Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Court Hearing Delayed As WB & Fox Talk WATCHMEN Settlement!

First by ZoeFan	Jan 9th, 2009 03:21:49 PM
Yah me
yay by Orcus	Jan 9th, 2009 03:23:35 PM
Feel special :)
I hate FOX by Turd Furgeson	Jan 9th, 2009 03:23:37 PM

About time by Xero_	Jan 9th, 2009 03:23:52 PM
Not like anyone didn't see it coming.
I'm flabbergasted by this decision... by ZoeFan	Jan 9th, 2009 03:24:33 PM
Such a revelation.
Boycott by mara69	Jan 9th, 2009 03:28:16 PM
Great idea!! The only movie Fox has coming out that I intended to see was the Wolverine one. How about boycotting Fox TV. They're just as bad as the movie division about screwing with the public.
It's time to go Fox hunting. -- Send in the hounds. by JDanielP	Jan 9th, 2009 03:28:18 PM
I could use a new hat.
NOOOOOOO by electricjones	Jan 9th, 2009 03:28:43 PM
ALAN MOORE HAS A HANDSHAKE DEAL WITH RUPERT MURDOCH—AND THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON.
Who Watches The Fox Men? by SpikeTBB	Jan 9th, 2009 03:28:59 PM
Some should be. I won't be watching their films, that's for bloody sure.
With any luck by montimer	Jan 9th, 2009 03:30:26 PM
Warners will use the profits from Watchmen to have Tom Rothman killed.
Seriously by Turd Furgeson	Jan 9th, 2009 03:30:44 PM
If FOX didn't have 24 and the NFL games, I wouldn't even watch the network. Remember when we were kids and we used to get all jazzed up when that logo and cool ass music popped up? Remember when that logo and music meant you were probably in for a great ride? How the mighty have fallen eh?
Someone smelled Batman money. by Archive	Jan 9th, 2009 03:30:49 PM
Simple as that.
ROTHMAN FEARS THE WATCHMEN BLOOD CURSE by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 03:31:01 PM
So does his children.
Exactly as I predicted by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:31:03 PM
about time I got something right
What was the last Fox movie to come out I even cared about? by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:32:08 PM
Phantom Menance? (which is really LFL) And that one just about killed it for me. Should be easy to boycott Fox films this year.
Was Xmen Fox? by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:32:46 PM

AMEN BROTHER BEAKS. BOYCOTT STILL IN EFFECT. by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 03:33:18 PM
Fox will never learn if we don't give them a spanking. Naughty Fox.
FOX is Evil and hates Movies while WB is just plain Fucking Stup by DOGSOUP	Jan 9th, 2009 03:33:19 PM
And that's the end of it. WB pay FOX so we see no squid whatsoever on time. All you idiots who were crying "BOYCOTT!BOYCOTT!" If this goes down and Watchmen isn't delayed I expect you at Wolverine on opening night so I can get my fucking Magneto movie.
What Fox movies are coming out this year, anyway? by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:33:31 PM

As Much As I Hate Fox by CharyouTree	Jan 9th, 2009 03:34:23 PM
you can all fuck off if you think I'm missing AVATAR
FINKY! by Orcus	Jan 9th, 2009 03:34:48 PM
Wazzup!
Who cares, as long as the movie comes out! by XoanonTORN	Jan 9th, 2009 03:34:55 PM
Remember the Rorschach's Journal website? Yeah, that was me.
I heard Fox would have kept THE SQUID! by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:35:21 PM
that's what I heard....
I so badly want to start the boycott of Fox but... by MrInsidious	Jan 9th, 2009 03:35:52 PM
I have to assume there is a better way. Can someone tell me who Rothman's boss is so a letter campaign can be started to get this man away from the controls? email it to thehinson@gmail.com Ive had it with this jerk messing up what is cherished to so many. He has zero respect for the IP or the fans. Lets go about it the right way and get him fired.
Yo Orcus! by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:36:01 PM
Been about a million since the last time. How you been?
heh oh yeah, Who Cares about Watchmen by DOGSOUP	Jan 9th, 2009 03:36:12 PM
When Avatar will be Fucking your Boycott in 2009?
IndyAbbey Jones TAKE NOTE: FOX SUCKS by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:37:39 PM
jealousy and greed are never a pretty thing.
It's not like they have some stellar line-up anyway... by Mr. Profit	Jan 9th, 2009 03:37:46 PM
http://tinyurl.com/FOXEQUALSBI TCHASSNESS
Avatar = overrated by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:38:52 PM
let's not cream our jeans here, guys. it's not like Avatar > Watchmen as far as source material. Yeah, I'm just stirring it up.
DO NOT MAKE A DEVIL WITH THE DEVIL! by Leafar the Lost	Jan 9th, 2009 03:39:09 PM
WB, PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE A DEVIL WITH THE DEVIL(TOM ROTHMAN)! HE RUINS ANYTHING HE GETS HIS SLIMY, DISEASE INFECTED HANDS ON! FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY! MAKE THE FOX BASTARDS TAKE YOU TO COURT! DELAY THE OPENING OF THE WATCHMEN FOREVER! IN THE NAME OF GOD DON'T DO THIS!!!
good news by DanboJohnJ	Jan 9th, 2009 03:39:09 PM
now lets hope the film is a belter
IndyAbbey by finky089	Jan 9th, 2009 03:39:50 PM
miss those Indy quote TBs
Boycott Now... by mrbeaks	Jan 9th, 2009 03:40:19 PM
... and keep fingers crossed that Rothman's out by December!
do not make a devil with the devil? by frankenfickle	Jan 9th, 2009 03:40:21 PM
i think you must mean "do not make a deal with the deal".
