* Mike Fleming is claiming a Finke “Toldja!” for the news that Disney and “Tron: Legacy” director Joseph Kosinski are going ahead with a film version of the comic book, “Oblivion.” I’m not familiar with the book so, should I be more excited about this than I am? Of course, having recently rewatched the original “Tron” I’m even less excited about his other movie. I’m sorry, but it’s got to be one of the thinnest excuses for a piece of entertainment I’ve ever seen. A few interesting visuals aside, it’s easily one of the weakest efforts Disney has ever been associated with as far as I can see. It’s lingering appeal is a complete mystery to me.

* As rumors of the day go, I find this one even less believable than most. That idea is that Quentin Tarantino may be “attached” to what had previously been Sam Raimi’s new version of William Gibson’s influential pulp character, the Shadow — who became best known via a popular thirties radio show starring a very young Orson Welles.  I’m a fan of the character and of Tarantino, so I certainly wouldn’t mind this being true. It just feels significantly off from Mr. Tarantino’s many obsessions, though considering his delving into thirties and forties cinema for “Inglourious Basterds,” you never know.

Also, I don’t dig the sort of glib, information-free dissing the character has been taking at various blogs by people who are likely not familiar with the pulp, radio, or comics version of the character but who may know the unsuccessful 1994 film starring written by David Koepp and directed by Russel Mulcahy. (People seem to want to blame Alec Baldwin for this, as if he wrote and directed it. Do people even understand how movies are made and that actors just don’t make up the words and story on the spot?) You can see my response in comments at the Playlist.

* The genius of “Blade Runner” notwithstanding, I’m personally not at all sure Ridley Scott is the right director for it. However, news that David Webb Peoples, the great screenwriter of that classic and the even greater “Unforgiven,” is taking on Joe Haldeman’s Vietnam-era science-fiction classic, “The Forever War” has to be a very good thing.

* According to Cinematical, actor Jay Baruchel (who presumably would have been playing one young sidekick or another) told them that the shelved movie about DC’s Justice League of America to be directed by the terrific Australian director George Miller — a guy whose career is flanked by the poles of “Babe” and “Mad Max” — would have been “dark, brutal and gory.” Wasn’t that movie called “Watchmen“?

* I love Anne Thompson, but I’m nevertheless not sure that taking M. Night Shymalan’s name off it makes the trailer for “Devil” look any better than it is. On the other hand, “The Night Chronicles” is a really unfortunate name. She’s right about the unchecked ego thing, I fear.

* I enjoy the work of Samuel L. Jackson as much as anyone, but to me, even a teaser trailer needs more than a person’s voice to work, even if Joss Whedon is really making an “Avengers” movies. (The “awesome” factor is just starting to sink in with me there.)

* Speaking of Mr. Whedon, he and J.J. Abrams recently go sucked into the ongoing 3-D “resistance” by the New York Times. He responded humorously today, though if someone can explain to me what he actually meant, I’d be grateful. On the other hand, considering that the maybe no-longer-being-converted-to-3D “The Cabin in the Woods”, co-written and produced by Whedon, remains in MGM limbo, co-writer-director Drew Goddard’s question 11 is kind of salient.

* After wasting spending at least $24 or so watching the second and entirely regrettable “Star Wars” trilogy, it’s nice to know that maybe a buck or two of that will be going to various good causes. Apparently, George Lucas, along with other industry wealthy guys Ted Turner and Barry Diller, has taken the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett “giving oath” in which billionaires pledge to give most of their wealth to charity. I could give a political rant about the vast greed and selfishness among the moneyed classes of our time, but the short version is it’s a great idea that I hope becomes an out-and-out fad. As long as I don’t have to watch any more of his boring post-eighties movies, I forgive him everything, much as I forgave Ted Turner for colorizing black and white movies after founding TCM — and not showing colorized movies on it. Now I doubly forgive Mr. Turner.

* Viggo Mortenson and Amy Adams are joining the cast of director Walter Salles’ version of Jack Kerouac’s “On the Road” to be co-produced by Francis Coppola. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book — which is half brilliant and half kind of silly, as I recall — but Mortenson’s character is supposedly based on the late William S. Burroughs.  That should be interesting.

