You Realize It's Not Called "Beauty And The MAN," Right?

Disney adds a minor gay character to their new live action Beauty And The Beast film...

...and the public at large flips a table, calling it the most scandalous thing that's ever happened in our society, demanding the movie to be banned nationwide. 

"Won't someone please think of the children?"

This same movie features a woman who has a relationship with a talking water buffalo...

...and the public says, "Well, that sounds jusssst fine."

The Neverending Story

This week Lionsgate Studios announced that after the less than stellar box office performance of Divergent 3: Part 1, er, I mean The Divergent Series: Allegiant, the final chapter of the series will now be a TV movie instead of a theatrical film.

The first Divergent movie was a modest hit that grossed around $150 million, while the second brought in a decent $130 million. Lionsgate then revealed they'd be splitting the third film in the series into two parts in a blatant attempt to rake in more box office earnings in order to "do the story justice and give it room to breathe." The Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games franchises pulled this same "split finale" crap, with great success.

Unfortunately for the studio, Allegiant turned out to be a huge flop, grossing just $66 million against its whopping $110 million dollar budget. I have no idea where all that money went, but it definitely wasn't up on the screen.

It's easy to see why Allegiant flopped. Unlike other Young Adult films, the Divergent series just doesn't have any stakes. In The Hunger Games films, teens are forced to hunt and kill one another in order to survive. In Divergent, teens are forced to pick one of five Factions in which to live and work. Seriously. That's it. They're rebelling against mandatory job placement. The horror. The horror...

Additionally, The Divergent Series can't even be bothered to stick with its own premise. The main concept of The Hunger Games— that of televised killing— was prevalent (to a degree) in every film. The "Forced Factions" premise of Divergent is dropped after the first movie, as the story quickly devolves into a muddled, plotless mess. It was also a huge waste of actress Maggie Q.

And then Lionsgate wonders why these films aren't box office smashes.

The final chapter of the series, The Divergent Series: Ascendant, was scheduled to hit theaters in June 2017. According to studio insiders, Lionsgate has scrapped that notion, and now plans to wrap up the series on the small screen with a much cheaper, scaled-down TV movie. The film will then segue into a TV series, starring a new cast of characters (which I guarantee will never come to pass).

At this point, the studio isn't sure if the cast of Allegiant will return for the TV movie or not.

All I have to say about the situation is "Good!" Serves the studio right for gouging the audience. Greedy bastards. They never should have split the final film in half in the first place. There was barely enough material in the last book for one movie, let alone two. You could practically feel the padding!

The whole sorry affair just pisses me off. I've already wasted devoted six hours of my life to watching these cinematic turds, and now I probably won't get to see the finale and find out how the story ends because they'll likely air on either HBO or Showtime. Frustrating!

Ah well. I can barely remember what happened in any of the movies anyway, so... who cares? 

Let's hope this incident puts an end to the "split finale" phenomenon once and for all.

2001 (Plus 15)

This popped up on Amazon Prime over the weekend, so I gave it another watch.

What's really depressing is that this once prophetic look at the future has now become a period film...

Strange Days

Last week Marvel gave us our first look at Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange, in their upcoming movie of the same name.

Looks like the Doctor's representin' the south side, what with those gang signs he's flashin.'

I keed, I keed. He looks perfect!

This is yet another perfect example of The Comic Book Movie Costume Inverse Accuracy Law. It's a little fundamental rule of the universe I made up that states:

The odds of a comic book movie or TV series staying true to the source material is inversely proportional to how much I care about the property in question.

In other words, when I like a particular character, say Superman, we'll get a movie in which he's completely unrecognizable in look and in deed. See the woeful Man Of Steel and the recent Dark Knight V Hopeman films as an example.

On the other hand, when I couldn't possibly care less about a character, like Doctor Strange here, the film version will look like the comic book character come to life.

Please understand that I don't dislike Doctor Strange. I've just never been a fan of him, and have no feelings about the character one way or the other. Which is why his movie will be completely faithful to the source.

M-O-O-N, That Spells "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off!"

If you're a regular reader of my blog (as millions are), you'll know I'm a big fan of Stephen King's novel The Stand, and have been following the development of the new movie adaptation with a mixture of both fascination and dread.

