New York Comic Con kicks off this week!

From Thursday to Sunday, fans of all ages will head to the Javits Center in Manhattan to celebrate all things comics, television, and film. 

Last year 133,000 people attended, according to host ReedPop, hoping to see favorite actors and writers at the four-day annual event, now in its ninth year.

We’ll be there all weekend gearing up to see "The Walking Dead" cast and creator, a sneak peek at Disney's coming films, and Netflix's new show "Daredevil."

A first look at two of Disney's next movies.

We've already seen trailers for Disney's first animated Marvel movie, "Big Hero 6," which looks like another early hit. Disney should be sharing a clip from the film out this November.

What we're really excited about is getting our first look at "Tomorrowland," a sci-fi action adventure starring George Clooney and Hugh Laurie based on the area of the same name in the Disney theme parks.

Director Brad Bird ("The Incredibles") and producer Damon Lindelof ("Lost") will be in attendance. Until now, the picture has pretty much been shrouded in secrecy. It was supposed to be released this year but was pushed back to a May 2015 release.

What's next for "Godzilla."

After a huge $92.3 million opening weekend, Legendary and Warner Bros. confirmed a "Godzilla" sequel was in the works.

Director Gareth Edwards will return to direct. Though we know the new film will contain three new foes for 'zilla, we haven't heard much else about the film. That may change Thursday during a 60th-anniversary panel for the monster.

What really happened to Nicolas Cage's Superman movie.

Did you know Nicolas Cage was almost the Man of Steel in a canned Superman movie? 

Tim Burton, who brought us 1989's "Batman" was set to release "Superman Lives" in the summer of 1998; however, the film never made it to theaters.

A coming documentary called "The Death of 'Superman Lives'" plans to reveal what happened to the film. Producers will be on hand to answer questions about Burton's unreleased movie. We even may get to see a few clips from the making of the never-released film.

With "Gone Girl" topping the box office this past weekend, Ben Affleck has another big movie hit under his belt. Add that to his pair of Oscars, and the fact that he's playing Batman in Zack Snyder's "Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice," and it's been a fairly hefty career turnaround for him.

Often cited as one of his weakest projects is the movie of "Daredevil," although we maintain that there are real merits to the director's cut of the film. However, in a new interview with NPR, he was asked if he had regrets over "Daredevil." And, in line with comments he's made in the past, Affleck admitted that he did.

"Indeed I have regrets about 'Daredevil.' I have regrets about all the movies that I don't think were executed properly," he said. "Look, if I thought we were remaking 'Daredevil,' I'd be out there picketing myself. And that goes for other movies as well that I haven't been happy with."

He continued, saying that "I'm hard on myself and I have exacting standards and I want to do excellent work and I don't always succeed, but I think you have to start out with that drive."

He's more confident, as a consequence, with "Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice," noting that it was written by "Chris Terrio, who wrote "Argo," who's not a comic guy. And it's directed by Zack Snyder, who's a incredibly magical sort of visual stylist who's steeped in the comic world. And you have this sandwich of talents. I felt very confident about it".

"Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice" arrives in cinemas in March 2016. "Gone Girl" is in cinemas now.

SEE ALSO: Ben Affleck Refused To Wear A Yankees Hat In 'Gone Girl'

Join the conversation about this story »

For a 26 year old show, The Simpsons has been an unusually hot topic of conversation lately, from their recent 550-episode marathon on the cable channel FXX, to a show at the Hollywood Bowl, to inspired guest-directed couch gags like the one by Don Hertzfeldt. Most 26-year-old human beings are busy settling down, maybe getting married, having a couple kids. At 26, the show has seemingly found new energy and cultural relevancy. As the saying goes, everything d’oh is new again.

The last time I remember this much excitement around The Simpsons was back in 2007, when The Simpsons Movie came to theaters amidst an enormous amount of hype and cross-promotion. (Remember when 7-Eleven turned into Kwik-E Mart? What a magical time that was.) I haven’t seen the film since its debut, but I remember laughing a lot, and thinking that it managed to recapture a lot of the tone and feeling (not to mention the humor) that was missing from newer episodes. Plus, it had Spider-Pig, and that is a joke that never gets old.

The Simpsons Movie made over $500 million worldwide and got great reviews to boot. So why not another? That’s a question Fox executives have apparently asked The Simpsons’ staff before, as revealed by series executive producer James L. Brooks in a wide-ranging interview about his career (which also includes directing movies like Broadcast News) with The Hollywood Reporter. Here’s the transcript of the key exchange:

THR: Is there gonna be another Simpsons movie at some point?

BROOKS: Um… we don’t know. Uh, you know, the-the… Um, perhaps. 

THR: But you haven’t consciously developed one?

BROOKS: No, no. We've been asked to but we haven’t. But we’re doing a lot of other stuff and that’s really… 

Brooks also said that he and the rest of the team felt like they were “risking everything” when they made the first Simpsons Movie, and that it took “two years just to get loose” and start to approach the project the same way they produced making the TV show. Whatever the pressure though, they delivered a really successful movie. Frankly, I think a sequel would be a great way to finally close out the series in a few years; wrap things up with a massive farewell movie that crams in as much fun and as many characters as possible. And now if you’ll excuse me, I need to attend to more important matters, like checking on my copy of The Simpsons Tapped Out. The Halloween event just started!

SEE ALSO: 'Simpsons' Fans Are Upset After 'Minor Character' Death In Season Premiere

Join the conversation about this story »

Well, that femme-centric Ghostbusters reboot is a reality, and upon some reflection, the notion of chicks chasing ghosts is starting to grow on this caveman. 

