While Horizon’s being called one of the biggest flops of the year, it’s nothing next to Kevin Costner’s disastrous The Postman from 1997.

Back in 1994, everyone expected Kevin Costner’s Waterworld to be one of the biggest box office disasters of all time. The press was labeling it “Fishtar” (after the infamous flop Ishtar) or “Kevin’s Gate” (after Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate, which brought down a studio in 1980), but to the surprise of everyone, it actually did fine at the box office and turned a small profit. However, Costner did indeed have a massive box office disaster just a few years later when he opted to make another post-apocalyptic action movie, The Postman (which he also directed), which opened opposite James Cameron’s Titanic and laid a massive egg in theatres.

Reviews were harsh, with his take of a nomadic drifter posing as the world’s last postman widely mocked for its mix of action and over-the-top sentiment. It swept the Razzies, but even worse was the fact that it only grossed $30 million worldwide, which was disastrous, and ended up torpedoing Costner’s run as an A-list leading man. In fact, Costner arguably wouldn’t have another legitimate smash hit until his run on Taylor Sheridan’s Yellowstone many years later, which paved the way for another calamitous box office disaster for Costner, Horizon, whose already completed sequel is still sitting on the shelf.

But, did The Postman deserve the horrific reception it was met with in 1997? If it hadn’t opened so close to Titanic, would its fate have been different? In this deep dive video (embedded above), we look into everything that went wrong with Costner’s ambitious epic and how the actor’s incredible star power at the time might have blinded folks to how misbegotten a project this really was, with it one of the biggest-budget movies ever to fade into obscurity completely. 

Do you think Costner’s The Postman gets a bad rap, or did it give rise to some of Costner’s worst impulses as a director? Let us know in the comments. 

Should Paramount make Smile into a franchise that extends indefinitely or just leave it as two or three films?

We live in an era where film studios are scared to produce original content due to perceived risk. With marketing budgets ballooning, and with new content being thrown at viewers at a rampant pace, cutting through the noise has never been more important. So the question is always: what horror movie will be franchised next? And the easy answer tends to be the latest horror success. Terrifier (despite what its creator claims) will surely go on for many more entries as it’s hard to cut off that supply of money while the fans demand it. But what other newer series could become a franchise? All signs point to Parker Finn’s Smile.

And I suppose the argument could be made that Paramount already made the decision to franchise Smile after the first. We did get a second entry after all. But as someone from a bygone era, I’m a skeptic and wouldn’t be shocked to see it end at a trilogy. Smile 2 made slightly more than the first film in its opening weekend and has gotten pretty great reviews (including one from our own Chris Bumbray). The lore of the world has been expanded even further, and the next entry has been set up expertly. But the big question that comes up with this, or any movie that finds success: should this be franchised or should it remain a small group of films? Well money certainly seems to dictate most things in life, so I think we know the answer.

Paramount had a pretty lowkey 2024, with Transformers One, despite its great reviews, absolutely bombing at the box office. Even IF, which brought in $190m didn’t end up turning much of a profit due to its massive budget and marketing budget. And in these tough times, it can be easy to look at their catalogue of horror films, and see what can be produced for cheap. The last time they saw this kind of success in the genre was with the Paranormal Activity franchise which they milked till the teat was dry (2007-2021). Another franchise they have in their catalogue, Pet Sematary, had its latest entry Bloodlines sitting on the shelf for ages until finally releasing with a whimper on Paramount Plus. And despite its success, Smile is in a pretty weird place.

At this point, the first two Smile films have a reputation for some very generic trailers that result in some great movies. The first Smile was such a massive surprise that it was originally going to go directly to Streaming but after positive test screenings, Paramount gave it a theatrical release. Which was a smart move as it ended up being one of their biggest hits of 2022. But the Smile films still have a certain reputation. Whenever I try and get people to watch them, I’m usually met with a “What? The people smiling? That looks stupid.” Sure, most tend to come around when they actually see the film, but that’s still a massive barrier when trying to make money with your film. Bad trailers are a death knell.

