Bruce Rosenblum, the point man and leader of Warner Bros television for quite some time, is on his way out.  It was not too long ago that Warner Bros announced that Kevin Tsujihara, and not the odds-on-favorite Rosenblum, would take over as head of the studio upon the retirement of then studio head Barry Meyer. Tsujihara has since taken over as studio head, leaving Rosenblum in the awkward post of failed promotion and position of ‘what-do-I-do-now’.  A man who essentially campaigned for the position of head honcho during WB’s search for its new studio head, Rosenblum remaining at Warner Bros would be nothing short of uncomfortable. He thus made the tough but likely correct decision to step down from his position.

Do not fret! Rosenblum’s successful careerhelped grow WB’s television group to contribute 50% of Warner’s overall profits. The television business at a high level is much less upfront cost heavy than the film side and margins are much higher.   Notable hits at WB Television under Rosenblum’s tenure include the massively profitable ‘Two and A Half Men’ and current hit ‘The Big Bang Theory’.  Whether landing at another entertainment conglomerate or starting his own company, Rosenblum is almost surely to return to the dance sooner rather than later.

With the management shakeup, it appears that Peter Roth, WB TV President, will assume the majority of Rosenblum’s responsibilities.  The big question is what does this all mean. Rosenblum had a reputation for aggressive projects and big moves – growth by acquisition and pursuit of utter dominance.  Most recently, Warner Bros acquired Alloy Entertainment, the production company behind Pretty Little Liars and Gossip Girl. With Rosenblum gone, will WB have the same acquisitive nature as it once did? Or will business be focused on monetizing the current portfolio of IP.  I would presume that there be a period of transition where the new executive team essentially finds their groove without looking to do anything major.  That alone will be a major change of pace for the mid level guys who are used to the faster paced environment.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. What will happen to Warner Bros. Television in the short term and when will we see Rosenblum back?

Deadline and TheWrap both reported that Rosenblum was leaving.

The Great Gatsby is shaping up to be one of the most anticipated films this year, and rightfully so. With a cast made up of greats, such as the taking-a-hiatus-from-acting Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Jason Clark, and Isla Fischer, an original source that is undoubtedly F. Scott Fitzgerlad’s most celebrated novel, and a director as prolific as Baz Luhrmann, the upcoming film spectacle is receiving all the attention it deserves.

The only thing is is that after watching the American teaser and UK trailer, which just dropped, on repeat, I am having my own reservations. Don’t get me wrong, there ain’t nothing that will stop me from seeing this film, as Fitzgerald’s novel had such a profound effect on me in high school (I know, original right?), but hear me out, won’t you? My main concern is that it looks too much like a Baz Luhrmann film. Some of us spectacle-lovers out there might be wondering if Luhrmann could ever have TOO much of an effect, but I, nevertheless, remain wary. Yes, I loved the way he did Romeo + Juliet and I will endlessly stand by Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette, but both those tales were old, very old, centuries old. The Great Gatsby, on the other hand, takes place in the 1920s, a time less than a hundred years ago in which our constructed popular memory of the era is fairly strong. Is it too soon to be so anachronistic, to be so Luhrmann with the film? I mean, I guess that with this tale I had just imagined it as the way I had originally envisioned it, not as a movie where Fergie and will.i.am score the soundtrack.

My next concern is Luhrmann as of late. After the tank that was Australia (there ain’t no denying that one) in 2008, Luhrmann made a series of shorts last year. Is he up for a movie as big as The Great Gatsby? Well, he better be.

Finally, while I do think Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor, I had someone a little less DiCaprio in mind for the role. No matter what he does recently, save for his great take as one of the villains in last year’s Django Unchained, it has become impossible for me to separate the actor from the role. Hopefully, DiCaprio will channel his role changing ability he found with Django and bring it to Gatsby as well.

