Are Tom Clancy movies out of date? Too 80s? Am I the only one who still adores The Hunt for Red October? (It boasts a dreamy cast: Sean Connery, Scott Glenn, Sam Neill, Stellan Sarsgaard, and the young Alec Baldwin.) Well, it turns out Paramount and producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura are awaiting the first draft of an original screenplay currently called the "Untitled Tom Clancy Project" from screenwriter Hossein Amini (Jude, Killshot). Yes, Clooney has been discussed for Jack Ryan. But he would have to see script, director, etc. And the studio could choose to go with an older, or a younger Ryan.

Still, a robust franchise would buy Clooney plenty of weighty moral dramas like Good Night, and Good Luck and Syriana. Come to think of it, the hawkish Clancy isn't exactly inside Clooney's wheelhouse, politically speaking.

At one point Paramount was developing an alternative Clancy series, starting with the 1993 novel Without Remorse, a Vietnam era thriller that doesn't feature Jack Ryan (he makes a brief appearance, as does his father) but explores the character of the young John Clark/John Kelly played by Willem Dafoe in Clear and Present Danger. (Superman Returns star Brandon Routh was briefly mentioned for the CIA operative, while Clancy told Premiere in 2001 he preferred Matt Damon.) The studio announced John Singleton as director, but the movie never got anywhere. Another Clancy novel featuring Clark/Kelly, Rainbow Six, never got off the ground, even with Zack Snyder attached to write and direct.

Here's the Jack Ryan Special Edition DVD Collection.

What is your fave Tom Clancy movie?

Buried in this Kim Masters story about Sony bringing over George Clooney's production deal is a juicy nugget: Clooney wants to take over playing Jack Ryan in the Tom Clancy franchise. That is, if Paramount ever gets its act together and puts the next movie back on the front burner. It's been years since Ben Affleck took over from Harrison Ford as a younger Ryan, and acquitted himself well in The Sum of All Fears, which grossed $193 million worldwide in 2002.

The studio didn't go ahead and make another one with Affleck because his prime supporter, studio chief Sherry Lansing, was on her way out the door, and the movie did not score in overseas markets. In the past seven years, Affleck has gained some gravitas as a writer-director (Gone Baby Gone), but his star is not on the rise as a leading man (see State of Play, He's Just Not that Into You). When constant management shifts brought the studio a series of production heads, nobody seemed to recognize that the dormant Clancy series could be a valuable tentpole. With Affleck out, Clooney is perfect casting for a more mature Ryan.

The new metric in journalism is online traffic. While the movie stars may not pull them in at the boxoffice like they used to, write a story about a star, and the traffic will come.

It didn't matter if Lions for Lambs sucked: Time still ran a story about Cruise, Redford and Streep. And this week the august New York Times ran a feature about overweight movie stars pegged to Russell Crowe's State of Play weight gain. New York's Vulture and the LAT's The Big Picture swiftly blogged back--adding a photo of Crowe's streamlined new look for Robin Hood.

The Daily Beast editrix Tina Brown cannily harnessed the traffic spike potential of Michelle Obama (is she "the new Oprah?" trumpeted her headline) and Susan Boyle in her weekly column. More than 30 million YouTube views later, why did the beetle-browed Britain's Got Talent singer hit the zeitgeist with such force? Because of Google Trends.

That's right. The new journalist m.o.: check out the most-searched item of the day. One new website is devoted to that very purpose. Every morning, EPK (not "electronic press kit" but, "Everything Pop Kulture") assigns its (low-paid) writers to report on the searches of the day, insuring heavy traffic. This methodology is widespread across the Web, insuring that what has already been written about today will be repeated, commented upon and enlarged tomorrow. Expect more on the following topics in days to come:

1. megan mcallister 2. philip markoff wedding 3. five dollar dinners 4. julie chen 5. daniel andreas san diego 6. baby mammoth 7. philip markoff megan mcallister 8. ben and jerry s locations 9. william parente 10. craigslist killer

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a way for today's beleaguered journalists to stay employed. Forget about that Pulitzer. Don't pass Go. Find that celebrity hook or hot trend. Fast.

