Harold Ramis and Bill Murray made beautiful comedy together. Their list of collaborations encompasses “Caddyshack,” “Stripes,” and “Ghostbusters,” each of them among the funniest films of all time.

Their masterwork, “Groundhog Day,” is a sly and subversive romantic comedy that justly earned inclusion in the United States National Film Registry and is considered a modern classic. It also split the longtime friends and film partners apart.

In Tad Friend’s definitive 2004 New Yorker profile of Ramis, the actor, writer and director who died Monday at 69, revealed that he was often at odds with Murray during filming of the 1993 comedy. Disagreements over the tone of the film — Murray wanted it to be more philosophical, Ramis preferred to nail the punchlines — made for a very tense production.

“At times, Bill was just really irrationally mean and unavailable; he was constantly late on set,” Ramis told Friend. “What I’d want to say to him is just what we tell our children: ‘You don’t have to throw tantrums to get what you want. Just say what you want.’”

Not helping matters was the fact that Murray’s marriage was dissolving at the time, Friend writes.

“They were like two brothers who weren’t getting along,” “Groundhog Day” screenwriter Danny Rubin told the New Yorker writer.

After filming ended, the pair stopped speaking to one another, although Ramis tried unsuccessfully to corral Murray into his film “The Ice Harvest,” a 2005 box office and critical dud ripe for reappraisal.

In a 2009 interview with the A.V. Club, Ramis said he still had no contact with Murray, but praised the actor’s work in “Rushmore” and said he was grateful for their previous collaborations.

“Bill was a strong man … You’d do a movie with Bill, a big comedy in those early days, just knowing he could save the day no matter how bad the script was, that we’d find something through improvisation,” Ramis said. “That was our alliance, kind of, our big bond. I could help him be the best funny Bill Murray he could be, and I think he appreciated that then. And I don’t know where that went, but it’s there on film. So whatever happens between us in the future, at least we have those expressions.”

On Monday, Murray paid tribute to those expressions and his fallen collaborator, in wry, Murray-esque fashion.

“Harold Ramis and I together did the ‘National Lampoon Show’ off Broadway, ‘Meatballs,’ ‘Stripes,’ ‘Caddyshack,’ ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Groundhog Day,’” Murray said in a statement. ”He earned his keep on this planet. God bless him.”

SEE ALSO: Hollywood Remembers Comedy Legend Harold Ramis

Join the conversation about this story »

Warner Bros. and Legendary just released the second trailer for "Godzilla" and it's absolutely amazing — but not for the reason you think.

While we finally get our first look at monster head on, it's the harrowing voiceover of Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") narrating the entire trailer that has us excited.

Elizabeth Olsen, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Ken Watanabe also star.

"Godzilla" storms into theaters May 16.

Here's your first view of the monster head on:

SEE ALSO: This is what movies look without visual effects

Join the conversation about this story »

In July 2013, Jon Negroni published "The Pixar Theory," in which he dissected all 14 Pixar films and proposed that the characters from each movie live in the same world. Below, he unwraps the potential significance of Andy's cowboy hat and the identity of Andy's mom in "Toy Story."

It all started with a hat.

Several months ago, one of my anonymous Pixar Theory Interns (that’s a thing on a resume) came to me with a crazy proposition: Andy’s mom is Emily, Jessie’s previous owner.

I laughed. I then agreed.

For some time, I compiled all of the evidence and found some incredible support for this theory. For one thing, take a close look at Andy’s cowboy hat he frequently wears in the movies:

Here’s another close look:

As you can see, Andy’s hat is noticeably different from Woody’s. Why is this? Why wouldn’t Andy want to wear a hat that closely resembles the one worn by his favorite toy?

It’s no secret that Andy has a close connection with Woody. In Toy Story 2, his mom (who we only know as Ms. Davis) mentions that Woody is an old family toy.

Remember that Woody doesn’t even recall that he is a collector’s item – a toy made in the 1950s. This is a deviation from other toys who know full well where they come from. It’s possible that Woody doesn’t know because he’s been in Andy’s family for a long time, possibly belonging to his father.

But we need more evidence. Take a close look at Jessie’s hat:

Ah, this hat looks familiar. It’s the same red hat with white lace that Andy wears. The only difference is that Jessie’s hat has a white lace around the center. But look at Andy’s hat again.

There’s a faded mark where the white lace should be. Why do you think that is? And what does Jessie have to do with this?

(Bob Saget’s voice) Kids, you remember the story of Jessie. Her owner Emily grew up with her, much the same way as Andy. She was incredibly loved, but Emily eventually gave her away when she grew older. Jessie ended up in storage for a long time, as confirmed by her in the movie when she has a literal panic attack over having to go back.

Now, take a close look at what’s on this bed in Emily’s room:

That is a hat that looks extremely similar to, you guessed it, Andy’s. The room is also pretty old-fashioned, leaving room for this to take place years before Andy was born.

In fact, you can clearly tell that this isn’t modern day with shots like these:

The only difference between the hat that Emily wears throughout this sequence and Andy’s hat is an extra white lace around the center, which is visibly missing from Andy’s hat. Otherwise, the hats are identical.

Also, in the donation box that Emily puts Jessie in, we don’t see the hat. We do see other remnants of her connection with Jessie, but the hat is noticeably absent. The box isn’t even big enough to hold it. So Emily held onto that hat…and maybe passed it on to her child, who would grow to also love a cowboy doll.

We never get a closeup of Emily’s face, but we do see that she has light, auburn hair as a teenager. Also, it is very short.