Paramount hasn’t really had that horror franchise that they can cheaply produce and get a big return on their investment in a bit. Sure, they had success with A Quiet Place in 2018, but with its awards recognition, they just threw a ton of money at the sequel. So the budget went from $17 Million to over $61 Million. Its latest spinoff Day One was even more expensive at $67 Million, yet it brought in the lowest amount in the series. These are not cheap to produce films that then turn a massive profit like most quick-turnover horror. You need the talent behind them, and the story needs to be well thought out. You can’t just put out schlock and expect to fill seats with these films. So Paramount needs a cheap horror franchise that can be released regularly. These profitable horror films can really make a difference in the company’s bottom line, especially in this era of tentpole bombs. But is Smile that series?

With the first two Smile films having relatively low budgets at $17m and $28m, Smile is trending in a similar direction to A Quiet Place. And like, those films, these require a certain level of quality control. Despite what the trailers may have you believe, the Smile films are extremely well thought out and absurdly creative. The right filmmaker needs to be in place because all it takes is one bad film to tank a series that relies on creativity. Because that’s when those bad trailers truly come back to bite your franchise on the ass.

Personally, I would love it if they kept it to just two or three films. Parker Finn’s vision seems really well thought out and bringing in other creatives could easily taint that. But also, look at the Saw franchise. The first film is very different from what the rest of the series would become. It evolved into something that even the original creators could not have expected. And the argument could be made that maybe it’s time for Smile to do just that. Clearly, Parker Finn has a bright future ahead of him and doesn’t need to be bogged down by being the steward of Smile. He can go make his star-studded Possession remake and create something else, just like he did Smile.

Established properties have become more and more of a commodity, and the rare successes are too big to ignore. I think we’ll absolutely get more Smile films, whether Parker Finn is involved or not. In 2024, it’d be hard for any successful horror movie to come along and not at least invoke deep conversations about sequels. Whatever happens with Smile, I think having an open mind is important. While Smile 6 will likely be something completely different from Smile 1 or 2, that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad thing. We as an audience just need to be open to a journey. Whether we hop off at 3, 4, or even 10, will be entirely up to Paramount and if they understand what makes the first two films work.

What do you think? Will Smile be made into a massive franchise? Will it be kept at just 2 or 3 films? Let us know in the comments!

Venom: The Last Dance is underperforming at the domestic box office, but is doing much better overseas.

Another week…another disappointing weekend at the box office. This has been a brutal fall season for Hollywood, with Tim Burton’s Beetlejuice Beetlejuice the only smash hit of the season. While other movies like The Wild Robot and Terrifier 3 have performed well, would-be blockbusters like Transformers One and Joker: Folie a Deux fell flat. Case in point – Joker 2 isn’t even on the top 10 this weekend, with its $600k weekend placing it well outside the chart. Ouch.

Another potential breakout hit, Venom: The Last Dance, underperformed this weekend, with it grossing $51 million domestically (which is just $1 million above what we predicted). While that’s not a bad start for a modestly budgeted superhero movie, the first Venom opened with $80 million, while the sequel – despite coming out during the pandemic, made $90 million in its first frame. The poor CinemaScore rating (B-minus) suggests audiences are suffering from a little bit of superhero fatigue. 

However, this third Venom movie should still turn out to be profitable for Sony, with the movie overperforming internationally, where it made a huge $124 million (not counting domestic), making it the third biggest opening weekend of the year after Inside Out 2 and Deadpool & Wolverine. 

Parker Finn’s Smile 2 easily took second place, with $9.4 million, but the 59% drop is pretty steep, as the original only slipped 18% in its second frame. With a $40 million gross (so far), Smile 2 will turn a solid profit for Paramount, but it won’t be the money maker the first movie was (although I’d still expect at least one more sequel – which our man Tyler Nichols wrote about at length today).  

Third place ended up being a bit of a pleasant surprise, with Focus Features having a word-of-mouth hit with Edward Berger’s Conclave, which exceeded expectations to gross $6.5 million. With the Ralph Fiennes-led thriller a front-runner for some Oscar nominations, expect this one to stick around theaters for awhile. It’s more-or-less tied with The Wild Robot, which is also reporting $6.5 million for the weekend, with a total gross of $111 million for this well-reviewed family flick. 

