Eddie Murphy said something like that to Ron Howard on SNL back when Howard was making the transition from Opie Cunningham to big-time Hollywood auteur. And now I know how Mr. Murphy feels: Fox has green-lit a sitcom called “Rednecks.”

When I saw the title, I winced, then thought, “I wish I could write for that show.” This illustrates the relationship I have with stereotypes and character-based clichés; I keep them at an arms length embrace. It thrilled me to see white trash characters north of the Mason-Dixon line in “Gone Baby Gone.” But you change the accents, swap Boston, MA for Austell, GA, and I’ll act offended while secretly admitting the portrayal is dead-on. “Rednecks” it turns out, is set in Buffalo, NY. Let the head-scratching ensue.

Stereotypes are to artists as idiots are to the Obama administration – i.e., they’re both useful. But both can bring down their respective masters. Here’s a bottom to top list of stereotypes and clichéd bullsh*t I’m ready to see retired.

5. The Angry Black Man: Once Ice Cube starred in a series of family movies, this cliché came to a screeching halt. Not that I think Ice Cube is a sell-out…on the contrary…

4. Selling Out: U2’s a sell-out, Sam Raimi’s a sell-out, Sean Penn’s a sell-out…good for them. I’d jump at the chance to sell-the-hell-out. All of these guys are doing what they’re doing so that wouldn’t have to work at a Dublin Brewery, or a Detroit assembly line, or…I dunno. A friend of mine said, “I used to like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but after ‘Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magik’, they sold out.” Funny. I knew folks in 1991 who thought the Chili Peppers were sell-outs BECAUSE of that album, and now it’s their defining album. And for what it’s worth, there’s nothing wrong with working at a Dublin brewery, a Detroit assembly line, or…I dunno.

3. The Left-Wing Documentary: Really, I thought the trailer for “Food, Inc.” was fascinating, right up to the part when an interviewee said, “They’ve made it illegal to…” and a picture of George W. Bush flashed up on screen. After that, all I heard was “blah, blah, blah.”

2. Getting Offended: I laughed at most of the anti-Bush propaganda. The closest I came to getting offended by any of it was when I saw a kid at Ivanhoe Elementary School in trendy Silver Lake/Los Feliz wearing a shirt that read “I hated Bush Before It was Cool.” And now, the jOker poster. I thought we were supposed to be the stodgy prudes, but no, the left has their panties in a twist. Suck it up, you panty-waists! I’m gonna pour sugar on your feet to keep the ants from eating up your candy asses.

1. The Bitter Ex-Jock: This one’s close to my heart. Nerds/geeks/dorks/dweebs have this fantasy that they will one day be rich, that the jocks who torment them will be stuck in [insert Podunk town here] lamenting the glory days. The nerd will move to L.A. or New York, and will return to [insert Podunk town here] to rub it in the jock’s face. The whole premise of the Ryan Reynolds smarm-fest “Just Friends” was based on this cliche. I was a nerd/geek/dork/dweeb. I moved from Powder Springs, Georgia to Los Angeles. Well a funny thing happened for me on the way to L.A., and that’s that I realized (a) the Podunk town ain’t so bad, and (b) the jocks were probably right to pick on me. We nerds/geeks/dorks/dweebs are often a bunch of intolerable know-it-alls, especially in packs (see, Nerdis Gras, also known as Comic-Con).

I remember a moment when me and a jock in my high school really connected, because he liked the Beastie Boys as much as I did. “What do you like about them?” I asked feverishly, without giving him a chance to answer, “I like that they take the hip hop culture and infuse it with the suburban punk rock aesthetic.” He said, “I like listening to it in my car while I have sex,” high fiving his friends on the way out the door. Undaunted, I countered, “You didn’t really answer my question!” He returned, gave me a swirly, a wet willy, and a wedgie, at which point I considered the conversation closed.

Don’t get me wrong, nerds/geeks/dorks/dweebs… I am you, and you are me. Sometimes jocks dig Star Wars too; they just don’t feel the need to pontificate about it while dressed like a Tatooine farm boy.

Doing that will and should get you slapped on any number of systems.

This year they also teamed up with Wired magazine and set up a private green room called the “Wired Cafe,” where select people from the press and the industry are invited during the day. They have a bunch of laptops set up for people to blog and tweet and a cafe with an open bar and great food. I decided to go there for lunch instead of my usual haunts. I had a Smoked Turkey Panini and considered a Dim Sum sampler, which the person at my table ordered with his Burger. Maybe tomorrow.

There were some sponsors there like Patron Tequila and Bustelo Coffee giving out free drinks. I never tried either. Not being a drinker I only had one Patron cocktail, which had grapefruit juice and club soda. It was goood. I gotta say, the Bustelo canned espresso drinks were awesome. I like Starbucks products. Especially when I am driving long distances. But Bustelo is more flavorful. I never had them before. I found out these are advance copies and they will be on sale in a few weeks at Wal-Mart and Trader Joes.

The Con seemed to have the usual Thursday crowds, which were fairly intense. But the next two days will be much worse. I wish I brought my camera. I missed a couple of shots that would have been golden. They have all these pedi-cabs outside carting people between the restaurants and the Con. And I walked by one that had a guy in a predator costume being driven around. It was hilarious.

(I hate using my cell phone; the shots never look good enough.)

There were the usual people in costumes, including the Star Wars variety which are perennial. I remember one year I was sitting on the outside terrace in the back of the Con, which looks out over Coronado island. A friend walked by and we started talking. All of a sudden, about 60 Star Wars Stormtroopers walk onto the terrace and pose for a photo on the outside steps.

“Now I’ve seen everything.” I said. My friend laughed.

This year a lot of booths were scaled down from previous Cons. I’m sure the economy had to do with it. But the movie and TV companies still had impressive set ups.

Marvel Comics has four different life-sized Iron Man costumes with glowing eyes and chest generators. They ranged from the crude version from “Iron Man” to one that may be used in “Iron Man 2.”

SyFy (which used to be the SciFi channel until some rebranding doofus decided to change the name slightly) went so far as to rent a restaurant space right near the Con in the Gaslamp quarter. The coffee shop for the Hard Rock Hotel, usually called Mary Jane’s, is called Cafe Diem during the Con. All the items on the menu are advertisements for Scifi Syfy shows with names like Caprica salads (but not Battlestar Burgers). Lots of cardboard stand ups of their characters. The prices were a little high, like $7 milkshakes, but the place seemed busy.

I got to see a bunch of familiar faces and I was surprised how many people told me they loved my Big Hollywood columns. That’s always nice to hear. I will look for Doug TenNapel’s booth tomorrow. I forgot to write down the number and it’s a huge place. I only got to see about half of the show run today.

Today I parked at the Padres parking lot as the baseball stadium is next door. My mom told me it was free for the Con (disclosure: my sister knows the owner of the team, so I though the info might have come from her). Ha! It was $20. I ended up having to park on the roof because they were almost out of spaces.