* And here’s a publication I don’t link to so often. Gabrielle Birkner of The Jewish Daily Forward has a unique confession regarding everyone’s favorite film acting  Jewish American Prince: “Paul Rudd Was My Bat Mitvah DJ” Check this out. Remember, a big part of being a truly good actor is loosing your fear of embarrassment.

Paul Rudd: Bat Mitzvah DJ from Jewish Forward on Vimeo.

* Somewhere between a rumor an an actual story, the ‘net geek movie item of today has to have been the flurry of speculation around the notion of Harry Potter director David Yates taking on the two-film directing gig on “The Hobbit” recently vacated by Guillermo del Toro. The Playlist claims to know that Yates has actually been offered the position though, even if true, in Hollywood there are a millions slips twixt cup and lip, so to speak, and the fun debates over who would be available and appropriate for the job continue. My first response was that Yates, a highly competent craftsman, wasn’t really enough of a visionary for the gig but, considering that del Toro and Peter Jackson remain pretty deeply involved, perhaps they’ve got visionaries enough on that project.

* On a somewhat similar note, Robert Rodriguez has possibly been offered a shot at directing a Deadpool movie. Since I missed the Wolverine movie and haven’t read Marvel Comics in a very long time, I have no idea what this actually means. I’ll learn.

* Very inside baseball, but still important: Anne Thompson has an overview of the still-in-process movements of executive Bob Bernay, who suddenly left the indie-level outfit Apparition last year and may have him becoming involved with an even newer distribution company shortly.

* Christopher Nolan has made himself a hero to the anti-3-D contingent, though not to the point of actually ruling out making films in 3-D. I will say that the argument about dimness is reasonably compelling and has been starting to bother me some, now that the novelty has worn off to some degree. In the meantime, soon half of the screens in the UK will be 3-D ready.

* If studios really want to borrow the frisson of strong storytelling values, the should be borrowing story ideas from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and the 70s, not the 80s. That is when, in my most humble of opinions, traditional mainstream film-craft began to drown in a sea of self-perpetuating marketing notions that have alienated filmgoers over 25 from non-indie fare.

* In his L.A. Times exclusive, Steven Zeitchik writes of “The Incredible Mr. Limpet”

The Don Knotts original, about an ordinary man who becomes a fish and fights the Nazis, is nearly 50 years old, isn’t that well remembered and was hardly a classic to begin with.

First of all, I find the first part confusing. If filmmakers are going to do a lot of remakes, then what are they supposed to remake, new movies? And, of course, I deeply resent the routine dissing of movies for the crime of having actually stood the test of time to some degree. I hope that’s not what Zeitchik meant.

However, for some people I know, the real fighting words are those about it not being well remembered or a classic. I’ve never seen the partially animated “Limpet” but I know a few people who remember it very well, indeed. Anyhow, I think the combination of comedian Zack Galifianakis and director Kevin Lima (“Enchanted”) could be a natural here.

* Conservative/libertarian leaning movie fans are feeling good today because word has spread that the long, long awaited film of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” actually began filming recently. The newly revived conservative film site, Libertas, trumpets the good news (for them, that is). I remember getting pretty p.o’d at much of what was written at the mag back in the day, but I guess Big Hollywood’s level of nearly consistent idiocy has softened me up. The thing’s kind of classy. Co-editor Jason Apuzzo also do news posts like this one, except they use bullet points instead of asterisks. Everybody’s doing it, I tell you.

Anyhow, as if to harsh the conservative mellow, Mike Fleming dispassionately reports that the entire project may be more of a placeholder to allow the producer to hang onto the rights for a few more years until a “real” version can be made. (If you want examples, just ask superhero fans about that shelved “Fantastic Four” movie from the nineties.)  There’s also some possible litigation from a jilted director to contend with, too.

* Speaking of perhaps harshing conservative mellows, producer Lawrence Bender had some words for the conservatives who think he should return his “An Inconvenient Truth” Oscar when I spoke to him outside the New Beverly Theater at the “Inglourious Basterds” DVD release event last winter. Now, working together with Queen Noor of Jordan on a film about nuclear proliferation — which really should not be a partisan issue but then neither should global warming — hes’ entering the fray again with director Lucy Walker’s “Countdown to Zero.” Assuming the film is as evenhanded as advertised, will conservatives realize that preventing a nuclear holocaust is about the most conservative thing you can support — rightwing media mega-magnate Rupert Murdoch is reportedly a fan of the doc — or will this become another political football? Stay tuned.

