“OK, let’s lay all our cards on the table. Jack Russell terriers are small and cute. Dobermans are enormous and — handsome. More tellingly, Uggie plays a nice little mascot who does tricks and saves his master’s life in one of the films, while Blackie gives an uncompromising performance as a ferocious guard dog who terrorizes children. I’m sure you can see what I’m driving at.”

“I’m proud of Blackie, who laid it on the line and dared to risk the sympathy of her audience. Let’s just say that on the set, she had a fitting nickname: Citizen Canine. The bath scene alone is a masterpiece of underplaying, with Blackie’s wonderfully aquiline face accentuated by the 3-D.”

He even points out that the snub could point to a deeper issue by calling the Golden Collar Awards out as being breedist.

“Russell terriers were bred in the 19th century for the purposes of fox hunting by an Englishman, the Rev. John Russell. Dobermans were bred by a German tax collector who was afraid of being bludgeoned to death by the citizenry.”

However, Martin doesn’t point out that Blackie also worked on Water For Elephants. In fact, that’s his sole IMDB credit. How can a director boast about due credit when he can’t even be bothered to credit Blackie for work in his own film? But back to Water For Elephants. Uggie was the featured dog in that film, making the audience sympathize with him in his bullied plight. Blackie was stuck once again, typecast as the silent enforcer. If he truly wants to break out of that crate, he’d better be more selective and take on a more challenging role. Like Mickey Rourke did with The Wrestler. Or perhaps something that requires skateboarding. Gotta play the game if you want to win is all I’m saying.

As if that weren’t enough, Scorsese put down his giant paddle-ball set and said he was also considering making his Frank Sinatra biopic in 3D. So clearly, Scorsese sees 3D as much more than a price-inflating gimmick. We’ll have to wait and see if people will actually pay extra money to be “fully immersed” in a couple of silent monks and/or The Rat Pack. (The Playlist)

9. Captain America – $176,654,000
8. Thor – $181,030,000
7. Cars 2 – $191,446,000
6. Fast Five – $209,837,000
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – $241,071,000
4. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II – $249,388,000
3. The Hangover Part II – $254,464,000
2. Transformers III: Dark of the Moon – $352,390,000
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – $381,011,000

Seven sequels and two comic-book adaptations round out the list. In case you were looking for the highest-grossing original premise for a film, you’ll have to scroll past #10 (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) to find Bridesmaids, one of the year’s few cinematic causes celebres.

I realize that bitching about the lack of original ideas is pretty unoriginal in itself, but this list demonstrates just how little both studios and audiences want to make or experience something new. I feel like the quality of these films almost takes a backseat to the glaring lack of originality.

Almost.

The films vary in quality, as one would expect, but I’m not really inclined to hate on these movies for a variety of reasons. Mostly, though I have avoided them like the plague, and don’t feel qualified to speak on the matter. That said, the banality of this list compels me to attach each film’s Rotten Tomatoes score to it.

9. Captain America – $176,654,000 – 78% RT
8. Thor – $181,030,000 – 77% RT
7. Cars 2 – $191,446,000 – 38% RT
6. Fast Five – $209,837,000 – 78% RT
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – $241,071,000 – 33% RT
4. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II – $249,388,000 – 26% RT
3. The Hangover Part II – $254,464,000 – 35% RT
2. Transformers III: Dark of the Moon – $352,390,000 – 35% RT
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – $381,011,000 96% RT

This list contains one excellent movie, the good movies, and five bad movies. When viewed through that lens, it’s little surprise that five of the highest-grossing films of the year are bad. Four were good or better. That’s not so terrible, is it?

I think it is, given the familiarity of films. I have always viewed sequels, adaptations, and reboots as a crutch for moviegoers and studios alike. Taking an old idea and repackaging it takes away much of the fun. But people would rather buy a ticket to something they know, even something they know to be mediocre or even bad, than they would take a chance on something that could be great, but could also be a complete mess.

Take a movie like Hugo. It’s 100% family-friendly, possibly the best use of 3D since Avatar, and a seasonal (pretty much) film. It is also regarded as one of the year’s best, having garnered a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It has made $26 million dollars in three weeks. It probably will get to $35 million. Twilight made $35 million dollars in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Again, this article isn’t meant to plod through the well-worn territory of “everything Hollywood makes is crap,” but rather offer up some quantitative evidence of what audiences are valuing. It doesn’t make me happy or sad. I really don’t care how much money a film makes or loses. You would have to pay me to care about that. But I do care that these box office takes indicate trends that will dictate what movies will be made in the future. Sure, if Martin Scorsese didn’t make Hugo, he probably would have made another awesome film, probably starring Leonardo DiCaprio. But I’m guessing Scorsese won’t be given another big-budget film for a long time, and that sucks.

Michael Bay, on the other hand, is currently in talks to direct a fourth Transformers film.

Looking at these lists makes me feel like someone just slid a bowl of plain oatmeal under my face. It doesn’t make me mad. It doesn’t make me feel much of anything, other than a smug sense of superiority, which was around way before the list.

So if you wanted to know how much movie goers value “Hey! I know that!” more than they do “Hmmm. That sounds like a great movie,” compare the above lists with this one:

9. Winnie the Pooh – $26,700,700 – 91% RT
8. Arthur Christmas – $25,300,000 – 92% RT
7. Source Code – $54,700,000 – 92% RT
6. Midnight in Paris – $55,900,000 – 93% RT
5. Drive – $34,600,000 – 93% RT
4. Hugo – $26,000,000 – 94% RT
3. Moneyball – $74,000,000 – 95% RT
2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – $381,011,000 – 96% RT
1. The Muppets – $56,400,000 – 97% RT

As much as critics and movie journalists discuss the gap between the quality of films and their financial success, the truth is it could be even bigger than we thought.

Cast: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Lee

Synopsis: Set in 1930s Paris, an orphan who lives in the walls of a train station is wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.

Release Date: Novemer 23, 2011

It’s got some very Victorian sensibilities, going for the look that those Zemeckis mo-cap films went for but never got.

It also boasts Sacha Baron Cohen playing it fairly straight as a train worker who is constantly on the heels of the duo. Also, he falls into a cake.

On first glance, it would appear that the stars have aligned to bring us the funny, touching, 3D family film that so many studios have tried to wheel out and failed. High hopes for this one.

The Thing serves as a prequel to John Carpenter‘s classic and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton as researchers in the Artic doing battle with an otherwordly being attempting to take over the planet. Just like Justin Bieber.

Hugo from Martin Scorsese adapts Brian Selznick’s The Invention Of Hugo Cabret and tells the story of a mysterious boy living in a Paris train station. A trailer is expected this week so if you love trains, you’re going into the weekend happy.

(Coming Soon)