Burn, FOX, Burn. I will hearby ONLY watch pirated FOX films, or not watch them at all.

Fin

Fuck The watchmen.

That is all.

I'll be bummed as all hell if Fox blocks the release of this movie, even if I don't believe they will actually go through with it. So here's to hoping they can all stop being dicks and work something out like human beings.

How many people do you honestly know that would buy that crappy TV show on DVD? Let's be honest, it really wasn't that good to begin with.

And it's completely assinine to think that WB feels that the TV show would "tarnish" the Nolan franchise in any way. WB has no problem selling those piece of shit Schumacher Batman movies. Why would a campy television show from over 40 years ago have more of an effect on Nolan's movies than Schumacher's crapfests? It wouldn't.

It stems from the studios' differing interpretations of Fox's "changed elements" clause.

Warner Bros. says that Fox has repeatedly failed to exercise its rights over various incarnations of the production. Through producer Lawrence Gordon, Fox had bought the rights to the graphic novel in 1986. Fox alleges that when the project went into turnaround in 1994, a separate 1991 deal that transferred some of the rights to Gordon still gave them the option of retaining distribution and sequel rights to the film, and a share of the profits should it be made by any other studio. Fox's interpretation of the 1994 turnaround deal also meant that Gordon would not fully control the rights until the studio's development costs (estimated by Fox at $1 million) had been reimbursed. Despite originally passing on the project, Fox also alleged that its agreement with Gordon contained a "changed elements" clause, meaning that if Gordon changed any of the key creative personnel on the film, Fox would have first option on participation. The studio said that Gordon did not inform them of Snyder's joining the production in 2005.

Warner Bros. began developing Watchmen in 2005. Fox alleges that it contacted Warner Bros. before production began and told the studio that it had violated Fox's 1991 and 1994 deals with Gordon. Warner Bros. claimed that it was originally unaware of either deal, and that in 2005 Fox had declined to produce the Hayter screenplay that formed the basis of the production, *thereby negating the "changed elements" clause*. Warner Bros. also claimed that the 1994 deal did not cover distribution rights and had conferred upon Gordon all the rights he needed to take the film to Warner Bros.

Don't get me wrong, it was an asshole move and I want to see the film too but really, you guys don't have the numbers for an effective boycott. But if it makes you feek better

In short, fuck you all, happy new year, you fucking assholes.

Look, it's real easy. Assume that Harry owns the rights to "Captain Dick Aicn," an enormously fat, movie lovin', pimp ass superhero, but just can his shit together to make the movie. Suddenly, one day, he hears that someone else is making HIS "Captain Dick Aicn!" OMG! WTF! It's a catastrophe!

Or is it?

Now Harry gets to sit on his ass and let some other chumble fuckdick spend his time and money on "Captain Dick Aicn." Once this cinematic treat is finished, Harry has a decision: does he stop it from being distributed or does he cash in on the money machine?

Seems to me that decision depends on Harry, his feelings about "Captain Dick Aicn," and the final product. I mean, if Harry loves his intellectual property and these other guys made a piece-of-shit then he stops distribution and nobody ever has to see his little baby dragged through the mud.

On the other hand, if Harry loves "Captain Dick Aicn" and these other schmucks, who made this without his permission or agreement, if these other schmucks turned out not a turd, but a diamond, something that might be worth something in the end, why shouldn't Harry ask for a kickback?

And why should Harry have to put up a cent for anything? These guys took the risk of making a movie without his permission -- the risk is all theirs and the proceeds should be divided between the parties (if Harry agrees to let the movie be released).

But, in the end, Harry's (or Fox's) risk should be just that, all in or not. Take the chance or simply pull the flick. No bullshit 30% buy-in. Harry (and Fox) already "bought-in" when the purchased (and held onto) distribution rights. The other schmucks (Warner Bros) took their chances in makiing this film without Harry's (or Fox's) permission.

That's not that hard to see, is it?

They made a very shrewd business move, allowing some other idiots who obviously didn't have all their legal ducks in a row to take ALL the risks.

In the end, Fox "outfoxed" Warner Bros.

I got no great love for Fox, but a well-played, shrewd move deserves respect, not the whining of the "pure artists."

