In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

Recently, director Baz Luhrmann has been concentrating his energies on mounting a big screen adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby. He has spent time working with attached stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, workshopping the script to get it to a point where he feels he can move ahead to actually rolling cameras on the film.

But now it is looking like Luhrmann may be backing off of the project. New York Magazine‘s Vulture blog talked with the director before this weekend’s Directors Guild Awards where he admitted -

I gotta make a decision in three days time… Whether to do it or not. I think I’ve been a bit shaded out because I want everything to be perfectly positioned on it.

If Luhrmann does go ahead with the project, DiCaprio will star as the film’s titular mysterious millionaire, Carey Mulligan as the object of his desire Daisy Buchanan and Maguire as the novel’s narrator, Nick Caraway.

Luhrmann promised that there will be an announcement by the “by the end of the week,” and when that news breaks, we’ll bring it to you.

Director Baz Luhrmann has found his Daisy Buchanan for his upcoming adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby in the form of British actress Carey Mulligan. Mulligan will be starring opposite Leonardo DiCaprio and possibly Tobey Maguire who is expected to play Gatsby’s friend, Nick Carraway.

Mulligan beats out a number of actresses who were considered for the part including Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley, Amanda Seyfried, Blake Lively, Abbie Cornish, Michelle Williams and Scarlett Johansson.

Deadline broke the story directly from Luhrmann who also passed along the photo on the right, taken of Mulligan during a recent workshopping of the script. Reportedly, the offer was made to Mulligan very shortly after Luhrmann showed her audition tape to Sony studio execs. As Luhrmann told Deadline -

The results from the workshop process on The Great Gatsby have been very encouraging… There are a few elements that I feel need to be resolved before I would categorically state that this is my next film. Regarding the role of Daisy Buchanan, I was privileged to explore the character with some of the world’s most talented actresses, each one bringing their own particular interpretation, all of which were legitimate and exciting. However, specific to this particular production of The Great Gatsby, I was thrilled to pick up the phone an hour ago to the young Oscar-nominated British actress Carey Mulligan and say to her: “Hello, Daisy Buchanan.”

Since her nomination for an Academy Award for 2009′s An Education, the 25-year-old Mulligan has been one of the more sought after actresses has been entertaining a number of high profile projects. She has recently starred in Public Enemies, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and Mark Romanek’s thriller Never Let Me Go and is attached to a potential remake of My Fair Lady.

It’s that time of year again. This Tuesday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce the nominees for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

Every year there are snubs and surprises, thrills and controversies. There is no way of knowing who will be nominated, but we here at FilmBuffOnLine, who believe the day nominations are announced should be a National holiday, are going to try and handicap the process for you.

We will try to tell you who we think are Almost Certain to get a nomination, who Definite May Be nominated, and whose nomination is a Outside Shot in the major categories (the four acting categories, Best Director, and Best Picture). We are trying to cover all bases, but don’t come to us if you lose money on your Oscar Nomination pool.

Best Actor:

Almost Certain:

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart; George Clooney, Up in the Air; Colin Firth, A Single Man;  Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Definite May Be:

Morgan Freeman, Invictus;

Outside Shot:

Robert Downey Jr, Sherlock Holmes; Matt Damon, The Informant!; Tobey Maguire, Brothers

Four of the five spots should be locked up, as Clooney, Firth, Bridges, and Renner have been nominated for all the other awards this season and have pretty much split up the winnings. Freeman should be nominated, but could also have some backlash headed his way. Downey Jr. won the Golden Globe for comedy acting, and there is some buzz for Damon.

Best Actress:

Almost Certain:

Sandra Bullock, The Blindside; Gabourey Sidibe, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia

Definite May Be:

Helen Mirren, The Last Station; Carey Mulligan, An Education

Outside Shot:

Amy Adams, Julie and Julia; Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria; Ellen Page, Whip It; Hilary Swank, Amelia

Bullock seems to have set off a siren with critics and her fellow actors as per her acting ability. Sidibe’s debut won raves and that should make her a lock for a nomination, Mulligan has won her fair share of awards, but will Oscar nominate two relative unknowns in the same year? The Academy should just make a rule that Streep is automatically nominated whenever she puts a movie out. Julia and Julia seem more Oscar worthy than It’s Complicated. But I wouldn’t be surprised if her co-star from the former gets a nod. Amelia was a poorly received Oscar bait, but the Academy seems to like Swank.

