TRAILER REPORT: ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART ONE, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RIGHT WING

The Lucas Arts game logo got a new gig.

One of the most popular and controversial novels of all time, Atlas Shrugged, is heading to theaters as a trilogy after decades of aborted attempts to film it. Heralded as a Bible by some and “a load of crap” by others, the 55-year-old tome brings a lot of baggage with it to the screen. However one cannot discuss the movie, and therefore the trailer, without briefly taking a detour into Objectivism, defined by author Ayn Rand as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

I started writing this piece with an essay about Objectivism and my thoughts on the subject. It was a ~1000 word rambling, incoherent mess, and I later abandoned it for obvious reasons. I am not a scholar in Objectivism, but I have read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Thus, like pretty much every other blogger, I’m going into a hot-button and divisive issue with half information and mistruths.

Personally, I find Objectivism to be an interesting philosophy that could conceivably work on an individual basis (as with Howard Roark in Rand's superior novel The Fountainhead) but not feasible on a grand scale as in Atlas Shrugged. I believe that Objectivism suffers from the same naïve idealism in humans as drastically opposite belief systems like communism and socialism. I will go more in depth into this, as well as the movie's troubled history, in the TRAILER REPORT itself.

At the start, we see that the movie is rated PG-13. While the novel itself might not be considered particularly vulgar (except by people who might take offense to its content), it's full of rich themes and adult situations that ought to warrant an R rating. However, as last year showed, plenty of filmmakers can create complex and impressive PG-13 movies (e.g. True Grit, The Social Network), so while the rating isn't immediately a bad sign, it's definitely worth noting. Of course, considering how antagonistic the novel is to the liberal media, if this movie was faithful to the book you'd expect the Hollywood elite to rate the film ‘R’ sight unseen to prevent impressionable adolescents from being corrupted by Rand's dangerous teachings.

One of the first things anyone should know about this film is that it was allegedly made with a $5 million budget. Although that's the price tag for only the first part of the trilogy, the movie has no choice but to look incredibly cheap. While plenty of movies can be made for less, making this one on the cheap does a disservice to the epic that is Atlas Shrugged. To be entirely fair, however, the movie does not look like the mammoth clusterfuck I imagined after first hearing about its pedigree.

It's unfortunate though because the scope and style of the novel would work best as an alternative history period piece. You know, in a time when trains weren't derided and mocked. Nevertheless, even with the novel updated to today's period, there's a weight that only money and/or a real skilled director can provide. This film probably does not have that director.

The director for this part, and presumably the two others, is Paul Johansson. His previous directing credits include 18 episodes of One Tree Hill, a TV movie, and a short. Additionally, Johansson plays Rand's ubermensch John Galt, showcasing a level of hubris matched only by Vincent Gallo and M. Night Shyamalan. His previous roles include nearly 150 episodes of One Tree Hill.

The opening moment in the trailer implies what could/should have been. The mysterious man talking to Midas Mulligan makes you wonder how the film (at least the Galt segments) would look as a respectable/“actual” 1950s film noir/neo-noir, with a gritty, imposing New York as the backdrop. Instead, we're greeted with the immediate visage of a film that seems to be playing noir at a community theater level. The storefronts and signs look cheap and generic. The dialogue (“Someone who knows what it's like to work for himself and not let others feed off the profits of his energies”), while getting the point across, seems too wordy. Maybe it’s because the speaker sounds winded about halfway through his delivery. The trailer then presumably cuts to the scene in the novel where children are killed in a train crash because their parents contributed to charity.

With that out of the way, the characters.

Dagney Taggart- I don't know a lot about Taylor Schilling (she starred in Mercy, that short-lived NBC series about a rogue nurse who doesn't play by the rules damn it!), but from the trailer she is no Dagney Taggart. Dagney, arguably the main character in Atlas Shrugged, should emit a gravitas, a sense of importance. She is someone whose mere presence should make one uncomfortable- not in a bad way, but because you immediately sense that she exists on a different level intellectually. With Schilling-Dags, I alternately get the sense of a Lifetime Movie heroine and The Closer. Also, she'd never say “if you double cross me, I'd destroy you.” She's not that forward; she doesn't need to be.