Paul Feig is officially aboard to execute his idea to relaunch a franchise that Amy Pascal has salivated 0ver for years dominated by an endless wait for Bill Murray to reprise his Peter Venkman, or at least to acknowledge he had read the sequel script. My pal Borys Kit scooped that Feig will be helped by Katie Dippold, his collaborator on the Melissa McCarthy-Sandra Bullock starrer The Heat. Feig’s potential participation cropped up in August, and I must admit, I reacted like a chauvinist in wanting to preserve the spirit of the original, one of my favorite guy films.

Feig, along with Judd Apatow, has done great things to prove that women can be ferociously funny — Feig in the ballsy comedies Bridesmaids and The Heat. He helped launch Kristen Wiig and McCarthy, among others, as breakout movie stars. McCarthy in particular has been a muse for him; we knew she could act, but it was Feig who helped establish her as the best physical movie comedienne to come along since, well … forever.

Feig just finished Spy, a comedy that stars McCarthy and Jason Statham, and already that film has Fox very excited that it will launch a franchise, which is why that studio gave Feigco an overall deal, to hatch R-rated female-driven franchises. Since Feig and Dippold are starting from scratch on the Ghostbusters thing, it will be interesting to see where he is when Spy opens on Memorial Day weekend; Feig likely will have a sequel in the works very soon on that film, too.

All of this must give him some solace that there is no sequel to Bridesmaids, mainly because Wiig just didn’t feel like repeating herself. That seems to be a guy thing (Bullock has said no to The Heat sequel). After seeing the top-grossing R-rated guy comedy, The Hangover, borrow so closely from an inspired first film that it seemed more about paydays than comic payoffs, Wiig probably did the right thing.

SEE ALSO: Here's A Great Infographic Showing How 'Ghostbusters' Came To Be

Join the conversation about this story »

Hollywood studios have long scrambled to work with Adam Sandler, thanks to the financial success of such comedies as Grown Ups, Click and The Wedding Singer. However, it seems Sandler's star is falling, and Netflix might be to blame. 

THR reports that Warner Bros. has just bailed on plans to make The Ridiculous Six, a comedy Western that Sandler was set to headline. The timing of this decision has some suggesting that Sandler's deal to make four films for Netflix was the death nail in a long-troubled project. 

The Ridiculous Six deal between Warner Bros and Adam Sandler's production company Happy Madison has been in the works for months, and it's said a major point of discussion was the budget for this comedy Western. With Sandler committing to front and produce four films for Netflix, it's presumed his schedule abruptly filled up fast. Could this have pushed The Ridiculous Six so far into the future that WB lost interest? That's one possibility. 

Another is that over the course of the months the The Ridiculous Six deal was being worked on, two comedies opened that may have shifted the scales of the film's expectations. For years, no matter how much critics have gnashed our collective teeth over Sandler's dopey comedies, they've largely thrived. But then came Blended. The Warner Bros rom-com reteamed Sandler with his Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates co-star Drew Barrymore, and yet the $40 million picture only took in $46 million domestic. Seth MacFarlane's comedy Western A Million Ways To Die In the West offered a similar underwhelming box office. So perhaps these figures killed Warner Bros' buzz for The Ridiculous Six. 

My bet is it's all of the above. 

This makes for the third studio to pass on The Ridiculous Six. Sony (Grown Ups 2, Hotel Transylvania) was the first to lay claim to the Sandler vehicle, but put it into turnaround in 2012. Paramount briefly pursued the project, but ultimately declined. And now so has WB. But while studios are shunning The Ridiculous Six, this might not be the end for it. After all, Adam Sandler is set to make four movies with Netflix. So, in a weird twist of fate Netflix might have been the killer of The Ridiculous Six as well as its savior. For now, Happy Madison has refused to comment on this possibility. 

Netflix's bid to get into the Sandler business has caused a shakeup at studios. While neither WB nor Sony is willing to comment on whether The Ridiculous Six's new home may be Netflix, both studios have put out word they'd be happy to work with Sandler in the future. In the meantime, studios will be bringing us Sandler's Pixels,which will open July 24, 2015, and Hotel Transylvania 2, due to hit September 15, 2015. Sony is even threatening suggesting Grown Ups 3 could be in the works. Sounds like Sandler will be fine. 

SEE ALSO: Here’s Why Netflix Wants Adam Sandler Even Though Critics Trash His Movies

Join the conversation about this story »

George Clooney surprised fans Thursday at the first day of New York Comic Con by appearing onstage for Disney’s "Tomorrowland" panel, which the actor co-wrote with Damon Lindelof.

“It’s good to see you all. If you guys need to know anything about the plot just ask me — everybody dies in the end,” Clooney joked after taking the stage, adding, "Yes this is my first Comic-Con. Since my Batman I’d been dis-invited from Comic-Con for about 15 years — sorry about the nipples on the suit.” 

RT @BAHjournalist :OMG.#GeorgeClooney& #HughLaurie posing for @nerdist selfie @ Tomorrowland panel.Their faces Haha pic.twitter.com/IqkiRMKYK3

— House's Family (@DrHouseNews) October 9, 2014

"It is not lost on me that I'm spending my honeymoon at Comic Con." George Clooney making a surprise #NYCC appearance pic.twitter.com/w4fUufU6kG

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) October 9, 2014

Clooney was in attendance to debut the first teaser trailer for "Tomorrowland," which, according to The Wrap, is about "a former boy-genius (Clooney), jaded by disillusionment, and Casey (Robertson), a bright, optimistic teen bursting with scientific curiosity, who embark on a danger-filled mission to unearth the secrets of an enigmatic place somewhere in time and space known only as ”Tomorrowland.” What they must do there changes the world–and them–forever."

Tim McGraw, Judy Greer, Kathryn Hahn, Keegan-Michael Key, and Thomas Robinson co-star in the movie, which hits theaters May 22, 2015. Watch below:

SEE ALSO: 10 Huge Reveals We Can't Wait To See At New York Comic Con

Join the conversation about this story »

For a generation of moviegoers, Michael Keaton defined Batman onscreen. After 1989's Batman and 1992's Batman Returns, he stepped away from the superhero franchise, making room for the likes of Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, and Ben Affleck. 