Just as I was leaving I noticed I had a really good view of the old El Cortez hotel in the distance, where the Con used to be back in the 70s. It still has that big neon sign on the top with the words “Hotel” lopped off because it went condo. And there was once a restaurant on top called the Skylight Room with a beautiful flashing neon sign below the word “Hotel.” Not anymore. They don’t even turn on the sign at night.

Things change.

Not to go an analogy too far, but Sarah Palin seems to be taking a page from the Hollywood playbook of George Lucas.  She has just completed her own introductory trilogy, and it was an astonishing success.  

First, she was a fantastically successful conservative governor lurking beneath the mainstream media’s radar.  Next, she was a vice-presidential candidate who, even though she lost, still did more to electrify the base than the headliner.  Third, she has now drawn the curtain on her post-election career as a sitting governor, a period that saw her deftly turn the tables on mainstream haters like David Letterman.   Like “Star Wars,” she’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but her fans are rabid and chomping at the bit for the next installments.  And as to these future installments, the question is whether the next step is going to be “The Phantom Menace” or something that doesn’t suck.

I’m betting on “A New Hope.”  Sarah Palin has taken every hit the left and its smug media lackies can dish out – from bogus ethics claims designed to bankrupt her to attacks on her kids.  Some of the haters seem to think they drove her from office, and are congratulating themselves that they have somehow driven her off the stage forever.  Not quite. 

Again, a “Star Wars” analogy:  Remember when Darth Vader faced off with Obi-Wan Kenobi?  “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?”  She’s now immune from bogus legal claims and her book will not only raise her profile but set up her family financially for life.  Now Sarah is unbound, freed from the need to be up in Juneau and able to network, fundraise and even (maybe) campaign without limitation.  And the modern media environment will let her do these things without even a nod to the mainstream media (Do you think Katie Couric will ever get to ask Sarah another question?  Ha!) 

–

Lefties, if you were responsible for her doing this, you just unleashed your strongest opponent and made her immune from your strongest attacks all at once. Ouch. It must hurt to know a woman you pride yourself on seeing as a drooling Neanderthal nitwit so thoroughly out-maneuvered you. You do see it, right?

There’s plenty of talk out there about her somehow being a “quitter” for only serving as governor for three years, as if resigning as the Chief Executive of Alaska was like cutting to the head of the women and children’s lifeboat line on the Titanic.  Personally, I was unaware of the urgent moral imperative of serving out one’s full term as governor but, if it makes the lefties feel better, when she’s elected president I’m pretty confident she’ll serve a full term.   Maybe even two.

Admiral Ackbar is one of my favorite characters in the Star Wars franchise.  He still looks more real than any CGI character today despite being brought to life by 1982 technology.  He also has the immortal line, “It’s a Trap,” when the rebels discover that the Death Star is “fully armed and operational.”

In case you missed it, here’s Ackbar reacting to other “traps.”

Conservatives have walked into a trap of late, or as Michael Steele might say, “have stepped in it.” Why should the liberals, with their rogues gallery of freak shows and incompetents, even sweat it when the Conservatives are too busy fighting with each other?  How much time on blogs, cable news, and Sunday talk-shows is dedicated to Conservatives arguing about the direction of the “party” or challenging each other on the authenticity of their Conservative credentials?

There are really only two core beliefs that you need to be considered a Conservative in my book.  One, as I’ve stated before, is the conviction that personal liberty is paramount.  Two, you don’t look to your enemies for validation.  Unfortunately, a few “Conservatives” fail the test.  These types somehow believe that in-the-tank media reporters and their liberal opponents must validate their beliefs in order for those beliefs to become viable and understandable.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  It’s a trap!  You follow that line of logic and the next thing you know, you’re staring at your own robotic hand over a crippled Darth Vader with the Emperor cackling in the background.

I threw up in my own mouth several times watching Conservatives squirm as reporter after reporter asked them to disavow Rush Limbaugh over his completely legitimate, completely American, and completely logical “I hope he fails” comment.  How many liberals were asked to disavow Perez Hilton for calling a woman a “c*#*t” onYouTube?  Crickets.  Crickets.  Crickets.  Nada.

Here’s how it should go down:  The Conservative should say “Well, (Anderson Cooper, Larry King, David Shuster, Chris Matthews), Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants.  This is America.  What I think of the comment is irrelevant.  See, when you have a political movement based on personal liberty and independent thought, people speak their mind.  Unlike our opponents, we don’t all take our marching orders from the same source.  We are not the Borg.  Our solutions and ideology are a bit more advanced, intelligent, and intricate than our opponents.  I don’t expect you to understand, because I don’t think you’re that smart or intellectually capable.”  Smack!   Booyah!  The media would stumble back like the Iron Sheik after an Atomic Leg Drop from Hulk Hogan.

You can’t build a house with just a hammer.  You can’t fight a war without air support.  You can’t make a movie without lights and a camera.  There are a million analogies I can think of to say the same thing: you need a lot of tools to get the job done.

There are various categories of public Conservatives.  They all serve a different function.  No one is right.  No one is wrong.  As long as we all focus our arguments within the context of personal liberty and anti-statist ideology, we will pick up Independents and bring some sanity back to our country.

We need axe men like Cheney and Limbaugh.  We need Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck.  We need Dennis Miller and Greg Gutfeld.  Nobody should be packing his or her bags.  Disagreements between each other are great, but they should be reserved for internal debate and shouldn’t be moderated by a hostile talk show host to the glee of David Axelrod.

Imagine this match-up in large debate hall.  In the audience sits every Independent voter in the country.  On the one side heavyweights like Limbaugh, Cheney, Coulter, Larry Elder, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Malkin, Dennis Miller, Penn Jillette, John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, Andy Levy, Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Prager, Lynne Cheney, Tammy Bruce, Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn, John Ziegler, and Andrew Breitbart.  On the other side, in slumps Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, David Shuster, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Arianna Huffington, Larry King, Joy Behar, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Anderson Cooper, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Barney Frank, Barbara Streisand, and Al Gore.

Look at that fight card.  What are we worried about again?

Any clear thinking media gazer can tell you Newsweek magazine has tilted to the left in recent months. Not that it ever was a fair and balanced media organ to start with, mind you. But Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly this week that his magazine doesn’t have a liberal agenda. Really? Then how do you explain the latest issue featuring a “Star Wars”/”Star Trek” casting sidebar ripped from today’s political headlines?

The magazine, in a fit of adolescent whimsy, casts real-life political figures who might stand in for Captain Kirk, Darth Vader and other characters from the space franchises’ galaxies.

You can guess what followed:

• The Emperor – Dick Cheney: “Manipulative, mysterious and superannuated.”
• Darth Vader – George W. Bush: “Callow newbie tempted to the Dark Side.”
• Boba Fett – Karl Rove: “Pitiless scalp collector.”
• Klingon Commander – Rush Limbaugh: “Villainous aggressor on the verge of war.

