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a sci-fi/horror
film or a political film. You can watch Ringu without giving a
damn about its social message- the internal problems of families
become the problems of the whole community.

Noyes: Well, lately, the political climate has been so active that when people want political entertainment all they have to do is flip on the news. Why go to the theater and shell out half your paycheck for two hours entertainment when you can stay home and get something twice as good and half as believable for free? Perhaps if real life ever gets boring again then people drift back into the theater.

Price: I look back at my answer to the last question and realize that that simplistic answer covers me here too. One thing that Kennedy makes me wonder about is what genre would be a good place to center your allegory. Horror is obvious, but a lot of times I feel that horror flicks are overrated when they use political allegory. After all, how many zombie movies truly capture the social climate of the time they are made? I guess I am happy with my politics right where they are, especially as the political climate becomes more and more heated in this country. It doesn’t seem necessary to try to classify something so meaningful.

4. Oliver Stone just released W. based on the current president’s life and he has dabbled in political films throughout his career. What do you think of Stone’s political films? Which directors do you feel do well with political material?

Kennedy: Oliver Stone is an idiot. I don’t watch his political films.
JFK is an abomination. He couldn’t even figure out what to do
with Natural Born Killers. As for directors who do well with
political material, um, there’s uh, Marshall Curry (director of the
documentary Street Fight)?

Noyes: I must admit that I’ve seen neither JFK, Nixon or W. However, on a whole, Stone is hit or miss with me, he makes both great and terrible films, so I’m not sure where those three might fall. As far as other directors… There really isn’t one that jumps out at me. Sorry, I know, that’s a horrible answer… next question.

Price: Honestly Kennedy, I think you and I are going to have to throw down about JFK sometime. But otherwise I agree that almost every film I have seen from Oliver Stone sucks hard and likes it. His style is awesome, but it does not fit his preferred genre at all, in my opinion. One director I like for social pictures is Edward Zwick (Courage Under Fire, Blood Diamond), I also like the efforts put forth by both Scotts (Ridley and Tony), but I wouldn’t say anyone is best suited for such movies.

5. Ronald Reagan was an actor before he became president. What president would like to have seen become an actor?

Kennedy: Picture it: James K. Polk, the Napoleon of the Stump, plays a
hard-boiled detective in 22nd century Cleveland. Rocket men have
developed a devious plan to taint the town’s drinking supply with moon
poison and it is up to Polk, as Private Dick Chester A. Arthur to save
the city from the hands of lunar destruction!

Also starring Millard Filmore as the hooker with a heart of gold, moon gold.

Noyes: I suppose I’d have to go with Clinton because he’s the most charismatic of the remaining living presidents. But I don’t think he’d be a good actor. The real problem with a president turned actor is that no matter what role he played, people would always just think of him as “that guy who used to be our president.” I think in any case it probably be a bad idea.

Price: Kennedy, when are you going to pitch a column entitled Kennedy’s Flights of Fancy? In which, you suggest movie concepts for movies that only make sense to stoners. I want to be your editor.

As for the actual topic at hand I must say I am a bit surprised Clinton hasn’t been in a movie yet. However I think we all know the correct answer is Taft. Nutty Professor 3 anyone?

6. Which fictitious president would you like best as an actual president?

Kennedy: I think we’d be in good hands with President David Palmer. Oh wait,
24 isn’t a movie.

In that case, let’s go with President James Marshall. I don’t know
about his politics; I just want a president that can beat up Gary
Oldman.

Noyes: President James Dale (Jack Nicholson) from Mars Attacks! Well, honestly I’d just like to see Jack Nicholson be our president, but that wasn’t the question.

Price: I can beat up Gary Oldman, would you like me to be president? Imagine the amazing race between Jack Nicholson and Harrison Ford for presidency. I’m not sure who I would vote for. I’d probably write in Tiny “Zeus” Lister from The Fifth Element. Another man who can beat up Gary Oldman.

7th Inning Stretch. Best movie starring two governors: Predator, The Running Man, or Batman and Robin?

Kennedy: Predator, by a lot. A lot a lot.

The real question here is: When and where does Carl Weathers get to be
a governor? C’mon guys, Governor Action Jackson!

Noyes: No contest: Predator. That is not only one of the greatest action movies of the 80’s, but one of the best ever. I just rewatched it recently and was pleasantly surprised how well it held up. Schwarzenegger delivers one of his best on screen performances and he goes up against one of the greatest off worldly villains. Great cheesy one liners, great action, great movie.

Price: Not a question so much as a reason to reminisce about Predator and the great SNL skit that inspired this very question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QArocEUp7xE. Although, you guys have to admit that if Ventura had played Governor of Minnesota the same way he played Captain Freedom in The Running Man the world would be a better place.

8. During governor elections in California local networks are not allowed to show Arnold Schwarzenegger movies due to equal time laws. Your thoughts?

Kennedy: Seriously? I hadn’t heard that thing. Now that I’ve thought about it,
well, it is retarded. Equal time laws are idiotic. I don’t want to get
started on how stupid that is. Any electoral body that would make a
decision based on which candidate was in End of Days deserves
the government they get.

Noyes: That’s ridiculous. How is somebody watching Kindergarten Cop going to think, “Hey, I really want to reelect this guy!” And if for some reason a film could do that then there are plenty of good and bad films to go around that would make either party happy. If the democrats want to get some more voters on their side they can just get Junior or Batman & Robin played. That’s sure to lose Arny some votes.

Price: Here’s what would be fair: re-shoot all of Arnold’s scenes with his competitor. That would be classic. I mean TNT has to fill their weekly Commando TV block with something.

