Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The Comedian To Laugh It Up In Cinemas March 6!! Warner-Fox WATCHMEN Matter Resolved!!

I am – Hercules!!
It appears that Warner Bros. can go forward with its March 6 release of “Watchmen” -- without Fox chief Tom Rothman employing his editing room acumen to adjust the feature to a more “commercially viable” size. The two studios are said to have reached an agreement on the matter and are expected to request Friday morning that the case be dismissed. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and may never be disclosed, but insiders suggest it involved money. Find all of the Hollywood Reporter’s story on the matter here.

Quint here... I wanted to add... Much respect to the honorable #1 Film Site for predicting this story three days and 13 hours ago!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    first good news yet

    by Some Dude


  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    But where the fuck is the squid?

    by tolomey

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Hell yeah!

    by guido505

    I can sleep at night...and FIRST!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:39 p.m. CST


    by guido505

    3rd dammit lol

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Fox come out of this with lots of credibility

    by stooopider

    Only kidding. They're cunts

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Ah, yes. Fox. The poor man's Orion pictures.

    by ricarleite

    Makes me wonder, so many enterprises and businesses need bailout money and assistance from the government, and so many claiming they are doing terribly this year... yet, studios are doing just fine. Think about that for a while.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:42 p.m. CST


    by kaspianwithak

    I guess I can call off the firebomb planning meeting.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:42 p.m. CST


    by Cedar_Room

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Best news all day.

    by force_fed

    Now I can enjoy my weekend. Thanks Tom Rothfucker! You gigantic fucking douche bag.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Watchmen, Trek, Transformer

    by Heckles

    Get your geek boners ready.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:44 p.m. CST

    So no more boycott that wasn't going to happen anyway?

    by Liberty Valance

    You may now resume suckling Warner Bros' taint even though they have essentially admitted guilt and paid off Fox. Plus you can all go see Avatar without saying to yourself, "I wish I had the balls to actually boycott this." Bunch of limp-dick pussies, the lot of you.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Thank God!

    by JayWells87

    Can't wait for this flick, squid or no squid.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    I hope the movie underperforms...

    by Redfive!

    for afew reasons.Now first off I hope the movies fantastic but I really dont want to see WATCHMEN 2.2nd the less money fox gets the better,that studio is just a bunch of scumbags and 3rd...I DONT WANT TO SEE WATCHMEN 2.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    are we still boycotting Wolverine?

    by the milf lover

    oh right, I wasnt gonna do that anyway, because I'm not an imbecile. <p> Never mind.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    I am Happy!!!!

    by HermesTrismestigus

    Finally Fox Got what it wanted!!!!!! Can't wait to get my hands on the Bluray of The Adam West Batman Series!!!! yes those fuckers at warners have been holding that shit up since 1989!!! Revenge is sweet!!!!!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:48 p.m. CST


    by montimer

    Are they though? It won't be long before Rothman goes begging to Obama for some money to help finance his rape of my childhood. Next up: Bravestar: The Live Action Movie

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:49 p.m. CST


    by montimer

    And £50 (yes fifty English pounds, worth at least seventy-five of your crazy, made-up dollars) says that if Warners sue him Larry Gordon will top himself by the end of the year.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Please still boycott Wolverine

    by Monkeybrains

    The least amount of masterbating fanboys sitting behind me, the better viewing experiance for all normal people. <p> and it will save me wasting bullets on you.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:50 p.m. CST

    What's Love... But a second handy motion!

    by IndyAbbey Jones

    looks like fox ate all the dicks?

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Number 1 Film Site reported this like 3 days ago

    by Fearsme

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:54 p.m. CST

    You know if this movie is infact a monster hit then...

    by thecomedian

    ...Snyder will either get Superman or Justice League. He's the new Singer only he doesn't secretly loathe the superhero genre and he actually has an imagination. Hell, if the critics actually love Watchmen as much as the fans and people actually take it seriously he could probably get Bale and Routh too with no hassle.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST

    lame, aicn late to the scoops yet again

    by Ravvy

    i saw this on number 1 film site days ago

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen?

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9 p.m. CST


    by DarthChimay

    Huh... I never would've figured that...

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9 p.m. CST


    by enoodle123

    umm....still eats all the dicks? I guess?

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Well, duh.

    by rev_skarekroe

    Honestly, was anybody REALLY worried about this?<p>What's that? You WERE?<p>Imbeciles.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Fox took the Squid in the settlement.

    by Power_Girl

    Blame them!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah, and

    by enoodle123

    fuck the fucking squid. Who gives a shit?

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Boycott Watchmen

    by Hikaru Ichijo

    yeah, right

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Forever more I will only RENT Fox movies, from a local store

    by Stormwatcher

    where the tally isn't fed into some greater statistical network. My money will go to the store owner, who buys the movie then gets to keep all the revenue without reporting up on rental sales. My part to ensure FOX suffers.

  • ah who am i kidding, i do that anyhow

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:08 p.m. CST

    I hope the movie has a line like this in it

    by Power_Girl

    "The city is about to be nuked!" <p> "Could be worse... Giant Squid worse"

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Still boycotting the fuck out of Wolverine

    by wash

    But partially because I'm still a little miffed on how messed up X3 and the two FF movies were. Fuck Rothman.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:16 p.m. CST


    by Nasty In The Pasty

    May Kevin James sit on you for this unforgivable blunder.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:16 p.m. CST

    "insiders say it involved money"

    by jimmy rabbitte

    ...hmm... never woulda guessed.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    the Squid is in Paul Blart's pants!!

    by the milf lover

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    settled by some squid pro quo

    by NotMalcolmReed

    let's not talk about boycotting fox. you want to talk morals, alan moore didn't want this movie made.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:22 p.m. CST

    boycott squids!!!!

    by soup74

    that'll show 'em! (that will show who exactly what, im not sure of, but i gotta boycott something.)

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:25 p.m. CST


    by Evangelion217

    I'm happy that Alan Moore's curse didn't work this time, but movie theaters around the globe might blow up on March 6th. Alan Moore practices black magic, and has written some of the greatest, and most profound works of art ever created. And I hope Zack Syder can make a good, or great film out of Alan Moore's masterpiece. I'm very happy that Fox studios decided to not fuck the fanboys over, and let the film get released on it's due date. And I will be seeing "Wolverine", and "Avatar." Which was always going to happen, even if Watchmen got pushed back. But Fox can still eat all the dicks. :) P.S: I hope "Watchmen" will be a bit longer then 150 minutes. An epic like this calls for 165 minutes. Or I'll just settle for this, and wait for the extended cut to come out at the end of the summer. :)

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    D. Vader

    by Fearsme


  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST


    by Broseph

    Watchmen looks sick

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Boycotting Wolverine...

    by Roketopunch

    Idiots, like you would have any dent what this film will rake in!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:37 p.m. CST


    by bee152

    As I am sure all of those authors did not want their beloved characters being raped. I like Alan Moore and his stories but it's no worse than what he did. Don't hold him up on a pedestal.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:37 p.m. CST

    The Boycott Is Still On!

    by CellarDweller

    Rothman will probably waste all the extra money on anal lube and butt plugs for himself and his staff instead of using it to fix his pathetic studio and movies which are in shambles. It's bad enough that he's ruining the onscreen version of Wolverine. Glad his no-talent hands are off Watchman. Suck it Rothman; you pathetic swine!!!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Hey, is the Wolverine boycott still on?

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    I mean, I'd never pay to see that piece of shit anyway, but It'd be cool to have a reason other than "It looks like a piece of shit".

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:40 p.m. CST


    by grievenom

    About Fuckin Time!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Cant wait to Download Wolverine

    by VALENTINEproductions

    and Avatar. I could care less for either one. Fox is truly shit and i bet they think their going to come out the heros because they didnt fuck with the film itself. Im proud of Warners for having the balls to realize what a great property Watchmen is and putting their asses on the line to make it and then owning up to their mistakes. FUCK FOX FOR LIFE!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:43 p.m. CST

    It was just a matter of time I suppose

    by greenstyle92

    *fan boycott gets thrown out the window.*

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST

    "John thinks there's going to be a settlement"

    by greenstyle92

    "What if that's why someone wants the fans out of the way- so we can't do anything to stop it?"

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Predictable outcome

    by Mockingbird Girl

    Though you'd hardly know it from the barrage of near-hysterical "updates" AICN has posted in recent weeks.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST

    WB: "Why would I release a film"

    by greenstyle92

    "That I no longer have any stake in?"

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Boycott Avatar !!!!!!

    by medicinaluser

    I'm with Liberty Valance on this one, if we really want to see the beginning of the end for Fox then we need to hit them where it hurts.<BR><BR> Avatar is the movie to boycott if indeed a boycott were actually to happen at all. You might ask well why Avatar the reason quite simply is Fox getting a percentage of Watchmens revenue meaning we will be putting money in there coffers. <BR><BR> To make up for this rather unfortunate turn of events Fox wont be getting any of my money throughout 2009, download House,24 and Avatar when it comes out. <BR><BR>Feel free to do the same else you will be forever sullied should you choose to do otherwise.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Rothman with editting sheers: "We can save this movie!"

    by greenstyle92


  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by greenstyle92

    *smashes doomsday clock.*

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:48 p.m. CST

    "The court over. What do you suggest we do?"

    by greenstyle92

    "Retribution. An attack on the fans is an attack on us all."