Of course, the mag didn’t leave Democratic figures out:

• Captain Kirk – Rahm Emanuel: “Seriousness of purpose meets unbridled id.
• Mr. Spock – Obama: “Cool, collected … those ears.”
• Christine Chapel – Timothy Geitner: “Dubious but dependable helping hand.”

Yup. Fair and balanced, if you’re a Daily KOS or Huffington Post devotee.

I got more and I didn’t want it. 

Why don’t sequels do well? Obviously, I’m not alone in feeling the way I do about Raiders or Star Wars or Jaws or any other great character-rich, dynamically set film that pulls you in and doesn’t fully let go even after the end titles trail up and we see that film certification symbol fade out. So, why is it that more of what we love, we hate? Well, maybe not hate, but not love quite so much. What’s going on here? 

Perhaps like many of you, I get excited when I hear shooting has started on a new installment of a film series I enjoy. Back when I saw the first leaked images of Jones on horseback going up against a German tank in the employ of the Afrika Corps, I was “giddy as a schoolboy.” I couldn’t wait to for that thing to be in the can and out in the theaters. I was thrilled, anxious and ready for the journey. But then another feeling took hold. Again, like many of you, when mention of a sequel or prequel leaks out, a small fear creeps up the back of one’s neck that somehow curiosity will lead to a deep regret, rivaling that of John Hurt’s as he poked his nose over that egg in Alien. And, like John, our feelings are often very well justified. Because many times, almost always, if anyone’s counting, sequels fail to capture the magic of the first film. “You just can’t repeat it,” many repeat.  Well, I’m not so sure about that. I don’t think it’s that the filmmakers are not trying hard enough, I think it’s more that they’re trying too hard. 

People change, and so should characters, right? Well, not quite. I have been wondering for a long time now, why it is I can’t fully enjoy Return of the Jedi, Aliens,  Alien 3,  Alien Resurrection,  any Rambo emptying a SAW past First Blood, or any Rocky beyond the bell where an out-of-breath voice gasped wisely, “No rematch!” And where an equally wise one gurgled out, “Don’t want one.” Well, a little voice, similarly exhausted, tells me this could be said of Hawkeye Pierce and Trapper John, Radar, Burns and Hot Lips Houlihan. Of the cast and crew of the Minnow, and that other ship, where some rogue muttered, “Look, I’m not in this for your revolution, sister. I’m in it for the money.” 

What am I talking about here? It’s what has been defined as Character Development. Somewhere along the way character development, the arc or course a character’s actions, words, and behavior take along a story line has been replaced with something different, something not-so-natural, not-so-healthy, something very formulaic. The increase in depth of a character’s personality, is, we are told, a sure sign of good writing, good acting, and lot’s of other good stuff. It signals to us that the characters are being fleshed-out, are growing, just like us. Changing, just like us. And doing the things we normally do, like becoming superhuman, multi-dimensional, and, best of all, not at all in it for the money.

I’m here to say that it isn’t working. Not for me, anyway. Using Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces as a tuning fork, Lucas played the characters of Star Wars with perfect pitch and tone. He hit every note right. Yes, I happen to like Luke Skywalker as an innocent, awkward, and yes, sometimes dopey farm boy, a kid out of his element fighting a huge empire. I don’t know many farm boys who have much experience fighting huge empires (though that’s no reason to deny them the job). I also happen to like Han Solo looking out for number one, and of course, also watching his trusty sidekick Chewie’s back. Sure I want Han to come to the rescue every now and then, saving everybody and maybe the universe, too.  But not as a full-time job! And I want him complaining about his predicament with every discharge of his blaster all the way down the celestial pike. What I don’t want to see is his transformation into a benevolent, altruistic, selfless stick figure, volunteering for the toughest assignment without so much as a quip, an insult or at least a good joke. In Return of the Jedi, his character became flat and blocky, more inert than when he was frozen in carbonite. 

I have an idea. It might even pass for a theory. It goes something like this:

In Ridley Scott’s Alien, Ripley made a interesting heroine because we didn’t expect her to be the heroine. Let’s face it, Tom Skerritt had higher billing and thus, a greater chance of coming out of that pickle with a heck of a lot more than a highly lubricated pile driver alien jaw through his head, or worse. So did John Hurt, Yaphet Kotto, and Ian Holm. Sure, Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, by rising to the occasion and becoming the hero achieved the unexpected, it’s true. Yet her actions were not out of character. Why not? Because we had already been shown hints of her strength. No, not in any oiled-muscle, gearing-up scene – as in Aliens,  and now almost every other film which has a David on the way to slay a Goliath – but in her behavior toward Ian Holm’s Science Officer Ash. When Ash makes the rash decision to violate quarantine protocol and let the landing party re-enter the ship and mind of Conrad’s Nostromo, she’s pissed. He blatantly disregards her authority. Soon after, she confronts him and lays down the rules. That’s all that was needed.  Hints are what we like. Not HITS, as in ‘…over the head.’

Aliens changed things. Don’t get me wrong, I loved this film, as I do many of James Cameron’s. But it’s another good example of writing going past the point of believability that is more distracting to me, and maybe others, than an audio pop, a jump cut, or violating the 180 rule. With this sequel the filmmakers decided to develop her character into a somewhat neurotic and unstable fusspot, suffering from insomnia, and having to still feed the same moody cat after 57 years. This is fine and understandable, and, very much in keeping with her character and what she’s been through, but it doesn’t really explain the superhuman strength and Delta Operator focus we see in her later on in the same film. Where did her fear go? And where did those skill sets mysteriously come from? Hicks? Spunkmeyer?  

Surrounded by goo-oozing aliens, pulsating eggs, and god knows what else, she charges back into the breech and certain death to find that darn cat again. Well, no, not really. But it might as well have been the cat. Instead, it’s the little girl, Newt, perhaps the most obvious in a long list of Cameron tributes to Gordon Douglas’ original “bug hunt” flick Them!  Ripley crawls into the growling belly of the beast with little more than a souped-up pulse rifle and spare magazines. And all through this mission, which would make John Rambo pause, she’s not even breathing heavy. While in the first movie, Alien, just one of those creatures hiding somewhere on a ship the size of Greenland made her hyperventilate into something resembling sheer panic. Justifiably so. But here, she calmly, and very professionally goes about her new task of rescuing a small girl from amongst several hundreds or maybe thousands of “Ripley’s bad guys”. Let’s not forget, this is within the dark, dank depths of a burning nuclear power plant that is about to do an impression of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst. Sure, the mother instinct is a crucial element of the theme here, mother vs. mother and all that. But, still, her behaviour takes on a super hero quality that transforms the story into more science fantasy than fiction. Where the original rules set down by the writers are being violated by who else, but the writers, in situations where anything, even the absurd is possible and to be expected. This is not to be confused with a suspension of disbelief. Rather, this is an expelling of belief that the setting and situation the writers have created for us is being transformed into a veritable Westworld run by renegade deus ex machina. 