Another word-of-mouth drama, A24’s We Live In Time, also did relatively well this weekend, making $4.8 million in fifth place and a $11.7 million total. While those aren’t blockbuster numbers, younger audiences are discovering the film, which is a solid choice for couples on a date. Terrifier 3 slipped to sixth place, with a $4.2 million gross and a $43.1 million total. All-in-all, Art the Clown is leading the film to be one of the year’s most profitable movies. 

The global smash hit, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, also continued to pull in solid numbers, with a $3.2 million gross and a $288 million domestic total. Of all the movies on the top 10, the arthouse smash Anora pulled in the biggest per screen average, making $25.5k per screen (more than twice what Venom: The Last Dance did), with an $867k weekend on only thirty-four screens. The Lego animated Pharrell doc, Piece By Piece, made $720k, giving it a low-key $8.8 million total, while Transformers One rounded out the top 10 with a $720k weekend and a $57 million domestic total.

The box office doldrums seem set to continue next weekend, with Robert Zemeckis’s Here one of the few wide releases coming out. Do you think Venom 3 might rally in its second weekend? Let us know in the comments!

Johnny Depp says he holds no hatred towards anyone because that would mean he cares too much about the matter.

It feels like an eternity since Johnny Depp led a major motion picture. That doesn’t mean he’s been out of the spotlight – it’s just that he’s been in it for all the worst reasons. But now that the “soap opera” that came out of the trial with ex-wife Amber Heard has subsided, Depp is ready to move on, further insisting he holds no ill will against those involved.

Sitting down with The Hollywood Reporter ahead of the release of his latest directorial effort, Modì, Three Days on the Wing of Madness, Johnny Depp said he doesn’t want to hold resentment towards anyone – especially the media – over anything that transpired over the past few years. “Honestly, I can sit here this very second and think about all the hit pieces, and how everybody was against me, and yeah yeah yeah he is off the map…endless stuff. I can remember it all. Went through it all. Some of it was not the most beautiful time, some of it was hilarious. Some of it was mad. The thing is, it simply just was, and it simply just is. So, for me, it happened. I learned, man. Everything that we experience, whether you’re given a snow cone or walking your dog, you learn something somewhere along the way. So I don’t have any ill feelings toward anyone. I don’t have this great reserve of hatred, because hatred requires caring. Why carry that baggage?”

Even though Johnny Depp’s recent projects – which also include Jeanne du Barry, in which he plays Louis XV – aren’t of the blockbuster variety and he has spoken negatively towards Hollywood as of late, we can still see the actor being welcomed back in, even if it won’t be as Captain Jack Sparrow. On his remarks towards the industry, Depp said he has some regrets but found it necessary to speak the truth. “I had a few bouts with Hollywood over their particular easy way and the fluid three-act structure and all the stuff that is predictable. And I am sorry, but I had to get in there and whip it around a little bit…”

Where do you see Johnny Depp’s career going? Can he return to Hollywood blockbusters or will he continue with smaller movies?

A new adaptation of the Stephen King story The Running Man is making its way to the big screen. What do we know about this remake?

Back in the 80s, Stephen King adaptations ruled the theaters. You could barely go a few months without hearing about a new film that was coming out. One that many would be surprised to find out was a King adaptation would be the testosterone-infused murder game show The Running Man. Released under King’s pseudonym, Richard Bachman, the book was hardly a hit. Once King was outed as the author, sales went through the roof. Hollywood came calling. With King being popular once again, another adaptation of the book is in the making.

What’s It About?

In the 80s adaptation, Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as a wrongfully convicted police officer. He gets a chance at freedom if he can survive the game show The Running Man. Of course, the game is rigged so that no one ever wins, but this time is different. They don’t know who they are messing with. So does that mean we can look forward to someone more like The Rock showing up this time? Nope.

Director Edgar Wright has said he intends to take the story back closer to what the book was. This is actually a lot different from the Arnold film. Once he came on board, the film was rewritten to mold it into the type of movies he was known for. Lots of action, one-liners, and of course Arnie killing lots of bad guys.

