As you may have noticed, SpoutBlog is debuting a new look today. We’re still working out a few kinks, so leave us a comment if you have any feedback. If you’re simply overwhelmed with love for what you see (or even if you aren’t), you can add SpoutBlog to your Google Reader or other RSS thingy, or favorite us on Technorati. I love using “favorite” as a verb.

This weekend, Peter Bart and Peter Guber devoted a segment of their AMC chat show Sunday Morning Shootout to the subject of bloggery. I didn’t catch it myself, but judging by the write-ups I’ve read, it was…exactly what you’d expect.

As usual, celebrity gossip blogs such as Perez Hilton and TMZ were spoken of in the same breath as industry blogs such as Defamer, and blogs aimed at producing serious, non-snarky commentary were pushed to the far margins of the conversation. Bart, of course, held down the hard-line anti-blog end of the argument (at this point, this guy’s qualified to write a “You Might Be A Blogger If…” joke book); his Variety colleague Anne Thompson intelligently defended her right to produce journalism in the format of an online journal frequently updated in reverse chronological order. Guber played interference, which apparently involved repeatedly using the word “perpetrate” when he probably meant “perpetuate.” But who knows.

Because I didn’t see it, and because I’m getting really tired of asserting my right to make a living in my chosen field, I definitely do not want to comment at length. Awards Daily has a partial transcription of the show, and some fierce commentary to boot. David Poland has solid analysis at The Hot Blog; by my count, he only strays from strong logic to dig at Nikki Finke once (weeeelllll, maybe twice). See also Aaron Dobbs at Out of Focus, who offers a simple suggestion: “I don’t have a problem with Bart criticizing online journalists and bloggers, pulling to some degree the same argument lots of “professional” media likes to claim to maintain a feeling or air of superiority, but Peter, if you’re going to do that, please stop having your own publication send out “Breaking News” alerts that are simply notices that you’ve posted a new column with nothing but your same old opinions? Thanks.”

I should say upfront that I’m strangely ambivalent when it comes to Hostel mastermind Eli Roth. There’s a kind of sick humor baked into his baroque, balls-out extended death sequences, that, as a Dario Argento fan, I appreciate, but like most modern horror movies, sitting through the bad dialogue and endless setup that threads together the torture scenes is, actually, torture. On the other hand, I kind of get a kick out of Roth’s pretentions about the socio-political allegorical value of his movies. There’s something about the petulance of a horror movie director favorably comparing himself to Dick Cheney that I can’t resist.

That said, is it just me, or does this whiny, panicky, super-dramatic blog post on Roth’s MySpace page kind of read like those coked-up interviews Dirk Diggler gave Amber Waves for her documentary in Boogie Nights? It’s like the beleaguered filmmaker’s equivalent of the ill-advised drunk dial.

“All over the map” would be an appropriate phrase to use here, if there were a map in the world big enough to encompass all of Eli Roth’s paranoia. The ostensible purpose of the post is for Roth to announce that he’s taking some time off from filmmaking, but in attempting to explain that decision, he manages to cast blame on every conceivable outside force for therelative failure of Hostel 2. Piracy, he says, “is really hurting us, especially internationally.” He then jumps to blame film critics (who aren’t usually allowed to see allegedly “critic proof” films like this before they’re released) for allegedly reviewing the pirated workprint of the film instead of the completed version. Which critics did that? Roth “wouldn’t dignify them by mentioning them by name,” but he’s going to make damn sure they’ll lose all legal access to his films (which doesn’t seem like much of a threat, since these critics would apparently rather watch a pirated workprint than go to a press screening anyway). My favorite part is when Roth tells his fans they can help fight piracy with … piracy? “Flood file sharing services with fake Hostel II downloads just so no one can ever actually get the movie,” he declares.

A rant like this is obviously candy for for haters. Nikki Finke, one of the most vocal opponents of the so-called “torture porn” genre, ate it up. “Notice how it doesn’t even enter his mind that moviegoers rejected his twisted content of torture porn,” Finke sniped. “Maybe this year off will help Eli get a clue.” Roth is obviously playing passive-aggressive, putting himself out there as a victim so that his fans will rally around and beg him to make another movie. It’s hard to imagine a successful film director actual being so immature that they would not see how such a tactic would be doomed to backfire.

What’s the real problem with Hostel 2? Did everyone who really wanted to see it really watch it online before it opened? Could it just be that the movie industry is cyclical, and the torture porn cycle is simply dying its natural, inevitable death? For what it’s worth, the Horror Movies 101 group here at Spout hasn’t really shown much interest in the Hostel films. Whether or not you’re a Roth fan, does such an, um, impassioned message from a filmmaker make you any more or less likely to support their work?

Karina Longworth, (former editor of Cinematical) is joining spout.com. We met shortly after SXSW, where she had noticed us covering the festival. We talked a bit about what we’d like SpoutBlog to be, about how we binge on interviews and blog posts at festivals, then go back to the office where the day to day running of spout.com takes us away from the blog. She shared how her position at AOL was moving away from writing about film (most troubling since we’re all fans of Karina’s writing at Spout). Then, the lights went on. We want to see more great writing about film on SpoutBlog, Karina–one of our favorite film bloggers–wants to write more about film. Badda bing. We hired her.

