I guess you know your job has become unnecessary (or worse, wasn't necessary to begin with) when you're canned and then it's decided there's no need to even replace you. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere has been covering the heck out of the story of the firing of Paramount Pictures president Gail Berman, starting with a piece linking back to a story he wrote nearly a year ago, when he received a letter from a supposed insider slamming this Hollywood Reporter piece by Anne Thompson about the challenges Berman, who came to Paramount from Fox Entertainment (so yeah, you can kinda blame her for American Idol, along with everything else), was facing eight months into her job.

I'm not sure, but I think most of the movie pirates out there do not buy DVDs. But if they do buy DVDs in addition to all the burned or downloaded titles they steal, they're about to find out some horrible news: pirating movies is bad -- illegal even. New DVDs released this year will include special inserts supplied by DEG (Digital Entertainment Group) urging people to buy authentic DVDs rather than pirated copies. Again I'm not sure, but I thought the unavoidable FBI Warning message that plays before the movie already covered this ground.

Isn't this like car manufacturers putting fliers in vehicles urging new auto buyers not to steal other cars? Why remind someone who just bought your product to continue being a good consumer? It feels a little unappreciative to me. Even if the insert reads: "Thank you for buying this DVD and continuing to support Hollywood's efforts to entertain you," the honest spenders should feel a little annoyed.

You all know by now that Paramount, determined to squeeze as much blood as possible from that moldy galactic turnip known as the Star Trek franchise, is allowing current 'it'-boy J.J. Abrams to write and direct the next Trek feature film. For the past year or so, several rumors have floated back and forth, including one about the potential casting of Matt Damon as a youngish Captain Kirk. One of the biggest question marks, however, has been the extent to which this new feature would be a 're-boot' of the franchise, Batman Begins-style, revising or even scrapping much of what has come before. Well, it looks like Abrams has gone a long way to answering that. In a new interview with Entertainment Weekly, the M:I3 director claims that while people who love Star Trek should get a 'satisfying fix' from the film he's currently planning to shoot, "the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek."

Abrams also goes a step further, saying "I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they would come to it with an open mind." Although this might seem like blasphemy to long-time fans, it does make sense from the studio's point of view, considering that the last Star Trek film barely made half of its $70 million budget back in domestic returns. Abrams and his Alias colleagues Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have reportedly finished a first draft of the film, which is currently due to hit theaters sometime in 2008.

Every time Apple has a big event, tech fans go crazy. These events mean big announcements of big products and services. In other words, they mean exciting things for computer technology -- exciting enough that sites like TUAW need to live blog every few minutes in order to satisfy the geek appetite for immediate updates (MacRumors went way overboard on this idea).

Since September, Apple events have allowed movie geeks to join in the frenzy. But what could Apple announce to the cineworld that would top news that iTunes offers movies? Probably nothing for awhile, but at least the company can announce the availability of other studios' titles. Actually, I wonder if Apple's true reason for not immediately offering more than just Disney titles is that they wanted to hold off each studio's participation for separate events (I prefer the Wal-Mart bully reason, because it is more fun to hate Wal-Mart than Apple).

Well, today is another Apple event called MacWorld 2007, and rumors were circulating the web and the press about what new products and services would be announced. And although they were only rumors, the very idea that something would be announced made Apple's stock go way up. The major rumor for us at Cinematical, generated by the Wall Street Journal, was that Paramount/Viacom would be the second studio to distribute movies to iTunes.

After dissing Disney and handing Warner Bros. the box office flop that was Lady in the Water, M. Night Shyamalan is packing his bags and heading to Paramount -- or, more specifically, MTV Films and Nick Movies. The writer-director has just inked a three-picture deal to adapt Nick TV's animated kiddie show Avatar into a big-screen, live-action trilogy (or shall I say, potential trilogy). Oh yes, and this comes only a few hours after Fox announced that it had officially greenlit James Cameron's Avatar ... though the only thing both projects have in common is the same title.

If it all goes through, this will be the first time since 1999's Stuart Little that Shyamalan takes on a project that is not based on his own original story (Shyamalan adapted Little from the E.B. White book, but did not direct), and only the second time the filmmaker has decided to work on kid-friendly material (unless you count his so-called bedtime story, Lady in the Water). While I'm not familiar with the toon, Avatar: The Last Airbender (the full title of both the show and the film) is apparently set in an "Asian-influenced fantasy world" and revolves around an irresponsible, care-free Avatar who is placed in charge of stopping the Fire Nation from wreaking havoc on the Water, Earth and Air nations.

It sounds wonderful, but it's not that easy -- see, both Fox and Paramount claim they own the name Avatar. The latter says they registered the name with the MPAA, while the former went all schoolyard bully and noted: "We own the movie title 'Avatar.' There won't be another film called 'Avatar' coming from anyplace." Hell yeah! Something tells me that Fox rep threw in a little "Booyah!" afterwards, yet Variety decided it might be best to leave it out. It's also important to note that Shyamalan is also shopping other projects (the man does have an ego and a rep greater than twelve Fire Nations combined), and so Avatar: The One Where M. Night Bites the Bullet and Takes It Up the You Know Where might not be the next Shyamalan epic to go into production.