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:49 p.m. CST

    "Watchmen. The movie almost died tonight"

    by greenstyle92

    "Someone at Fox knows why."

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:52 p.m. CST

    "I heard Fox was working for the Government"

    by greenstyle92

    "Maybe it was a political killing?" "Or maybe someone's picking of costumed hero movies."

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST


    by greenstyle92

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    get over the mutha f&*kin' SQUID.....

    by EGamb

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:55 p.m. CST

    I'm a huge wolvie fan . . .

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    but even I think the damn trailer makes the movie looks like shit. Like my daddy always said, if it smells like a turd, floats like a turd, it must be a turd. lol

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:55 p.m. CST

    "Fox watches over us, but who watches them?"

    by greenstyle92

    "Burrrrrrrrrrrrn, you will Burrrrrrrrrn, Burrrrrrn in hell, yeah, you'll Burrrrrrrn in hell, Burrrrrrrn in hell, Burrrrrrrrrrrrrn in hell for your SIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS!"

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:56 p.m. CST

    I knew it would resolve itself- knew it would remain WB's

    by ThePilgrim

    Save a bunch of life not worrying or being pissed over it. So fox has the 1960 batman tv show rights now for dvd. Isn't that win win. Mabey thet requested the Squid to be placed back in. Nah I doubt the no one was peaking well of Fox. Fox wouldn't do shit for watchmen fans.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 9:59 p.m. CST

    I'll avoid Wolvie, but I'm seeing Avatar.

    by polyh3dron

    Fuck Fox.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST

    "The Boycott is over"

    by worldofwarcraft

    "Fox help us all"

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Fox Fears

    by ThePilgrim

    The Lazy, Fat, Still Living With The Parental, Unwashed, Neverlaid Masses about as much as Michael Jackson fears 12 year old boys. Try touching something else other than your own genitals for once and pat yourselves on the back this time. Your online uploaded disgruntled text really showed em.. Anyone wanna buy a bridge.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:04 p.m. CST

    d. vader totally got pwned!

    by Ravvy

    so stupid!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST

    With that out of the way, I'm launching "Sink Dark Knight"

    by greenstyle92

    Oh yeahs.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:17 p.m. CST

    All these Fox boycott rants...

    by ugh

    ...are worthy, albeit not all of them make sense. I don't blame you all. This pissed me off as well. I not willing to make James Cameron suffer for Tom Rothman's ignorance. So let's all see Avatar when it comes out (preferably in IMAX 3D). As for the rest of the slate of Fox theatrical releases: Wouldn't it make more sense to just fire up your favorite torrent program and download whatever Fox film you wanted as a means of boycott? Granted that it's illegal (so they say), but it would be the quickest and easiest way to hurt their bottom line and it will get the shareholders' attention much quicker. And the sooner the shareholders are pissed, the sooner Rothman gets fired!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Ugh Re: Avatar Boycott

    by medicinaluser

    Fox are banking on Avatar being Dark Knight BIG!! you can torrent all the tv shows and the other slate of Movies for this coming year all you want but at the end of the day if Avatar does well or as well as they are hoping it wont matter too much.<BR><BR> Avatar IS the only way of getting Fox's attention and more importantly the attention of the shareholders.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:28 p.m. CST

    I predicted this when it was first announced.

    by Frank Black

    Just saying. F*ck Fox! My boycott remains intact (oh wait, I was already boycotting their crap films.)

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Of all the movies I will see this year....

    by Jodet

    ...this will be one of them.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Did any expect

    by MurderMostFowl

    This to end up any other way? There's just no way they would have shelved the movie. FOX simply wanted their extortion money.... and I'll bet they got it.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Damn. I hope it involves releasing the Adam West Batman

    by catlettuce4

    Adam West is the fucking man.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:34 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kaos

    What the hell do you think FOX wanted in the first place. Man, what a racket. You get some other studio to make the movie you couldn't, and it isn't even costing ya a dime. Even though I think FOX was in the right, I still don't stand by the way they did it. They're still douches.<br><br> goodie goodie, at least the deal was that FOx can't get it's shitty hands on the edit. This movie better rock!<br><br> I still say we ban all fox movies just for shits and giggles.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:41 p.m. CST

    I Wish It Died

    by Autodidact

    Now every goofball is going to think they've experienced The Watchmen.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:42 p.m. CST

    My song to the squid (key of G):

    by thebearovingian

    I'll never get over you... getting ooooveerrrr mmmeeeeee.<p>Maybe this isn't a good thing after all. Maybe 'Watchmen' will open the portal to Hell and Fox was saving all our asses. ???

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Will the Squid issue in The Watchmen be resolved?

    by Xiphos_2

    Sub-basement dwelling nerd geeks covered in a thick glaze of cheeto dust want to know. Right nerds?

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:46 p.m. CST

    I didn't think Fox had the power to edit.

    by otm shank

    If they did....Wow! That's a nasty bullet to dodge.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:51 p.m. CST


    by The3rdMan


  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:55 p.m. CST

    whoa you mean fox was right all along?

    by SomaShine

    wow..i mean its not like they had the rights to the material or anything..I'm shocked.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Is it a boycott if

    by FookU

    I wasn't going to pay to see their shitty movies anyway?

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11 p.m. CST

    Oh Great more nerd "boycott" talk

    by Xiphos_2

    Geeks, you don't matter, not one iota. Movies succeed or fail not on your dollar but on the normal, regular, showered and sane movie going public.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:05 p.m. CST

    The Lazy, Fat, Still Living With The Parental...

    by El Borak

    "The Lazy, Fat, Still Living With The Parental, Unwashed, Neverlaid Mass." <br>this should be my new screen name. <br>

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Punish Fox?

    by Continentalop

    Ok, the executives might be a bunch of assholes, but in case you people don't know a lot of normal, everyday people work at Fox. I mean, it is a big corporation, so it isn't all just guys in suits trying to fuck up movies. They also have janitors, secretaries, technicians, etc. <p> If you don't like Fox’s products, don't go see it; shareholders will get the message and replace the executives with ones who know how to make a good product. But to hold some bizarre fan-boy grudge against an entire company because they somehow got in the way of your comic nerd fantasies is just downright pathetic. <p> Yes, I understand you love the Watchmen comic book and want to see it, but I have news for you, it is just a comic book movie. It isn't a war or the cure for cancer, or even the Godfather. Sorry, but it is the truth.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Don't make fun of the dollar

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I remember going to England and buying a case of Legos for like 50 cents not too long ago ... The dollar will be back!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:12 p.m. CST

    btw I had an epiphany the other day:

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Watchmen the movie is not going to be very good. Just a hunch.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:14 p.m. CST

    THANK GOODNESS!! Now we can get back to listening to...

    by wackybantha


  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:15 p.m. CST

    It's not so much that I'm "boycotting" Wolverine...

    by Royston Lodge

    ... it's just that it looks like a very shitty movie, so I wasn't gonna go see it anyway.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    great news, and i will still be boycotting Wolverine


    just on principle. fuck Fox.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:17 p.m. CST

    And it's not about the lack of the Squid...

    by Royston Lodge's about the cheesy Hollywood cliché that they replaced it with.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:17 p.m. CST

    "....insiders suggest it involved money."

    by wackybantha

    No, really? Are you sure it didn't involve peanut butter? I'm pretty sure it did. You may want to fact check your story next time.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:18 p.m. CST


    by DOGSOUP

    It'll be hard because her ass is so sweet but I'll do it to prove a point, which is this: Get The Fuck Over Yourselves.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:18 p.m. CST

    the squid was cut to avoid a lawsuit...

    by sherryk

    there's a word for that.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:21 p.m. CST


    by lovecraftian

    "Geeks, you don't matter, not one iota. Movies succeed or fail not on your dollar but on the normal, regular, showered and sane movie going public."--Then, why pray tell, do YOU come to this fucking site. This is a hub for FILM GEEKS you unbelievable douchebag! If I'M the loser, why do YOU keep coming HERE to complain about people like ME? Are you trolling around the internet to find people you don't like and bitch about them? Are you actually seeking out frustration or an opportunity to piss all over someone else's interests? If so, the only virginal, basement-dwelling loser here, is YOU! Now I am thrilled that WATCHMEN's coming out and can't wait to see it(which is WHAT I CAME HERE TO SAY.) I also WILL NOT see WOLVERINE or AVATAR because they don't look that interesting. And if anyone else here wants to see it...fine. If anyone doesn't want to see it or wants to call a boycott, good on them. It's a free country. And bottom line: for all your bluster, we've stopped shit before and we can do it again if we want to. (I'm not going to go over it all, because I've already done that here on another TB.) But I've watched you and those of your ilk come to these TB's repeatedly with the same message, "Fuck you if you have a passionate appreciation for great art. You're geeks! YOU'LL SEE THIS MOVIE ANYWAY LOSER!" --Nice attitude. It's good to see that Halloween candy stealing asshats still have something to do with their lives long since after their prime has passed them by.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:22 p.m. CST

    WATCHMEN Trailer Parody - METEORMAN

    by Docbrowneye

    it's pretty funny...