I would be all for the Fox boycott... by Shepard Wong	Jan 9th, 2009 03:41:43 PM
if my eyeballs weren't so horny for a good fucking.
Boycott 2 by mara69	Jan 9th, 2009 03:44:17 PM
And let us not forget Night at the Museum 2!
I'll boycott Fox until....... by xile1c	Jan 9th, 2009 03:46:17 PM
.....24 hits the big screen.
put up a list of fox movies by FleshMachine	Jan 9th, 2009 03:46:38 PM
so we know who to fuck. (should we decide to fuck)
I fail too see why all the "Fox" hate... by conspiracy	Jan 9th, 2009 03:46:45 PM
If YOU had long standing legal rights to distribute something that was a potential money maker, wouldn't YOU want to courts to enforce it? Too see a bunch of movie fans get their panties in a bunch, and take sides, because two multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations are having a legal dispute about a movies distribution rights is just silly. Obviously not alot of management or corprate types here...or there would be a level of understanding.
Avatar IS the source material. by DOGSOUP	Jan 9th, 2009 03:46:55 PM
Unless you count it as an adaptation of "every single science fiction book I read as a kid" as Cameron says. Watchmen's source material, finky089, is SO GOOD it shouldn't have ever been adapted. But that's an argument long done with and I lost so I'll be watching Watchmen to see how they film the unfilmable. I won't be participating in any boycott so Wolverine and Avatar will be getting my money after Watchmen. But with so many remakes, adaptations, prequals, sequals, sequals to prequals, companion pieces, and whatever coming out it's nice to be excited for an original story for a change so knock Avatar all you want but don't forget, it IS the source material.
And get me a God Damned Edit button already by conspiracy	Jan 9th, 2009 03:48:26 PM

ROTHMAN. JUST THE MERE MENTION OF THAT NAME by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 03:48:44 PM
conjures images of Lucifer, hellfire and demons.
I'll choose Watchmen over Wolverine by kafka07	Jan 9th, 2009 03:49:49 PM
any day
BY BUBASTIS, THIS IS GOOD/DEVILISH NEWS by AdrianVeidt	Jan 9th, 2009 03:51:26 PM
I'm sorry, old friend, but I'm okay with the WB forking over the money to make even more money than if they hadn't forked it over. Ultimately this is a financially (and legally) good move. Court fees, potential loss of overall profit... a good move for all involved, and unfortunately this includes Fox. Fox = mask killers.
JUST CHECKED MY BLOOD PRESSURE by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 03:51:34 PM
I'm suing Rothman for unnecessary pain and suffering.
mrbeaks sir, you have a deal by CharyouTree	Jan 9th, 2009 03:52:21 PM
I am not assed about Watchmen at all, but that horrible little cunt Rothman needs to be out of the industry now! OUT BY DEC
I'll boycott TINO 2! by photoboy	Jan 9th, 2009 03:56:49 PM
I'd be very happy to boycott Bay's new shitfest. I don't care if it's not Fox, I'll boycott it anyway. Commiserations to the WB, but if the film is as good as the hype suggests they should make their money back soon enough.
they'd make all they're money back on opening night... by teddanson37	Jan 9th, 2009 03:57:41 PM
if they'd put the dang squid in the picture. totally kidding. the "they will endure" thing gave me a little chuckle.
Didn't 300 break March box office records? by AdrianVeidt	Jan 9th, 2009 03:59:12 PM
Can someone clarify this with factual evidence?
Fox will insist that a Wolverine trailer plays with Watchmen by MaxCalifornia.	Jan 9th, 2009 03:59:23 PM
So you can all boo it!
Fox will look up and say "Watch our movies!" by IAmMrMonkey!	Jan 9th, 2009 03:59:25 PM
And i'll whisper "No".
kafka07 just like my women by DOGSOUP	Jan 9th, 2009 03:59:35 PM
I choose both. I refuse to have my cake and not fucking eat it too. Watchmen, Wolverine, Avatar, Coraline, 9, Dorian Gray, Sherlock Holmes,The Lovely Bones, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Half-Blood Prince, and sure I'll go see that Trek movie. These films will get my money. Anything else probably won't.
I'm all for boycotting Fox but by bb6634	Jan 9th, 2009 03:59:53 PM

I'll boycott...except for DRAGONBALL..I gotta see it. by Mike_D	Jan 9th, 2009 04:01:09 PM
I mean, I have to.
Boycotting Fox... by BrooseTheScharuk	Jan 9th, 2009 04:04:41 PM
...I think I was already doing that without realizing it, actually. Fucking garbage merchants.
SQUID by Pope Flick	Jan 9th, 2009 04:05:18 PM
Fox has heard you and is holding out for the reinsertion of the squid. Yes, it IS ALL ABOUT THE SQUID.
I'm all for boycotting Fox but filmgeeks by bb6634	Jan 9th, 2009 04:06:58 PM
don't make up the majority of the film going population. Marley and Me is still currently Number 1 at the b.o. And avoiding Bride Wars isn't a lot of effort. Let's face it, Warners fucked up.
HOLY SHIT GUYS WE SHOULD DO AN ONLINE PEITITON! by drturing	Jan 9th, 2009 04:07:33 PM
THAT'LL FUCKING SHOW EM! If every talkbacker here actually did avoid all Fox movies for the next year we'd hurt their bottom line maybe 0.00001 percent. Fact.
Avatar by theplant	Jan 9th, 2009 04:08:11 PM
Will kill Watchmen and sadly, we all know it. Rothman knows too. That's why he is raping Warner up the arse.
Let FOX release BATMAN on DVD by Demode	Jan 9th, 2009 04:12:04 PM
If they produced the show in the 60s, then they should ahve the right to release it on DVD. The Batman character would never have been as huge as he became if not for that show, and in turn, the movies would never have made as much without that show. Feel free to disagree with me, but its true. If FOX is given the rights to that show, and they were willing to ask for no money from WB for Watchmen in exchange, then Warners wouldn't really be losing anything.