Compared to:

The middle picture is closest to the strawberry blonde color we see when Emily is young. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that her hair lightened as she aged, which is clearly the case in these photos (or she could have dyed it).

Here’s what we know for sure:

We don’t know the first name of Andy’s mom. We don’t know Emily’s last name. We know that Andy’s hat and Emily’s hat are the same. We know that Emily is old enough to be Andy’s mom. We definitely know that Pixar is perfectly capable of sneaking this in without being overt about it.

You may be wondering how the two characters could be the same if Emily was willing to give Jessie up so easily, while Andy was far more hesitant.

Actually, the scenarios are quite similar. Andy forgot about Woody as he grew up too, despite their strong connection. Andy even gave Woody away, albeit in a different manner than Emily.

In the end, it makes perfect sense that these two concurrent stories are so similar because they’re related by blood. It’s also a freak of destiny that Jessie would one day belong to her owner’s son, though we never get to see the mom’s reaction to seeing Jessie again.

She was probably indifferent and believed it to be a different version of the same toy. How would you respond if you saw your child with a toy that looked like one that you had as a kid? Your first assumption probably wouldn’t be that they’re the exact same toy.

What do you think? Do you believe that the two characters are the same and that Andy’s mom/Emily found redemption through the love her son had for the toy she left behind? Or, do you hate fun, love, and destiny? Let me know.

Images courtesy of Pixar.

Join the conversation about this story »

DreamWorks Animation now has what every movie studio wants: it can get away with releasing movies that are not huge hits.

Studios can even make money off of their weaker-performing titles. At least that’s the message from a recent report by Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Tony Wible.

Advanced research indicates the animation studio’s next movie, “Mr. Peabody and Sherman,” featuring the voices of Ty Burrell, Leslie Mann and Stephen Colbert, will be its second film in a row to underperform at the box office — “Turbo” being the first. The upcoming movie based on characters from a 1960s TV show should gross between $25 and $30 million during its opening weekend for Fox, which is releasing the film, according to Wible.

Also read: DreamWorks Animation to Release Its Own Tablet: The DreamTab

Tracking based on Google search and social media indicates the movie will do better than previously expected, but even the revised numbers suggest a domestic total of $98 million. That is a low figure when compared to most of the company’s other movies, like the original “Shrek” ($267.7 million) and “How to Train Your Dragon” ($217.6 million), and even its more recent successes such as ‘The Croods.”  That is also slight given that every DreamWorks Animation movie costs upwards of $100 million. The movie has already opened in a few territories overseas, to mixed results.

Also read: ‘Turbo’ Aims to Break DreamWorks Animation’s Box-Office Addiction

So what is the company’s reward for these lower box office grosses? A surging stock price and investor confidence. Its stock has risen 83 percent over the last year. The company has managed to instill investors with confidence despite lower box office grosses by diversifying its business, making TV shows for Netflix, releasing toys and opening theme parks across the globe.

“DWA has reduced its reliance on film performance by monetizing its IP in other ways (i.e. TV and licensing),” Wible wrote. “We saw this with ‘Turbo,’ which had one of the worst box office performances in DWA history, but looks like it will be profitable and went on to become NFLX’s most popular animated”

See video: ‘Mr. Peabody & Sherman’ Race to Rewrite History in DreamWorks’ First Trailer

DreamWorks Animation’s excessive reliance on its films’ performance at the box office spilled into “Rise of the Guardians,” the failure of which forced the company to lay off 350 employees. TheWrap has written extensively about DWA’s aggressive moves into other areas, fromacquiring AwesomenessTV to a new daily YouTube show to its landmark deal with Netflix.

As Wible points out – and Netflix has acknowledged – the “Turbo” series with Netflix has been a huge success. The streaming service, which never discloses ratings, said it was “one of the most popular kids series ever on Netflix.” That helped make “Turbo” a success even though it wasn’t at the box office, and will protect DreamWorks Animation should “Peabody” have the same problem.

See DWA’s stock price over the last 12 months:

SEE ALSO: DreamWorks Animation Bracing For Up To 500 Layoffs Following Poor Box-Office Performance

Join the conversation about this story »

Angelina Jolie sat down with Tom Brokaw on the “Today” show Tuesday to discuss the upcoming movie she directed, "Unbroken," about the incredible life of former Olympic runner and legendary World War II hero, Louis Zamperini.

“This has been the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” Jolie revealed while holding hands with Zamperini during the interview. 

So how did the actress, with just one director credit under her belt, land the directing gig of the film adaptation of the best-selling book of the same name? 

"I had all the hours of phone calls and things and made all these boards, I took my glue and tape and pictures off the internet and tried to — and I put all my boards in a garbage bag and I carried them to Universal myself and put them out and I pitched my butt off!”

“I felt such a huge responsibility to get it right,” Jolie said. “I love him so much and he’s helped me so much in my life.”

Ironically, the 38-year-old Hollywood starlet and 97-year-old former Olympian were closer to each other before filming than they even realized. Zamperini’s home overlooks Jolie’s in the Hollywood Hills.

“I imagine that for the last 10-something years, he’s been sitting there having a coffee in the morning and wondering who’s going to make this movie!” Jolie exclaimed. “And I’ve been sitting in my room laying there thinking, ‘What am I supposed to be doing with my life? I wanna do something important. I need some help. I need some guidance. Where is it?’ And it was right outside my window.”

Watch Tom Brokaw interview Angelina Jolie and Louis Zamperini below.