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Hmm could it be money?

    by kafka07

    all bets are on money

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:25 p.m. CST

    What happened to the boycott dream?

    by wackybantha

    IT CAME TRUE! You're looking at it.

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Never trust a man named GARY SPARKLE.

    by Bob Cryptonight

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST

    You know what would be great

    by Melvin_Pelvis

    they insert Forest Gump into some of the historical footage<p> A meeting between Forest and Dr. Manhattan

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST

    Looks like Larry Gordon screwed the pooch...

    by Raschied

    I'm no fan of Fox, but reading through this case, it looks like the blame is Larry Gordon's. In 1991, Fox gave him the right to shop the property, as long as they got some kind of cut, and he failed to mention this to WB when they picked up and ran with it. Yeah, Fox is just after the money, but shame on Larry for not being straight with WB over the deal. I bet we see some additional litigation where WB takes a piece of Larry Gordon's ass over this. Still, I wonder if WB would've greenlighted it had they known ahead of time they'd have to give a piece of the revenue to Fox. Maybe it's all for the best. Watchmen! In less than 60 days! WOOHOO!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Ebert gave Mallcop 3 stars

    by c4andmore

    said Kevin James looked like an action hero, no shit

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:45 p.m. CST

    I Told You This, While Nikki Finke Tried To Shut Me Up

    by Media Messiah

    Who was predicting this settlement before everyone, and in detail as to what would occur and who would retain rights of the film? Media Messiah, that's who?<BR><BR>Meanwhile, I was being attacked, left and right...both here, and on Nikki Finke's web site??? The difference between me and my critics? I was instrumental in winning a multi-million dollar settlement...and my critics, including Nikki (I refuse to print your letters anymore, because they hurt Fox' bogus position) Finke, haven't. Where are my props people??? I want to hear some shout-outs!!!

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Finally! Good news!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    But fuck Tom Rothman, that greedy little cunt.<p>So, some of you guys wanna boycott AVATAR? That's sweet. As if the three guys on this board would make a difference...

  • Jan. 15, 2009, 11:54 p.m. CST

    lovecraftian that loud sound you hear is the Nerd alert blaring

    by Xiphos_2

    So I guess I put that round in the 10x ring eh? BULLSEYE!<p>What exactly have you and the mighty nerd army "stopped" before? It's the militant nerds sir, like yourself, that give the good and rational nerds a bad name.<p> I've read The Watchmens funny book, several times. Here's a true clue schoolboy, I own orginal issues of The Watchmen. I bought them when they came out. It's good for a funny book but it's not as you claim literature. It's a comic book.<p>Look, my fine young friend, relax. Play some online video games, have your mommy make you some Mac and Cheese, talk to your online "girlfriend" and enchance your calm. You're spazzing out over a post by an anonymous person over a comic strip. See the problem there geek?<p>One more thing. To make your dense wall of text easier to read, place this < p > where you want a paragraph break. Remember to remove the spaces.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:02 a.m. CST

    I Called This One!!! But Still No Props For The Messiah???

    by Media Messiah

    The details of the settlement, I would guess, go as follows: Between 35 to 50 million dollars go to Fox in an advance payment, and perhaps...a small royalty of about 2 points...but I doubt the latter, although it would be on the table. <BR><BR>I want an apology from my critics!!! Nikki Finke is too much of a pseudo intellectual to deliver one, but perhaps others will be man enough, to give credit, where credit is due?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Fuck the Squid!

    by ApneicMonkey

    It was the shittiest part of the book and the only time that Watchmen reminded me that I was 'just reading a comic'. Super happy that it's still coming out in March! ^^

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:24 a.m. CST

    The squid is fucking stupid

    by Droid

    and although "visionary director Zack Snyder" is a goddamn hack, he was right to change it.<p>The comic is unbelievably overrated.<p>And Fox couldn't give a shit if geeks on the internet boycott them. Hollwood stopped listening to the geek frenzy the weekend Snakes on a Plane opened.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:30 a.m. CST

    I come here to piss off steam and shoot shit

    by ThePilgrim

    Really just general film talk, it all depends on the flow/type of news and TB banter. The Watchmen lawsuit crap was pointless. The studios would do whatever they wanted in regards to it despite the fan bickering. <P> We don't have the power we think we do. Each year makes film news and review sites more hair band metal than the year before. <P> Look when sites like Bloody Disgusting are tossing out Attention Whore "B-D's Actors Wish/Suggestion Lists" for films like A Nightmare On Elm Street, and some other internet film news and review guys are jerking off other actors who they hung with or who played a role in their made for tv film. Call me the prick for saying fuck you and your fucking bullshit. <P> You're a webpage, and sometimes you kick some serious ass. <P> Mostly when your just about facts and getting us the early peeks and plot info- you entertain me for that and I thank you, but when that head swells and you think you can tell us and the system how things should be done. <P>Well, unless it's fucking a Captain Fucking Obvious moment and these powers should have known what your trying to tell them to beging with. <P> If it's not like that.. Well then fuck you buddy,. you and your wishlist's and actor/director buddies. <P>Just keep the news cool and give a film fan a place to vent out our cinematic fetish. That's all we need. Nothing more.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:32 a.m. CST

    Fuck Tom Rothman

    by sailingmaster

    I read "Tom Rothman," "cutting room," and "commercially viable," and the first thing that went through my mind is that someone should wrap a Louisville Slugger in 8-grit sandpaper and proceed to ensure Mr. Rothman does not have polyps in his colon. Also note, this procedure should be performed dry. Very, very dry.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Thank god!

    by Agentcoop007

    But will it REALLY be 3 hours long?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:27 a.m. CST


    by CZ

    Greed prevails! Hallelujah!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Yes, we'll all boycott the new Jim Cameron film and go see the new Zack Snyder film. Meanwhile, on Earth...

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST


    by Wandering_Prophet

    Did you all not read that Fox is going to re-edit the movie? What the Fuck? That's not what I'd call a fucking good deal.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:17 a.m. CST


    by Wandering_Prophet said without, whew indeed!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Getting money for nothing

    by GimpInMyPants

    Goddamn Fox.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:33 a.m. CST

    Agree with peeps saying Fuck the Squid.

    by Deathpool

    Like people have already said, you gotta pick and choose your battles with the suits. If the only thing that's different about the movie (aside from being a slightly condensed version. Unless it were some HBO mini-series you'd never get it ALL in there) is the squid is gone, I'm cool with that. Be awesome if it was there, but I'm not gonna cry over it. Also, stupid question but how do you get paragraph breaks in talkback? I use to know but its been so long since I used it, I forgot. My web fu is weak.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:48 a.m. CST


    by Xiphos_2

    Put the following where you want the break, remove the spaces. < p >

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:05 a.m. CST

    From Watchmencomicmovie dot com

    by Uridium

    Lawyers from both sides told Judge Feess that a settlement had been agreed upon in chambers during their 3:30pm court appointment. <P> A hearing has been set up for Friday, January 16 to present the settlement and have the case dismissed. The details of the settlement according to a source at Variety are: <P> Warner Bros. gets the right to open the film on March 6, 2009 as planned, and Fox's logo will not be on the film. <P> Fox will receive from Warners an upfront cash payment pegged between $5 million and $10 million, covering reimbursement of $1.4 million the studio invested in development fees, and also millions of dollars in legal fees incurred during the case. <P> Fox will also get a gross participation in Watchmen that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs. <P> As it turns out, Fox will not be distributing the film and will also not own any other piece of the Watchmen property moving forward. I guess that means no cut on merchandise, or the planned simultaneous DVD releases. <P> Both studios are said to be drafting a release to announce the settlement details which will likely be made public within the next 24 hours. <P> We will, of course, update you on the story as soon as more information is made available. In the meantime, feel free to celebrate — Watchmen is coming on March 6th! <P>

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:11 a.m. CST

    ...but insiders suggest it involved money.

    by UltimaRex

    LOL, really? I thought Fox wanted donuts...

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Adam West Batman?

    by Willyer Hero

    Hermes, where'd you hear that?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Funny as hell....

    by Uridium


  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:18 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    The squid will have it's revenge. <p> Oh yes.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:25 a.m. CST

    I'll still be boycotting 'Wolverine'...

    by BiggusDickus

    ...Not as some form of protest, but because it looks shit.<p>Well, come one! THAT'S Sabertooth? Puh-lease!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST

    "it involved money"?

    by newc0253

    what were the odds?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Attention English squid fans!