List all the FOX movies for the boycott by Squashua	Jan 9th, 2009 04:12:59 PM
That's what you need to do. Edit and put up a visible list at the end of this post of all upcoming 2009 FOX movies.
I can't wait for this to be released by Dancingforever	Jan 9th, 2009 04:13:31 PM
and bomb. It's to unconventional to be a hit with the general public, and it's deviated to far from Moore's original concept to satisfy any core fan. This film has been a cluster fuck from the begining and the final product will reflect this. I was here for V for Vendetta and League, both movies had serious warning signs of what was to come seen by all but the blind enthusiasts who desperately wanted these films to be good. History will repeat itself and this abortion will be lucky to do 5o million when it's all said and done. Oh what could have been, this would have been the best HBO series ever, imagine Ian McShane as the comedian.
Fox slate 2009 by Jawa 007	Jan 9th, 2009 04:14:45 PM
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE TAKEN AVATAR THEY CAME FROM UPSTAIRS DRAGONBALL TOOTH FAIRY NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: ESCAPE FROM THE SMITHSONIAN STREET FIGHTER: THE LEGEND OF CHUN-LI
I JUST ORDERED A BLOOD CURSE ON ALL MOVIEGOERS by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 04:17:12 PM
who pay to see Fox's movies. Consider yourself forewarned. Curse applies to family members now and generations to come.
if you really want to see wolverine, and boycott fox by soup74	Jan 9th, 2009 04:21:29 PM
just buy a ticket for a warner bros movie, and go watch wolverine. then you can feel good about yourself. (that is, until you realize you just spent 2 hours watching 'wolverine.')
drturing by Steve T	Jan 9th, 2009 04:22:29 PM
even better, we could start a facebook group! That will sort it!
Bad move WB.....this movie is going to tank. by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Jan 9th, 2009 04:23:00 PM

Whatever. Boycott WB because how they by Dingbatty	Jan 9th, 2009 04:26:10 PM
screwed Siegel and Shuster, begun by Donenfeld and Liebowitz, and carried over to WB by Liebowitz. Both Fox and WB are assholes.
I think... by Steve T	Jan 9th, 2009 04:26:25 PM
It will turn out Murdoch is the squid. And he's pissed off!
FRIED GALAMAD by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 04:31:15 PM
Sounds tasty right about now.
I agree with Demode about the "Batman: TV series. by The Reluctant Austinite	Jan 9th, 2009 04:32:16 PM
Fox has never been able to give us the 60s Batman TV series on VHS, laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray and that is because Warner Bros owns the rights to everything Batman. I'm sure there are other issues involved, like the payouts to the estates of all the celebrities that appeared in the series, but the Fox/Warners issue seems to be the main thing holding this up. I wish Fox would use something like this to get rights to release the series.
TOO BAD THIS AIN'T ROTHMAN by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 04:35:15 PM
wap.oa.yahoo.com/raw?dp=rssnew s&u=ap/20090109/ap_on_re_us/de ath_row_eye&rn=topstories
List of Fox movies and shows to boycott - Ban FOX reviews fron A by crimsoncinder	Jan 9th, 2009 04:39:23 PM
We need a sticky list posted of movies and shows to boycott. I think its only fair that we try and show solidarity in not seeing these fox movies. I also think to help out in the blockade, all news and reviews pertaining to FOX should be banned from this site.
I don't understand... by TheBlackKnight	Jan 9th, 2009 04:40:54 PM
...why the majority of you seem to not want to see Fox films. If you give money to another movie, Fox isn't going to know that you saw it, and they're not going to be benefiting from you watching their movie for free. This will be my strategy, because I'm not skipping "The Wrestler". No way in Hell.
BlackKnight by MattmanReturns	Jan 9th, 2009 04:42:21 PM
Because Fox never would have made this movie, but now they want it. Because Fox owns Fox news, which is the most biased news organization on TV. Fox stinks.
I am mrmonkey beat me to it. by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 04:45:04 PM
I was going to say Rorshack's line. But I'll do another one:
"For there is good and there is FOX" by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 04:46:09 PM
"And FOX must be punished. Even in the face of AVATAR, I will not compromise in this."
Jessica Harper: Please leave Rothman! by wash	Jan 9th, 2009 04:47:29 PM
I will take care of you, sweet thing.
Fans to FOX: You're a rapist and a Pig! by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 04:48:23 PM
FOX: pulling pin on grenade One potato, two potato..." Warner Bros: Oh God, how could it come to this? whatever happened to the american dream? FOX: It came true. you're looking at it.
Rothman: "In the end, do you think I did the right thing?" by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 04:51:30 PM
Warner bros: Oh Tim, nothing ever ends. disappears Rothman: blinks, thinks of Wolverine Wait, what do you mean!?
Alll that geek effort making TDK bank . . . squandered! by Power_Girl	Jan 9th, 2009 04:52:29 PM
ON f*cking FOX! I WILL NOT SEE ANY MORE FOX FILMS!
IF YOU PEOPLE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS by J-Dizzle	Jan 9th, 2009 04:53:00 PM
Then you would boycott Star Wars. In fact, you would burn every single piece of Star Wars merchandise out there, including the original VHS versions of the OT. Want to send a message? That's your ticket. Otherwise, don't bother, no one will give shit.
WB will never give the rights to the Batman DVD's so fuck em by A for Aristocrat	Jan 9th, 2009 04:53:06 PM
Yes WB could have been cool in the beginning and worked a deal with FOX over the Batman DVD's but they never will. The genius WB execs believe that it will confuse the public too much and cost them money on future batman movies. So since WB will never let the Batman tv show come out, fuck them and I'm glad FOX is taking their money.