But just because Keaton ushered in the modern superhero movie doesn't mean he feels beholden to it nowadays. In fact, he's never watched a one of Christopher Nolan's wildly popular Batman reboot trilogy. 

He tells Entertainment Weekly: 

"Chris Nolan is great, but I’ve never seen any of the Batman movies all the way through. I know  they’re good. I just have zero interest in those kinds of movies."

This comment is kind of hilarious in the context that Keaton is being interviewed about his latest, Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. In the movie directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, he plays Riggan Thomsan, a washed-up actor best known for playing a burly, growly superhero decades before, and is now haunted by it.

However, while Batman may be a defining part of Keaton's career, he doesn't see it as a defining part of who he is as a person. "The truth is that I was playing a person, just a person," he shared. "And I was both as connected to Riggan and as disconnected from him as you can possibly be. And I have to tell the truth about that." 

Keaton is actually surprised that the public still ties him so fiercely to Batman and its ongoing legacy. He goes on: 

"I mean, people are asking me, ‘Is Ben Affleck going to be any good?’ And my attitude is, First    of all, why would you ask me? Second, he’s probably going to be very good, and third, frankly,  it’s all set up now so that you’re weirdly kind of safe. Once you get in those suits, they really  know what to do with you. It was hard then; it ain’t that hard now."

With all due respect to Michael Keaton. I disagree that stepping into his cowl and cape is as easy as he suggests. Fights still rage over who the best onscreen Batman is.

While many Millennials will rally behind Christian Bale and his gravel-voiced Dark Knight, like Seth Rogen in Neighbors, Keaton will always be my Batman. But in between those two, the caped crusader had a rough couple of movies that proved that the call to be Batman might be one that an actor can't resist. But playing a man who masquerades as a giant bat to fight crime is not for everyone (sorry, Clooney.) 

Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance will close the New York Film Festival this weekend. A theatrical release will follow on October 17th. 

SEE ALSO: 9 Movies We Can't Wait To See At The New York Film Festival

Join the conversation about this story »

Disney set the bar high at New York Comic Con.

The studio kicked off the four day event Thursday at the Javits Center in Manhattan with a lot of free swag and surprises.

Fans entering Comic Con's Main Stage were met with exclusive posters for Disney's upcoming animated Marvel movie "Big Hero 6" and goodie bags tucked under every seat.

Here's a better look at the exclusive New York Comic Con poster created by Japanese artist Kaz Oomoi.

During the panel, host Chris Hardwick told fans that the first 200 people to text "Tomorrowland" to a five-digit number would receive the location for a secret poster signing.

The bag under guest seats was filled with items from Disney's other upcoming movie "Tomorrowland," starring George Clooney and Hugh Laurie.

Fans received pins featuring the logo of the new film.

Inside was also a sneak peek at Disney's original book that will be released in conjunction with the film next spring called "Before Tomorrowland."

Five chapters from the upcoming book are teased with artwork sketches at the end of the mini book.

During the panel, Hardwick told fans to look inside their bags for a white band. Select bags scattered throughout the panel invited recipients to a special secret screening of "Big Hero 6" Thursday evening. 

The movie isn't out in theaters until November 7. Disney's "Tomorrowland," based off a ride in the Disney theme parks, will be released May 22, 2015.

Fans who didn't end up with a free ticket weren't too upset. Disney left fans stunned when George Clooney himself put off his honeymoon to stop by his first ever Comic Con event.

Disney definitely delivered.

SEE ALSO: Fans went wild when George Clooney crashed New York Comic Con

Join the conversation about this story »

Actor Ray Liotta conducted an Ask-Me-Anything session on the Reddit website on Thursday to promote his new movie "Kill the Messsenger," but most fans just wanted to get the inside scoop on the classic Martin Scorcese film "Goodfellas" which he starred in.

The top question of the thread surfaced a bit of trivia from the 1990 film, which had Liotta playing real-life mobster Henry Hill. As one fan named richardwrinkle observed, there was a lot of cooking scenes in the movie, so he wanted to know: was the food actually any good?

"Actually it was," Liotta responded. "The sauce that I was stirring in Goodfellas is actually the sauce of Scorsese's mother. She had made it specifically for us."

Beyond the Italian cooking, Scorcese's mother had a role in the film as the mother of Hill's friend Tommy:

 So what else did Liotta reveal? His favorite line from "Goodfellas":

"F--- you, pay me!" he said. He also answered a couple questions stemming from the famous scene where Tommy appears to be angry after Hill tells him "he's funny." He said the scene was improvised and "just fun," which features Joe Pesci eventually blowing up on him seemingly out of nowhere.

"Would you say Joe Pesci is funny like a clown?" one redditor asked. Liotta responded: "No. Not in the least." 

He is not here to amuse you (language warning):

Take the gun, or leave the cannoli? (If you're unaware, it's a reference to"The Godfather"). "Take the gun," he wrote. Liotta also said his favorite movies that stood out were "Goodfellas,""Narc,""The Identical," and surprisingly, "The Muppets Most Wanted."

"Singing and dancing with Danny Trejo and The Muppets is a once in a lifetime thing," he wrote.

And despite his famous role as a half-Italian mobster, Liotta is not actually Italian, as one fan pointed out: "How does it feel to be the most Italian non-Italian on the planet?"

"It feels great," he wrote. "Thanks for noticing."

He talked about some other stuff in his full AmA here >

Join the conversation about this story »

George Clooney knows you're disappointed with his 1997 film "Batman & Robin."

He is, too, and he knows he'll never live it down. 

The 53-year-old actor shocked fans Thursday when he showed up at New York Comic Con for a panel on his new movie, "Tomorrowland," but conversation quickly turned to his previous role as the Caped Crusader.

"Batman & Robin" has been famously panned by critics and fans alike. 