9. Dumbo vs. Eeyore. Who wins?

Kennedy: Dumbo. Dumbo can fly and shoot peanuts out of his trunk. Eeyore gets
in no offense and literally gets the stuffing knocked out of him. Here
is the real question though: We all know that Timothy J. Mouse is
Dumbo’s corner man. Who fills that roll for Eeyore? Is there a
competent corner man among the denizens of the Hundred Acre Woods?
Pooh would fall asleep, Tigger wouldn’t be able to concentrate long
enough to form a strategy. Rabbit would be cleaning up spit stains.

I guess Kanga would be the toughest one in the Pooh gang.

Noyes: Eeyore would bitch about something and it would freak out Dumbo who would just hide behind his big dumb ears. The voters would realize how much of a little scaredy cat Dumbo is and while thinking Eeyore was a whiney bitch at least he speaks his mind and they’d vote for him. That and Eeyore is just way cooler.

Price: It makes me proud to see how game you guys were for this question. I think Kanga could be a great corner man, especially if she is a boxing kangaroo. This fight would be kind of awesome and if Disney weren’t such fuddy-duddies they could create an amazing fighting game with all their characters. What kind of situation would we have on our hands if Dumbo’s lucky feather were actually Eeyore’s tail? Oh man, too many great ideas here, this may have to be revisited. As for who wins between the elephant and the donkey, we will know soon enough.

1. Hollywood has seen the passing of quite a few big stars this year, including the recent death of Paul Newman. Which recently deceased star will Hollywood miss most? Which will you miss most?

Kennedy: Hollywood? The formerly ubiquitous voice-over master Don LaFontaine.

For me personally the biggest death of the year was that of M. Night
Shyamalan’s potential as an artist.

Scott: Most of the stars who’ve past were older (Newman) or whose accomplishments were exagerrated posthumously (Bernie Mac). The one who I’ll miss, and who Hollywood will miss, is Heath Ledger. I thought he was poised to become the next truly great actor, a big time movie star like the tradition of old, as opposed to being merely someone who’s just popular. His version of The Joker is to the current generation growing up what Brandon Lee’s character in The Crow was to mine; the sort to mourn, then to bastardize on t-shirts en-masse for a decade afterwards.

John: Admittedly, the question is a bit loaded as the “obvious” answer is Heath Ledger, though I love both of Kennedy’s answers. Even though I maintain M. Night Shamooley’s potential as an artist died after Signs. Personally, I’m gonna miss Charlton Heston. He was the first blockbuster machine and those unbelievably long films still hold up fairly well to today’s epic meaga-hits. Plus his involvment with the NRA later in life was the source of much unitentional comedy.

2. Continuing with Newman: which of his movies do you feel best represents his legacy?

Kennedy: For the early stuff, I’d go with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. For the
middle, let’s say Cool Hand Luke. For the twilight, let’s say
The Verdict.

There are a ton of other movies with Paul Newman that I enjoy (e.g.
The Hudsucker Proxy, Slapshot, The Sting), but
those three best represent Paul Newman movies.

Scott: What represents Newman’s legacy? Any answer to that starts with “Fast” Eddie Falson from Color of Money and The Hustler. They are his signature roles and the only one in which he won an Oscar. Cool Hand Luke has to be on there as well; one of the truly great roles and performances in film history (and my favorite of all time). Road to Perdition was Newman as a bad guy, which was interesting in and of itself. His role in The Verdict was dynamic and powerful, you can throw in The Sting and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid due to their significance in creating the buddy genre, and I’d end it with Cars. A terrific way to end his career.

John: After Newman died, I was sad to realize that I have not seen many of his movies. Of what I have seen (and even what I haven’t), I am smart enough to know that The Hustler is his defining role, that Cool Hand Luke is his most poignant, and that his work in The Sting and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is his most recognizable. I also give some respect to Nobody’s Fool, a late, great effort of his. For me, his legacy will always be the hilarious game of cards he plays against Robert Shaw in The Sting.

3. Robert Redford’s career is closely tied to Paul Newman. Thus, Redford has been considered the heir apparent to Newman’s position in Hollywood. Given Redford’s age, who would you say is the actual heir apparent to Newman and Redford? Are there any frequent collaborators that remind you of Newman and Redford?

Kennedy: First things first, while Newman/Redford is a classic movie duo, they
only made two movies together. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have
made more movies together. What’s important here is not the frequency
of the collaboration, but how memorable such things are. With that in
mind, no. There are no frequent collaborators that remind me of Newman
and Redford. In my mind, the only similar duo would be between Cary
Grant and Jimmy Stewart in The Philadelphia Story.

As for the heir apparent portion of the question, I have no idea what
you’re talking about. Perhaps the question is what celebrity is going to
make delicious and affordable salad dressing and give the money to
charity? Steve Buscemi looks like the sort of fellow who could make a
really good balsamic-pesto vinaigrette.

Scott: Newman and Redford only collabarated twice, so I tend to think it was a bit over-rated. I love both BC&TSK and The Sting, but that was it.

Who would be the next generation version of the two of them? I’d have to go with Christian Bale (Newman) and Brad Pitt (Redford). Bale is the most versatile actor out there and Pitt is following a similar arc to Redford career-wise.

I’d say if you’re looking for a good combination of guys who could be the next Newman and Redford, it’s an easy answer. Bale and Russell Crowe. Both were fabulous in 3:10 to Yuma last year and I bet if they did something together again it’d be equally great.

John: Touche to the both of you. It does seem like Newman and Redford collaborated more often, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part. My pick for comparable duo would be Brad Pitt and George Clooney. A lot of what they do together onscreen and off seems to harken back to the days of Newman and Redford. After reading the various answers, I can see the vagueness of my question. But even I need a refresher on my movie knowledge every now and then.

4. Newman was one of the last of the old school style movie stars. It is a growing belief that Hollywood does not make stars like that anymore, but who do you see achieving Newman’s type of legendary status in the next 20 or 30 years?