J-Dizzle Done. by DOGSOUP	Jan 9th, 2009 04:55:57 PM
I'm not participating in a boycott but sure, I'll burn all things Star Wars. Star Wars is Dead to Me.
Oh and a good excuse to badmouth IESB.net by TroutMaskReplicant	Jan 9th, 2009 04:57:57 PM
'With WB changing their tune from "we will not settle, we're going to court" to "settlement talks are fruitful" it just reiterates the fact that WB has conceded that they were in the wrong legally regardless of the producers pleas of ethics and morals and such, legally they were in the wrong, "Sorry about that little misunderstanding Mr. Rothman, do you prefer cash or check?"' Bleh.
MattmanReturns by TheBlackKnight	Jan 9th, 2009 04:59:05 PM
Even still, not giving Fox any money is still a good "Fuck You," in my opinion. You can see one of their movies and either A) Enjoy it and be happy that your evening was not wasted and know that Fox won't be benefiting from your money, or B) Loathe the Hell out of the film but still be happy in knowing your money did not go to Fox. Unless your problem is that you won't be able to sleep at night because your conscience is filled with guilt over the fact that you even SAW something with Fox's name attached, then I guess that's a different story. Stupid, though.
Fried Galamad??? by bee152	Jan 9th, 2009 05:12:56 PM
You have to be from the East Coast!
The Watchmen ticket is in my hand by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:15:40 PM
2 months in the future. 12 seconds into the future, I drop my stub. It will lie there, is lying there, has always lain there.
With the payout.. by CharyouTree	Jan 9th, 2009 05:17:20 PM
could that make this one of the most expensive movies ever?
A Scream by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:19:55 PM
I move into alley. Rothman mugging audience. He sees me. There is something... rewarding in his eyes. Sometimes the night, she is generous to me.
I'm sorry Wolverine by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:21:26 PM
I didn't know what other movie to go to... The only franchises I know are God Damned Superheroes!
Here's your cut fox! by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:23:19 PM
Warners: you're a better movie studio than I ever was! Fox: Warners, we both know that's bullshit.
Rothman Would... by CellarDweller	Jan 9th, 2009 05:29:06 PM
...pimp his own mother if he thought he could make a few bucks. I say boycott Fox's craptacular slate of sludge they call "films" for 2009 and beyond. Bring on Watchman! WB will make plenty of profit with action figures, other merchandise and DVD sales. No worries.
audience, where are you? were going to be late by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:30:03 PM
walks in on Fox by way of AVATAR raping the audience's eyeballs Warner Bros: You little shit. beats the crap out of Fox. Fox: Oh, yeah, this is what you're into, right? this is what makes you hard. I saw Batman and Robin! Warners:..... Get out. to audience for God's sake, cover yourself.
Paramount: Hey, remember that one script? Watchmen? by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:36:29 PM
Warner Bros: Oh yeah, I remember that one. liked to get beat up and embroiled in production problems. He was like, "Even though I'm unfilmable, I'd totally be oscar bait." and I was like "just get the fuck out of here." Paramount: Yeah, I didn't get it. I started beating up on him, saying his budget was bloated, and I was thinking, "Man, he's breathing real funny!" (both laugh) Hey, what ever happened to him? Warners: well, that project tried that shit on FOX, and FOX dropped it down an elevator shaft. Paramount: BWAHAHA! Oh God, I'm sorry. That's... heh heh, that's not funny...
"When warner's wins the court case, your in big trouble!" by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:40:41 PM
"You don't get it do you? you'd better hope Warners wins the court case, or I AM in big trouble and You're in big trouble and we're ALL in BIG TROUBLE!"
I'm sure Fox is shuddering by Liberty Valance	Jan 9th, 2009 05:41:34 PM
At the threat of 200 fanboys selectively boycotting their shitty movies but still going to see Wolverine and Avatar between sitting at home and watching 24, The Simpsons, NFL and MLB games and a shitload of other Fox entertainment. Rothman wipes his ass with your hurt feelings, so shut the fuck up with this faggot boycott bullshit already.
Wolverine will outgross Watchmen by neal2zod	Jan 9th, 2009 05:42:25 PM
No, I'm not talking about quality, i'm talking about another fanboy 'boycott' that doesn't mean jackshit. Is this like the time everyone banded together and gave Snakes on a Plane that glorious $15 million weekend? Or the time everyone 'boycotted' Superhero Movie, a movie nobody on here was going to see anyway, over another movie (Fanboys), literally NOBODY has seen? Or the time people bitched about AVP/Die Hard 4 being PG-13 and they went on to outgross their predecessors? Or the time people lined up to box Uwe Boll? Please for the love of God stop with the Fanboy crusades. These are facts: 1)you're all gonna watch Wolverine, and 2)everyone not on this website who sees Watchmen will go "wow, that ripped off Heroes Season 1 and the end of The Incredibles".
I think .... by Sparhawk38	Jan 9th, 2009 05:43:48 PM
they should redo "Watchmen" and make every character a squid. The final threat should be a guy in a suit who looks like an accountant.
J-Dizzle... by havocSchultz	Jan 9th, 2009 05:44:02 PM
boycotting/destroying all things Star Wars would have little to no impact on Fox...seeing as how Lucas owns all things Star Wars...he funded the movies out of his own pocket, and Fox got a small % to distribute, or something like that...I believe Lucas has also owned all the merchandise rights since A New Hope was made/released... Nothing will happen to Rothman now, because even though they had a shitty '08 - they had the number 1 movie for the last week of '08 and the 1st week of '09...and now Bride Wars (also Fox) has a very good chance of being number 1 this weekend...either way, at the moment, they're the number one studio...then they'll fall hard for a good chunk of the year...until all the eyeball fucking commences late in '09...
