Ever since the numbers were released yesterday, anyone and everyone (as well as anyone who is everyone) has been talking Speed Racer -- specifically, how a $120 million Hollywood blockbuster could open with only $20 million at the box office. You can blame Iron Man, you can blame the marketing, you can blame the blogs for trashing the film all year long, you can blame Christina Ricci's weird haircut, or you can blame that judge on Project Runway for saying, "You can never have too much color!" Fact is, it missed the mark.

But what could've helped Speed Racer make more money in its opening weekend? The running time has been mentioned a lot in the past 24 hours, but a running time doesn't exactly woo audiences into the theater. Is the film's marketing 100% to blame? Should the trailers have been cut differently? Should they have stressed that this was a film for kids? Should they have added a little viral action into the mix? Or what about overall? From the beginning, were the Wachowski Brothers the right folks for the job? Should they have gone the animated route instead -- or maybe the animated 3-D route? Should they have made this a film for older kids; slap on a PG-13 rating?

In your opinion, what could've helped Speed Racer -- both in its opening weekend and in its development as a feature film?

In case you haven't heard by now, Iron Man took home a whopping $201 million worldwide over the weekend, with that amount pretty much split right down the middle between domestic and international. Not only is it the second best non-sequel opening ever, but it also proved that Marvel (now self-financing their films) is in it to win it ... big time. Fortunately, folks won't have to wait long to see if Marvel will strike gold twice -- in a little over a month from now (on June 13, to be exact), The Incredible Hulk will debut in theaters. Last time a Hulk film was in theaters, Ang Lee directed and Marvel did not self-finance the flick. After seeing what Iron Man did to the box office over the weekend (and what fans thought of the film), something tells me we're in for a completely different kind of re-boot this time around.

Right from the start, folks haven't been giving The Incredible Hulk a fair shake, myself included. It took a long time to get those first images, and even longer for a trailer. But now that the film's marketing campaign is in full swing, I'm starting to see the fans turn. I witnessed the full "field scene" from the trailer at New York Comic Con last month, and I can assure you it looked awesome. Everyone is talking up the Iron Man cast, but have you noticed that The Incredible Hulk cast is just as good (not to mention I think Tim Roth will play a better villain than Jeff Bridges)? And now that Iron Man killed, does that change anything for The Incredible Hulk? Do more people now want to see it? Are expectations higher? Sound off below in the poll and in the comments section ...

After waves of speculation and mass musing, Scott brought us the news we've been wondering about for months last week: Guillermo del Toro is going to the land of The Hobbit. Since then, we've got questions about whether or not this news is actually welcome, and just this morning, rumored word that Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis are on board -- "all bureaucracy pending."

Del Toro plans to use Peter Jackson's films "as canon," but there will be changes afoot. As Eugene noted earlier, there will be a different color palette for the world of the hobbits, and instead of inundating us with a film full of stunning CGI, Guillermo is anxious to make a lot more use of animatronics.

Will this change only be subtle, or will it look like an entirely new film that only has a few familiar faces? It's certainly possible to make a film that visually fits -- each Harry Potter director has added touches to their films to make them stand out while still creating a cohesive series. However, we've got to keep in mind that the seas haven't been smooth where Peter Jackson and this fantasy world is concerned. Eric Kohn brought up the "smells of George Lucas" thoughts in his post, and you have to wonder if Guillermo will be free to build his world in peace, and if behind-the-scenes issues could tarnish this whole affair.

My daughter and I are huge fans of the Twilight series. We've both read all three existing books -- Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse -- and are marking the days off on a mental calendar until the August 2 release date of the fourth book, Breaking Dawn, and my daughter and I could discuss the books endlessly.

We've had countless conversations about whether Bella should become a vampire, or if Stephenie Meyer will ever stop teasing us with that and let Edward turn her, already. And whether Bella will have a vampire "superpower" once she does turn, and what that power might be. And which characters we like the most. And so on, and so on, as I'm sure the rest of you hardcore Twilight fans do.

A copy of the brand spanking new Cloverfield DVD (which hits shelves on April 22) arrived in the mail late last week, and after only watching the special features, I have to say I was pretty pleased with it. The two alternate endings (which we posted earlier today) weren't that mind-blowing, but the behind-the-scenes featurettes are fun to watch. Out of the deleted scenes and bloopers, my favorite part was watching how they shot the party scene in the beginning. There's no music in the background (that was all added later on), and so you have this packed apartment with kids, and Hud is shouting, but the entire room is silent, pretending to talk and dance. Very comical to watch. (You also get previously-released trailers for Star Trek and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.)

