Harrison Ford has been acting for nearly 50 years. Breaking into the business was easy for the Oscar nominee, at least at first.

After landing the role of Han Solo in George Lucas' 1977 "Star Wars" while he was still working as a carpenter, Ford found himself the star of a franchise and, in 1980, appeared in "Star Wars Episode V:  The Empire Strikes Back."

But when Ford was up for the lead role in Steven Spielberg's 1981 Indiana Jones flick, "Raiders of the Lost Ark," getting the part wasn't as easy.

"Star Wars" creator George Lucas happened to cowrite "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and didn't want Ford to appear in yet another one of his films.

"I said, 'Oh, Steven. He's been in two of my movies. I don't want him to be my Bobby De Niro,'" Lucas said in a making-of featurette.

So with Lucas not wanting Ford to be in all of his projects — in a way that's similar to how Robert De Niro has been in many of Martin Scorsese's movies — the production set up a screen test with a fresher face: Tom Selleck.

Watch Selleck's screen test as Indiana Jones below: 

Let's watch part of that again.

Both Lucas and Spielberg thought Selleck was perfect for the part and were ready to shoot with him as the lead. Unfortunately for Selleck, the actor had already filmed a pilot for a CBS detective show called "Magnum P.I." and couldn't get out of the contract.

"[Spielberg and Lucas] held the offer out for about a month," Selleck told the Late Show With David Letterman. "The more they held out the offer and talked to the network the more the network said no ... so I had to kind of move on."

"Magnum P.I." would eventually get picked up — it even won Selleck an Emmy — but it was nothing compared to the $1.8 billion franchise that the Indiana Jones series would go on to be.

And while Lucas may have initially not wanted Ford for the role, in retrospect Lucas said, in a bonus feature for the film, that "He was perfect for the part. I can't imagine anybody else in that part."

SEE ALSO: How ‘Indiana Jones’ Finally Forced Hollywood To Create The PG-13 Rating

Join the conversation about this story »

We've been hearing speculation for weeks now, and it was recently revealed that he was the frontrunner in the race, but now it has reportedly been made official: Roberto Orci will be making his directorial debut helming the untitled sequel to Star Trek Into Darkness, which is for now simply being called Star Trek 3. 

The news comes from Variety, which says that Skydance and Paramount have agreed to have Orci helm the blockbuster sequel, but it doesn't mention who else was being considered for the job.

While J.J. Abrams directed the first two installments of the rebooted franchise, he is now too busy working on Star Wars: Episode VII and will instead will simply be serving as a producer. As we learned back in December, Orci will not be penning the sequel himself, instead leaving those duties up to newcomers J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay (who are also in the midst of working on a Flash Gordon reboot). 

Despite his many, many producing and writing credits, Orci has never worked as a director - never even helming an episode of one of the television shows he helped bring to the small screen. That said, his career has given him the opportunity to work alongside some notable directors, including Michael Bay, J.J. Abrams, Jon Favreau and Marc Webb. I wouldn't be too surprised if his aesthetic as a filmmaker will be finding a middle ground between all of those various styles. 

You may have also noticed that I've gone this entire article without mentioning Alex Kurtzman, who has been Roberto Orci's writing and producing partner for years. The two will continue to work together on the small screen, but last month it was revealed that they will no longer be partnering up on feature projects. It would appear that this split can be found in dividing franchises, with Kurtzman moving forward with theAmazing Spider-Man franchise and directing Venom while Orci will journey to the final frontier with Star Trek 3. 

At this time all plot details for the next Star Trek movie remain unknown (big surprise there), but it's expected that all of the principal castmembers from the last two movies - including Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, Jon Cho and Anton Yelchin - will be coming back. It is currently unknown exactly when Star Trek 3 will actually be getting off the ground, but given the stage of development and how crowded the 2015 season is, I wouldn't expect to see the film before 2016. 

SEE ALSO: There are at least 3 "Star Wars" spin-off movies in the works

Join the conversation about this story »

When "Godzilla" roars into theaters this Friday, cinema's greatest monster will go up against the world's largest military, the U.S. armed forces.

But how much of a chance would the U.S. military actually have against a 355-foot tall radioactive Godzilla? 

To find out, we spoke with the film's Military Technical Advisor, retired Sgt. Maj. James Dever and asked how the U.S. military would hypothetically take on the monster, and, more importantly, whether they could do it.

"The military would be very successful," said Dever. "With the manpower and the equipment we have, we'd definitely be successful in taking down Godzilla." 

"The armed forces would use all their means," he added. "The Air Force would use their F-15's and F-16's... Marine Corps with their F-18's and Harrier Jets, the United States Navy with their F-18's and aircraft carriers. If that didn't work, the ground troops would be moved in using the M1 Abrams tanks."

Even though Dever predicted the military would win out in the long run, he did see two complications that would pose the most difficulties: Godzilla's fiery "Atomic Breath" and the battle taking place in a densely populated city.

In the movie, Godzilla eventually surfaces in San Francisco.

"Once he's in the city our major concern are all the civilians," said Dever. "The military would put their combined effort to move all the civilians out before we could engage him."

While Godzilla would realistically take on all branches, the movie primarily focuses on the U.S. Navy.

