Deadline is reporting, sadly, that actor James Gandolfini has passed away of an apparent heart attack or stroke while in Italy.

Gandolfini is perhaps best known for his iconic performance as Tony Soprano on HBO’s The Sopranos. However, he also appeared in many films like The Last Boy Scout, True Romance, Terminal Velocity, Crimson Tide, Get Shorty, Where The Wild Things Are, Killing Them Softly and Zero Dark Thirty. Most recently, you might have seen him in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, he was in Italy attending the 59th Taormina Film Festival in Sicily and was scheduled to participate in a festival event with Italian director Gabriele Muccino.

I’ve included his episode of Inside the Actor’s Studio, which is a retrospective of his career.

This is a shame. Shailene Woodley is a talented young actress and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was set to be her most mainstream role yet, but it looks like things weren’t meant to be.

See, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was first going to balance Peter Parker’s relationship with Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy and Woodley’s Mary Jane Watson, but director Marc Webb made a decision (probably a smart one) to cut out some fat and streamline the story – focusing on Parker and Stacy’s relationship.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

“I made a creative decision to streamline the story and focus on Peter and Gwen and their relationship,” said Webb. “Shailene is an incredibly talented actress and while we only shot a few scenes with Mary Jane, we all love working with her.”

They only shot three scenes, according to THR. The plan is now to introduce Mary Jane in the third film and do some other stuff or something. Whatever, I’m more bummed out for Woodley than for the movie. Woodley told Entertainment Weekly:

“Of course I’m bummed. But I’m a firm believer in everything happening for a specific reason …. based on the proposed plot, I completely understand holding off on introducing [Mary Jane] until the next film.”

That specific reason might be Divergent, which is a Hunger Games-like film adaptation of a Young Adult novel. Woodley plays a teenager who wishes to break free from her society, which divides people based on human traits, and joins a rival group where she falls for some guy (Jai Courtney, I think).

If that movie is a success, it’s likely that there will be sequels and that means that Woodley will get the big exposure she deserves. Frankly, I hope it is a success. [THR]

Deadline is reporting that Sony Pictures has set release dates for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4. Now do note that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 hasn’t come out yet. That movie comes out on May 2, 2014. That’s so off into the future that it’s impossible to judge how the movie is going to do financially.

So what the heck is Sony thinking here? There are two main motivators. First, May has quickly become THE month to launch your movie. You’re almost guaranteed to make at least $50 million. The Amazing-Spider Man, which launched in July when opening weekends are smaller than they are in May, made $62 million in its opening weekend.

So it seems they’re pretty confident it’s going to be a success. But still, that doesn’t justify two additional films.

It seems to me that Sony is playing a long game with Spidey. Similar to how Marvel is playing a long game with The Avengers. If you’ll recall, The Lizard was the villain in the first film and then got locked up. In the second movie, we know that we’ll have The Rhino and Electro. That’s 3 villains in two villains.

We also know that OsCorp has turned into something of a house of horror in this new Spidey universe. All the villains are likely to spawn from this insane place as they’re testing a bunch of things on animals there (and I guess electricity).

Therefore, I can only assume that Sony is working their way to an Amazing Spider-Man 4 that has the Sinister Six take on Spidey. Of course, it won’t be exactly the same as it is in the comics. The Lizard, for instance, never really joins the Sinister Six. But then again, the Sinister Six has been changed depending on specific comic runs and what have you.

Why else would a studio plan that many films in advance? They obviously have a larger arc planned here, which was hinted at in the first film. I doubt they’ll dip into that Venom well again. And really, the idea of taking villains from a series of films and teaming them up is sort of an anti-Avengers idea. Personally, I’d love to see Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man take on six crazy villains.

But really, none of this could happen if the second one bombs or is Spider-Man 3 bad. [Deadline]

Walt Disney Animation – at this moment – is doing some good work. Wreck-It Ralph was one of the better animated movies that came out last year, despite it being a down year for animation. They’re not doing many sequels and they’re pumping out wonderful shorts like Paperman and new Mickey Mouse shorts.

You could possibly say that they’ve caught up to their sister studio Pixar as their last two efforts are equal to or better than Pixar’s (Wreck-It Ralph and Tangled vs Brave and Cars 2). Their next movie is called Frozen and we should be seeing the trailer any day not.

Until then, USA Today has released some new images from the film. Although really, they’re our first look at the film. In hindsight, it looks like Tangled was the beginning of a new art style for the studio as Frozen looks very similar.