SEE ALSO: Angelina Jolie-Directed 'Unbroken' Previewed During Olympics

Join the conversation about this story »

"The Lego Movie" is absolutely crushing it at theaters.

After three weeks, the Warner Bros.' animated film is closing in on $300 million worldwide.

There are many factors that make it a big box-office appeal in the states— from huge cameos (Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman) to its catchy theme music.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the film made a few tweaks to appeal better to overseas audiences.

According to The Wrap, there were a lot of subtleties made in international versions of the film for moviegoers. Local comedians and stars' voices were subbed in place of lead characters and character names were altered. (Will Ferrell's Lord Business becomes Lord Control Freak in Hong Kong.)

A lot of the lines were even changed to resonate with other audiences. Here are some of the changes made to the Hong Kong version:

US: "Oh, come on, you can't be this stupid."
Hong Kong: "You are more stupid than a pig."

US: "Unless your instincts are terrible!"
Hong Kong: "Unless your instincts are a pot of porridge."

The most interesting change is one that makes reference to popular messaging app, WhatsApp:

US: "I will text you."
Hong Kong: "I will WhatsApp you."

Facebook recently announced they will purchase WhatsApp for $19 billion in cash and stock. 

SEE ALSO: Why "The Lego Movie" is crushing it at theaters

Join the conversation about this story »

Why do good people do bad things?

It takes a much smarter person to answer that on an existential level, but when it comes to making movies, the answer is simple: A paycheck's a paycheck.

Before they were working with people like Martin Scorsese and David O. Russell, this year's crop of Academy Awards nominees were struggling actors, clawing their way to a big break and surviving by taking whatever roles came their way, even if they were embarrassing. 

Since you can't appreciate where you're going without remembering where you've been, we honor the starving artist days of this year's Oscar contenders with a look back at those cringe-worthy entries in their filmographies.

See 2014's Oscar nominees before they were famous »

1. Amy Adams starred in the sequel to "Cruel Intentions."

Now: A Best Supporting Actress nominee for American Hustle

Then: Six years before she landed her first Oscar nomination, Amy Adams was seducing family members and saying no to the kind of thing that made Farrah Abraham famous in the straight-to-video sequel to Cruel Intentions. She's come a long way.

2. Matthew McConaughey played a name-less role on "Unsolved Mysteries."

Now: With critically acclaimed and complicated roles in things like Mud, Magic Mike, Killer Joe,and True Detective, the "McConaissance" is in full swing, and it might reach its peak if Dallas Buyers Club earns Mr. "Alright Alright Alright" his first Oscar.

Then: In the acting hierarchy, dramatic reenactments on daytime TV fall just above "extra" and just below "infomercial participant," but that didn't stop 1992 McConaughey from acting the hell out of an Unsolved Mysteries bit that required him to square off against a neighborhood pedophile (in short shorts no less).

3. Jennifer Lawrence appeared on an episode of "Monk."

Now: She could win Oscars in back-to-back years thanks to the nomination for her supporting role in American Hustle.

Then: Lawrence's first role ever was on an episode of Monk. While she had more than a minute of screen time, as "Mascot" her face was relegated to cameo status. Pestering Tony Shalhoub while dancing around in a full-body cougar costume was a baby step towards greatness.

Bonus: Lawrence's first major film role came with more lines and less mask-wearing, but was even more cringe-inducing. The Poker House was a bad look for everyone involved (especially Selma Blair, who should probably buy and burn every last DVD copy still in existence).

International wealth management firm Wealth-X just revealed the top wealthiest Oscar-winning actors ahead of the 86th Academy Awards this Sunday. 

Among those on the list is current Oscar nominee Sandra Bullock for this year’s “Gravity.” 

Topping the wealthiest Oscar winners is Jack Nicholson who won three Oscars for his roles in “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” (1976), “Terms of Endearment” (1984), and “As Good As It Gets” (1998).  

Nicholson is also the most honored living male actor with 12 nominations and 3 wins. Only Meryl Streep edges him out with 18 total nominations.

Check out the full list below from Wealth-X:

SEE ALSO: The embarassing roles of Oscar nominees before they were famous

AND: Follow us on Instagram

Join the conversation about this story »

According to an interesting quote in Variety, there will be new Spider-Man movies every year for the foreseeable future.

Sony Picture Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal put it bluntly: "We are expanding the Spider-Man universe into The Sinister Six and Venom, so that we have Spider-Man movies every year."

This news comes off the heels of the Variety article, "Sony Needs More Franchises," which criticizes the studio for not having tentpole blockbusters. Still, director Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man brought in $752 million worldwide, which isn't half bad. The only problem is that failures like After Earth have kept Sony waiting for this summer's The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The article also confirmed that he would be directing The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

Spinoffs like Venom, which is being directed by Alex Kurtzman, and The Sinister Six, which Drew Goddard is currently writing the script for. With DC expanding its universe with Justice League and Fox possibly bridging the gap between X-Men, The Fantastic Four, and an X-Force Movie, do you think the superhero genre will be played out?

SEE ALSO: It Looks Like 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' Is Changing An Iconic Comic Scene

Join the conversation about this story »

Twitter user @555uhz is a very devoted "Top Gun" fan.

Since January, the mysterious tweeter has been posting scenes from the 1986 Tom Cruise classic flick on his account — one screen grab at a time.

Beginning with the opening credits, @555uhz uploaded each frame individually, even including captions for scenes that have dialogue.

Since posting the shots, the Twitter account amassed over 5,200 followers but was not following anyone else.

But despite the free publicity, Paramount does not appreciate their 110-minute movie being broken down for Twitter users.

