Keanu Reeves’ return to the box-office Christmas was a huge box-office flop. 

Universal’s big-budget samurai film debuted to $9.9 million over the holiday weekend.  

That wasn’t good news for the studio since “47 Ronin” has been said to cost anywhere from $175 million to $225 million.  

It’s current worldwide gross of $48.7 million would make it one of the biggest box-office bombs of 2013. 

While most critic reviews denounce the film (it sits at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes), audience reception is better (60%). Still Reeves’ failed to capture an audience large enough to bring in a lot of money.  

Why didn’t “47 Ronin” make a bigger splash Christmas Day? 

OVER SATURATION 

There were so many movies that came out on and right before the holiday.  

“The Wolf of Wall Street,” “The Hobbit” sequel, “Anchorman 2,” “American Hustle” and more were all vying for audience attention.  

No one has time to see THAT many movies. When options are limited, you need to decide which to see and “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “American Hustle” along with “Her” (if you’re in NY or LA) have been receiving all the word-of-mouth buzz. 

TOO LONG IN THE UNIVERSAL VAULT

“47 Ronin” was originally supposed to be released in November 2012. Production delays — which included reshoots and editing overseen by a Universal co-chairwoman —  pushed the film back numerous times.  

According to The Wrap, the film would have had to make $500 million to break even— something a Keanu Reeves film has only done once a decade ago.

Universal knew upon releasing this film it was going to be a big-budget risk and went so far as to suggest it knew the film would flop days before its release. 

Via The Hollywood Reporter:  

"The studio took the unusual step of explaining its accounting process in the days leading up to Ronin's release. 'Universal Pictures regularly evaluates its film slate for potential adjustment. In the case of 47 Ronin, we adjusted film costs in previous quarters, and as a result, our financial performance will not be negatively impacted this quarter by its theatrical performance.'"

REEVES’ BOX-OFFICE DRAW 

The last time Reeves’ commanded a huge blockbuster north of $400 million was 2003’s “The Matrix: Revolutions.”  

There has been “Constantine” (2005) and “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (2008) since then, but most of the actor’s roles have been in smaller films (“Street Kings,” “Henry’s Crime”). 

You can say Reeves’ star may have faded a bit; however, it’s clear audiences still will go out to see the actor if audience reception for the film is better than what the critics say. 

It makes one wonder why the Christmas push was so necessary for this film when it may have faired better after the holidays.

SEE ALSO: The biggest box-office bombs of 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

Paul Walker’s character won’t be killed off in the next “Fast & Furious” movie. 

Instead, his character Brian O’Connor will be retired in the next installment, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 

After Walker’s death last November, director James Wan and Universal Studios executives met to discuss how to continue the franchise.

The next film was originally set for a summer 2014 release. 

Though much of the sequel was already shot, there were still major scenes with Walker that needed filming. 

The Daily Mail previously reported Walker’s lookalike brother, Cody Walker, was approached to possibly fill in for final scenes with O’Connor’s character.  

“Fast and Furious 7” has since been pushed back until April 10, 2015.

SEE ALSO: Paul Walker's car was going 100 mph when it crashed

Join the conversation about this story »

With help from a cool new app called Scenepast, Curbed is taking us back in time to some of Los Angeles' most iconic filming locations.

ScenePast shows famous Hollywood scenes as they looked during production, and what they look like now.

Here's how 10 film locations have changed over time: 

1. "Witness To Murder" (1954) — 9560 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, 90212

2. "Dragnet" (1967-1970) — 10601 Riverside Dr., North Hollywood, CA 91602

 3. "Pretty In Pink" (1986) — Third Street & Broadway, Santa Monica, CA 90401 

4. "Kojak" (1973-1978) — 436 S. Main St., Los Angeles, CA

 5. "Down Three Dark Streets" (1954) — 417 S. Hill, Los Angeles, CA, 90015

 6. "Crime Of Passion" (1957) — 220 E. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

7. "Adam-12" (1968-1975) — 10836 Landale St., North Hollywood, CA 91602

8. "The Rockford Files" (1974) — 9039 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90069

9. "The Big Fix" (1978) — 8501 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills 90211

10. "90210" (1990-2000) — 1020 N. San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90069

SEE ALSO: The 15 Highest-Grossing Movies Of 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

We talk a lot about movies here — those that bomb on the weekly and that do well over the course of the year. 