Alien Resurrection displays more character development with our hero Ripley going gothic with touches of  arcade Street Fighter and left-over marine grunt mixed-in. Granted, to be fair she is merely a shadow of her former self, quite literally. She’s a clone. This time, an off-the-rack Ripley with a shelf life much longer apparently, than a synthetic Bishop, Ash and, while we’re at it, a Zhora, Priss or even Rachel could ever hope to get from the original manufacturer. But this unreasonable facsimile is just that, unreasonable. She’s not a whole lot of fun, either. Because we can guess rather confidently from the opening shots of her determination, that here sits our hero. This isn’t character development. This isn’t even a character. Unless you happen to be considering the cartoon variety.

Which brings me back to Luke, Leia, and Han (sorry Chewie). Principle players in the original Star Wars, they had their respective characters fleshed-out in fine form by the third act, the battle. We loved it, as did most of planet Earth. Which doesn’t really explain why the creators of the third installment, Return of the Jedi, would want to change that. Of course, we want change, but not at the expense of the things we have loved which connected us to it in the first place. I don’t want to see new facets of a character if I feel the filmmakers are showing me these new facets, these changes, these twists because they’ve exhausted all their original ideas in earlier installments and are now resorting to drastic means to keep the gravy train rolling, with add-ons that are more a product of meetings with merchandisers than anything else. If that’s the case, if in fact the characters are out of ammo, fleshed-out as far as their flesh will go – inevitable no matter how rich the character is written initially – then give us a new character or another adventure. For example, look what was done with the exceptional Leigh Brackett and Larry Kasdan penned Empire Strikes Back,  a rare winning sequel. It had taken the original idea, expanded on it and led us to places undreamed. Yet, all the while, retaining the character traits of all in attendance and firmly anchoring us to the original franchise without so much as a hiccup in believability or anything that a healthy smack on a cockpit control panel couldn’t fix.  That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how you do it. You don’t pervert the characteristics of each member of a story, transforming them beyond believability, simply to get more mileage out of them or to justify a production, an episode or a sequel. Lovers of the original film, the fans, will rebel against that. They want to see more of what they love. They don’t want to see entirely new characters masquerading as the old ones for no other reason than to reel-in a duped loyal fan base at the box office. Not a good idea. 

Which leads us to Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  Certainly, it was no Raiders, no Last Crusade nor my and many others’ least favorite, Temple of Doom. Simply, it just didn’t measure up. But, with that said, I did enjoy it and was happy to see the settings and the characters, well, some of them, again. I missed Sallah, and Marcus. Who didn’t? I wasn’t crazy about the time period, though I’m a big fan of cold war anything. But for me, Indy belongs in a pre-atomic age, when leather satchels, whips and dusty bomber jackets were worn by men other than those without a cause to rebel against. That’s a change that didn’t need to be. “Yeah but it’s twenty years since they made Last Crusade!”, they cried. So? Harrison Ford is an actor, so are the other people in the film who call themselves actors. Hollywood makes magic, doesn’t it?  Now, more than ever, we’re constantly told. There is no reason why we couldn’t have had this fourth Indiana Jones installment, and most likely the last, set in the mid-forties. In an attempt to make the story more ‘real to life’ they made it too real, and lifeless.  Was this another mistake by Spielberg? Judging not by the reviews, which I never judge anything on anyway, but by the fans and of course, my own feelings, that humorously understated line by Last Crusade’s last Templar knight comes to mind:  “He chose poorly.”  

Before I forget, I want to mention one other thing about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that bothered me. Something on the poster, something about Indy was missing. His smile. Indy wasn’t really smiling. They continued the poster style, keeping it consistent with the serial nature of the cliffhangers that Raiders re-pioneered, if I can say that in mixed company. And I applaud that with gusto. But they changed the illustrated Indy too much by leaving out that cockiness, even after 20 years. If he’s not going to smile, not going to be displaying that adventurous grin, not going to display that false bravado, that winning lovable mixture of Joel McCray, Bob Hope, and yes, Han Solo that made Indiana Jones come alive for us, making even the most harrowing situation and death defying stunt seem fun and something we’d like to try at home, then why bother? They missed it with the poster. So, right out of the gate, they went in the wrong direction, with the wrong approach. Sure, he’s 20 years older, so what? Ever hear of people like John Glenn, Malcolm Forbes or Michael Korda? There are plenty of examples of men and women in their middle and senior years pursuing endeavors that healthy college kids would run from. So, for a character like Indiana Jones to run out of steam, it’s disappointing to say the least, and certainly not a topic for a sequel. Frankly, I think they played on the age element far too much in order to introduce a new angle to Indy. A big mistake. They didn’t need a new angle. I think even a poor story – and this one was not up to par with the previous three by any stretch of the imagination – could have been a heck of a lot more fun and much better cinema if they retained the Indy that we knew and loved in Raiders, felt a bit distanced from in Temple of Doom and re-united with in Last Crusade.  That’s my feeling. But heck, I’m making this up as I go along.   

Here’s a plea to budding writers out there: 

If you want to write such huge character changes, don’t experiment with an existing, beloved creation, adding-on simple shock value and steroids or fatigue and a lack of collagen. You may hit on a winner, and you may not. In the meantime, though, you’ll be changing irrevocably the things from the original that we grew with and held close to our hearts. Don’t do it. 

Start with a new, original story. There, you can experiment with a clean slate and see for certain why the lines are forming, along the story arc and around the block. In the meantime you may find quite unexpectedly that the big screen isn’t the only place where your character is being developed.

I’m going to take the boss at his word that the modest objective of Big Hollywood is “to change the entertainment industry. To make Hollywood something we can believe in – again. In order to give millions of Americans hope.” And further: “Until conservatives, libertarians and Republicans…recognize that (pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary, there will be no victory in this important battle.”

But what is it, culturally, that Hollywood can do that will make us believe in it again and give millions of Americans hope? What is it we can do win the battle for pop culture?

It’s nothing Hollywood hasn’t done before. The only problem is, it’s doing far too little of it lately. Which is a shame, because it’s something that Hollywood does better than anyplace on earth.

Hollywood’s gift to America – and the world – is the Hollywood Hero.

Cue laughter from the Left: “How quaint! How primitive! How typical of lowbrow, right-wing culture! We give our Best Picture awards to nihilist movies like No Country for Old Men and Best Actor awards to anti-heroes like Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. No hope for millions of Americans there!”

And yet, when good films come along with good heroic stars, the box-office goes through the roof – The Dark Night, Ironman and Spider-Man trilogy are obvious examples…and conspicuous shutouts for Best Picture.

There is a thirst for heroic characters in America and throughout the world, yet today’s Hollywood elites only seems comfortable with the idea of heroism in a comic book setting. Screenwriters need to relearn the appeal and necessity of the Hollywood hero in every setting imaginable.

