* The talk of the geek-o-sphere for some time is going to be the announcement of a massive and potentially trendsetting film/television cross-over adaptation of Stephen King’s multi-volume “The Dark Tower” mega-epic. Universal, which has had some very tough times lately, is taking what I’m guessing could be a make-it-or-break-it gamble on the project, the news of which was broken by Mike Fleming earlier.  I’m not a King reader, but I am intrigued by the fact that it’s a western-science fiction-horror cross-breed. In any case apparently the plan is to start with a movie, go to a 22 episode not-so-mini-series, and then onto another movie, another series, then wrapping it all up with movie. The idea being to provide fans with both the grandeur of theatrical films and the detail and time of a television series.

It’s intriguing but laden with potential pitfalls. One is that it demands an awful lot of time and people who aren’t following the series may feel shut out of the latter two movies. The other is that, quite frankly, I feel the “A Dangerous Mind” creative team of director Ron Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman — who I gather will be writing and directing the first two films and the entire first series at least, which could be some kind of record if that’s what’s really going to happen — simply haven’t indicated they’re up to this kind of material. I hate to say it but winning Oscars can be negative indicator sometimes.

It’s not that I doubt their ability to crank it all out. Howard is obviously a very competent director who knows how to make highly professional material and I have tremendous respect for him as an individual and one of the more positive forces in Big Moviedom. However, he’s always shown a tendency to play it safe and often a bit dull when the chips are really down creatively as a director and none of Goldsman’s movies have been all that inspiring to me either. All I’m saying is that I had a good feeling about Peter Jackson taking on “The Lord of the Rings” and I have a bad feeling about it, though I’d seriously love to be wrong.  Something tells me this project needs a real lunatic and Ron Howard is one of the sanest guys in show business. Huge King fan Quint at AICN has similar misgivings. He has a more riding on this than I.

* Simon Abrams is right re: “Kick-Ass” doing a lot better than people assumed. Even though I cover the weekend grosses here, we all make way too much of those openings and fail to look at the overall picture. Calling a movie a bomb that makes nearly half its budget in its opening weekend is just idiotic anyhow. The actual success of the film may have figured in the ongoing financial struggles between Lionsgate and Carl Icahn.

* If ever an actor was born to a play a hobbit, it’s Brit stand-by Martin Freeman. Despite tabloid stories to the contrary, he may be meeting his humanoid destiny as young Bilbo after all.

* I love the idea of Zhang Ziyi starring in a new film of the Mulan legend. Jan De Boont directing in English, however, not so much.

* So Clint Eastwood could have been Superman or James Bond, which would never have worked in either case and he was smart enough to know it. On other hand, he liked the Submariner. That almost could have worked. Almost. “Do you feel lucky, shark? Do ya’?”

* Oh, man more “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” finance problems. You’ve got to admire Terry Gilliams’ fortitude.

* James Franco’s SNL documentary has a distributor.  Mr. Franco has also entered TMI territory promoting “127 Hours.” As for just how Aaron Ralston passed his time before he was forced to his drastic solution, I guess even in the greatest extremes, a young man’s fancy must be satisfied from time to time.

* Tell the folks at Big Hollywood — a new Ronald Reagan biopic is in the offing. Monica Bartyzel has the details. I agree with her that Brandon Routh makes a lot of sense in terms of casting.

* Oh, and just because today is the start of the most solemn period on the Jewish calendar, Uwe Boll should go fuck himself. Twice.

I’m not the kind of guy who gets easily offended and tend to think that no topic is too sacred for art and everything is fair game and, even when something doesn’t work and turns out badly, you can’t blame people for trying. However, even I have my limit and this no talent attention seeking mega-assclown has found it because he actually seems to know he has no talent and no taste and he makes a movie called “Auschwitz” anyway.  No links and absolutely no embed of the beneath contempt trailer. I hope I’m never forced to mention his film or him ever again.

* Just what we need in L.A. Another indie studio has fired most of its staff.

* The Academy has apparently found Jean-Luc Godard and he might accept his award. The sad part is that it won’t be televised so, sorry, Jean-Luc, there goes your chance to have your work exposed to countless young people who might never have heard of you before. I’m personally a bit angry that the Oscars no longer televise the lifetime achievement awards. I guess attention doesn’t have to paid, after all. Who cares about history or greatness? I don’t care if some people were bored by the old presentations. I really don’t. If movies bore you, why are you watching the Oscars?