In the book version, the playing field is actually the entire world. Viewers are rewarded for calling in the runner’s location to the Hunters who are after him. Ben isn’t a wrongfully imprisoned convict but instead a father whose daughter needs some expensive medicine they can’t afford. He signs up to be on the deadly game show and quickly finds out that the Network is corrupt. Now, he just has to survive the game and hope they pay up.

Who’s In It?

If this version will skew closer to the book, they’ll trade in some of the muscle-bound actors we saw in the 1987 film. While the action can still be top-notch, some of the things that made it a perfect Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to be dropped. While that version is an excellent Arnold movie, it’s not a great adaptation of the book.

Glen Powell as Ben Richards

Powell has been showing up in a lot of movies lately and signing on to this will be his turn at playing the “every man” that Bruce Willis started out playing. This Ben can’t lift a tank over his head, but he can hopefully bring more pathos to the character. He plays the game of The Running Man to ensure the survival of his sick daughter. This brings a lot more to the role that hopefully Powell will sink his teeth into. Although, from his other movies, he still has way more abs than most average people I know, so it’s still a little too pretty for most average viewers.

Josh Brolin as The Producer

In the previous film, they made the character of Killian as the show’s figurehead. In a genius move, they cast Richard Dawson, who most viewers were used to seeing in their house multiple times a week, as the original host of Family Feud. Bringing that familiarity to viewers only to twist it was a great move. Brolin has the chops to conform to just about any role. He could have been cast as Ben Richards, and we would have believed it. Now it looks like he’ll be the scumbag producer that we all love to hate, and he’ll probably do a great job at that as well.

Lee Pace as Chief Hunter

The closest version we had of this character before was Captain Freedom, played by Jesse Ventura. He mainly gave an analytical take on the game throughout but was forced to come out of retirement when Ben Richards proved to be too much to handle. I imagine Pace’s version will be a lot darker and more introspective. My only hope is they give him a large hammer, so Marvel fans can squee as we imagine he’s Ronan The Accuser. Pace always dives into some interesting places for his characters, so I can’t wait to see what he comes up with.

Katy O’Brian as Contestant

Katy has been showing up in all kinds of fun franchises over the last handful of years. We’ve seen her in one of the Ant-Man movies, a couple of Star Wars shows, and as one of the main leads in Love Lies Bleeding. So far, it doesn’t specify if she will be a contestant who is part of the game alongside Ben or if she may be a former contestant who escaped the Network’s wrath. Now, she can add “Stephen King Adaptation” to her resume.

Michael Cera & Emilia Jones

Edgar Wright is also set to reunite with his Scott Pilgrim star Michael Cera, who’s been cast as a “naive rebel” who tries to help Glen Powell’s character. Emilia Jones, who earned raves for her breakout turn in the Oscar-winning CODA, has also been cast, with her playing “a privileged woman blind to the oppression of the government opposite Powell’s Richards.” That role sounds a bit like the one Maria Conchita Alonso played in the Schwarzenegger movie, but we’ll have to wait and see!

Possible Controversy (Spoilers Ahead For The Novel)

There are a few things from the novel that may have to be changed from the novel to keep it from being too controversial for theatergoers. The big one is the ending of the novel. To bring down the corrupt Network and cancel the game of The Running Man permanently, Ben Richards hijacks a plane and flies it into their skyscraper headquarters. While this ending was published in 1982, it might be a little much for viewers now after seeing such a sight after 9/11. Would blowing up the headquarters at all be possible? Maybe. We’ll have to see if audiences are ready to see if that ending could work. For all we know, Wright could have devised the perfect ending for a modern setting.

When Can You See It?

According to the ever-reliable (sarcasm) IMDB, we’ll be able to see this film on November 21, 2025. Hopefully, it hasn’t been delayed due to the writer’s and actor strikes. Never believe a release date until you see a trailer, especially for a King adaptation. I’m looking at you, Salem’s Lot.

What do you think? Are you excited about a Running Man remake? Let us know in the comments below.

A trailer has been unveiled for director Leigh Whannell’s take on the classic Universal Monsters property Wolf Man

There’s a reboot of the classic Universal Monsters property The Wolf Man coming our way from Blumhouse Productions and The Invisible Man (2020) director Leigh Whannell, aiming for a January 17, 2025 theatrical release – and today, a trailer for the film has been unveiled! After making its debut at the New York Comic-Con, the Wolf Man trailer has made its way online and can be seen in the embed above.