Fox, knowing the outrage of geeks, will include the squid in their movie.

So you'll get WB's version that looks pretty good with no squid, or Fox's shitty movie WITH the squid.

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE???

BTW, it's THEN, not "THAN," "ITS" not "IT'S," and "THEIR" not "THERE."

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

Wolverine is a five-foot, ugly sixty-something. The role should have gone to Harvey Keitel. Mel Gibson perhaps in *this* day and age as opposed to in the 90's when he was originally speculated, but even that was a stretch. And you Danzig assholes can lick mine. But even now, still to this day, you bitches claim how Singer was SO faithful to the source material." PHOOEY!

And NOW you talk of Wolverine boycott? Now? It took a DC one-shot story to move you to such extent that you consider boycotting WINO? Please. Only Jessica Alba tops Jackman for worst comic casting ever.

Are you a movie geek? Then fine.

Are you a comic book geek? Then shame on you. Ang could have made the Hulk purple and you would have seen nothing wrong with it.

But Fox isn't suing for distribution.

It's pretty simple. Gordon never went back to Fox, at any point, with any incarnation of this project, whether it was Rothman, Mechanic or Chernin in charge. If you read the initial deal that gave the rights to Gordon/Largo, you can see it was something done out of deference to his former executive position. If that wasn't enough, the 90's revision gave more leeway to Gordon to get another studio on board. The revision was Fox's way of saying "we'll fund your movie if it's reasonable. If not, you can take it to someone else who will". It was not, as portrayed, as Fox's way of keeping the project mired down.

Gordon could have ended this mess very simply even after Snyder was on board; have Zach write the entire goddamn thing as one huge script, take it to Rothman and say we're shooting a trilogy. Rothman wouldn't have funded the damn thing, and because the contract states that Fox had no creative control over what Gordon brought them, the answer would have been yes or no. So no matter what they said, WB would have been involved because the price tag would have made Fox actively search for a partner to split P&A or Gordon would have been on his merry way.

There's one bad guy here, and he's been playing AICN like a harp for years.

Singer literally grounded Storm and cast Halle Berry. Singer cast Scott and Jean 15 years apart in age. Singer had Rasputin speak American English in a throwaway role. Singer reduced Rogue to a screaming little girl. Singer played the almost Catholic priest Wagner as a self-mutilating pagan. Singer crippled Professor Xavier in the third act in each movie.

Van Wilder in a red wife-beater isn't much of a stretch given the foundation poured by the man who built upon Donner's house. Singer should be made to gargle shards of glass.

By your logic then if a director and his/her team try hard enough to respect the source material, but the film looks completely horrible, that makes it a better film?

So Raimi's Spider-Man should have been able to develop a web-creating chemical in his bedroom, that has the tensile strength as demonstrated on the screen, but he's still in High School?

Continuing with Spider-Man, should the Green Goblin have been an elf looking creature with a purple Santa hat? Would that have been better?

There are occasions when updating the source material is necessary, sometimes not. But thinking I would agree with ANY change is silly, just like me thinking you'd like any or all of those changes above (at least I hope you don't).

In fact, the lawsuit may make millions for Fox, and even more millions for Warner. Both might come out ahead.

By your logic then if a director and his/her team try hard enough to disrespect the source material, but the film looks completely fine, that makes it a better film?

"So Raimi's Spider-Man should have been able to develop a web-creating chemical in his bedroom, that has the tensile strength as demonstrated on the screen, but he's still in High School?"

No. Raimi's PARKER (the film's true protagonist) should have been able to use his scientific ingenuity and childhood imagination to fashion his mutation into a useful tool via ingenuity using parts from a miniature pneumatic and a Bic lighter.

"Green Goblin have been an elf looking creature with a purple Santa hat? Would that have been better?"

A purple satchel would have been nice. Where, exactly, did he pull thoe pumpkin bombs from, Captain Reality?

"There are occasions when updating the source material is necessary, sometimes not."

And there are occasions where comic geeks think in-the-box and there are occasions where comic geeks lose all sense of imagination and grow into people like XoanonTORN.

List every movie and tv show you are avoiding as part of the boycott. Have members sign their name under each of these tv shows and movies they have avoided as part of the boycott. List the number of people who signed after each avoided movie and tv show and let the suits and fox figure out how much the loss is. Update the website with news articles related to the case.