Paramount: so were looking for more bad guy characters by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 05:46:34 PM
for the watchmen action figure line. Warner Bros: all the bad guys in Watchmen are dead. paramount: Well, that's pessimistic, we could at least do a Moloch and big figure... Watch out! Fox shoots paramount dead, Warners clocks fox with a rope post. Warners: Tell me who you're working for! What the fuck do you have in your mouth! Don't bite down! Fox Gargles, slumps over Damn. Call the action figure people. All our enemies are dead.
Where's Douchebag Forever? by Rex Carsalot	Jan 9th, 2009 05:47:54 PM
And his bizarre overly-entitled Squid obsession?
"avoiding predictably awful movies" by IAmLegolas	Jan 9th, 2009 05:48:05 PM
yet somehow people around here keep flocking to them just because they have nothing better to do that weekend or go in with low expectations or It's Just A Dumb, Fun Popcorn Movie™ ... therefore ensuring more get made.
Boycott Avatar? by dastickboy	Jan 9th, 2009 05:54:03 PM
Much as I agree with the sentiment that sanctions should be drawn against Fox, I don't see the cinemas being empty the day Avatar releases.
Fuck Fox In 2009 by Heckles	Jan 9th, 2009 06:03:26 PM
So say we all.
IM BOYCOTTING THE WOLVERINE MOVIE!! by What The Duck	Jan 9th, 2009 06:13:23 PM
Not that it looked all that good to begin with. I just have a reason not to see it now. FUCK FOX!!
Some lawyers lost their jobs at WB. So they're hiring? by dr sauch	Jan 9th, 2009 06:22:10 PM
Soooo beaks...think they need any interns?
WB will make all of their money back on the sequel by Zardoz	Jan 9th, 2009 06:22:20 PM
And I sincerely hope to god that I'm joking about that! And I'm not boycotting any movie if it's good. Although I don't think I'll be seeing Wolverine because X3 sucked balls and Wolvie doesn't look any better...
They do realize that this will make 20% of what "Batman VI" did? by JackPumpkinhead	Jan 9th, 2009 06:23:33 PM
They do realize Nolan's Batman VI made as much as it did make only because of what Ledger had for his last dinner? And that the only way Watchmen might make any comparable sums is if one of its actors expires just before the opening, too? One of them, e.g... hell, I don't even remember the name of any of the actors who are in it.
Watchmen 2: Rorschach's cancun adventure by greenstyle92	Jan 9th, 2009 06:26:09 PM
Fox still owns the sequel rights, and he's envisioned a storyline where it turns out Dr. Manhattan didn't vaporize Rorschach but sent him into the future of Cancun Spring break '04, where he judges wet T-shirt contests and eats canned bean shots of drunk mexican breasts. The climatic moment of the movie involves Rorschach having to save the party-hole from a giant-faux-alien Squid attack combined with a surfing contest.
I will see Wolvie by Silverglade	Jan 9th, 2009 06:26:41 PM
Not because I wanna piss off the wanking protesters, but because I do whatever the hell I want with my own cash.
Adam West as Hollis Mason! by Fuck The Napkin	Jan 9th, 2009 06:26:54 PM
If Fox will do that, I don't care if they scrap the movie and make it again.
I say bootleg wolverine before its out by VALENTINEproductions	Jan 9th, 2009 06:28:50 PM
and give away copies of it for free.
GIMME A BOY!!!!! by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 06:28:54 PM
Gimme a Cott!!!!!!
WWW.AINTITBOYCOTTINGNEWS.COM by BringingSexyBack	Jan 9th, 2009 06:33:47 PM

Get a grip people... by Pope Flick	Jan 9th, 2009 06:35:21 PM
WB has gone from "screw you Fox!" to settlement talks are fruitful. Meaning? Fox had every right to do what they did and has WB, who should have you know-acquired the rights, over a barrel. It's pretty simple.
In development limbo for 15 years!! by Lang The Cat	Jan 9th, 2009 06:44:54 PM
Reread Gordon's letter. If you look it over carefully, Gordon thought he bought the rights in 1994. Fox, if they still thought they had the project, was letting it sit in limbo for 15 years!! Now Fox did not speak up right away when the rights were sold to Warners (publically announced) and kept quiet until after the first presentation at Comic Con. The agreement for the batch of films stated Fox had right of first refusal, again 15 years ago. How long does it take for Fox to acknowledge that they have passed up on the project?
I'm not boycotting Fox, since I'm not an idiotic fanboy. by Evangelion217	Jan 9th, 2009 06:46:38 PM
I'm just a fanboy, who loves cinema. I hope the "Wolverine" film will be great, but it does have the potential to suck badly. And I hope James Camerone will fuck my eyeballs really good in december of 09. :)
Pope Flick by Lang The Cat	Jan 9th, 2009 06:48:01 PM
Sometimes in business you pay someone who is totally wrong to go away. Not because they are right, but because it is cheaper in the long run.