It all started after panel host Chris Hardwick complimented Clooney on his "excellent Bruce Wayne cosplay." 

Here's how it went down.

"I think since my Batman I was disinvited to Comic Con," joked Clooney. 

Hardwick: "No one would say that ... out loud." 

Clooney: "Oh, but you're saying it. I see the comments' sections on all you guys ... I met Adam West back there [backstage] just now and in my head I was like, 'Hey, I'm really sorry.' He goes, 'Give me a fist bump' and I was like, 'Just hit me. Just hit me.'" 

"Sorry about the nipples on the suit," Clooney added.

It didn't stop there, though. He continued.

"Freeze, Freeze! I apologize for that one." said Clooney referencing the film's many puns.

Clooney has spoken candidly about regrets over "Batman & Robin" in the past.

"With hindsight it’s easy to look back at this and go, 'Woah, that was really s--- and I was really bad in it,'"Clooney told Total Film Magazine in 2011. "It was a difficult film to be good in." 

The actor also told Deadline he keeps a photo of himself as Batman as a "reminder of what can happen when you make movies solely for commercial reasons."

SEE ALSO: Disney gave out a bunch of free swag at NYCC

Join the conversation about this story »

Disney isn't done profiting from "Frozen" just yet.

Last week, I had the opportunity to preview some of this holiday's most anticipated toys at TTPM's (Time to Play Magazine) holiday showcase.

Among the Legos, Barbie dolls, and Nerf guns, it's clear "Frozen" is going to be a big seller this holiday season. 

Toy sets, dolls, and dresses related to Disney's billion dollar movie dominated the floor. 

Here are the "Frozen" toys kids will go crazy for this holiday.

1. Elsa and Anna Light-Up Musical Dresses

Price: $34.99 per dress
Ages: 3 and up

Let's start with the item that should go the fastest.

Earlier this year, desperate parents were shelling out hundreds, and even thousands, of dollars on eBay just to get their hands on "Frozen"-themed dresses for their kids.

So it's no surprise that new dresses for both Queen Elsa and Princess Anna will hit stores. However, these dresses will also light up and play 16-second clips of songs from the film. The Anna dress plays "For the First Time in Forever" while the Elsa dress plays Idina Menzel's version of "Let it Go."

A representative for Jakks Pacific, who puts out the dresses, told us they know there's demand for these dresses and that they don't anticipate any shortage of either one in stores. No exact number of how many dresses will go into production was available.

Buy them here.

2. Snow Glow Elsa

Price: $34.99
Ages: 3 and up

This Elsa doll from Jakks Pacific speaks 15 phrases and sings Oscar-winning "Let it Go" when you raise her arms. If you touch her snowflake necklace, her dress lights up. The doll will be released to sing in up to 25 different languages in the countries where its released. In America, it will sing in both English and Spanish. 

Buy it here.

3. Hide-and-Hug Olaf

Price: $26.99
Ages: 3-5

Think Elf on a Shelf with a "Frozen" twist. The box set comes with an Olaf the snowman stuffed animal along with a book that features a new "Frozen" story, "Do You Want a Hug?"

Buy it here.

4. Olaf Snow Cone Maker

Price: $24.99 
Ages: 4 and up
Release date: October 28, 2014

Kids can turn ice cubes into snow cones by cranking them through the snowman from "Frozen," Olaf.

Buy it here.

5. Frozen Animators' Collection Doll Gift Set

Price: $99.95

Designed by Disney animators, the collector dolls wear satin dresses and come with extra outfits and shoes along with a small Olaf snowman doll.

If the price is a bit hefty, the dolls are also sold separately for $24.95 each.

6. Castle and Ice Palace Playset

Price: $99.95

The Mattel playset is a two-in-one castle for each of the "Frozen" sisters. The dolls seen in the picture are not included. Those are the "Frozen"ice skating Anna and Elsa dolls.

It does come with this adorable Olaf snowman figurine.

Buy it here.

SEE ALSO: One huge change in the 'Frozen' storyline helped make it a billion-dollar movie

AND: A woman is suing Disney for $250 million claiming "Frozen" ripped off her life story

Join the conversation about this story »

George Clooney made a surprise visit to New York Comic Con and shocked everyone in the room.

Join the conversation about this story »

The postponement of the upcoming "Back to the Future" musical to 2016 was revealed a few weeks ago, meaning that the show won't now hit the West End in time for the 30th anniversary of the original movie.

Still, with a LEGO DeLorean released a year or two back, and the recent Secret Cinema events, there's no shortage of affection and ongoing love for the "Back To The Future" trilogy. So much so that some well paid movie executive, you'd imagine, has raised the possibility of a reboot/remake/sequel or Back to the Future 4 on the big screen.

So why has it never happened?

The most obvious answer for this, although it's not a response that Hollywood tends to heed too much, is that narratively the story is told. What else do we really need to know about the adventures of Doc Brown and Marty McFly? We spoke to Travis Knight, who runs the animation company Laika, about sequels in general. His company has never made one, and he specifically said that "when you look at a story, ideally, the story should explore a pivotal moment in the protagonists' life. If we're doing a sequel, by virtue of what it is, it's going to be a diminishment. The second most pivotal moment of his life?"

Appreciating that "Back To The Future" is a story told over three films, Travis Knight's words ring true here nonetheless.

Furthermore, it's a story with wonderfully contained stakes. In the modern world, as others have suggested, "Back To The Future" would have to have more to do with saving the planet than a line or two from Doc Brown about paradoxes. Instead, the first film is about someone who wants his mom and dad to get together. Arguably as simple as that. Can you imagine that getting through the development system now?

[related article: Making Sense of Ghostbusters 3]

Short of giving the time machine to someone else, there's no story about Marty and the Doc crying out to be told. Because their most pivotal story has clearly been done. 

