When word broke of a "Monopoly" movie on the horizon, I thought it was odd but then I learned that Hasbro was helping pay for the film and Hollywood will always take the money and make a movie no matter how ridiculous it might seem. But yesterday's news was that a god's honest bidding war broke out over "Asteroids". Does Hollywood really think that the name recognition of the old Atari game is worth something? Would a movie called "Meteors" really do any worse?

It's kind of stunning that Hollywood keeps throwing money at name brands that don't really affect the box office, be it titles like "Land of the Lost" or stars like Nicole Kidman. Also, how many video game movies have to fail before they realize that they aren't a sure thing and probably aren't worth the investment. Especially a game that came out almost three decades ago and is basically the same premise as "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact". Maybe this film is the Aliens to Armageddon's Alien and will have a lot of asteroids that need to be shot down rather than just one big one but, again, does the name "Asteroids" really add to anything besides the ability to mock it?

On the other hand, is the problem the purchasing of these titles or just that they are buying the wrong ones? I still think an animated action film based on Frogger could be amazing and Cloverfield could have been a much better movie had it been based on Rampage.

In the end, I'd have to go back to my usual stance: 9 times out of 10, it makes more sense just to rip something off than remake it. Most times the brand name doesn't help. Would "The Fast and The Furious" have done better as "Point Break on Wheels"? Just make a film that's like Asterioids and spend the money on FX to make a cool trailer rather than wasting it on the brand name.

If i get bored this weekend, maybe I'll start work on a b-movie script about a giant Werewolf, Ape, and Gila Monster that decide to tear apart NYC. I'll call it "Frenzy" or "Monster Ruckus!"