Anyway, as we approach the DVD release date, a ton more viral material is starting to hit the web. To be completely honest with you, I get lost in this stuff and don't have the time or patience to spend hours sifting through it all. For those interested, check out posts over at Bloody Disgusting and Slashfilm to get caught up. Reaction was certainly mixed after Cloverfield finally debuted back in January, and after an initial surge at the box office, numbers dropped off significantly. But that won't stop folks from pumping out a sequel, which may or may not focus on the Cloverfield monster's mother. (On the DVD, a special effects dude does clarify that the monster is an infant and scared. Oh, and another guy refers to the monster as "Clover." Unfortunately, no one mentioned a thing about the satellite that falls into the water at the very end. However, I did not listen to Reeves' full commentary on the film; only on the endings.)

I was one of those that really enjoyed Cloverfield for what it was -- a creepy, original monster flick designed for the YouTube generation. That said, I'm not sure they could deliver another completely unique experience in a sequel. But what do you think?

(Note: Above image was chosen totally at random. Yup. We'll go with that.)

It's beginning to look a lot like summer blockbuster season everywhere you go.

I've heard the words "calm before the storm" mentioned more times in the past week than I have all year. That's because it's almost April, which means the official start to the summer movie season is only one month away. One month! That's it! Are all of you as excited as we are? (Don't all stand up and cheer at the same time.) Anyway, pretty much all of the big summer flicks have released trailers by now (with the exception of The Mummy 3 ... and maybe something else that I'm forgetting -- it is Monday after all).

We've seen trailers for The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Speed Racer, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Incredible Hulk, WALL-E, Prince Caspian, Hellboy II, The X-Files, Wanted, The Happening, Hancock ... and so on. Of course, some films have been a little more aggressive than others -- like Iron Man (which comes out first), WALL-E (a few trailers, teasers and a very early viral campaign) and The Dark Knight (one teaser, one trailer and 50 billion viral sites). Indy's shoveled out a bunch of videos, as well as a trailer, and The Incredible Hulk has given us one trailer and a few images. One imagines all of these films will ramp up their marketing as their release dates draw closer.

But here's our question today: Which summer blockbuster trailer pumped you up most to see the film? Feel free to answer the poll below or write in your favorite in the comments section. (Me? I'm going with The Dark Knight.)

Since today is St. Patrick's Day, and since it's practically a law to wear green on St. Patty's Day, we figured why not come up with a list of characters (most of which appear in movies, or have movies being made about them) who wear green and ask you which one is your favorite. This one was a fun list to create -- truth be told, I went back and forth with Monika over IM for about a half hour tossing out a number of characters. To coincide with the recently-released trailer, the first character we have to name is The Incredible Hulk. He's big, he's nasty, he kicks a whole lot of ass ... and he's green! Other green monsters? How about Frankenstein and Mrs. Frankenstein. Back to green comic book characters, we also have Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Green Goblin and Poison Ivy. Additionally, the upcoming spoof flick Superhero Movie also features a lead character called Dragonfly who -- you guessed it -- wears green. (I'm sure I'm forgetting some random green-wearing comic book characters, so feel free to chime in down below.)

Moving away from the comics, we have my favorite green character -- Kermit the Frog. He's perhaps the nicest green character there is; I mean, even when Kermit gets mad, he still sounds funny ... kinda like Jerry Seinfeld (who I've never seen wear anything green). My second favorite? C'mon ... Yoda! Moving across the spectrum, villains can also wear green -- like Leprechaun (horror version), the Wicked Witch of the West or that darn Grinch who stole Christmas. And finally, how can I leave out the lovable green Ogre ... Shrek! Green is a popular color, eh?

Since there's way too many characters for an official poll, feel free to tell us who your favorite green folks are in the comments below ... and definitely let me know who we forgot. Happy St. Patty's Day!

Despite an intense marketing push, Will Ferrell's latest sports comedy just couldn't hold up to his previous two efforts. Semi-Pro did take the number one spot at the box office this weekend, but it did so with a measly $15 million. Compared to last year's Blades of Glory (opened with $33 million) and Talladega Nights (opened with $47 million), that $15 million doesn't look so great -- and it's certainly not the way New Line wanted to go out (even though they are, technically, going out on top).

So why didn't anyone go see this film? Granted, people did go see it (enough for $15 million), but it played in over 3,000 theaters. Did the R rating actually hurt the film? Keep in mind, both Blades and Talladega Nights were PG-13 -- so did a raunchy, foul-mouthed Ferrell keep audiences away? Or was it the supporting cast? Woody Harrelson and Andre Benjamin aren't Jon 'Napoleon Dynamite" Heder and Sacha "Borat" Baron Cohen. Did Ferrell need a little more juice around him in order to score bigger buckets? Maybe the whole '70s basketball thing wasn't so appealing? I guess the bigger question should be: Does this $15 million opening signal the beginning of the end of Ferrell's reign over the box office?