So what’s this thing about? Anna, played by Kristen Bell, heads out to find her sister Elsa, who is a Queen that ran away from her family after accidentally setting off a curse that left her kingdom in perpetual winter. Of course, it’s based off of a fairy tale – this one based off of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale.

There are princes and unlikely romances, of course, as this is a Disney Princess movie but Bell tells USA Today that the core of the film is the relationship between the two sisters. That’s neat as most Disney Princess movies have an underlying thing going on that makes the Princess compelling. I could certainly see child sisters going ga-ga for this, but will everyone else?

I guess we’ll see when Frozen hits theaters on November 27. [USA Today]

For the past week or so I’ve defended Warner Bros., saying that I believed that they finally got their act together regarding the future of DC Comics’ movies (including Justice League). I had even more confidence in them just a couple days ago when we learned that they’re fast tracking Man of Steel 2.

Good, I said. Let them concentrate on these Superman movies and forget Justice League for now. But now The Wall Street Journal is reporting that my confidence had no basis: Warner Bros. wants to rush out Man of Steel for 2014.

2014.

That’s a year from now. Come on, Warner Bros.

Pushing out a big budget superhero movie in under a year is a dumb, dumb move. The problem with Man of Steel was mostly in the script. If David Goyer is writing the sequel and has to rush through it – well, that doesn’t bode well for the sequel. On top of that, everyone else is going to have to rush this thing out. It’s highly unlikely the CG is as good as it was in Man of Steel with under a year to go.

Of course, there’s always the chance that stress and a tight deadline could get people working better. It worked for X-Men: First Class, which was pumped out in under a year and ended up being one of the better comic book movies out there. And hell, The Wizard of Oz had a terrible production period and that turned out pretty well.

Those are exceptions though – they’re not regular occurrences. Olympus Has Fallen was a movie that was rushed out the door (to get ahead of Sony’s White House Down) and that turned out terribly. Forcing your filmmakers to make Man of Steel 2 in under a year is a stupid, stupid idea.

Hopefully whoever the WSJ’s source is was mistaken or was speaking more generally. Their phrasing doesn’t seem to indicate that 2014 IS the confirmed date. Rather, the wording says “as soon as 2014,” which indicates that 2014 is the best case scenario.

My hope is that Man of Steel 2 arrives in 2015. Screw the Justice League movie, honestly. Right now I have no interest in seeing that thing. I’d much rather have a Man of Steel 2, an Aquaman movie, a new (better) take on Green Lantern and a Wonder Woman movie. Of course, Wonder Woman may be impossible to adapt – but I’d like to see them try. But the rest? Very, very possible.

So please, Warner Bros. Don’t be dumb. You’re about to launch a moneymaking franchise with Man of Steel. Taking your time and making it right will get you more money than rushing it out the door. [Wall Street Journal]

The New York Times is reporting that Netflix and DreamWorks Animation have inked a deal that’s set to make Netflix the exclusive home for animated TV shows “inspired by” movies like Shrek, The Croods and more.

Now, “inspired by” could literally mean almost anything. It could be a show based in the same universe but have nothing to do with anything. They could also be about a side character like the Gingerbread Man or something. Literally. This could mean anything.

However, this gives Netflix a potential arsenal of animated goodness in addition to stuff like House of Cards and Arrested Development. Now, DreamWorks and Netflix had already announced a series called Turbo: FAST that’s set to arrive online later this year, but that’s not based on a proven property like Shrek, or what could be a proven property in The Croods.

The DreamWorks shows are set to debut next year and, on top of all that, Netflix is going to get DreamWorks Animation movies as well. That means that in 2016, Netflix will be the TV home of Walt Disney Animation, Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. Those are the three best animation houses in movies.

DreamWorks is likely embarking on TV shows because their new 2-film-per-year strategy is very, very hard to keep going. When you start pumping out movies like they are not all of them are going to be hits. Pixar is going to experience the same thing shortly as they shift to a 2-film-per-year schedule.

This could be a wonderful opportunity for everyone involved: Netflix, DreamWorks Animation and consumers. Although if those shows are terrible then no one will benefit. Either way, Netflix continues to inflate the value of their subscription. [New York Times]

Studios are kind of afraid that improved home theater experiences are cannibalizing movie theater ticket sales, so they’ve slowly taken steps to curb that. The proliferation of Netflix and VOD is allowing people to wait a couple months and check out a movie for half the price of a movie ticket. And hey, it’s much cheaper for a group of friends to rent a movie for $5 than everyone paying $11.