Many scenes in the film take place on aircraft carriers and the movie's main protagonist, Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is a Navy lieutenant.

According to Dever, the use of the Navy makes sense given its use of ships, sonar, and submarines would have the best advantage at tracking and taking down the amphibious monster.

"They [The Navy] have the advantage of tracking and following in the air and in the seas," Dever told us.

Another pressing question in a real-life battle with Godzilla would be if the U.S. would consider using a nuclear weapon especially considering the monster's radioactive history.

Dever said it may be an option if the military felt it could work. However, the ultimate decision would come from the President and would only be used after civilians were evacuated.

He added that even though the battle would be unlike any other, it wouldn't be too long before Godzilla was eventually destroyed.

"It's not a known thing fighting monsters," said Dever. "But we'd give it our best, and hope he would go down in a day or two."

SEE ALSO: 25 Photos That Show What It Would Be Like If 'Godzilla' Tore Through The US Today

Join the conversation about this story »

If you've never heard of Screen Junkies, you're about to have a new weekly must-watch.

The YouTube channel puts out a series of Honest Trailers for popular movies, both old and new. 

They've looked at everything from "Star Wars" to "Batman & Robin," and even "Frozen." They're all pretty spot-on, picking out obvious plot holes and coincidences you may not notice in big Hollywood blockbusters.

This week, ahead of the new "Godzilla" film, Screen Junkies released an Honest Trailer for Sony's heavily panned 1998 adaptation of the monster. It's a must-see if you're heading out to see the new version this weekend.

1998's "Godzilla" went on to make $379 million worldwide, so it wasn't a total box-office bust; however, Sony's picture was trashed by both critics and audiences. (The movie sits at 25% on Rotten Tomatoes.)

The film is such a taboo topic that at the New York City press junket for the new film, actor Ken Watanabe told us they don't speak about the 1998 movie. 

Watch the honest trailer:

Here's a brief breakdown of what made the film did wrong:

Matthew Broderick is given a silly, hard-to-pronounce name that everyone gets wrong in the movie.

Godzilla is essentially made into a giant lizard.

This overly-done French foreign intelligence agency.It pretty much killed the career of Maria Pitillo who won a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress.

The U.S. military destroys more of NYC than Godzilla.

It felt like a "Jurassic Park" ripoff.

SEE ALSO: Here's how the military would actually fight Godzilla

SEE ALSO: "Godzilla" is bogged down by a bunch of boring characters

Join the conversation about this story »

“Godzilla” writer Max Borenstein and director Gareth Edwards reserved the beast for a big fight at the end, hoping to avert the failings of recent movies that have wasted their best assets early on.

And in the process they angered some film critics who feel there isn't enough Godzilla. Enough with Aaron-Taylor Johnson and his dreamy blue eyes; they want massive battles between primordial beasts that dwarf their human surroundings.

Borenstein defended the creative choice during a recent conversation with TheWrap, talking also the need to build more suspense in movies.

“Everyone is going to have a different opinion about it,” Borenstein said. “When you go into a movie and from the very beginning it's go go go with two monsters fighting, the only thing you have to look forward to is another fight. It's hard to build tension if you've given the ghost away early on.”

Borenstein is a fixture in the writer's room at Legendary Pictures, the studio that produced “Godzilla,” as well as last summer's “Pacific Rim.” He co-wrote “Seventh Son,” an adventure story starring Jeff Bridges that will open next year, and an unproduced Jimi Hendrix biopic.

Though Borenstein wrote intimate dramas at the start of his career, working with one of the biggest producers in Hollywood suits him just fine. He's been angling for a writing gig since the ninth grade. TheWrap spoke with Borenstein about where so many recent monsters movies failed, ‘Godzilla’ and a secret Legendary project.

Fear of the nuclear bomb spawned the first ‘Godzilla’ movie. Does that subject still resonate?
Not in the same way, but what does resonate is the common denominator of Godzilla movies. Godzilla becomes a vessel for the fear of something outside of our control.

The first film is an allegory for nuclear war. The next movie is about alien invasion; that was the subject of the moments in the 1960s. In the 1970s, it was about environmental catastrophe. In the 1990s, it was about bioengineering.

See video: ‘Godzilla’ Trailer Gets the Requisite ‘Barney’ Recut, Courtesy of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’

It's always the theme of the moment; there is always a human fear of some force beyond our control. Right now, that is natural disasters and a sense that no matter how advanced we become, the Internet won't protect us from sudden, cataclysmic disaster.

How does this movie depict that fear?
Our nuclear warheads, the single greatest destructive force we've ever managed to muster as a race, are doggie biscuits to these creatures. We are the tools of the things we think are our tools.

There has been a lot of debate about the amount of Godzilla in this movie. Did you consciously try to keep him in reserve?
It's a fine line. Everyone is going to have a different opinion about it. When you go into a movie and from the very beginning it's go, go, go with two monsters fighting and you see everything, the only thing the viewer has to look forward to is another fight.

It's hard to build tension if you've given the ghost away early on. A lot of my favorite films and a lot of Gareth's favorite films do suspense. That's a feature in all those great Spielberg movies; they use suspense to gradually build to your climax. Nowadays movies give more immediately.