To get everyone up to speed, here's what's happened so far:

June 2014: Director Josh Boone announces he'll be writing and directing a big budget theatrical adaptation of The Stand. Boone previously directed the teens-with-cancer tearjerker The Fault In Our Stars, so who better to adapt a sprawling epic about good vs. evil in the aftermath of a world-wide plague? 

Boone states he'll somehow whittle the 1,150 page novel down into one three hour movie. Bad idea.

November 2014: Boone changes his mind and says The Stand will now be split into three, possibly four, theatrical movies. Good idea!

June 2015: Boone changed his mind again, saying The Stand will now be an eight part Showtime miniseries. It will then inexplicably lead into a theatrical movie that will conclude the story. Yep, you read right, he wanted to start a TV show that ends in the cineplex. Very, very stupid and bad idea.

So far Boone's attempts to get this film off the ground remind me of this. 

Ah, but it gets worse! This week Josh Boone announced that he's putting The Stand "temporarily" on hold, and will now be directing a film of Revival, another Stephen King novel. It's the story of a preacher who loses his wife and child in a car accident, and begins using electricity to become an actual healer.

As they say in all the Star Wars movies, "I have a bad feeling about this." See, in Hollywood, "placing a project on hold" is generally code for "burying it in a cement vault and salting the earth above it." It's a way for a director to save face when his pet project is torpedoed. Like how a restaurant will put up a sign reading "Closed to take care of sick relative" when they really mean "We were shut down by the Board Of Health because our kitchen is so filthy."

There's always a (slight) chance Boone's telling the truth, and he'll eventually get to direct The Stand someday. But his relative inexperience (he's only directed two films) and his inability to settle on a format don't fill me with much confidence. I have a feeling I'll be watching Mother Abigail battle the Dark Man onscreen about the same time that I'm wearing adult diapers and yelling at clouds.

No No Power Rangers

Believe it or not, it's been a whopping twenty three years since the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers first graced our TV screens. Twenty three years! Can you believe it?

Producer Haim Saban, who reworked the series and brought it to our shores, is currently working on a big-budget film version of the series. Details are sketchy, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be a grim, gritty and grounded take on the property. In other words, no damn fun.

Casting is currently underway, and so far these are three of the actors chosen to play the new Rangers.

Sigh... so it looks like the movie is deliberately bucking the show's trend of "color-coded" casting. You know, how in the show the Black Ranger was black, the Yellow Ranger was 
Asian, and the Pink Ranger was a girl.

I know there've been internet memes and comedy sketches about the Power Ranger's "racist casting," but did anyone out there really feel that way about the show?

I saw it as a kind of visual shorthand. The kids playing the Rangers had their faces hidden under helmets for much of each episode, so I just figured it was a quick way to tell who was who. "Ah, the black kid is the Black Ranger, got it."

I can't imagine that anyone ever thought, "Thank god they made the girl the lame Pink Ranger, so she knows her place!"

But there you go. Thank the Maker that we finally have colorblind, non-racist Power Ranger casting, so no one in our society will have icky bad feelings.

This hyper-sensitive, politically correct Hellscape is our world now.

Martian, Martian, MARTIAN!

Ridley Scott's new film The Martian is a hit, grossing nearly $60 million dollars in its first week. This is good news for fans of sci-fi, and makes up for Scott's Prometheus train wreck.

The film, which realistically depicts an astronaut's struggle for survival on the red planet, may just be a little too realistic for today's slack-jawed, mouth breathing, smart phone-addicted American. Many people supposedly think The Martian is based on a true story. Despite the fact that, you know, no human being has ever set foot on the planet Mars.

We're very near the end of civilization.

You guys do know that The Lord Of The Rings isn't an historical drama, right?

I'm betting the confusion lies in the fact that the film is based on the 2011 best selling book by Andy Weir. People hear "based on the novel" and interpret it as "based on the harrowing true life tale of astronaut Mark Watney, who, after being stranded on Mars, used his scientific knowledge, training and wits to survive for over four hundred days until a rescue ship arrived." It's an understandable mistake.

The same thing happened in reverse back in 1997, when audiences were stunned to learn that The Titanic was based on a true story and not the brainchild of writer/director James Cameron.

Just for the record, if anyone I know thinks The Martian is a true story, I can no longer be seen in public with you.

Nine Other Emotions That Didn't Make The Cut In Pixar's "Inside Out"

Pixar's done it again! Critics and audiences alike have fallen in love with the studio's latest film, Inside Out. It's the story of a young girl named Riley and the wacky cast of personified emotions who live inside her head and control her life.