Kennedy: Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Will Smith. These are the guys who get
Oscar level recognition for their work, make popular movies, and don’t
let their personal lives overshadow their acting talents.

Scott: Newman truly was the last great movie star of his generation, as opposed to being someone who’s popular. That’s the knock on today’s stars, and I think the only one we’ll remember like that is Denzel Washington. He was the actor that broke the final color barrier in that everyone loves him, no matter what you are on the outside. He has that movie star charisma and every film he does feels like an event. You could probably throw Russell Crowe into that mix as well as Tom Cruise. Adam Sandler would probably be another as well. Bale would be a good pick, and I think Gerard Butler will probably find a couple more vehicles to harness that insane amount of screen presence he has.

John: Kennedy’s answer is as correct as an opinion question can be, and Scott had me up until Adam Sandler. I’m not a big fan of Russell Crowe, either, but I understand why people think he is great. Sandler though deserves some explanation. I’m all ears Scott. I won’t pick on Scott for Gerard Butler…yet. I might add Pitt, but per Kennedy’s criteria, he most definitely doesn’t keep his private life from overshadowing his acting talents, not always anyway. I think Julia Roberts is probably the only woman I could put on this list right now with any confidence.

5. Newman was also a big entrepreneur and humanitarian. Whose ventures outside Hollywood do you feel are on par or better than Paul Newman’s work?

Kennedy: None really. Here is a man that started a food empire and gives away
100 percent of the post-tax profits to charity. The line provides a
good product at a competitive price. It would be worth buying without
the charity angle. That’s the genius of it. It’s useful.

Nowadays, I got shit-headed Leo DiCaprio on my TV all the time whining
about climate change and the importance of voting. That little punk
couldn’t eat 5 hard-boiled eggs.

Scott: No one has done it better than Newman. He did it without the pomp, circumstance, or self-congratulary nature of today’s stars. He also lived his life in the same way he asked others to as well.

John: I agree with both. Hollywood sure is pleased with it’s philantropist efforts anymore. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back Tinseltown. I think we all know Newman was a man of many hats. Zing!

6. What is your favorite Newman product? Why?

Kennedy: Heck, I don’t care. I just like to see him wear funny hats.

Scott: Newman’s own Cabernet Sauvignon. Terrrific red wine that’s reasonably priced.

John: You must love Newman’s Own salsa then, Kennedy. And who doesn’t love a couple Newman-Os with a tall glass of milk?

7th Inning Stretch – Beverly Hills Chihuahua: harmless kids flick or one step closer to the apocalypse?

Kennedy: I haven’t seen it, but my guess would be the former. If the world
survived TWO Baby Geniuses movies without a rain of fire and
bowls of angel wrath, it can certainly survive another CGI talking dog
picture.

Scott: Harmless flick. The true sign of the apocalypse is Oliver Stone’s W, where he finally proves that Platoon was a fluke miracle and that another great movie won’t ever come from him.

John: Ha, joke’s on you guys. I got you to admit Beverly Hills Chihuahua isn’t so bad. But seriously, the apocalypse already started with Alvin and the Chipmunks. I’d argue for Stone’s JFK, but now is not the time.

8. In honor of the upcoming World Series (and the sport that “inspired” this column) let’s discuss baseball. What is your favorite baseball movie? Why?

Kennedy: Bull Durham. Philosophically, it is the most sound of the
baseball movies. “This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you
catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you
lose, sometimes it rains.”

Scott: Favorite baseball movie? That’s like asking me to name my favorite Bond girl or Arnold flick. Lots to choose from. Field of Dreams would have to be it, if I had to make a choice, as it’s the film that Kevin Costner will get an eternal reprieve from me for every bad film he does after.

John: If Kevin Costner was in The Sandlot, I would never have to make my case for it being the best baseball movie ever again.

9. What sport is best suited for the Sports Movie Formula? Why? What sports would you like to see given the underdog treatment?

Kennedy: Now the question is: what sport is left for the plucky underdog
treatment? What sport doesn’t have a definitive inspirational film
about it? Lacrosse? Synchronized diving? Curling?

Hell, just recently we even had dodgeball and beer games get their shots.

I’m going to have to say. . . Ultimate Frisbee: The Movie. The
champions are this team of Aikido Frisbee ninjas. The underdogs are a
team of overweight anime nerds. The nerds, called “Team Ranma 1/2″
make it into the playoff due to a freak lightning storm killing half
of the midget Frisbee team, “The Compact Discs.”

Then, Team Ranma discover that the geek girl that they were hesitant
to let into their club is actually a Romanian Frisbee champion, who at
age 6 beat Bobby Fischer in a game of Frisbee golf AKA Frolf. The team
has a big schism when she wants to change the team name to the “I Me
My Strawberry Eggs”, and the team captain want to change the name to
“Deathc*nt”.

Then they realize that they aren’t allowed to change their team name
via Ultimate Frisbee by-law 349-a-47-u.

We get a training montage set to a classic ’80s hair band jam, and Team
Ranma makes it to the finals! But on the first play the Romanian Geek
Girl is disqualified for severing the carotid artery of Team Aikido
Ninja Frisbee with a particularly nasty throw.

This stuff writes itself!

Scott: The underdog formula works best for football films, I think, because the tension is much readier in football. Baseball movies tend to thrive when they’re offbeat and basketball films really don’t click with the formula for some reason (Hoosiers notwithstanding). Football works it well.

A sport I’d like to see as an underdog tale . . .hmm. . .that’s tough. Junior Olympic pole-vaulting?

John: Ultimate Frisbee: The Movie; make it happen Hollywood! Let me know where I can order a “Deathc*nt” T-shirt.