Best Supporting Actor:

Almost Certain:

Christoph Waltz,Inglourious Basterds

Definite May Be:

Matt Damon, Invictus; Woody Harrelson, The Messenger; Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

Outside Shot:

Ben Foster, The Messenger; Christian McKay, Me and Orson Welles; Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

It’s Waltz’s Oscar to lose, so he’s pretty much guaranteed a nomination. Damon, Harrelson and Tucci have received enough acclaim elsewhere that they should be nominated. Plummer has received a number of nominations, but Foster and especially McKay were strong in their roles and could surprise.

Best Supporting Actress:

Almost Certain:

Mo’Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

Definite May Be:

Penelope Cruz, Nine; Vera Fermiga, Up in the Air; Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air; Samantha Morton, The Messenger

Outside Shot:

Mariah Carey, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Diane Krueger, Inglourius Basterds; Julianne Moore, A Single Man; Sigourney Weaver, Avatar

Like Supporting Actor, Mo’Nique is enough of a front runner that a nod is a given. However, her performance isn’t the only surprisingly good one in the film, so a nod for Mariah Carey is not outside the realm of possibility. Both women from Up in the Air should be nominated, but Kendrick has the edge if they only choose one. The Academy loves Cruz, so she should get a nomination for a poorly received movie. And I can’t see Avatar not getting one acting nod, and the most likely candidate is Weaver.

Best Director:

Almost Certain:

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker; James Cameron, Avatar; Jason Reitman, Up in the Air

Definite May Be:

Lee Daniels, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Clint Eastwood, Invictus; Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Outside Shot:

Tom Ford, A Single Man; Pete Docter & Bob Petersen, Up

The big three of Bigelow, Cameron (who were once married to each other–keep an eye on each other’s face if the other wins) and Reitman should get nods. Daniels and Tarantino have other nominations to their credit and the Academy loves Eastwood. But Docter and Petersen are more than worthy.

Best Picture:

Almost Certain:

Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, Up in the Air

Definite May Be:

An Education, Inglourious Basterds, Invictus, A Single Man, Up

Outside Shot:

(500) Days of Summer, The Blindside, Crazy Heart, District 9, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Hangover, Julie and Julia, The Messenger, Nine, A Serious Man, Star Trek, The Young Victoria

Since this is the first time in decades that more than five films will be nominated for Best Picture, this has become one of the most unpredictable categories. Any film nominated for Best Director should have a good chance at making the ten, but what about sci-blockbusters like Star Trek and District 9? How about comedies like The Hangover? Do poorly received films like Nine and The Blindside have a chance? This all adds up to a test year for the new system and the list of nominees being anybody’s guess.

1. Everybody’s Fine (Miramax, 2,133 Theaters, 100 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Wow, that is some bad photoshopping on the poster there.  Granted, I know a star the magnitude of Robert DeNiro could not be expected to attend a photo session for the About Schmidt knock off that he made to pay the water bill on the Tribeca Grill, but you’d think that considering the film is in the most theaters this week, Miramax would spring for a composite photo where the lighting at least kinda looked the same.

The story involves a widower trying to connect with his estranged family over the holidays.

You can’t really go wrong with the diverse  cast, but the film doesn’t really seem to be all that groundbreaking. And the fact they made the poster in 2 minutes makes it seem that this film is a bit too slap dash to really be good.

2.Brothers (Lionsgate, 2,088 Theaters, 110 Minutes, Rated R):  Is it just me, or does this cast and director seem a little bit too upscale for the subject matter? It seems like this film should be directed by a recent film school graduate, star James Vanderbeek, Tom Welling and Leighton Meester, and air on the Lifetime network. Instead we get an multiple Oscar nominated director in Jim Sheridan, and intriguing trio of Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, and Jake Gyllenhaal. Weird.

