Spout

Banksy's "Save or Delete Jungle Book" (above) goes up for auction in London today. The poster was created for a deforestation campaign but never used. "The Catcher in the Rye" was adapted into a movie a few years ago? Yes, but it doesn't ruin how you imagine Holden Caulfield's adventure. It's just 75 minutes of blue screen. The trailer will give you the idea.Dan Hopper at Best Week Ever wants to know why everyone accepts "TRON: Legacy" as a lesser film than "Avatar":Clearly, Avatar was more of a right-place, right-time release from a giant name with absolutely invincible Hollywood momentum behind it, while Tron was widely viewed as a nice-looking but unrevolutionary special effects-driven Disney remake. I personally enjoyed Tron far more, and while I can completely accept that not everyone else did, I’m still absolutely bowled over by how completely differently these two “awesome-looking, questionable plot” films were received by the masses. Is it acceptable to say “This film looked great and I loved it, even though the story was kind of dumb,” or isn’t it? And how did this standard completely reverse itself in the span of a year? Or was Avatar really that great and Tron really that poor and I’m completely and utterly off-base? Anomalous Material's '7 Actors Better Off As Second Fiddle' celebrates actors like Zach Galifianakis, Cillian Murphy and Ed Harris as being better in supporting roles than leads. From the section on John C. Reilly:John C. Reilly can be an extraordinarily funny complementary piece. While Reilly has played lead roles competently in movies such as Cirque Du Freak and Walk Hard, those two movies were massive box office flops that demonstrated that he simply doesn’t have the star power required to highlight a movie.Though neither of these were blockbusters, I'd offer "Hard Eight" and "Cyrus" as proof Reilly can hold his own in the lead slot.

I'm posting this months-old fan-made trailer for a 3-D "Namor: The Sub-Mariner" because it's so well done that I don't even want an actual "Namor" movie now. Just like I was feeling after that fake "Thundercats" trailer hit a while back, I don't think Hollywood could actually make a real version that's as good, let alone better. Most comic-book movie trailers give away too much anyway, as if they were features abridged into shorts, so by being a faithfully bad trailer for a movie that doesn't exist, it's already a sufficient look at what we'd get as a feature.

Looking at those Golden Globe nominees this morning made me forget that 2010 was really a great year at the movies. Maybe it's because I've only seen a few of the ten Best Picture contenders and only truly loved one of them ("The King's Speech" -- clearly I'm becoming old and soft). Maybe it's because I especially don't like the front runner in the Comedy/Musical group and I am pretty certain there were at least a couple comedies better than "Red" of all things. Maybe it's because the HFPA's lack of an award for documentary is this year more disappointing and out of touch than ever.

We're once again teasingly treated to a casting shortlist, this one for two female roles in Christopher Nolan's next Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises." According to Deadline, the names up for contention for either Bruce Wayne's love interest or an unnamed villain are as follows: Natalie Portman; Blake Lively; Rachel Weisz; Anne Hathaway; Naomi Watts; Keira Knightley. If I had to guess and/or choose, I'd pick Lively as the love interest, because I don't see the others being wasted in that capacity nor do I see her as villain material just yet. And I'd go for Weisz as the villain, especially if -- though unlikely -- the part is Catwoman. Not just because she'd been rumored for that very character two years ago, but because she was also the preferred choice back when her (now ex) boyfriend, Darren Aronofsky, was planning a Batman movie.