Hank Rearden- Hank Rearden is played by Grant Bowler, another television veteran whose most notable roles came on True Blood and Ugly Betty. Of the main characters thus far, Rearden seems one of the better cast. While I'd personally envision Rearden as someone more … masculine (?) and commanding, Bowler seems at least somewhat passable. Although occasionally he seems similar to the ilk of Business Man Extra seen on commercials. Also, he seems to spend a lot of time at lavish dinners.

The Government- Studio Head Jack Lipnick and his lackey Lou Breeze are reunited to represent the government, along with some other people like the Principal from Buffy. Their names, their personalities, any internal complexities are irrelevant. In the world of Atlas Shrugged, the important thing to remember is that the Government is bad, socialist, and against innovation presumably due to jealousy.

Some might find this distasteful but it this a bad thing? Not at all. We have plenty of movies showing corporations as one dimensionally soulless and evil. Hell, the quest for Unobtainium was symbolized by a guy who very well should have had dollar signs CGI'ed in place of pupils and that movie was the highest grosser of all time.

Why shouldn't The Government with its history of incompetence and bumbling be seen as the villain with the free marketeers as the hero? Is the quest for profit really that much more antagonistic to our sense of being than the quest for power or a small group of quasi-elected officials sapping the intellectual energy of its people? This isn't to say that business leaders and entrepreneurs are somehow infallible. They aren't, and one of my biggest problems with Atlas Shrugged is Rand's assumption that the best and brightest will actually be the best and brightest (e.g. best working conditions, best wages, always seemingly agreeing on everything). But that doesn't mean that they are naturally villainous either. I'd go even further and say that a movie with an Objectivism backing could be very important and interesting in an era of bailouts and TARP funds and cries of socialism against so many politicians and fascism against every single person in elected office. But will this be the movie? Can it?

This article cannot end without asking the question pondered since the book first came out: could an Atlas Shrugged movie even work? The book itself is a dense, 1100+ page novel endlessly rambling about a philosophy with characters that could best be described as “thinly drawn.” People such as Charlize Theron, Angelina Jolie, and even Albert S. Ruddy (producer of The Godfather, Million Dollar Baby, and Cannonball Run II) have been involved at one point or another in failed productions of the work. Fans have said that it needed to be some sort of multi-part HBO miniseries to allow for all the depths and complexities required. (And considering the history in and the visuals of Boardwalk Empire alone, this probably would have been the best method). The movie itself plans to be three parts, though it's hard to imagine a successful trilogy with the look of the Atlas Shrugged Part 1.

While admittedly not the best strategy, if Atlas Shrugged were to enter cinema, I actually believe that a single movie can work, provided it had an appropriate (3-ish hour) running time. Obviously, a lot of characters would need to be cut out (similar to how The Fountainhead movie basically ignored the existence of Peter Keating), but the novel was never about the characters anyway. Yet, ironically, characters would be the best way for the movie to succeed. In other words, the key to making Atlas Shrugged work as a film would be to espouse the philosophy of the book through complex characters and subtlety in place of pontification and a 2 hour radio address by John Galt. The Government could remain overtly evil and engage in its widespread stealing of man's ideas and inventions without the audience being beaten over the head about how bad it is or that they are doing it. The exchange in the trailer between Glasses Guy and Rearden (“Glasses Guy: “They say you're intractable, you're ruthless, your only goal is to make money.” Rearden: “But my only goal is to make money.” GG: “Yeah but you shouldn't say it.”) works better and feels more natural than the line at the beginning. A film featuring moments like that could easily get the point across while avoiding the worst excesses of the novel.

Or, a movie focusing almost exclusively on Galt's adventures at Twentieth Century Motor Company could really get to the core of the work in a condensed running time. That cautionary tale/parable can explain so much about Objectivism, the dangers of collectivism, and the importance of the individual while being simultaneously powerful and horrifying.

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 opens on April 15, 2011.

What Tron Did Right: 2010 Loved The 1980s

The start of this decade offered several movies that gladly and blatantly connected themselves to the 1980s. From Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's references to 8-bit video games to those weeks when the nation was once against obsessed with Back To The Future, the Me Decade was big in the cinematic world. Yet of those films that lived on their associations 30 years prior, only Tron: Legacy managed to pull it off. Even Hot Tub Time Machine couldn't swing it and that featured John Cusack at a ski resort in the 1980s.