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Tonight, Sky 3 have a film where Dawson out of Dawson's Creek fights a giant squid of some sort!<p>Maybe this will help relieve some of the stress caused by visionary director Zachary Ty Bryan's decision to exclude the squid from his version of this dopey comic!<p>You are, of course, welcome.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:40 a.m. CST

    I Wouldn't Give Fox 5 To 8 Points On The Royalties!!!

    by Media Messiah

    But, perhaps that is the norm for ditributors? If so, maybe...but since Fox invested nothing into this production, and had no intent of ever distributing this film, as they placed the film into turn around, thus proving they had no intent of making the film, distributing it, or partnering with another company, I am sticking to my guns and saying that they are only worth 2 points perhaps...and 35 to 50 million in an advance settlement pay-out. The pay-out in my mind, should be a one time payment, with no profit participation at all since WB is taking all the risk here. If the report is correct, then this must be based on the film tracking well, and both studios know it, or else WB would hold out for better terms or go for a jury trial.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Terms of the settlement WERE disclosed, here it is!

    by standundermyumbrella

    From VARIETY:Warner Bros. and Fox have settled their very public battle over "Watchmen." A deal has been hammered out that that gives WB some face-saving points, but which gives Fox the equivalent of a movie star’s gross participation. Warner Bros. gets the right to open its superhero pic on March 6 as planned, and Fox's logo will not be on the film, sources said. Fox, on the other hand, will emerge with an upfront cash payment that sources pegged between $5 million and $10 million, covering reimbursement of $1.4 million the studio invested in development fees, and also millions of dollars in legal fees incurred during the case. More importantly, Fox will get a gross participation in "Watchmen" that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs, sources said. A joint statement said, "Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture "Watchmen" in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros. acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Brothers acted in good faith in defending against those claims. Warner Bros. and Fox, like all "Watchmen" fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film’s March 6 release in theatres." Attorneys for the studios are scheduled to meet Friday morning with U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess in Los Angeles to finalize the settlement. Fox, which first acquired rights to the graphic novel in 1986, filed suit in February at about the same time director Zack Snyder wrapped production. The studio, which had advised WB of its rights position before the film went into production, contended in court that it retained distribution rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement with producer Larry Gordon, who took "Watchmen" to Warner Bros. after attempts to make it with Fox, Universal and Paramount. Feess found in his ruling that Gordon, who’s not a defendant in the case, had never exercised his option to acquire Fox’s remaining interest in "Watchmen" nor had he honored his agreement since 2005 to offer the project to Fox under the "changed elements" part of the pact. Feess had ruled on Christmas Eve that Fox had distribution rights to "Watchmen" and urged the studios to seek a settlement rather than go to trial, which had been set to begin next Tuesday. The studios had disclosed last week that they had been making progress toward resolving the dispute. Though it was denied by both studios, sources said that in recent weeks that WB and Fox discussed several intriguing horse-trading scenarios after WB choked on Fox’s initial ask of 10% gross and distribution in some overseas territories. One scenario had WB moving "Terminator Salvation" away from its Memorial Day weekend opening on May 22, because it collides directly with Fox’s launch of "Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian." WB considered that, but there was a major problem. "Terminator Salvation" rights owner Halcyon has that May 22 release date stipulated in its contract. With sci-fi films "Transformers 2" and "Star Trek" due this summer, there is no better berth for "Terminator Salvation" than the four-day holiday weekend, so a moving wasn’t possible. Another area that was explored involved Steve Carell. Fox wants to pair the actor with Tina Fey in "Date Night," a comedy that Shawn Levy will direct. Fox needs to get that film in production by the spring, because Fey has a small window before resuming her duties of writing and starring in "30 Rock." WB was in a position to block that, because it held an option on Carell for a "Get Smart" sequel that it could have used to ruin Fox’s "Date Night" dreams. WB didn’t press that, because it has a strong relationship with Carell and it was clear that "The Office" star badly wanted to make the movie with Fey. WB agreed to push "Get Smart 2" to spring 2010, a move made before the studio settled its "Watchmen" dispute. Carell and Fey are finalizing their deals for the Fox film. The next chapter in the saga might come when WB seeks some redress from producer Larry Gordon, who has been at the center of the maelstrom and who has a gross participation comparable to the one that WB will be giving to Fox, according to sources. "Watchmen" marks the second big legal affairs snafu for WB in recent memory. It wasn’t that long ago that WB had to pay $17.5 million to settle claims so that the studio could release "Dukes of Hazzard"; the "Watchmen" settlement is likely to cost WB much more money than that.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Adam West as Hollis Mason

    by Fuck The Napkin

    Fox should have insisted they reshoot the role.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:59 a.m. CST

    The most interesting thing about the Variety info...

    by Droid

    "A joint statement said, "Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture "Watchmen" in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros. acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography."<p>So WB knew prior to making it that Fox would make a claim, but went ahead and made it anyway.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:03 a.m. CST

    I don't need to boycott Fox's 2009 movies...

    by notgeorgekaplan

    ... because I'm simply not interested in seeing any of them. Okay, except maybe Avatar, but since there is and will be no theater in a 100 mile radius near me that has the proper technology to show it in 3D, this problem has solved itself anyway.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:05 a.m. CST

    BTW...Who Told You There Would Be Sequels And Spin Offs???

    by Media Messiah

    Yes, yet again...I called it. Sequels and spin-offs of The Watchmen, if it succeeds at the box office, are coming, thus threating the X-Men Franchise in Fox' view. The actors of the Watchmen all signed sequel contracts, but folks attached to the movie behind the scenes claimed that it was just a one time project??? Now, as I said before, Zack Snyder once said that he had ideas for a Watchmen sequel, but he denies it, for convenience, at present, however, the actors' contracts and the settlement deal...fully negate his prior claims and reveal the WB's future intentions for the Watchmen. There will be Watchmen sequels and spin-offs, just as I said.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Tom Rothman can eat a dick. What a cunt.

    by Steve Rogers

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:09 a.m. CST

    Cunts can eat dicks?

    by Droid

    When did this happen?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:03 a.m. CST


    by JoeSixPack

    I'm sure it cost a lot of money :(

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:11 a.m. CST

    That movie Teeth....

    by pdennett316

    A cunt literally eats a dick....metaphor, how prophetic of the genius who made this shitty movie. <p> Well done Media Messiah, you truly are the king of useless bullshit! Will you shut the fuck up about it now???

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:12 a.m. CST


    by pdennett316

    And the 'insiders say it involved money' line.....that was a joke you dipshits.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:14 a.m. CST

    That's a relief. I'm itching to know the details though.

    by Mr Nicholas

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Number 1 Film Site?

    by Uga

    Ok, so the Number 1 Film Site reports that Fox and Warners will agree on something "between now and the film's March 6th release date?" Well, NO SHIT. Ok, I predict the sun will shine tomorrow, and I'll drink a beer. SCOOP!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:46 a.m. CST

    who gives a fuck

    by geek molester

    superhero flicks getting to be more obnoxious than remakes.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Insiders ALSO say...

    by micturatingbenjamin

    The sky is up, water is wet, and tomorrow the sun will rise.<p>'Money was involved' think? I think Fox just decided to let them HAVE their stupid big tentpole release this spring...big babies.<p>And, to give you an out, because I love you guys, you were probably JOKING about the insider thing, right??

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:19 a.m. CST

    Lovecraftian's post is almost 100% pure nerd

    by Lost Jarv

    and you're deluding yourself if AICN has killed anything in a long time. AvP:Rectum is all the proof you need. <p>And Snyder may not be a visionary director, but he's fucking right to get rid of the squid. <P>Watchmen= overrated.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:37 a.m. CST

    "...insiders suggest it involved money."

    by Mullah Omar

    YOU THINK??? <br> <br> This was exactly what was always going to happen. Wait until the other studio is fully invested and has something to lose, file a destabilizing lawsuit at the last moment, collect free settlement money.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:41 a.m. CST

    no love for my joke?

    by El Borak

    aww come on!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:43 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Great source material + uninspired filmmakers = underwhelming mess.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST


    by OptimusCrime

    Rupert Murdoch owns a worldwide media empire which includes fox. He and his cronies could operate that studio at a deficit indefinitely, subsidizing it using the profits from his other ventures.<P>Fox is financially immune from fanboy boycotts (or any other kind of boycotts).

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Rothman has put on...

    by Kid Z

    ...his green plastic visor, his half-lens Coke bottle glasses, rolled up his sleeves, poured himself a cup of Postem and is now busy greedily counting out every last penny and wondering how he'll use this unexpected windfall to further fuck up the Wolverine movie.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:19 a.m. CST

    WB should populate there JLA movie with the watchmen.

    by Diagnostic


  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:23 a.m. CST

    FOX was never going to derail WATCHMEN

    by Curious Jorge

    If Fox had stopped the release of WATCHMEN, how much money would they have gotten? Zero. It's not worth anything if they don't release it.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:26 a.m. CST

    insiders suggest it involved...

    by vaudeville villain

    a pile of wham! tapes and an autographed jaleel white poster. fair trade.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:16 a.m. CST

    "It's good for a funny book but it's not as you claim literature

    by lovecraftian

    Not just as I claim, douchebag, as TIME claimed. Despite what you might think, I'm not that young. Also despite what you might think I don't PLAY video games, nor am I on here that often making "nerdy" comments. (By the by, I'll type how I please.) I must again point out the fact that YOU are the one coming here and bitching at people calling for a boycott, making this comment: "It's the militant nerds sir, like yourself, that give the good and rational nerds a bad name", a fairly obvious breakdown in "rationale." Your inability to see that hypocrisy in yourself is not without its humor. Which brings me to Lost Jarv, apparently he's forgotten Moriarty's attack on flying Lex Luthor; or for that matter the rather web-wide, synchronized effort to get "Jericho" back on the air. (It wasn't on long. But it worked.) My point is, geeks have MORE power than YOU think they do. That isn't to say at a few strokes of keyboard we can shut down the whole process and get every detail we want (nor should we); but we can make a pretty hearty dent and at times deal a crippling blow to a project that is insulting to those who had a vested interest in said intellectual property in the first place. -- As for the squid... I honestly don't care. Not that much. There's enough material Snyder's using to point to the same conclusion.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Who Watches...

    by Dead_Geek a sh*t!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:28 a.m. CST


    by Chadley BeBay

    They changed too much, and I won't see it. There was never a need to turn this into a movie. In capable hands it could have been amazing but they blew it. FUCK THIS MOVIE.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:28 a.m. CST

    No, Lovecraftian

    by Lost Jarv

    That is exactly my point. When was that, precisely? Before or after Snakes on a plane fiasco?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Who fucking cares? No one knows these characters?