Also read: ‘Godzilla’ Early Reviews: Is Japan's Biggest Export Better Than Ever?

Are there movies you think did it right, and other that did not?
Of course, but there's something to be said for all of those. It's a matter of tone. I loved “Pacific Rim,” but that movie wasn't aiming to reserve anything in terms of those battles. That wasn't the agenda.

We wanted to approach it from this particular tone, and that dictated a lot of our choices.

How did you get involved with ‘Godzilla'?
I'd done some work for Legendary already; I'd written this Jimi Hendrix script and they hired me to do some work on “Seventh Son.” They approached me saying they had the rights to do a new “Godzilla” and Gareth Edwards is attached to direct it. I was excited by that little marriage.

I loved “Monsters.” That movie was this grounded, interesting human story. It speaks to something cool. I went back and watched the original Japanese cut of “Godzilla.” I had only seen the Raymond Burr version. I thought, “how do you make a serious version of this campy thing” and then I realized they made a serious movie before they ever did the campy thing.

It was a grim allegory for nuclear war made in Japan closer to the blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See video: ‘Godzilla’ Freaks Out Bryan Cranston in New Japanese Trailer

Were you a big “Godzilla” fan growing up?
I'd been a fan of “Godzilla” films as a kid in early high school before the last American version was on the horizon. I remember watching “Power Rangers” when that phenomenon came through thinking, this is weird.

I went to the Tower Video store and rented Japanese movies and was attracted to the camp value. By the tie the American version came out in 1998 I was over that phase and didn't like that version. I'd moved on to other interests and obsessions.

Like screenwriting.
I fell in love with movies growing up. I wanted to direct; that's all I knew there was. I had a collection of VHS tapes 600 strong.  I found the number for Oliver Stone's production company and cold-called them. I asked if they had any summer internship openings and went in for an interview, which my dad had to drive me to.

I took this meeting and they said, “it's going to suck; you're going to pour coffee.” Then they read my age and realized I wasn't legally allowed to work there. They felt bad. Jonathan Kraus felt bad and gave me some scripts to read.

When was this?
Ninth grade.

So you didn't perfect the coffee pour?
I never did it! They gave me scripts instead and I met with Jonathan every few weeks. I never had to do the shitty work because I was too young to legally do so. He mentored me through writing my first screenplay, and in college I wrote and directed a feature-length film for zero money.

I came back to L.A. to write another script and right around that point it was optioned. I thought I'd take the writer/director route.

Do you still hope to direct?
I'm building towards that. If anything, writing has pumped me up. I love writing scripts I have no interest in directing. I have some things I'm working on to direct now.

Have you discussed these projects with Legendary?
It may be. Right now the thing I am working on is in its early stages. I am working on another project for Legendary that is top secret.

Jimi Hendrix seems a little off-tone for Legendary.
It's all about the passions of Thomas Tull, the Grand Poobah. He's passionate about Godzilla and he's also a huge rock and roll fan. He's a sports fan, which is why “42” had such a logical home there. I like genre movies, and I am most interested in characters I can sink my teeth into. I started off doing dramas, but then I found myself working on these bigger canvases.

How do you work drama into these grand tales?
It's challenging in any case, and it's very challenging in a movie like “Godzilla.” The scale of the creature dictates there is no anthropomorphic relationship to humanity.

Without that, your options become constrained and limited. You dig deep into the creative well to try and come up with human stories that will feel engaging and emotional. Coming up with set pieces is really fun, and that's the collaborative business of working with the director.

Did you always know Godzilla would be the hero?
He's an animal, but he's a noble beast. He's the king of monsters but like the last Samurai he's the last of his kind. He has a sophisticated intelligence, but not one we understand.

SEE ALSO: Here's How The Military Would Actually Fight Godzilla

Join the conversation about this story »

Unleash the dinobots!

Paramount released a new trailer for “Transformers: Age of Extinction” and it shows off much more of Michael Bay’s robots — including the introduction of dinobots (see above) — than we’ve seen before. 

Taking place years after the first “Transformers” trilogy, the fourth installment brings in Mark Wahlberg as Texan father Cade in a world where Transformers have been ruled as dangerous. After stumbling upon Optimus Prime, the main ‘bot from the first three films, we quickly learn there’s a bigger danger threatening to exterminate the Earth of the human race.  

To take them on, we’ll see characters from the Dinobots toy line like T-Rex Grimlock (above),  triceratops Slug, and pterodactyl Strafe translated onto the big screen. 

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” is in theaters June 27. 

NOW: Take a closer look at the dinobots

Join the conversation about this story »

Getty Images has partnered with Business Insider during the star-studded Cannes Film Festival to present a “Photo of the Day” series throughout the 10-day festival.

Getty photographer Pascal le Segretain — one of the company’s longest serving entertainment photographers who is shooting the festival for the 14^th time this year — chose Nicole Kidman on the "Grace of Monaco" premiere red carpet as his favorite photo of the day Wednesday, despite the film getting slammed by critics.

Pascal explains how he snapped the below image and why it's his favorite:

“Nicole Kidman was the embodiment of grace today in Cannes. Simple eye contact twinned with a natural elegance during the photocall made the picture authentic, giving an insight to what made Nicole Kidman the star she is. This moment of connection between Actress and Photographer creates a feeling of intimacy within the image.”