At the end of 2013, how did each studio fare? We took a look at the seven biggest movie studios of 2013 — Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount, Sony, Fox, and Lionsgate.

Despite Disney's billion dollar "Iron Man" film, Warner Bros. became the top-grossing studio for the year with $5 billion worldwide at theaters.

Below, we've outlined the five biggest movies for each studio in 2013:

Disney: $4.7 billion
1. “Iron Man 3”: $1.2 billion
2. “Monsters University”: $743.6 million
3. “Thor: The Dark World”: $630 million
4. “Frozen”: $551.2 million
5. “Oz the Great and Powerful”: $493.3 million

Universal: $3.7 billion
1. “Despicable Me 2”: $918.8 million
2. “Fast & Furious 6”: $788.7 million
3. “Oblivion”: $286.2 million
4. “Identity Thief”: $174 million
5. “Mama”: $146.4 million

20th Century Fox: $3.4 billion
1. “The Croods”: $587.2 million
2. “The Wolverine”: $414.8 million
3. “A Good Day to Die Hard”: $304.7 million
4. “Turbo”: $282.6 million
5. “Epic”: $267.9 million

Paramount: $2.27 billion
1. “World War Z”: $540 million
2. “Star Trek Into Darkness”: $467.4 million
3. “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”: $375.7 million
4. “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters”: $225.7 million
5. “Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa”: $142.7 million

Sony Pictures / Columbia: $3 billion
1. “The Smurfs 2”: $347.5 million
2. “Grown Ups 2”: $247 million
3. “After Earth”: $243.8 million
4. “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2”: $238.8 million
5. “Captain Phillips”: $209.3 million

Lionsgate: $1.1 billion
Note how important the “Hunger Games” franchise is to the studio.
1. “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”: $802.3 million
2. “Instructions Not Included”: $85.5 million
3. “Tyler Perry’s Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor”: $53.1 million
4. “The Last Stand”: $48.3 million
5. “Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas”: $46.7 million

SEE ALSO: The highest-grossing movies of 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

The fifth installment of “Paramount Activity” was no match for Disney's Thanksgiving holiday release "Frozen."

Yes. 

In its sixth week in theaters, it wasn't "The Hobbit" sequel nor any other December films, but Disney's animated film that commanded the box office. In the past two weeks, "Frozen" saw a huge jump at theaters — probably because it was the only kids' flick out to offer an alternative for families during a crowded holiday and has been very well received by audiences. 

Instead, "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones" had the lowest opening weekend for the franchise.  

The sequel is more of a spinoff for the series with "Paranormal Activity 5" due out later this year.

Fox's "Walking with Dinosaurs" and Universal's "47 Ronin" dropped out of the top ten this week. Keanu Reeves' samurai flick is faring better overseas right now. It's made $84 million worldwide to date.

Here are this week's winners and losers in Hollywood: 

10. Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone's "Grudge Match" moved up a notch to round out the top ten. The boxing film has now made $24.9 million. It cost an estimated $40 million to make. 

9. "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" continues its hot streak with another $7.4 million. In seven weeks, the second installment from Lionsgate has brought in $830.9 million. 

8. "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" moved down one spot this week earning $8.2 million. The Ben Stiller film has made most of its $114.5 million intake overseas (60.1%). 

7. Disney's Mary Poppins' film "Saving Mr. Banks" brought in another $9 million bringing its worldwide total to $64.8 million.  

6. "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" drops a big three spots with $11.1 million in week three. Still, the sequel has already made more than the original ($144.2 million vs. $90.6 million). The film's $50 million budget is nearly double of the 2004 film. 

5. "American Hustle" nearly beat out Paramount's "The Wolf of Wall Street" this weekend with $13.2 million. The film is director David O. Russell's second holiday film starring Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper after last year's "Silver Linings Playbook" and is closing in on $100 million worldwide. 

4. Instead, Martin Scorsese's three-hour epic "The Wolf of Wall Street" edged out "Hustle" with $13.4 million. Scorsese's longest film to date has made $63.3 million so far and cost an estimated $100 million to make. 

3. "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" brought in another $16.3 million in its fourth week bringing its grand total to $756.6 million. The sequel is now Warner Bros.' highest-grossing movie of the year edging out "Man of Steel" ($668 million). 

2. "Paramormal Activity: The Marked Ones" debuted to $18.2 million. That's not a stellar start since its the lowest debut of the franchise which is now five films deep. Still, the spinoff to the series only cost $5 million to make and has made nearly as much money overseas bringing its worldwide total to $34.4 million.  