    With the general public-- this film will FUCKING BOMB. <P> Oh and that guy that looks like Robin should have been Chris O'Donnell.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST

    and I hadn't forgotten that,

    by Lost Jarv

    Which is why I bought up AvP:R. <P>If you remember, Mori savaged the AvP:R script and Fox turned around and made it anyway.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Also Congrats

    by Chadley BeBay

    To the imbeciles who didn't pick up on the 'insiders say it involved money' crack. Are you people for real?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Oh and

    by Chadley BeBay

    Seriously... FUCK THIS MOVIE

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:31 a.m. CST

    You losers are pathetic. Why blame Rothman?


    The blame should lie on the ignorant motherfucking producers that didn't check a film this big for a clean chain of title?! What the fuck? There are companies that specifically research this that work with the producers. I don't get it. Somebody in the production team (Maybe Snyder's cunt wife) really fucked up bad here. It has nothing do with Rothman. He is supposed to let a rival studio just rip him off and not say a word? <P>FUCK YOU CUNTS.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:43 a.m. CST

    One last observation...

    by lovecraftian

    As I said before, I'm not that interested in seeing WOLVERINE and really never was. (Honestly, I he does nothing for me as a character. No offense to anyone who loves him.) I'm also not seeing AVATAR. I'm not that much of a sci-fi buff or even that much of a James Cameron fan. But I say all that to point out to those who think that I am a "boycott proponent" that I was never really interested in those movies to begin with. Which gives me the open door to ask this question: Don't you think those calling for a boycott or those entirely frustrated to the point of actually boycotting have a right to the same "pissing off steam" you do? Don't you think they have a right to say, "WTF?!!! Why are you doing this to a character I love? Why are you fucking over ME when you want MY MONEY? Why would you out-and-out say, 'FUCK THE FANS?'" I think there is an overabundance of grandstanding on the part of anyone who would then say, "Fuck you and fuck YOUR opinion. You'll see this anyway." It's absurd notion to assume that I'm going to pay out "entertainment money" (that's SPENDING CASH) in this economy to a guy who just said I could "fuck off." That's ridiculous. I just wouldn't do it. And anyone who has come here to say so has that right. I'm simply speaking for them. If they want to boycott or call for a boycott. Fine. If they want to see the movie. Fine. But you're a hypocrite if you think someone calling for a boycott is attempting to change your mind when you say things like "FUCK YOU. YOU'LL SEE IT ANYWAY."

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:45 a.m. CST

    it would have been awesome to see the squid

    by just pillow talk

    in slow-mo!<p>Films never achieve epic status until they have gobs of slow-mo parts, which is what the trailers have told me this "The Watchmen" movie.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Lost Jarv...

    by lovecraftian

    "Jericho" was after.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    big surprise.....

    by j2talk

    Did ANYONE honestly think a deal wasnt going to be made??????

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    About AvP:R

    by lovecraftian

    I covered that with this statement, "That isn't to say at a few strokes of keyboard we can shut down the whole process and get every detail we want (nor should we)" As for what happened there, well I'd argue Fox didn't make the money it wanted to on the project. Additionally, I'd say these things add up. If Fox continues to make a bad product, and can be relied on to do so, people will be less willing to blow $9.50, and waste two hours seeing a poor film, when they could just as easily spend to their money to watch something better from another studio.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Not out of the woods yet?

    by BruceVain

    Excuse me, but I fail to see where the issue of the film's running time is addressed anywhere in these stories. Do we really know that WB won't order 11th-hour cuts to allow for more plays per day, thus recouping some of the money it's lost to Fox? That's what I'm concerned about.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST

    I want to see

    by jamestewart007

    a Dr. No remake with the giant squid in it. Lets see how Craig handles his shit then.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Boycott still in effect. This changes nothing.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST


    by lovecraftian

    That's a great point. They might. Albeit, there are some people (hardcore "Squiddies") who may not see it anyway. And, as some folks have observed, it may not play well to a mass audience. (Though, that remains to be seen.) With all that in mind, I would be surprised if they ordered massive cuts to a movie, which by all appearances, is going to have to rely on established fanbase appeal.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST

    This is fantastic news!

    by Cotton McKnight

    What is "The Watchmen"?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:36 a.m. CST

    What's that you say? No Squid in this film?

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Next you'll be telling me James Van Der Beek is not in it, either!<p>If there's no Squid AND no Dawson, what the hell is the point of this film?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST

    CRANK 2 will make more money!!


    AND THE BLOCKBUSTER SHALL BE NO MORE!! <P> There is no reason a film with a budget of 50 million needs to exist.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    AvP:R didn't make cash because it was crap

    by Lost Jarv

    and that was nothing to do with us. The point is, if "we" had half the clout that you think, then they'd have taken our complaints on board and got it rewritten. Aliens in fucking K-mart for god's sake. <P>Studios will continue to ignore us, because Snakes on a Plane proved that the online community is just a very vocal corner of a vast market and can be summarily ignored. Sure, you may get the odd "win" (Jericho) but these will become increasingly few and far between as long as the moron public continues to swallow shite like Epic Movie.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Alright... Lost Jarv...

    by lovecraftian

    " long as the moron public continues to swallow shite like Epic Movie." LOL. Fair enough. That's an argument I can concede to. I DO think we can win a few skirmishes (Jericho) now and again; and for me anyway, that's the goal. (On occassion I'd like something out there I want to see. Things don't always have to suck to attract vast swaths of people. TDK, LOTR, and many others have already proven that.) But you ARE right in that the moronic masses are usually what studios are after.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:15 a.m. CST



    Also-- people around here can shit on AVP:R all they want. I've never seen it, but in the real world between friends, co-workers, and family-- everyone who has seen it really enjoyed it. They said things like "It was kinda stupid, but it was fun." So even if people recognize it is a not a good film, but find it to be entertaining-- thats still ticket sales. Who gives a fuck about the grey area, they buy a ticket or they don't.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    No delay on the release, yet

    by ArcadianDS

    Fox is still the bad guy?<p> This site is run and read by retards.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by lovecraftian

    I see where you're coming from, "they buy a ticket or they don't." The issue is sustainability of continued ticket sales. If AvP:R sucked donkey balls (I wouldn't know I haven't seen it)and was "just fun" to the average movie goer, that amounts to losses due to a short run and poor DVD sales on the back end. It doesn't seem very wise to me to make something people wouldn't be over-the-top enthused about if your investing so much money into it. But, for argument's sake, let's just say all you wanted was a fast buck. They certainly got it. In fact, taking a gander at the overall gross ($157,461,400)they did alright. They made their money back and then some. But,(and this is the key) why AVP? I mean ALIEN and PREDATOR are two huge brands. While those names may get folks to buy into said brands, it seems like a waste of name recognition. Let me put it another way by paraphrasing the title: "SMvSLM", or "SOME MONEY VS. A SHITLOAD OF MONEY." It's just nonsensical. If they wanted to do something like that, they could've taken any number of scripts and made a movie akin to the remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE. Is it a stunt to make it a 3D gorefest? Sure the hell is. But it'll be fun and people will pay to see it. Their film will yield far more than what was put into it. (Probably.)And while AvP:R made a significant amount of money on the back end, as far as box office was concerned, it was the lowest grossing ALIEN film ever. Which begs the question, if it was really good, how much MORE would they have taken in altogether? $200,000,000? $250,000,000? Maybe $300,000,000? Doubtful. ($300,000,000, I mean.) But they would've made a damn sight more than they did. The point is, big properties deserve equally big efforts. And in the end, they're worth it.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:29 p.m. CST

    lovecraftian I'm slayed by your douchebag comment

    by Xiphos_2

    Tres orginal son! FYI, the NERD alert siren is wailing even louder now.<p> I asked you a very simple question that you failed to answer, no surprise there. What projects exactly, have the nerds "stopped" sparky. By the by scooter, those were your words. I asked what project was stopped and you failed to name anything uber-nerd. Predictably sad on your part little man.<p>Here's the deal sport, Militant geek/nerds flaccid boycotts DO NOT MATTER NOR DO THEY WORK. Why is that is the proper question to ask youngster. Simply put, it's because there is no united geek/nerd front.<p> Militant nerd/geek fanBOYS like yourself are fickle little babies and are easily seduced by the flickering pictures in trailers or TV. I think it's a lack of critaical reasoning skills that hamper the emotional growth of fanBabies.<p> Militant nerd/geek fanBOYS, like yourself, young man are so easilly manipulated they are irrelevant.<p> Acccept this fact child, it's the first step towards developing the neccessary critical thinking skills that will come in handy in the noncomic strip/movie world. Just so you know, that's the world outside the cheeto dust encrusted windows around your basemant.<p>So, in conclusion kiddo, here's a banana. Keep dancing to my tune monkey boy.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    This movie will tank at the B.O. Mark my words!

    by Snake Foreskin

    I'm talking "not even making back its production budget" numbers.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST

    No squid because Rothman wouldn't make a cameo!

    by Snake Foreskin

    What a shit he is.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Speaking of "tres original"

    by lovecraftian

    "FYI, the NERD alert siren is wailing even louder now."--Wow. Nice one bright boy. But you're right I have no "critaical" reasoning skills. If you'd bother to read anything else at this TB you would've noticed what I had written in response to other people who decided to have a reasonable debate with me on the subject. But since you so very clearly aren't interested in anything BUT unfounded, strawman arguments and ad hominem personal attacks, you've proven yourself not to be worthy of my time. It is no wonder you were banned before. You're not worth the space here.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    isn't the budget under 100 million?