SEE ALSO: 25 Photos That Show What It Would Be Like If 'Godzilla' Tore Through The US Today

Join the conversation about this story »

When the "Batman/Superman" movie comes to theaters, expect to see a very different Lex Luthor.

While none of the actors have been speaking about their roles in the film, IGN was able to get Jesse Eisenberg to comment on playing one of DC's most iconic villains in a recent interview for his new movie "The Double."

Eisenberg, who was recently cast as Luthor, says Superman's archenemy won't be a reflection of previous performances.

"It'll definitely be played by a different person ... I don't know the history as well as the people making the movie, so I guess it's up to them to figure out how much they want to separate it from previous incarnations,"Eisenberg told IGN. "But I will treat it like it's its own role." 

"There's no way to play the history of the character played by other people, unless you do some kind of wink, but that doesn't seem like a responsible way to act," he added.

The last time we saw Luthor on screen was in the 2006 adaptation, "Superman Returns," where Kevin Spacey played the role.

Here's how he looked:

Eisenberg wouldn't say whether or not he will show off a bald head like the character.

The "Batman/Superman" movie is on track for a May 6, 2016 release.

SEE ALSO: The first photo of Ben Affleck as Batman

AND: Warner Bros. finally announces "Justice League" movie

Join the conversation about this story »

20th Century Fox released a new clip from "X-Men: Days of Future Past" Thursday.

In the clip, Michael Fassbender's Magneto drops into a baseball stadium before he uses his mutant magnetic powers to rip it from the ground.

Watch the short clip below:  

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" takes place in the real world and in the real time of the 1970s, so the stadium Magneto is destroying is actually a real place.

From watching the clip, you can see that the stadium has distinct red and yellow seats and doesn't look like one that is still being used by a professional Major League Baseball team.

So what is the real-life baseball stadium that Magneto is destroying?

According to The Washington Post, the answer is Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.

RFK is the former home of Washington, D.C.'s baseball teams the Senators (from the park's opening in 1961 to 1971) and the Nationals (from 2005 to 2007) along with the Washington Redskins football team (from 1961 to 1996).

The field is no longer used for baseball or football but is the current home to Washington's Major League Soccer team, DC United.

Why Magneto chooses to uproot RFK won't be known for sure until the film hits theaters next Friday.

But by the looks of the film's trailers, Magneto's hatred of the government and the stadium's proximity to the White House (which is only 4 miles away) probably isn't good news for the president.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" hits theaters May 23.

SEE ALSO: Here’s Why An ‘X-Men’ Teaser Is Playing At The End Of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’

Join the conversation about this story »

When you head out to see "Godzilla" this weekend, there are a few scenes you won't see in the final film. 

While attending the press junket for the Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures’ picture, director Gareth Edwards said a lot of ideas didn't make it into the final film during a roundtable interview. However, the one that hit him the hardest was a brief scene with "Godzilla" actor Akira Takarada who appeared in six versions of the film including the 1954 original. 

"From an emotional point of view in terms of my love of Godzilla, the hardest thing was Akira Takarada, who was in the original films, did a cameo for us on day one," said Edwards. "He played an immigration's officer that welcomes Aaron's character to Japan, and so I was like, 'This is perfect: Day One. First Shot.'"

Edwards explained the choice later on in production to cut the scene.

"There was a lot of pressure to get on with the adventure and get to the monsters you know, as soon as you can. So, lots of things came out of that part of the movie ... and I hung onto that [scene with Takarada] til the last second, and it was still deemed, by the screenings when we tested it, that we had to get it shorter. And so that ended up having to go which is probably my biggest regret." 

Last year, Legendary Pictures tweeted a photo of Takarada and Edwards on set.

After Takarada announced in April the scene would no longer be in the film, fanboys launched a petition to put Takarada back into the film.

"When you make a film there are many, many scenes and a lot of my favorite little ideas or shots are not in the movie because you've got to think of it as a whole," said Edwards.

Edwards added he reached out to Takarada about the decision to cut his cameo.

"I've written to him," Edwards said. "He did a chat show I believe and he's a real gentleman so I think he was understanding but, you know, it's just one of those horrible things about the process."

More Godzilla: The movie is bogged down by a bunch of boring characters

SEE ALSO: Here's how the military would deal with a real-life Godzilla

Join the conversation about this story »

"Godzilla" opened in theaters late Thursday evening.

If you've seen the trailers, you know one of the coolest parts is a skydiving sequence, showing members of the military paratrooping from a plane in order to engage the monster.

Check it out:

You may have also noticed something that struck you as odd.

After the jump, you see these red streaks of smoke follow the paratroopers on the way down.

It doesn't only appear in the trailers.

The smoke was also a big part of one of the film's promotional posters.Then in the film's main trailer, while the U.S. military is attacking Godzilla with its standard weaponery like giant aircraft carriers, one of the scenes shows soldiers shooting tiny red flares towards the massive monster.

Obviously, red flares and smoke are no match for Godzilla, so why are they so prominent? What is their purpose?

When we spoke with the film's Military Technical Advisor, retired Sgt. Maj. James Dever, he explained how something as small as red flares could be effective against something as big as Godzilla.