With the arrival of (their version of) The Hitcher, Platinum Dunes producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller have started making the junket rounds, and that's how the Bloody Disgusting boys were able to ask the filmmakers if that long-rumored Friday the 13th remake is still moving forward. And the answer seems to be ... yes.

"We're working on a script right now and I think next year, maybe end of the year we will have it out. Jonathan Liebesman is still attached, but he's got a lot of things rolling around. If he's available when we have the script we'd love to work with him again."

Liebesman is the gentleman who directed both Darkness Falls and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning -- and if that's all it takes to become an in-demand director these days, heck, I'm in the wrong business. To be fair, he also helmed the short Rings, which is notable in that it's about ten times better than The Ring Two.

In related news, it seems that Paramount Pictures might be back in the Jason Voorhees business. BD.com further reports that when the new Friday arrives, it will be as a co-production between New Line Cinema and Paramount Pictures. Hardcore horror geeks are well aware that Paramount dropped Jason after 1988's Manhattan disaster, thereby giving New Line the ability to churn out Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason. No specific word on how/why Paramount will be involved in the series again, but ... does it really matter?

Freedom Writers tells the true story of teacher Erin Gruwell and her students -- a class of left-behind ghetto kids nobody cared about or believed in -- who, in working together, overcame the negative expectations of a school system that had given up on them. The real students -- who called themselves the Freedom Writers after they started journaling events in their lives -- had their real-life stories from their journals published in a book, and now writer/director Richard LaGravenese and Hilary Swank have brought their tale to the big screen. Cinematical say down recently for a chat with Erin Gruwell, actor Jason Finn, who plays one of the students, and real-life Freedom Writer Maria Reyes, to talk about the film.

When I first heard the plot of Freedom Writers -- inspirational movie about a white teacher bringing hope to poor, black students -- my initial reaction was: Yawn. Haven't we already seen this story, in Dangerous Minds, with Michelle Pfeiffer in the role of the white knight saving the day? So it was with not a little trepidation that I settled down with my popcorn and diet soda for the screening of Freedom Writers. And then ... what do you know? I was actually surprised -- in a good way -- to have my expectations proved wrong.

The end of the box office "slump of '05" and an overall increase in domestic gross over last year should make some U.S. theatre owners happy. However, the studios are more likely to be smiling because of the international grosses. 2006 was a record year for exported movies from Hollywood, and this will probably result in more franchises, sequels and other mainstream fare.

These tentpoles keep Hollywood alive these days, and the studios depend on and cater to worldwide audiences rather than Americans. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that for the sake of the profit, we'll be seeing more movies like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and The Da Vinci Code, both of which performed incredibly at home and overseas despite critical pans. Quoted in Variety, Buena Vista International's Anthony Marcoly confirmed this by saying the current strategy is to produce big movies with wide appeal that will over-perform in the international markets.

Okay, so what else is new, right? Well, there are a few noteworthy things to point out, such as the rising market share for smaller distributors. Focus Features and Lionsgate had spectacular years thanks to Brokeback Mountain and Saw II and III, respectively. The former proves the international box office isn't completely epics and other big-budget entertainments. On a sad note, though, Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties also did very well.

As Erik noted earlier today, the Screen Actors Guild noms are out, and there are few surprises. I was a little surprised by what Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere had to say about Eddie Murphy's Best Supporting Actor nod for Dreamgirls, though (WARNING: There is a spoiler in his post, so be warned before you click over there):

"What could the Murphy nom be about? Because he sings well, drops his pants and [SPOILER DELETED]? I ve been told all along that the SAG rank-and-file regards Murphy as an asshole. Maybe it's the old animal-kingdom instinct of showing obeisance before power, because Murphy was King Shit in the '80s? I know this: Murphy isn't fit to shine Mark Wahlberg's shoes."

Oof. That seems a little harsh. I mean, I like Wahlberg well enough, he's a solid actor, but Murphy, when he's on, does his thing very well. Personally, I'm impressed, if nothing else, with Murphy's ability to continually reinvent his career and surprise his fans. I've not seen Dreamgirls yet, unfortunately, but from all reports he does a bang-up job and is deserving up a nom, if not the win. Chime in with your thoughts, readers -- especially if you've seen Dreamgirls and have thoughts on Murphy's performance. Is Wells spot-on in saying Murphy shouldn't be nominated? Or is he full of hot air?

What does a producer do again? He or she produces. Okay, so producers aren't always that easy to define, but they are very important and they deserve their countless accolades as much as anyone else in Hollywood. I used to think of the producer being more important on big studio pictures, the kind with a for-hire type director. However, producers on indie films (or "specialty division" films) are potentially more important these days. That could be why the Producers Guild of America is predominantly recognizing these "independent" producers for the second year in a row.

Last year the PGA nominated a few films from studio specialty divisions, including Brokeback Mountain, which won the main prize (well, technically its producers, Diana Ossana and James Schamus, won the Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award). This year three of the films nominated for that prize are also from specialty divisions: Little Miss Sunshine, from Fox Searchlight; The Queen, from Miramax; Babel, from Paramount Vantage. The other two nominees are studio product, The Departed and Dreamgirls.