Mama always said leave ‘em laughing, so before I say goodbye I would like to share this piece of trivia with all you. It came from Kubryk and you can feel free to show off your newfound knowledge at your next cocktail party.

Fact: Shannon Dougherty’s penis is so big Hank Aarron used it to hit his record breaking home run.

1. The Dark Knight has made mucho dinero but is beginning to peter out, will there ever be a film that tops Titanic at the box office? Why or why not?

Scott: No, there won’t. Why? A couple reasons, actually, but mainly the key is release length in theatres. Films don’t last in theatres for extended runs as they used to. Go back 20 years ago. A film could spend four to six months, easy, in the big theatre chains. When was the last time a film had that kind of run in theatres in the modern era of movies? Films are released in theatres now to maximize profit before the DVD gets released, as the home video market has expanded significantly since the days of Titanic. If Titanic was released now, it wouldn’t make as much in theatres as it did 10 years ago because it wouldn’t have lasted as long in theatres. Dark Knight won’t be in theatres that long; if it lasts four months total I’d be shocked, because it’ll be the centerpiece DVD of the holiday season this year. If this was 1995, Dark Knight would be in theatres until November. Now, if it lasts until Halloween it’d be shocking. Unless a film gets an extended run in theatres for at least six months, and continues to have Top 5 finishes in weekly box offices for the bulk of the time, will a film have a shot at going for Titanic’s box office receipts.

Mike: With such a strong opening weekend I thought for sure The Dark Knight would stand a chance at beating that ridiculous record. Sadly it seems it won’t. And honestly, with all the elements (good and bad) lined up to make The Dark Knight as financially successful as it was I doubt we’ll be seeing anything that comes close to it any time soon. To this day it still boggles my mind that Titanic did as well as it did. I saw it in the theaters; I thought it was pretty weak. The only part of the movie I enjoyed was when the boat sank at the end. It was too long and dare I say, too water logged. Maybe the general public of 1997 was just so hard up for entertainment that they kept going back. Or maybe the general public of 1997 was just a bunch of idiots and didn’t know a bad film when they saw one. Or maybe films were cheap enough to see in the theater ten years ago that you could go see a film 10 times and wouldn’t put too much of a dent in your pocket book. I saw Batman Begins three times in the theater and while I psychotically loved The Dark Knight, I’ve only seen it once.

John: Scott and Mike both make great assessments on how the movie industry and movie audiences have changed in the last decade. With that said, it seems plainly obvious that inflation should someday push a movie past Titanic’s still unbelievable record. But that is a cheap answer, and I won’t resort to it. Titanic was an old time movie in style, presentation, and audience response and I have to agree that something that can capture a massive audience like that again is a thing of the past. We’re talking a reconceptualization of what cinema can offer audiences. As a side note, I want to note that Titanic supposedly hasn’t even made money yet because of all the money tied up in its production and promotion, so success is relative.

2. Titanic was considered a perfect blend of entertainment that was appealing to most every demographic. What do you envision a film that could out earn Titanic to be like?

Scott: It has to be several things, but the most important thing is that it has to appeal to women to keep coming back. That’s why Titanic drew what it did, is that women came back en masse with their spouses. Any major grossing film has to have that factor.

Mike: Let’s see the elements of Titanic: 1) Sappy uninspired love story. 2) Well known historical tragedy. 3) A director known for his science fiction films. 4) A crappy hit song by a Canadian. 5) Too pretty and popular up and coming actors.

So if we plug in those same elements to today: 1) Maintain sappy uninspired love story. 2) Either a film about Katrina or September 11. 3) Gore Verbinski breaks away from his Pirates of the Caribbean run. 4) Alanis Morrisette is hit up for a song. 5) Shia LaBeouf and Ellen Page.

John: As much as it hurts me to the core of my soul to say it, I am slowly learning that marketing and targeting an audience is the way for a film to make money. Actual quality is distant second. The Dark Knight is a perfect example because even if the movie had not met expectations, Warner Brothers already scored the big payday. I guess that is a fancy way of saying I have no idea what a movie that could out earn Titanic would look like, but neither does anyone in Hollywood. I agree with Scott and Mike though, if the movie doesn’t appeal to women in some way, it doesn’t stand a chance.

3. Is Titanic a modern classic? Why or why not?

Scott: No. There’s no accounting for taste, apparently, as it’s a big epic film that’s really good but not a modern classic. Watch it now and it has aged significantly, as the magic that it had in the 1990s isn’t there anymore. And I think it’s too early to call any film a modern classic; classic status is twenty years from release, I think, as two decades of time will show if it has become a classic. It’s the reason why people don’t remember which film beat out Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon for an Oscar.

Mike: God no! I mean, I’m sure there are some people out there who would think so. But like I said above, it’s a damn dreadful film. The plot is tepid at best and the acting is bland accept for Kathy Bates. I’m sure it will go down in film history as a classic just because of its financial success and Oscar hoarding, but never in my book will it be considered as such.

John: Sometimes I wonder how I got involved with the Junkies since my opinion on things is a stark contrast, but then again variety IS the spice of life. In other words, I love Titanic, but only over the last few years have I come to see it as a classic at least in terms of the old school classics like Gone With the Wind. In fact, I see Titanic as a companion piece to that more or less universal number one classic. But Titanic is an anomaly, and as such it is hard to recognize its worth when it is surrounded by a culture that isn’t looking for its kind anymore. Released 50 or more years ago and film students would be watching Titanic along with all the standard faire. Before anyone suggests, no I do not think that movie would suffer without the top notch special effects.

4. James Cameron has not directed a feature film since Titanic. Avatar comes out next year; are you excited for it? Do you think it will be successful? Why or why not?