1. Disney's "Frozen" managed to retake the box office making $20.7 million in its sixth weekend in wide release. The film has now made $640 million worldwide. Not counting Pixar, "Frozen" is now Disney's highest-grossing animated picture beating out 2010's "Tangled" ($591.8 million).

SEE ALSO: The most successful movie studios of 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

This year's big Marvel movie — other than "Galaxy of the Guardians"— will be "Captain America: The Winter Soldier."

While Marvel initially released new images for the film last week, Disney just put out larger high resolution versions of the photos.

Similar to "Thor: The Dark World," and "Iron Man 3," the sequel will follow Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) after "The Avengers" as he attempts to adjust to normal life. 

Don't expect that to last too long.

While we're waiting for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" to hit theaters April 4, see what's up next for Steve Rogers this spring.

Chris Evans returns as Captain America.

After the events of "The Avengers," the Captain (Evans) has hung up his suit and is living in Washington, D.C.

But not for long. After a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent is attacked ...

Sony Pictures and Marvel rolled out a few new international posters for "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" and they're awesome.

Both highlight showdowns between Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) and villain Electro (Jamie Foxx).

First, here's a poster via @movie_maniac_:

What's great about this poster is that it makes the viewer work to see what's really going on in the image. 

It kind of reminds us of this one Disney and Marvel released for "Iron Man 3"— without the worries of our hero in (too much) danger.

The only difference is that in the one below, Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark looks defeated. Above, Spidey looks like he's just getting started.Here's the second poster via Digital Spy which gives a glimpse of the villain from Spider-Man's point of view.

The new international posters follow Sony's recent trend in releasing artwork that breaks the mold from other superhero posters we saw last year.

Here's the first poster Marvel and Sony Pictures released for the film:

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" will be released May 2.

SEE ALSO: Now check out photos from the "Captain America" sequel

Join the conversation about this story »

A recent Quora thread asked the difference between making a movie and music video.  

For one thing, the former averages around 110 minutes give or take and depending on the studio can have a production budget ranging from under $5 million to $200+ million.  

The latter usually averages around 3-5 minutes in length and can cost anywhere from $20,000 (for an Indy label) to upwards of $1.2 million if you're a top pop singer.

Other than the money and length, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" director Francis Lawrence took to Quora to deliver a response suggesting all movies have one thing that most music videos lack: a story.  

Read Quote of Francis Lawrence's answer to Movie Making: What are the key differences between directing a film versus a music video? on Quora

If you're not satisfied with the director's answer, Brand.gineer and film producer Carl Hartman went into more detailed explanation comparing a music video to a commercial for an artist and mentioning movies involve a lot of back and forth with a bonding company. You can read his full response here.

SEE ALSO: The most successful movie studios of 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

As the new year begins, we're looking forward to another year of sequels, and superheroes, and a few big reboots.

2013 brought in more than a combined $10.9 billion domestically in theaters. 

While we're unsure whether this year will be as big at the movies, there are plenty of contenders for the next break-out blockbuster.

2014 brings two new Marvel movies, more of Jennifer Lawrence's arrow-slinging heroine, and director Christopher Nolan's return to the screen post-Batman.

We've gone through the many upcoming releases to select the most-anticipated films of the year.

From historical accounts to best-selling adaptations, space adventures and quirky comedies and thrillers, there's something for everyone.

"Her"

Wide Release Date: January 10

Why to see it: Spike Jonze's unusual love story about a man who falls in love with his operating system (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) has been garnering a lot of attention from critics and audiences though it's only been in limited release. 

Amy Adams also stars in the film.

Watch the trailer

"RoboCop"

Release Date: February 7

Why to see it: The original cop film came out in 1987 so it was only a matter of time until a reboot to the franchise was made.

We weren't sure about a remake of the Paul Verhoeven film until seeing the first trailer with Joel Kinnaman ("The Killing"), Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael Keaton who's making a return to the big screen in a few films this year. 

Watch the trailer

"The Monuments Men"

Release Date: February 7

Why to see it: It's essentially "Ocean's 11" ... but for art ... during World War II.

The film was originally supposed to come out Dec. 18, before getting pushed back to this year, so we're about ready to see George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, and John Goodman have at it on screen.