The movie features five different emotions that control the life of young Riley: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger. According to director Pete Docter, the original script featured dozens of other emotional characters, including Dread, Obsession and Mortification. Unfortunately many of these had to be dropped for time and story purposes, as they whittled the cast down to just five.

The staff here at Bob Canada's BlogWorld was lucky enough to get their hands on a few of the model sheets for these deleted characters, and are presenting them here for the first time.

Here are Nine Other Emotions That Didn't Make The Cut In Inside Out.

This Week In Desperate Marketing Campaigns

Marvel's next blockbuster movie Ant-Man hits theaters next month. Comic fans all know the shrinking superhero of course, but the general public has most likely never heard of him.

Marvel knows this, and realizes they're gambling on a relatively unknown property, just like they did last year with The Guardians Of The Galaxy. To that end, they've been waging an increasingly desperate marketing campaign in order to raise awareness and sell the character to the masses.

Nowhere is that more evident than in this new round of movie posters they just released. Who's film is this, anyway? The title says Ant-Man, but you can barely see him, as half the poster's real estate is taken up by Iron Man's head & shoulder. 

I'm also pretty sure Iron Man's not in the movie, so this poster constitutes fraud. False advertising, at the very least.

We get it already, guys. It's a Marvel movie. Ant-Man lives in the same world as Tony Stark and the Avengers. I'm sure we'll like him just as much.

There you go, Marvel. I fixed your poster for you.

And just in case you still don't get it, they also released a Captain America one (without Cap)...

And a Thor one, with Mjolnir instead of Thor.

Subtlety, thy name is Marvel!

M-O-O-N, That Spells "Oh For Cryin' Out Loud!"

If you're a regular reader of my blog (as millions are), you'll know I'm a big fan of Stephen King's novel The Stand, and have been following the development of the new movie adaptation quite closely (with a sense of ever-increasing dismay).

In June 2014 it was announced that Josh Boone would direct the new film. Boone previously directed the teens with cancer tearjerker The Fault In Our Stars, which of course makes him the perfect choice to helm a fantasy/horror epic about the end of the world. That was red flag #1.

Boone then announced he was going to somehow distill the 1150 page novel down into one measly three hour movie. That was red flag #2.

As a long-time fan of the book I didn't see any way one film could possibly do the story justice. The 1994 ABC miniseries was six hours long and they still had to drop characters and subplots for time.

It also didn't make sense to me from a monetary standpoint. Hollywood is positively desperate for film franchises these days, and The Stand could easily be turned into three films. Heck, the novel is already divided into three sections for the filmmaker's convenience. Turning it into a movie trilogy seemed like a no-brainer to me. They could even split the last film in two, as is increasingly the fashion these days (I'm lookin' at you, Hunger Games and Insurgent).

Then in November 2014, cooler heads prevailed as Boone announced he'd changed his mind, and The Stand would be three, possibly even four films. Huzzah! Delete one of the red flags. 

He then went on to say that he had no idea what would be in which film, and said he wanted to make "a grounded, credible version of the movie." Uh-oh. There's that word again— "grounded." What the hell does that even mean? I keep hearing writers and directors say it over and over these days, usually about sci-fi and fantasy films. Because of course everyone wants to see a "grounded" and realistic version of Superman or the Fantastic Four. I'm adding two more red flags, for a total of three.

This week Josh Boone's changed his mind about The Stand yet again. It seems he now wants to turn the novel into an eight part Showtime miniseries. Eh... OK, I suppose. Not quite what I expected or wanted, but I suppose it could turn out OK, as Showtime generally does good work. But wait, there's more! The miniseries will lead directly into a theatrical film that will conclude the story.

Jesus Jetskiing Christ! Are you fraking kidding me?

What a bone-headed idea! Why the hell would you start up the story on cable, but then make people leave their homes and drive to the cineplex to see the goddamned ending?

And what about people who see the movie but didn't see the miniseries? Are they going to have a fifteen minute prologue to get the audience up to speed?

I don't understand why it's so hard to get this film onto movie screens. Jesus, if dreck like Mortdecai and Paul Blart 2 can get green lit, why can't something good like The Stand? And what about money? Surely a Showtime miniseries couldn't possibly gross as much as four theatrical films could?