Starting June 18, Karina will be posting here on SpoutBlog and popping up here and there at spout.com. We’re excited. Also, in the next couple days Spout will be doing something new with Susan Buice and Arin Crumley of Four Eyed Monsters. If you’re a fan of FEM, talk with Karina about it in the foureyedmonsters group on spout.com.

Stay tuned. We’ll announce what we’re up to in this Friday’s FilmCouch podcast.

I thought this list of “Things Computers Can Do in Movies” was pretty funny. Apparently, I’m not the only one–it’s number one in all categories on digg right now. (Digg is a user-powered content promotion site that allows people to virally push whatever they think is most interesting or entertaining on the web at the moment.)

The list of “computer tricks” in movies was published yesterday on the Programming Blog. Check out the comments, too. People left some funny examples and additions to the list.

What I find interesting about this phenomenon–that computers can do remarkable things in movies–is that filmmakers are still exaggerating the capabilities of computers today, even in non-science fiction, non-futuristic films. I was a kid in the 80s and I remember all the fascination generated around “what computers will someday be able to do.” Most people didn’t know the first thing about computers, so they were easy to fool. Their imaginations were pliable. But now that computers are such an everyday part of so many people’s lives, it seems like movie audiences would demand more accurate portrayals of technology and its capabilities. Computers in movies should be tools that allow us to relate to characters and situations, rather than tools that leave us saying “huh?” (This, of course, doesn’t apply to science fiction and futuristic films.)

Anyway, here are my favorites from the list. Check out the whole list for fun, if nothing else. Enjoy, and let us know which computer scenes in movies are your favorite.

Things Computers Can Do in Movies

2. You never have to use the space-bar when typing long sentences.

5. High-tech computers, such as those used by NASA, the CIA or some such governmental institution, will have easy to understand graphical interfaces.

6. Those that don’t have graphical interfaces will have incredibly powerful text-based command shells that can correctly understand and execute commands typed in plain English.

7. Note: Command line interfaces will give you access to any information you want by simply typing, “ACCESS THE SECRET FILES” on any nearby keyboard.

9. All computers are connected. You can access the information on the villain’s desktop computer even if it’s turned off.

11. All computer panels operate on thousands of volts and have explosive devices underneath their surface. Malfunctions are indicated by a bright flash of light, a puff of smoke, a shower of sparks and an explosion that causes you to jump backwards.

14. You may bypass “PERMISSION DENIED” message by using the “OVERRIDE” function. (See “Demolition Man”.)

15. Computers only take 2 seconds to boot up instead of the average minutes for desktop PCs and 30 minutes or more for larger systems that can run 24 hours, 365 days a year without a reset.

16. Complex calculations and loading of huge amounts of data will be accomplished in under three seconds. Movie modems usually appear to transmit data at the speed of two gigabytes per second.

24. Most computers, no matter how small, have reality-defying three-dimensional active animation, photo-realistic graphics capabilities.

25. Laptops always have amazing real-time video phone capabilities and performance similar to a CRAY Supercomputer.

26. Whenever a character looks at a monitor, the image is so bright that it projects itself onto their face. (See “Alien” or “2001″)

27. Searches on the internet will always return what you are looking for no matter how vague your keywords are. (See “Mission Impossible,” Tom Cruise searches with keywords like “file” and “computer” and 3 results are returned.)

Although she must be burnt out from Sundance, Anne Thompson put together a nice Oscar nomination analysis on her Risky Business blog.

Here are my main two thoughts about the nominations and her post:

- It’s fascinating that a film like Dreamgirls can get eight nominations, including best actor and best actress, but not get nominated for best picture (or director or writer, for that matter). Each year at this time, when I’m puzzling over the system, I tend to be a bit surprised that it’s not more of a science. Then I remember that falling in love with a person isn’t a science–why should our love for a movie be something calculated? (But, on the other hand, when you compare two best picture nominations–Babel and Letters from Iwo Jima, with seven and four nominations respectively–you have to admit that Babel seems a more likely and deserving pick. Sure makes it seem kind of mathematical.)

- Secondly, when I think of this ideal I have–this inexplicable but genuine falling in love with a film–I quickly snap back to this reality: The Oscars, while not a science, are, in many ways, a game. (Yes, I’m well aware love can be a game, too, but the best love isn’t.) In her post today, Anne Thompson references the Clint Eastwood/Warners “Oscar strategy,” and the “trick with foreign films.” Ah, yes. There are strategies and tricks involved. I can’t help it, though. I want to be a purist. I want the film that wins Best Picture to win because, as Thompson says, it is “beloved.”

Welcome back to the SpoutBlog. On September 21, 2005, Spout’s founder, Rick DeVos, wrote our very first post: “Why SpoutBlog?” Several dozen posts followed over the next five or so months, before things started getting crazy during the weeks leading up to the March beta launch of spout.com.

But you could say that absence made our hearts grow fonder when it came to our affections for the SpoutBlog. We missed the stimulation of ideas generated here. We missed hearing from all of you