Clooney told Deadline he thought there was a better release date than the crowded holiday. They considered moving it up to November but feared not having the film finished in time. Instead, they selected the weekend "Shutter Island" was released in 2010.

Watch the trailer

A data scientist has created a handy list of the deadliest films of all time.

Randal Olson, a Computer Science PhD student at Michigan State University who also made lists of the deadliest actors and deadliest directors, created the tally based on the database of kill counts from MovieBodyCounts.com.

It looks like it could help settle a few arguments among films fans.

(Note: A larger map of the top 25 is at the end of the post.)

The goal of Olson's project is to find the actors, directors, etc. who are responsible for the most tangible on-screen death in films. The individuals have to die on-screen to count, meaning "implied" deaths — like when Darth Vader blew up the planet of Alderan — do not count.

 A few observations from Olson:

• The movie with the most on-camera deaths, "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," is rated PG-13.

• Across all of the Lord of the Rings movies, Legolas won the kill contest with Gimli with 57 on-screen kills to Gimli's 25.

• Orlando Bloom is in 4 of the top 8 deadliest films of all time.

• Despite its claim to fame as being the bloodiest film of all time, Hot Shots Part Deux ranked in with only 114 on-screen kills.

Olson told BI that he is almost positive it's the epic Battle of Pelennor Fields in"LOTR: The Return of the King," is the deadliest scene of all time.

Here's the breakdown:

Rohirim killed – 123
Haradrim killed – 32
Denethor – 1
Nazgul killed – 1
Orcs killed – 239
Orcs ridden down by Rohirim – 83

And here's the battle:

Interestingly, most of the films in the top 25 films came out in 2002 or later, including nine of the top ten. There is one from the 70s, two from the 80s, and five from the 90s.

Here's a larger version of the top 25:

SEE ALSO: The 25 Deadliest Actors Of All Time

And: The 25 Deadliest Movie Directors Of All Time

Join the conversation about this story »

"Wolf of Wall Street" director Martin Scorsese is being blasted by some for glamorizing the corrupt true story of former stockbroker, Jordan Belfort.

But instead of responding to his haters, Scorsese has written a positive, open "Letter to my Daughter" about the "bright future" of film and how movies can now be made for much cheaper than when the acclaimed director first started his career.

In the letter to his youngest daughter, Francesca — which was first published in Italian news magazine, L'Espresso — Scorsese explains:

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, it’s the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

He stresses, however, that "the tools don't make the movie, you make the movie."

Read Scorsese's full letter about the future of film below:

Dearest Francesca,

I’m writing this letter to you about the future. I’m looking at it through the lens of my world. Through the lens of cinema, which has been at the center of that world.

For the last few years, I’ve realized that the idea of cinema that I grew up with, that’s there in the movies I’ve been showing you since you were a child, and that was thriving when I started making pictures, is coming to a close. I’m not referring to the films that have already been made. I’m referring to the ones that are to come.

I don’t mean to be despairing. I’m not writing these words in a spirit of defeat. On the contrary, I think the future is bright.

We always knew that the movies were a business, and that the art of cinema was made possible because it aligned with business conditions. None of us who started in the 60s and 70s had any illusions on that front. We knew that we would have to work hard to protect what we loved. We also knew that we might have to go through some rough periods. And I suppose we realized, on some level, that we might face a time when every inconvenient or unpredictable element in the moviemaking process would be minimized, maybe even eliminated. The most unpredictable element of all? Cinema. And the people who make it.

I don’t want to repeat what has been said and written by so many others before me, about all the changes in the business, and I’m heartened by the exceptions to the overall trend in moviemaking – Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Alexander Payne, the Coen Brothers, James Gray and Paul Thomas Anderson are all managing to get pictures made, and Paul not only got The Master made in 70mm, he even got it shown that way in a few cities. Anyone who cares about cinema should be thankful.

And I’m also moved by the artists who are continuing to get their pictures made all over the world, in France, in South Korea, in England, in Japan, in Africa. It’s getting harder all the time, but they’re getting the films done.

But I don’t think I’m being pessimistic when I say that the art of cinema and the movie business are now at a crossroads. Audio-visual entertainment and what we know as cinema – moving pictures conceived by individuals – appear to be headed in different directions. In the future, you’ll probably see less and less of what we recognize as cinema on multiplex screens and more and more of it in smaller theaters, online, and, I suppose, in spaces and circumstances that I can’t predict.