Tron: Legacy

I'm not saying Tron Legacy was a great movie. It wasn't. Definitely visually impressive, it unfortunately lacked that extra bit of uniqueness that made the original film so memorable.

For example, whereas the original 1982 Tron was a prison break movie done in a science fiction-y landscape, Tron Legacy was a typical science fiction-y film done in a science fiction-y landscape, following most of the tropes of the genre. And, while the original film seemed to connect everything in The Grid to real life computers/computer programming in an understandable, though not wholly realistic, way (i.e. the programs take the form of the creators), Tron Legacy seemed to abandon that premise, opting instead for occasional spurts of nonsensical technobabble and proclamations of “the one.”

Nevertheless, although missing the cleverness of the original film in both concept and execution, what Tron: Legacy did right- and where many of the subsequent movies failed- was respect the source material.

Tron: Legacy did not look upon the original Tron with derision. Kevin Flynn's son didn't mock the Frisbee discs. The original light cycle was treated like a classic car. The movie itself upgraded and expanded upon the effects/look/aspects of The Grid without taking anything away from the original film or the original landscape. While this did not cover up all the film's flaws, it made the movie as a whole more palatable and enjoyable.

Unfortunately, there was no Yahtzee or Moses.

Clash of the Titans

Compare to something like the uninspired Clash of the Titans remake. While the 1981 film isn't as respected or admired as Tron (although Tron itself did not gain respect until relatively recently, as viewers of the 3-D Homer segment of The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror VI might recall), its one blatant reference to the first film drew an immediate line in the sand. (A scene early on features Perseus finding the first COTT's Bubo the Owl in a chest and essentially being told that it's fucking stupid and lame.)

By the way, speaking of “respecting the source material,” Greek mythology features some of the richest stories the world has ever known. Nearly everything drama has tried to accomplish over the past several thousand years was already contemplated by the gods, the demi-gods, and the humans of Greek mythology. 2010 Clash opted to boil down one of the greatest universes the world has ever known to one-dimensional caricatures of Hades and Zeus. To base a movie around their sibling rivalry without even referencing Poseidon is shameful. An excellent CHUD article better discusses the film's problems.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

To read my more in-depth review of Wall Street 2, click here.

Just as Tron: Legacy was a sequel to a 1980s film, so was Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Despite having many of the same behind-the-scenes people involved from the 1987 movie, including returning director Oliver Stone, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps failed where Tron: Legacy succeeded.

The film virtually starts with a shot of Gekko's 1980s cell phone as he's being released from prison. While Gekko's old cell phone has become a stock joke over the past couple of years due to its obsolescence, and the scene got good laughs in the trailer, the moment does not fit the tone of Wall Street or its sequel. It's a goofy moment and kind of a hacky gag. Unrealistic that Gekko would bring his cell phone to the prison, the bit is basically the same “Bubo is fucking stupid” joke from Clash of the Titans without the excuse of being Clash of the Titans.

As the movie progresses, things get worse. When Gekko regains his 1980s persona halfway through the film, it feels forced. Michael Douglas' Academy Award-winning role becomes a caricature based on vague, shorthand ideas about the character, rather than who the character actually was or what he would turn into. Over the past several decades, apparently, Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox turned a boozing pussy hound. Obviously meant as an homage to the private life of Charlie Sheen, this brief scene was not believable as a next step in the evolution of Bud Fox considering how his redemption was the core of the entire first film. This serves as yet another example of Wall Street 2 playing to the simplest members of the audience, instead of contributing to the story, the characters, or the source material.

Although Tron Legacy was supposed to be the bigger and more mass-friendly film, Wall Street 2 came across as caring more about (no pun intended) trading in on the first film's name than continuing the tale. Morals are muddled (even the “greed is not just good but legal” line used repeatedly in the advertisements is only loosely touched upon), character motivations make no sense, and points (if there are any) are never actually made. The more one thinks about the film, the worse it is. It's 2010's Superman Returns.

Though not actually sequels or remakes, both The Expendables and Cop Out promised to return to styles of filmmaking long gone in our world of postmodern, self-referential douchery. Neither delivered.

