I've stayed away from this story for a few days to see how it develops, but now seems to be a good time to point you toward The Dark Knight viral site WhySoSerious.com, as it appears they're using a candle inside a carved-out pumpkin to count down toward some kind of announcement ... on Halloween, perhaps? Not long ago, this pumpkin with a candle inside appeared on the site, and folks immediately began to look for its purpose. Right from the start, it was obvious this was a nod to the pumpkin that appeared on the cover of Batman: The Long Halloween, which was a 13-issue comic book series that director Christopher Nolan used, in part, as a source for The Dark Knight. Among other things, The Long Halloween tells of Two Face's origins -- and, as we all know by now, this will be touched upon in the follow-up to Nolan's Batman Begins (with Aaron Eckhart playing Harvey Dent, aka Two Face).

What's interesting about the pumpkin and the candle, is that with each day that passes, the candle burns down a little -- leading many to believe that the candle will burn out completely on Halloween, at which time we'll be given some sort of Dark Knight trick or treat. What will they give us? Photos? Another teaser trailer? More riddles? Absolutely nothing? Who knows, but it's got the online community buzzing and we've got only 12 more days before the mystery will (hopefully) be over. So bookmark WhySoSerious.com, and you bet we'll be back here to let you know whatever it is that appears (or doesn't) on that page once the candle burns out. Any ideas? The Dark Knight will arrive in theaters on July 18.

Wait -- what's that -- Matt Damon wants to do another Bourne film? But I thought he was done with the character? Right? Right? Maybe wrong. Back in May while promoting Ocean's Thirteen at the Cannes Film Festival, Damon told the press that he was done with anything related to Jason Bourne. His exact words: "I'm definitely done with that. I think we've ridden that horse as far as we can. The character lives on in the books and if someone else wanted to play it, I guess they could." Well, what if that someone else is, um, Matt Damon? Keep in mind these comments came a few months before The Bourne Ultimatum slid onto the scene, capturing the world's attention with its slick action sequences and ... other cool stuff. Since then, the film has gone on to make lots of moolah, it was given lots of praise, and -- ya know what -- considering the fact it's rare we get a good action film, I think people want to see more Bourne in the future.

Damon, well, he's beginning to warm up to the idea. While in Tokyo, he made the following comments: "If Paul Greengrass, maybe years down the road, was interested in doing another one, then I would do it, too. I don't think either of us completely put the character to bed yet." Great, this means my nightmare of having to write seven different "Damon Says He Might Maybe Possibly Star in Fourth Bourne Film" posts is beginning to come true. But doesn't everyone always say the same thing? They throw out the "years down the line" comment to fend off the media, give us something to write about, and then continue to repeat the same thing (while we continue to report on it) until, eventually, there's a fourth film. Honestly, since the series has been so damn successful, I have a feeling we'll be hearing more about a fourth flick sooner rather than later.

Oh, and regarding our dream that Bourne would face off against James Bond in a film, Damon says: "He keeps himself in very good shape. I would like to avoid any confrontation with Daniel Craig if I can." Drats!

It's been over a month since those nude photos of High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens leaked online, and practically everyone had forgotten about them ... with the exception of a few lonely guys who use them for, um, research. Not long after the photos were revealed, it was believed that Disney would stand behind Hudgens and keep her onboard their High School Musical bus for at least one more film. Well, looks like they may have changed their minds. According to OK! Magazine, Disney has officially dumped Hudgens and will not ask her to star alongside Zac Efron in a High School Musical 3.

A moment of silence for the fans ...