Another year, another Oscar disqualification controversy. It would probably help the Academy to sit down and really go through its eligibility rules, compare their fairness between categories and come up with something reasonably concrete and consistent. Still, in fairness to the Academy, this latest controversy may not be that big a deal. So Beyoncé Knowles is not being listed as one of the writers of the Dreamgirls song "Listen," which she allegedly co-wrote with potential nominees Henry Krieger, Anne Preven and Scott Cutler. Some people don't think she really contributed an equal share of the work anyway. And she agrees with those people.

The singer-actress should just ignore the Oscars and consider the recognition she has received. I mean, the woman has been nominated for more important things, such as "Favorite Female Butt Kicker" (Kid's Choice Awards, for Austin Powers in Goldmember) and "Sexiest Performance" (MTV Movie Awards, for The Pink Panther). Plus she got the songwriting credit and nomination, as well as an acting nomination, from both the Golden Globes and the Satellites. Can she really take the Academy seriously after they already failed to nominate her for "Independent Women", part I (too bad 2000 was one of those rare good years for the original song category)? Perhaps being upstaged by and underappreciated because of a certain former American Idol contestant puts one's self-worth into question?

Regardless of Beyoncé's problems, though, the Academy's rule of recognizing only three contributors is ridiculous. What happens if a four-piece band -- one that shares writing credits -- writes a song for a movie? I'm not sure why the rule was added, and I agree that seven songwriters was a lot to include for Shrek 2's "Accidentally in Love," but it may need another rewrite.

2006 was the first full year of Cinematical, and it was a very busy year for its bloggers. A lot of big news, shocking news and ongoing news kept us busy as we followed the important stories and passed the significant bits onto you. There was good news, bad news, unexpected news and unbelievable news. There were deaths, births, rebirths and remakes. There was so much going on that it takes an amazing film geek to recall everything (have you tested your memory yet?).

But what was the most important story for film in 2006? The end of the box office slump? The Weinsteins' devilish pact with Blockbuster? Peter Jackson's possibilities of directing The Hobbit? Uwe Boll boxing his critics? Sorry, but none of those affected the consciousness of cinema as much as these other stories from the past 12 months:

• Disney Buys Pixar - When 2006 began, the future of Disney's relationship with Pixar was still uncertain. There had been hint of a new deal between the two companies in the last few days of 2005, but nothing was concrete. Three weeks went by, in which time the new year came in and Pixar's stock prices went up, and then finally the first installment of news came through on January 19: Disney would buy Pixar. Three days later, we were reminded that the deal was not yet done, that it was still awaiting approval from Steve Jobs and the rest of the animation studio's board. On January 23, however, it was in the bag: Disney bought Pixar for $7.4 billion. And John Lasseter was named head of Disney animation.
  
  The story didn't end there. Throughout 2006, the effects of the acquisition continued to be felt. First, Toy Story 3 was killed. But then it was greenlit again. Disney closed its new computer animation studio, Circle 7. Then many months went by before Disney fired a whole lot of people working in its animation departments. Finally, just a few weeks ago, the company announced they'd be trying out the ol' hand-drawn stuff again. By year's end, it felt as though Pixar was the one who owned Disney.
  

It's only been two days since Spike Lee was announced as the director of an upcoming James Brown biopic for Paramount Pictures and Imagine Entertainment, but already the internet is buzzing with rumors as to who will play the legendary performer. Unfortunately, Starpulse News reports via Page Six (extremely reliable source, I know) that Usher is very much interested in the role. For those who don't know Usher, he's the cocky 28-year-old R&B singer/performer who's kind of like a young Michael Jackson rip-off rolled up into that annoying "cool" kid from high school -- ya know, the one you just wanted to snap in two as he sashayed down the hall, but were too afraid of being sued. Yeah, him.

Another name being tossed into the rumor pile is Fergie (aka Stacy Ferguson) from the Black Eyed Peas -- she'd like to land a part as one of Brown's wives. Unlike Usher (who has yet to make a real name for himself on the big screen, save for, ahem, In the Mix), Ferguson has appeared in Be Cool, Poseidon and has a part in the upcoming Grindhouse. Now, I don't mean to enrage you Usher fanatics out there, but c'mon -- do you really think he's cool enough to play James Brown? Seriously. Maybe -- just maybe -- I'd accept him in the role of a young Brown if, say, they got Eddie Murphy (for example) to step in after the first half hour to play an older version.

What do you think of Usher as James Brown? Do you dig that choice, or do you throw up a little bit in your mouth just thinking about the possibility of Usher in the main role?

[via Filmstalker]

Director Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) is everything you would expect him to be, if you're familiar with his films. German, impeccably groomed, dressed all in black, he is fierce and passionate. He appears relaxed at first, but then you realize that's just a well-practiced cover for the nervous energy underneath, which comes springing out unleashed when he gets talking enthusiastically about something -- like his latest film, the bizarre, dark fable Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, adapted by Tykwer from the enormously popular Patrick Süskind book of the same title. Tykwer was in town recently on a press tour for his film, and sat down with Cinematical to chat about the intricacies of making a film about scent.