Watchmen

[Nightwing 0]

What do you want it to be, a giant spider? I mean, I don't see many other ways to really do it without making it "lamer".

 

Dunno if you're looking for spoilers or not but the movie's replacement for the squid is considerably less lame and makes sense in the context of the story.

 

No, no it doesn't. Actually, it makes a lot less sense, and I'm not even talking about what Edwin is.

 

I mean, they

know they can't fight Dr. Manhattan; he's powerful enough to neutralize the vast majority of Russia's ICBMs in a second, and that's only because it would hurt other people, not him. How do you explain him leaving after committing such an act? With the alien, you understand that it was an accident with the teleportation ("Like a giant bee, stinging in its deaththroes") and that they have to prepare. But why would Manhattan give anyone any sort of chance to prepare?

 

It doesn't make any sense. If Manhattan declares himself as the enemy, the war would be done as soon as Manhattan wanted it to be.

 

And how is that going to cause the widespread horror that the Lovecraftian squid did? People have been preparing for the Armageddon (Especially the "Massive, impersonal explosion" type) during this time. The whole reason it was so jarring is that it was so different and horrible than what they were really expecting. They already had a Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is how I'd imagine the above would work out to be. But not the bodies of people who went insane and died. There aren't scorchmarks; instead, you can see their faces and the horror the were in moments before they died. It's just not the same.

 

I'm officially not seeing this anymore. I was on-the-fence, since I didn't support a movie adaptation of this book, but this was the final straw. If you don't have the balls to faithfully adapt it, then don't, and this (in my opinion) is a big change.They just should have begged HBO to do a miniseries on it, because that could have worked

[AmericanDragon 0]

What do you want it to be, a giant spider? I mean, I don't see many other ways to really do it without making it "lamer".

 

Dunno if you're looking for spoilers or not but the movie's replacement for the squid is considerably less lame and makes sense in the context of the story.

 

I agree, Veidt's plan in the movie is brilliant. He decides to combat the increasing fear of nuclear war by setting off nuclear bombs in various cities around the world. It's

genius.

[In Credible 0]

I don't mind not using the squid (though in the story it makes sense, but would be harder to explain in movie form imo), but making it Dr. Manhattan as the cause is just dumb. It's supposed to be an event that not only shocks (and horrifies), but also unites the world. Manhattan would just make Russia happy, America's Superman turns on them.

 

Like I said if they can find an alternative to the squid that's fine, but I don't think the mentioned way of changing it keeps the right feel.

[daileyxplanet 0]

Are they trying to avoid a Cloverfield-esque monster? Is that the deal?

[Twisted Intestine 0]

Why not just have UFO's invade or something? lol.

[In Credible 0]

Why not just have UFO's invade or something? lol.

 

Because that would go against it was meant for. The reason they used the giant squid is so that there would be speculation that it was alien, it wasn't actually supposed to be an alien invasion.

[The Niggardly King 0]

make it godzilla

[2GOLD 0]

 

Mothra, he'll bring in the kids and little asian tinkerbell sized ladies. It works for everyone.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

2Gold: Mothra's a she.

[2GOLD 0]

2Gold: Mothra's a she.

 

Didn't she have a kid that was also called Mothra? I remember one of the newer movies having a male Mothra flying around after mommy Mothra died.

[AmericanDragon 0]

The comic con footage is on itunes.

[Gary Floyd 0]

The comic con footage is on itunes.

Or, you can just watch it here:

[cd213 0]

The comic con footage is on itunes.

Or, you can just watch it here:

 

I'm getting more excited for this movie the more I see.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Merry Christmas.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Fox obviously wants something. I just hope Warner caves and gives it to them so we can see this movie next year.

[CBright7831 0]

2Gold: Mothra's a she.

 

Didn't she have a kid that was also called Mothra? I remember one of the newer movies having a male Mothra flying around after mommy Mothra died.

Meh - it depends on which timeline/continuity

 

Fox obviously wants something. I just hope Warner caves and gives it to them so we can see this movie next year.

Its rumored that they want the Adam West Batman show

[luke-o 0]

I thought they already got that?

 

Is it just me, or from all the trailers and teaser footage, we've seen all of the film minus the dialogue?

[CBright7831 0]

I thought they already got that?

Just the 66 Batman film and Return to the Batcave.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

Copyright law makes my head hurt.