Scott: I’m not particularly excited for Avatar, actually. I’m not a huge Cameron fan, even though I love a number of his films, but this is kind of the Chinese Democracy of films. It’s been rumored for so long, Cameron’s been developing the technology, etc, that now I’m sort of ambivalent about it. Five years ago I stopped caring when Cameron would make another film in the same way I stopped caring when Francis Ford Coppola would. Will it be successful? That’s hard to tell…there hasn’t been a trailer or anything but plot summaries that are probably inaccurate. I think on name recognition alone Cameron’s film won’t be a hit, but if he delivers a good film it’ll most likely be a hit.

Mike: Well, he’s getting back to his science-fiction roots which is nice. I’m sure I’ll see it, but I can’t say I’m excited. With the biggest names in the film being Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi plus it being a science fiction action movie I seriously doubt it will come anywhere near the financial success of Titanic. However, if it’s a good enough film it might remind people that he really is a good director. With a film like this though, I’m sure he’ll be happy to break even or at the very least, make a few bucks.

John: Call me a dreamer, but I think this movie is going to be a big deal. It sounds unique and I truly believe that Cameron has deprived filmgoers of his talents for far too long. My hope is that he still has it and that a new generation will see that. If not there will always be The Terminator and Aliens and True Lies and…

5. Will James Cameron still be relevant a decade after his last directorial effort?

Scott: He’s not relevant now. Can he be relevant again? He has to make a good film, period, to be relevant. He’s had 11 years to work on this, so if it’s mediocre he’ll be just another director whose best work is behind him.

Mike: He can be. It really depends on how good the movie is. Look at say, Robert Downey, Jr; a few years ago he was more or less washed up, career over. Now he’s at the top of his game making some of his best films. That is what’s so great about the movie industry: People go away, but it never means they won’t come back.

John: On the flipside of my last answer, I actually fear for the worst here. As I said, Cameron has been gone for way too long to do anything but succeed. If this movie doesn’t open big, say goodbye to the King of the World. That’s okay though, because we will always have The Abyss and Terminator 2 and…

6. Cameron is using a new 3D digital camera technique for Avatar, do you think that his successes in advancing film technology are less than, on par, or above that of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?

Scott: It all depends if he can pull it off. If it’s a good film, then technology will enhance it. However if the film is more about the technology than it is about a good story, etc, then it’ll be just another advancement.

Mike: I think only time will tell with that one. For now I’ll say less than but I’m by no means holding myself to that. We won’t really know till Avatar comes out how great or not his new film technology is or if it will be popular enough to be picked up by other production companies. But if it’s really impressive and paves a way for a whole new future in filmmaking who knows, it could be pretty important.

John: After listing all his work I have come to realize that James Cameron has not directed very many movies. But the ones he has directed have almost all been progressive. I would say his technological contribution percentage ranks close to Spielberg but probably can’t touch Lucas’ team. His vision, however, competes closely with Spielberg and beats the ever-loving crap out of latter day Lucas.

7th Inning Stretch - Name your three favorite movies of the summer of 2008.

Scott: The Dark Knight - I don’t see how any film is going to be better than this at the end of the year. Chris Nolan raised expectations significantly and delivered a classic.

Henry Poole is Here - A terrific indy flick with one of my favorite actors, Luke Wilson.

Step Brothers - This is a guilty pleasure, but markedly hilarious.

Mike: Of the whopping 17 films I’ve seen this year:

1) The Dark Knight
2) Tropic Thunder
3) Pineapple Express

John: Wow, second place can barely see the finish line:

1) The Dark Knight
2) WALL-E
3) Pineapple Express

8. True or False: The Coen Brothers’ Burn After Reading will be a good follow-up after last year’s No Country For Old Men. Why?

Scott: False - Nothing about this film makes me excited to see it in the way NCFOM did. I think this is going to be a film that everyone goes ga-ga over but really isn’t that good, like the Jesse James film last year.

Mike: It is a perfect follow up. The Coen Brothers are one of the few filmmakers out there who can jump from drama to comedy without batting an eye and make brilliant films in both genres. They started out with the film noir Blood Simple and followed it with one of the funniest films of the 80’s, Raising Arizona. No Country For Old Men earned them the industry praise they’ve deserved for so long but my favorite film of theirs is still The Big Lebowski. I’m really excited for Burn After Reading and wouldn’t be surprised to find it on the list above after I’ve seen it.

John: Me? I’m just excited to see Brad Pitt and John Malkovich in a Coen Brothers movie.

9. In honor of Nicolas Cage’s upcoming Bangkok Dangerous: Which actor is most capable of making a bad movie tolerable?

Scott: Denzel Washington, easily. I can’t think of a bad film with him in it, but even a bad one seems good because he’s always great.

Mike: Geez, certainly not Nick Cage. If anything, he’s capable of taking a potentially tolerable movie and making intolerable. I mean he does make great films; they’re just few and far between. But to answer your question I’m gonna go with Christopher Walken. He’ll do just about anything and he does a LOT of crap, but even in his crap films he’s always enjoyable. My most recent example for this would be Balls of Fury. It wasn’t very good, but it did have a few laughs and most of those were provided by Walken.

John: I considered making this an either or question between Nicolas Cage and Denzel Washington. Get out of my head, Kubryk! Walken is a great answer as well. But for my money I have to stay loyal to Nicolas Cage. I wish I could say that there was a movie of his I don’t like, but I’m not gonna lie to you. That would be a bad way for us to say goodbye for this edition. Instead I will just tell you to get your hands off the bunny.

Editor’s Note: Sorry about the late posting, as this was originally set up for September 3rd. Due to various cheeky shenanigans Movie Hardball #2 was postponed for a week. It will be returning to a regular scheduled appearance for September 10th and every other week from there on.