This movie has gone from one film to four and now to a combo TV show/theatrical release. It's patently obvious at this point that Boone is in over his head and doesn't have any idea what the hell he wants to do.

I'm looking forward to next month when Boone announces an animated version of The Stand, or one performed by an all-puppet cast. The Stand: The Musical perhaps?

I'm coming perilously close to giving up on the whole thing and letting this miniseries or movie or whatever the hell it is go watch itself. I'll be home rereading the book again, thanks.

Browbeaten

This week Fox finally released a clear image of the Thing from their upcoming train wreck, er, I mean summer blockbuster film, Fantastic 4. Or as the promotional material spells it, Fant4stic.

Sigh... once again Hollywood fails to get the look of such a simple character right.

Judging from the asymmetrical shoulders in the photo, it appears the filmmakers believe the Thing is composed of rock. If so, they got it absolutely wrong.

And of course once again they left out his trademark brow.

This is what the Thing is supposed to look like. He's not made of rocks, he just has a thick hide with a "dry river bed" texture. And a thick, overhanging brow. Those two things are what makes the Thing look like the Thing. Without those two crucial elements, he's just a generic monster made out of mud.

I don't understand why it seems to be so difficult to get him right.

Roger Corman's ill-fated 1994 Fantastic 4 movie featured a pretty decent Thing suit (especially for that film's microscopic budget), but even they didn't get his brow right.

Fox's previous two awful Fantastic 4 films came a bit closer to his comic book look. The texture of his body's pretty darned good— almost perfect in fact. But the face is all wrong (making him look more like a burn victim than the Thing) and once again he's missing his damned brow. Without that he's just not the Thing.

Here you go, Fox. I added a brow and fixed your Thing for you. You're welcome. This version still doesn't look particularly good, but it looks better than it did.

In the end I don't much care what he looks like. The Fantastic 4 has been my favorite comic book since I was old enough to read, and I've been waiting for the definitive movie version to come out ever since. I've already sat through two downright awful FF films— I can't sit through another. This ones got "bomb" written all over it as well, so... it's gonna just have to go watch itself, without me.

Dear God, if you really exist, please let Marvel Studios get back the rights to the Fantastic 4. And soon.

Happy Fortieth (!) Anniversary To Monty Python And The Holy Grail!

Hard to believe, but it's been forty years since the premiere of Monty Python And The Holy Grail on April 9, 1975. Forty years!

I won't bore you with the usual tedious pack of movie quotes, so instead I'll bore you with a few facts about the production:

• The film's budget was $400,000, which was small even in 1975. Much of that amount was supplied by rock band Pink Floyd, who were fans of the Pythons.

• On the first day of the film's American screening in New York, fans were lined up to see it at 8 am. It eventually made $5 million, more than ten times its budget.

• The "banging coconut halves together" gag was added after the producers realized they couldn't afford real horses.

• In Japan, "Holy Grail" was translated as "Holy Sake Cup."

• The opening credits, consisting of humorous text, are so simple and plain because the production had run out of money at that point.

• The castle of Camelot was a plywood cutout placed on top of a hill. It reportedly frequently blew over in the wind (the cutout, not the hill).

• Graham Chapman (who played King Arthur) was suffering from a long-standing alcohol addiction during the production, causing him to forget his lines. After a few rough days he sobered up for the remainder of the shoot, and eventually kicked the habit altogether (although it took him until 1977 to do so).

• "God" was played by a photograph of one of England's most famous cricketers, W.G. Grace.

• 1975 audiences were supposedly horrified by the scene in which the Black Knight systematically gets his limbs chopped off. Director Terry Gilliam theorizes that people were still sensitive about such violence due to the Vietnam War, which was still raging at the time.

It wasn't until the Knight lost all four limbs and "called a draw" that they finally began cautiously laughing.

• During the witch hunt scene, you can see Eric Idle biting down on his sickle. He did so to keep from laughing.

• Graham Chapman was the only cast member who wore real chain mail armor. The rest of the cast wore knitted wool, painted to look like metal.

• Just as they did on their TV show, the Pythons all play multiple roles. Michael Palin plays the most characters, at twelve.

• All the main characters have relevant symbols on their shields and armor. King Arthur, who is ordered by God to find the Grail, has a sun symbol. The gung-ho Lancelot has a dragon symbol. The scholarly Bevedere has a tree (presumably a tree of knowledge). And the cowardly Sir Robin has a chicken emblem.