What are your thoughts Banterers, are you excited for the movie which drops May 10th? Watch the UK trailer below and let us know!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Two nights ago, my friend Anna and I saw a sneak preview of Derek Cianfrance’s follow-up to Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines, which included, in addition to seeing the film three days before its nation-wide release, a subsequent question and answer segment with Cianfrance himself, and two of the film’s actors including Dane DeHaan, the subject of this post.

While DeHaan apparently got his start as a principal character in the third season of In Treatment, he remained unknown to me until last year’s Chronicle. When I saw Chronicle in the theaters (all three times–I had a slightly unexpected and, even, unwarranted love for this movie), I knew that out of the three stars, I would be seeing more of DeHaan. I just didn’t know how much more.

As the year continued, I caught DeHaan sneaking up in the film I hated the most at the TriBeCa Film Festival, Jack and Diane (please note: my hatred were for reasons other than DeHaan), in the Weinstein Company’s fun-to-watch and eye-candy-heavy Lawless, and in the old white man favorite of last year, Lincoln. When I saw him as one of the leads in the Sundance premiering star-studded Kill Your Darlings, I called one of my fellow Chronicle lovers to gloat how I had called DeHaan’s impending stardom.

What struck me about my recent viewing of The Place Beyond the Pines was that it did not seem to matter that the only man who could ever make dating a doll endearing and hopelessly romantic, Ryan Gosling, and many peoples’ sexiest man alive, Bradley Cooper, were stars in this film. Instead, Anna and I left Brooklyn Academy of Music talking about DeHaan. How old is he? 27. Is he married? Yes. What other upcoming movies will he be in? The Amazing Spider-Man 2. And now, after hearing him talk, I can say he is captivating both on- and off-screen.

DeHaan was unexpectedly great in The Place Beyond the Pines, as he has been in pretty much everything else he has been in even if the movies themselves haven’t stood as strongly, but I am not sure what matters. I mean, Gosling himself did not get his start in great movies. I am not saying that The Place Beyond the Pines wasn’t great (check back here tomorrow for my review, hint, I liked it!), but I am saying that until now DeHaan hasn’t had the chance to star in a groundbreaking movie, and that hasn’t stopped him one bit.

Mark my words, Banterers, DeHaan is going to be huge!

So, there has been one “what were you thinking!” movie on my mind as of late, and I feel like it’s not really my fault. Rather, I am not constantly thinking of this movie, I just keep being inundated with reminders that this movie is actually going to happen. The trailer seems to be everywhere. When I saw Spring Breakers, while The Bling Ring trailer was the best part of the movie, this trailer was the worst part of the movie. The upcoming film’s actors somehow keep turning up everywhere I turn. And now, this: a newly released clip on Youtube.

What movie am I referring to? Oh you know, the Michael Bay directed (of course) Pain & Gain, starring Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Rebel Wilson, Anthony Mackie, Ed Harris, and Tony Shalhoub, about a group of body builders who decide to seek revenge on their gym-boss hot shot. It’s just, what?!

First, why did this movie get made? I am surely not the only person in America that believes that Michael Bay should be stripped of all his movie-making rights, especially after that last Transformers installment. I kind of get The Rock starring in this movie, but Mark Wahlberg can get a better movie than this, right? Maybe he just had some bro-time to kill in between the Entourage show and its feature-film debut. And Rebel Wilson?! Say it ain’t so. I had hoped that my Bachelorette/Pitch Perfect break-out star eternal crush would have had better sense (and given better roles) than this.

Second, why is it getting so much press? Yes, there are some semi-credible actors in this flick, Ed Harris being the primary example, but I just do not understand. The movie looks absolutely terrible, the plot unintelligible, and the acting horrific. WHY!