If you are a screenwriter or someone who would like to become a screenwriter, you can be the tip of the spear for changing the leftist culture that Hollywood promotes by writing heroic characters that embody traditional American values.

This post, and I hope several more, is addressed to you. I hope to inspire you to write the kind of heroic characters that will push back against the leftist cultural tide that is the reason for Big Hollywood’s existence.

Many of you have probably taken courses in screenwriting and read several of books on the subject. You know about character arcs, emotional beats, and mid-point reversals. Yet, when it comes to putting words to paper, you falter and don’t know where to begin…or how to finish. The trouble is, you may have been taught how to write screenplays, but you’ve never been taught why.

Believe me – once you understand why, you’ll do everything in your power to figure out how.

So let’s begin. But be warned: you’re about to take writing advice from a screenwriter who’s been kicked out of Hollywood.

Screenwriting is an art. Although an artist can use his work to express any idea or feeling he wishes, there are several key ideas that artists throughout human history have returned to again and again. These ideas are philosophical in nature; that is, they are the fundamental questions of human existence that every culture – and every thinking individual – asks:

What is there?

What am I?

What should I do?

All of these are central issues of human existence, which is why they keep popping up time and time again in the arts.

The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, where the artist Michelangelo attempted to answer all three questions – What is there? What am I? What should I do? – in a single work.

Although artworks such as painting, sculpture and music used to answer each of these questions, screenwriting is especially suited to answering the third question; What should I do?

That’s because screenwriting is a dramatic art. A drama is a composition that uses characters to tell a story – usually involving conflicts and emotions – through action and dialogue.

The author of the story uses the elements of drama as his way of answering the question What should I do? for his audience. He uses them to show by example what people should – or shouldn’t – do.

Storytelling that attempts to answer the question What should I do? will necessarily have to deal with ethics or morality, which is defined as the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.

When human beings are confronted with a moral choice, i.e., What should I do?, they act in accordance with their values. A value is something we seek to achieve or hold on to. Each man determines for himself what his values are and how to achieve them, leading to his own principles of conduct, often called a code of ethics or a moral code.

Just as every human being has a set of values and a moral code which guides his actions, the screenwriter creates a cast of characters for his story that are also guided by their values and moral code. For the most part, the clash of competing values and different moral codes between the principal characters is what creates the story.

It’s no accident that these two John Travolta posters share a similar image of face-to-face confrontation between the main characters. The advertising agencies know what the public is looking for. The graphics of these posters promise the audience a clash of competing values and different moral codes of the principal characters. In other words…a story!

By showing how his characters deal with moral decisions and their consequences, the author of a story says to his audience, “This is what you should do” or, in a cautionary tale (such as The Godfather), “This is what you should not do.”

At their heart, screenplays are all about the choices that the charters face.

From the Star Wars saga…

“Join me and we can rule the galaxy as father and son.”

…to The Mask of Zorro…

“Now if you want to kill this man, I can help you. I can teach you how…
how to move, how to think, how to take your revenge with honor and live to celebrate it.”

…to The Matrix…

“This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill,
the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes….”

…the characters of drama are faced with important choices. Making a choice is the essence of drama because it is the essence of human life. Gandalf said it best in The Fellowship of the Ring:

All we have to decide is what to do with the time we are given.

Nothing is more important in our lives than deciding what to do with the time we are given, and then acting on our decisions. Our choices are shaped by our values, and our most important choices are shaped by our deepest values.

Yes, we go to the movies for the pretty girl, the big explosion and the booming soundtrack. But the films that we love – the ones we see over and over again – are movies with storylines that touch our deepest values. We know that we need to make the right choices in our lives, and the best movies inspire us to do just that.

Human beings are not born knowing “what to do with the time we are given.” Each man must discover for himself what his moral choices should be. The dramatic arts are a great aid in this most important task because they crystallize abstract moral concepts into a vivid and compelling form – so vivid and compelling that we hold it in our hearts and spirits, not just in our minds. Films like Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and Casablanca enter our souls because they not only move our emotions intensely, but they move our emotions on the subject that is most important to us…what should I do?

In short, our favorite Hollywood movies inspire us. And they inspire us towards heroic values.

The word “inspire” has several meanings. Inspire means to make someone have a particular strong feeling or reaction. In this sense, the best movies are inspirational because they always provoke strong feelings in us. But inspire also has the meaning of to make someone feel that they want to do something…and can do it.

The best movies are inspiring in both meanings of the word. They not only provoke a strong emotional reaction in us, but this emotion makes us want to do something and believe that we can do it.

If the main character is courageous and determined, then we walk out of the theater feeling courageous and determined, too. If the main character finds love, we believe that we can find love, as well. If struggle and sacrifice achieve a happy ending, then we resolve to struggle and sacrifice to achieve our own happy endings.

In this sense, movies that inspire us make us want to emulate the main character of the story, that is, to strive to equal or match what the character accomplishes.

But more than that, there is an underlying moral theme to most Hollywood movies that accounts for their ability to inspire and emotionally connect with audiences world-wide.

When it comes to the question What should I do?, Hollywood says there are a thousand-and-one ways to answer that question. But, no matter what…

Doing the right thing is worth the struggle.

Life is a struggle. Acting morally can often make the struggle harder for you. But in the end, if you want the good to prevail and receive its blessings for yourself, your family and your nation, you have to do the right thing.

The struggles of life can be discouraging. Art is an antidote to discouragement. People need the encouragement that art offers, in particular, the encouragement that drama offers. We need to know that our choices have meaning, that our choices can make a difference in our lives. We need to know that acting morally is worth the struggle. And that’s what Hollywood movies do. That is the inspiration they give to the audience.

Nowhere are these ideas better expressed than in an amazingly audacious yet moving scene in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

It’s the scene near the end of the movie where, at the ruins of Osgiliath, Faramir and the Hobbits escape from the clutches of a Ringwraith and his fell beast. Under the spell of the Ring, Frodo attacks Sam, nearly plunging his sword into Sam’s neck before coming to his senses. Totally dispirited, Frodo’s resolve weakens. (In the following, I speak of Tolkien as the author, but the filmmakers altered the material and context.)

FRODO: (slowly and with despair) I can’t do this, Sam.

SAM: (getting up slowly) I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are.

Here, I think Tolkien, through Sam, is summing up the basic problem of human existence: none of us asked to be born into this world, and yet here we are. For good or bad, fair or not, all of us must confront this basic fact of reality…we’re here in this world, and only for the time we are given. And as Gandalf says, while we are here we must decide what to do. There is no escaping our need to make choices.

We can choose to do what we know is wrong, or we can choose to do what we know is right. And our decision to do the right thing can demand a great struggle that may lead us to lose heart and give up the fight to do the right thing. In this scene, Frodo is at the point of giving up…his decision to do the right thing by casting the Ring back into the fire has caused him great hardship and he is losing heart. He wants to stop struggling.