On Tuesday, the studio's lawyers sent a take-down notice to the @555uhz account. "No one is authorized to copy, reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use Top Gun without the express written permission of Paramount."

Twitter has since suspended the account, and is directing inquiries to its copyright and DMCA policy, where the social media site says it processes DMCA notifications in the order in which they are received and those flagged are given the opportunity to file a counter-notice if reported material removed is believed to be in error.

The suspension has sparked a debate over balance between intellectual property, artist rights, and consumer convenience. It has also caused an Internet backlash, with many citing this "Top Gun" moment as a response to Paramount's actions:

Ironically, this film still was as far as @555uhz got in Tweeting out each frame, making it the final Tweet.

SEE ALSO: Here Are The American Phrases 'The Lego Movie' Changed For Foreign Audiences

Join the conversation about this story »

Sony was so pleased with 2010's Oscar-winning"The Social Network" that the studio wants to reunite director David Fincher with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and producer Scott Rudin on the upcoming Steve Jobs biopic.

Sources tell Variety that Fincher is currently in early talks to direct the untitled drama, based on the Walter Isaacson biography “Steve Jobs."

Sony acquired the rights to the best-selling book following the Apple mogul’s death in 2011 and Sorkin already completed the script earlier this year. 

Sorkin has publicly said the Jobs biopic will be divided into just three long scenes, each taking place in real time backstage before one of Apple’s product launches.

Real time, Sorkin explained to the Daily Beast in November, "is when a half hour for you in the audience is the same as a half hour for the character on the screen. There will be no time cuts. Each of these three scenes is going to take place before a product launch—backstage before a product launch. The first one being the Mac, the second one being NeXT (after he had left Apple), and the third one being the iPod."

“It’s a little like writing about the Beatles,” he added. “There are so many people out there that know him and revere him.”

Sony has high hopes that the untitled biopic will perform far better at the box office than Ashton Kutcher's 2013 "Jobs," which took in just $36 million worldwide — while Fincher and Sorkin's  "Social Network" raked in nearly $225 million worldwide.

The studio is also betting on the fact that the movie is based on the only authorized biography that Jobs gave his blessing to before his death, and is based on hundreds of interviews with the Apple CEO and his friends and family.

Fincher, who is currently in post-production on Ben Affleck's “Gone Girl” thriller, would apparently have time in his schedule to shoot the Jobs biopic "later this year," Variety reports.

Watch Aaron Sorkin discuss more of his ideas for the film — before he finished the script — below:

SEE ALSO: Twitter User Suspended After Posting 'Top Gun' Frame-By-Frame

Join the conversation about this story »

Times are tough for Katherine Heigl? The 35-year-old actress is set to star in the upcoming independent film Jenny's Wedding -- that is, if the movie can get the funding it needs.

Producers for the Mary Agnes Donoghue-directed project have created an Indiegogo campaign, asking for donations to reach a goal of $150,000 by March 28.

PHOTOS: Celebrities who are "difficult"

"How's the funding going?" TMZ asked Heigl on Friday, Feb. 21.

"I don't know," the actress said. "I don't have that much to do with it, but I hope it's going well."

According to the San Francisco-based crowdfunding site, the film has only reached $32,311 so far since it started on Feb. 11.

"If your movie doesn't getting the funding it needs . . . would you be willing to fill in the extra amount?" TMZ asked the lead actress.

"I haven't made that much in the last few years, man," Heigl said. "I gotta support my family." (The Grey's Anatomy alum is mom to daughters Naleigh, 4, and Adalaide, almost 2, with her husband, singer Josh Kelley.)

PHOTOS: Stars who were fired from jobs

Last April, Heigl starred in The Big Wedding, which failed to earn big at box office, despite its A-list cast with Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton, Robin Williams, and Susan Sarandon. The only film Heigl appeared in in 2012 was the big screen adaptation of Janet Evanovich's 1994 crime novel, One for the Money, which also flopped at the box office. The film grossed $36 million worldwide, but had a $40 million production budget, according to Box Office Mojo. Back in September, multiple film and TV insiders told the Hollywood Reporter that Heigl was difficult and demanding to work with, claiming she earned $12 million for her role in 2010's Life as We Know It.

PHOTOS: Stars returning to TV

Heigl has finished principal photography for Jenny's Wedding, and the film is currently in post production. The movie tells the story of Jenny Farrell (Heigl), who tells her conservative family that she's a lesbian and plans on marrying the woman they thought was her just roommate, Kitty (Alexis Bledel). 

Heigl is hopeful that the film will get the funding to make it the big screen. "I'm really proud of it," the actress told TMZ of the role. She also announced back in September that she will make her return to TV in NBC's upcoming CIA drama.

More from US Weekly: 

Celebrities Who are Difficult to Work With

Stars Who Were Fired From Jobs

Stars Returning to TV

Celebrities Biggest Most Outrageous Demands

See Katherine Without Makeup

SEE ALSO: 20 Actors Who Started Their Careers As Models

Join the conversation about this story »

Here's our first piece of official casting news for "Star Wars: Episode VII."

Adam Driver will play the villain in the next installment of the "Star Wars" saga.

Variety was first to break the news saying Driver is nearing a deal to sign. 

There's no word yet on who exactly Driver will play, but according to Variety his character will be "in the vein of iconic Darth Vader."

Driver is best known for his role on HBO's "Girls." 

The actor is the first official star to be revealed for the J.J. Abrams'-directed film due out December 18, 2015. 