"The use of the red flares was never to attack the creature," said Dever. "It was used to divert the creature ... to distract him."

The flares — and red smoke — divert the monster's attention long enough for the military to use its more powerful artillery or even clear the area.

In real life, the military uses smoke and flares in similar ways.

Smoke can be used to create smoke screens for cover and the different colors of the smoke can signify enemy targets and identify landing areas for aircraft.

While flares can be defensive countermeasures, which can be seen in the clip below of a CV-22 Osprey military helicopter testing their flare defense system. 

SEE ALSO: Here's How The Military Would Actually Fight Godzilla

AND: "Godzilla" is bogged down by a bunch of boring characters

Join the conversation about this story »

Production of "Star Wars: Episode VII" is officially underway.

To mark the big day, director J.J. Abrams' production company Bad Robot tweeted out the first photo from the set.

It's not much, but its still enough to get fans excited. 

#dayonepic.twitter.com/18jtSH7xYM

— Bad Robot (@bad_robot) May 16, 2014

You'll notice the only title seen is "Star Wars: Episode VII."

The sand gives a hint that filming may be underway in Abu Dhabi. Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn previously said the film started shooting there this month.

Update: The official Star Wars Twitter account just shared its own photo from the first day of shooting. Check out the studio where "Episode VII" is filming.

Day one at @PinewoodStudios. #StarWarsVIIpic.twitter.com/bIleOi44Dn

— Star Wars (@starwars) May 16, 2014

The film will be released December 18, 2015.

SEE ALSO: The new "Star Wars" film will cost at least $175 million to make

Join the conversation about this story »

The Tom Cruise sci-fi movie “Edge of Tomorrow” has a lot of ground to make up if it's going to avoid being summer's first big-budget box-office dud.

The futuristic Warner Bros. action film is looking at a June 6 weekend debut in the $25 million-$30 million range, according to pre-release tracking that came online Thursday morning. Emily Blunt co-stars in the film, which is directed by Doug Liman.

Tracking, particularly early, is intended to be a marketing tool rather a gauge of box office potential and there is still time for the studio to build momentum. But “Edge of Tomorrow” at this point isn't packing the punch of”Oblivion,” another Cruise sci-fi film that opened to $37 million last April.

Also read: Tom Cruise Spends ‘an Eternity’ Dying in New ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Trailer (Video)

That means “Edge of Tomorrow” will have to do a lot of business overseas if it hopes to make up its $175 million production budget and marketing costs.

Compounding the problem for “Edge of Tomorrow” is that it's opening against Fox's “The Fault in Our Stars.” The romantic drama starring Shailene Woodley came on tracking as well Thursday — in the $25 million range as well.

The adaptation of John Green's bestselling young-adult novel about young cancer patients finding love only stands to gain ground, because it has been a monster on social media — outstripping many of the summer's biggest movies — so it's very likely to go higher.

Also read: Shailene Woodley Falls in Love With Ansel Elgort in New ‘Fault in Our Stars’ Trailer (Video)

Fox marketers have mobilized the book's rabid young-female readers with an aggressive multi-city screening campaign, and “Fault” fanatics are making big noise on social media. For the past week, Twitter mentions of “Fault” have outstripped those of “Godzilla,” Fox's blockbuster-to-be “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” “Neighbors” and Disney's “Maleficent.” The first trailer from the film has been viewed 17 million times and “liked” on YouTube more than any film in history.

With a production budget of $12 million, “Fault In Our Stars” looks very much like a winner for Fox.

SEE ALSO: Tom Cruise Fights For Eternity In The New 'Edge Of Tomorrow' Trailer

Join the conversation about this story »

When in-flight movies became popularized on commercial planes in the early 1960s, air travel was like riding in a movie theater in the sky. Now going to the movies is going to be like riding in an airplane on the ground. 

Cineplex has announced they’ll be testing a new service at their flagship theater in Toronto. And when I say a new service, I really mean to say it’s an old service just with a new service charge.

The idea is to make center auditorium seating cost more to patrons, because that’s a favored spot. I guess. Personally I prefer aisle seats, especially at theaters with tighter space between rows. The only time I like to sit in the middle is at an IMAX show.

Earlier today I saw a headline for this announcement and I immediately thought about how some airlines gouge their customers with added charges for a checked bag or for more leg room or for an aisle or window seat. Even though it’s the opposite on a flight — people prefer not to be in the middle — it sounded liked Cineplex was inspired by Spirit, for example, as they’re one of the worst offenders as far as taking something previously standard and tacking on a surcharge, especially if it’s liable to make the customer at all comfortable. I was rather surprised to find that the theater chain actually acknowledged an airline industry influence in their announcement.

“It’s really about providing our guests with choices when they go to the movies,” said spokesperson Pat Marshall, as quoted by The Star. “I sort of position it akin to an aircraft where you have your regular coach seating, then you might want a bit more amenities, so you go into business class, and then you have a first-class.”