* As a gorephobe who nevertheless made it through “Zombieland” with a certain amount of wincing, I am not thrilled that the sequel will be in 3D.

* RIP director Clive Donner and actor Glen Shadix. You probably knew him as Otho.

* I admit it, a lot of the financial/stock market terminology used in Carl Icahn’s letter to Lionsgate stockholders, as carried by Nikki Finke and summarized by THR, eludes me. However, the gist seems to be that it’s all out war now.

* I was out covering the red carpet at the Mike Nichols AFI tribute last night — you’ll be seeing something about it here closer to when the show will actually air in a couple of weeks. Although I had the opportunity to speak very briefly with some genuinely great people, I was a bit disappointed there was no opportunity to watch the presentation on CCTV while I was there. Still, looks like the show that’ll air on TV Land should be something.

* As an English major and someone who has actually read Cervantes, Joel Silver’s apparent approach to “Don Quixote” — which is not to be confused with Terry Gilliam’s ever-dicey “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” — makes me want to slash my wrists just a little.

* Some better news, also from the Playlist, which is that uninhobbited Guillermo del Toro is going back to his vampiric roots and doing a Van Helsing film that will, it safe to say, be much better than the last one, if it ever happens.

* Speaking of good directors who could use a gig, the Vulture claims that Sam Raimi has been offered the gig on the “Wizard of Oz” prequel, “Oz, the Great and Powerful.” I’ve no idea if it’s true, of course, but I’m reasonably sure he’d do a better and more imaginative job than either Sam Mendes or Adam Shankman, which is not really a knock on them.

* Re: talk of a “Taken” sequel. I know the movie did well, but I have a feeling that Liam Neeson just wants to keep working right now.

* Jim Emerson examines the notion of the movies that killed the movies, in the sense that sometimes the success of a particular film, or a type of film, you personally dislike a great deal can make a person actually loose interest in all films that come after, to some degree or another. For Francois Truffuat, it was 1962’s “Dr. No.” Yes, the first James Bond flick. Of course, his own career was really just still starting.

James Cameron‘s super-expensive 3-D extravaganza for Fox, “Avatar,” emerged as the victor of a three-way battle for the top prize with an outstanding second-weekend estimated take of $75 million and an absolutely minuscule drop from it’s first weekend of 2.6%, according to Box-Office Mojo. The Hollywood conventional wisdom has it that most science fiction films drop by at least 50% on their second weekend. Clearly, this is not most science fiction films and the fact that people are waiting to see this one in 3D and paying extra for the privilege is not hurting. So, as I’ve alluded to often enough, the word of mouth on this thing is something else. However, as always, I await the backlash as some folks plunk down their extra-heavy 3D ticket price and fail to have a religious experience.

Second place, of course, was Guy Ritchie’s unorthodox action-comedy take on probably the oldest genre franchise in the biz, “Sherlock Holmes.” The Robert Downey, Jr./Jude Law team-up loosely drawn from the late 19th/early 20th century works of Arthur Conan Doyle defeated “Avatar” and all-comers on its record setting Christmas opening. It then fell a bit and earned a still whopping estimated $65.38 for Warner Brothers, a company that certainly has some experience with franchises. Better yet, this one is in the public domain, which means fewer folks get a share in the wealth.

Fox’s “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” actually beat “Avatar” by a couple of million on its early opening day last Wednesday, but fell sharply on Christmas Eve and rebounded the rest of the weekend, for a very healthy estimated third place showing of $50.2 million. Critics may detest it; parents may barely tolerate it, but, to paraphrase the old blues song, the little kids understand (or don’t know any better). The film’s total estimated take starting from its early opening is just a tad over $77 million.

Considering it’s a Golden Globe-nominated sex comedy presumably aimed at a very grown-up audience — not only because of the average age of its stars but also because it’s R-rated, Universal’s “It’s Complicated” has generated the critical equivalent of a shrug, with our own David Medsker coming down on the very much negative side. That doesn’t bode extremely well for this sort of movie, which can use all the critical and awards help it can get.

