Anyone agree?

In this day & age, that is uncommon, and should be commended. Count me as one who is watching this closely - cuz while I want my Wolverine, I am getting sick of Fox's attitude on movie-making.

I'm pissed about this.

It's no better than Cyber Squatting a domain name. I may have built a great site, but if the domain name I want isn't available, I'm just as screwed.

If all that Fox owns is the domestic distribution, I say release it internationally and authorize domestic piracy. If Warner owns the DVD rights, they'll make their money back on that and maybe next time they'll send somebody to chek the fine details before they spend 200 million the next time

. . . 'specially, when it comes to late distribution of a film. We all know this.

The current game consol/fans-of-THE-worst-pop-m usic-in-pop-music-history youth set might get the wrong idea about this film. They'll see the bloodied smiley face and think, "dude, what was with the bloody emoticon in the film?" They'll look at Nite Owl and miss the whole point about him in wondering "what's with the Batman copy?" And on and on.

Sad that the squid would've shocked the nation. Sad that the squid would've tied everything together. Would've been Z. Snyder's "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Would've been his helicopters flying to the Flight of the Valkeries. Would've been his Death Star exploding. Woulda' been his "yippee kai-yai-yay mothaf*&ka'" But, no. There's a damn good reason, apparently, why the squid -- in all its unique, twisted, grotesque glory -- will not appear. Sad.

We might have to be happy with "Watchmen" being cult status. But, not necessarily how like "The Spirit" might end up that way.

Ergo, does any of this f*&kin' studio bickering matter except to say that, hell yes, let's get union-like and boycott the forthcoming movies of whatever f*&kin' studio's causing the problems with release right now. Squid or not.

Who watches the studios?

Mr Moore please do your magics,make the 2 studios not to reach an agreement,so that this movie,this blapshemy,this so called adaptation of your masterpiece,wont see the day of a theater release ever.

as a true fan of the comic book,i will pray for this not to happen,its the least i can do.

Which means? He's running his own site? Gawd, he'd better be paying himself by the word - that dude would burn 3,000 words in a review about a movie BEFORE he got to the movie review.

Don't love us and leave us, Mori!

But back on topic:

WB were stupid for not clering this 100%.

The Gordon guy who whored out the rights all over town is a greedy prick.

Fox is just a asshole hack machine (I actually would side with them completely if I wasn't so disgusted by their output).

Ultimately, if Fox had the rights, WB never should've made it. Fox are cunts to do this to them, and I'd be pissed off if I was trying to get this made for 15 years only to fall down at the last hurdle, but it seems Fox are within their rights.

And the question needs to be asked... Who at WB "made a deal to acquire the movie rights"? They need to be fired pronto.

now about the gentle responses to my original comment.if you are movie fans and just want to watch a cool superhero movie,then i understand your need for a resolution of this unpleasant situation,and i apologize if my comment angered you.

but if you call yourselves comic fans,and especially fans of mr Moore's Watchmen masterpiece,they u should already understand this:

regardless of hollywoods bastardation of the original source,in order to make a product to sell to the audience,comicfans and casual viewers,regardless of this,u simply CANT CHANGE the form of one creation,a comic,a book,a movie to another and claim that it has the same artistic values of the original,more specificaly the form and the content of the original.

watchmen movie may look like the watchmen comic,may tell the same story and has the same character,but it isnt the same thing.its an inferior product of a superior artwork.

mr snyder and the so called should know this.but instead,the director speaks of how this movie is going to be great,and respectful to the original work and how the fans will love it.and the fans argue about a squid and a mustache.a ridiculos sitatution,a laughable one,which makes one true fan not to want this movie to be released at all.

. . . on New York replaces the squid? Doesn't make any sense if the context of how everyone in the book -- even the likes of Silk Spectre, etc., i.e., the heroes themslves -- is scared witless throughout ABOUT A NUCLEAR ATTACK! Ba-doiiiyoiyoiyoiyoiyoinnnnggg gg [insert laugh trax here: _____]

Showing something that doesn't have the same impact as that squid does, it's like the Jesus story or the approrpriate Gospels without the crucifixion.

There can be no "nuclear attack on New York" that replaces the squid. No matter if that nuclear attack is Dr. Manhattan-created or whereever the heck the attack comes from. If you disagree with that, you better damn well go back and read the graphic novel.

Go 'head, hate on squid-haters.

Yeah Rothman I called you out, you unimaginative, safe playing, POS.

When asked by an interviewer how he felt about movie versions of [Moore/King]'s work ruining his books, [Moore/King] calmly replied, "The books aren't ruined-- they're right here on the shelf behind me."

Watchmen is over 20 years old. If you want to treat it like the fucking bible, that's your problem. But if Snyder thinks he can make a point about the world we're living in **IN THIS DAY AND AGE** by changing the ending, I for one am gonna hold my vitriol until I know for a fact that he made a mistake by doing so. And the only way that's gonna happen is by me seeing the movie.

Right now, post TDK, Watchmen would be huge (whether it's awesome or squid-missingly-dire). The further away from TDK it gets, the more the *average* cinema-goer (ie, not the fanboys) will be inclined to pass on it. I predict the legal resolution will be a flawed compromise that neither party is happy with, but only after the litigation has bled off most of the potential profits. Result? two movie studios a bit poorer and the lawyers a whole lot richer. In the end, Adrian? Nothing ever ends...

But this open letter just left me speechless...

O M G !

"Fair" doesn't mean shit in Hollywood.

And that Zach Galligan is a visionary director?

Voila - instant death penalty for Fox.

See?