Here's what their "inside" source had to say: "Disney finally decided that they don't want her back. They feel that as long as Zac Efron is in the movie, all will be fine. He's the real star - the household name - and, most importantly, he comes without baggage." Sounds a little gossipy to me, but then again it's OK! Magazine. OK! (Ya know, that exclamation point is supposed to tell you they mean business -- OK!?) The magazine goes on to say that "one of the Cheetah Girls -- Adrienne Baillon, 23, or possibly 23-year-old Sabrina Bryan -- will take Vanessa's place." Oh, and then there's this part: "The producers think that after Dancing With the Stars, Sabrina will be more famous than Vanessa." Really? The producers said that? And did they say that during recess on the jungle gym, or what? Until we get word from Disney regarding this major development, I'd consider this strictly a rumor for now, and, regardless, I'm sure Hudgens won't have to go without any offers for long. Paging Brett Ratner's Hugh Hefner biopic -- there's a girl you should consider ...

UPDATE: Hudgens' rep has denied these claims, saying they're "totally untrue." A Disney spokesperson says Hudgens is still in the running, and they're currently "still in negotiations with all the High School Musical stars."

If there's one thing I've ever learned in life it's that you should try to keep your personal life and business life separate. Once they collide, sh*t almost always hits the fan, and it will only be a matter of days before that big $100 million picture you were supposed to direct gets the shaft. Yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Robert Rodriguez. According to The New York Observer, Universal will no longer back Rodriguez's planned Barbarella remake because the director insists on placing his woman, Rose McGowan, in the lead role. Here's how their source describes the scene: "It's sort of embarrassing for everyone involved. No one thinks Rose can carry the movie, but Robert won't listen." (I can hear the sounds of the whip in the background as we speak.)

Other names that have lingered around the role include Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry and Jessica Alba. However, Rodriguez wants McGowan, and it doesn't appear Universal wants to shell out $100 million for a director who's whose last film bombed and a girl who's never amounted to anything more than playing "the hot slutty girl" in each of her films. Funnily enough, the original Barbarella starred Jane Fonda and was directed by her husband (at the time) Roger Vadim. Since Rodriguez and McGowan are engaged, I suppose it only makes sense to keep things in line with the source material. Apparently, Universal will still fund the film, but not at $100 million. They'll do $60 million, yet Rodriguez is said to be shopping the project around to other studios in the hopes of securing more money. Here's my question to you: If you were Universal, would you stick with the $100 million budget and take a chance on McGowan? Or do you think Rodriguez is too whipped to see there are better actresses out there?

So you're Sir Ben Kingsley. You've been knighted. You've won an Oscar. You're a pretty big deal actor who recently married a relatively-unknown, younger, attractive actress like the ol' devil you are. So you decide to go out on a night on the town with your wife. Of course, being any sort of notable actor or celebrity, you get stopped by the paparazzi. What do you imagine they'll ask you? Something about your work? Something about your new wife? How about super-important current events?

The other night, TMZ caught up with Kingsley and asked him to comment on Britney Spears. (Because you're dying to know, right? And he's certainly the one to go to with such a question.) After the disbelief: "Britney?" He is thoughtful, telling the camera that everyone deserves to be happy. Then, he decides to make this whole encounter a little more interesting. He follows with: "She's my role model, really. An inspiration, should I say?" He then goes on about his own "morning mantra," which consists of him saying: "Give me, give me, give me, give me..." Before leaving, he says: "It starts my day, and my day gets better and better!" Classy! I'm usually not a big fan of the random questions, but if only all actors could come up with something on the spot like Kingsley did, they'd be a heck of a lot more fun, which would give these things some sort of point. Maybe this cleverness is why he always attracts those young, model-looking women.

But I should tie this a little more into film and less gossip. So, here's my proposal: someone needs to put together a new movie -- it will star Spears and Kingsley together. He's the experienced pro, she's the young, flighty mess. Heck, they could make it a reality film, where she had to follow the word of Sir Ben and turn her life around. I know that I would go see it. There would be the humor of Kingsley to keep things clever, and the struggling Spears to titillate those who love nothing more than to watch a celebrity crash and burn. And maybe throw in that crying Spears fan for good measure.