But sitting in the middle seats is hardly like sitting in first class on a flight. Unless they’re going to be bigger and sectioned off from the lower class customers and come with a complimentary glass of champagne. If you’re going to make an airline analogy for something like this, you’re only going to make it more apparent that it’s like making customers pay more for a window seat. Or for a headset. It makes me think that next they’ll charge extra if we want to bring a sweater into an over-air-conditioned auditorium. Meanwhile, many cinemas already have D-Box motion seats, which lets us feel even more like we’re on a plane, specifically one with a lot of turbulence.

There’s also something that Cineplex ought to realize, and that’s a very big distinction between a movie theater and an aircraft: we need the latter a lot more than we need the former. Sure, there are other forms of transportation, but none as speedy and convenient as air. And when you’re on a flight, there’s not a lot of freedom of choice.

That’s why the airlines can get away with a lot of the crap they currently are getting away with. The only alternative is to pay a whole lot more for better seats. But if you gotta fly, you gotta fly. Movie theaters can’t get away with a whole lot these days, because it’s a lot easier for people to just not go to the movies. If you gotta watch a must-see movie, you can wait and rent or stream the thing in a matter of months.

You’d think that the smarter thing to do here would be to offer cheaper tickets for the less desirable seats. Knock off a few bucks for the front two rows or the seats all the way over to the side. But theater owners don’t do that kind of thing. Sometimes they’ll try to avoid increasing costs, like when they keep a concession price the same but decrease the size of the popcorn bag or soda cup. But in spite of the interest of theater owners to introduce cheaper ticket prices, there will always be more interest in introducing new fees for things they try to make seem like a good deal.

If this sort of practice is kept up, one day we won’t have any more cinemas, because everyone will stop going to them, and an in-flight screening won’t just seem like being in a movie theater in the sky, but that will be the only kind of movie theater there is.

SEE ALSO: 5 Of The Most Awesome Movie Theaters In America

Join the conversation about this story »

Forget Spider-Man. Forget Godzilla. 

This summer will belong to the mutants.

Early reviews are pegging "X-Men: Days of Future Past" as the movie of the summer.

Currently, the movie is sitting at 94% on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. While we still have a week before its release, that's better than "Godzilla" (74%) and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" (53%).

Here's why the movie sounds like a must-see.

Unlike other superhero movies, “X-Men” isn’t full of gratuitous destruction. 

Variety:

"No skyscrapers blow up, no cities are leveled, and while the White House and a football stadium suffer some serious structural damage, the wholesale destruction of human civilization is kept to a refreshing minimum."

Jennifer Lawrence and Hugh Jackman are both great, returning as Mystique and Wolverine.The Hollywood Reporter (THR): 

"Jackman brings powerful physicality, laconic humor and depths of sorrow beneath his gruffness that make him an unusually nuanced figure for a sci-fi action movie."

"Lawrence is sensational, whether slinking around in Mystique's body-hugging blue reptilian skin, displaying the shape-shifter's balletic fight skills or adopting seductive human form."

However, it's Quicksilver, a lightning-fast mutant played by Evan Peters, who will have everyone talking.IGN:

"The movie’s biggest surprise is actually the character that’s been the greatest object of scorn online: Quicksilver. Yes, Quicksilver’s not only awesome here, but he pretty much steals the show at one point."

Variety:

"Quicksilver steals every scene he’s in, especially one brilliant, deliriously fun action sequence that reveals how everything seems to advance in slow-motion from his perspective."

It's not the only awesome sequence.

THR: 

"The midsection includes thrilling action set pieces too. One involves the chaos that ensues when the X-Men thwart Mystique's initial attempt to kill Trask, spilling from an official building out into the crowded square below." 

One of the only issues, The Wrap notes that you may want to brush up on your X-Men history before heading to theaters.

"Do some light streaming, dig out the DVD box sets, browse the Wikipedia pages or consult the cashier at your neighborhood comic store, but make sure you come into the theater with a fairly confident grasp of what went down in “X-Men,” “X2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” — “The Wolverine,” oddly, not so much — since the screenplay by Simon Kinberg (“Sherlock Holmes”) assumes you already know mutant chapter and verse."

A few reviews also suggest Peter Dinklage's character Bolivar Trask is a bit of a letdown.

HitFix:

"The one weak link, script-wise, is Bolivar Trask, played here by Peter Dinklage. It feels like Dinklage does as much as he can with the role, but there's really no weight to him as an antagonist." 

IGN:

"It's also surprising how mundane Dinklage’s Bolivar Trask turns out to be. He may be played by an awesome actor, but Trask never manages to be that compelling a villain despite the huge stakes hinging on his survival."

Overall, it sounds like a good time.

The Wrap:

"Still, this is the best “X-Men” movie since Singer went off to other pursuits, and it puts enough of a whammy onto the mutant narrative to allow future sequels to veer off in any number of directions." 

Total Film:

"With style, heart and thrills, Singer has nailed the most ambitious X-flick yet. Popcorn pizzazz combines with X2’s emotional sweep and something extra: a platform for the X-Men’s screen survival."

The Hollywood Reporter:

"While it's more dramatically diffuse than the reboot and lacks a definitive villain, the new film is shot through with a stirring reverence for the Marvel Comics characters and their universe. And it ups the stakes by threatening nothing less than the genocide of the mutant population, among them faces old and new. Huge worldwide box office seems guaranteed." 