 

A judge rules that Fox owns the rights to movie that's an adaptation of a comic that's owned by DC, which is owned by WB. Okay..

[Anakin Flair 0]

But Fox had owned the rights first, and apparently never solde them or something.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

But Fox had owned the rights first, and apparently never solde them or something.

 

It still doesn't make much sense - especially the fact they waited to sue until after the trailer with TDK aired. Somebody was asleep on the job, or something.

 

Even then, licenses don't generally last forever.

[cd213 0]

I will try to get the exact information for everyone, but I got this from another board that I post on, from a pretty reliable source:

 

You're entitled to feel any way you like about the issue.

But factually, it appears the statement about timing is untrue.

 

What's being said is that Fox made its legal rights and expectations clear long before WATCHMEN went into production (at least as far back as early 2007). It also seems that they continued to try to work out a deal with Warner Brothers until it became clear that Warners had no intention of resolving the matter out of court.

Only then did they file the injunction.

 

It seems pretty definite to me that Warner Brothers' legal department is at fault. It would appear that the Judge in the case agrees.

 

The only mitigating defense Warner's would have is if the 'turn-around' production rights holder (Larry Gordon) intentionally mislead them about the distribution agreements Fox had retained in the property.

[theone 0]

But Fox had owned the rights first, and apparently never solde them or something.

 

It still doesn't make much sense - especially the fact they waited to sue until after the trailer with TDK aired. Somebody was asleep on the job, or something.

 

Even then, licenses don't generally last forever.

Fox has owned the watchmen rights for TWO DECADES now, and Fox tried multiple times to contact WB and work out some sort of fair deal with them because they were producing a movie they had zero legal right to distribute. WB chose to be foolish and completely ignore the offers Fox laid on the table, and is now in the situation they're in now.

 

This ruling shouldn't ultimately affect the film's release date...just look for WB to sign a less-than-favorable distribution deal with Fox over the film.

[Anakin Flair 0]

See, I never even heard that part of the argument. I just assuemd Fow was being a dick by waiting to the last minute, insteaqd of WB being dicks by not working things out before hand.

[AmericanDragon 0]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-jL2598Gc

[theone 0]

Fox has owned the watchmen rights for TWO DECADES now, and Fox tried multiple times to contact WB and work out some sort of fair deal with them because they were producing a movie they had zero legal right to distribute. WB chose to be foolish and completely ignore the offers Fox laid on the table, and is now in the situation they're in now.

 

This ruling shouldn't ultimately affect the film's release date...just look for WB to sign a less-than-favorable distribution deal with Fox over the film.

Looks like things have taken a swing for the absolute worst today:

 

An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen, according to The Associated Press.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the film, scheduled for release March 6.

 

Feess said Monday he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.

 

Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner Bros. in February. Warner Bros. contended Fox isn't entitled to distribution.

 

Warner Bros.' attorney said Monday he didn't know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely.

 

[AmericanDragon 0]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoid=48917596

[AmericanDragon 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WNETpX2Jd0

 

http://watchmencomicmovie.com/010609-watch...deo-journal.php

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

"Rather than ask for a jury trial that would likely have postponed the release of Watchmen, Warner Bros. has agreed to let a federal judge who has shown the studio little sympathy decide whether 20th Century Fox could prevent it from distributing the movie on March 6 as scheduled. Last month U.S. District Judge Gary Feess agreed that Warner Bros. had not properly obtained the movie rights to Watchmen and advised the two studios to settle the matter. They were unable to do so, however, and the case now appears to be heading toward the appellate courts."

 

Well, looks like WB's last shot before having to give in to Fox or delay the release.

[dubq 0]

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...24Entertainment

 

Fri Jan. 09 2009 2:49:08 PM

'Watchmen' settlement talks productive; will continue over weekend

The Associated Press

 

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys for rival studios fighting over the release of the superhero flick "Watchmen" say they're having fruitful settlement talks.

 

Attorneys for 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. asked a federal judge to delay a hearing Friday so settlement discussions can continue over the weekend.

 

U.S District Judge Gary Allen Feess agreed to continue the hearing but says a trial over whether to block the film's March release is still set for Jan. 20.

 

Fox is suing to stop the release of "Watchmen," claiming Warner Bros. violated its interests by filming the tale. Feess agreed last month that Fox appears to have the right to distribute the film.

 

Since then, the two sides have made concessions and according to court documents, conducted settlement talks last weekend.