Last month, Carrie Fisher confirmed to TV Guide she'll reprise her role of Princess Leia in the new movie.

The movie will start shooting this April in London.

SEE ALSO: Amazing behind-the-scenes photos from the original "Star Wars" films

Join the conversation about this story »

The man who made offers others couldn't refuse once refused the movie industry's heftiest honor.

On March 5, 1973, Marlon Brando declined the Academy Award for Best Actor for his gut-wrenching performance as Vito Corleone in "The Godfather"— for a very unexpected reason.

Here's how it went down.

The Movie That Brought Brando Back

In the 1960s, Brando's career had slid into decline. His previous two movies  — the famously over-budget "One-Eyed Jacks" and "Mutiny on the Bounty"— tanked at the box office. Critics said "Mutiny" marked the end of Hollywood's golden age, and worse still, rumors of Brando's unruly behavior on set turned him into one of the least desirable actors to work with.

Brando's career needed saving. "The Godfather" was his defibrillator.

In the epic portrayal of a 1940s New York Mafia family, Brando played the patriarch, the original Don. Though the film follows his son Michael (played by Al Pacino), Vito Corleone is its spine. A ruthless, violent criminal, he loves and protects the family by any means necessary. It's the warmth of his humanity that makes him indestructible — a paradox shaped by Brando's remarkable performance.

"The Godfather" grossed nearly $135 million nationwide, and is heralded as one of the greatest films of all time. Pinned against pinnacles of the silver screen — Michael Caine, Laurence Olivier, and Peter O'Toole — Brando was favorited to win Best Actor. 

Drama At The Awards Show

On the eve of the 45th Academy Awards, Brando announced that he would boycott the ceremony and send Sacheen Littlefeather in his place. A little-known actress, she was then-president of the National Native American Affirmative Image Committee.

On the evening of March 5, when Liv Ullman and Roger Moore read out the name of the Best Actor award recipient, neither presenter parted their lips in a smile. Their gaze fell on a woman in Apache dress, whose long, dark hair bobbed against her shoulders as she climbed the stairs.

Moore extended the award to Littlefeather, who waved it away with an open palm. She set a letter down on the podium, introduced herself, and said:

"I'm representing Marlon Brando this evening and he has asked me to tell you ... that he very regretfully cannot accept this very generous award. And the reasons for this being are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry —"

The crowd booed. Littlefeather looked down and said "excuse me." Others in the audience began to clap, cheering her on. She continued only briefly, to "beg" that her appearance was not an intrusion and that they will "meet with love and generosity" in the future.

Watch the scene unfold:

Why He Did It

In 1973, Native Americans had "virtually no representation in the film industry and were primarily used as extras," Native American studies scholar Dina Gilio-Whitaker writes. "Leading roles depicting Indians in several generations of Westerns were almost always given to white actors."

But they weren't just neglected or replaced in film; they were disrespected — a realization that crippled Brando's image of the industry.

The following day, The New York Times printed the entirety of his statement— which Littlefeather was unable to read in full because of "time restraints." Brando expressed support for the American Indian Movement and referenced the ongoing situation at Wounded Knee, where a team of 200 Oglala Lakota activists had occupied a tiny South Dakota town the previous month and was currently under siege by U.S. military forces. He wrote:

"The motion picture community has been as responsible as any for degrading the Indian and making a mockery of his character, describing him as savage, hostile and evil. It's hard enough for children to grow up in this world. When Indian children ... see their race depicted as they are in films, their minds become injured in ways we can never know."

A tsunami of criticism toppled over Brando and Littlefeather following the Oscars, from peers in the industry and the media.

Still, Brando lent the Native American community a once in a lifetime opportunity to raise awareness of their fight in front of 85 million viewers, leveraging an entertainment platform for political justice in unprecedented fashion. His controversial rejection of the award (which no winner has repeated since) remains one of the most powerful moments in Oscar history.

NOW WATCH – Neil deGrasse Tyson: I Loved 'Gravity' But Here's What The Movie Got Wrong

SEE ALSO: See the full list of 2014 Oscar nominations

Join the conversation about this story »

After just over two weeks in release, “The Lego Movie” has crossed an astounding $275 million in global ticket sales, according to Box Office Mojo.

With a Cinemascore of “A” and Rotten Tomatoes critical reception at 96%, it has become clear that the animated feature about an ordinary guy who faces off against a tyrant intent on super gluing the world into stasis was no mere cash grab.

Instead, the Denmark-based Lego Group has generated a series of eye-opening object lessons for such American counterparts as Mattel and Hasbro, at least when it comes to big-screen extensions of their intellectual properties. 

While Mattel has sputtered at the gate with such tent pole features as Masters of the Universe and Hot Wheels spending the past decade in development hell, Hasbro jockeyed forward with “Transformers” ($2.7 billion global franchise gross) and “G.I. Joe” ($678 million global franchise gross), but then stumbled with “Battleship” and the recent loss of its overall deal with Universal Pictures. Interestingly, while the “Transformers” films led to brief spikes in toy sales for Hasbro, overall sales of both Transformers and G.I. Joe toy lines have dropped off steadily in the past two years, even as Lego sales have soared. 

Now the #2 toy company in the world, behind Mattel, Lego is teaching us what we all should have known in the first place: that a story can be told about virtually anything—even a pile of interlocking bricks—and all we need to do is remember how we told stories to ourselves with our toys … the best stories ever. 

Lesson 1: Lego has been practicing sustained multi-platform storytelling since 2000.

