RumorMonger »

Good news, Twilight fans. You have the first official news for the third Twilight installment, courtesy of our own Jen Yamato, FearNet and the New Moon junket.* The magically-coiffed Robert Pattinson has confirmed that Breaking Dawn will begin filming in Fall 2010, and that it's penciled into his schedule for next year.

Of course, Dawn remains unconfirmed by Summit. The most controversial installment of the Twilight series, rumors swirl that the studio is hesitant to take it to the big screen. If it is made, it seems likely that it could be split into two films a'la Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Personally, I don't see Summit risking the money they'd make on #4, and they'll find a way to steer around the gorier aspects of the book. But now you know when to look for it, though you still have the madness of Eclipse pre-production to get through.

Pattinson also dished on the movie I want to mark on my calender (Sorry, I dig boots and spurs more than vampires), a Western called Unbound Captives. The directorial debut of Madeleine Stowe, it stars Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, and Pattinson. The young heartthrob revealed that it's tenatively scheduled to begin shooting in early 2010, and he sounds enthusiastic for a role that'll be miles away from Edward Cullen. "I'm playing a kid who is kidnapped by Comanches when he was four years old, and he is brought up by them. His mother spends her entire life trying to find me and my sister. When she finds us, we can't remember who she is and can't remember anything about the Western culture she grew up in. I speak Comanche the whole movie. You can't really speak more differently from Edward."

[Special thanks also goes to Collider who apparently pried the Breaking Dawn date out of Mr. Pattinson]

In the 2007 awards season, Fox Searchlight had two strong films in the mix with Juno and The Savages, and then in 2008, they dominated with Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. As many other indie arms were folding (Paramount Vantage, Warner Independent, Picturehouse), Searchlight managed to keep things up on their end.

2009, however, hasn't been so kind to them. January's Notorious didn't do bad actually, though March's Miss March was indeed D.O.A. June's My Life in Ruins similarly underperformed, while July's Adam failed to catch on as that same month's (500) Days of Summer had. Post Grad was dumped in the doldrums of August, while Whip It failed to find a crowd in October.

Cut to now: Amelia has been effectively neutered as a ready-made Oscar contender, while Gentlemen Broncos (from the director of Napoleon Dynamite, which did particularly well for the same studio) is being pulled from wider release after this weekend after posting modest numbers on two screens and earning savage reviews for the most part.

With Miramax also facing tough times, it's a shame to see studios like these have an off-year, though there's time for a turn-around yet so far as Searchlight is concerned. Summer's summer release means the timing could work out to earn a push for Original Screenplay as a happy-go-lucky alternate to many dour contenders. This month's similarly light Fantastic Mr. Fox is an Animated Feature candidate at the very least, and -- according to THR -- the Jeff Bridges drama Crazy Heart is getting a last-minute test run of sorts at the moment to see if it can merit a move to be positioned for this year's race instead of next year's.

As Peter reported a few days ago, Robert Zemeckis is going forward with a Roger Rabbit sequel. We all seem to be intrigued by the possibility of returning to Toontown, but Zemeckis' obsession with motion capture really casts a Judge Doom-like shadow over the project. Will he motion capture Roger Rabbit and his Toontown friends? Or will Zemeckis return to the old school of hand-drawn animation?

MTV caught up with Zemeckis, who was quick to assure fans of the bumbling Roger that he will remain his cuddly 2D self. "I wouldn't use it for the cartoon characters, because I think they should stay two-dimensional because that's what - I wouldn't dimensonalize Roger," he said. "And I couldn't dimensonalize Jessica even if I wanted to because she doesn't have a nose. We wouldn't want to give her a nose." But motion capture will be a part of Roger Rabbit 2. The technology is like Zemeckis' whale, and he's determined to exploit every possibility with it. His current plan appears to involve using motion-capture for the human performances. "All the other characters that [the cartoons] would sort of have fun with would be magnificent in performance capture technology."

There's that Judge Doom shadow again. The clumsy way humans and toons interacted was the point of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? It was the contrast that was interesting and fun. Having animated humans just seems to take it on a trip into the Uncanny Valley. The project is still in its early stages, so maybe Zemeckis will surprise us, and have the technology be part of the story. Everyone on the interwebs seems to be championing the idea of the toons having to deal with technological advances. We can hope for that, and not that Zemeckis will just shove in a motion-captured cast just because he can't stop himself.

We are now in the age of the 20-year-old sequel. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Wall Street 2, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Beverly Hills Hop 4, The Untouchables: Capone Rising. It hasn't been "too long," it isn't awkward to go back. It'll make you feel young again! Now we've reached the pinnacle of past grabs, as WENN is reporting that Steve Guttenberg, Tom Selleck, and Ted Danson are reuniting for Three Men and a Bride.

"Disney's developing Three Men and a Bride. That's going to be a smash. A smash hit. They're bringing everybody back for that," says Guttenberg. "Nobody knows about it. I'm the first to talk about it."

Guttenberg might just become king of the It's Never To Late To Return! movement, as he dreams of reviving all of his past franchises. "It's definitely time for another Police Academy. And I think they could make another Cocoon. They're surefire hits and I think they're good for the world. They make the world a better place and that's what it's all about." Hopefully, he's not setting his hopes on reviving Short Circuit, as that has become someone else's dream to live. But I think there were a lot of unanswered questions about The Day After, and nothing's trendier than the apocalypse. It's only been twenty-five years ....

By: John Gholson

This movie should've happened fifteen years ago, and it should've starred Tim Allen. It didn't, so here we are in 2009 talking about whether or not a live-action movie based on Hanna-Barbera's animated "futuristic" sitcom The Jetsons will ever see the light of day.