Still, this weekend’s rising tide managed to lift this boat to the tune of an estimated $22 million or so, which is really not bad for this kind of film. Or, it wouldn’t be because Nikki Finke claims the budget was $80 million, which is way high for this kind of movie  and suggests to me that it’s possible stars Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin let their agents negotiate extra-hard for a big pay-day because they were perhaps less than wowed by the film artistically. Universal just doesn’t seem to be cutting itself any breaks lately.

The #5 spot went to one of the two heavily Oscar-touted films that expanded into wide release this weekend. Jason Reitman’s topical darkish comedy, “Up in the Air,” did just well enough that Nikki Finke was apparently forced to control her commercially inspired anti-George Clooney animus.  It earned a solid estimate of $11.7 million for Paramount in just under 1,900 theaters. While Reitman’s free adaptation of a novel by Walter Kirn has more than lived up to its hype in terms of critical praise and awards and nominations so far, “Nine” has been met with a chorus of mild critical disappointment and, despite some Golden Globe and Critics Choice nominations and a couple of minor awards, what sure seems to be rapidly declining awards buzz.

That lack of enthusiasm was certainly reflected in its lackluster fiscal performance as it came it in the #8 spot with a somewhat sad per-screen average of $3,902 and an estimated total of just over $5.5 million in just over 1,400 theaters. (For comparison, the “Up in the Air” per screen average was $6,203.) I think the reasons for its failure are obvious enough starting with a vague premise that’s hard for mass audiences to fathom and a show that’s actually not all that well known based on a classic of New Wave Italian cinema that has little awareness outside cinephile and artsy circles. It was clear the Weinstein Company’s marketing department didn’t mind Kate Hudson shaking her perfect but perhaps misnamed moneymaker with “Cinema Italiano,” but would rather forget the film’s relationship to actual Italian cinema.  Add to that no boost from critics or word of mouth and the result is box office disappointment. Simple enough, right?

Not for Finke:

Seriously, who did Harvey [Weinstein] think would be the audience for this very sexy (therefore very heterosexual) musical? Even though it grabbed Golden Globe nominations, it can’t grab an audience which may hurt it come Oscars. What a miscalculation, especially since the Weinsteins put so many other films on hold to focus on it.

For starters, it’s not that the poor box office may hurt it’s Oscars chances, it’s close to a sure thing. As far as I’ve seen, while the notoriously star-struck Golden Globes are one thing, the Academy almost never nominate films in more than a category or two that are neither commercial nor critical successes — you have to be at least one or the other, preferably both. There are exceptions for stand-out elements of an otherwise unimpressive movies such as, say, special effects or a hit song — “Cinema Italiano” is real contender in the best song category, I’m sure. It might even win. Worse songs certainly have.

As for the intimation that Weinstein should keep it gay and a musical with lots of sexy women dancing around is somehow a bad idea commercially because it might turn off the gay male audience — if that’s what Finke really means, I’d really like to know what she’s smoking. The sexy-female centric musical fantasia certainly worked well for Marshall in “Chicago” as it did for Bob Fosse, Busby Berkeley, and many others before him. While the connection between gay men and musicals runs deep, it’s pretty clear that even the worlds’ Roger DeVries-types don’t have a problem with scantily clad females in musicals and are vastly more mature than their straight male brethren about having to view sexiness not of their own preference.

Moreover, there’s another less well known but nearly as avid minority audience for musicals — Jewish people. Maybe the problem is that, being all about Italian people, “Nine” is both too goyish and too hetero to be a hit. Therefore, the new rule is that every musical should be a sequel to “Yentl,” since it involved both Jews and cross-dressing, or maybe it’s time for “La Cage Aux Folles” with Harvey Fierstein, Adam Sandler and the B’nai Brith Men’s Chorus, or possibly a gayed-up musical version of “Inglourious Basterds.”

All I’m saying is this: sometimes movies fail simply because they don’t turn out that great, not because of some gigantic corporate mistake. Nikki needs to remember this is not a business that can be boiled down to easy formulas. Along that path lies madness.

Rants aside, as usual, the largest per-screen average went into a film in highly limited release. This week that was Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnussus,” the final film to star Heath Ledger. While my own review is the very definition of “mixed,” I’m still hopeful for the hugely gifted ex-Python animator to have some improved luck on future films., I’m glad that it may be finding an audience because I want to see that “Don Quixote” movie and lots of other insanity besides.