Third, what?! I just cannot wrap my head around this one guys. This was true when I first read the synopsis, remained true after my first (second and third) viewing of the trailer, and especially true after the clip below was released this weekend. Do you understand? If so, please explain.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I know this is a Ryan Gosling-heavy week, but I swear these are unrelated events. I can’t help that a beautiful video of a time past was rediscovered on Monday just in time for the beginning-of-the-week blues. Likewise, I can’t help that on Thursday of the same week, Ryan Gosling has announced an indefinite break from acting. And seeing as I am a writer of The Movie Banter as well as an avid Ryan Gosling fan (Who can resist those kind eyes? I also suppose that chiseled chest does not hurt either.), I feel it is my duty to inform you of this impending break.

Before you all scream out a giant “NO” thinking about the doom that lies ahead, take a minute and read what Gosling actually told the Associated Press. As reported in US Weekly, a small magazine that covers the whereabouts of stars as if any of us actually follow such things (she said sarcastically), Gosling stated in no uncertain terms, “I’ve been doing it too much. I’ve lost perspective on what I’m doing. I think it’s good for me to take a break and reassess why I’m doing it and how I’m doing it. And I think this is probably a good way to learn about that…I need a break from myself as much as I imagine the audience does.” What’s that? A needed-break from Ryan Gosling?! Never! But, upon a little reflection, I do see his point. Wouldn’t we all hate it if Gosling went the way of say one Johnny Depp. After all, I am praying for dear life that Robert Downey Jr. manages to steer clear from that deadly path. Over-exposure is a thing! And don’t we all appreciate Gosling not just as an unimaginable beautiful thing to look at but also because the man can act as well? I know my answer is in the affirmative, but still a break from Gosling still very much feels like a break from something big.

If he has to, I guess he has to. But just what will Gosling be doing in his time off? Well, he goes on to say, “I don’t know what I’m doing. I haven’t quite figured out what the balance is between being able to be lost in it — or try to, anyway — and then step outside of it.” Dear God, Mr. Gosling, please find it soon and get back to us even sooner. Until then, we’ll be waiting. We all will.

Still reeling from my experience of watching Spring Breakers last night, which left me in an inexplicable bad mood, imagine my surprise waking up this semi-gloomy morning to finding the gem of all gems on The Playlist. What gem is this I speak of? Oh, just that of Mouseketeer-sized Ryan Gosling taking all us eager 90s viewers on a tour of his hometown Cornwall, Ontario.

That’s right! Like the sleuths they are, the people over at The Playlist managed to dig up an anachronistic video of an adorable Ryan Gosling proudly showing off his favorite places in Cornwall, including his favorite music store, and his favorite people, like his childhood friend. I know, I know, I just had to share. This proved to be the perect video not only to erase the ick that I woke up still feeling over last night’s screening (I just think I will never understand Spring Breakers‘ overuse of repetition and slow motion– did I miss something in good film making 101?!), but it also managed to make the fact that it is, indeed, Monday somewhat bearable. If only Ryan Gosling can give me a present-day tour when I take my family Canada trip this summer. And if (so many if’s today!) Tuesday brings another former Mouseketeer showing off his hometown, won’t it please (please!) be Justin Timberlake and Tennessee?!

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, and too greedy. Watch the video below, and try to not fall in love all over again with the man who makes dating a plastic doll seem like the best romance in the world. Fair warning: the video is from Mouseketeer times, so please do notice the poor quality.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now diehard fans of the original ‘Psycho’ at first appeared very apprehensive (and at times negative) when this prequel was announced. I mean how can you mess with the classics? Well people often forget that the film boasted 2 sequels (titled Psycho II and III respectively), and was also remade by Gus Van Sant in 1998 (which was a total failure I might add). So let’s be real here, despite the poor quality of all of these additions they never negatively affected the original, it is still a classic. So we can move passed that fear right now.