As with Tim Burton, Jeunet’s roots are in animation. Together with his early collaborator, cartoonist Marc Caro, he made two films that pretty much destroyed the idea of France as a land where all movies were gritty examinations of the lives of depressed intellectuals (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Dystopic but decidedly non-realistic, “Delicatessen” and, to a much greater extent, 1995’s “The City of Lost Children” broke through internationally, with the latter becoming a popular midnight selection and attracting a geek audience that might have ordinarily rejected subtitled films. That was followed by his first solo production and also his first and, so far, only American film. 1997’s “Alien: Resurrection” was a domestic commercial disappointment that generated mixed reviews and more than a little fan hate in the U.S. — even its screenwriter, fan-master Joss Whedon, has entirely disowned it — but it was nevertheless an international success which is still warmly embraced by its jovial director. After that, Jeunet broke through even bigger with the worldwide success of “Amelie” in 2001, easily one of the most widely seen French films in the United States of the last couple of decades — so much so that it was simply referenced as “the French movie” in last year’s “Up in the Air.”

Now, Jeunet is back with his first film since his worldwide box office and critical hit, 2005’s “A Very Long Engagement,” with his own take on Chaplinesque/Keatonesque comedy with just a dash of Rube Goldberg not-quite-sci-fi. “Micmacs” stars comic Dany Boon (“My Best Friend”) as the hapless Bazil, whose father was killed by a landmine and whose health and livelihood was ruined by a bullet — each produced by a ruthless arms manufacturer. Homeless, he is befriended by a ragtag assortment of seven eccentrics with various unique skills. Bazil enlists their aid in avenging himself against the two firms.

The film has done reasonably well in its initial New York opening, and will be expanding to more theaters this Friday. It’s generally also been a hit with critics, very definitely including PH’s own Jason Zingale.

Jeunet is not one of those filmmakers he seems to mind meeting the press. Though he arrived late — how French of him! — he was both apologetic and in infectious high spirits, joking and introducing an old friend who was there to smooth over rough spots in translations. (Jeunet had little trouble giving long answers in English, but he seemed to occasionally need help in understanding the more involved questions.)

The first question was about the source of the story of “Micmacs,” and Jeunet was off and running.

“First you have to know something. Before, I worked two years on ‘Life of Pi.’ It’s a beautiful project for 20th Century Fox and now Ang Lee is supposed to make the film. I spoke with the producer this morning and it’s on the way. But it was so expensive because it was a story about a kid after a shipwreck in a lifeboat fighting against a tiger. You have the three worst elements for a film: the sea, a wild animal, and a kid. It was too expensive, that was the only reason I didn’t make this film after two years. I wrote the script… I spent six months to make the storyboard. Huge work.”

“So,” Jeunet continued, “I was starving to shoot — to make something very quickly. I had some different ideas in my computer and, in fact, I mixed three different feelings. One of them was a preoccupation with weapons sellers because I had a fascination for these strange people able to invent things to [create] suffering.”

“Also, I wanted a story of revenge. I love ‘Once Upon a Time in the West.’ And the third thing was to make something with a band of original, weird people like the seven dwarfs from ‘Snow White.’ One of them is shy, one of them is always pissed-off… so I mix from different feelings. I was concerned about mixing serious issues like weapons with a slapstick cartoon, and I thought, ‘Okay, ‘The Great Dictator‘ was a comedy, too.'”

That was followed by a question about mixing politics, to whatever extent “Micmacs” is political, with Jeunet’s not-of-this-earth style.

“I don’t want to say ‘politics’ because it’s such a cliche to say ‘it’s bad to sell weapons.’ But we made real research. We made a beautiful interview with a weapons manufacturer in Belgium who made some arrows to go through the tanks. He’d get the temperature to go so high in one second everybody burns inside the tanks.”

“We met very interesting people. They have the passion for technology, I would like to have these people in my crew. Very nice people. But when you say, ‘But, then you kill people,’ they say ‘Yes, but we work on the right side.’ I remember this sentence, it’s in the film, ‘We work for the Minister of Defense, not the Minister of Attack,” said Jeunet, noting that, despite the arms merchants’ claims, their weapons are often resold on the open market to all kinds of evil characters.