    I don't think it will totally tank. But it might end up right at the budget. Like around 90-something total.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Rothman keeps his hand on Dr. Manhattan's blue 'nads

    by BruceVain

    Check out Nikki Finke's blog. The initial reports were wrong: Fox does retain an interest in sequels and spinoffs.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST


    by BurgerKing

    that is all

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Even Alan Moore refuses to see this!!


    real quote: <p> "I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way: in an armchair, nice and cozy next to a fire, with a steaming cup of coffee."

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    You know...

    by lovecraftian

    He also says that he worships a snake and is therefore not rational.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    He seems pretty ordinary to me.


    I've read several interviews. He sorta like a Marilyn Manson-- a completely regular dude that wants people to think of him weirder than he is. <P> I really admire his "Fuck movie adaptations" approach. You read the interview where he trashes Snyder and basically says 300 is shit and he is not right for this material?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:42 p.m. CST

    And now Warner Bros will be laying people off next Tuesday!

    by Russman

    No, I'm serious. Another round of layoffs is coming.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST


    by lovecraftian

    He's pretty normal. I was just pointing out the irony of his other statement about his practice of magick and how it relates to his stance on films and the litigation therein. But you're right. He's exactly that--thoroughly normal. As far as his "fuck movie adaptations" attitude, I understand why he feels that way. He, of all comic writers, has really taken it up the ass from Hollywood. Certainly, the director of 300 wouldn't instill in him any confidence either. (I also happen to agree with his take on the whole story of 300.) But from what I've seen of what Snyder's been doing with WATCHMEN, I'm inclined to side more with Dave Gibbons on this one. (Though Gibbons clearly has dollar signs, Alan Moore's relinquished dollar signs, on his mind.) Snyder's made a few choices I wouldn't have. (I would've gone for more of a comic look, keeping in theme with all the EC references, and chosen a color palette similar to CREEPSHOW. But that's just me.)But nothing I've seen has particularly turned me off to it yet.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

    would have looked cool with Dick Tracy....


    ...sort of palette. <P>As much fun as I poke at it, I don't think the film looks bad. I just don't know if I care enough to pay to see it in the theater.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by lovecraftian

    It won't suck. That's what I'm banking on anyway. Still, I would've prefered John Cusack in the role of the Nite Owl. And, honestly, the guy from "Grey's Anatomy" and the chic from 27 DRESSES? Here's hopin'...

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:09 p.m. CST

    WB going after Larry Gordon now...

    by Zardoz

    ...for screwing up the rights to the project. Somebody's going to pay!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    The squid is in

    by bobbofatz

    I am only about 95% sure, but the word is it is a mechanical squid with tentacles like the cool spider from Wild Wild West.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    download Wolverine

    by sherryk

    I mean, if you really feel compelled to see it, that is. Same goes for Transformers 2.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    I still hate Fox

    by FluffyUnbound

    It must be said.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    "...insiders suggest it involved money."

    by master_of_realty

    IT'S CALLED FUCKING SARCASM, PEOPLE! Oh my GOD! Can you all even comprehend a movie (much less one with as sophisticated a plot as Watchmen) when SO MUCH goes over your heads?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    if fox had their way...

    by wixmmm

    if fox had their way, the squid would be in. you better believe it.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Personal BO prediction for Watchmen...

    by Ravetin

    ...from a pro-movie, fan of the GN. I think it'll make a semi-impressive opening weekend of $45m or so, but it'll stall out around the $100m range. International gross won't be much better but other countries don't seem to care about superheroes besides besides Spidey. <P> And there IS a valid argument buried in the "nobody knows the characters" statements. The trailers and all the marketing are presenting Doc Mats and co. as if they SHOULD know who they are. Which seems to cause a weird reaction in non internet fanboy types and 75% of the audience says "what the fuck was that shit?"

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Kurzinski Valentine


    That is some dumb shit you just spewed. 300 is different. No one gave a fuck about the characters going in-- they wanted to see greased up dudes cutting eachother's fucking heads off. It was the wanker MMA crowd that went in pumped up for that one...completely different demo. Transformers and Dark Knight are known fucking characters ingrained in our culture. This though.....why the fuck would people be curious about this?!! The superhero deconstruction has already tired itself out. No one knows these characters. They are just goofy looking Mystery Men types. Who the fuck is sitting at home saying "Oh those guys look interesting...I'll go check out their movie!" Marketing? Who the fuck cares? I saw a TV spot for The Spirit every fucking 30 seconds for The Spirit. That worked out real well, eh? Fans of the comic and internet cunts will eat this up, for sure. I'm talking prime demographics that have never heard of this shit. What the fuck is appealing about this film for them?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST

    "No one knows the characters"


    General moviegoers look at the trailer and see superheroes they don't know or recognize. This makes them think of it as either a parody, or a cheap movie they don't need to waste their time with. No matter how many dazzling slomo effects shots there are-- if its not a superhero they know-- it doesn't impress 'em. The same shit will happen with Kick Ass and countless others.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Danny's right

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Try explaining Watchmen to someone whose never heard of it. Their eyes glaze over. If you simplify it, they don't see what makes it special; if you tell it as it is, they get confused.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Watchmen will only do good if the critics love it

    by Continentalop

    And consider Zack Snyder's track record with them that is highly unlikely. Unlike 300 or Dawn of the Dead, which was advertised as adrenaline thrill rides, this one is trying to be an intellectual, intelligent film. I don't think Zack has that in him. <p> For the average filmgoer, the Watchmen doesn't mean shit to them. They don't know who these characters are, they don't know the story and they could care less. You could say the same about other critically acclaimed novels, but the difference is when someone makes a movie based on the Human Stain they are not trying to have a huge blockbuster or do a special effects laden movie. They are just making a small film that they hope will win some awards and make some money back. The Watchmen is much more expensive, and it is playing to the wrong crowd. <p> The other problem is it is a superhero movie. The average filmgoer is going to walk in and say “what the fuck?” They are not expecting or asking for guys in tights to be in a “serious” film. Despite what everyone says, at the end of the day the Dark Knight for the majority of the audience was just a story of a hero fighting and defeating a villain. That is it, nothing more.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:38 p.m. CST

    And I love Wat#chmen

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I just think explaining it to people who've never heard of it is trying to explain fucking Lost. I tried to explain Lost's appeal to my brother once, and halfway through I looked into his eyes and saw they'd glazed over... and my spiel died.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Non-comic readers.

    by Continentalop

    I have two friends: one an avid comic reader; the other an avid reader of novels, mostly of it literature of the highest order: Philip Roth, Vonnegut, Michael Chabon, Cormac McCarthy, John Updike, etc. The comic-reader gave him a copy of the Watchmen to read and expected him to be blown away; guy put it down after the second issue because he just couldn't get it. <p> I gave him a copy of "The Death of Gwen Stacy" and he ate it up. Thought it was great. <p> For most people, sophisticated, literary comic book stories just don't work. They see guys in tights and masks, they instinctively think that you can't take it to serious.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST

    and for the record.....