We all know that newspapers are on the ropes. But selling their souls to the Devil is not the solution. Thursday's LAT front-page "NBC Advertisement," with no byline, about the new show Southland, looked creepy and wrong. Then on Sunday April 12, the newspaper's publishing side went full hog with a four-page insert written by "special advertising section writers" on The Soloist. The LAT pitched these stories to NBC and Paramount, reports the NYT. The Soloist is based on the relationship between LAT columnist Steve Lopez and homeless musician Nathaniel Ayers. Clearly marked as an advertorial, the insert looked like a newspaper and read like a paid advertisement. This follows the 1999 Staples scandal, when the LAT published a weekend magazine special issue about the Staples Center and split ad revenue with the new venue. In March 2007, a section of the LAT guest-edited by producer Brian Grazer was scrapped after editorial page editor Andres Martinez resigned; it was revealed that his girlfriend had been working for a PR firm.

Clearly, the LAT ad sales side ignored the protests of the editorial side. Lopez himself cooperated with a Q & A within the advertorial. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to run a story inside the Calendar section? Surely readers would take it more seriously? They must know the difference. This is so wrong. A clear separation between ad sales and editorial is essential to any serious journalistic enterprise.

The LAT is not alone in blurring these lines. Two Time Warner mags, Entertainment Weekly (3/27/09) and Time (3/30/09), entered into an agreement with Intel and HP, which ran ads promoting their products and DreamWorks' Monsters & Aliens alongside deep features on the state of 3-D. Neither story was labled as an advertorial; both were written by staffers. Clearly both mags assigned pieces that were designed to accompany related ad buys. Is this OK?

Meanwhile, Universal is releasing a movie, State of Play, that showcases, much like the classic All the Presidents Men, why journalism is important to a functioning society, revealing some of the pressures and duress that newspapers face these days.

Updated and Americanized by director Kevin Macdonald and writers Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy and Billy Ray from a 2003 BBC mini-series, the film tracks two reporters for the Washington Globe, a grizzled veteran (Russell Crowe) and an upstart blogger (Rachel McAdams) who are tracking down a story about a rising Congressman (Ben Affleck) after his affair with a staffer is revealed when she is murdered. The Congressman turns to his old college buddy, the reporter. Doing the right thing, in this case, is murky indeed. At the film's end, as the Globe story finally goes to press, it's hard not to feel a lump of concern about the state of our nation without newspapers.

State of Play opens April 17. Here's a NYT feature..

I've been hanging on to my morning coffee LAT habit, even as I recognize that the economic model of printing on newsprint and delivering papers to peoples' homes is hopelessly out of date and ecologically incorrect. Like everyone else, I do most of my reading online, and find myself questioning what I pay for the weeklies Time and Entertainment Weekly, which often seem thin and redundant. Even when they offer excellent in-depth reporting and context, many of the non-review pieces seem familiar and pre-digested. The New Yorker offers more original content, finally, and seems worth its pricey subscription, and New York Magazine is topical, visual and sharp--and boasts a website crammed with entertaining fast-read content.

The monthlies, on the other hand, seem well worth their relative low cost. I'm enjoying Wired, More, Los Angeles Magazine, even Vanity Fair.

Whatever it takes to survive these tough times, selling out journalistic integrity is not worth the sacrifice.

The 2003 BBC six-part series State of Play (directed by Harry Potter's David Yates) was a terrific mystery thriller that pitted the Brit political and journalistic establishments against each other, not to mention the police. Nobody came out particularly clean. David Morrissey, Kelly McDonald and Bill Nighy starred.

So while I think the world of Working Title, director Kevin Macdonald and writers Tony Gilroy and Matthew Michael Carnahan, after watching the trailer below I got that sinking feeling. Not all Hollywood remakes have to be bad, but how often does a whip-smart six-part BBC series with great Brit talent wind up better as a two-hour American film? I'm relieved to see Helen Mirren in there. But how did all these people wind up in the same movie?

Universal and Working Title refused to let their screen adaptation of the Brit mini-series State of Play fall apart just before the writers' strike when Brad Pitt insisted on rewrites. So director Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) recast Pitt's role with Russell Crowe, already working in-house on Nottingham (which was eventually pushed back anyway) and Ben Affleck in the Edward Norton role. Word is, the on-set chemistry was not ideal. While Crowe is never easy, he and Affleck were supposed to be playing best friends, and they couldn't stand each other. Poor Macdonald had his hands full. It remains to be seen whether their on-set chill will negatively impact their performances. State of Play is due in April, 2009.