Based on the Danish film of the same name, it features on a man who comforts his brother’s wife and family when the brother goes missing in Afghanistan. When the brother comes home, disturbed by his war experiences, he doesn’t like how close the wife and his brother have come.

I would just like to point out that this films stars Spider-Man, the guy who was in line to replace him as Spider-Man, and Queen Amadala. Just throwing that out there.

3. Armored (Sony/Screen Gems, 1,915 Theaters, 88 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Funny that this film is the one with the lowest theater count. It is the one that is most heavily advertised.

A crew of an armored car service hatches a plan to steal a cargo worth $42 Million. Everything goes well until a cop stumbles upon their hiding place. Then the crew begins to fall apart and the job, and their lives, are in jeopardy.

This film seems to be a cut above the typical heist gone wrong film. Matt Dillon, who can play these roles in his sleep, appears to go from a man who is helping out a friend in need to a desperate man trying to kill that man when he puts the caper at risk. That is a range of emotion to go through, and, if it is as it seems, provides a great character arc. 

The best geek news of the week comes right at the end, as Nikki Finke is reporting that Sony Pictures has signed director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire to return to the Spider-Manfranchise for a fourth installment. Finke is reporting that Sony wants to get filming to get underway next fall for a proposed May 2011 release.

Although Sony is keen to have her back, Maguire’s co-star Kirsten Dunst has reportedly not reached a deal with the studio. Sony is also reportedly exploring the idea of filming a fifth installment back-to-back with part 4 to save on production costs.

In our excitement, though, one has to wonder what changed everyone’s mind about returning to the franchise. At the time of the release of Spider-Man 3, it seemed that Raimi, Maguire and Dunst were all looking at  moving on from the superhero series. Was there something in the script for a fourth installment that Sony already has in hand from Zodiacscribe Jamie Vanderbilt that excited them, or did Sony find a big enough dumptruck full of money to back up at their houses?

Personally, I’m thrilled that Raimi is getting at least one more shot at a Spider-Man film. While the first two he directed in the series were two of the best comic book adaptations up their time, Spider-Man 3 was a troubled film. As is often the case when a franchise becomes successful, the number of executives wanting to contribute “creative” ideas seems to grow exponentially, and Spider-Man was no exception. The chief culprit here is, in my opinion, Avi Arad, who had shepherded many of the other current films adapting Marvel Comics characters, who reportedly pressered Raimi into including the villain Venom. It was clear that Raimi was not interested in the character and his inclusion throws off the balance of the film’s other storylines.

With Spider-Man 4‘s hoped for production start being a year away, I have to wonder if Raimi will manage to squeeze out one more film in the interim. Raimi has recently talked about making a fourth installment in his other fan favorite franchise, the Evil Dead series. He also was developing a re-launch of the Jack Ryan series for Paramount, who is anxious to have the film in theaters in 2010. Unfortunately, if he bows to Paramount’s pressure to get the Jack Ryan film done first, that would push a potential Evil Dead 4 back to sometime in 2012. Not groovey.

If all the stars align, 2011 might be a busy year at the cineplex for Marvel movie adaptations.

Producer Laura Ziskin, promoting her one-hour Stand Up To Cancer fundraising special, announced to California and Nevada theater owners that the fourth sequel to the Spider-Man franchise is tentatively scheduled for a May 2011 release.

This might seem like a case of putting the cart before the horse because the script hasn’t even been written yet, but director Sam Raimi previously stated that he’d be up for returning to the franchise if the script is up to snuff. And Tobey Maguire said he’s be interesting in returning as the title character if Sam Raimi came back. So those are two dominoes that could easily fall in place if the script is quality.

If Spider-Man 4 does hit screens in 2011, it might be joining two other Marvel projects that year, The First Avenger: Captain America and The Avengers.

It might also put Marvel in the unenviable position of competing with itself. The First Avenger: Captain America is scheduled for May as well (May 6th, to be exact). Since the rights to Spider-Man franchise have been renewed by Sony, Marvel could have very little recourse if that studio decides to release Spider-Man 4 in the same month, or even on the same day.

Source: Los Angeles Times