The Expendables

When first announced, audiences had a lot of hope for The Expendables. Sylvester Stallone promised a return to the action movies of the 1980s where actors like Bruce Willis, Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger ruled the box office. Moreover, he swore to do it again with the biggest action stars of that era.

Unfortunately, The Expendables could not pull it off.

For starters, many of the cast were “modern” guys who don't have the connection that old school action heroes do. That's not to say that Randy Couture, Steve Austin, or Terry Crews couldn't make up the next generation of action stars, but they currently lack the iconic status needed for a film like this. The only “modern” performer that fit into this movie was Jason Statham, whose vehicles manage to harken back to that earlier generation while maintaining a modern feel. His movies might not have the staying power of the likes of Cobra or Marked for Death, but in a world where pure action movies are rare, Statham continues the legacy.

The next and biggest problem was the tone. Neither entirely serious nor entirely jokey, 1980s action films existed in a time before movies had to be self-aware and could just be. Sure they were cheesy, but being blind to the cheese made those movies work, made those movies fun. The “badassery” of Tango and Cash or Commando was tempered by their over-the-top dorkiness but they believed in themselves so the audience believed in them. Although now heavily ridiculed, the ability to give a lame one-liner with a straight face right before slaughtering someone is an unappreciated skill.

While The Expendables featured some of the right actors, the one-dimensional villains, the evil corporate guy, and violence, it lacked the soul necessary to be a genuine 1980s action film. It tried too hard to be cool.

Oddly enough, Stallone managed to find the right balance in Rambo and Rocky Balboa.

Cop Out

Before Cop Out was released, director Kevin Smith said that it was his homage to 1980s action-comedies like Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, and 48 Hours. He condemned critics for not getting it when the horrific reviews came out. Then he said his goal was to make a film he would like to see with his dad. And then he retreated to Twitter.

I want to like Kevin Smith again. I really do. I even found Zack and Miri Make a Porno enjoyable. But Cop Out was a step backwards for the filmmaker and really showcased his lack of progress as a director. And, more importantly, as a 1980s homage, Cop Out seemed to lack any understanding of the genre.

The buddy cop comedy has a style; a look and a feel that makes them different than the typical action-comedy. The pacing and the style of such films can be imitable, similar to what Todd Phillips managed to accomplish with the Starsky & Hutch movie and the 1970s television cop genre. Kevin Smith did not even seem to try beyond combining a Wild Black Cop with a Serious White Cop.

Among the film's many problems is that most of the genre takes place in California; I don't think any of them were set in Philadelphia, as Cop Out was. It would be like doing a takeoff of the gritty New York Serpico/French Connection crime dramas of the 1970s and setting the movie in St. Louis.

Secondly, in all of those films the two partners pretty much meet for the first time as the movie begins. We see how the uptight cop initially deals with the rogue behavior of Mel Gibson and Eddie Murphy, how they eventually grow together, and how their disparate crime fighting styles mesh. We learn at the start of Cop Out that Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan have been partners for a decade. Had the film been about what happens to an Eddie Murphy/Judge Reinhold-style team ten years down the line, that would be one thing, but Cop Out wasn't about that at all.

Thirdly, in the classic films, despite the crazy cop having unconventional methods, he was still a good cop, just an outside-the-box thinker. In that role, Tracy Morgan comes across as a blithering idiot that you're shocked hadn't shot his face off years ago. He is in the mold of Martin Lawrence in Blue Streak and Martin Lawrence in National Security.

Fourthly, the uptight cop might be straitlaced but, again, still a good cop who is passionate about his work, just a bit too conventional in his methods. He is not, and god help me for saying this, dead the whole movie.

Fifth, as a pair, the partners in buddy cop films do not seem incompetent. Overzealous, but not incompetent. Whether apart or together, Willis and Morgan seem retarded at doing their jobs and neither of them seemed to give a damn about the case. It probably did not help that their chemistry was so bad that the film and their relationship would have been better served had one of them been CGI'ed in later.

Sixth, even when the desk sergeant took Willis/Morgan off the case, he seemed more bored than angry. Again, if this was a guy who was just exhausted about having to suspend these two from the force year after year that would be one thing, but it wasn't.