Then there was the more or less inevitable question about Jeunet’s highly distinctive visual approach, particularly his use of rich colors and wide lenses.

“I like directors with a strong style….When you see a film from Tim Burton, you recognize immediately it’s Tim Burton. Same thing for Terry Gilliam or…David Lynch. A long time ago it was Fellini. I don’t want to compare myself to these great directors, but I love to shoot with a short lens, to use warm colors — I love to do that. That’s it.”

“This time, I wanted to make something faster with a lighter camera, but everybody told me, ‘no, it’s too early for the digital, we [need to] spend some time to fix the defects.’ Next time, I want to make it all in 3-D or with a lighter camera.”

Then, a question about whether a certain amount of innocence, combined with ingenuity and imagination, can be a way to defend oneself from the violence and evil of the world.

“Absolutely, I believe, about imagination. Between the ages of 17 and 21 I was a worker at the telephone company and imagination saved my life. In fact, the character of Dany Boon is a little bit of a metaphor of my work because, to accomplish his revenge, he needs a crew of specific characters like I need a crew to accomplish my films.”

Working at something of a disadvantage since I hadn’t yet seen “Micmacs,” I asked Jeunet about his obvious love for onscreen mechanical devices, which always puts me in mind of Orson Welles’ famous remark that having a film studio to work in was “the biggest electric train set a boy ever had.”

Jeunet was of a similar mind, comparing filmmaking to French-manufactured Meccano construction sets. “Inside the box you have the costumes, the dialogue, the music — and I want to use everything inside the box to build the most beautiful toy I can and don’t lose anything inside the box. This is my conception.”

“Another one is I am like a chef. I prepare a good meal and I want to share. ‘You think it’s good, no?’ and sometimes they say, ‘no, it’s not good, and I am disappointed.”

But Jeunet is different from other directors in that he’s obviously fond of actually putting odd, sometimes Rube Goldberg-like, mechanical constructions up on the screen.

“Yes. For this one, I hired a guy, because I discovered this guy who’s a naive artist. He was in a museum in Paris with a beautiful animated sculpture. It was so beautiful we didn’t build them ourselves, but I hired the guy to lend [them.]”

Then the conversation turned to the great silent comedy filmmakers and their influence on “Micmacs.”

“Especially for the ‘Cannon Men’ scene, I thought about Buster Keaton. And when Dany Boon makes you think about [Charlie] Chaplin, it wasn’t on purpose. During the shooting I saw him and said, ‘Ooh, you make me think of Chaplin.’ He said ‘You think so?’ And after, I think, he continued to think, and it was on purpose after that.”

And exactly how was the very talented actor-stand-up-performer Dany Boon, a huge star in France, cast?

“I followed him since 15 years ago. Just after I hired him, he got a huge success with ‘Welcome to the Land of Shtis’ [which Boon co-wrote and directed]. But when I say huge I mean it was almost like ‘Titanic’ — 21 million admissions. ‘Amelie’ was a huge success, it was nine million admissions. Can you believe it? I’m very jealous,” Jeunet said, getting some laughs at the table.

“He’s a very good actor. Every take is perfect. You never had a bad take. And he’s a nice guy, very simple, very funny.”

And what is Jeunet’s style of working with actors in general?

“They have to be precise. That’s the reason I love Audrey Tautou or Dany Boon. You have to have the head here or here, not to move a little bit. Because when you use a short lens, if they are too close to the lens they could be like a monster. I am very precise. On the other hand, if they want to surprise me, if they want to propose to me something different, I am very open. I make a storyboard but ‘okay, new idea, no problem.’ But I love technician-actors.”

Then there was a question (which I was hoping to ask myself) about the use of the music of Hollywood classic-era composer Max Steiner, which follows on a scene early in the film where Dany Boon’s character is watching a classic detective movie directed by Howard Hawks.

“At the beginning it was ‘The Big Sleep.’ We used maybe six or seven pieces of different [film scores] from Max Steiner. In fact, I wanted to just use the ‘The Big Sleep’ to make the gag with the end starting the film. It was on my notes. Of course, we had the music and the music worked so well, later we thought maybe we could use Max Steiner music for the whole film, the action scenes.

