Making unnecessary sequels and cashing in on current events are two of Hollywood's favorite things. So when an opportunity arises to do both at the same time, you better believe they're going to do it! Hence the long-rumored sequel to 1987's Wall Street, which Variety reports is being fast-tracked to capitalize on the stock market's new relevance in ordinary people's lives.

The sequel will focus on Gordon Gekko, the slick-haired, suspender-wearing corporate-raiding devil played by Michael Douglas in the original, newly released from prison as the sequel begins. Variety says 20th Century Fox intends for Douglas to star, though he hasn't signed on yet. But why wouldn't he? The last time he played this part, he got an Oscar for it, and it's not like he's super-busy making super-awesome movies these days. The sequel reportedly doesn't involve the Charlie Sheen character at all, which is probably just as well. The other one and a half men would get lonely without him.

The screenplay is being written by Allan Loeb, who wrote 21 and who also happens to be a licensed stock broker. He knows his greed and his card-counting and his shady gambling practices -- he sounds like a good fit. A director hasn't been assigned, but it's safe to assume it won't be Oliver Stone again.

Does any of this sound like a good idea to you? Yes, people are talking about Wall Street (the financial market, not the movie) again -- but they're talking about how much they hate it, and how angry they are at those greedy bastards for contributing to the economy's current screwed-up condition. The sequel is going to be a tough sale if it tries to make Gekko's "greed is good" mantra seem appealing or exciting again. On the other hand, if Gekko is humbled and chastened now, will he still be interesting? What direction do you think the Wall Street sequel should go?

Greetings and salutations! I bring the following news to you with an air of excitement, and a huge warning of caution:

Christian Slater, otherwise known as the sexy, seductive, and utterly unstable Jason Dean, is eager to go back to the Heathers fold. While talking up his new NBC show My Own Worst Enemy with AOL TV, Slater spoke about returning to Sherwood, Ohio and said:

"Yeah, sometimes I see Winona and she's like, 'Are you ready to do Heathers 2?' And I'm like, 'Sure!' I would do it in a heartbeat. I would totally love to do that character again -- J.D. We'd have to have a scene in there where's he's watching The Shining or something, you know? We'd have to see that he's collected all of Nicholson's movies. Just to really make sense of it all. [Laughs] That would be like a dream come true for me. So we'll see -- if they want to put something together, I'd be thrilled."

Why the caution? Well, Winona has been dying to do it for years (I remember reading rumors about it all the way back in the 90s), and there was all that talk about the sequel being a reality two years ago. We saw how far that got. But maybe some things have changed -- the way Slater is talking about this, you'd think he's itching for more than just an "Obi-Wan-type appearance."

Here's a question: Should any studio greenlight a sequel based on advanced buzz and before the original even hits theaters? Sure, if you're a fan of the Twilight novels, I suspect you'd want the studio to greenlight, like, a billion Twilight sequels, like, right this second -- but wouldn't it be a risky move? Nikki Finke over at Deadline Hollywood claims Summit's already prepping the sequel (New Moon), though that's about as far as she goes with it. Finke, however, does state the obvious: that even though the first Twilight film isn't due out until November 21, the latest trailer was viewed over 3.5 million times in 48 hours, the Twilight soundtrack has already hit the Top 5 Best-Selling Albums on Amazon (despite the fact that it doesn't come out until November 4th) and the merchandise for this sucker rivals that of the boy wizard, Harry Potter.

Okay, so obviously there's an audience for not one film, but two -- yet what if that audience doesn't like the first installment? Is that even possible? Is this the sort of film fans will love no matter what the final product looks like? And do you really take a chance greenlighting a sequel with a film whose audience is not comprised of the oh-so-lucrative teen male population. Are teen and pre-teen girls (and their moms) enough to carry this entire franchise?

And for you Twilight fans out there: While early, is there anything different you'd like to see from the sequel?

Despite the heavy hints in Iron Man that Jim Rhodes, best friend to Tony Stark, would come to play War Machine in a future film, it won't be Terrence Howard reprising his role as Rhodes in the forthcoming sequel, but rather Don Cheadle. According to the Hollywood Reporter, there hasn't been a formal announcement by Marvel Studios about it, but the casting swap appears to have come as a result of money matters (natch).

Returning still are stars Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, in addition to director Jon Favreau, as Justin Theroux, fresh off the success of Tropic Thunder, currently tinkers away at the script. Last month, amidst the press blitz for the Iron Man DVD, Favreau confessed to wanting to incorporate both 3-D and IMAX technology in the making of the sequel (to which the world collectively replied "[BLEEP] yeah!").

Alas, it remains for the Paramount/Marvel number-crunchers to determine in which format exactly we'll see Downey Jr. and Cheadle team up come the summer of 2010.

But was he ever considering it in the first place? Not long ago it seemed a Lethal Weapon 5 was all but a lock, what with Shane Black writing the script and Columbus Short supposedly in talks to play Danny Glover's son -- but now, according to a recent interview with Richard Donner in the LA Times, it looks like the whole thing might just go away. Thank God. That's because, in Donner's world, Mel Gibson has already passed on the project. (And here we thought Glover passed over a year ago.) The director notes, "Mel turned it down. I would like to think that Mel turned it down because I wasn't involved. Knowing Mel, I would like to think that. Would that be the kind of thing he does? It sure would be."

Though "Gibson's people" refused to comment, the LA Times is pretty confident in their findings. Donner, who directed all four previous Lethal Weapon films, seems a bit "I toldja so" in the interview, regarding Warners decision to follow Joel Silver's lead: "It's too bad, actually, because Channing Gibson, who wrote the fourth one, and Mike Riva, a designer on three of them, and myself and Derek [Hoffman, an associate at The Donner Company] had an incredibly strong story for the fifth movie. But we weren't given the opportunity and I think maybe I could have convinced Mel to do it. But Warners chose to go with Joel Silver." He later adds, "Yes, the project is pretty much dead in the water unless someone had the sense to come to me."

Of course, Donner could be talking out his rear end ... though, on the surface, it seems like a reach for both Gibson and Glover to agree to a fifth film, especially one without Donner behind the camera. But what do you think? Would you actually be down for a Lethal Weapin 5? Or are these guys just too old for this sh*t?

Back when The Incredible Hulk hit movie theaters -- and because of Nick Fury's appearance in Iron Man -- folks were itching for more Avengers references with their summer movie watching. Thus, fans went bat-sh*t (excuse the DC reference) over a rumor that Captain America popped up in a scene during Incredible Hulk, which was fueled by a sorta confirmation from director Louis Leterrier ... but then the flick hit theaters and nada. Now, with the DVD due out on October 21st, it seems there's a little easter egg awaiting fans. A number of different sites have reported that a shot of Captain America frozen in ice exists within the alternate opening scene -- one that follows Bruce Banner to the arctic circle in search of a very random way to kill himself (see photo above, courtesy of Slashfilm). So there ya go. And seeing as the upcoming Captain America film will be set during WWII, we now know how they'll make that work for the Avengers movie. He was frozen in ice! Hopefully we won't get any corny lines like "What's an iPod" when the good old Captain shows up in theaters in 2011.

Oh, and speaking of Hulk, the Iron Man writers would love to see him play villain in the aforementioned Avengers movie. Mark Fergus tells MTV: "You don't want like 10 super-badass good guys fighting together. Where's the fun in that? Let's break it off a little. Friends or colleagues who become enemies is always an interesting thing because you know it's based on love and friendship and that's always the worst thing to have turn bad - is someone you actually care about and someone you actually believe in."

What do you think? Should Hulk become the villain in Avengers? If not him, then who?