    As I said above I don't think this looks bad. My last explosion was just mean to illustrate this isn't that appealing to general moviegoers that don't know or care for these characters.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    They won't make a Watchmen II

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    This will bomb.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST

    i think it is appealing to people

    by wixmmm

    the second trailer explained more about the characters. after the trailer was in front of dark knight, sales of watchmen skyrocketed. the biggest x factor is word of mouth. if its as good as it SHOULD be (not will be, not might be, but SHOULD be) bacause of the source material, word of mouth could really take over.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Lay off Kurzinki Valentine, will ya'?

    by Snake Foreskin

    Yeah, he's off-base on his comments here, but he did give me a nice compliment on the Paul Blart review TB. So now me and my mullet must protect his honor. You have been warned.<p> "You have been warned". I always wanted to say something cheeseball like that. I got nothin' to back it up with since we're all anonymous, but who cares?<p> We all spew a bunch of ridiculous bullshit on here all the time. Hell, the fact that we come here at all says something about us, doesn't it?<p> It's a damn website that honors guys who dress up in faggy costumes and go to comic book conventions, hoping to get spit on by their favorite sci-fi or fantasy celebrities while looking out for hot chicks. Compared to the guys on here that go to ComiCon every year hoping to get laid, I'm one badass hombre.<p> Or maybe I should just change my name to Paul Blart. I know someone on here will.<p> I would like Watchmen to be a great movie, but frankly I don't dig the story too much. And some of the characters do look pretty damn silly. I just think this will end up being an expensive mistake for Fox, WB and anyone else who is hoping to cash in on it. But reality could prove me wrong. We'll see in a couple of months.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:20 p.m. CST

    "they could care less." That means they DO care!

    by Snake Foreskin

    It should be "couldn't care less". Like, your level of interest is rock-bottom. Don't mean to offend. Maybe it was just a typo. Just thought you should know.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 5:35 p.m. CST

    If anything THIS is the fuckin movie to see

    by skimn

    in IMAX. I saw the trailer prior to Dark Knight, and even though seeing it before on the itty bitty computer screen, it gave me goddamn goosepimples. IMAX is the way to go for this flick.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Rothman delays release: reshooting to include squid

    by NudeGobblin

    "Rothman delays Watchmen release: reshooting to include squid"<p> I would have LOVED to have seen this headline re a WB/FOX settlement. Oh the irony...<p> Some of your retard heads would have exploded...<p> Mind you, that wouldn't have stopped most of you from continuing to post your childish comments....<p> No Squid? I'm gonna hold my breath until Mommy gets me the Giant Squid I wanted so much...<p> Boycott. Sure I'm gonna boycott this or that film. Or at least talk about it loudly on here for months but then I'll sneak to the movie and see it anyway. No-one'll know cos I'll be going on my own anyway, being friendless..

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:45 p.m. CST

    I Find It Funny That All My Critics Magically Disappeared???

    by Media Messiah

    As if they were a bunch of Fox plants????

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Who fuckin' came up with this "bag of dicks" shit?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Fuck me, it's annoying. Can someone shoot this person repeatedly? Please?<p>I abso-fuckin'-lutely despise whatever fucking bandwagon drives around handing out fucking phrases like "bag of dicks," "it is what it is," "amazing," and "no worries."<p>How very original of everyone to latch onto that "bag of dicks" thing.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by The Bicycle Sharer

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Y'know, Media Messiah

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I have no idea what you're talking about, but goddamn that shit about your critics disappearing sounds retarded. I mean, I'm no "Fox plant," but I still think you're an idiot.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7 p.m. CST

    How's about...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Sloppy like a bag of bloody cunts? Why don't we all just start using that one?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Great, now I can complain about the Squid again.

    by kirttrik

    Pheook 'l u 'l fuz nuds muda fucaz.= NO SQUID=GALACTUS IS A CLOUD!

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST


    by kirttrik

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by wixmmm

    Media Messiah is the biggest tool i've come across on aintitcool, and that says ALOT. This guy thinks 1) his opinions matter, 2) he is qualified to be the voice of reason, like he knows all this shit we don't 3) he thinks anyone who spoke out against his own opinion is automatically HIS critic, nevermind that they may just be speaking their minds--no, its him against the world 4) he feels any written letter with good spelling deserves to be posted on a site, and if it doesn't get posted, it's because (and he actually said this) his opinion is 'what they (people who run the website he sent his letters) don't want us to know'--to him there is no possibility that they just thought his letter was some douchebag with a false sense of entitlement writing a letter that was not good enough to be put on the site. 5) he calls getting a 'letter' (which really is just a run of the mill email) posted on a blog, is being 'published.' 6) he acts like all the ideas in his 'letters' are he's the only one who was capable of thinking the way he does, all credit for those ideas goes to him because he arguably said it first--nevermind the fact that i, and probably many others, had similar opinions he did, except we felt his ideas were fairly obvious observations, providing one was to just use reason...we didn't feel the need to post these ideas because we knew how it will end up. Congratulations, Mediah Messiah--you are a tool who's thoughts, ideas, posts (and don't forget e-ma--wait, no, 'letters') are as pretentious as your aintitcool username. Man you're a funny guy.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer you can have my

    by dihay

    bag of bloody cunts, I don't want or need them...consider them on the way to ya...

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Attack Me All You Wants Bicycle And Wixmmm

    by Media Messiah

    I have been proven right once again, thus, I welcome your attacks.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by wixmmm

    Media Messiah--i'm going to use a sports analogy, against my better judgement, because you don't sound like the manly type who watches sports, but here i go--Take last year's New England Patriots team and have them play this year's detroit lions...i'm a patriots fan, but i go over to the lions blogs and make a ton of posts saying how the Patriots are going to crush the Lions in this game--the lions fans call me a douchebag for coming to their blog and making this prediction. So, sure enough, the Patriots dominate the lions. Now (stay with me here) i go BACK onto the lions blogs after the game to post with the people who were hating on me (not because they disagreed with my prediction, but because i was a tool for going onto an opposing team's blog to talk about how much their team sucks and how really, really good my patriots are...which is what everyone already knew) Now i'm posting with all these lions fans (who hate me) after the game, and i'm asking for these people to give me credit, because i CALLED IT. See, i was the only patriots fan on the lions blog, because no other patriots fan was as much of a douche as i was to go and predict the obvious on the opposing teams blog, so i consider myself to be the only one who predicted it. so the lions fans continue to call me the tool i am, yet i keep lingering on the lions blog hoping and hoping and refreshing and refreshing to see some lions fan give ME THE CREDIT I SO DESPERATELY NEED FOR CALLING IT! Take it one step further--the week before the game i sent the detroit newspaper a letter breaking down how great the patriots are and pointing out where they have the biggest advantages over the lions. The detroit newspaper does not publish my letter the week before the game, so like the tool i am, i start ranting and raving about how the detroit newspaper doesn't want lions fans to know what i know and wrote about in my letter with my extraordinary sports knowledge and rediculously exceptional spelling, no metaphor can do true justice to your idiocy, but this is the best i could come up with off the top of my head. Oh yeah, one more thing, you see, in middleschool i was a key player who helped my team win the divisional championship, therefore, i am uniquely qualified to post extremely valuable insight about the game of football. I'll tell you this, though--i will not be here every ten minutes until this blog dies waiting to see if someone gives me mad props for my football analogy. and that's where you, media messiah, and i, are different.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah,

    by brokenheadstuff

    are you demanding the same recognition from your action figures which you no doubt have long conversations with? are THEY calling you a tool as well?

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:17 p.m. CST

    BrokenHeadStuff, D Vader, Wixmmm

    by Media Messiah

    If it was so easy to predict, why didn't you guys predict it??? I specifically said that Warner would retain rights to the movie, release it on time, and give Fox a cash award settlement. None of you did...period!!!<BR><BR>Broken Head, shame on you, I don't talk to action figures, as I am too busy using sex toys on your girlfriend. And by the way, I talk them...the sex toys, I mean.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:23 p.m. CST


    by Media Messiah

    I take back my comment about your girlfriend. Neither you or her deserve that. Sorry.

  • Jan. 16, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Prediction: Rorschach--The Movie

    by Media Messiah

    It will be. Watch and see.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Media Messiah: WOW...i mean...oh my god...WOW

    by wixmmm

    man, you would have been MUCH better off not replying to any of us. You've proven that you are a virgin, you are a geek, and you are a pussy. I have never learned so much about someone in as few words as you have used...where do i start--ok, there was your (geekily) valient attempt at a turn of phrase involving sexual inuendo. If you were going to turn the 'action figures' into sex toys, you need to modify the wording. It was estabolished that you are a geek who talks to his action figures. So, we knew we were talking about action figures, so, no need to call them action figures. What you needed to do was come right out and call them toys, which would segue much better when you flip it to 'sex toys.' Poor example: 'I don't talk to toys, i fuck your girlfriend with them.' That would have been better. The key is it uses less words and sounds more agressive. However, there is a built in pitfall to this 'sex toys turn of phrase' see, if you were a real man who has had sex with a real woman, you'd just fuck her yourself...what man worth his salt in bed needs sex toys, not counting anniversaries, birthdays, valentines days, new years eve, hell, even christmas? it seems to me like the only one being pleasured would be the girl, and i get it, sometimes you do throw a girl a gift like that (see above list of special occassions), but it's not good trash talk material. Personally, i've never used a sex toy on anyone i've slept with...i'm too selfish. So you're already on wobbly ground, but then you lose me: 'and by the way, i talk them, the sex toys, i mean' I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not attack your wording there, probably a typo...however, talking to sex toys??? unless i've missed some new pop culture something or other, talking to sex toys makes no sense...what were you thinking? Basically, in sex trash talk, you want to stay short, quick, and to the point, (coincidentally, the opposite of how you want to perform in bed) and you want just the right amount of vulgarity. I could go on forever, you've given me so much to work with, but i'll finish up. For reasons i believe i've made moderately clear above, i have deduced you must be a virgin. But the last thing you want to be is a virgin AND a pussy. You see, Your apology really hurt your case. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you ever take back trash talk. This is even more true when you're online. But when you talk shit, you gotta be ready to stand your ground. Not doing so, especially online, makes you come off as a huge pussy. I hate to break all this down for you, but this is really the shit you should learn from an older brother, or a friends older brother, or one of your older friends or one of your cooler friends that is your age...seems to me like you need a more alpha male influence in your life to show you the ropes. Moral of the story? don't talk shit if you're a virgin, pussy, action figure geek, or not willing to stand by it.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 12:16 a.m. CST

    and in response to your real point

    by wixmmm

    (wow, i can't believe i wrote that much in the above mind kept churnin and i was typin a mile a minute) Why didn't we predict your predictions? i thought i made this clear: your prediction was PREDICTABLE. A prediction only matters if nobody sees it coming...i saw this coming, as i'm sure many of us did, and since it was so predictable, none of us felt the need to predict it. simple enough for you?