“It worked so well sometimes it was like a miracle. I remember one scene, during 40 seconds — not a cut. Every sync point worked perfect. I imagined Max Steiner in Paradise… [rubs his hands, laughing maniacally as if the angelic Steiner was gleefully observing “Micmacs” post-production]. No, it was a great moment. By luck we found some good recordings from the seventies. It was in stereo. Good quality, not amazing quality, but good quality.”

Then there was a question following up on Jeunet’s earlier comparison of being a director to being a chef. Does Jeunet try mainly to please himself or does he think specifically about the audience’s reaction while working on the film?

“You work for yourself. If you are a chef, you are the first taster. ‘Hmm. I love that! Do you want to share?’ But you have to love [it] before…’ You are the first spectator of your film. If you think about the other people, you’re dead. It’s very selfish to make a film.”

Next was a question about the strongly Gaelic flavor of Jeunet’s films, at least from an American point of view. Has it been a help in differentiating his films and competing in the world market with U.S. productions?

“I don’t know. I love Paris. I try to show a different Paris each time. I don’t know if it’s French. Of course, if I use music with accordions, it sounds French. But, in France, you have to know, I am not French. They think I am international because my films are sold everywhere, and I don’t feel especially French.”

That led to a discussion about how sometimes a country’s most internationally successful living filmmaker is less beloved at home. Jeunet mentioned how Spain’s Pedro Almodovar has quit his nation’s film academy after his films were ignored at awards time. I didn’t get the chance to bring it up, but a similar phenomenon happened with the elder Akira Kurosawa in Japan, who endured a great deal of criticism during the seventies and eighties from younger filmmakers and writers. No one is a prophet in their own home, as the saying goes.

Of course, that’s not all, there’s the tendency of all nations’ press to build people up and then rip them apart.

“At first, I can’t complain. But now it’s getting difficult because I had three huge success. ‘ Alien’ [as alluded to before, “Alien: Resurrection” was a hit in France], ‘Amelie’ and ‘A Very Long Engagement.’ Now,” Jeunet intoned, his voice getting comically melodramatic, “it’s time to pay!,” he said, getting a big laugh from the table.

Next there was a question about whether future projects might be more commercial than past films. The director alluded to an intimate “small French book” which he thought might not be commercial, but that there was also a presumably more broadly appealing, and apparently really excellent, American book. “Oh my God, it’s a masterpiece. But I don’t want to tell anything because I’m going to meet next week with the author in New York.”

Jeunet likes the book, whatever it is, so much he was having a hard time containing himself. “Ah, it’s such a good book. Oh my God, it’s a fucking masterpiece but I heard he [presumably, the author] would like to direct the film himself. Big mistake!” Jeunet said with his French talent for exaggeration, getting another laugh from the table. He also said that the story is actually set in Russia “during the war” and that it would neither be a French or American film in terms of feeling, though American actors would star because using Russian actors would probably “scare people.”

Another question: Does Jeunet think his imagination is “dark”?

“I can [be dark] if I want. I try to make something more brighter. It’s more interesting and more difficult to make something positive than negative. To be negative is very easy.”

What does he think of the current vogue for more film science fiction and works of “extreme imagination.”

“I love science fiction and I don’t like the fantastic. For example, if you have a magical ring and you can explode the world, for me — it’s not interesting. I don’t like ‘Lord of the Rings’ or even ‘Star Wars.’ For me, I don’t understand this kind of story. But [I love] ‘Alien,’ because the rules of the game are very precise. It could happen… I have an idea about robots in the future…”

Then came some questions that really didn’t go very far. Having not seen the film, I wondered if, in addition to the hero’s helpers being an allusion to the seven dwarfs, if they were perhaps somewhat influenced by the highly specialized abilities of the teams that helped pulp heroes like Doc Savage pull off their daring-do. I also couldn’t help thinking of the Doc Savage-inspired science fiction satire, “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension,” a movie that might have been improved if Jeunet had been able to direct it in 1984. Since he didn’t seem to know anything about either, I have to take that as a “no” even if his two-word answer was “Yeah, maybe.”

Moving on to another questioner, how did Jeunet feel about the relative size of his audience, overall?