• For the Killer Rabbit scene, Terry Gilliam recounts that the production rented a bunny from a pet owner. The woman was adamant that her rabbit not get dirty or damaged. They added red dye to it to simulate blood, and were shocked to find it was permanent and wouldn't wash off. When the woman saw her red rabbit, she reportedly "became crazed." 

I Ain't Afraid Of No Vacuum Cleaner!

In a surprising announcement, this week Sony pictures revealed they're planning yet another Ghostbusters reboot, this one to feature an all-dog team of paranormal exterminators.

The film will reportedly follow the canine Ghostbusters team as they try to protect New York City from a plague of spectral cats. Rumor has it that internet sensation Grumpy Cat will star as Sir Moans-A-Lot, the ghostly feline antagonist. 

The film will reportedly premiere along with Sony's previously announced all-female Ghostbusters film. 

Writer/producer Dan Aykroyd and director Ivan Reitman are excited about the project, hoping it will inject new life into the stalled Ghostbusters franchise. In an interview Aykroyd said he envisions an entire universe of Ghostbusters films with various teams comprised of infants, Catholic nuns, Shriners, Pentecostal snakehandlers, television court show judges, mariachi band members, retired Borscht Belt comedians and disgraced former network anchormen.

Aykroyd also hopes to produce a film about a group of Ghostbusters cosplayers who attend a convention that's attacked by actual ghosts, and have to defend the con from the real-life spirits. The film will reportedly be titled Fauxbusters and is expected to premiere sometime in 2018.

Fifty Shades Of Hay

The film Fifty Shades Of Grey continues to take the box office by storm, racking up an astonishing $400 million dollars worldwide in its first two weeks alone.

Based on the novel by author E.L. James, the erotic odyssey has divided audiences; some praise it as a tale of female sexual empowerment, while others dismiss it as "mom porn," or worse, a handbook for domestic abuse.

Of course it's no secret that Fifty Shades Of Grey started out as nothing more than steamy Twilight fan fiction. James wrote a series of salacious adventures starring Edward and Bella  and uploaded them to an online forum. Fans were so delighted by the tale they demanded she publish it for real. Fans who, by the way, obviously had no earthly idea how copyright laws work. 

James ultimately agreed with the public and decided her lascivious love story needed to be shared with the world. To that end she simply took her derivative work and replaced Edward and Bella with Christian and Ana, removed all the vampire and supernatural elements and violin! She had a brand new original soft porn trilogy fit for publishing. 

Against all logic, common sense and reason, Fifty Shades Of Grey became a huge hit, and James sat back and watched the semi trucks full of cash roll in!

I was so inspired by her success that I decided to start writing my own erotic fan fiction, based of course on one of my favorite TV shows, the 1960s sitcom Green Acres.

In my story, Betty Jo Bradley is an innocent young women who lives with her family at the Shady Rest Hotel in Hooterville. One day local farmer Oliver Wendall Douglas visits the Shady Rest, ostensibly to get away from his home for a while. He  tells Betty Jo that his wife Lisa finally had enough of country life and left him, moving back to New York City. The two begin a casual friendship.

Douglas begins taking a special interest in young Betty Jo, giving her lavish presents and showing her the night life in nearby Pixley. Betty Jo is taken by Douglas' sophisticated big city ways, and becomes enamored with him.

Douglas invites Betty Jo to his farmhouse and asks her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, laying out the "terms" of their relationship. She adds a few terms of her own to the contract and then signs it.

He then shows her a secret room under his dilapidated home, filled with numerous excess farm implements sold to him over the years by Mr. Haney. The two then begin an erogenous and often violent sexual relationship involving role playing and bondage, as Douglas uses the various farming tools on the innocent Betty Jo.

I call my new erotic fan fiction Fifty Shades Of Hay. If you need me, I'll be sitting by the phone, anxiously awaiting a call from a Hollywood producer who wants to turn it into the next box office bonanza.

Yeah, I know, this was a long way to go for that joke.

Avengers 2: Electric Boogaloo

Today Marvel Studios released this new poster for Avengers: Age Of Ultron.

Looks pretty good, if a bit crowded. Best of all, after studying the poster I've deduced part of the plot! At some point in the movie, Iron Man uses his new shrink ray (that he borrows from Ant-Man) to reduce Hawkeye, Black Widow and Nick Fury down to hobbit size!