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, it’s the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

But with all the attention paid to the machinery of making movies and to the advances in technology that have led to this revolution in moviemaking, there is one important thing to remember: the tools don’t make the movie, you make the movie. It’s freeing to pick up a camera and start shooting and then put it together with Final Cut Pro. Making a movie – the one you need to make - is something else. There are no shortcuts.

If John Cassavetes, my friend and mentor, were alive today, he would certainly be using all the equipment that’s available. But he would be saying the same things he always said – you have to be absolutely dedicated to the work, you have to give everything of yourself, and you have to protect the spark of connection that drove you to make the picture in the first place. You have to protect it with your life. In the past, because making movies was so expensive, we had to protect against exhaustion and compromise. In the future, you’ll have to steel yourself against something else: the temptation to go with the flow, and allow the movie to drift and float away.

This isn’t just a matter of cinema. There are no shortcuts to anything. I’m not saying that everything has to be difficult. I’m saying that the voice that sparks you is your voice – that’s the inner light, as the Quakers put it.

That’s you. That’s the truth.

All my love,

Dad

SEE ALSO: Jonah Hill Says ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ Behavior 'Leads To A Very Bad Ending'

MORE: Leonardo DiCaprio Says 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Characters Represent Everything Wrong With The World

Join the conversation about this story »

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has three national languages and so do its movie theaters. I went to Luxembourg's original multiplex cinema on Christmas and saw a German film in English with French and German subtitles. The tiny country, smaller than the state of Rhode Island, has 15 movie theaters with half of them only 2o minutes away from each other. 

Only one movie playing at the cinema was not American. Here are advertisements for upcoming movies which were already in their second week at the box office in New York. 

The movie tickets were 8.80 euros or about $12 dollars, though I got in cheaper with a student discount.

The grab-and-go style concessions saved us time since we didn't have to wait for an attendant to gather our food and drink selections. The heat lamps kept the popcorn warm, but the scent of freshly popped popcorn wasn't noticeable.

In fact, the theater only sold sweet popcorn, which wasn't bad at all. The smallest size was priced at less than $3 dollars. 

I counted more than 25 different drink options including various energy drinks, juices, flavored water, and sodas. There was also an ICEE machine.

There were three candy displays in the concessions area, filled primarily with Haribo candy.

I ended up getting a half a pound of candy and paid about $8 dollars. 

The cinema was much cleaner than you would find in America. The seats were comfortable, with a lot of space between rows.

After three previews, the movie began. "The Physician" is a German film made in English, projected with German and French subtitles.

It was difficult to pay attention to the audio since the lower part of the screen kept flickering every time the titles changed. Sometimes there were three languages on the screen at one time.

Sometimes the subtitles were hard to read because of the background. 

At the end of the movie, everyone took their garbage and either recycled it or threw it away.  Nothing was left in the aisles.

SEE ALSO: 21 awesome McDonald's dishes you can't get in America

Join the conversation about this story »

We recently showed you how some of Los Angeles' most iconic film scenes looked during original production — and how they look now.

Thanks to the cool new iPhone app Scenepast that lets us check out before-and-after photos of famous film locations, we get to see some of New York City's hot film spots, too. 

Take a look at how the Big Apple has changed over the years:

"Broadway Danny Rose" 1984 — 1626 Broadway (at 49th Street)

"Do The Right Thing" 1989 — Lexington Ave & Stuyvesant Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11221 

"Hannah and Her Sisters" 1985 — 43 Greene Street

"Hannah and Her Sisters" 1985 — 88 Grand Street  

"Midnight Cowboy" 1969 — 234 West 42nd Street

 "Miami Vice" 1984 (from Season 1, episode 1) — 242 West 16th Street

"Kojak" 1973 (from Season 1, episode 1) — 148 West 49th Street  

 "Kojak" 1973 (from Season 1, episode 1) — 24 Peck Slip

"Naked City" 1947 — 404 West 15th Street

"Saturday Night Fever" 1977 — 802 East 64th Street, Brooklyn

"Taxi Driver" 1975 — 1886 Broadway (between 62nd & 63rd Street)

SEE ALSO: Past And Present GIFs Of 10 Famous Los Angeles Filming Locations

Join the conversation about this story »

Starting this spring, the Avengers and Spider-Man will be touring the nation in a giant traveling theme-park like attraction called "The Marvel Experience."  

Marvel and entertainment company Hero Venturesreleased the first look at their huge traveling dome this morning and it looks pretty cool. 