“You can have a dinner with one [person] or with ten people and it’s the same pleasure. If you can get the money back for the film, it’s not a problem. If I would have wanted to have a huge audience, I would make American movies, not French movies, because there is a limit, of course, with the French language.

“…I prefer to shoot in my own language, to play with my language, to play in Paris. And, I have the freedom, complete freedom in France. It’s amazing. If American directors could imagine how I am free they would have asked to have…” And then Jeunet had to ask his aid for the words he was seeking. They were “political asylum.” Another big laugh.

And that led to the question, which Jeunet said he was waiting for, about the general impression that he wasn’t allowed very much freedom by the American producers of the controversial “Alien: Resurrection.”

“No, it was a great experience. I read so many times ‘it was a nightmare for Jean-Pierre Jeunet.'” That impression apparently extended to “Up in the Air” co-writer/director Jason Reitman who, according to Jeunet, mentioned in an interview the director’s alleged ordeal in connection with his film’s offhand reference to “Amelie” and her traveling garden gnome.

“No, it wasn’t a nightmare. I’m sorry. It was tough. It was difficult because you have to convince people to have your way in editing. You have to speak with a lot of people, but it wasn’t a nightmare. It was just tough. And, in France, it’s not tough. You have the freedom by law.”

Then Jeunet did something very refreshing in response to questions, which is to admit to some creative weaknesses. First, in a passing reference to “City of Lost Children,” he confessed that he and Marc Caro had come up with the kind of setting and mood they wanted to create before coming up with the story and that was, perhaps, the wrong order. The story, he said, should come first.

Another question asked about what he thought of the love story in “Micmacs” between Dany Boon’s character and a contortionist played by Julie Ferrier.

“I think it’s not enough. Some people told me, ‘It’s not enough. We need some stronger emotion.’ And they’re right, I think.”

That led to an anecdote about an American studio he greatly admires. “I had the great privilege to make a master class at Pixar in San Francisco with 1,000 people. It was amazing. They are so good to alternate… they say ‘one laugh for one tear.’ Auggh.”

That led to a bit more discussion of Julie Ferrier, a character comedian in her own right who Jeunet thinks is a kind of genius and instructed us all to look her up on YouTube. (I did. Being reasonably fluent in French would probably be a help.) And though she is quite flexible thanks to her background as a dancer, she’s not quite a contortionist. A body double was needed as well.

“We found a Russian girl, and she does an erotic show in Germany, and its very interesting,” Jeunet said, showing some good comic timing and getting a big laugh and generating questions whether her performances could be found on YouTube as well. He added. “My Japanese director of photography [Tetsuo Nagata], he was very moved.” More laughter.

And, apparently wanting to leave the journos laughing, the end of the interview was declared.

* If we can believe the Wall Street Journal, it appears that the Weinstein/Burkle deal to kinda-sort retake Miramax is off, writes Monika Bartyzel at Cinematical.  Since the company is actually named after the parents of Harvey and Bob Weinstein, I imagine this might hurt a little.

* John Slattery of “Mad Men” was one of the more pleasant surprises of “Iron Man 2” as a middle-aged (actually long-deceased) Howard Stark. Now, we know who’ll be playing Stark as a young man in “Captain America: The First Avenger.” It’s Dominic Cooper, the male ingenue of “Mamma Mia,” whose other recent parts includes playing Uday Hussein, so he’s definitely running the gamut.

* Jesse Eisenberg, who had a rather good weekend with two films in limited release, is reteaming with his “Zombieland” director, Ruben Fleischer. The picture sounds like a pretty fun black comedy about a bizarre bank robbery. Aziz Ansari is also in the film as a middle-school teacher which, right off the bat makes me laugh.

* Sam Rockwell as…Joe Christ?

* There’s very little reason to expect the Paul W.S. Anderson 3-D version “The Three Musketeers” is going to be anywhere near one of the better versions of the oft-filmed adventure tale, but I actually like the idea of elf-to-punching-bag actor Orlando Bloom as a bad ass villain. I’ve missed most of his non-elven performances, so I’m not yet a Bloom-hater. Anyhow, it’s good for actors to stretch a bit.