According to Bloody-Disgusting, Lionsgate is planning to shoot Saw V and Saw VI back-to-back, perhaps to make sure they have two sequels in the can prior to any sort of Hollywood strike. Either that, or they're just testing director David Hackl and his crew to see how fast they can write and shoot these suckers. Of course, I won't be happy until they write, shoot and have a Saw film in the can in one month, with 12 sequels to watch each year. Maybe by that time they'll figure out a way to clone Tobin Bell before the guy gets so used to being Jigsaw, that he winds up going on a mass killing spree for real. Screenwriters Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (Feast, Project Greenlight) wrote Saw IV, and they're also signed on to write two more sequels. Good for them! At least someone came off that Project Greenlight show ready to kick serious ass.

The most interesting note to come attached to this Bloody-Disgusting story is that, apparently, Lionsgate may skip a year with the Saw films. Yup, that means October 2008 would come and go Saw-free. This has not been confirmed yet, and folks are on it as we speak, but that's what's being reported. Should Saw IV absolutely demolish the box office, I imagine Lionsgate may re-think that strategy. But if Saw IV doesn't put up big numbers, then maybe it would be a good idea to take a year off, let the fans breath, and then come back with a Saw V and Saw VI that absolutely rock. What do you think? Are you ready for the Saw franchise to end? Do you want to keep seeing one installment each year? Or, would you be down with them taking a year off?

He's been pretty busy over the last few years spinning webs around Manhattan, but the big question has been: what's next for Sam Raimi? Sure, he's got a lot of possible flicks to produce, but there's been no solid word on scripts or directorial projects. Unfortunately, there's still no solid word, but in a recent interview with MTV, Raimi talked about all the projects and possibilities for his filmmaking future.

First up: Spider-Man 4. In June, Raimi was dreaming up a webbed world with even more villains, because I guess he didn't hear the complaints about the storylines in Spider-Man 3. That's been scrapped because Raimi won't be working on the story for the next installment: "It'll be a brand-new writer coming in with a brand-new story -- a fresh take on the Spider-Man series." Right now, they're looking for that writer. Raimi says: "We're hearing different versions right now and really enjoying the different stories. Hopefully, we'll hear one that sounds right for the fourth installment." Once that's determined, he'll see if he wants to direct.

Next: The Hobbit. Raimi, of course, really wants to do it, but he's deferring to Jackson. "Well, it really is Peter Jackson's project, and I wouldn't make any conditions." That being said, if Jackson won't, Raimi hopes he will be the alternate choice: "If [Jackson] didn't want to direct it, and he was producing it, then I would love to be considered for the project." Seeing that Jackson might be in talks for the film, I'm thinking the possibility of hobbits and Raimis is gone.

But what about Evil Dead? Raimi -- he's just sinister. He refuses to let these remake rumors ever officially die, leaving us in continuing anxiety. He says: "Maybe we'll make another one; it would be nice to at some point, if I could get together with Bruce and Rob, and we could get a story together and the financing. A lot of things would have to come together, but it would be nice." But he also mentioned the possibility of a new director and new approach, finishing off with: "I look forward to someone else reinterpreting it, or going back to the story with part four myself." If he wants to do it himself with Bruce -- awesome. If he doesn't... Mr. Raimi, the only way to go is to bring Evil Dead: The Musical to the screen.

But there's even more, so stay tuned for part 2!

Many of us get tense over that nasty, 6-letter word -- sequel. Usually, they come many years after the original, trying to put a new spin on things that sometimes works, but often doesn't. And then there's Dune -- the project that seems to pop up every decade. In the seventies, there was almost an immense, star-studded feature teaming epic names like Dali and Giger. David Lynch then took a stab at it in the eighties, which he regrets. Finally, there was the miniseries, which came out just after the '90s.

Now there's been a lot of rumors of yet another attempt. Frank Herbert's grandson had posted about the possibility to a Dune forum -- saying someone at a studio really wants to do that, a director sort of someone. AICN has now gotten word from one of their sources about the potential project, who says that the studio is Paramount, and the guy in question is none other than Peter Berg. Yes, the guy who just brought us The Kingdom.