I'm betting in the finale they crawl inside Ultron and start pulling on wires and microchips until he shuts down, saving the day. It's gonna be awesome! Hurry up, May 1st!

The Interview: So Close, Yet So Far

After all the bleating I've done the past few weeks about the controversial new Seth Rogen comedy The Interview, you're no doubt wondering if I went to see it over the holiday weekend. 

Sadly no, I did not. I wanted to see it though. Not so much for any dubious entertainment value it might provide, but out of defiance and a sense of patriotic duty. I don't particularly like oppressive regimes telling me what films I can and can't see.

Unfortunately none of the lily-livered corporate owned cineplexes in my city had the guts to stand up to a tin pot dictator on the other side of the world and screen the damned thing. The closest theater playing it was sixty seven miles away, according to Google Maps. That's a bit too far to drive just to see a movie. Especially one with Seth Rogen in it.

I'm aware you can download it or stream it or something online for six dollars, but... meh. If I'm going to pay for it, I want to see it on a big screen, not a tiny laptop monitor.

So unless the theater owners around here decide to grow a pair, I'll have to wait until it comes out on DVD to defy North Korea.

The Needs Of The Shareholders Outweigh The Needs Of The Fans

This week Paramount Studios announced they've fired Roberto Orci as director of Star Trek 3 (or 13, depending on how you count them) and have hired Justin Lin to helm the sequel. Lin previously directed four of the Fast & Furious films.

Because if there's one thing a cerebral sci-fi series like Star Trek needs, it's more souped-up muscle cars and over the top, high-speed chase scenes. 

On the other hand, I guess he can't screw it up any worse than Orci would have. Make that already has, since he co-wrote the previous two films.

Looking forward to seeing Vin Diesel as Spock and the hologram of Paul Walker as Capt. Kirk.

M-O-O-N, That Spells, "I Have A Slightly Better Feeling About This"

Way back in June of this year I posted an epic rant about the news that Hollywood was adapting Stephen King's massive novel The Stand into a single measly film.

As a long-time fan of the book I didn't see any way one film could possibly do the story justice. The 1994 ABC miniseries was six hours long and they still had to drop characters and subplots for time.

It also didn't make sense to me from a monetary standpoint. Hollywood is positively desperate for film franchises these days, and The Stand could easily be turned into three films. Heck, the novel is already divided into three "books" for the filmmaker's convenience. Turning it into a movie trilogy seemed like a no-brainer to me. They could even split the last film in two, as is increasingly the fashion these days.

Welp, behold the massive influence of my powerful and highly influential blog!

This week writer/director Josh Boone announced that The Stand is indeed going to be turned into three, and possibly even four films. Just like I said it could be! Finally! Was that so hard, guys?

You're welcome, fans of the book. Thanks to me, we're getting our three, and maybe four Stand films.

Although this is welcome news indeed, there are still a few worrisome details about the project:

• Josh Boone's only two directing credits so far are the romantic comedy Stuck In Love and the "teens with cancer" tearjerker The Fault In Our Stars. 

Can the perpetrator of such schmaltz really do justice to a horror-fantasy epic about a world-ending plague?

• In a recent interview concerning The Stand, Boone said, "So I think we are going to do like four movies. I can't tell you anything about how we're going to do them, or what's going to be in which movie."

Once more with feeling: The novel is already divided into three parts, each of which has a beginning, middle and end. All you need to do is take the book and turn it into script format! The hard work's already been done!

• Lastly, back when the plan was to make just one movie, Boone said, "I really wanted to do an A-list actor, really grounded, credible version of the movie."

Oy vey iz mir! There's that word again, grounded! What the hell does that even mean? It's one of those buzzwords that everyone keeps saying, that sounds like something but doesn't mean a goddamned thing.

Josh Trank, who's currently ruining The Fantastic Four film over at Fox, keeps saying he's making a grounded version of the comic. Because of course if ever there was a story that needed to be grounded, it's one about a man who can stretch his limbs like a rubber band, a woman who can turn invisible, a guy who can burst into flame and a man who's made of orange rocks. 

I swear to Thor, if I hear the word grounded in reference to scifi or comic book movies one more time, I'm going to lie down in the middle of the Expressway.

I'm trying to look on the bright side here though. The fact that Warner Bros. finally got it through their thick heads to make three of four films is a good sign. Let's just hope it doesn't turn out too awfully grounded.