The leads of this version of Wolf Man are Christopher Abbott and Julia Garner, both of whom were in the 2011 film Martha Marcy May Marlene. Abbott is taking on the role of a man whose family is being terrorized by a lethal predator. Garner is playing his wife. Sam Jaeger is also in the cast, along with child actress Matilda Firth, playing a character named Ginger: “Female, 10 years old, white. Blake and Charlotte’s daughter. Smart, precocious, and strong. When her family decides to leave the city for a quieter life in a remote area, she faces her biggest fear, the possibility of losing one or both of her parents forever.”

When Wolf Man was first announced in 2020, Ryan Gosling was set to star in it – and in fact, it got rolling when Gosling pitched this take on the concept of The Wolf Man to Universal, and his idea was then fleshed out into a screenplay by Lauren Schuker Blum and Rebecca Angelo, a writing duo that previously worked on Orange Is the New Black. (Blum also happens to be married to Blumhouse founder Jason Blum.) At the time, it was said the story was “believed to be set in present times and in the vein of Jake Gyllenhaal’s thriller Nightcrawler with an obvious supernatural twist.” The final version of the script is credited to Blum and Angelo, as well as Whannell and his wife Corbett Tuck.

Whannell first signed on to direct the film in 2020, but dropped out the following year. That’s when Gosling’s Blue Valentine and Place Beyond the Pines director Derek Cianfrance came on board. Gosling and Cianfrance both stepped away from Wolf Man early last year… and then Whannell came back. A collaboration between Blumhouse and Motel Movies, Wolf Man is being produced by Jason Blum. Gosling receives an executive producer credit alongside Ken Kao, Bea Sequeira, Mel Turner, and Whannell.

The Wolf Man reboot was recently given an R rating for bloody violent content, grisly images and some language. This isn’t the first time a reboot of The Wolf Man has been given an R rating, as the 2010 reboot that was directed by Joe Johnston and starred Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt was also rated R, for bloody horror violence and gore.

What did you think of the trailer for Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man? Are you looking forward to seeing this movie in January? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Brothers is a disappointing comedy pairing, with Josh Brolin and Peter Dinklage unable to salvage many laughs.

Last Updated on October 24, 2024

Plot: Brothers tells the story of a reformed criminal whose attempt at going straight is derailed when he reunites with his sanity-testing twin brother on a cross-country road trip for the score of a lifetime. Dodging bullets, the law, and an overbearing mother along the way, they must heal their severed family bond before they end up killing each other.

Review: Some of the best dramatic actors have started as comedic performers. The same can not always be said about the reverse. Peter Dinklage has proven himself skilled at any genre he puts his talents to, while Josh Brolin has not appeared in a role like this in a long time. Brothers boasts the creative team behind the time loop hit Palm Springs and the upcoming remake of The Toxic Avenger but lacks the creativity nor distinctiveness of those projects. Brothers feels like a relic from decades ago, with jokes that fall flat, an uneven tone throughout, and a bizarre subplot involving a masturbating orangutan that feels beneath everyone involved. Brothers is buoyed by the charming on-screen presence of Dinklage and Brolin, who do everything they can to save this movie from the annals of forgettable streaming fare.

Opening with brothers Moke and Jady as teenagers, we see their mother, Cath, played by Yellowstone‘s Jennifer Landon, stealing some priceless emeralds before running from the cops. Left to their own devices, Moke (Josh Brolin) and Jady (Peter Dinklage) grow from delinquents to full-fledged criminals. Jady gets caught and sent to prison, where he spends five years before getting sprung by a crooked guard, Farful (Brendan Fraser), who wants the stolen emeralds. Moke has since gone straight and has a pregnant wife, Abby (Taylour Paige), and leads an uneventful life. With Jady back in his life, Moke joins his brother on his journey to find the stones before Farful catches up with them. Along the way, they run into Cath (Glenn Close) and have some heartfelt moments as they trek to recover the jewels while trying to find their familial connection lost over the years.