Personally, I'm both intrigued and a little apprehensive. The actor/writer/director/producer has proven his worth on a number of projects, but there's real life, and then there's Dune. It just makes me want to ask a lot of questions. Can Berg handle sci-fi? Heck, can anyone handle the world of Dune? Do we need a new Dune? Is it time to stop trying? Why do they keep trying? Have people been ingesting too much spice?

Say all you want about Josh Hartnett kicking vampire ass (never in a million years did I think Hartnett would kick anyone's ass), but when it comes to 30 Days of Night, Ben Foster clearly steals the show. I had a chance to catch the flick last week, and Foster brings new meaning to the word 'creepy.' I won't say too much about his character since I'm sure there's a lot of you who haven't read the graphic novel, but I will tell you that he plays a dude named The Stranger. And when he first arrives in town, all beat up and freaky-looking, no one knows what to make of him. Is he good? Is he bad? Is he wearing deodorant?

Thomas over at Reelz Channel sent in this scoop to us earlier today; apparently, during a recent interview promoting the film, 30 Days of Night screenwriter Brian Nelson teased fans with the sort-of-promise that The Stranger will be back in future sequels. Do keep in mind that Reelz spits out a few spoilers prior to dishing this info, so if you want to avoid them, you might want to stick here -- I'll just give you Nelson's quote: "I'll just tantalizingly say it is possible you might see more of The Stranger in the future." There's no word on whether Foster would return to the role (his stuff was so good in 30 Days, they added additional scenes to give him more screen time), but I imagine they'd fight to have him come back and join in on the fun. 30 Days of Night hits theaters this weekend. Oh, and there should definitely be a sequel. The film rocks -- the studio knows it, the fans know it -- so let's just get it underway.

I'm such a bastard sometimes, because I know exactly what you're thinking: "Seven minutes of The Dark Knight! Online! And I can watch it now!" Unfortunately, no, but the good news is you'll be able to watch it very soon. According to a report over on Collider (via a Portuguese website who just attended a Dark Knight set visit in London), six or seven minutes of next summer's Batman follow-up will screen before the IMAX version of I Am Legend. This won't be an extended trailer of sorts; from what we know, this will be an entire scene -- they're calling it a prologue about the Joker. That's all we have to go on now, but if you planned on seeing I Am Legend when it hits theaters on December 14, you might as well skip over to the local IMAX and check it out there. No word on whether a new Dark Knight trailer will come attached to Legend in conventional theaters, but I've heard there may indeed be something.

We already know Christopher Nolan shot a certain amount of scenes in IMAX, one of which was a bank heist scene, but this sounds like it might be different. Additionally, and also coming from the same set visit, Collider reports that Gotham City will go through a "white night," though there's no explanation as to what that is. They say "Two Faces will be in the film" -- not sure if that was a typo, meant to read 'Two Face,' but it appears that way. And, also, Batman will be traveling outside Gotham City for the first time to Hong Kong (which we already knew). I haven't been to an IMAX film in a long time (too friggin' big for this old man), but I may just have to suck it up and catch I Am Legend for the Batman footage. How about you? Would you rather wait until the film comes out, or are you eager to soak up any and all things Batman-related right now? The Dark Knight hits theaters on July 18.

It almost sounds like the beginning of a joke: "So Brett Ratner and Lindsay Lohan walk into the Playboy Mansion ...," but it could soon be a scary reality if Ratner decides to cast the post-rehab gal as a Playboy bunny in his new film. That's right, in case you did not know yet, Ratner is putting together a biopic on the life of Hugh Hefner (with Leonardo DiCaprio to potentially star has Hef). Whether or not he's doing it because Hef's story would make a great film, or if he's doing it for a lifetime invite to the Mansion, we do not know -- but we do know he'll be needing some seductive famous faces to take on roles as Playmates. E! Entertainment recently caught up with Ratner at Hollywood Life's 4th Annual Style Awards (it pains me that such a thing even exists) on Sunday night, and asked if he'd be down with giving Lohan a role in the film. Ratner replied, "She's very talented ... if she's sober. She would be great as a Playboy Bunny."