Newsweek talked to Jimmy Kimmel about Sarah Silverman's F*cking Matt Damon video (she surprised him with it) and his F*cking Ben Affleck response (everyone had the same idea at the same time). Which one is better? Sagely, Kimmel credits his girlfriend with coming up with hers first. How will they capitalize on all this interest? That is the question.

In the remote case that you missed this ubiquitous video:

There were some welcome surprises this nominations morning. (Here's Variety's story.) Atonement made it to best picture. While Keira Knightley, James McAvoy and Joe Wright did not win noms, Saorise Ronin did. Christopher Hampton earned a screenplay nod. The Guilds don't always reflect the Academy, clearly; this means the battle for the fifth slot was fierce. But Atonement got seven noms altogether; Michael Clayton seven, Juno four, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, four, and Sweeney Todd got only three (Johnny Depp, art direction and costume); Juno's Jason Reitman, not Tim Burton, landed a director's slot. A surprise, but well-deserved. (I was talking to him here in Park City last night at the WMA party; he was nervous because he didn't get a writing nom last time for Thank You for Smoking.)

Atonement took the fifth best picture slot away from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Julian Schnabel got director, and Harwood screenplay, but Diving Bell, which is foreign language, didn't make it all the way.

Into the Wild must not have been that strong because Sean Penn and Emile Hirsch did not get nominated. It was shut out earned expected supporting actor nom for Hal Holbrook and editing. Eddie Vedder's music might have gotten in if it hadn't been disqualified. I never thought Into The Wild would score with the Academy, but Paramount Vantage gave it the full court push.

If Jonny Greenwood's score hadn't been disqualified, There Will be Blood might have nine noms to No Country for Old Men's eight. Vantage, Miramax and producer Scott Rudin, who partnered on those two films, are having a very good day.

The Academy loves Cate Blanchett, nominating her twice, for Elizabeth and I'm Not There, movies she dominated. She can do no wrong. Laura Linney beat Angelina Jolie, which is an upset but proves that the Golden Globes and SAG do not necessarily match up with the Academy. The Savages is well respected; so is Linney; so is screenwriter Tamara Jenkins. When in doubt, the Academy goes with the class act. Four solo women screenwriters got nominated, my USA Today pal Susan Wloszczyna pointed out on the phone this morning.

I had a flash that Tommy Lee Jones could be nominated for not only In the Valley of Elah, but also on some level No Country for Old Men. I wish I had listened to that instinct. And Viggo Mortensen got a deserved first Oscar nomination for David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises.

Casey Affleck took the fifth supporting actor slot. And Jennifer Garner didn't make it; Ruby Dee got the older vet slot, for American Gangster.

The full list of noms are on the jump.

The National Board of Review, which is not necessarily predictive but does add early momentum to movies in the award season derby, has named the Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men as best film. It's a happy day in the Affleck family, as both Ben and his brother Casey grabbed nods for best new director (Gone Baby Gone) and best supporting actor, respectively. Amy Ryan also nabbed a supporting actress win for Gone Baby Gone. Oscar blog And the Winner Is goes through the nominees exhaustively.

The other winners are:

Director: Tim Burton, "Sweeney Todd"

Actor: George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"

Actress: Julie Christie, "Away From Her"

Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"

Supporting Actress: Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"

Foreign Film: "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"

Documentary: "Body Of War"

Animated Feature: "Ratatouille"

Ensemble Cast: "No Country For Old Men"

Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: Emile Hirsch, "Into The Wild"

Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: Ellen Page, "Juno"

Best Directorial Debut: Ben Affleck, "Gone Baby Gone"

Best Original Screenplay (tie):Diablo Cody, "Juno" and Nancy Oliver, "Lars and the Real Girl"

Best Adapted Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen, "No Country For Old Men"

Besides "No Country," here's NBR's top ten, in alphabetical order:

Actors who reach a certain prominence are often able to get a movie made. This fall, Anthony Hopkins and Ben Affleck have both directed debut feature films. But the two movies couldn't be more different. Hopkins came to my UCLA class with his second film Slipstream (trailer), which premiered at Sundance in January. The word on the street was that it was arty, experimental, and pretentious. All true.

While my Sneak Previews class, which is comprised of about 500 well-heeled West Side cinephiles (the folks who keep Beverly Hills art houses like the Music Hall and the Fine Arts in business), is pretty sophisticated, they rejected the movie outright. Critics rate Slipstream 26 % rotten on Rotten Tomatoes.