However, that's not enough to stop a new film coming in itself, and rumours pop up every few years about a further "Back To The Future" outing. Co-writer Bob Gale has admitted in the past that "I'm sure Universal would love it if we were to say to them, 'hey, let's do another one.' But we don't think we could ever make a fourth one that would live up to how great the first three are, so we're going to leave well alone."

And that's a key reason why number four never got off the drawing board. That the authors of the first three films didn't want to do it. Crucially, it has to come through them for it to happen.

Writing at BTTF.com back in 2010, Bob Gale left no room for doubt. "As both Robert Zemeckis and I have stated repeatedly over the years, we have no plans or desires to make another "Back To The Future" movie - not a Part 4, nor a remake of Part 1", he posted. "Nor does Universal or Amblin Entertainment have any such plans. How do we know? Because, per our contracts with these companies, no "Back To The Future" sequel or remake can even be scripted without discussing it with us first. No such discussions have taken place.  We are very proud of the Trilogy as it stands and we want to leave it as is."

Obviously we're not privy to that contract, so can't be sure that it allows Gale and Zemeckis to block the film entirely. But back in 2010, the question wasn't coming up, and it's not been coming up since.

If anything, the only way we can see a new "Back To The Future" coming to the screen - and to be clear, we're not after one - is if the musical is a raging success. As with the recent "Matilda" musical, plans may then be put into place to film a musical version of "Back To The Future." But we'd be genuinely amazed if that ever happened.

The encouraging bottom line here? There's a clear reason why "Back To The Future 4" hasn't happened, and won't in the near future. And it's the reason we'd hope for: there's no story to tell, and there's nothing that could improve on the first three films. Hollywood could learn something from this: sometimes, when your story is told, it's best to walk away and leave it be.

SEE ALSO: 24 Books That Forecast The Future

Join the conversation about this story »

There are so many exciting new movies lined up for the end of 2014, but before you check them out, you should crack open the book version. 

We've compiled a list of all of the books being adapted into movies out this fall. Each cast is packed with Hollywood power players from Ben Affleck to Jennifer Lawrence, and many of the films are already generating Oscar buzz. 

You'll find thrillers, period pieces, dramadies, and even some true stories for your reading and viewing pleasure. 

"This Is Where I Leave You" by Jonathan Tropper

Release date: September 19

In this dramatic comedy, four grown siblings must sit Shiva for one week as per the request of their deceased father. While back together in their childhood home, the week loses control as the family encounters a slew of past and present characters, challenges, and well, life. 

The cast includes Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Jane Fonda, Adam Driver, Corey Stoll, Rose Byrne, Kathryn Hahn, and Connie Britton.

Buy the book

"A Walk Among The Tombstones" by Lawrence Block

Release Date: September 19

A ruthless drug leader recruits former NYPD detective and recovering alcoholic, Matt Scudder, to find the monsters behind the brutal kidnap and murder of his wife. Scudder works outside of the law investigating the grisly murders targeting NYC's worst drug criminals. 

This crime thriller stars: Liam Neeson, Dan Stevens, Boyd Holbrook, David Harbour, and Sebastian Roché.

Buy the book

"Hector And The Search For Happiness" by Francois Lelord

Release Date: September 26

Tired of his routine boring life, a quirky psychiatrist, Hector, courageously sets out for a global adventure in hopes of uncovering the secret to true happiness. 

The dramedy stars: Simon Pegg, Rosamund Pike, Toni Collette, Christopher Plummer, and Stellan Skarsgård.

Buy the book

We’re learning a lot about Batman at New York Comic Con. 

George Clooney apologized Thursday to fans for his role in 1997’s “Batman & Robin.” Friday during a panel for “Birdman,” Michael Keaton recalled his first experience with Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman script.  

Though the movie went on to become a big success, Keaton says when he first read the script, he wasn’t sure Burton’s version of the Caped Crusader could be adapted to the big screen. 

“When Tim called and I took the first ... the original Batman script home and I read it and I thought, ‘Oh, this is interesting. And I, unlike Ed[ward Norton], was mostly unfamiliar with any of the superhero books and wasn’t really that big of a comic book reader," recalled Keaton.

"So I went and read it and I thought, ‘Oh, well this is never … I mean not the way I see this movie," he added. "I can’t imagine anyone making this movie the way I see the character, but I sure am glad to read it."

Keaton continued.

‘I blew threw it and then I met Tim the next day ... He says, ‘What do you think?’ I go ‘All right. You want me to tell you what do I think?’ He goes, ‘Yeah.’ … And I start to go down the list and I say it’s this, it’s this, he’s this, he’s this, and this.’" 

Keaton said he couldn't really read Burton's expressions. 

“Tim used to have that really long, great hair," said Keaton. "And all I remember is him … we were sitting in a window and he was just going …” 

Keaton started bobbing his head back and forth for the crowd.

“His hair was going up and down," Keaton continued. "He just kept nodding. And I go, 'Is he nodding because he agrees with me or is he just nodding you know ... I don't know why he was nodding."

Keaton described the director as smiling and getting uneasy and "kind of looking excited" before finally going, "‘Okay ... They’re not gonna make that are they?’ and he says, ‘I don’t know. Let’s find out.’”

Of course, Warner Bros. gave the film the green light.

"Batman" ended up making $411 million worldwide on an estimated $35 million budget. Burton and Keaton returned for 1992 sequel "Batman Returns" which made under $270 million at theaters.

SEE ALSO: George Clooney apologizes to fans for his "Batman" movie

AND: 'Daredevil' actor points out the one clear advantage Netflix has over TVhttp://www.businessinsider.com/daredevil-netflix-panel-nycc-2014-2014-10

Join the conversation about this story »

How much money a movie makes at the box office isn't always an indicator of whether it will become a classic.

Some of Hollywood's greatest films were financial flops that took years before they were fully embraced by audiences.