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" is in theaters May 23. Check out a trailer below: 

SEE ALSO: 25 photos that show what it would be like if "Godzilla" tore through the US today

AND: Here's how the military would fight Godzilla

Join the conversation about this story »

The first full trailer for "Interstellar" is here!

The film is the next highly anticipated movie from Christopher Nolan (the director of "The Dark Knight" trilogy). 

The trailer for the big space epic starring Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway premiered earlier this week at D.C.'s Air and Space Museum and is currently showing ahead of "Godzilla" screenings out this weekend.

While no official synopsis has yet been released for the picture, it's believed the film will paint a dark picture about the future focusing on a shortage of food that will make it necessary for mankind to find another home. 

"Interstellar" is expected in theaters Nov. 7.

SEE ALSO: 25 photos that show what it would be like if "Godzilla" tore through the US today

Join the conversation about this story »

Mike Leigh may be the early toast of the Cannes Film Festival for his “Mr. Turner,” his bold meditation on the life and art of painter J.M.W. Turner, but it wasn't easy getting the film to the Croisette.

The lavish period piece was made for around $15 million – as producer Georgina Lowe told TheWrap, 1 million pounds less than was spent on Leigh's last period piece, “Topsy Turvy,” a full 15 years ago.

Corners were cut at every opportunity – and one particularly striking shot of horses running across a field where Turner is standing, she said, came by accident when wild horses simply  happened to run through the frame while Leigh was shooting.

When he called “cut,” she said, the production crew exchanged high-fives at their good fortune.

Pulling off a lavish period film on such a small budget, Leigh admitted at a small press luncheon on Friday, was satisfying but also troubling.

“Part of me thought, maybe we should make a bad movie,” he said with a smile. “Then we could say to [the financiers], ‘See what happens when you don't give us enough money?’

“Now they're going to expect us to do it again.”

So far, “Mr. Turner” is the clear hit of the three-day-old festival, with Leigh returning in triumph to the place where he won the Palme d'Or 18 years ago with “Secrets & Lies.”

Critics have been lavish in their praise of the purposefully meandering drama, in which Timothy Spall plays Turner as a man so conflicted and repressed that he speaks more often in grunts than in compete sentences. Though the Best Actor category is often brutally crowded, Spall is likely one of the year's first legitimate Oscar contenders – and, the actor admitted at the same lunch, he's also a candidate for an unlikelier honor if the film catches on after Sony Pictures Classics releases it in December.

“It's like the fart app on your iPhone,” Spall said with a groan. “There could be the Turner Grunt App.”

See photos: 25 Outtakes From CannesWrap's Director Photo Shoots (Photos)

While Leigh has been trying to get a Turner film off the ground for years, the 71-year-old director said his impressions of the artist growing up were limited to “landscapes, chocolate boxes, biscuit tins.” Later, he said, he realized the range and drama in Turner's art, and the dramatic potential in a man who was in many ways crippled socially and personally by the relationship with his mother, most likely a schizophrenic who was sent to an asylum.

“The whole eccentricity of the guy – the Turner of our research almost felt like a character in a Mike Leigh film,” he said.

Leigh's script-free films generally begin with his actors working for months to invent their characters, and then improvising situations in which those characters can interact. And even though in this case he was dealing with a man who left an historical record, Leigh told TheWrap at the luncheon that his method didn't change.

“The film was made in the exact same process as my other films,” Leigh said. “I did what I always do, which is to do a massive amount of preparation, research, development of characters, improvisation, etc.

“And then what I always do, and this film was no exception, is that before I start to shoot the film I do a kind of structure. And then the job is to go out on location and make the film to fit the structure.”

Also read: Ryan Reynolds’ Cannes Thriller ‘The Captive’ Draws (and Deserves) Boos

This time, though, history dictated some small changes. “Obviously, it's not all people having arguments on staircases and in back gardens, as sometimes my films are,” he said.  ”There are all kinds of disciplines built into it. The thing you have to understand about not having a script is that we wind up with something very precise, and very scripted indeed. And that's making the film, rather than writing a piece of literature on paper.”

And now that he's the toast of Cannes, don't expect the iconoclastic British director to willingly mouth platitudes when he's asked how he likes the way the fest has taken to his film.

“I'm tempted to say I was furious about the reaction [at the premiere] last night, that I want everyone to hate it and I don't want anyone to see it,” he said when a reporter at a small Friday press luncheon asked Leigh to comment on the lavish praise.

Then he shrugged. “What am I supposed to say? It's great. You make films. They could sink into obscurity. This is the opposite. You want people to appreciate what you do, and it's wonderful.”

SEE ALSO: This Cannes Photo Shows Why Nicole Kidman Is Such A Star

Join the conversation about this story »

A great interactive graphic highlighted on Reddit shows that critics' reviews aren't always accurate representations of popular opinion about a particular movie.

Ph.D. student Ben Moore analyzed critic and public ratings from popular review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes.

The site assigns each movie a percentage based on the share of positive reviews it got from critics. Rotten Tomatoes also gives an "audience" rating that shows how many users rated the movie positively.

Moore looks at the difference between critic reviews and audience ratings from the site.

