I'm having random thoughts about movies this week. And now I'm going to share them with you. Because that's how this gig works. Says so right here on my contract.

1. Here's what I was thinking as I was watching Toy Story 3: you know what would be cool? A Buzz Lightyear movie. Not starring the toy Buzz Lightyear -- I'm talking about the character the toy represents, the one the toy thinks he is in the first Toy Story. That guy. Yes, I know there was an animated TV show on the Disney Channel. (I am a nerd, thank you very much.) But you know what? That show stunk, in no small part because it wasn't actually made by Pixar. Now imagine a real Buzz Lightyear movie, made by Pixar, on a big screen. It would be funny, it would be thrilling, it would probably be in 3-D (because that's just the way it is these days) -- and it would be awesome. Come on, Pixar, make daddy happy here.

2. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked Predators. It was the first Predator sequel that didn't plain suck right out of the gate -- I'm including the Alien vs. Predator films in here, obviously -- and the reason was that it was clear that the filmmakers (including producer Robert Rodriguez) actually understood what made the first film in the series work. Despite its classic status at this point, the first Predator flick was not a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Instead, it was extremely competent entertainment: it moved fast, it gave you action on a regular basis, and it killed off cast members at a standard clip, so that the hero could thump on the Predator alone at the end. Seems simple, but it's apparently harder than it looks, since three separate sequels failed to pull it off.

Predators, on the other hand, hit the formula smack on because, I think, Rodriguez and crew weren't too proud to just plain entertain the crowd. I'd hesitate to say it was a good film -- I started ticking off all the ridiculous plot holes as soon as the credits started to roll -- but it was a good time in the theater and had me shoveling popcorn into my maw just like it was supposed to. As I said, seems easy, but it's not.

3. Inception raked in $62 million in its opening weekend, filling film observers with joy (finally proof that you don't have to be a sequel or a comic-book movie to rake in tons of money) and making them speculate on whether its success signaled a turning away from the tired formula of sequels, series, and remakes, which seems to be sputtering this season.

My thought on this: whoa there, kiddies. As nice as it would be to think sequels and remakes would get a rest, a quick look at the current top five films of the year -- Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2, Eclipse, and Shrek Forever After (four sequels and a remake) -- suggests that the formula may not be as tired as some might hope. Inception's clearly going to do well, but, if it cracks the top ten for the year, as an original film it'll be in the minority.

It's also worth noting that as much as Christopher Nolan is a seriously talented director who would be successful one way or another (one hopes), it wasn't just his talent that made it possible for him to make Inception. It was also the fact that his last film -- a sequel, based on a comic-book character -- made a billion dollars worldwide. In other words, Inception is the $160 million hard-to-describe science-fiction head trip that The Dark Knight built. This doesn't justify all the sequels and remakes flooding the market, to be sure. But it does kind of take the edge off.

4. Right now, the number-one science-fiction movie of the year is Iron Man 2. Number two? Despicable Me. (Hey, when a dude plans to shrink the moon, that qualifies as science fiction.) Inception will probably be number three by this time next week. But for now, you know what the third most successful science-fiction film of the year is? The Book of Eli. And you're all, like, what? And I'm, like, dude, I know. But it's true: this postapocalyptic Denzel Washington flick grossed just shy of $100 million when apparently no one was paying attention -- which is to say in January, usually one of the deader times of the year for films and, this year, also when Avatar was rampaging through theaters. It just goes to show that not every film that does well does so loudly.

And now I'm done with my random thoughts. So I'll stop writing. That, too, is part of the gig.

With the announcement that Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger will be released in 3-D, comic-book movies have officially caught up with the rest of Hollywood. Whether we like it or not, 3-D is here to stay. But is this a good thing for our favorite superheroes? Fans are concerned that "up converting" (shooting in traditional 2-D and converting in postproduction) will result in muddy, less-than-stellar films that tarnish their beloved characters. (Witness the current backlash for The Last Airbender.)

While 3-D makes sense for the splashy adventures of Spider-Man, the trend could spell doom for the gritty, realistic world of Batman. Let's take a look at how 3-D could positively (and negatively) affect some upcoming comic-book-movie releases.

Thor
Next May, the Mighty Thor will be the first Marvel hero to battle evil in 3-D. (Though Superman Returns got the Imax treatment at select theaters, back in 2006.) The 3-D technology could be just what director Kenneth Branagh needs to bring Asgard to life. From Odin's palace to the rainbow bridge that connects the Earth to Asgard, the world of Thor is simply begging to be seen in more than two dimensions. (Besides, anyone worried about realism should pick up some Thor comics -- there's a lot of crazy stuff going on.)

Green Lantern
No speculating here: Warner Brothers has already confirmed that Ryan Reynolds will be wielding the Green Lantern ring in 3-D. As with Thor, 3-D could help Hal Jordan's chances at the box office. Fans will want to see all sorts of eye-popping creations from Green Lantern's ring, which can do whatever the wearer imagines. (Not to mention that the recently unveiled CGI costume will pop in 3-D.) Superhero cops battling aliens is exactly the sort of big-screen spectacle 3-D was made for.

Captain America: The First Avenger
While Marvel's Thor plans make sense, having Captain America punch out Nazis in 3-D smacks of bandwagon jumping. Cap's origin story should be a straightforward World War II tale, not an eye-popping extravaganza. (Outside of Cap's shield, what else could possibly leap from the screen? Bucky Barnes tossing liberty cabbage at Red Skull?) Meanwhile, director Joe Johnston is also wary, calling 3-D "overused" and "gimmicky" in the pages of the Los Angeles Times.

X-Men: First Class
With its cast in place (word is Kevin Bacon will play villain Sebastian Shaw), Matthew Vaughn's X prequel is all but guaranteed to get a 3-D makeover. After petering out with the flat X-Men: The Last Stand, the franchise could use a visual boost to get it back on track. We've yet to see Cyclops's optical blasts in 3-D, and with new mutants like Banshee and White Queen onboard the potential for nifty special effects has increased. Plus, getting a face full of Wolverine's claws could be pretty intense.

Untitled Batman Project
With news that the third Bat flick will commence production in April, fans are already speculating whether director Christopher Nolan will take the Caped Crusader into the third dimension. Considering that a follow-up to The Dark Knight is basically a license to print money, it's safe to say that DC Comics and Warner Brothers will push for 3-D, in an effort to inflate ticket prices. Word has it that Nolan would rather shoot entirely in Imax, in order to retain the epic look of his previous Batman outings. Here's hoping the great director sticks to his guns.

Nick Nadel writes for places like HBO and Asylum.com and is the "geek" blogger for GuySpeak.com. Follow the "Comic Book Movies" column on Twitter.