Excellent.. by lovecraftian	Jan 9th, 2009 06:52:30 PM
"From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved. And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different. The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years." BOTTOM LINE: Fox is wrong. The eyes of EVEN THE LAW are wrong if they find in favor of Fox. Why? Because minutiae is NOT why the law is or ever was created. Instead, it IS WHY non-violent sociopaths and narcissists become lawyers: to manipulate the letter of the law (DESPITE IT'S SPIRIT) to attain personal gain at the expense of others. Copyright law, no matter what DISNEY or ARKHAM HOUSE tells you, IS NOT designed to protect those who have "rights" to the material. It IS designed to the RIGHT THING by the people who have a vested personal interest in the intellectual property. The problem has become, in America anyway, that intellectual property laws have been manipulated by cynics to bleed fans and artists at every turn. Now, while I appreciate Alan Moore's position that this shouldn't have been made anyway, I also appreciate the fans' position that it should. And despite Mr. Moore's protests, he needs to be a little more appreciative of the folks who love his work so much they want to see it live and breath, instead of going all George Lucas on us. ("IT'S MY GRAPHIC NOVEL!") Concurrently, Warner Bros. should see the irony played out here in connection with Siegel and Shuster, Jon Peters, and the upcoming public domain dispute over Batman and Superman. Finally, Fox needs to back down. This is absolutely the most disgraceful display of both negligence on Warner Bros.' part, and vampirism on Fox's part, as has ever been seen in an intellectual property disptute since Michael Jackson stabbed Paul McCartney in back. People flat out need to back away here and think about what really matters... I'm looking at you, Your Honor. Is the law more important than the philosophy the law upholds in a society? Is the money and the "right" more important than what IS right? Is decency and general good will in regards to great art subject to the meanderings and vicious sniping of the worst of our culture's parasites? I doubt it. And I think, if YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT, you would too. That said, I can't wait to see this no matter the outcome.
And WB isn't making a bad move. by Evangelion217	Jan 9th, 2009 06:53:39 PM
Especially since every superhero film has the potential to become a hit at the box office. "TDK" proved that to be a fact. It doesn't matter how dark, pessimistic, or violent it will be. Because people just want to go see superhero films, and "Watchmen" is one of the most hyped films of this decade. If it sucks, then it won't make 300 million dollars in it's box office. If it's as great as "TDK", then it will be a massive hit. And everybody will be happy. :)
Mr. Lang by Pope Flick	Jan 9th, 2009 06:57:33 PM
That is very much true in some cases. Not so here.
VAMPIRISM by samurai sark	Jan 9th, 2009 07:11:51 PM
I call vampirism. Fox, shame on you. I wonder how many people on this thread have typed "...that being said..."
Crystal Ball... by samurai sark	Jan 9th, 2009 07:13:54 PM
I hate Fox for this bullshit, but there's simply too much hype for the Wolvie movie. Fox will get paid for Watchemn, Fox will get paid for Wolverine. Watchmen will tank, and Wolverine will soar. Life is all about injustice sometimes.
i hope WB make a profit by thecrimsoncurse	Jan 9th, 2009 07:17:07 PM
its weird to hear myself say that. but if that open letter is to be believed then i think WB should be rewarded for the risks they are taking on watchmen. that said i don't see this being the next dark night, the hard r rating insures that.
So... by -guyinthebackrow	Jan 9th, 2009 07:18:43 PM
... when does the first Warners' exec get fired?
Boycott??? Nice idea but remember guys... by Russman	Jan 9th, 2009 07:26:19 PM
this is a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of the population. And the american public has been so browbeaten that they think shit is filet and they gobble it down and beg for more.
And thus we see... by p0llk4t	Jan 9th, 2009 07:31:07 PM
...from this example why Hollywood is a steaming pile. Good risk taking is not rewarded, while good lawyering is. And make no mistake, Watchmen is a huge risk. There are several reasons, but a big one for the studios is there is no sequel potential. They can't break even on 1 knowing they'll get it back on 2 and 3. And then the reboot 1/2/3 and then the remake, and then the....
The Letter Nikki Finke Didn't Want You To See??? by Media Messiah	Jan 9th, 2009 07:33:20 PM
Nikki has now gone on record favoring Fox and has attacked the producer's comments...and has failed to post my last two letters which are onto something. I am right that Fox will settle as I have been stating all along. Here's my letter, the one that Nikki Finke for some reason, did not want you to see???: Fox, Out Foxes Itself: The most Fox can get out of this is a financial settlement unless they agree to assume some of the fnnancial risk, at least half the production, ad, promotion, print and distribution cost of the film, as a releasing and production partner with WB. Fox' position however, appears to be "Hey, we want to block the film's release, for no reason but to do it, no other reason given, or necessary"...and that position, is an absurd one. This is a film that Fox didn't want to make, and placed into turn around, meaning, they were saying to any other studio or production company, that they, Fox, were no longer interested in the property and were releasing it from their production schedule for anyone else, or another entity, to buy and produce, and obviously, release...and, as Fox invited, another entity did eventually buy the rights to make the film, and that is the WB. According to the producer, he has a paper trail to back that contention up 100 percent. Fox felt the script unworthy to be shot and wanted nothing to do with the project. That being the case, the only reason now that they are asserting their rights to the distribution is as a backdoor way to protect their X-Men franchise from competition, as they now see Watchmen as a valid threat...a view that I have been forwarding. Fox does not wish to partner with WB, which appears to hold the rights to make the film, and Fox is not asking for a buy-out of their rights to distribution in court? With that being the sitting facts, the judge needs to order a financial judgement, giving Fox damages that would hinge on the success of the film and how much Fox would make if it were the contracted distributor of said film, in terms of being a hired entity by the WB, for said task...or perhaps, even a distribution or releasing partner. Whatever that eventual figure is, the judge should order, in advance, that Fox should only receive half of that amount to offset the fact that they did not pay into the film production, and will not pay into its distribution, ad campaign, promotions, film print costs, etc. Also, the judge should again, take into account that Fox does not own the rights to make this film, at at no time since before they placed the property into turn around, had any intention to distribute the film at all...as they had no intention to make it, thereafter. Should the judge take that into account, that should diminish any damages against the WB...and thus further lower any legal cash award to Fox. In other words, Fox should only get the type of money that, a independently contracted distributor would get if WB brought a film of this size to them for a contracted distribution deal. In the end, this film will be released, and Fox will walk away with a cash award...but WB will see The Watchmen in theaters. As for Fox, they are simply playing childish brand protection games, that being...The X-Men vs. The Watchmen. Clearly, they now feel that the WB may have a super hero team franchise which may now undermine the X-Men...and they are using the courts legally, to achieve an illegal goal!!!