The most overrated movies (films reviewed positively by critics but disliked by audiences) might surprise you:

1. "Spy Kids" (critics: 93%, audience: 45%)
2. "3 Backyards" (critics: 76%, audience: 31%)
3. "Stuart Little 2" (critics: 81%, audience: 40%)
4. "Momma's Man" (critics: 91%, audience: 50%)
5. "About a Boy" (critics: 93%, audience: 54%)

The kids' movies that made the list could be explained by the fact that most of the people who are rating the movies on Rotten Tomatoes probably aren't kids, and therefore not the target audience of the film.

But it's still surprising to see "Spy Kids" was so beloved by critics.

Now here's a look at the most underrated movies from Moore's analysis:

1. "Facing the Giants" (critics: 13%, audience: 86%)
2. "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" (critics: 16%, audience: 87%)
3. "Grandma's Boy" (critics: 18%, audience: 86%)
4. "Step Up" (critics: 19%, audience: 83%)
5. "Because I Said So" (critics: 5%, audience: 66%)

Many of the movies that made the "most underrated" list were popular with moviegoers but not necessarily considered great cinema.

You can check out the interactive graphic with dozens more movies at rCharts.

(via Reddit, lejeuneytunes)

SEE ALSO: This Deleted 'Amazing Spider-Man 2' End-Credits Scene Gives A Huge Hint At The Next Sequel

Join the conversation about this story »

If you see "Godzilla" in theaters this weekend, you'll come face to face with the 355-foot tall monster; however, that wasn't the way the monster always looked.

It took a lot of work and designs to get Godzilla the way he looks in the final movie.

Many of the early concept designs for Godzilla are shown in a new book out this week, "Godzilla: The Art of Destruction," in which director Gareth Edwards details the inspiration for the many renderings and why certain looks didn't work out.

Believe it or not, but dogs, birds, and even bears all played a role in designing Godzilla's final look. 

Business Insider received permission to exclusively share some of the early concept designs featured in the book.

First, here's how Godzilla looks in the film. Director Gareth Edwards says he wanted to be able to find a look for Godzilla where the creature looked good from every angle.

“We knew we were going to be living with this design for the rest of our lives in some form,” Edwards said. “You don’t want to be looking at this and be like, ‘Oh, we could’ve done better.’”

"This one had that Christmas tree effect for the fins," said Edwards. "They seemed incredibly big, and you didn't see that form anywhere else on his body. And the lightning effect made it kind of hard to understand what you were looking at."

Thirteen years ago, former gore auteur and monster enthusiast Peter Jackson brought The Lord of the Rings to the mainstream with his celebrated adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s landmark fantasy novels.

Even today, the films are looked at as something of a miracle; no one guessed that a trilogy of pictures about Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, dark lords, swords, and occasional sorcery might end up being hugely successful on both critical and commercial levels, or that they might wind up nearly taking a clean sweep of the Academy Awards in 2004.

Whatever the case may be, fans and critics aren’t the only ones who see a difference between the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films: Viggo Mortensen, Aragorn himself, thinks Jackson’s new set of Tolkien pictures are too overwhelmed by their special effects. Mortensen is currently doing the rounds at Cannes, where he took the opportunity to sit down for an interview with the The Telegraph to discuss his latest film, The Two Faces of January. During their chat, the topic of Lord of the Rings came up, which led into a frank and unflattering discussion of The Hobbit, as well as Jackson’s proclivities toward CGI.

Put in short, Viggo isn’t too impressed with The Hobbit‘s overindulgence of computerized effects work. Here’s the full quote from Mortensen:

Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

Jackson fans are probably sharpening their Barrow-blades for Viggo already. But the once and future king of Gondor isn’t repudiating Jackson’s style as much as he’s quietly critiquing it; his comment is phrased gently and stated with class. For Viggo, this is a matter of taste and preference. Given his post-Rings role choices (which include a trio of more character-heavy dramas from Canadian director David Cronenberg, with A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, and A Dangerous Method), it’s easy to see where he’s coming from.

Does he have a point, though? There is a lot of CGI in both Hobbit films, and in places where Jackson would have used practical effects over a decade ago, but the key to Viggo’s remark might be his opening line. Jackson has indeed always been obsessed with technology and with FX, from his early days directing bad taste B-horror classics like Dead Alive and, well, Bad Taste, to his last pre-Rings effort, The Frighteners; the man loves his toys and it shows, though perhaps not always for the better. But as Viggo acknowledges, that emphasis on FX is apparent in his scrappier, DIY productions to the films that he’s known for making today.

So the Jackson we know today isn’t really all that different from the Jackson who built a cult following out of New Zealand nearly thirty years ago. The only real change is that he has money and clout now, which means greater access to state of the art tools to create his effects. Even if the results don’t always pan out, nobody can really say that the Jackson of 2014 is a fundamentally different filmmaker than the Jackson of 1987, no matter how much CGI he decides to use in his later-day projects.

Viggo’s comment probably won’t make him very popular among the Jackson faithful – it looks like he’s biting the hand that fed him, even if he isn’t – but given how much more PJ has come to rely on CG effects with The Hobbit films versus the Rings films, perhaps it’s not totally unwarranted, either.

SEE ALSO: Peter Jackson Reveals Why The Final 'Hobbit' Movie Is Getting A Name Change

Join the conversation about this story »