Why did you stay away from Semi-Pro, which I heard was actually pretty damn funny?

I have such a huge Oscars hangover this morning. Did anyone theme it for the night? I cooked some mean-ass burgers in honor of Juno, then attempted to make a few milkshakes (in honor of There Will be Blood) before realizing I had no ice cream. Anyone get nutty and make Ratatouille? Anyway, when it comes to the day after the Oscars, talk usually surrounds the big surprises. What were the shockers? Personally, I totally thought Transformers would walk away with at least one Oscar for special effects or sound, and Marion Cotillard winning best actress came somewhat as a surprise. I mean, a French actress winning best actress for a foreign language film that practically NO ONE saw?

And Tilda Swinton? Really? Do cracked-out single mothers not mean anything to the Academy voters? Amy Ryan definitely should've won in that category. Other surprises -- who the hell let Gary Busey onto the red carpet? Did you see him lick Jennifer Garner's neck? Poor girl. Unfortunately, her husband was f**king Jimmy Kimmel at the time and couldn't be there to rescue her. But anyway, last night's biggest upset? In your opinion, who was it? (And is it okay to say that my new crush is Marion Cotillard. Holy crap did she look fantastic!)

I'm still amazed that we've only seen two images from this summer's The Incredible Hulk so far (not counting toys), considering the other big summer blockbuster flicks have already shelled out loads of images, trailers, behind-the-scenes featurettes -- what have you? At this point, we've seen more from the new Star Trek film (which bows in May, 2009) than we have The Incredible Hulk (which comes out on June 13). And at the beginning of each week, I usually predict the Hulk trailer is only two or three days away -- but alas, it never comes. Could this be why fans are so hesitant to put Hulk on their must-watch list this summer?

We recently asked you which films you were most anticipating in 2008, and only a very small amount put The Incredible Hulk on their list. Furthermore, Moviehole cites a recent Blockbuster poll (asking readers which summer film they were anticipating the most) which found the flick coming in dead last with 1% of the vote, behind Speed Racer. Yet, it's hard to imagine why folks would be so iffy on this new version of the Hulk when the cast absolutely rocks (c'mon -- Tim Roth is your friggin' villain!). So why isn't there more love? Is it because the Ang Lee version left a sour taste? Is it because the studio refuses to promote the film? Is it because there are that many better looking films to choose from? Let's try to figure this one out in the poll below -- and please answer honestly.

Seeing as we'll finally get to watch the first Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull trailer later this week (it will officially air on Good Morning America this Thursday, then arrive online right afterwards on IndianaJones.com), I figured we'd take a look back in this week's Monday Morning Poll and attempt to find out which Indy flick the fans most enjoy. On paper, it seems the obvious choice is Raiders of the Lost Ark, however throughout the years I've met folks who adore Temple of Doom and some who thought the addition of Sean Connery rose The Last Crusade up above the rest. I'll probably revisit this topic once Kingdom of the Crystal Skull arrives in theaters (on May 22), but for now let's take a look at the Indy films already available to us.

It's hard not to absolutely love Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's the original -- first time we met Indy -- and this adventure established all the themes and character traits we'd go on to see in the sequels. But then you get Temple of Doom; the odd one of the bunch. It's still Indy, he's still fighting with some gal, and it includes who is perhaps Indy's most beloved sidekick (Short Round), but it's really nothing like the other two films in the franchise. Some people like that about this film -- how it's different, unexpected. What about you? The Last Crusade brings us back to the type of Indiana Jones film we saw in Raiders, except the love angle isn't as strong. But there's no denying the superb buddy chemistry Ford and Connery displayed on screen as father and son.

So, as we await the trailer for what could be the last Indiana Jones adventure, I ask you: What's your favorite Indiana Jones film?

For those who don't know, I've lived in New York my entire life and have grown up in a family full of die hard Giants fans. So I think it's fair to say we all partied like it was 1990 last night. While I don't have a voice this morning, and didn't pay much attention to the commercials (too tough when your team is playing), I did catch most of the trailers. And, unlike previous years, there were quite a few previews to devour. From what I could tell, we saw commercials for Iron Man, Wall-E, Wanted, Prince Caspian and Leatherheads (though I'm probably missing one or two smaller films as well).