Inspired by “Star Wars,” Lego became the first toy company to use transmedia storytelling techniques, launching its Bionicle line in 2000 not with a wave of toys, but with a series of webisodes detailing the world and back story of an ancient race of bio-technological warriors. 

Centralizing everything kids needed to know about Bionicles on a website (recently shut down after a more than 10-year run)— about toys, books, comics, and animated films — Lego offered fans a carefully orchestrated fully interactive universe. The campaign captured the imagination of ‘tween boys, reversing a ten-year downturn for Lego by generating over $161.7 million in 2001, and going on to become a billion dollar juggernaut over the next decade.

Lego followed this up by teaming with Warner Bros. and generating a video game line that leveraged licenses like “Harry Potter,” “Batman,” and even the non-WB “Star Wars,” specifically targeting younger kids with easy gameplay, spirited adventure, and light-hearted humor. The style and tone of the games found their way into more original Lego I.P.’s, such as "Ninjago"and the current "Legends of Chima" animated series, which are both airing on Cartoon Network. Both shows immediately triggered big toy sales. With their Warner Bros.partnership a success, and their cross-platform development process fine-tuned, Lego saw profits spiral to new heights, with profits rising 35% to nearly $1 billion in 2012. 

While both Mattel and Hasbro have strong records in television and direct-to-video franchise extensions, the results have been more scattershot. After announcing their new Playground Productions late last year to produce film and television projects in-house, Mattel has started to groom “Monster High” (teen daughters and sons of such classic villains as Dracula, the Wolf Man and The Mummy cleverly made over as high school fashionistas), as a theatrical feature. 

A smash property that now consistently outsells Barbie, Mattel has generated a wealth of “Monster High” media, but the content has been presented in a mishmash of styles and versions. Key characters look and behave quite differently depending on what TV movie you’re watching or book you’re reading. With little consistency to work with, the producers of a “Monster High” theatrical feature will face the tough challenge of essentially starting from scratch. 

In 2010, Hasbro redoubled their efforts to reconnect their Transformers franchise with the toy line’s target market of ‘tween boys. The company commissioned a 400-page realignment of the franchise’s tangled 30-year mythology, sometimes called "The Binder of Revelation," and successfully relaunched the story world across games, comics, and an animated series on their Hub channel. 

At first existing uneasily with the franchise’s live-action feature film sibling, the movies (directed by Michael Bay) have actually begun to drift closer in tone and continuity to Hasbro’s homegrown transmedia effort. It remains to be seen whether the June 2014 release of Bay’s “Transformers: Age of Extinction” pushes sales of Hasbro’s toy line to new heights. 

Lesson 2: Lego sees its products through the eyes of its target consumer: Kids.

While the “Transformers,” “G.I. Joe,” and “Battleship” movies switched up their target audience to leverage the ostensibly more lucrative teen and young adult market, each sacrificed some or all of the core values that made the toys so resonant with multiple generations of kids. Heart was exchanged for violence, wonder for bombast. 

By all accounts, the Lego company was founded out of a genuine concern. The carefully designed bricks played to children’s natural curiosity, imagination, and creativity. Their original corporate motto was, "Only the best is good enough."

Some have argued that the company has sold out over the past ten years or so, cashing in on popular licenses, including detailed instruction booklets so that, like worker drones, kids can build precise replicas of Batmobiles and Millennium Falcons. 

But “The Lego Movie” cuts down this theory with wild abandon. Operating in tandem—more closely than Hasbro or Mattel has ever worked with Hollywood creatives—Lego and the filmmakers created a villain in Will Ferrell’s Lord Business who directly subverts the brand’s core ethos. Emmet, the film’s hero, must learn to toss aside the “instruction book” and open his mind to creative solutions to the challenges he faces.

Contrary to accusations that the film is anti-capitalist, “The Lego Movie” is far more concerned with the limitations adulthood imposes on our worldview, and how most answers in life come from the openness and innate desire for interconnectivity that we experienced as children. 

Who can argue with this? It’s why the film, like the best Pixar movies, has experienced Hollywood’s Holy Grail of “four-quadrant” appeal (adults, kids, females, males), but it’s also why Lego’s core market segment is walking out of the theater convinced the movie was just for them. Will they feel the same way about Adam Sandler’s "Candyland"?

Lesson 3: Lego has a sense of humor.

Strangely, toy adaptations have a history of dead seriousness. The first “Transformers” animated feature actually killed off noble hero Optimus Prime, leaving kids shocked in the aisles. Most of the laughs coming out of Bay’s series happen when something is violently smashed. “Masters of the Universe” wore a cloak of camp around its gloomy heart, and “Battleship” sank under the weight of its grimness. 

“The Lego Movie” brightens the picture, boasting humor like that found in such Marvel Cinematic Universe films as “Avengers” and the upcoming "Guardians of the Galaxy." Screenwriters Chris Miller and Phil Lord intuited that the humor in the film should come not at the expense of the brand or story world, but as a byproduct of fly-on-the-wall observations of how kids play with Lego toys. Morgan Freeman’s Vitruvius has a staff made of a used lollipop; floating characters sometimes dangle into scenes on strings; sound effects sometimes seem to be voiced by a kid motorboating his lips.

Lesson 4: Lego (mostly) understands pervasive media.

True to their corporate narrative (and transmedia history), Lego has allowed and even promoted the online expression of the brand’s myriad fans. Millions of handmade Lego animations can be found on YouTube. Memes drawn from the movie are cropping up on Facebook pages and mommy blogs. A well-timed raft of Lego-ized Best Picture nominee posters went viral from marketing firm Old Red Jalopy. Lego’s own website invites fans to "Direct Your Own Trailer," and “Create Your Own SigFig,” where you can upload a photo and turn yourself into a Lego figure. Outside of official channels, Hasbro and Mattel have kept a cool distance from fan expressions around such perennials as Barbie and Littlest Pet Shop. 