Over the past three years, it has become clear that there's a line the class will not cross. No matter how beautifully made, they couldn't wrap their heads around Children of Men, Fur, Marie Antoinette, The Good German, and House of Flying Daggers. That's because my class demands a satisfying story. They loved Pan's Labyrinth, The Sea Inside, and Babel, which while foreign and challenging, gave them plenty to hang onto: they offered emotional depth and a propulsive narrative drive. And the class adored Hopkins' other low-budget labor-of-love, writer-director Roger Donaldson's The World's Fastest Indian.

At the Slipstream Q & A, Hopkins was charming, admitting that he indulged himself completely with the movie, without thinking about what anyone else would think of it. The stream-of-consciousness screenplay came pouring out of him; he shot it in the California desert with a bunch of actors willing to work for nothing, including himself. The movie makes little narrative sense until you put it together at the end. It's one of those movies, like Marc Forster's Stay or Adrian Lyne's Jacob's Ladder, where you get to the climax and say, 'OK, I get it, but so what?' I suspect that this will be Hopkins' one and only last directing gig. Strand is releasing the low-budget pic, which will presumably make some money in homevideo.

Here are parts 1 and 2 of our conversation. Spoiler alert!

On the basis of Affleck's utterly satisfying debut Gone Baby Gone, on the other hand (which is 92 % fresh), I can't wait to see what Affleck does next. After years of painstaking labor as he tried to intelligently condense Dennis Lehane's 448-page novel, Affleck wasn't willing to hand in the script until he thought it was ready. I spoke to Affleck on the phone the other day to ask him if he belonged to that category of stars who give up their acting career to direct. He loves writing and directing; he's gifted at it. He wants to do both, he said, like Clint Eastwood. I wonder if he won't wind up like Ron Howard, eventually, finding himself more satisfied with directing than acting. We'll see.

Another actor-director, Robert Redford, has delivered his first movie in eight years, Lions for Lambs. He jumped at the chance to direct the movie after Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep had expressed interest. Cruise eagerly signed on to work with Redford, and got to act opposite Streep. Clearly a CAA package assembled in some haste at the launch of Paula Wagner and Cruise's ascension at United Artists, the movie played better for my class than I expected. They applauded Redford's bravery at sticking his neck out with this old-fashioned political treatise on the dangers of sending young men into war from behind a desk in Washington. "The film is not anti-war," Wagner told the class. "It's anti-apathy."

Much like former president Jimmy Carter, who has been finding college students more receptive to his anti-apartheid message about the Palestinians and Israelis, Redford has been travelling the country, speaking at packed college auditoriums. As Wagner's husband, CAA partner Rick Nicita, and UA marketing chief Dennis Rice watched from the back of the room, Wagner admitted that no other studio would have made the film, which is a marketing challenge. (It cost about $35 40 million.) "It's not a critic's picture," she said. (So far its reviews are 33% rotten.)

Horror flick 30 Days of Night handily won the weekend. (Here's Variety's weekend wrap. Of all the "serious" Hollywood contenders clogging theaters this weekend, Michael Clayton held the best (only dropping 33%) while We Own the Night dropped a steep 49%.

Of the newbies, Ben Affleck's well-reviewed Gone Baby Gone (92% on rottentomatoes!) came in sixth, performing better than the disappointing Rendition, Things We Lost the Fire and Reservation Road--all grim adult-minded dramas.

What a bloodbath. Of the family pics, The Game Plan only dropped 26%, while Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married? dropped 43%. Game Plan has already grossed almost $70 million. What that tells us more than anything is that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a bonafide movie star. Doesn't matter if he can act. Folks love the guy.

Ben Affleck has already earned his stripes as the Oscar-winning screenwriter, with Matt Damon, of Good Will Hunting. He's been a less-than-lauded movie star for some years now. (I'd like to see him back in the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan fold.) Now he's getting new scrutiny, as a movie director. And he's more than passing muster. Gone Baby Gone is a damned good movie, well-adapted by Affleck and Aaron Stockard from the Dennis Lehane novel. Affleck returns to the Boston milieu he knows so well, and puts brother Casey (Robert Ford in The Assassination of Jesse James) in the lead. The supporting cast is superb: discovery Amy Ryan could score a supporting actress Oscar nomination. While critics should lend substantial support, Gone Baby Gone is a tough piece of gritty entertainment. What Miramax will be able to wring out of the boxoffice is anyone's guess.

Here's the NYT.

The Winnipeg Sun.

And the LAT.

[Photo by LA Times]