Pajiba says yes, and they say that Peter Segal (Get Smart, Tommy Boy) is the director currently circling the long-dormant project. Director Robert Rodriguez (Shorts) was once enthusiastic about taking a crack at the material, but Warner Brothers wants to move on the project soon and Rodriguez keeps a full plate. Unlike Pajiba, though, I don't see this potential shift in directors as a huge step down.

Read the rest over at SciFi Squad

What's happened to all the great movie nudity lately? Billy Crudup started the year off with a bang, so to speak, with his big blue penis in Watchmen, and Marcus Nispel's Friday the 13th reboot featured sweaty sex and generous amounts of naked female flesh, but the summer and fall seasons have been curiosly bereft of talked-about sex scenes or body parts. Jessica Biel's bravely-bared breasts and backside in Powder Blue went direct to video, Hayden Panetierre nonchalantly limited her exposure to 'side boobage' in I Love You, Beth Cooper, and Megan Fox decided to keep her nipples to herself in the proudly feminist relationship drama ('cause it sure wasn't horror) Jennifer's Body.

In my youth, movies educated me about the wonderful diversity of naked bodies. Today, television and the Internet have stolen much of the thunder once claimed exclusively by the theatrical experience. (Case in point: Susan Sarandon's daughter, Eva Amurri, just made a big splash by going topless in Californication.) No wonder Terminator: Salvation director McG teased the audience at WonderCon earlier this year, bringing actress Moon Bloodgood up on stage and asking: "Who wants to see Moon's boobs in the picture?" She later said: "I'm a woman, I have boobs, it's a beautiful shot." As anyone who saw the movie in a theater knows, though, her toplessness was cut, reportedly as part of Warner Bros.' effort to secure a PG-13 rating.

The unrated director's cut is due out on DVD and Blu-ray on December 1, and the deleted scene has, apparently, hit the Internet (watch it after the jump). The verdict?

You kids today, with your Marvel Studios and your top-notch directors. Many of you are too young to remember just what ugly treatments comic books received in the 1980s and 1990s. Oh sure, there was Tim Burton's Batman, but treatments like David Hasselhoff's Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD were the norm. When a Thor movie was kicked around, the only requirement was muscles and blonde hair. In the 1990s, there was one man that fit that description: Fabio.

A funny little flashback has surfaced on Colleen Doran's blog, which has prompted a delightful trip back in time at Mania. In 1997, Fabio decided that he wanted to play Thor, so he approached animation director Seth Kearsley, and they cooked up a storyline with the help of Henry Gilroy. As Mania points out, this was not a Marvel movie , but it casually borrowed a few elements. The result, pictured to your right, was an unholy blend of Marvel's Thor and Captain Marvel / Shazam where Thor was punished for his arrogance by being shoved into the powerless body of a young boy. Despite its cheese and lack of Hollywood backing, it managed to recruit a lot of comic book talent for its designs, including Hellboy creator Mike Mignola. They were also desperately seeking Charlton Heston to voice Odin, and were in negotiations with Pamela Anderson to voice the Valkyrie Brunhild. But it died off, never to be seen again ... until the Internet could laugh about it.

When word hit that Ridley Scott was on board to direct the long talked about A L I E N prequel, what ran through your mind? Were you thinking lots of alien action? A Giger-iffic closer look at the xenomorphs? If so, you might want to start reeling back those alien expectations. Empire Magazine recently got the scoop from Scott, and he's got something else in mind.

The director was in London for his daughter's debut at the London Film Festival when he told the mag about his ideas for the prequel. He said: "We know what the road map is, and the screenplay is now being put on paper. The prequel will be a while ago. It's very difficult to put a year on A L I E N, but [for example] if A L I E N was towards the end of this century, then the prequel story will take place thirty years prior." Empire takes this to mean a human focus for the film.

I wish that dreaded set of Star Wars prequels hadn't made me recoil at the thought of any ultra-updated FX in prequel stories. However, on the bright side: If Scott tackles things in a similar way -- looking to Giger for inspiration, for example -- it's sure to be a beauty of a film. Are you up for this A L I E N prequel, or do you wish the past just stayed in the uncharted murky depths?

Last March, the trades confirmed that Peter Berg was the latest director brave enough (or foolish enough) to tackle a new adaptation of Frank Herbert's legendary Dune. News has been scarce since, though just last month Berg was assuring MTV that he was still involved, and that he was trying to crunch Josh Zetumer's 200-page script into something manageable "without offending the purists." Other than some intriguing Robert Pattinson casting rumors, there hasn't been much for fans to really discuss or rant about. But an intriguing story has popped up on Pajiba. Their inside source claims that Berg has dropped out of the Dune remake, and that Paramount is scrambling for a new director.

The search is fraught with difficulty for Paramount, according to Pajiba's source. "The search, however, has run into two issues: 1) they're looking for a director who can put the movie together for under $175 million, which sounds manageable, but they don't want anything resembling the crap effects of the '84 film, and 2) they want a director who already has a preexisting passion for the novel and is enthusiastic about the project." But the search has allegedly landed on two splashy newcomers: Neil Marshall and and Neill Blomkamp. Marshall is said to be the frontrunner, championed by producer Kevin Misher. But the studio lukewarm on Marshall's resume and likes Blomkamp, who they feel has the "vision" for the film.

This is all rumor and speculation at this point, and nowhere is it stated why Berg dropped out of the remake. (A schedule conflict would be likely. Berg has one heck of a full plate.) There's also something a little too dreamy about those mentions of Blomkamp and Marshall. I'm very, very curious to see how this little rumor is played out, and if it could lead to a Dune adaptation that's palatable and faithful to Herbert.