The tour was first announced August of last year and will cost more than $30 million to put together. 

The entire show will cover two acres with a six-story dome meant to replicate the feel of Marvel's S.H.I.E.L.D. command center. 

Fans will be able to participate in interactive games, virtual reality and holographic simulations, and view original 3D animated short films of Marvel superheroes. There will also be a 4D motion ride as the mini-park's centerpiece. 

The attraction is expected to stay for a few weeks in each city it visits. 

Tour dates and locations have not been announced yet but the show is expected to launch sometime this spring in the US and Canada.

SEE ALSO: The most anticipated movies of the year

Join the conversation about this story »

"Homeland" actor Rupert Friend will replace Paul Walker in "Hitman" reboot "Agent 47."

The late Walker passed away in a car accident last November.

For those who aren't familiar, "Hitman" is a popular game franchise from Square Enix that follows the adventures of a cloned assassin named Agent 47.

A 2007 film starring Timothy Olyphant as the lead was panned by critics and audiences alike.

The Fox reboot could have set up another possible franchise on top of "Fast and Furious."

"Agent 47" will be directed by first time director Aleksander Bach and is currently in development.

SEE ALSO: Movies we can't wait to see this year

Join the conversation about this story »

Ever since Jennifer Lawrence stepped into the role of Katniss Everdeen in 2012's "The Hunger Games" the number of strong, independent superheroines has exploded on the big screen. 

Amy Adams and Emma Stone's portrayals of Lois Lane ("Man of Steel") and Gwen Stacy ("The Amazing Spider-Man") are a far cry from damsels in distress.  

In 2015, Elizabeth Olsen will join Marvel's "Avengers" sequel as the Scarlet Witch, while Gal Gadot gears up as the new Wonder Woman in the big "Batman / Superman" movie. 

But they weren't the first to bring famous comic characters to life on screen.

*Note: We are aware Lois Lane, Gwen Stacy, and Mary Jane aren't technically superheroines, but their characters are too iconic to leave off the list.

Then: Before Amy Adams, Noel Neill was the original red-headed Lois Lane in the TV show "Adventures of Superman" (1953-1958).

Now (Age: 93): Since then, Neill has been involved in countless Superman shorts and TV series appearances. She even had a small role in 2006's "Superman Returns" ...

The photo above shows Noel Neill reunited with actor Jack Larson who played Jimmy Olson in the 1950s "Superman" television series.

Then: Julie Newmar played Catwoman in the 1966-1968 television series "Batman."

We can't wait for the new "Star Wars" movie next year. 

Until then, while we rewatch the first six (or maybe five) films, we can't think of a better way to mentally prepare than with nostalgic photos from the set.

"Star Wars" actor Peter Mayhew who played Chewbacca in the series has shared more than 50 photos on Twitter this week from the making of the original trilogy. 

We've selected some of the best to feature below with his commentary. Apparently, director George Lucas was referred to as Zazzle MoonBreaker on set sometimes.

You can check out the full collection here.

Happy Friday!

"There's no evidence to support rumors that George wanted to write himself into the movie as Zazzle Moonbr- oh wait...""Check out Han's face. 'Dude, that's your SISTER". Meanwhile Chewie thinks, 'not MY sister!'."
"The glow monster from ROTJ that you never saw. Maybe it will return in episode VII?"

Mayhew later clarified more details on that: "Ok, truth. The 'glow monster' was an effect that never happened. They were going to superimpose an alien over the actor, making it 'glow'"

"Stop, in the name of love, before you break my heart..."

"Ok, you lot really like pics of a certain princess! Here's one of Carrie and her stunt double. You're Welcome."

"Yup, this is how it was done a long time ago, in..."

"Practicing before they broke out the real lightsabers. Those things were dangerous!"

"Another joyous moment on the set!! 0_o"

"Its been 30 minutes, here is your gratuitous Chain-mail bikini shot. And look at @HamillHimself shirt!" 

"'You are not Zazzle MoonBreaker'
'I am not Zazzle MoonBreaker'
'You like being behind the camera'
'I like...'"

"Some ROTJ pics focused around Jabas barge and the sandstorm..." 

"Irvin had a fierce way of correcting you when you missed a mark. I look on in terror in the background..."

"You know Kenny as R2D2, but he was also Paploo, the Ewok who stole the Imperial Speeder Bike."