Originally there was to be Lauren Leigh Fightin’ Around the World every other week, where Lauren would travel to exotic places for auditions in her zamboni to instigate altercations with strangers of different nationalities. It regretfully has been put on permanent hiatus. A replacement column, featuring Danny Cox in festive shorts, will be announced in the near future.

Rotating with this feature will be Lauren Leigh’s debut column about life on the wild side of film, Breuerdise. We hope you enjoy both and will gladly accept any feedback we can get. — Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz, Popcorn Junkies Editor-in-Chief

Welcome to the first edition of Movie Hardball. In this inaugural run I talk with resident news specialist Danny Cox and professional opinion contradictor ML Kennedy about the only thing anyone seems to want to talk about these days. You guessed it, Frank Stallone. No, of course I am talking about The Dark Knight. I asked them a few other questions as well in an attempt to fill nine “innings” like in baseball, get it? Aside from offering me a chance to make a terrible pun, Movie Hardball is intended to open up dialogue between the Popcorn Junkies staff and all of our loyal readers. We hope you enjoy this first outing with two PJ mainstays.

Without further adieu:

1. There has been much fanfare surrounding The Dark Knight. Do you think fans and critics would be so universally impressed with the film if Heath Ledger were still alive?

Kennedy: Ledger’s death may make critics reluctant to criticize his performance, but ultimately won’t affect their evaluation of the film as a whole. In some instances, the death of a principle performer adds to the mystique of a movie (read as: The Crow), but won’t make critics call a turd sandwich filet mignon (read as: Canadian Bacon sucks even if John Candy is dead, same goes for Almost Heroes and the late Chris Farley).

Frankly, Ledger’s death strikes me as a “death by stupid”. Frankly, if we had to be extra sensitive about a movie based on a funny book because the guy that played the evil clown accidentally killed himself, well, I’d have even less respect for film critics than I currently do.

Cox: I believe so because it isn’t just Ledger that is making this film so popular. The way I look at it is that no matter what, the film would be successful; only it wouldn’t be “as” successful had Ledger still been alive. So many people not interested in comic books, super heroes, or big time action films are waiting in line to see The Dark Knight because of the situation surviving Ledger. It is those people who will make up the difference between the great amounts of money the film would already take in to the actual huge amount I know it’s going to rake in.

But it makes me wonder if I believe what I’m saying or not. From just the few clips of the film I’ve seen so far, Ledger looks and sounds phenomenal. He has captured the essence and spirit of the Joker like no-one else I’ve ever seen. Aaron Eckhart is a brilliant actor and seems to have the role of Harvey Dent down to perfection. And I’ve seen pictures of his Two Face persona and they are amazing. Let’s not forget that Katie Holmes’ untalented self is a gone pecan and the lovely Maggie Gyllenhaal has stepped into her place as Rachel Dawes. Not only is she cuter, but could act circles around Katie. I think no matter what…Ledger alive or dead…this film has to be a great success.

Price: Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kennedy. Aside from that cheapshot, both writers make good points and anyone who has seen Batman Begins could have told you the sequel would be great. But, for better or worse, Ledger’s death has inarguably brought more eyes upon The Dark Knight than even the most upbeat optimist could have imagined.

2. Would an Academy Award nomination for Ledger in the actor or supporting actor category be worthy or would it be more paying tribute to a fallen star?

Kennedy: Are there any people naive enough to believe that Academy Awards are merit based? Oscar winner Julia Roberts, anyone? Academy Award winning writer Ben Affleck? Academy voters vote with their hearts and spleens as much as they do their heads. John Wayne won an acting Oscar for True Grit if memory serves, and his only performance that exceeded serviceable was in The Searchers.

I haven’t seen The Dark Knight yet. I can’t tell you if Ledger’s is one of the 5 (or 10 or 20 or 1000) best performances of the year. Most of the year’s Oscar bait won’t even come out until late fall. We’ll have to see what else pops up, if Heath gets nominated, and then perhaps we can make a judgment call to see whether his ability to pretend is worthy of a naked little gold person.

Cox: It would be worthy if his entire performance is as brilliant as I’ve seen in clips so far, but let’s stop and think for a second. I like Heath Ledger and have loved a lot of the films he has starred in, including 10 Things I Hate About You, Monster’s Ball, The Patriot, and Candy. He has only improved with every role he has been in and taking on the persona of the Joker is unlike anything he’s ever done. Look at him for God’s sake. He looks nothing like his boyish self. You can’t even hear his Australian accent or American voice when the Joker speaks. Hearing small lines like “Here’ my card!” or “Let’s put a smile on that face!” sends chills up and down my spine. I’d consider him an easy winner for an Oscar in either category.

But…I don’t want him to win it. Let’s face it, the Academy would never in a million years put up a comic book film in any major category. And if something from one of those films happened to be lucky enough to get a nomination, it’d never win. It’s just not done, and it’s a trend I feel will continue for a long time. The Academy seems to enjoy taking films no one has ever seen and even less have heard of and makes them the top nominees. Giving the Oscar to Ledger now wouldn’t be looked at as respecting his role, but being a pity award. No matter what they say about his acting, I’ll know that the award was simply given to him because of his passing. And to that I call horse$#!@

Price: Wow, both writers are aggressively protective of a genre they seem to enjoy and an actor they seem to respect. A point that neither addresses is that, strategic as the Academy can be, they seem to seek ways to spread the wealth when it is deserved. Look at the Lord of the Rings sweep or Johnny Depp’s acting nomination for Pirates. While the circumstances bother me as well, I think that Ledger should be nominated to, at the very least, shine a light on a genre that not only dominates Hollywood, but is actually maturing into a serious place to find great stories. I wonder if an acting nomination for Robert Downey, Jr. would be less controversial, albeit less deserved.