What is Sam’s response to Frodo’s loss of spirit? Sam could answer Frodo is any number of ways, but look at how Tolkien chooses to have Sam reply:

Sam stands and leans against a wall, looking out into the distance.

SAM: It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy?  How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

Out of all the possible things Sam could say at this moment in the story, Tolkien has him speak about…stories.

That Tolkien chooses this moment in the story to speak about…well, stories themselves…indicates the importance he places on the subject at this critical point of the plot, where Frodo says he can’t go on. This is something Tolkien wants us to pay attention to. Stories have something to do with Frodo and his struggle.

Tolkien has Sam look out into the distance as he speaks…not at Frodo. That’s because Sam is not thinking about the present moment. He’s thinking about the past. His own past. He’s remembering the stories he heard in his youth. The “great” stories…”the ones that really mattered.”

The stories that mattered were about darkness and danger. The great stories were about struggles so intense – against forces so strong – that it seemed impossible that the hero would win. How is it possible for the good to win when evil seems so powerful? And even if victory is achieved, was it really worth all the suffering? When listening to the story, the outcome is in doubt…and a happy, Hollywood ending seems impossible. This is what Frodo is thinking now. And those are the stories that Sam is remembering now. He continues:

SAM: But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.

Tolkien is making several points here. First, that Sam has learned from the stories that the darkness can be overcome, no matter how bleak it looks. There can be a happy, Hollywood ending. In Sam’s childhood stories, the heroes won, and the darkness passed. And when the light returned, it illuminated life making it dearer. The stories where the hero prevailed – where light overcame the darkness – are the ones that mattered to Sam. They “meant something.” These are the stories that he remembers now in a time of crisis, not stories where men failed and heroic struggle was useless against the darkness .

Second, even as a young boy, when Sam really didn’t understand intellectually the full meaning of the stories, there was something in them that touched his spirit. This may be Tolkien’s way of expressing the idea that sometimes we understand things emotionally before we understand them intellectually. Dramatic stories can teach us their lessons by our emotional reaction to them. Even at an early age, human beings can understand the necessity for light to overcome the dark, even if they are not intellectually capable of explaining why. That’s why it’s important for the young to be exposed to heroic stories, even though they may not have a clear idea of why it is necessary to struggle against the darkness. They will feel it in their spirit all the same, as Sam did. Now, as an adult who has experienced light and darkness first hand, Sam at last understands the importance of the stories of his youth.

SAM: But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t. They kept going because they were holding on to something.

These stories of Sam’s youth were all about one thing: what should I do? And the answer was: struggle to do the right thing. Struggle forward, even when it is tempting to turn back, as Frodo is tempted now. Struggle forward, because there is something you hold on to that that makes it worth the struggle.

FRODO: What are we holding on to, Sam?

SAM: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.

Or as another not-so-famous writer once said: doing the right thing is worth the struggle, because it will restore the good.

The purpose of those stories from Sam’s past are for just this moment – when Frodo and Sam are tempted to turn back, they find the strength to continue because of what the stories promise. These stories provide the inspiration necessary to continue. It is an inspiration carried not only in their minds, but in their hearts. Tolkien was confident enough to be able to say to his readers, “Just as it was critical for Sam and Frodo to be inspired by stories, it is critical that you find inspiration in theirs.”

Tolkien knew that men need inspiration. We need to know – in our hearts and minds – that, no matter what the difficulty we face, doing the right thing is worth the struggle.

This is the message of Hollywood movies and this is why we love them. But what, specifically, is the right thing to do?

That’s the message of the Hollywood Hero.

I’ll write about the Hollywood Hero next, if you want. Let me know in the comments below!

And we all remember Professor Kerri Dunn, who in response to racist vandals trashing her car, organized and led vigil after vigil denouncing hate speech. In voicing her outrage toward a covert group of white male racists on campus (them again?), she worked the community into quite a frenzy before, oops, it was discovered that she was the culprit. She vandalized her own car, I guess as some sort of publicity stunt.

I sense a similar sort of phony outrage and conspiracy with the AIG bonus situation.
Obama’s fury at the AIG bonus brouhaha has seemed like baloney from the start. Shortly after Senator Dodd suggested that the gov’ment would tax the whole thing, the cat was out of the bag: he wrote the loophole that enabled AIG to pay out bonuses. His taxation threat reminded me of the “Andy Griffith Show’s” Ernest T. Bass, who flipped out when the Army wouldn’t accept him. Dancing off into Mayberry’s sunset, hollering and carrying on, he yelled, “I’ma break every winder in the state!” For those that are hillbilly challenged,  winder=window.

Now Dodd admits he added the provision, but suggests pressure from the Obama administration led him to do so.

My first wacky, Oliver Stone-esque theory featured John Candy barking, “You’re as crazy as your mama!” – but I realized that’d been done before. So I came up with another one.  And with that, cue the sophomoric humor:

INT. CHRIS DODD’S OFFICE – DAY

The Distinguished Gentleman from Connecticut is in his office, playing with “Star Wars” figures. Specifically, Han Solo and Princess Leia.

DODD
(as Leia)
I’d sooner kiss Barney Frank!
(as Solo)
I can arrange that!
(as Dodd)
No. Wait.

His SECRETARY enters dressed, as always, like Princess Leia.

SECRETARY
President Obama is on the -

Before she can finish, Dodd has scrambled wildly to the phone.

DODD
Good afternoon, Mr. President.

INT. 40 40 CLUB – DAY – BEGIN SPLIT SCREEN

President Obama relaxes in a chair next to Rahm Emanuel. Secret Service keeping close watch.

OBAMA
(a la Billy Dee Williams)
How you doin’, Chewbacca?

DODD
I’m Solo!

Rahm laughs hysterically. Obama stifles a laugh.

DODD
Chewbacca didn’t date Princess Leia — I did.

OBAMA
Didn’t she also date Barney Frank?

DODD
NO!

OBAMA
(laughing)
I’m just messing with you. What’cha doing?

DODD
Just chillin’.

OBAMA
(Rolls his eyes, then)
I’m up in the 40 40 club, ESPN on the screen. Did you get your bracket finished?

DODD
Yes, Mr. Prezzy, I think the Cardinals have a shot.

OBAMA
Louisville? Come on, Doddsy, with that perimeter game?
I’m going with Kansas in the mid-west.

DODD
That’s smart. Dodd scrambles for his bracket. Changes it.

Obama winks at Rahm, gives him a fistbump.

OBAMA
Listen, wanted to talk to you about the AIG bailout.

Dodd’s hopeful. Did I do good?

OBAMA
It’s good. But what about that provision we talked about?

DODD
Well, it just, I don’t know, it seemed like if
we’re giving money we don’t have -

OBAMA
– we’re buying the company. We will own it. Didn’t Barney send you the memo?