Of course, movie buffs recognize that there’s something special about a theater. Everyone has to shut up and watch the movie, firstly. Have you tried to have a movie night with other people? Most of the time people are doing other things and the movie is almost secondary. You also really do get video quality that is unmatched my TVs and you get a sound experience that is unparalleled.

Oh, and it’s a guaranteed communal experience with other humans – good or bad. You get to experience something with other humans, and we don’t do too much of that anymore cause we segment ourselves off into our smartphone worlds.

So I’m a really big fan of what Paramount is trying to do here. Their Mega Ticket is $50. Here’s what you get: a 3D showing of the film before the movie opens wide, a small popcorn, an HD download of the film when it’s released on Blu Ray, limited edition 3D glasses and a full-size, limited edition poster.

Now I don’t care about the glasses or the poster, or even the 3D showing, but I do care about the value here. A 3D movie costs around $15. An HD digital purpose of a movie costs around $20. A small popcorn is around $5. A poster is around $10. Glasses are, I dunno, some price. That’s $50 right there. You’re really getting your money’s worth.

The negative here is that this is for World War Z, which is a movie I’m not very hyped about and don’t expect to like. However, for something that excites me and expect to like – like Elysium or Gravity – I’d do this in a heart beat.

You can check out the program at World War Z’s website here. [World War Z via /Film]

What do you think? Is this a good idea? Would you be willing to pay for something like this for certain films?

The Justice League movie is not going to happen anytime soon. Most of that is because Warner Bros. is fast tracking Man of Steel 2. That’s great and all, but Man of Steel was a concerted effort to create a single shared DC movie universe.

But how does it all tie together? Screenwriter David Goyer told Bleeding Cool how it works:

It is our intention that, in success, [Man of Steel] would be the zero issue and from this point onward, possible films could expand into a shared universe. In our world, the Man of Steel world, Zack has gone on record saying that we’re implying there are other superheroes in this world. But I don’t know that they’ve come forward yet. The idea is that Superman is the first one. There might be people helping people, but not in costumes, and that Superman comes forward and announces himself to the world. In him announcing himself, he’s the one that changes things.

Essentially, the other superheroes in this world are heroes yet. Batman isn’t Batman, Green Lantern isn’t Green Lantern, Aquaman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, etc. When pressed, Goyer explored the idea further:

Well, yes… there’s definitely… I don’t want to get too in depth. Obviously, Zack and I have had conversations… but there would be a cause and effect. And that would extend to the collateral damage that happened, and to what other countries feel about the fact Superman calls America his home. Man of Steel doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

That’s an interesting idea they’re playing around with. Marvel’s universe plays with this idea a little bit, but they haven’t gotten into it in depth yet. What would it mean to have superheroes only protecting the United States? Why is Superman only helping America? Why not anyone else? That idea seems to be pulled from Red Son; let me quickly explain.

Red Son was a three-issue comic book mini-series from author Mark Millar that was built around the of what would happen if Superman was raised in the Soviet Union. Essentially, Superman became a tool for the Soviet Union. And while it’s likely that the new Superman and DC movies don’t pull any story elements from Red Son, it does seem like they have some ideas inspired by the premise of Red Son

Also, if there’s one thing we know for sure it’s that DC’s movies are going to take a more serious and grounded tone compared to the ultra comic bookiness of Marvel’s efforts. One is somber, the other is more light hearted. That’s not a terrible thing on Marvel’s part, or on DC’s, but it’s a worthwhile difference to be aware of.

So who’s next after Superman? According to The Wrap, Warner Bros. has begun looking at Aquaman and Wonder Woman for future movies. Wonder Woman is an obvious one. She’s the third most recognizable hero in DC’s roster. Aquaman is recognizable, but is a joke. And that’s a good thing! The one DC property I’d love to see be turned into a film is Aquaman. Why? Because they could play with the fact that he’s a joke.

In the coming weeks and months we’ll get a better look at what Warner Bros. and DC are planning, especially with Comic Con right around the corner. For now, we’ll have to settle with Man of Steel. [Bleeding Cool via /Film]

In an interview with Empire, legendary filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas revealed that they’re not too happy with the direction that Hollywood is headed in.