Cop Out was a certain type of movie, but not the homage to the Buddy Cop Comedy genre it purported to be. Instead, it was Generic Action Comedy With A Black Guy. It was Lethal Weapon 3 (complete with annoying lackey Sean William Scott in place of Joe Pesci's Leo Getz), not Lethal Weapon. It was Showtime with Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro. It was I, Spy with Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson. It was not Hot Fuzz or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, both recent films that showed a real appreciation for and understanding of the genre.

To be fair, there were elements in Cop Out that made it appear as though some people got it. The synthesizer-heavy score by Beverly Hills Cop's Harold Faltermeyer clearly meant to evoke memories of the era. Surprisingly, the “other” cop team of Adam Brody and Kevin Pollack fit the mold. Brody's a rookie, Pollack's a veteran. They have a weird connection over a small thing (in this case boots). They perform actual police work. They seem competent as a team, yet different enough in personalities to play off each other, and they grow to appreciate each other' value throughout the film.

Conclusion

It requires more than merely saying that one respects source material to actually prove that one respects source material. Films, series, books, and genres are more than just individual elements one can pillage from and call it a day. For sequels, it's more than just throwing in an old line here or there that the audience remembers from the first film. Homages require a greater effort than merely replicating the most basic of basics. Tron Legacy seemed to understand this; the other movies did not.

Not Only Movies- 2010 Television Stunk Too

2010 will rightfully go down as one of the worst years for film in recent memory. Of course when it starts with Tim “too-cool-for-source-material” Burton's Alice in Wonderland earning more than $300 million domestic, what would you expect? Nevertheless, 2010 was also a remarkably unfortunate year for television.

The 2009-2010 Television Season

The 2009-2010 television season brought with it the finales of a glut of major television franchises. While most had seen much better days, many had at one point or another served as significant players.

The Long Timers

Syndication favorite Scrubs finished out its nine year run with the maligned final season derogatorily referred to as After Scrubs, due to its focus on mostly new characters (who actually weren't that bad once they got their feet wet and no longer had to deal with a regressed Dr. Dorian).

Heroes received a long overdue cancellation after three years of being embarrassingly directionless and redundant.

ABC's Ugly Betty ended.

FOX axed 24 after nearly a decade just as its final season began to improve (though the Dana Walsh storyline still makes no sense).

After 13 years, FOX let go of Mike Judge's King of the Hill. Possibly the network's most underrated cartoon, King of the Hill never lost its down-to-earth core or forced the characters into increasingly zany adventures.

In a shock move, NBC didn't even give its nearly two-decade old flagship series Law and Order a chance for a final episode.

One of FX's first noteworthy series, Nip/Tuck, finally limped towards it ultimate conclusion.

Also, although DirectTV picked it up, FX canceled one of its best series, the ethically challenged legal drama Damages, after a really strong third season that made up for its disappointing second one.

And Lost finally proved that the showrunners really had no idea what they were doing. (That 10 minute DVD "epilogue" furthered showcased their inability to answer anything.)

Also worth mentioning is American Idol. Though returning for the 2011 television season, Idol is doing so without the show's most identifiable mainstay, Simon Cowell.

The Short Timers

Highly publicized new series, some with potential, also got the shaft after a relatively short life.

Early during its second season, Joss Whedon's Dollhouse learned that it was only going to get a half-season order and finally presented a show worth watching (at least until the senseless series finale).

Starz' Party Down, one of the funniest shows on television, was unfortunately canceled after its second season.

SyFy axed the often-muddled-but-nevertheless-fascinating Caprica to make room for a more action packed spin-off of Battlestar: Galactica.

And ABC's Flashforward...could have gotten better, I guess. If they got rid of, or drastically reduce, Mark Benford. At least its second half was better than that of fellow the-next-Lost V's.

The 2010-2011 Television Season

Whether you loved the shows or hated them, the end of the last television season clearly left many open time slots. So what did the networks give us to replace these series? Put simply, the 2010 television season has been nearly universally lame. Unsurprisingly, the best new programs appeared on FX, HBO, and AMC. Unfortunately, two of the best ones were canceled.

Cable- The Unfortunately Canceled

The modern television landscape is full of series about detectives/proto-detectives solving a crime-of-the-week while dealing with some sort of overarching storyline. These season-long plots help give these show a better sense of complexity (even though they are virtually ignored for the vast majority of each episode), and a stable of recurring characters provide a sense of history and continuity. These elements make mostly fluffy shows come across as deeper and better than their direct predecessors like Knight Rider and The A-Team. This is called USA Syndrome.