From arguably the greatest film ever made, "Citizen Kane," to the cult hit "The Big Lebowski," these are the classic films that bombed at theaters.

"Donnie Darko" (2001)

"Donnie Darko" may have helped launch the career of Jake Gyllenhaal, but it was a huge flop when it came out in theaters.

The indie film, which cost an estimated $6 million to make, debuted to $110,494. It didn't help that the film — which features a plane crash — opened not long after the Sept. 11 attacks. The movie wasn't released internationally for another year.

Theatrically, "Donnie Darko" went on to make $1.2 million. After its DVD release in 2002, it started playing as a midnight movie for over two years at New York's Pioneer Theater and became enough of a cult classic to release a "director's cut."

"Fight Club" (1999)

When "Fight Club" first hit theaters in 1999, it didn't just perform poorly — the film made just $37 million domestically— but also received mixed reviews.

Entertainment Weekly gave it a "D" calling it a "dumb and brutal shock show" while according to the film's commentary Rosie O'Donnell hated it so much that she went as far to ruin the film's twist ending on national television.

It wasn't until the DVD release that the film took off (it sold over 6 million copies) allowing a wider audience to catch the hidden details that made it a dark classic.

"Office Space" (1999)

1999's "Office Space" may have understood office life, but it failed to understand the box office.

After weak reviews and a poor marketing campaign, the film failed to reach an audience making only $10.8 million in theaters.

Director Mike Judge chalked it up to the movie being a tough sell.

"Office Space isn't like American Pie,"Judge told Entertainment Weekly. "It doesn't have the kind of jokes you put in a 15-second television spot of somebody getting hit on the head with a frying pan. It's sly. And let me tell you, sly is hard to sell."

The film eventually found its niche on DVD becoming a top rental, and was later ranked fifth by EW in its list of the greatest comedies of the last 25 years.

Select New York Comic Con fans were in for a treat Sunday morning.

Marvel showed off a ton of footage for "Avengers: Age of Ultron," Marvel's new "Guardians of the Galaxy" cartoon, ABC's "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." spinoff, "Agent Carter," and the first teaser trailer for new superhero movie "Ant-Man," at a private Unlimited Plus members-only event.

The panel was led by Marvel studio's executive editorial director Ryan Penagos. 

I showed #Avengers#AgeOfUltron, #AntMan, #AgentCarter, & #GuardiansOfTheGalaxy toon videos at the #MarvelNYCC#MarvelUnlimited Plus panel

— Ryan Penagos (@AgentM) October 12, 2014

Here's the scene:

#MarvelUnlimited#private event lead by the coolest guy I know @AgentMpic.twitter.com/brcj9xOzIl

— Ali Abouomar (@xpressingit) October 12, 2014

And here's how the "Ant-Man" trailer was described according to Stitch Kingdom:

In the Ant-Man scene, we hear the voice of Hank Pym as he introduced himself to a tiny armored Scott Lang as Ant-Man running through the streets. Pym introduces Lang to a relatively large fly that Pym is able to call on to take him where he needs to go. 

Fans loved it.

#antman teaser! Totally amazing. My mouth :o :o :o #nycc

— Stitch Kingdom (@stitchkingdom) October 12, 2014

That #AntMan teaser though! OUTSTANDING. @Marvel#NYCC2014

— BraD. (@TheRonyn) October 12, 2014

That was amazing #NYCC#MarvelUnlimited@Marvel

— Nine Panel (@NinePanel) October 12, 2014

"Ant-Man" will be in theaters next summer.

From what we've read, the "Avengers" sequel footage sounds like a clip and trailer that first debuted earlier this year at San Diego Comic Con.

It also sounds amazing.

I'm a grown woman and I'm not afraid to admit that the Avengers 2 footage made me a little misty eyed. It was that good. #MarvelNYCC

— Level 7 Access (@Level7AccessPod) October 12, 2014

SEE ALSO: Photos of the best cosplay from NYCC

AND: "Daredevil" actor points out the one clear advantage Netflix has over TV

Join the conversation about this story »

Director William Friedkin couldn't have been on more of a hot streak: "The French Connection," released in 1971, won five Oscars, and "The Exorcist," released in 1973, won two Oscars. In 1977, he released a movie he would later call the best of his career: "Sorcerer."

But "Sorcerer" was a bomb, grossing only $6 million worldwide — short of its $21 million budget — and receiving tepid initial reviews.

The existential thriller follows four criminals from around the globe as they accept a lucrative but deadly contract to transport gallons of explosive nitroglycerin across a South American jungle. The film is the second adaptation of French novel "Le Salaire de la Peur," which was adapted as "The Wages Of Fear" in 1953.

What went wrong? A lot.

It didn't help that the film came out a month after "Star Wars." In an interview with Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Duran, Friedkin explained "'Star Wars' went into the Chinese [theater in Hollywood], but they had to take it out after a week because 'Sorcerer' was booked. Within weeks, 'Sorcerer' was kicked out and 'Star Wars' went back in." 

In addition to its poor timing, the only remotely recognizable name in the cast was "Jaws" actor Roy Scheider (Friedkin wanted to cast the more bankable Steve McQueen, but negotiations fell thru when McQueen insisted Friedkin cast his wife as well).

Additionally, Friedkin explains in his memoir that the film's title (and that it was Friedkin's first film following "The Exorcist") led audiences to believe it was more of supernatural thriller. The title refers to one of the two trucks featured heavily in the film, and while it's certainly a large part of the story, it's misleading.

"The original title I'd proposed was 'Ballbreakers,' to which [Universal executive Lew] Wasserman responded, 'Are you out of your mind?'"

Audiences may also have been discouraged that the first 20 minutes aren't in English.

The movie was also legendarily hard to film, with its $15 million initial budget escalating quickly.

During a Q&A following a screening of "Sorcerer" at the New York Film Forum, Friedkin detailed how the extensive jungle shooting caused many weather-related delays and that gangrene and malaria became a serious problem.