See, but in order to adequately play the part of a Playboy Bunny, wouldn't it be more fun if Lohan wasn't sober? Of course, the article goes on to say the following: "Love! Perfect part for Linds, postrefresh sesh" -- and since I don't even know what "postrefresh sesh" means in normal people language, I'm going to assume this whole thing is still pretty far-fetched. But still, Lohan did play a stripper in I Know Who Killed Me, so perhaps she can take on the role of the Playboy Bunny who doesn't take her clothes off. I mean, there is one Bunny who doesn't take her clothes off, right? On the other hand, nothing gets a girl those Oscar-worthy scripts like a little full-frontal nudity -- right Halle? Could this be the perfect role to revive Lohan's career, or considering all the bad publicity as of late, would playing a Playboy Bunny simply add more flames to the fire?

And no, you're probably not one of them. According to Entertainment Weekly, George Lucas is currently on the hunt for a number of writers to script 13 episodes of his planned live-action Star Wars TV series. EW claims to have heard from someone who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 flavors last night. Wait, actually, they heard that Lucas is heading to Los Angeles next week to meet with writers. They say (via one agent) that "Lucas' plan is to recruit several freelancers -- aka 'writers of real significance' -- to spend a week at the Skywalker Ranch in November to come up with story ideas for the series.The agent also said that Lucas has indicated a desire to hire writers from other countries. The scribes would then disperse and write the 13 episodes that would be produced and financed by Lucas."

Lucas is taking somewhat of a chance on both the animated and live-action series considering he doesn't have a deal in place with any network yet. He's already indicated that the animated series (which has completed roughly 40 episodes so far, and is set between Episodes II and III) is PG-13, and as such it would need to air on a network later at night. As far as the live-action show goes, I imagine it will also be PG-13; here's what Lucas had to say about it recently: "The live-action [series] is not the movie. It's the Star Wars universe, but it's characters from the saga who were [previously] minor, and it follows their stories. It's set between [movie episodes] III and IV, when the Empire has taken over." The one aspect of the live-action series that sort of bugs me is that there are no Jedis, since all of them (with the exception of Obi Wan and Yoda) were wiped out after Episode III. They will also mark the first time Lucas has gone live-action with his Star Wars universe outside the big screen world. Originally, he was looking to do 100 episodes of each (animated and live-action), but seeing as he's looking to commission only 13 episodes for the live action version, I'd imagine he's playing it safe just in case ... they bomb. There, I said it!

Last Sunday, Cinematical was the first to tell you that Chris Pine was the odds-on favorite to take on the big role of psycho cop Junior Stemmons in Joe Carnahan's White Jazz. Carnahan has subsequently confirmed as much on his blog. The role is Pine's if he wants it, so why is he not signing on the dotted line? The reason, as I understand it, is that he's pretty much being forced to choose between a major, potentially star-making role in White Jazz or a very minor role as Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams new Star Trek film. In today's Variety, we learn that Simon Pegg has landed the role of Scotty in that film and that Pine has been officially offered the captain's chair, but hasn't yet taken it. I can see how this would be a tough choice. Even though it's well known that the new Star Trek film is practically sans-Kirk, the prestige of getting to play Kirk could open all kinds of doors for this kid, and who knows -- White Jazz may not turn out as well as everyone hopes. He's between a rock and a hard place. In other Star Trek XI casting news, The Hollywood Reporter tells us that John Cho, of Harold and Kumar fame, has landed the role of Sulu.

In other White Jazz news, Smokin' Joe has put up some more awesome concept art on his blog. This time it's not quite as cool as the panoramic view of 1958 Los Angeles, but it does have a ring of high-class sleaze to it that's reminiscent of L.A. Confidential. The large piece of art has the story's anti-hero Dave Klein walking away, with head down, from some swank Hollywood home that looks like where Pierce Patchett would live. If Joe has any heart at all, he's going to let me onto the set of this movie!