But how do you make a prequel when we already know how the story ends? I mean if you have seen ‘Psycho,’ you know just where Norman Bates and his mother Norma end up. Well the creators of ‘Bates Motel,’ (exec producer of ‘Lost’ and writer of ‘Friday Night Lights’) have found a creative way around that. This series does not take place in the 1940′s, which if following the proper timeframe of ‘Psycho’ is when Norman would be a teenager, it instead places the story in modern times. That’s right, Norman will be texting and attending keg parties in this series, much to the dismay of his overprotective and jealous mother. While it may confuse fans of the original, it is a neat trick to avoid making the show too predictable. Technically, we know that Norman will become a psycho, but because this is set in a different time frame this isn’t an exact prequel, more of an inspired re-telling of the story.

Well how do you cast these iconic roles? By casting actors who have proven they can pull their own weight in the past. Early reviews suggest that both Freddie Highmore and Vera Farmiga as Norman and Norma respectively are a true dynamic duo here. This obviously comes as no surprise as these are well-respected actors with impressive resumes as proof. Throw in a slew of new characters to keep the show fresh like Mike Vogel as a deputy, Nestor Carbonell as the town sheriff, or Nicola Peltz as the pretty girl in school who takes an interest in Norman, and you have a cast worth watching.

Now, I must confess, some of the early reviews do possess a shared complaint, where exactly is this show headed? The plot/direction seems a bit misguided and confused. Granted, this is just in the early stages of its 10-episode first season, so perhaps the show becomes clearer as time goes on. My thoughts on this are that in the beginning the network will feel the need to hook audiences not with its clear vision and compelling storytelling but with dark and twisted imagery. You can say A&E is selling out for this reason, but others may realize its smart marketing. Get the viewers glued to the screen first, get to the true message of the show later.

So should you watch ‘Bates Motel’ this evening? I would say a resounding yes. Is this going to be the next ‘Walking Dead’? I really don’t know, but you will never know until you give it a full chance! Fans of genre material out there must support shows like this because it can only lead to more bloody goodness on our TV screens for the future. So yes A&E, I will be watching, just please don’t let me down!

In this day and age, it is not all that surprising when a currently off-air (whether rightfully so or ortherwise) television series gets made into a movie at the audiences’ repeated requests, pleas, and on-knees begging. To be fair, I guess it wasn’t such a huge surprise when Sex and the City started this trend as of late, what with the movie versions of Twin Peaks, The Twilight Zone, and The Lizzie McGuire Movie (What? That counts!). But recently there has been a developing trend among cult-classic television series that are widely understood to have been canceled too soon to really (REALLY!) come to be made into feature films. While Arrested Development seems to provide the most illustrative example of this case, the rumor mills are similarly running about the possibility of a Party Down movie (please let it be true!).

So, it’s really not that big of a shock when those same mills began to churn over the possibility of a Veronica Mars movie. What does stand out in the case of this film is just how much the fans were willing to do to see this movie get made. In case you missed it, yesterday Rob Thomas, the creator and producer of Veronica Mars announced that they got the go-ahead to start fundraising for a Veronica Mars movie. Not knowing where to start, he created a Kickstarter which give them a month to raise the $2 million they needed. And a whopping 12 hours later, they had reached it. In case this hasn’t hit you yet, in 12 hours, the people behind the Veronica Mars movie met their goal and raised more than two million dollars from fans. As I am writing now, a little more than 24 hours after the Kickstarter was announced, the project has $2.7 million pledged. Talk about a grass roots campaign.

Well, this is just incredible! First, a movie–with established actors and a blessing from a studio (Warner Brothers, ever heard of them?), uses Kickstarter as a means to raise money. We are living in a new age now. While most of us have surely been aware of Kickstarter for some time now, it has tended to be used as a way for friends to raise money for their shorts (at least in my case). The idea of a movie of this caliber using Kickstarter to raise funds is very novel and, not to mention, game-changing. Throw in the fact that it worked, and worked so quickly?! Me thinks the Veronica Mars movie may have just ushered us into a new age of big-movie fundraising.