Friedkin was certainly ambitious in how he shot the film. The most famous scene takes place on a rickety rope bridge as the trucks attempt to traverse it. In his memoir, the director explains that the entire sequence took over three months to shoot and construction of the bridge cost $1 million.

When the original river meant for the scene went dry, the crew was forced to tear down and rebuild the bridge elsewhere at the cost of another million dollars. When the second river proved just as difficult, Friedkin and the crew were forced to add an artificial current and rainstorm. He says that it was the single most difficult sequence he ever filmed in his career.

Despite the initial flop of "Sorcerer," the movie has built a cult following over the decades — and after watching it recently I could see why.

Nothing is explicitly clear from the beginning, and part of the fun is simply watching the story unfold naturally as we become more and more invested in these characters. The rather elaborate setup takes up the first hour of the film, and the second hour focuses primarily on the characters' treacherous journey through the jungle.

By presenting what is essentially a suicide mission, "Sorcerer" dares the audience to remain engaged. The viewer knows that destruction can occur at any given moment, which makes normally mundane sequences like a truck driving along a narrow path become harrowing and intense. The meticulous world and character building pays off once the mission begins and the characters must face their deepest fears.

Friedkin's action sequences are intense, visceral, and suspenseful, all without digital effects.

According to the director himself in his memoir, he has always had "a great fondness for 'Sorcerer,' more than any other film. It's the film I hope to be remembered for." 

Thanks to a recent restoration commissioned by Friedkin, a beautiful transfer of "Sorcerer" is readily available for the first time since its initial release over 35 years ago. 

The restoration came to be after the film had somewhat of a resurgence thanks to online film lovers who had recently discovered and began championing it on their blogs. Speaking with Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, Friedkin said: 

"The thing that saved this film and got it restored is a kind of massive Internet campaign. People wrote about it, blogged about it in very serious numbers, in the thousands. It achieved a reputation over the past 30 years. All these articles appeared about it, and nothing was available but an old version of the VHS."

When the programmers of Cinefamily, a nonprofit art-house theater in Los Angeles, reached out to Friedkin in hopes of screening the film after they couldn't obtain a print, the director realized that finding one wouldn't be easy, as "each of the studios that financed "Sorcerer," Universal and Paramount, were both sold three times" since the film's release.

In an interview with Moviefone's Gary Susman, Friedkin explained:

"In 2011, [Cinefamily] e-mailed me and told me that they had tried to book the film and were told by Paramount that they didn't own the film, and they didn't know who did. So I sent them to Universal, and the same answer came in. So I had to sue both companies to determine who owned the picture. I sued not for money but for discovery. That showed that the rights had been vested in a company called Vivendi, which had once owned both Universal and Paramount's foreign film operations."

In the same interview, Friedkin goes on to say that his lawsuit proved fruitful, as "they wound up making a deal where Paramount has all the theatrical rights around the world, but Warner Bros. has all the home video and streaming."

Now with the logistics figured out, Friedkin's long-lost film was ready to be discovered by eager film fans. 

According to Friedkin, the new restoration of the film "looks as [he] had originally intended."

After the Blu-ray's debut in April, Friedkin took to Twitter to clear the air on exactly which home-video release features the new cut:

Amazon will not let me add a comment, but just know The SORCERER DVD they sell is terrible and I'm in the Process of remastering.

— William Friedkin (@WilliamFriedkin) May 1, 2014 

Do not buy the sorcerer DVD from Amazon. They're Still advertising the old piece of crap, made from a TV print, with new logo.

— William Friedkin (@WilliamFriedkin) August 2, 2014

He cared so much, in fact, that he ensured that the new cut received a proper DVD upgrade (not Blu-ray exclusive) as well. 

This is the real deal. On sale 8/5. Thank you For requesting it. pic.twitter.com/eOjO24xAcB

— William Friedkin (@WilliamFriedkin) August 4, 2014

Sorcerer DVD is for sale 8/5 but be careful. Only buy the new logo with orange sticker on Front cover. All others are bad.

— William Friedkin (@WilliamFriedkin) August 4, 2014

For decades, legions of executives tried to bury Sorcerer. It was like a sport. Now, thanks to WHV, They can all go to hell.

— William Friedkin (@WilliamFriedkin) August 4, 2014

Despite all the hassle, the movie is worth it. The project became "an obsession" to Friedkin.

In his memoir, he writes, "It was to be my magnum opus, the one on which I'd stake my reputation. I felt that every film I'd ever made was preparation for this one."

SEE ALSO: Why You Should See 'Snowpiercer'

Join the conversation about this story »

"Foxcatcher" is only the third feature from director Bennett Miller, but considering his previous two films ("Capote" and "Moneyball") both garnered Oscar nominations, anticipation for his latest take on a true story has been sky high. Fans of the director can rest assured: "Foxcatcher" is a fascinating film made all the more absorbing through its rich, vivid characters and efficient storytelling. 

We are introduced to wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) a few years after his glory days winning Olympic gold along with his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo). Dave is now happily married with children, but Mark mopes through life in the shadow of his more successful brother, giving half-hearted motivational speeches to rooms full of bored children. When eccentric millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) calls Mark out of the blue and offers to help train him for the 1988 Seoul Olympic games at his lavish estate, there's no reason for him not to accept.

"Foxcatcher" portrays the man in a way that sheds light on the factors that lead to the big, newsworthy event. By the time we meet Du Pont's disapproving mother (Vanessa Redgrave), we start to see the anguish that lead to Du Pont's mental state. His insistence on being referred to as the "golden eagle" and his absurd patriotic rants start to make sense after we learn of his sad upbringing. As his interactions with Mark grow increasingly troublesome, he becomes more and more sinister and threatening. 

Less is more in the world of "Foxcatcher," and silence pervades. The film opens with what feels like fifteen minutes of virtually no words, and the score is used so sparingly that afterwards I questioned whether or it even had one.