But Lego faltered when it came to a full commitment to take the brand into cyberspace. In a rare moment of conservatism, the company allowed Swedish publisher Mojang wide berth to introduce brick-building game Minecraft in 2011. The game went on to achieve huge primacy in the digital market, selling over 35 million copies, and driving the global ‘tween set to distraction. Lego has since found itself licensing Minecraft to offer customers a meatspace version of the game. 

Lesson 5: Lego has an Ace up its sleeve: Transtextuality!

Walk across any Disney theme park in the world and you’re likely to see your favorite fairy tale princesses rubbing elbows with Pixar characters, Captain Jack Sparrow staggering past the Dumbo ride. We smile at these juxtapositions, because each has meaning to us, to our kids, and seeing them mixed around us hearkens to the tossed salad of books, toys, and media in our childhood bedrooms. 

When we were small, Chewbacca could team up with Snake Eyes and your sister’s My Little Pony to take down a rampaging plastic dinosaur, and it all made perfect sense. With no knowledge or care about studio politics, trademarks, and copyrights, we are born “transtextual”—characters and story worlds, reality, and fantasy all flow through our minds in a single, happy stew, like Disneyland. 

Of course, this joy is smacked out of us by sneering older brothers and sage parents, but we can’t help but cheer when Bugs Bunny meets Mickey Mouse in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” or when Mr. Potato Head cracks wise with Slinky Dog in the “Toy Story” films. “The Lego Movie” cleverly builds on this precedent, making Batman a major character, and boasting hilarious but meaningful cameos by Gandalf, Han Solo, Shaquille O’Neal, Dumbledore, a Ninja Turtle and Abraham Lincoln, among others. 

Lego pulled this off as a by-product of the brand’s good will among creators, and profitability among stakeholders. Jon Burton, managing director of TT Games, the Warner Bros.-owned developer of Lego video games, told Hollywood Reporter, “That kind of dealmaking should be beyond the realms of possibility, but with Lego, it gets done.” In effect, just like what happens at the climax of “The Lego Movie,” the Lego company has succeeded at ungluing imagination, and that ought to school us all.

SEE ALSO: The number of Lego bricks it took to make the movie

Join the conversation about this story »

After nine long years, Sin City fans will finally get the sequel they've been waiting for with Sin City: A Dame to Kill For. Since both this sequel and the 2005 original are based on Frank Miller's seven-volume graphic novel series, it seems likely another follow-up will happen, if Sin City: A Dame to Kill For hits big at the box office. During an interview with Sirius FM's Ron and Fez Show, director Robert Rodriguez revealed that co-director Frank Miller already has an idea of how to make Sin City 3, while revealing that their work on Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is complete, except for the visual effects.

"Yeah - the second Sin City - I was just here with Frank Miller last night and we were watching it last night. [We] finished the cut, effects are being done, it will come out in August. He [Miller] watched Part 2 - he watched it last night with me and then at the end he said, he didn't have any comments, he was very happy with it. And he said, now about part three.... Started telling me how he's going to do part three. So he's already there on part three."

Even if Sin City 3 doesn't happen (or if it takes another nine years to make), we reported in November that The Weinstein Company is eyeing a possible TV series that will be spun off of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For. The fate of that series will likely rest on how Sin City: A Dame to Kill For does at the box office, when it opens in theaters August 2.

As for the movie sequel, it's possible that Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller could adapt the Sin City graphic novel To Hell and Back next, which centers on an ex war hero named Wallace, and his drunken and drug-addled adventures throughout Basin City, but that story line has not been confirmed for the potential sequel.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For comes to theaters August 22nd, 2014 and stars Jamie Chung, Jessica Alba, Alexa Vega, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, Jaime King,Michael Madsen, Dennis Haysbert. The film is directed by Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez.

SEE ALSO: Sony Plans To Have A 'Spider-Man' Movie Every Single Year For The Foreseeable Future

Join the conversation about this story »

Ahead of the Oscars this Sunday, here's some fun Academy Award trivia for you that's being shared across Reddit.

Can you name the shortest Oscar nominee? While "Gravity" may be one of the shortest nominations for Best Picture, that title goes to 2013 Academy Award nominee "Fresh Guacamole" at just 100 seconds long.

The short film, by director PES, didn’t win the Oscar — that honor went to Disney’s “Paperman"— but if you've never seen it, it's fantastic.

The film uses stop motion to show how a bowl of guacamole is made. The kicker is that different objects are used in place of ingredients which transform into other items when they are sliced and diced.

Here are some of the transformations that take place.

This baseball gets diced into actual dice.

... before becoming even smaller dice.

This fake tomato also gets diced:

And these chess pieces are used in place of salt and pepper shakers:

According to the BBC, the short took four months to put together.

In case you’re wondering, the longest movie to ever be nominated for — and win — an Academy Award is "Gone with the Wind" at 238 minutes.

The shortest film to ever win the Oscar Best Picture is 1955 film "Marty" at 90 minutes.

So even if "Gravity" does pull out a win Sunday night, at 91 mins., it will not take that record.