Yep, you can watch the films that Fox makes by pmarq	Jan 9th, 2009 07:40:35 PM
Just don't pay for them. Download them on Torrents, distribute them to your friends, pay for small movie that you might not want to watch, and then go see Wolverine or whatever. Do anything you can to convince producers to not use Fox anymore (or else they will get almost no residuals). Do I think it will work? No more than becoming a Vegan will stop the meat packing industry, but it sure is fun to do. (the pirating, not the Vegan).
Watchmen is not really competition for X-Men by p0llk4t	Jan 9th, 2009 07:41:32 PM
Watchmen is one and done, unlike X-Men which they can milk/rape for centuries. At least until they have real X-Men running around it tights. No way in hell anyone else is going to try and write new Watchmen material right?
p0llk4t by pmarq	Jan 9th, 2009 07:47:23 PM
If WB is planning on doing sequels, they deserve to be bent over. That's like having a sequel to Moby Dick.
Watchmen 2: The Blot by chrth	Jan 9th, 2009 07:48:37 PM
The assistant at that right-wing rag reads Rohrshach's journal and becomes Rohrschach to hunt down and kill those responsible. Meanwhile Robert Redford snorts coke and invades the Soviet Union.
Fox Gobblers, c'mon you can say it. by Zardozap2005	Jan 9th, 2009 07:57:46 PM
Fox has more scrotal bag hair on their chins than any other movie studio right now. Talk about accomplishments!
OMFG by rogueleader66	Jan 9th, 2009 08:02:00 PM
Will all you people stop sucking James Cameron's dick? PLEASE? Christ I am so tired of hearing about how Avatar is going to be so fucking good like it's going to be the second coming of Christ. It would be one thing if we saw ONE STITCH OF FILM, but what have we seen? JC standing with an actor on the set. Whopppeeee fucking doo. JC is a great film maker and I am sure Avatar will be good, but god enough already.
Just saw Slumdog Millionaire... by wookie1972	Jan 9th, 2009 08:04:44 PM
And it was great, AND the two logos at the front were Fox Searchlight and WB. Real movie fans wouldn't boycott a studio, that's just plain stupid. Unless you have a problem with Fox getting ANY money from Watchmen (which is silly, considering that Moore and for that matter Ditko are getting bupkes), just let them make the deal. It's better for the industry as a whole if the proper process is honored.
Just saw Slumdog Millionaire... by wookie1972	Jan 9th, 2009 08:04:46 PM
And it was great, AND the two logos at the front were Fox Searchlight and WB. Real movie fans wouldn't boycott a studio, that's just plain stupid. Unless you have a problem with Fox getting ANY money from Watchmen (which is silly, considering that Moore and for that matter Ditko are getting bupkes), just let them make the deal. It's better for the industry as a whole if the proper process is honored.
Damn you, Fox. by Chishu_Ryu	Jan 9th, 2009 08:10:37 PM
Damn you to hell...
Seriously, who gives a rat's ass by wookie1972	Jan 9th, 2009 08:15:11 PM
which multi-billion dollar corporation gets the money for this movie, as long as it's in theaters. If you're really so wrapped up in the "principle" of the thing, then you would acknowledge that Fox, however dickish their behaviour, does have a claim. But if the movie does come out in March, how does this legal battle effect you in the least?
JAMES CAMERON should jump ship off FOX! by ABking	Jan 9th, 2009 08:26:40 PM
Cameron might be doing the WB's FORBIDDEN PLANET next. Does this mean his Fox contract is up? I hope so....
See look...You see this by kenjinattix	Jan 9th, 2009 08:37:22 PM
Okay you can't becuz its the internet....but I'm holding up 5 bucks...5 bucks for someone to kill Fox exec Tom Rothman...its all I can afford but I think I'll get some takers...
Too bad dildos cost so much.... by The Dum Guy	Jan 9th, 2009 08:40:37 PM
Not that I've bought one, but... anyway, I think someone brought up the idea of sending dildos (like the Nuts thing with Jericho) to FOX, just show how much a dick company they are. Which would make me wonder what they would do with all the dildos?
Honestly, if both studios stand to gain from this... by beastie	Jan 9th, 2009 08:48:45 PM
... it would probably be smart to drag this to court. The court case would give the film free publicity, thus making the public curious about "the greatest graphic novel of all time". They could postpone the release to summer, claim it's the next The Dark Knight, and, from what I can guess make maybe twice as much box office.
What Fox movies are playing this weekend? by california_mtz	Jan 9th, 2009 08:57:04 PM
Someone post a list of Fox movies opening every weekend so everyone can BOYCOTT! Or, at least they can at least buy a ticket to a non-Fox movie so Fox won't get any money. We'll end the boycott only when Fox settles on a FAIR & REASONABLE basis with WB!
It's true...ThePilgram ain't boycotting shit... by dihay	Jan 9th, 2009 09:04:42 PM
otherwise he'd have nothing to be full of...
I have a question about the Wolverine movie. by ballsmcretard	Jan 9th, 2009 09:10:31 PM
Wolverine - how do you get your hair to make that weird shape and why does it smell like Aquanet in here?