*  I might have been tempted to run clips from the ongoing “Star Wars” spoofery going on at “The Family Guy” only I have this strange, yet deep, inner conviction that Seth MacFarlane should in no way be confused with someone who makes funny shows. The clip from a table read embedded on a  post by Geoff Boucher only strengthens that conviction. I seriously do not understand what those people are laughing at. I’ve asked this question before and have never received a good answer: is the “joke” of his shows that all the jokes are bad?

* If the movie adventures of young Jack London get more kids to actually read Jack London, I think that’ll be great. Confession time: I’ve only read The Sea Wolf. The movie, despite having Edward G. Robinson, John Garfield, and Ida Lupino in it, didn’t begin to do it justice. Steling Hayden or Robert Ryan were the only men ever born to play the half-insane, ultra-macho, pseudo-intellectual control freak Wolf Larsen. Actually, Russell Crowe could not only play Wolf Larson, I suspect he is Wolf Larsen.

* It nice to lead with some good news. Jailed Iranian director Jafar Panahi has reportedly been released on bail from his imprisonment. The director, who was supposed to sit on the Cannes jury, had been on a hunger strike. The acclaimed film-maker appears to be in trouble because of a documentary about the Iranian protest movement.

* The lower than expected box office performance for “Shrek Forever After” had an effect on Wall Street. Moreover, Patrick Goldstein wonders if those inflated 3-D ticket prices might already be starting to backfire. I tend to agree. People may not mind paying a little extra for something that feels like a real event, but 3-D is already starting to feel old hat and, as Goldstein reminds us, there’s a lot more coming.

* This story fell between the cracks a few days back — and Louis Black doesn’t work for me — but Morgan Spurlock (“Super Size Me“) really is doing that comicon documentary that was rumored sometime back. It was originally plugged as a collaboration of some sort with Joss Whedon, but it turns out Whedon is just one of a few geek superstars who will be executive producing. That’ possibly the most elastic job title in show business, so his involvement could be fairly minimal though I’m sure he’ll appear on screen. Accompanying Whedon in backing the film are none other than Stan Lee and Harry Knowles.

* A long time ago, I found the novel, Less Than Zero, oddly compelling reading in that it was a vivid portrait of a human train wreck. That being said, Brett Easton Ellis is certainly not dispelling the widespread opinion that he might be a jackass with his pronouncements about female directors. May he shortly be visited by the ghost of Ida Lupino.

* The real winner at Cannes: Eliot Spitzer.

* Call me a luddite old fogey with terrible hand-eye coordination, but I can’t get excited about movies based on videogames. Nevertheless, Warner Brothers disagrees and is starting things up on a film version of “Mass Effect.”

* Speaking of movies based on video games, apparently “Hitman” — a movie I’ve never heard anyone say they liked — made enough cash to instigate a sequel. Yay.

* Note to Kim Masters and her mysterious “talent representative.” The reason Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy aren’t as popular as they once were has nothing to do with the Internet or “dumbing down.” It has a lot to do with their failure to make funny and/or good movies. It eventually gets to you.  I do agree with producer David Friendly that “the concept is becoming the star.” That, in a way, is as it should be.

* If you’ve got some time, you should check out the really good and really long New York Times piece about the late author of the latest hot book-based franchise, Steig Larsson of The Millenium Trilogy. The very decent Swedish film version of the first book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which believe it or not combines classical style mystery/detective fiction with blunt portrayals of sexual abuse and a character partially inspired by Pippi Longstocking, is already a huge international hit. A big-star laden American version is coming, perhaps with Brad Pitt.  And the books are just one element of Larsson’s fascinating and somewhat tragic life. Anne Thompson has more on the film, in particular.

* If he didn’t provide the links to back himself up, I’d wonder what the Filmdrunk was imbibing, but apparently Martin Scorsese thinks that Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro would be good as the older Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, respectively, for his long delayed film about the Rat Pack. Perhaps fortunately, it’s destined to be delayed a bit longer as Scorsese has a lot on his plate right now.

* I know nobody really cares, but just for the record, “The Switch,” based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, will not be a prequel.  Not really. The book “Jackie Brown” was based on, Rum Punch, was a sequel. The movie might be “blessed” by Quentin Tarantino, whatever that means, but it sounds as if it will have no real connection to the terrific Tarantino film, which Leonard has said is his favorite adaptation of one of his books.