DODD
Yes, but I thought that the provision could be seen as a loophole to allow AIG to honor
contracts with their executives -

OBAMA
I think it would be a good idea to put the provision back in the package.
You let me worry about the fallout.

Obama flips his phone closed. End split screen. Stay with Obama. The wheels turning.

CUT TO:

NEWS FOOTAGE – OBAMA EXPRESSING OUTRAGE
About the bonuses. Widen to reveal we’re –

INT. CHRIS DODD’S OFFICE – NIGHT

“Star Wars” toys strewn about. Dodd staring at the TV. Turns to Fox News, where some right winger discusses the fact that Dodd wrote the bill.

His computer screen reveals hundreds of unopened emails. His desk littered with phone message slips. His phone blinking furiously — the voicemails piling up.

He turns, gazes out the window.

Behind him, a foot kicks the Millenium Falcon. Dodd turns slowly, a shadow enveloping his face.

OBAMA (O.S.)
What did I tell you about watching Fox News?

DODD
You said you were going to handle it. You said -

Reveal Obama. He lights a cigarette.

OBAMA
I did handle it, Chris.

DODD
But you were on TV, outraged -

Obama sits on Dodd’s desk.

OBAMA
They have to see that Capitalism is evil.

Dodd nods. An AIDE rushes in, breathless. Opens a briefcase and gets to work building something…

OBAMA
They just need a little push. Do I like resorting to…

He trails off.

OBAMA
(to Aide)
…Damn it, I thought you had this down!

Reveal the Aide, putting the finishing touches on a mobile Teleprompter.

AIDE
Yes, Mr. President.

OBAMA
Cue it up. Damn.

The Aide cues it up. Obama maintains eye contact with Dodd, fires it back up again.

OBAMA
I’d like to thank President Obama for coming here today.

Dodd’s confused. The Aide slumps, types on a laptop.

AIDE
That’s the wrong speech, Mr. President.

OBAMA
Well, get the right damn speech up!

AIDE
We uh, we don’t have it.

OBAMA
What do you mean, we don’t have it? And what’s that smell? Doddsy, did you fart?

AIDE
I brought the wrong computer. And I crapped my pants.

OBAMA
Oh. He crapped his pants.
(laughs)
High five on that, Doddsy.

Dodd high fives Obama.

OBAMA
Damn, you got some clammy ass hands, Dodd.
(to aide)
Pack up. We gotta get to Los Angeles. Leno, baby!

He drops the cigarette on the floor, stubs it out with the ball of his foot.

OBAMA
You don’t worry, Dodd. This is all going to be taken care of.

Dodd swallows. Not so sure.

OBAMA
We’ll get you on TV to admit it. You can say you felt pressure.
I’ll deny it. Who knows what will happen to you,
but this nation, this…so-so nation, will be saved.

Dodd nods. I guess so.

OBAMA
Kansas all the way, baby! Obama leaves with the aide.

OBAMA (O.S.)
Change your drawers, damn! That’s the third time today.

Dodd leans back, clutching something in his hand. It’s the Princess Leia action figure from “Episode IV: A New Hope.”

Fade out.

The result is a well-reviewed (56% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) action film that will help to satisfy blockbuster-hungry audiences waiting for Warner Bros’ Watchmen (due March 6). Taken has scored big on its opening weekend. After grabbing an estimated $9.4M, the movie surged on Saturday to $11.62M (up almost 24% from opening day) and, despite today’s Super Bowl, the film could reach $24.62M according to studio estimates. That will be more than enough to win the Super Bowl 3-day, and positive word-of-mouth could get this one into the $70M-$75M range domestic.

Prolific French filmmaker Luc Besson

Taken re-teams French action maestro Besson with director Morel, who previously worked together on the brilliant District B13 ($411K opening – $1.2M in the US – $6.9M in France). For the prolific Besson, this movie marks the all-time best US opening for one of his films.

ALL-TIME BEST DOMESTIC OPENINGS FOR LUC BESSON FILMS
- as producer, writer and/or director -
1. Taken (producer/writer) – $24.62M opening (projected)
2. The Fifth Element (writer/director) – $17M opening – $63.8M domestic
3. Transporter 2 (producer/writer) – $16.5M opening – $43M domestic
4. Kiss of the Dragon (producer/writer) – $13.3M opening – $36.8M domestic
5. Transporter 3 (producer/writer) – $12M opening – $31.7M domestic
6. The Transporter (producer/writer) – $9.1M opening – $25.2M domestic
7. Point of No Return (writer) – $7.1M opening – $30M domestic
8. The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (producer/writer/director) – $6.3M opening – $14.2M domestic
9. The Professional (producer/writer/director) – $5.3M opening – $19.5M domestic
10. Arthur & the Invisibles (producer/writer/director) – $4.3M opening – $15.1M domestic

Besson has a tremendous international following, and Taken was already a hit before it ever opened in the US. The movie has already been released in many overseas territories, generating $68.8M in 2008. That includes $11.2M in the UK and $9.4M in France. With international numbers like that, it’s not a huge surprise that the picture is working so well in the states.

The irrepressible Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) is headed for a #2 finish for the weekend. The Adam Sandler-produced comedy sold another $4.2M in tickets on its third Friday, and Kevin James has ridden that dopey Segway to another strong 3-day of about $14M. By Monday morning, PB:MC will have banked a stellar $83M.

Poster for the 1998 Japanese film Ringu

In 1998, Hollywood discovered a Japanese film called Ringu, and they have been remaking Asian horror films ever since. Director Gore Verbinski turned the get-under-your-skin creepy Ringu into an American version called, simply, The Ring, and that 2002 movie starring Naomi Watts grossed a spectacular $129M.

The latest Asian horror adaptation is The Uninvited (Dreamworks/Paramount), based on the 2003 South Korean thriller Janghwa, Hongryeon (released in the US as A Tale of Two Sisters). The movie was a sensation in Korea where it remains the all-time highest-grossing horror film, and now Elizabeth Banks (W.) and David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck) headline the American version. After grabbing a decent $4.3M to start the weekend, The Uninvited got a 9% Saturday bump, and it will likely finish the weekend in third-place with $10.51M.

That is slightly disappointing given the performance of some other recent Asian horror remakes. (Note these are all based on Japanese films with The Uninvited being the first South Korean adaptation.)

2002 – The Ring – $15M opening – $129.1M cume
2004 – The Grudge – $39.1M opening – $110.3M cume
2005 – The Ring Two – $35M opening – $76.2M cume
2005 – Dark Water – $9.9M opening – $25.4M cume
2006 – The Grudge 2 – $20.8M opening – $39.1M cume
2006 – Pulse – $8.2M opening – $20.2M cume
2008 – One Missed Call – $12.5M opening – $26.9M cume
2008 – The Eye – $12.4M opening – $31.4M cume
2009 – The Uninvited – $10.51M opening (projected)

In final studio estimates, Hotel for Dogs (Dreamworks/Paramount) has managed a surprise fourth-place finish with $8.7M for a new cume of $48.2M. Meanwhile, the Super Bowl has pushed Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino (Warner Bros) to #5 with $8.6M. Walt Kowalski has now growled his way to an amazing $110.5M cume.

Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) has received a nice boost from and its 10 Oscar nominations, adding another $7.58M. This micro-budgeted movie ($14M) which almost went straight to video when Warner bros didn’t quite know what to do wth it has grossed a staggering $67M. Also this weekend, director Danny Boyle has won the ultimate Oscar bellweather, the DGA award, and that may seal the deal for Best Picture and Best Director at the upcoming Academy Awards.

The other new wide release is the horribly-reviewed New In Town (Lionsgate), starring Academy Award winner Renee Zellweger. The romantic comedy that makes sport of small town America opened soft, but it could have been worse. The movie coaxed about $2.4M on Friday (#7 for the day), and Lionsgate says the movie will finish the weekend with $6.75M, enough for eighth place. That number marks only the eighth-best opening of Zellweger’s career.

ALL-TIME BEST RENEE ZELLWEGER OPENINGS
- non-animated –
1. Me, Myself & Irene – $24.2M opening
2, Cinderella Man – $18.3M opening
3. Jerry Maguire – $17M opening
4. Cold Mountain – $14.5M opening
5. Leatherheads – $12.6M opening
6. Bridget Jones’s Diary – $10.7M opening
7. Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason – $8.6M opening
8. The Bachelor – $7.4M opening
9. Nurse Betty – $7.1M opening
10. New In Town -$6.75M opening (projected)

There is not much of an Oscar bounce for the current crop of Best Picture nominees. Stephen Daldry’s The Reader (Weinstein) and Milk (Focus) starring Sean Penn are the last two of the big five to go wide, and neither film has scored big.

David Kross and Kate Winslet in The Reader

The Reader, which has Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress: Kate Winslet, Best Director: Daldry, Best Adapted Screenplay: David Hare and Best Cinematography, expanded to 1,002 locations on Friday and could only muster $700,000. That should project to about $2.37M or so for the 3-day and a new cume of $12.64M.

Meanwhile, the Gus Van Sant-directed Milk, which some pundits believe may be peaking with Academy voters at just the right time, will not be a box office juggernaut. Despite 8 Oscar nominations, Milk managed only a $471 Per Theatre Average on Friday on 882 screens. The first wide weekend for the Harvey Milk biopic will likely yield only $1.41M for a new domestic cume of $23.41M.

Golden Globe winner Sean Penn as slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk

In all, the five Best Picture nominees, now all in wide release, have combined for less than $17M for the weekend. By Monday, the five movies contending for Hollywood’s biggest prize have a combined total domestic gross of just $234M. I am projecting that Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Frost/Nixon and The Reader will finish with a total of about $285M in US ticket sales, which would be the second-worst total of the last 15 years.

For example last year, the five Best Picture nominees grossed a combined $357M, so the 2009 crop will be down a full 20% from 2008. Snubbing movies like The Dark Knight and Gran Torino, Academy voters have narrowed the field to what amounts to a very expensive arthouse movie (Benjamin Button), a surprise crowd-pleaser (Slumdog Millionaire) and three niche art titles with very specific audiences (Milk, Frost/Nixon and The Reader). When the ratings for the Oscar telecast are dismal, the Academy will have its own voters to blame.

The worst combined gross of the five Best Picture nominees in the last 15 years was in 2005 when Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night & Good Luck and Munich generated $245M at the box office. That resulted in the all-time third-worst television rating for the Academy Awards broadcast.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Taken (Fox) – $9.4M, $2,953 PTA, $9.4M cume
2. NEW – The Uninvited (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $4.3M, $1,834 PTA, $4.3M cume
3. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) – $4.2M, $1,310 PTA, $73.57M cume
4. Gran Torino (Warner Bros) – $2.6M, $862 PTA, $104.54M cume
5. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Sony) – $2.55M, $867 PTA, $28.13M cume
6. NEW – New in Town (Lionsgate) – $2.4M, $1,236 PTA, $2.4M cume
7. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) – $2.3M, $1,630 PTA, $61.86M cume
8. Hotel For Dogs (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $2M, $633 PTA, $41.52M cume
9. My Bloody Valentine 3-D (Lionsgate) – $1.5M, $1,067 PTA, $41.84M cume
10. Bride Wars (Fox) – $1.25M, $630 PTA, $51.61M cume
11. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount) – $1.1M, $517 PTA, $114.02M cume
12. Inkheart (Warner Bros) – $975,000, $367 PTA, $10.06M cume
13. Revolutionary Road (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $850,000, $789 PTA, $14.22M
14. Defiance (Paramount Vantage) – $775,000, $466 PTA, $21.07M cume
15. The Wrestler (Fox Searchlight) – $730,000, $1,011 PTA, $11.46M cume
16. The Reader (Weinstein) – $700,000, $699 PTA, $10.97M cume
17. Notorious (Fox Searchlight) – $590,000, $546 PTA, $33.9M cume
18. Frost/Nixon (Universal) – $425,000, $385 PTA, $13.33M cume
19. Milk (Focus Features) – $415,000, $471 PTA, $22.39M cume

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Taken (Fox) – $24.62M, $7,736 PTA, $24.62M cume
2. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) – $14M, $4,367 PTA, $83.37M cume
3. NEW – The Uninvited (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $10.51M, $4,485 PTA, $10.51M cume
4. Hotel For Dogs (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $8.7M, $3,160 PTA, $48.22M cume
5. Gran Torino (Warner Bros) – $8.6M, $2,852 PTA, $110.54M cume
6. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) – $7.68M, $4,703 PTA, $67.24M cume
7. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Sony) – $7.2M, $2,447 PTA, $32.78M cume
8. NEW – New in Town (Lionsgate) – $6.75M, $3,478 PTA, $6.75M cume
9. My Bloody Valentine 3-D (Lionsgate) – $4.26M, $3,030 PTA, $44.6M cume
10. Inkheart (Warner Bros) – $3.7M, $1,394 PTA, $12.79M cume
11. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount) – $3.61M, $1,698 PTA, $116.54M cume
12. Bride Wars (Fox) – $3.57M, $1,798 PTA, $53.93M cume
13. Revolutionary Road (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $2.65M, $2,469 PTA, $16.03M
14. Defiance (Paramount Vantage) – $2.53M, $1,524 PTA, $22.83M cume
15. The Reader (Weinstein) – $2.37M, $2,369 PTA, $12.64M cume
16. The Wrestler (Fox Searchlight) – $2.35M, $3,255 PTA, $13.08M cume
17. Notorious (Fox Searchlight) – $1.7M, $1,574 PTA, $35M cume
18. Milk (Focus) – $1.41M, $1,603 PTA, $23.41M cume
19. Frost/Nixon (Universal) – $1.39M, $1,265 PTA, $14.31M cume