This weekend marks the release of Quentin Tarantino’s new film Inglourious Basterds – a WWII film that tells the story of a group of elite Jewish solider bent on executing as many Nazis as possible. The movie harkens back to films of old that also featured elite groups often in a war setting. Tarantino has not strayed away from the fact that this film is a direct homage to films like The Dirty Dozen (1967) – illustrating once again his penchant for taking the cinema of the past and giving it a new spin with his controversial style.

What makes these films interesting? No doubt they are all built upon interesting stories. But it is also their casts – ensembles of great (or merely interesting) actors. One can even see it in one of the earliest examples: Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai (1954). Seven Samurai teamed up some of the most illustrious stars of Japan in a war film about seven men banding together to face a seemingly undefeatable army to save a small village. The film was even remade and Americanized with John’s Sturges’s Magnificent Seven (1960), starring equally illustrious stars of American cinema including Yul Brynner, Eli Wallach, Steve McQueen, and Charles Bronson. The latter two of these stars both starred in The Great Escape (1963), another WWII film depicting the attempted escapes of British and American soldiers from a German P.O.W. camp, and Bronson was also in The Dirty Dozen. Magnificent’s director Sturges also served as director on Escape. Obviously, these genre films had a lot of cross–pollination of talent – a signpost of their trendiness. Getting a roster of stars of the caliber of McQueen and Bronson made the films popular and a staple of the era.

The interesting thing about Basterds is that with the exception of headliner Brad Pitt, it doesn’t really have any famous names in the cast list, a big contrast to the films Tarantino states he is paying homage to. It does still have the war setting, and the recruitment of an elite group of men to perform a specific and dangerous task, all while being set to the music of the film’s composer, Ennio Morricone, a veteran of that age of filmmaking and those types of films. But the cast list is not an attention grabber as it was with The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen. It will surely make it interesting when it comes to Basterds’ box office figures – without a real draw in the cast besides Pitt, the main draw is the premise and having Tarantino’s name behind it.

What are your favorite films featuring elite fighting groups? Which ones do you think don’t quite succeed? Do you think Inglourious Basterds is another one of Quentin’s callbacks to a simpler time of cinema? Do you think it’s a good homage or a lack of originality? What actors would you like to see team up in an ensemble film?

Monopoly, Candy Land, Clue, Ouija, G.I. Joe, Battleship, Magic: The Gathering, Transformers, Stretch Armstrong. One would think this is a simple listing of toys and games for kids that have been around for many years. In fact, not only are these toys, but they’re also all destined to be (or already have been) adapted into feature films. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra arrives in theaters today, marking the second tent pole film released this summer (the first being Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) based off of a toyline. This seems like a surefire sign of the approaching apocalypse… or at least, the approach of a Hollywood totally devoid of a single original idea.

Since the very beginning of film, there have been movies adapted from previous sources, starting with books and fairy tales, and moving on to other sources such as true-life stories, newspaper articles, video games, amusement park rides, and even other films in the form of remakes. The fact now that the studios are resorting to gobbling up the rights to films based on toylines and board games would seem to indicate that they have sucked every other medium dry. This may be partly true, but as with everything in Hollywood, a lot of it has to do with marketability.

Hasbro and Paramount have managed to make a ridiculous amount of money off the two Transformers films thus far, and are hoping G.I. Joe will meet with similar success. Studios look at the success of these films, and see the promise of definite bankability in games and toys to come for several reasons:

1. In the case of a toyline like Transformers or G.I. Joe, there has been subsequent cartoons, comics, etc. creating a storyline and universe which attracts a certain group of fans to the brand, a core group that won’t be able to resist seeing their favorite franchise brought to the big screen, guaranteeing a certain number of ticket sales.

2. Outside the core fan group there still exists a familiarity with the brand, toy, game, etc. among the general public, which arouses a certain curiosity that more or less asks “how are they gonna turn that into a movie?” creating a buzz about the film that will also attract curious audiences.

3. A lot of the marketing work is already done for the studio in that they have the established brand’s logos, packaging, characters, etc. to work with.

4. Probably the most attractive element to the studio and toy company (and evidence that the film is purely a vehicle of profit and not of entertainment) is the fact that with the release of the movie, there are opportunities to upsell the original toy/game/product, or new versions of it.

5. The general masses have already proven they’re not opposed to going to see films of such nature, as proven by the box office records broken by the Transformers films.

And the studios are going after these films with great gusto. Universal Pictures and Hasbro, Inc. have formed a six-year partnership, with a promise to produce at least four motion pictures based on some of the games previously mentioned: Monopoly, Candy Land, Clue, Ouija, Battleship, Magic: The Gathering, and Stretch Armstrong. Universal also won a bidding war amongst three other studios for the film rights to the arcade game “Asteroids” – which means other studios are hip to the trend to and willing to throw money at it. Fringe co-producer/writer Brad Caleb Kane has even stated on his Twitter account that he will be writing a script based off of the View-Master toy in the vein of “old 80’s Amblin movies: Goonies, Young Sherlock.”

The studios aren’t entirely stupid however: they realize the public will perceive these films as a way to capitalize on a brand, and not really as a means of creative expression or compelling entertainment. To disguise their capitalistic ends, they have been attaching big name talent to the films to lend them some authenticity. The first film to be released under the Hasbro / Universal partnership will be Stretch Armstrong on April 15, 2011, which Academy Award-winner Brian Grazer (who produces nearly all of Ron Howard’s films) is producing and Steve Odekerk (Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty) is writing; Ridley Scott is officially set to produce and direct the film adaptation of Monopoly, supposedly bringing a futuristic-like feel to it in the vein of his classic Blade Runner; Kevin Lima (Enchanted) is to direct Candy Land, written by Etan Cohen (Tropic Thunder); Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy) is to direct and produce another version of Clue; and Peter Berg (Hancock) is in talks to direct the Battleship adaptation. It’s clear that the Universal and Hasbro are not want for talent for these adaptations.

What are your thoughts on the toy-to-film phenomenon? Is this a good source of material for potential films? Is it a sign of Hollywood running out of ideas or simply a resistance to try new things (or perhaps embracing a new thing?)? Which game or toy, in development or not, do you think would be the most challenging to adapt? Are there ones you think would make particular good adaptations? Why? What are your thoughts on toy films like Transformers, G.I. Joe, and Bratz that have already been released?