That's my opinion about how effective you can make the boycott. Unfortunately, every one of us, including myself, is too damn lazy to do all that work.

But like Kurt Russell laughing, you heard Murdoch mentioned on South Park or whatever, so it's okay.

And, yes, I'm for fucking real.

Granted, it could fall on its face. Yet that hasn't happened. Yet.

Warner Bros. says THEY WILL NOT TALK SETTLEMENT. If WB really cared about the movie, as everyone is screaming for Fox to, then they would settle. Hell, if they really cared, they would have answered Fox's legal notices when they started making the movie...or maybe even tried to work it out then.

Warners made something that (Fox claims) it shouldn't have, and a judge sided with Fox. What should Fox do...give them a pass on that? What if Fox decided to make a Batman movie...should Warners allow them to for the good of the fanboy and film community.

Fox isn't reacting like a child, they're reacting like a business, which they are. It's all of you who are hurt and reacting like children.

Word.

Rupert Murdoch is a huge Alan Moore fan and was distraught when he discovered Zach Snyder's plans for reimagining the ending. The order to delay the release came from on high and Rothman was obliged to act accordingly.

Fox have agreed to fund the reshooting of the original ending and will cede their rights to distribtion if Warners attach Murdoch's beloved squid conclusion to the finale instead of Snyder's more Veidt-centric conclusion.

Now, if that's a fact...tell me...am I lying?

Fox's obligation is to make maximum profit for their shareholders. Warners proceeded when, legally, they should have paused for thought.

I'd be more shocked if Fox didn't make some sort of attempt to defend their rights. Seems to me that most people on this site like their rights when it SUITS them. And those ain't rights people, they're whims, caprices and idiosyncracies.

Still, I suppose there is something healthy about venting spleen over a TB board...probably less sticky than what you lot normally vent over your keybords and screens.

Nonetheless, I highly doubt that anyone who defends O.J. Simpson while producing such gems as "they lawyers for Warner Brothers can use all this info and etc." and who discounts Fox's legally binding contract as "bullshit paperwork" knows the difference between "IT'S" and "ITS."

Finally, Illuminate nice effort on your last post for spelling (and I don't HAVE to use spellcheck - I already know how to spell, moron), but you've got one run-on, one misapplied comma, and even a little inbred like you should know how to spell "FAGGOT."

If brains were dynamite, Illuminate, you wouldn't have enough to blow your own nose.

Like it or not, outside of the fanboys, there is nowhere near the awareness some of you think there should be; less than three months to release.

Any publicity is good publicity. There isn't a chance this isn't going to be opening March 6. Warners will pay up. They'll make it up for all the extra people seeing it who wouldn't have necessarily. But it is a dumb move on there part.

How could they really get this far with it, knowing Fox have distribution rights claims? They must be confident they can prove the claim wrong.

I'll bet Fox wish they had this coming though. What a TERRIBLE year they've had.

Quint, you need to do an AMAD article on this Captain Invincible film, even though you've apparently already seen it. It looks too damn fun.

I will admit that it seems most like a money grab because I don't recall them trying to prevent this movie from being "made", just trying to stop its release, knowing that this far into production WB would never NOT release it.

The sleazebags here (and I doubt it was that) are Warner Bros.

Look, in my opinion, most laws are written by lawyers to enrich other lawyers...

And it looks like this one's paying off in spades for both sets of lawyer. They're the only ones who'll come out of this wealthier.

Come on guys, let's do it: Internet petition and stop all this nonsense!

Boycotting and illegal downloading are really going to hurt them. I can hear them crying now. Oh, forget it. I was wrong. That was laughter.

How come Fox didn't start any of this litigation when WB started pre-production or filming? They just wanted to have WB foot the bill then take them to court for distribution money. Screw 'em.

There's your headline, Quint.

p.s. If anyone of you whiners would like to send me a script you've written, I would like to make it without paying you, then see if you "do the right thing" and let me release it without a lawsuit. Hello? Any takers? Hmmmm? No?

Quit reacting with fanboy zealotry and look at the legal facts...WB screwed the pooch on this one.