So I just returned home from checking out the New York Film Festival's closing night film, Persepolis, which is an amazing little animated flick about a girl coming of age during the Islamic revolution. Sony Pictures Classics is releasing it in December, it might get nominated for a Best Foreign Language Oscar (it's currently France's selection, so we'll see), and, heck, it might even win. An Oscar! For a film starring an animated girl from Iran! Go figure. The theater was pretty crowded, because from what I gathered people were still interested in films featuring women in the lead roles. I know I am. By now you probably see where I'm going with this -- in case you haven't heard yet, Warner Bros. chief Jeff Robinov is still simmering in some hot water over comments he allegedly made; how, ya know, he doesn't want to make any more female-driven films because ... The Invasion and The Brave One didn't do so well? Yeah, I don't get it much either.

Nikki Finke, the blogger over at Deadline Hollywood who broke the story, continues to go on and on about the fiasco, while, I imagine, folks over at Warners are scrambling to correct this PR nightmare. Finke reminds me of that girl from Can't Hardly Wait who runs around throughout the entire film trying to get people to sign her yearbook. Whatever happened to that girl after everyone completely dissed her? Where did she go after high school? What is she doing now? Let me take a wild guess ... Anyway, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. If it's true, and Robinov did say those things, then why is he blaming the actresses? I asked a friend of mine, who saw both The Invasion and The Brave One, if he didn't like the films because of Kidman and Foster. His answer: "I didn't like them because they sucked. Kidman and Foster had nothing to do with that." And why did he go to see them in the first place? "I like Kidman and Foster." Heh. (I wonder if they changed the name to Legally Blonde: Invasion of the Purse Snatchers, if, then, people would've showed up to see it?)

I tried reading Finke's reports, but I just got a headache. They're filled with lines like, "And then a Warner Bros. rep told me ..." and "Three studio insiders claimed to have ..." and "When I got off the phone with the agent whose rep used to be a studio exec ..." Who gives a sh*t? Should we care about this story at all? Seriously. Warner Bros. could make 70 films in a row about homosexual kangaroos from Egypt, and it still wouldn't change the fact that my electric bill is too high. Should we boycott Warners? No. Why? There are very few guarantees in life: 1. A lot of folks making the decisions in Hollywood are morons. 2. 300 is and will always be a pile of crap. 3. Female-driven films simply don't do well at the box office unless they star Reese Witherspoon doing her best Valley-girl accent, and 4. There will always be something better worth seeing on any given weekend, be it on DVD or in the theater. Like Persepolis. So let Warners make their testosterone-laced, male-driven films, and the rest of us can go about our lives knowing there will always be a choice when it comes to what we watch, when we watch it and who we watch it with. Isn't that what's most important here?

I've never seen Lost, or Girlfight, or any of the low-budget horror films Michelle Rodriguez has done, so I have no opinion whatsoever of her acting abilities, but I remember thinking that she must be worth a look if James Cameron thinks she is. The King of the World recently cast Rodriguez in a major role in his upcoming film, Avatar. She was to play ex-Marine pilot Trudy Chacon, but now she may have screwed that up big time. According to TMZ, Rodriguez has just been hit with a full six-month jail sentence for violating probation on a number of driving-related crimes, including hit and run. Apparently, she tried to fool them into thinking she was doing community service when she really wasn't, which pissed off the court. She is now required to begin her sentence by late December, which may or may not screw up her role in Avatar. Cameron is known to have already filmed much of the live-action, and is filming more in New Zealand this month -- can he (and does he want to) work around her schedule? What about re-shoots, pick-ups, etc?

In other Avatar news, a story over at a New Zealand news site recently quoted digital effects guru Joe Letteri as saying that hundreds of contractors are being corralled to help out with the massive special-effects workload the film is generating. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is going to be something really special when it hits theaters and if I were Cameron, I think I would try something new with the marketing on this one -- don't have any. No trailers, no images, no nothing. Just make us wait until May 22, 2009 to see anything. Wouldn't that be fun?