Watch the amazing "Guacamole" below:

MORE OSCARS: Why Marlon Brando rejected his 1973 Oscar for "The Godfather"

SEE ALSO: Everything the nominees will take home in the $85,000 Oscar gift bag

Join the conversation about this story »

Remember when Jean-Claude Van Damme did an epic splits atop two Volvo trucks?

Well, now Linh Mai has made a perfect CGI parody clip that lets us see what it would be like if Van Damme performed the stunt in space, á la "Gravity." All set to the tune of Enya's "Only Time."Watch below:

In case you forgot, here's the original video and the many otherspoofs it has since inspired.

SEE ALSO: Sandra Bullock Will Take Home An Insanely Large Paycheck For 'Gravity'

Join the conversation about this story »

 Kanye West will soon be adding a new testament to the story of Yeezus. Today, the rapper released a exhilarating preview on his website for a Yeezus movie that will be "coming to theaters," though it's not clear when it will be coming out. The film was directed by Hype Williams, who has helmed videos for Beyoncé, 2Pac, Coldplay and more, as well as the West clips "Gold Digger,""Heartless, ""All of the Lights" and "Diamonds From Sierra Leone."

Kanye West's 15 Best Quotes of 2013

Beginning with a sample of West's 808s and Heartbreak track "The Coldest Winter," the short preview intersperses typically hyper-real scenes (horses running a la "Bound 2," religious rituals) with imagery from the rapper's Yeezus tour, including furry creatures with red eyes, mime-like dancers in robes, lasers, West in a mask, West jumping out of a burst of light a pyramid-like mountain and even more lasers.

Earlier this month, author Bret Easton Ellis – with whom Kanye West conversed on the former's podcast – said in an interview with Vice that he was working on a movie with the rapper. "He came and asked me to write the film," Ellis said. "I didn't want to at first. Then I listened to Yeezus. It was early summer last year and I was driving in my car. He'd given me an advance copy, and I thought, regardless of whether I'm right for this project, I want to work with whoever made this. So f**k it, I said yes."

More from Rolling Stone:

Kanye West’s 15 Best Quotes

11 Reasons Kanye West’s ‘Yeezus’ Tour is Actually Incredible

Rolling Stone’s List of the New Immortals: Kanye West

See Where ‘College Dropout’ Ranks on RS’ List of Best Debut Albums

Kanye West’s 10 Most Ridiculous Rants on ‘Kimmel’

SEE ALSO: VCs Are Lining Up To Meet Kanye West, But They Don't Actually Want To Invest In His 'Trillion-Dollar' Startup

Join the conversation about this story »

For "The Wolf of Wall Street," the road to Oscar was a bumpy one, to say the least.

In 2006, a fresh-out-of-prison Jordan Belfort chose Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese to option his book rights in a $330,000 deal based at Warner Bros.

Broke and indebted to his swindled victims — yet full of hope for the future — Belfort was sure his memoir being made into a movie would pull him out of financial ruin. But he never thought it would take seven years to see his life story come to life on the big screen.

As Belfort soon learned, "when Marty and Leo commit to something, it doesn't mean it's getting done. And then the problems start," he explained to The Hollywood Reporter in a new interview.

Here's where things first started to go wrong in 2006:

One, Marty is over at Paramount, which gives Paramount the right to co-finance. But Warners is like, "F--- you!" and they start butting heads. Marty was really concerned that the studio would make him tone it down. And then the writers strike hits and it falls apart: Marty and Leo go off and do Shutter Island, and I'm devastated.

After the project stalled for a few years, Belfort says there were many "false starts" with new people attached.

[After Warners renewed its initial option, in 2010] Leo's option expired a second time, and we had like five false starts. Ridley Scott commits, then Fox says, "We're going to make you do Prometheus." There were rumblings Warners wanted Ben Affleck to do it. And Megan Ellison offered to buy the whole thing — I had a celebratory dinner with her — then two days later it fell through.

Ultimately, it was DiCaprio's passion for the role that saved the entire film.

Leo just refused to let it die, and after the option expired, in 2011 Scott Lambert called a meeting with everybody — me, [DiCaprio's manager] Rick Yorn, Leo and Alexandra — at the Polo Lounge. And Leo goes, "We're going to get Marty." Then I start hearing about Red Granite. They buy it, they announce it in Cannes. They said, "Listen, we're going to make Marty an offer he can't refuse." 

Throughout the filmmaking process, DiCaprio took Belfort under his wing — while Scorsese remained aloof.

I spent hundreds of hours with Leo doing everything you could imagine, from hanging out socially to showing him what it's like to be on drugs. I took him through the stages [of taking Quaaludes] and I was rolling on the floor in his house as he was filming me. [But] I never met Marty till the end of the shoot. I did a cameo: I'm the MC that first introduces Leo.

And despite being "the whipping boy of the world" after the film's release, Belfort says he understands Scorsese's vision for the film and why he chose to end it the way he did.

It's laughable when people say [Scorsese is] glorifying my behavior, because the movie is so obviously an indictment. I could have easily been redeemed at the end of the film, because I am redeemed in real life, but [Scorsese] left all that out because he wanted to make a statement — and I respect that. Even though I'll be the whipping boy for the world.

Since its Christmas Day release, "The Wolf Of Wall Street" has raked in $338 million at the global box office and is up for five awards at Sunday's Academy Awards.

Check out Belfort talking "The Wolf Of Wall Street" success in his Hermosa Beach home:

To read Belfort's full interview with The Hollywood reporter, click here >

SEE ALSO: How Jordan Belfort's Prison Bunkmate — Tommy Chong — Inspired Him To Write 'Wolf Of Wall Street'

Join the conversation about this story »