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 2:41 a.m. CST

    You Didn't See It Coming Wixmmm....

    by Media Messiah

    ....or else you would have gone on record,!!!

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST

    I will be boycotting Wolverine

    by Giant Ape Balls

    Well not so much boycotting but not going to see. It looks very,very shit.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 3:10 a.m. CST

    I'll be watching both WATCHMEN and WOLVERINE...

    by BurnHollywood

    ...Forlorn and sad, because my brethren feel not the same urge as I.<p> Seriously, I don't give a shit. Go fuck a duck.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 5:03 a.m. CST

    the problem that remains

    by mrbong

    is that this Watchmen thing just does not look very good to those of us who have never seen or heard of the graphic novel comic book that it is based on. i appreciate that the majority of posters here are clearly fans of this, but you should appreciate that those of us not in the know think this looks like a cheap, awful rip off of X-Men or the rip off of that, Heroes. i can't see it doing very well at all.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 5:52 a.m. CST

    If you think Media Messiah sounds like...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...a virgin douche here, you should read his hilarious rant against the "satanist" and "atheist" porn industry in the Vegas TB.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Please Do

    by Media Messiah

    Nevertheless, it is true. Or else, can you explain why this such a mess??? Look up Project Northwoods aka Operation Northwoods via a net search. If that doesn't wake you up, then nothing will. Also, look up...MK Ultra.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 10:01 a.m. CST

    So let me get this straight ....

    by BruceVain

    ... Watchmen is an ill-conceived project because it has substandard appeal to people who remain willfully ignorant of pop-cultural material that's available to them on practically every street corner? Wow. That makes even Zack Snyder sound like an intellectual in comparison.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Hear, Hear!

    by lovecraftian

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    You're a complete fruitcake.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by Xiphos_2

    My young friend, you brought my name into this discussson by calling me out. I have no desire to engage in a loving nerdfest discussion about dopey, dumb fuck squids and nude blue dude crank. Hey if blue crank revs your motor sport more power too ya, I don't judge.<p> Write this down tiger so you don't forget. In the future when you don't want to get goofed on keep the cum catcher quite, clear scooter?

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah i see you went COMPLETELY off your meds

    by Xiphos_2

    The psych meds can only help. The voices they aren't your friends nor are they real.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by Xiphos_2

    just because something is widely available does not mean people actually avail themselves of it.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    10 random thoughts on Watchmen

    by Droid

    1. It's completely fucking overrated. It's an ok story with semi-interesting characters. It's not the be all and end all. It's amazing how many people just gob it off on every TB.<p>2. The Squid is fucking stupid and if the movie ended with it then general audiences would stare blankly, think 'What the fuck just happened?', and laugh their asses off with their friends afterwards at how fucking stupid it is.<p>3. If the blue dude is feeling a little sexually inadequate, maybe he shouldn't replicate himself in order to spit-roast his missus. Maybe he should first rectify the tiny penis situation. She'll be more responsive. Guaranteed.<p>4. Zack Snyder is far from 'visionary'. That's like saying Richard Kelly is visionary.<p>5. The press for Watchmen probably shouldn't mention the fact that it's around three hours long. Audiences sat through TDK because they'd invested in BB and Batman is a commonly known character. Plus the Heath buzz. Hardly anyone outside of the internet knows what the fuck a Watchmen is.<p>7. It will do reasonable opening weekend business and fade away. It will make a lot of cash on dvd.<p>8. Mediah Messiah is a complete tool.<p>9. The catching the bullet bit was fucking stupid.<p>10. If they want this to have any chance at the BO then they need to get that Japanese trailer out. The first two were utter shit. Especially the random slo-mo for no reason hair in the face shot. Just crap. The japanese trailer was good. Get it out there.<p>That is all.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    I_am_not_the_droid_you_are_looki ng_for

    by lovecraftian

    I disagree with most of what you said in your post. But I absolutely agree with your tenth point, if not its tone, that the Japanese trailer is the way to go. Castro, Kennedy, Nixon, etc. THAT stuff will get folks in the theater, not Silk Spectre II running from a blaze.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    As for "bag of dicks"...

    by Ravetin

    ...there's a comedian named Louis CK who has a bit centered around the phrase, as far as I know that's where it came from.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by BruceVain

    So nobody's buying or even leafing through that deluge of Watchmen-related volumes that's hit every bookstore in the country? And even if they're not, it's a little bit ridiculous to complain that a movie shouldn't have been made because not every American is already intimately familiar with the source material. Isn't that the sort of cowardly thinking we routinely lambaste the suits for sustaining? And BTW, all of these folks who have tried to "explain" Watchmen or LOST to their friends, only to see the latter's eyes "glaze over," should consider the possibility that their explaining skills might just suck. There's a way to describe what goes on in LOST that will make it sound alluring to a open-minded nonfan; but if you just throw out a context-free litany of your favorite moments, of course it's going to seem impenetrable. Back to Watchmen: No, it won't do the B.O. of a Batman or Spider-Man flick. But the post-DK audience is as primed as it's ever been for a morally ambiguous story about superheroes. I'd be very surprised to see it out-and-out tank.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST

    You're welcome, Herc

    by DS9Sisko

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 6:29 p.m. CST

    i hope media messiah is lingering...

    by wixmmm

    Media Messiah: "You didn't see it coming wixmmm....or else you would have gone on record,!!!" I DID see it coming. Its not exactly what you wrote, well, actually i don't know what you wrote cause i couldn't stand to read your pretentious rant. but the way i saw it was this: we're dealing with a huge movie with alot of hype and a big budget. fox didn't step in earlier, or maybe they did, i don't know, but ultimately, they realized they could milk some money off this potential cash cow. I'd imagine that they didn't do anything before production because they didn't want to take the risk. then they see it getting some hype, so they see an opportunity to make some money without taking the risk. They didn't want to wait after the films release because it might bomb. so the best move for them was to settle now--they get a reasonable amount of money without having to risk anything. they didn't want to delay the movie because they didn't want the hype to die, which would give them less in royalties. I don't know the ins and outs of the legal considerations made, but i had no doubt in my mind that they would settle and fox would get a cut. I didn't feel the need to post, because 1) i don't care about getting credit for predictions and 2) it was a predictable prediction (like i said above). I may not have given the reasoning you tried to, but the bottom line is that this turned out pretty much the way i thought it would. i'm sure a bunch of other people used common sense to connect the dots but didn't feel the need to post...we just waited for the verdict. by the way, you have made it clear to everyone you are a tool and a douchebag and have accomplished nothing except embarrassing yourself.

  • Jan. 17, 2009, 7:45 p.m. CST

    No love lost between Fox and WB about this...

    by DougMcKenzie

    WB apparently gave up points... points that in the end are going to come out of the producer's deal in the end. Apparently Gordon might not have been truthful about being free and clear of Fox when he brought the project to WB. Also, Fox did not wait until recently to let WB know about the rights issue, they told them before the movie was even shot.

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST

    A Genius Is Often Assailed As Being Insane

    by Media Messiah

    They called Jesus, The Right Brothers, and Tesla crazy too. I don't mind being called those names, like crazy, rather, I welcome it. Considering the source of these rumors about me, that being my critics, I am truly blessed by my enemies. Thank you, once again.

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    Can't figure out whether you're a clever troll or simply insane. I'm leaning toward the latter since a troll wouldn't be writing loony shit like that on a talkback which is on its way off the front page. <p> You need to get back on the lithium milkshake diet ASAP, chief.

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 7:32 a.m. CST

    "The Right Brothers

    by BruceVain

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Didn't they sing "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'"?

    by BruceVain

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 7:34 a.m. CST

    And Tesla?

    by BruceVain

    I don't remember anybody calling them crazy, just inferior to Guns 'n Roses.

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Rothman = Greedy Jew

    by Luscious.868


  • Jan. 18, 2009, 12:17 p.m. CST


    by polyh3dron

    tis true

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Luscious.868 = fucktard

    by DocPazuzu

    No discussion.

  • Jan. 18, 2009, 4:18 p.m. CST

    media messiah

    by wixmmm

    you continue to amaze me. the funny thing is, i actually am schizophrenic...and you're right, some people with mental illness are genius' there's a whole lotta poets in the past who had mental illness, of course, they all killed themselves. But taken my personal case, i feel pretty confident that the people in this thread would say i, a schizophrenic, make more sense than you. and since i know what mental illness really is, i can also confidently state that you're not mentally ill--its clear to me that you're just an idiot.