See the rest here >

SEE ALSO: 21 movies you need to see this year

Join the conversation about this story »

It looks like we may have our first contender for worst-reviewed movie of the year.

This weekend's "The Legend of Hercules" is sitting at 2% on Rotten Tomatoes with 41 poor reviews.

(Earlier, the film was sitting at 0%.) For what it's worth, the one "fresh" review says the film's not that great, too.

The movie stars Kellan Lutz, a secondary character in the "Twilight" movies, who — outside of that franchise — isn't really well-known for any other roles. 

Why is "Hercules" so awful?

Here's the worst of what the reviews have had to say:

NY Daily News:

"It's amazing to think there were grown-ups behind the making of 'The Legend of Hercules.'

This ludicrously written, buffoonishly acted, irritatingly filmed sword-and-sandals epic hasn't half the sand, sweat or saltiness of other titles in the genre"

Indiewire:

"A movie so ugly and woeful that you'll wish you had superhuman strength to pluck your own eyeballs out of your head ... 

"Harlin is content to go through the motions, endlessly aping the style of countless recent sword and sandal movies, most notably "300," with the director even mimicking Zack Snyder's love of "speed ramping"– where a piece of action is slowed down dramatically before being immediately sped up. The problem is that Harlin's version of these flashy techniques innately feels like a rip-off, and a cheap, poorly photographed, post-converted-into-3D rip-off at that."

Screencrush:

"The best way to describe ‘The Legend of Hercules’ is as the fake movie that teenagers in movies go to see.

"Ripping off more from ‘Gladiator’ and, frankly, the story of Christ than the typical Hercules myth (no “12 labors” here, though the Nemean Lion gets a shout out) Lutz, a big lump of hamburger that makes Taylor Kitsch look like Daniel Day-Lewis in the acting department, is the half-human, half-divine hero destined to restore balance to the kingdom." 

Film.com: 

"Judging from the production design, costumes, and post-production crafts, “Legend of Hercules” didn’t have the pockets to be ambitious. Talk of quarreling armies and godly interference are undermined by the suffocating scale (somehow, half-baked CG backgrounds still don’t a candle to good ol’ fashioned matte paintings). There’s nothing mythic about this “Hercules.” The filmmaking seems all too aware of that fact." 

The Hollywood Reporter:  

"Even the fight and battle scenes are unexciting because they're bogus, contrived and derivative; are we supposed to ooh and aah at twists and turns and stutter-action moves that began seeming old a year after The Matrix came out, and have been outdone by countless video games?" 

The Washington Post:

"Recurring visions of the fake moon were just some of the moments that caused outbursts of incredulous laughter during a recent screening. Another such instance came when Hercules kills the Nemean lion, a computer-generated monster that looks like an animatronic stuffed animal ... 

"The movie is the cinematic equivalent of a run-on sentence that never pauses for a breather. It doesn’t appear that a lot of time or effort was put into the script, but with this kind of cutting, director Renny Harlin (who also is one of the writers) makes clear what little value he places on words."

Variety: 

"Totally kitsch in execution, from its wooden dialogue to its low-rent international cast and its very CG-looking CGI, “Legend” is ideal fodder for undiscriminating 12-year-old boys on a lazy weekend afternoon, though even they may opt to wait for the Rock in MGM/Paramount’s Brett Ratner-directed “Hercules,” due in July."

SEE ALSO: All the movies that look like they'll bomb this year

AND: 21 movies to see in 2014

Join the conversation about this story »

He did it!

Leonardo DiCaprio won Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical for "The Wolf of Wall Street" at the 71st Golden Globes.

This is DiCaprio's 10th Golden Globes nomination and second win.

He previously won Best Performance in a Motion Picture Drama in 2005 for "The Aviator," a film DiCaprio also worked on with Martin Scorsese.

"The Wolf of Wall Street" has made $97 million at theaters worldwide.

SEE ALSO: All of our Golden Globes coverage here

Join the conversation about this story »

"American Hustle beat out "The Wolf of Wall Street" to win Best Picture for a Comedy or Musical at the Golden Globes.

It was a tough category to win with critic favorites "Her" and "Inside Llewyn Davis," and "Nebraska" all fighting for a win.

David O'Russell directed the film starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, and Bradley Cooper.

It's his third Golden Globe nomination and first win.

"American Hustle" has made $118.5 million worldwide.

SEE ALSO: All our Golden Globes coverage

Join the conversation about this story »