3. Moving away from Ledger, let’s discuss Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan. He was considered more or less an unproven commodity when selected to direct Batman Begins. Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson were also cult directors who were handed the keys to big franchises. Are there any current “unknown” directors who you think deserve a franchise? What would you like to see them direct?

Kennedy: I’d like Guillermo del Toro to direct me a bunch of Swamp Thing movies. Problem is:
(a)he’s known,
(b) he is already helming a comic book franchise, and
(c) no one but me gives two [profanity deleted]s about Swamp Thing enough to call it a “big franchise”.

Marvel has made or is making movies about almost all of their big names.

Hmm. . . If you want to find a Nolan-ish director, then Brad Anderson is the way to go. He already directed two Batmen in The Machinist. Memento is to The Machinist as Batman is to Green Arrow.

There you go. Give him some Green Arrow.

If you are looking to replicate the Sam Raimi/ Peter Jackson vibe, you need to find a guy that makes cult monster movies. Neil Marshall is your man there. Let’s give him Jonah Hex to play with.

Hardly unproven, but relatively unknown in America, Chan-wook Park could direct anything from 100 Bullets to a Daredevil flick awesome enough to get the taste of Affleck out of our mouths.

Since none of these are “big” franchises, and the wording of the question was ambiguous, I’ll include a big francise to hedge my bets. X-men. That franchise should be taken over by Lucky McKee.

Cox: Yes there is and I’d love to see Adam Green given more chances. For those that don’t know him, he directed two films released in the past two years: Hatchet and Spiral. Hatchet is one of those films that takes me back to the days of the eighties’ slashers. It is done to perfection and one of my favorite horror films involving an iconic figure in a long time. Spiral is another one of my favorite horror films in a long time, but is a bit different. It takes a trip into the psyche of a person and really makes them wonder if there is anything out there as horrible as their own thoughts.

Green’s eye for detail and keen sense of direction make these two films that have been viewed by me numerous times in the past year alone. Considering what I’ve seen from him so far, I’d like to see him be handed the keys to the Crow franchise. I don’t know who would step into the main role or how it could be rekindled, but it would be done with the care of a child’s hands from Green. His thought process has the frame of mind that lives in Eric Draven. The Brandon Lee version of Eric Draven; not the crappy one found in the countless and senseless sequels. Green could take the franchise to a new level and make new films that represent what was being done by Brandon Lee and director Alex Proyas in the first one.

Price: Okay, I admit that much of what these two discuss here is over my head. The directors mentioned are certainly unknown to me. But what these answers tell me is that there is a wealth of talent ready for the call up to helm a franchise if they so choose. One think I would love to see is someone coming up with something none of us have ever seen before. The theory is that there are no new ideas in Hollywood, but if there is one I want Zack Snyder to direct it.

4. What villain would you like to see in the next Batman movie? Why?

Kennedy: Third films in comic book franchises are always awesome! Just look at Spider-man 3, X3, Batman Forever, Blade: Trinity, Superman 3, and. . . wait a minute. . .

Third films in comic book franchises are always depressing and disappointing.

Do we really need another Batman movie anytime soon? For christsakes, we’ve had seven (that I can remember) theatrically released Batman movies in the last 20 years.

But fine, a third movie is coming. It’ll make too much money not to come. There are two possibilities:

(a)Stay with the street level stuff and do a gangster movie focusing on Batman the detective. You can throw in Black Mask, Firefly, or some other Batman villains that haven’t been seen in a Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher flick. Maybe you could reveal Ra’s is still alive in the third act.

(b) the next logical step in a Batman movie is to have Superman in it. You’ve already used Ra’s, Joker and Two-Face; everybody else is a step down in the Rogues Gallery hierarchy. Are you going to have Batman fight Killer Croc for the third movie? Superman wouldn’t fit into the Nolan Batman universe without crazy ret-conning or re-introducing the character (who was just re-introduced). It’d be tricky to pull off and still evoke a sense of continuity with the two Nolan films, but in terms of characterization Batman and Superman bring out the best in each other.

Cox: Easy enough, The Riddler. Nolan’s version of Batman is not one that would be successful or the right canvas for a villain with superpowers. Mr. Freeze really can’t be done without looking somewhat foolish. Poison Ivy is boring. Killer Croc is a bit unbelievable. Harley Quinn would be great, but with no more Joker around…she wouldn’t be enough. Bane might be alright if they could do the exact opposite of what they did with him in Batman & Robin. The Penguin and Catwoman get on my nerves and wouldn’t feel right in the world of Gotham that Nolan has created.. No, it’s got to be the Riddler.

The Joker has been made so incredibly sadistic in Dark Knight that he is not the laughable clown many have gotten accustomed to. Scarecrow was also a vicious and evil bastard in Batman Begins. Then there’s Two Face who is just incredibly bad ass looking in the new film as well. This franchise has been made way too dark by Nolan and Company to have a silly and over the top freak bouncing around or throwing out childish riddles. The Riddler would have to be someone that has a sinister smile, demented little puzzles, and vows for death and destruction without actually having to do any of it himself. He would fit right into this series without so much as a pause.

Price: Three points to consider:

A) I would love to see Superman versus Batman just like in Justice League. Batman is way smarter than Superman and you have to love that he is carrying around Kryptonite “just in case”.

2) Riddler does seem like the most logical next step if there must be one. But how interesting would it be to see a Batman movie with no supervillains?

and D) That all said, my guess is Catwoman. Kennedy, Cox, shall we bet on it?

5. And before we move away from The Dark Knight, the film stars Christian Bale as well. Which star’s teen heart throb film is better: Newsies or 10 Things I Hate About You?