FX, the best network for original programming in both quality and quantity, began airing Terriers. Of all the "detective" shows on television (including the other 2010 FX original Justified), Terriers quickly rose above them all. Bolstered by strong performances (especially from leads Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James), a well-integrated season-long arc, and clever writing with a brilliant ear for interpersonal relationships, what made Terriers unique was its heart. By heart, I mean a pain and honesty not present in most other television shows.

Similar to detective shows, spy programs have also found homes on their airwaves over the past decade (and even longer if you want to go back to shows like Mission: Impossible, Man From U.N.C.L.E., and Get Smart). Recent spy shows like Alias, Chuck, and 24 are fast-paced series that essentially function as a weekly, hour-long action movie that, oddly enough, are better than most action movies.

And then there was Rubicon. Also unfortunately canceled, Rubicon was probably the best new series of the season. By the time Rubicon came about, AMC had developed an untouchable standard with Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Trying to compete with those series would be a daunting task, but Rubicon managed to pull it off. Often accused of being “slow,” Rubicon blossomed into one of the strongest spy shows probably ever put on television. Centered around an intelligence agency (in particular one employee uncovering a massive conspiracy), the show's deliberate pacing was perfect in building tension, developing rich and realistic characters (Arliss Howard's Kale Ingram was easily a standout of the most recent television season), and showcasing the hardship and monotony of actual "spy" work.

While most modern spy series seem to borrow somewhat from the Bourne template with a focus on fighting and explosions, Rubicon dialed everything back and found kin with movies like the Francis Ford Coppola classic The Conversation. One of Rubicon's greatest features was that the main characters never used computers. Whether going over documents, reciting facts, or trying to translate a potential terrorist's conversation, the team at the American Policy Institute used their brains. Their knowledge and analytical abilities came from inside them, not Google or some sort of instant facial recognition software. It was a small element, but one I personally admired.

Cable- Those That Thankfully Survived

However, several worthy new shows from 2010 did get renewals. HBO's excellent 1920s gangster drama Boardwalk Empire and David Simon's superb New Orleans post-Katrina character drama Treme will both return in 2011. Although the more popular True Blood and Big Love are decent, these two shows come closest to the quality that made HBO so impressive during the first half of the 2000s.

AMC's The Walking Dead continues to add to the network's high quality.

In addition to Terriers and Justified, FX also premiered the best comedy of the new season and possibly the best comedy on television today. Most accurately categorized as a dark comedy with hints of 1970s-era Woody Allen, Louie features comedian Louis C.K. playing "himself" and the strife and angst that comes with being him. Managing to find the perfect mixture of humor and depression while using surrealism to enhance reality, Louie is respectably unlike anything else on television.

The Networks

As an audience, we expect better from cable but the big five networks lost more shows and more important shows than its cable counterparts. What did the CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC give us to replace those massacred at the end of the 2009-2010 season? Not much.

Constantly promoted as the child between Lost and 24, NBC's The Event must be a bitter disappointment to its two revered parents and the network hoping for the next big talked about hit.

None of the new shows seems to have made an impact on the cultural landscape. Although series like Hawaii 5-0 get good ratings, they lack a buzz. Yet last year, on the comedy front alone, the networks offered cult and critically revered shows like Glee, Modern Family, and Community.

And, of course, there was The Late Night Wars.

Why Did Culture Fail So Terribly In 2010?

Recently it was announced that movie attendance was down significantly in 2010, an unsurprising fact. Last year featured a significant dearth of quality films, both from independent studios and big budget ones, and very few word-of-mouth films or big budget spectaculars. As described above, television also suffered last year from losing important stalwarts, lacking place-fillers, and Jay Leno.

Was 2010 the year the effects of the economic recession hit Hollywood? That's one theory that I can neither prove nor disprove.

Will 2011 continue this trend? Obviously, it's too early to tell. We do know that audiences will see a significant increase in Major Movies Of The Week, especially in summer, but television remains unknowable. Previews of mid-season replacements like superhero fantasy The Cape and dating sitcom Perfect Couples do not bode well for the first half of the year, and it is impossible to tell what's going to happen during the 2010-2011 pilot season.