Clocking in at under ninety minutes, Brothers is lean to begin with and yet still feels like it is missing something to give it purpose. Brendan Fraser, who filmed this movie close to his Osar-winning turn in The Whale, is incredibly over-the-top in a way we have not seen since his Furry Vengeance days. Glenn Close is equally slumming it again in a weird role, even for her. Cath is an unlikeable character whose motivations waver through the film and make little sense in the end. Close also wears gloves throughout her entire performance, which is completely inexplicable. There is also a bizarre cameo from Marisa Tomei as a woman who lives with an orangutan named Samuel. The primate, who gets a prominent place in the Brothers trailer, maybe the strangest part of this movie and could be a low point in Josh Brolin’s career. The trailer does a good job of teasing what takes place in that particular scene, but the reason for its inclusion remains a mystery to me since it does not seem to serve the plot and is not that funny.

Part of me hoped that Brothers would be the next best thing to a Twins sequel, but it only works because the lead characters have a believable sibling relationship. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, Josh Brolin and Peter Dinklage do not outwardly look like they are related. Still, the Brothers duo both have striking jawlines and substantial onscreen presence. Dinklage is the funnier of the two here, with Brolin mostly playing it straight, but it is still an unusually comic turn for the No Country for Old Men and Avengers star. Both actors are in their mid-fifties, which makes these characters feel about twenty years out of their league. However, after seeing Brolin’s recent hosting stint on Saturday Night Live, it is apparent that he has the chops for fare like this. It takes a solid half of the film before Brolin finds his footing as Moke, but just as the brothers find some rhythm, the film throws in a weird golf cart chase that is straight out of a Farrelly Brothers movie.

Directed by Mark Barbakow, who made an impressive debut with the Cristin Milioti and Andy Samberg time travel movie Palm Springs, Brothers is inconsistent in tone, style, pacing, and everything else. Brothers reunite Peter Dinklage with Macon Blair, the writer-director of the as-yet-unreleased remake of The Toxic Avenger. Blair has appeared on screen for directors ranging from Christopher Nolan to Steven Soderbergh and Jeremy Saulnier. He has written solid films like I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore and Hold the Dark but is out of his league with Brothers. Based on a story by Tropic Thunder‘s Etan Cohen, Brothers thinks that seeing career criminals getting tossed around and punched is the height of comedy while still trying to deliver an emotionally resonant family story. The film misses on all fronts.

While Peter Dinklage and Josh Brolin try their very best to save this movie, there is not enough chemistry to salvage Brothers. After sitting on the shelf for three years, it is no wonder this movie is being dumped on streaming despite a solid trailer promising a fun time. Brothers is decidedly not fun and is immediately forgettable. If it succeeds at anything, it proves that while some actors are a natural fit for comedy roles, the script is ultimately more important than whether the talent can be funny. Also, animal masturbation is creepier than it is funny.

Brothers is now streaming on Prime Video.

3

–

Viewer Ratings (0 reviews)

Disney’s Moana 2 could set sail with $100M+ at the box office during the sequel’s 5-day Thanksgiving weekend debut.

We’re still several weeks out from Moana 2‘s Thanksgiving debut, but long-lead tracking puts the film at saying “You’re welcome” to a $100M+ 5-day launch. The projected total for the animated sequel’s Wednesday through Sunday holiday premiere arrives courtesy of Quorum. In contrast, 2016’s Moana set sail with an $82M premiere over five days. By the end of its run, the spirited island musical banked $248.7M in domestic coconuts, with a $643.3M+ worldwide take. Estimates for Moana 2’s Friday through Sunday earnings range from $75M-$82M.

Opening only in theaters on November 27, 2024, Moana 2 reunites Moana and Maui three years later for an expansive new voyage alongside a crew of unlikely seafarers. After receiving an unexpected call from her wayfinding ancestors, Moana must journey to the far seas of Oceania and into dangerous, long-lost waters for an adventure unlike anything she’s ever faced. Directed by David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, and Dana Ledoux Miller and produced by Christina Chen and Yvett Merino, Moana 2 features music by Grammy winners Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear, Grammy nominee Opetaia Foaʻi and three-time Grammy winner Mark Mancina.