Spielberg’s big worry is that too many studios are attempting to make huge $250 million blockbusters rather than invest in smaller, more focused films. He told Empire:

“The big danger is that there’s eventually going to be a big meltdown where three or four, maybe even a half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground. That’s going to change the paradigm again. You’re at the point right now where a studio would rather invest $250 million in one film for a real shot at the brass ring than make a whole bunch of really interesting, deeply personal projects that may get lost in the shuffle.”

Spielberg’s idea is right, but I believe this problem is more cultural than with any specific industry. Look around: the music industry continually rolls out party songs that don’t say anything while the video game industry is also investing in “blockbusters” to make money.

However, I think he’s being a little too dramatic. We’ve seen Disney and other studios pull away from $250 million blockbusters. Remember The Lone Ranger? Disney shut down production until they could get the budget lower. Who wanted the budget higher? The filmmaker. Gore Verbinski wanted $250 million while Disney didn’t want to pay that much for a movie.

We’ve also seen Disney pull away from David Fincher’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea film for the same reasons. They don’t want to pay $250 million for a single film. Similarly, in 2011 Universal Pictures pulled the plug on 3 films because the budgets were too high.

In fact, studios are very reactive, scared creatures. If they don’t think they can make money they’ll pull away. And they don’t trust just anyone with budgets of over $150 million. They rely on established filmmakers or franchises to carry those films.

However, what Spielberg may be alluding to is that these huge films are taking away potential funding for smaller films that are more personal to filmmakers. You know, stuff like Lincoln and Red Tails. Until Disney stepped in, no one wanted to distribute Lincoln. In fact, Spielberg revealed that HBO was this close to picking up the project themselves.

While their points are valid, I think that their views are kind of skewed. Both films had budgets of around $60 million. That isn’t a small project; that’s a medium project. Seth Rogen, while speaking to HitFix, revealed that Sony didn’t care what he did with This Is The End because the film only took $30 million to make. He had clout with Sony, so they gave him $30 million and trusted him to make his personal story.

Lucas then predicted that theaters are going to be these big, luxury items while home theater setups are going to become the norm, along with the rise of streaming services, HBO-like channels and bigger TVs:

“You’re going to end up with fewer but bigger theaters [and] going to the movies is gonna cost you $50, $100, maybe even $150.”

Spielberg added in that something like the latest Iron Man would cost $25 while something like Lincoln would cost $7. I certainly see their point, and what they’re saying certainly could happen, but they come off as scorned men here.

Both films were passion projects that both filmmakers had a difficult time getting made. Normally, these two guys don’t have trouble getting anything made. They show up and theaters throw money at them to make their movies. The thing is that both of their clout with audiences is evaporating, so studios are less likely to spend money on their projects. Instead, they’d rather fund the Christopher Nolans, the Peter Jacksons, the Neil Blomkamps and Guillermo del Toros. Oh, and the Duncan Joneses, who took to Twitter to express his opinion on the two men’s views:

“Spielberg Predicts ‘Implosion’ of Film Industry j.mp/ZKg2Po ” what a fascinating insight into 2 out of touch, old men.

— Duncan Jones (@ManMadeMoon) June 12, 2013

Harsh, but could it be true? [Empire]

I think it’s safe to say that Neil Blomkamp is one of the best, if not the best, science fiction directors we have now. Not only does he bring us original worlds but he also brings us worlds with meaning. His films have social commentary in them, mostly portraying the differences between the haves and have nots.

So, of course, there’s going to be interest in his film after Elysium, which comes out on August 9. Den of Geek was able to talk to the director about his next film, Chappie, and he’s confirmed a couple of things.

Last year, Blomkamp told Empire that the film was “comedy based” and featured a “ridiculous robot character.” That robot character might be hinted at in his short film Tetra Vaal and Blomkamp confirmed to Den of Geek that Chappie is based on that short. If you have’t seen it, you can see that short below.

In South African slang, Chappie means friend. It’s primarily used among the white and Afrikaaner crowd in South Africa.

We already know that Blomkamp collaborator Sharlto Copley will return in the film. The interesting thing is that the director hinted that Copley will be playing the robot, who I’m assuming is named Chappie, using motion capture technology, much like Andy Serkis and Gollum.

Tetra Vaal essentially acts as the closest thing to a trailer we have for Chappie, and what’s presented looks intriguing. Blomkamp is great at making CG-crafted things like that robot look like a real part of the world. It also looks like the film will take place in South Africa, much like Blomkamp’s first film.

Overall, I’m intrigued to see a science fiction comedy from Blomkamp. I’m also excited to see what social commentary he opts for here. [Den of Geek]