Kennedy: I’ve actually seen parts of 10 Things I Hate About You. It’s got newly formed indie-neo-noir darling, Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) from “3rd Rock” and actress/plank of wood Julia Stiles. My wife finds her attractive.

Newsies, if memory serves, is about singing and dancing paperboys.

I’ll go with the Tommy one.

Cox: 10 Things I Hate About You without so much as a small doubt here. I cannot express to you how much I hate Newsies especially after being forced to sit through it numerous times in college by my friend who was obsessed with Bale at the time. She made me watch that flick over and over again that I never created a liking for it, but a severe hatred. Besides…it sucks.

Price: C’mon guys, open the gates and seize the day!

6. Staying on franchises: We’ve seen a lot of late additions to beloved franchises in the last couple years and there are rumors of more coming out. What series from 10 or 15 years ago would you like to see brought back for one more movie?

Kennedy: Is there one left? Seriously. All wells have been pumped dry right? I don’t think anybody is chomping at the bit for Darkman 4.

How about a new Weekend at Bernies, where the Single Guy and that other guy still pretend that Bernie is alive, despite being a pile of disconnected bones?

How about if Kevin McCallister’s wife left him Home Alone?!

Mad Max 4: really beyond Thunderdome?

Cox: You know me, I’m the horror freak so I’d love to see Friday The 13th…no, already happening. Same with Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, and even now Scream. Hmmm…what to do, what to do? I’ve got it! Give me another Predator flick. There is talk of a brand new Aliens film coming out with Sigourney Weaver returning to reprise her role as Ridley. I’m sick and tired already of the aliens battling the predators. Just give me a straight and simple Predator film in the jungle with shit blowing up and the dreadlocked dude with weird mouth invisibly jumping around in the trees so that he can focus his red laser on some guy’s arm to lop it off and have him shoot himself.

Awesome!

Price: My pick: Back to the Future 4. But who cares what I think? Tell me more about Predator 3, Cox. Who’s gonna be in it? When is it coming out? Maybe the Predator can face off with Kevin McCallister, now that would be something we’ve never seen before. In fact if Schwarzenegger set those booby traps in a house during Christmas time I think Predator would be Home Alone.

7th Inning Stretch: Which summer movie poster have you liked the best? Why?

Kennedy: Wall-e on a pile of trash, looking up at the heavens. It simply captures the spirit of the film, without revealing much.

Cox: I’m sorry, The Dark Knight has the best posters by far and wide. Every single one of them is phenomenal, but I’ll try and go elsewhere…hmmm, Iron Man had some decent ones. The X-Files 2 had a decent one. Nope, I’m sorry. I’ve got to hang onto my favorite film of the year so far which also has given us the best posters. It just gets no better then this one:

This poster is masterful for so many reasons. We are given the eye of justice in the middle as he watches over us, but keeps us wondering exactly who he is. On the left is the demented and evil stranger that forces us to remember he always has an eye on us. And on the right is Harvey Dent…who we all believe in, but also had to remember that soon…half of his face will be gone. Fantastic.

Price: I’m a sucker for the classic style Indiana Jones poster myself.

8. Back to franchise revival: Cox you are George Lucas and Kennedy you are Steven Spielberg: Defend Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Kennedy: Stephen Spielberg, Stephen Spielberg. Well speaking as Stephen Spielberg, I must say that Jaws is awesome. Isn’t that a great movie? Invented the summer blockbuster, it did! Man, was that awesome. . . WHAT’S THAT OVER THERE!?

(runs away)

SUCKAHS!

(Okay, I haven’t seen the movie. I assume that it is to cold war sci-fi what the other flicks were to the old serials. Naturally, the tone will be a little different, but I’m just pulling this our of my ass.)

Cox: I can’t. I’m sorry but there is no possible way I could defend this film by even stepping into their shoes. It took everything I loved about this franchise and made me disappointed a fourth film was ever even thought of.

Price: Oddly, that is about what I would expect to hear from George Lucas, The Dream Crusher. Spielberg, you better keep running.

9. Finally, Will Smith owns the 4th of July at the box office yet again. Is there anything more American than Will Smith? If so, what is it?

Kennedy: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Will Smith is the biggest movie star in the world. He can make, and be accepted, in bio-pics, rom-coms, action, sci-fi. . . basically whatever he wants. He is a bigger star than he probably should be. There are guys out there that are better actors. There are better looking guys. We watched him grow up on a sitcom; shouldn’t he be in the Gary Coleman/ Jeremy Miller/ Jerry Mathers celebrity bargain bin?

The success of Will Smith is due to hard work and smart decisions. The American ideals tend to be those of meritocracy, right?

There are things more American that Smith, though. The first thing that comes to mind is making love in a Camero at the drive-in during a Michael Bay movie.

Cox: Just because he’s the king of the box office come fireworks time doesn’t mean he’s all that America is about. You want a real American? Give me Mike Rowe. The guy is the star of one of the most popular television shows with Dirty Jobs. His voice and likeness are in all the Ford commercials showing America what kind of big strong truck they need. His voice is also attached to some of the other extremely popular shows on television today: American Chopper, The Ultimate Fighter, The Deadliest Catch, and Ghost Hunters. He has come a long way from his old job as a QVC salesman.

He steps into the boots of every hardworking American man and woman in this country and is willing to do what they do to show how much they’re needed to the rest of the world. Mike has had his arm up a cow’s butt, his body covered in trash, and pooh splashed into his mouth all so that we may be entertained by him and educated by his ways. I’d give anything to see him in a reality film about himself or simply an elongated version of Dirty Jobs with breaks to do voice recording for his other television series. There would also be a lot of money paid out by me to see him step into the ring with that annoying as hell Morgan Spurlock and watch Mike beat the ever loving hell out of him. God Bless America! F*ck Yeah!

Price: Sorry guys, the correct answer is apple pie.