After reading the comic and going back to review the trailers, they look pretty spot-on. Regarding the squid: I can see how that might be upsetting some people, because it's a plot point that has to happen a certain way. It's not necessarily the squid that needs to be there, but what the squid represents. Now if the movie can convey the same "meaning" for the squid, but with a different vehicle to produce this event, then I think they will have succeeded. If the world doesn't think the 'event' is extraterrestrial, and mankind has to come together to fight it, then it won't work.

But I don't know why if they've been so faithful to the graphic novel, how come they couldn't do the squid.

I'm going to say something that will make me incredibly unpopular, I'm sure: I didn't like the squid. To me, that was the ONE THING in the entire series that set it in the comics of the past instead of the comics of the future. To me, it was like impregnating Storm with an alien baby. It made me set aside or ignore my common sense, too much for comfort. Perhaps that was the point, but if so, it was lost.

I don't think I'm necessarily glad they changed it, but it doesn't really bother me, either.

Also, I love how dialog from different people/scenes is intertwined with each other. There could be two different scenes, but they are each playing off of each other to further the story. That especially is the case with the newspaper seller/ boy reading the Tales of the Black Freighter.

Just because it's dense and "designed to show off the medium" (*snore*) - just because it's "literary", and thus something you're not embarrassed to give your non-comic book reading friends, does not make it fucking Shakespeare.

Here's my take: No superhero comics will ever exceed the cream of the Marvel Age crop. If you can't take a Lee/Kirby Thor and excitedly show it off to the uninitiated then I don't think you understand why superhero comics ever gained the traction they did. THOSE are the comics that best show off what the medium can do, because they are primarily visually-oriented. Again, I'm a fan of Alan Moore, but his writer's perspective on comics is a little out of sync. Anyway isn't it a telltale sign if it's only the "deconstruction" of the superhero "mythos" that somehow defines the genre for you? That doesn't sound right to me at all.

PS the "you" in this sort of broadened to include a more general viewpoint I often hear about Watchmen. I'm not saying Dancingforever thinks that, though I wouldn't be surprised if he or she (yeah right) did.

I'm not suggesting highly esteeming Watchmen is wrong cause even if I don't like or revere it as much, it's certainly worthwhile. I just don't think it's really a great representation of the superhero comic genre, per se.

The other thing is, somewhat perversely you don't seem to allow for someone else's take on the material having equal weight as yours. Perversely because if you really feel Watchmen is as great as it seems you do, I'd think you'd appreciate the fact that something so layered and complex would be read quite differently by different people. Even simple art and stories are interpreted in various ways, so it follows that something with this level of density would have that effect to a greater degree.

My point is, it's possible Snyder's POV is just as valid as yours. It's possible that he's not missing something, but just interprets it differently. He may have a full understanding that is different from your full understanding, ya know ... Just because it's different doesn't mean he doesn't "get it". (Keep in mind, I'm not saying the decision is a good one but on principle I can't say it's automatically wrong either. I'm going to wait and see.)

But with the former point in mind, if you start from the apparently correct assumption that the mini series wasn't going to be translated directly due to time constraints. So something or things are gonna get cut for that reason, not to appeal to some demographic or appease the suits. I don't think cutting the squid out somehow solves any marketing problems anyway. Do you really think some exec said "Everything's fine, just lose that alien and you have the next Men In Black"?

So assuming Snyder's intent is relatively pure, which I think we safely can at this point, the argument then moves to what you cut, which goes back to my earlier point about differing valid interpretations. In Snyder's (and others') minds, you CAN remove the squid and maintain the thrust and spirit of the mini series. This seems impossible to you because you have a different view of what the spirit of the series is, but if you concede someone else's POV can be different from yours but equally valid, then you have to concede to cut the squid was made in an honest-to-goodness attempt to do right by the original work.

Also fwiw, I don't like either that they're calling the team The Watchmen, but I don't think it's catering in some cowardly way to all the ignoramuses out there. As I said before, some things are very much of their medium; in a book or comic book it unfolds a lot more slowly and textual things like the superhero team-sounding name of the comic not actually being the name of the superhero team go down a lot easier. In a film, to the uninitiated it could prove unnecessarily confusing.

The reason I think the Squid is the crux of the subtext is that it's the point at which the book almost becomes aware of itself. Alan Moore dressed this story up as some kind of gritty real life superhero adventure and did it in such a way that we, the reader completely bought it, hook line and sinker. But then you get to the end and it reveals itself to be exactly what it is, a fucking comic book. And no matter how well it's written and how well it's drawn that's all it ever was. It's a moment of literary introspection never done before and never to be repeated and its fucking beautiful, it really is.

And again, since there is a very good reason to cut something - time constraints - there's no reason to go beyond that and assume oh, he's trying to commercialize it. Which, given every other element in the property, is a ridiculous idea anyway.

It IS POSSIBLE that an intelligent and insightful person read Watchmen and decided that a true adaptation was possible without the squid. Moreover, as some have pointed out the meta properties of the squid inasmuch as its commentary on the "bad guy's" coup de grace, that's something perhaps better left to the comics medium on which it is commenting.

Bottom line: The squid storyline requires too much screen time to set up. They needed a shortcut. We'll see if it works. We know Snyder is focused more on the characters - that's a legit read of Watchmen; it has great characters. If you're more interested in the mechanics of the story, beautiful as they may be, you're probably SOL.

A question, it should be added that is nothing new; the basic questions of the corrupting quality of power and the ends justifying the means have been raised again and again in art and unfortunately also in life. Ultimately Watchmen does the same thing as The Dark Knight Returns in that regard, albeit with a lot less action: posits a superhero as a fascist. Frank Miller seems to think that's a great idea, Moore and Gibbons vote "nay".