According to the numbers, Moana 2 is tracking better than Universal’s Wicked Part One ($67M-$74M) and Paramount’s Gladiator II ($42M-$47M). Despite Wicked’s mass appeal and built-in audience, the sympathetic take on The Wizard of Oz‘s Elphaba is only Part One of a two-part presentation. Some moviegoers don’t like it when movies are split into multiple parts, knowing they’ll need to wait to complete the story. Still, Wicked will draw audiences during the holiday; the same could be said for Gladiator II.

Regarding Moana 2, the anticipated sequel will attract female audiences under 25, with the “Frozen crowd” along for the ride. Men aren’t as keen to join Moana and Maui for another sea-faring adventure, but the film isn’t aiming to reel them in. Moana 2‘s bread and butter lies with kids and parents looking to take a break from holiday madness to enjoy a song-and-dance spectacle with lovable characters and positive messaging.

How much money do you think Moana 2 will make during its 5-day debut on Thanksgiving weekend? Let us know in the comments section below.

About the Author

Born and raised in New York, then immigrated to Canada, Steve Seigh has been a JoBlo.com editor, columnist, and critic since 2012. He started with Ink & Pixel, a column celebrating the magic and evolution of animation, before launching the companion YouTube series Animation Movies Revisited. He’s also the host of the Talking Comics Podcast, a personality-driven audio show focusing on comic books, film, music, and more. You’ll rarely catch him without headphones on his head and pancakes on his breath.

Philippa Boyens confirms that The Hunt for Gollum will be just one movie after two-parter rumours and teases another live-action project.

Ian McKellen got Lord of the Rings fans talking last month when he confirmed he had been approached about reprising his role of Gandalf for The Hunt for Gollum and added that the film would be a two-parter. Fans were a little confused, but screenwriter Philippa Boyens has thankfully set the record straight while speaking with Empire, confirming that the spinoff will be just one movie after all.

“I can tell you definitively it isn’t two films!” Boyens said. “That was a genuine misunderstanding that happened because we’ve begun to work, conceptually, on two different live-action films. The first being The Hunt For Gollum, the second one still to be confirmed.” Boyens also added a few brief details on where The Hunt for Gollum fits into the Lord of the Rings saga. “It’s quite an intense story, which falls after the birthday party of Bilbo and before the Mines Of Moria,” she said. “It’s a specific chunk of incredible untold story, told through the perspective of this incredible creature.“

It’s not clear what that second movie would be, but it could also involve Gandalf. “We’re playing around with a number of ideas, but most of those ideas do include Gandalf,” Boyens explained. “So Gandalf would potentially return for two live-action films.” It’s been ten years since McKellen last played Gandalf, but the 85-year-old actor has said that if they want him to reprise the role once again, they’d “better be quick” about it.

Andy Serkis, who will direct the movie as well as play Gollum, dropped a few teases about The Hunt for Gollum earlier this year. “It is so early; it would be unfair to commit to anything at this point,” Serkis said. “But I will say that it will be a deep dive where we investigate Gollum’s character. There may be characters that we recognize that might be coming back. I’m not going to say who.“

While we did see a lot of Gollum’s saga play out in the previous six movies, Peter Jackson has previously said that there’s still a lot of story left to be told. “The Gollum/Sméagol character has always fascinated me because Gollum reflects the worst of human nature, whilst his Sméagol side is, arguably, quite sympathetic,” Jackson said. “I think he connects with readers and film audiences alike, because there’s a little bit of both of them in all of us. We really want to explore his backstory and delve into those parts of his journey we didn’t have time to cover in the earlier films. It’s too soon to know who will cross his path, but suffice to say we will take our lead from Professor Tolkien.“

Red Hulk from Captain America 4, H.E.R.B.I.E. from The Fantastic Four: First Steps & more featured in new Marvel mural at New York Comic-Con.

A Marvel mural at New York Comic-Con has revealed fresh looks at Red Hulk (Harrison Ford) from Captain America: Brave New World, H.E.R.B.I.E. from The Fantastic Four: First Steps, and more. You can check out the full Marvel mural courtesy of Brandon Davis below.