Personally, I liked Wall-E and Iron Man the most, though part of me also enjoyed the Wanted trailer. That film looks flashy, and it's full of sexy Angelina Jolie poses, but it definitely has the eye candy factor -- and when we're talking big summer popcorn fluff, aren't we always looking for that eye candy factor? Unfortunately, we didn't get a trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which I'm sure is the one trailer everyone wanted to see the most. Word is that will be coming real soon, but it would've been a treat to be surprised with an Indy teaser at some point during the game. In your opinion, did they leave any trailers out? And out of the ones they did show, which was your favorite -- and/or which films shows the most promise?

Ah, now that Sundance is over (though our coverage will continue through the next day or so), I can finally get back to writing about things that mean something. Case in point: Harvey Weinstein is apparently so happy with the opening for Sly Stallone's latest Rambo installment that he's considering doing another one. Even though Rambo failed to take the number one spot at the box office this weekend (Meet the Spartans? Really America?), that won't stop Weinstein from gushing over the future prospects of our old man in the jungle. Deadline Hollywood tells us Harv feels Rambo will easily do $50 million domestic and about $100 to $150 million overseas. I don't know about you, but those made-up numbers certainly indicate a sequel is warranted.

Says Weinstein, "I like the idea of an older guy kicking ass. Maybe it's because I'm older, too." The big man also dished out a possible plot scenario should Rambo return once again to brutally mutilate tons of bad guys, noting that he'd be down with "bringing the character back to the United States." Yes, please -- and maybe this time it could be set in Central Park where Sly would face off against the Cloverfield monster. Now that's something I'd pay double to see. But what about you? Are you interested in seeing older guys kick ass on screen, or are you automatically attracted to much younger action heroes? And would you be interested in yet another installment in the Rambo franchise?

Don't even get me started on last night's crapfest. I tuned in to NBC thinking they were going to air this so-called press conference, only to get an abbreviated Access Hollywood special that left out certain awards like best foreign language, best score and best song. And because I was still high on my Giants beating the Cowboys, I didn't realize NBC was on a delay, or that other channels had the press conference, etc ... It was awful. The entire thing was horrific. And then, to boot, the Hollywood Foreign Press clearly screwed over American filmmakers (moreso this year than in year's past), opting to shovel out several awards to individuals and films that were simply not the best of the year. Atonement wins over No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood? Julian Schnabel wins best director over the Coen Brothers and P.T. Anderson? Cate Blanchett wins best supporting actress over Amy Ryan?

It's still too early to tell whether this whole debacle will hurt the Globes moving forward. And we still don't know whether something similar will happen with the Oscars (though I imagine the writers will have a much harder time f**king with Hollywood's grandest circle-jerk). The good news is that it's finally over. No more Golden Globe nonsense to deal with. But assuming you actually care about who wins and who doesn't, what was the biggest surprise/mistake of the evening in your mind?

I was having an interesting heated argument friendly little discussion over IM yesterday afternoon with one of my Cinematical colleagues about what exactly designates a film as an "indie" film. Does it have more to do with the money spent on making it, or the artistic style of the film? Is a film an indie film if it's financed by an indie arm of a studio, like Juno? Or does it have to be financed by filmmakers on their credit cards, ala Four Eyed Monsters? What if it gets financed independently by a rich guy, like Little Miss Sunshine, and then bought by a studio for $10 million? And if an indie film gets bought by a studio and goes on to get Oscar nods, has it "sold out" like an indie band hitting the Top 40?

As you might expect, it was Juno that started this whole discussion. To me, Juno is clearly an indie film: it was financed not by Fox, but by Fox Searchlight, which is a studio arm set up specifically to buy and create indie films. Artistically, it certainly feels "indie" to me, although crossover hits like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Little Miss Sunshine have helped to blur the line between indie comedy and mainstream. If Jason Reitman had gotten independent financing for it instead of getting it done through Searchlight, I don't think anyone would question its indie status. I understand, though why some folks feel a film like Juno, which had the benefit of backing by a studio to get it made, and a tremendous, well-executed marketing push, is straddling the indie line.

Personally, I see Juno as nothing but great news for other indie films, and I think Fox was smart to recognize both the power and passion of indie filmmakers, and that they don't know how to make indie films themselves. Partnering with filmmakers like Jason Reitman, who have both a solid background and a good eye for what works, especially with indie comedy, allows Fox Searchlight to target the indie market with films that are likely to also appeal to a broader audience. They've found a niche that works, they're both making and acquiring good films, and if all that expands the audience for indie films in general, opens up the popcorn crowd to checking out more indie fare, and ultimately paves the way for more indie films to be funded that's a good thing.

What makes a film an indie flim? Let us know what you think in the poll, and make your arguments in the comments.