Second, the fans! Oh my God, the fans! One person pledged $10,000. Ten thousand dollars! Sure, that gets you a speaking role in the movie, but incentive aside, that is A LOT of money coming from a fan. If fans can mobilize this much (two million dollars much) to get Veronica Mars made into a movie, what’s next?! A Mork and Mindy movie? A Pete and Pete movie? A Saved By the Bell: The College Years movie? I hope so!

Rarely do I post on a trailer. Rarely. That’s because of the sheer amount of them. I mean, just think how many trailers are released daily. And while some may be good, like the impeccable trailer for Inside Llewyn Davis which after watching on repeat for several hours convinced me that I would be there on opening night, there are plenty of trailers that are just mediocre. Rather, what I mean is that a trailer usually does not have any real effect on a film. How many times has a trailer looked fine but a movie been terrible? And vice versa?

So, yes, usually no trailer really warrants an entire blog post alerting you all to the ever-encroaching movie. Well, usually, Sofia Coppola hasn’t released a trailer, and now that she has, well, now you have this blog post.

Over the last couple of years, the ‘biz has been ablaze with word that for Coppola’s latest masterpiece, she would be working on a film so completely unlike anything she had done in the past: a movie chronicling the true-life events surrounding the Bling Ring, the group of Hollywood teenagers who robbed celebrities homes back in 2008. Why has the ‘biz been abuzz? Well, aside from the fact that Coppola is trying her hand again on another film, The Bling Ring looks so unlike anything Coppola has ever done before that it was incredibly hard to imagine what it would look like. No, it’s a not movie about two people coming to terms with each other and find themselves in the midst of shallowness. Instead, we have ourselves a movie so entrenched in pop culture that it could–it really could–be considered fluff.

Thank God, the first trailer has been released, because it looks good. Like really good. Starring Emma Watson, Leslie Mann, and Gavin Rosdale among a slew of other lesser-known teenage actors, The Bling Ring is looking good. Just how good? Well we’ll have to wait for a longer trailer to find out. The Bling Ring opens this June. Check out the trailer below:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Being an avid movie-goer I admit that I have been waiting for some sort of “membership” service to theaters for some time now. I had high hopes for the Regal Crown Club and the AMC Stubs program but neither offer much in the way of rewards, and nothing in the way of reduced cost for tickets. Although admittedly I don’t get to the theaters as often as I would like (which would be at least once a week if I could), I still feel I go often enough that it would be worthwhile to join a program for discounted tickets.

Enter: MoviePass, the subscription service that allows members to pay a monthly fee and enjoy unlimited movies (at included theaters). The service uses an app to reserve tickets, and seems fairly easy to sign up for and use. It didn’t take off the first time, but given the rise in use of app based purchases it might have a chance this second go-round to take off. Given the rising costs of movie tickets, which in New York City could be $15-$20 per ticket, it seems like it would be a welcome savings for the Groupon addicted crowd (myself included).  The cost of a subscription to MoviePass is $34.99 a month, which if you are attending two movies in Manhattan per month would pay for itself.

Now for the draw backs. The service does not include 3D or IMAX films, requires a one year commitment and isn’t available at every theater. Like Netflix’s waning DVD service, which I personally ended up cancelling due to not watching more than one or two DVDs a month, it just seems to end up costing more per month on average than anyone has time to use. If you miss a month of theater going, or choose to see a 3D film one month you end up losing money. There is also the huge commitment to a year’s worth of service, which ends up costing $419.88. With that in mind, to save only a few bucks a month, one would need to see on average 3 films a month. Needless to say, there is a lot of room for improvement in this concept.

What ultimately helped me decide whether or not to try MoviePass was the fact that two of the theaters I frequent are not included in the service right now. I still have hopes for improvements either on this service or a new one that can offer a more reasonable price with wider benefits. There’s nothing like experiencing a movie in theaters, and for us regular theater goers, this seems like a step in the right direction to make it more affordable and convenient.