This isn't a bad thing, and an early training scene featuring Mark and David wrestling one another encapsulates all we need to know about their relationship without any words in a matter of minutes. This is courtesy of the fantastically rich screenplay, Bennett Miller's impeccable direction, and the exceptional work from the cast.

Steve Carell is almost unrecognizable as Du Pont; a giant prosthetic nose, false teeth and pale skin give him an unsettling and imposing air. The film truly belongs to him and is essentially a detailed character study of an individual that is certainly ripe for analysis. Du Pont speaks in a dry, stilted bursts and while his looniness is often played for laughs, there's an inherent fear established due to the fact that the film presents a ripped-from-the-headlines story that audiences are likely familiar with.

"Foxcatcher" is billed as a true-crime drama, and although I personally wasn't aware of the events depicted, it's easy to see that Du Pont is unstable and something horrific is to come. 

Channing Tatum is great as Mark, the oblivious lunk caught in Du Pont's depraved world, and as the situation gets more complicated, his performance becomes more layered and meaningful. His relationship with Du Pont gets weirder as the film progresses but the audience is left in the dark to a certain extent; we only know what's essential, and nothing more. It's a quiet, nuanced performance and is easily the best of his career.

Ruffalo is equally good as his brother Dave, and they both really thrive when they're on screen together; the tension between them is palpable. Carell's performance is a game-changer for the comic actor and he proves that he can more than pull his weight when it comes to drama. While there are certainly comedic elements to the role, he somehow manages to make Du Pont equally terrifying as he is pathetically funny. 

These three lead performances help make "Foxcatcher" incredibly compelling. The film examines very basic questions of human psychology in a way that very few artists have pulled off. What we're left with is a gripping and thought-provoking work that is sure to stick with you. 

SEE ALSO: "Birdman" is the best movie of the year

Join the conversation about this story »

"Birdman" could have easily fallen victim to its own gimmicks and wild ambitions. For starters, it's an incredibly self-aware film that stars Michael Keaton as a washed-up actor best known for portraying a superhero, which sounds a bit too on-the-nose on paper for the "Batman" star.

The film is shot in such a way that it's meant to appear as one continuous shot, and the score is essentially just one really long drum solo. Additionally, the film's full title is "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)," which reeks of pretension but actually makes perfect sense by the end credits. In the hands of a less assured director, "Birdman" would surely fail, but with Alejandro González Iñárritu at the helm, the movie is pure cinematic bliss. 

We first meet Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) as he levitates (yes, levitates) in his dressing room with only the gruff voice that exists within his head to keep him company. Thompson is a movie star who seems to have vanished from the public eye since the wildly popular "Birdman" series was released some years ago. In an attempt to win back his spotlight or just prove something to himself, he stages an elaborate Broadway production based on a Raymond Carver short story that he plans to produce, direct, and star in. 

Keaton's performance is bold, unapologetic and, best of all, just plain entertaining. The role is quite complex, as Thompson seems to fade in and out of reality. His "Birdman" character seems to have crossed over into his real life and manifests itself in stressful moments. It's an alter ego of sorts; Birdman's voice acts as an entirely unique personality that exists within him. Is Thompson schizophrenic, or is Birdman simply a manifestation of the mind caused by Thompson's overwhelming audacity?

Besides Keaton, the supporting cast is arguably the film's next greatest asset. Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis and Naomi Watts all turn in terrific performances, but Edward Norton steals the show. Norton's take on an over-the-top method stage actor is a breath of fresh air and probably the best performance of his career. The playful exchanges between him and Keaton as they rehearse had me and the audience in stitches.

During the press conference following the screening, I asked Norton if he had any particular inspiration for the character, to which he replied, "I basically just looked four feet to my left at Alejandro...I'm wearing his scarf in the movie, I'm wearing his jacket, everything I say in the movie I've heard him say or I know he wants to say." 

This led Iñárritu to interject with his favorite on-set moment which occurred during the scene where Norton questions Keaton's direction choices: "I was explaining to Edward how the movement of the camera works and everything and he began to question me about it ... so suddenly he was basically directing me saying what the actor was saying and I was looking at the page saying 'oh my god this is a mirror in a mirror in a mirror.'"

Some of the film's best moments are when it leaves our world and veers off into the weird and wild unknown. The scenes that feature Keaton battling the voices in his head are full of magical realism. At one point, Iñárritu chooses to break the fourth wall and create a diegetic moment in which the film's drummer actually appears on screen. This interruption could have taken the viewer out of the film, but in context it works and adds to the meticulously orchestrated madness. 

The camerawork throughout the film is breathtaking. Every sequence drips with chaos and energy, as the camera forces its way into the action. The smooth, sprawling transitions from one scene to the next are visually impressive and fit the tone set by the frenetic score. These elements combine to form a style that is unique and a technical marvel.

In addition to the chaotic structure, the sharp, funny, and occasionally revelatory dialogue keeps the film moving fast. We learn what we know about Thompson and those who inhabit his life through meaningful exchanges, which is how filmmaking is supposed to work but has become rare and worthy of praise in a market saturated with big budget blockbusters and their sequels.

"Birdman" is very much about these topics without ever explicitly stating it; it's about as meta as it gets and functions as a send-up of the very idea of criticism. In the bottom right corner of the mirror in Thompson's dressing room, there is a note visible throughout the film that says, "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing," which would be the film's thesis, if it had one. At the press conference, Iñárritu further commented on this notion by stating that "the film is what it is" and no amount of criticism can change that. At times, the film plays like catharsis for the director, and while that's true to an extent, there's much more to it than that. 

In the case of "Birdman," this critic can't recommend it enough.

SEE ALSO: Steve Carell And Channing Tatum Give Their Best Performances Yet In Thought-Provoking 'Foxcatcher'

Join the conversation about this story »