P0llk4t: You Are Right, But Fox Doesn't See It That Way by Media Messiah	Jan 9th, 2009 09:47:42 PM
Watchmen, and its subject matter will be viewed on another level than the X-Men if the film is good or great. The problem that Fox sees, is now they assume that the X-Men, beginning with the Wolverine spin off movie, will be seen as being light-weight by critics and audiences as compared to The Watchmen, especially if it turns into a franchise as has been promised by the filmmakers behind it. This is the only reason that can explain Fox' sudden alarm over this film (The Watchmen--a film that they openly refused to make, but had the opportunity to produce???)--plus, on a side note, they are pissed at Warner for threatening to re-release The Dark Knight in order to get the worldwide box office record for number one film profit, taking the crown away from Fox' film Titanic (they are now only 70 million dollars away from the record). Fox' top execs are running the company like vengeful frat brothers going after a rival frat to prevent them from having better bragging rights. This is all immature silliness.
Batman TV Series. On DVD. NOW by polyh3dron	Jan 9th, 2009 10:59:32 PM
That will fix EVERYTHING.
This BETTER BE TRUE! by grievenom	Jan 9th, 2009 11:51:07 PM
Or I'll boycott both motherfuckers. Give me my Watchmen 3-06-09, and no watered down version by either studios to try to maximize profits. Give us the damn goods.
Watchmen Franchise? what u smokin? by micbenxyy	Jan 10th, 2009 12:02:35 AM
WB has to be looking at Watchmen as a one-off, prestige genre picture. Watchmen as the 'Titanic' of super-hero movies. Big bucks, no sequel. Just much good will, and 'from the makers of the Watchmen' promotion on future super-hero movies.
Watchmen 2: This one has a squid! by otm shank	Jan 10th, 2009 12:19:20 AM
You know you want it.
Watchmen II : The Revenge of Raw Shark by The Dum Guy	Jan 10th, 2009 12:23:21 AM
His twin brother comes to seek revenge on a certain blue bastard, with a little help from his ill-tempered cephalipod sidekick.
Don't care if WB makes a profit, but... by moviemaniac-7	Jan 10th, 2009 12:25:16 AM
Fox behaves like a spoiled child. This cartoon says it all I think: http://www.joblo.com/requiem-f or-nachos-5
Wookie1972 RE: Moore geting 'bumpkis' by blindambition238	Jan 10th, 2009 12:36:59 AM
Moore gets 'bumpkis' cause he refuses to take money for any adaptations of his work. Instead, he defers all of his royalties to the much overlooked artists that worked on these projects with him. In this case, Dave Gibbons, who has been totally supportive of the movie.
the problems with the "BOYCOTT FOX" plan by the milf lover	Jan 10th, 2009 01:08:58 AM
to pay for another movie but go see Wolverine, is either 1)the most likely scenario is that only a few hundred internet geeks will do it, which means very little when the moviegoing audience is made up of millions of people 2)on the highly unlikely scenario that the entire aforementioned millions of people do pay for something else but go see Wolverine, how long do you think it will be before theatre employees realize that while they sold no tickets to Wolverine, the room is filled with people, they ask to see your ticket for Wolverine, which nobody has, so you all get kicked out, thus neither getting to see Wolverine or the movie you actually paid for. Meaning you boycott plan is a STUPID FAILURE!!!
Here's a funny free story of all my fellow talkbackers... by Kirbymanly	Jan 10th, 2009 01:24:06 AM
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/47 82209/1/
Franchise: The Director Said That He Has Ideas For A Watchman Se by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 01:33:58 AM
Zack Snyder (spelling?) wants to create a sequel to The Watchmen. He says that he already has story ideas for it. Those are Snyder's words, not mine and no one at Warner Brothers of DC Comics has contradicted him on his intentions. Clearly he is gearing up for a franchise, if the Watchmen is a hit.
Fox Plants Trying To Stop A Boycott by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 01:39:30 AM
The boycott will work against Wolverine, which looks very weak, as a film, to begin with. As far as the boycott, what begins as grassroots movement will spread, another reason why Fox will settle with WB. You Fox Plants cannot use reverse psychology and Nikki Finke to save your day. The best thing for you to do is settle while you can before a huge backlash begins and Rupert Murdoch, your boss, gets pissed off when you cost him hundreds of millions of dollars.
Media Messiah by Dancingforever	Jan 10th, 2009 01:44:06 AM
Do you have a source you can reference for that?
Media Messiah by The Dum Guy	Jan 10th, 2009 01:46:50 AM
If your' right (links please), then my idea might not be so bad...
Clearer Heads Prevail by clever	Jan 10th, 2009 01:49:01 AM
Gentlemen, there is no need to boycott Fox Films this year.. merely because their release slate is mediocre at best. Other than Jennifer's Body ( which is due to a script by Diablo Cody and great tits by Meagan Fox ) and AVATAR (which nearly runs into next year) the list of Fox releases is mostly crap. It doesnt look like a good year for movies next year, and its time that we faced up to it.
Great idea Beaks! by kwisatzhaderach	Jan 10th, 2009 02:12:02 AM
Lets all boycott the new James Cameron movie and go see the visionary new work from Zack Snyder! Meanwhile, in the real world...
conspiracy by JimmyJoe RedSky	Jan 10th, 2009 02:20:21 AM
fox didnt want to make this movie - it didnt want it made period - your argument makes sense... if fox's intention from the beginning was to keep a watchmen movie from ever being made (by anyone)- like when general motors bought the patent to a battery that would allow an electric car to travel over 100 miles on one charge... they bought the patent then buried - no more electric car
fox realized too late that there's an audience for this by JimmyJoe RedSky	Jan 10th, 2009 02:22:13 AM

They all must be eaten!! by gotilk	Jan 10th, 2009 03:08:36 AM
Get to it.
Here Is An MTV Article That I Found With Sequel Talk by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 03:12:29 AM
I haven't been able to find the Snyder article yet, but I did read it and saw him quoted as saying that he is developing ideas for a sequel to Watchmen. During my new search however, I saw him make a series of denials, but very interesting, in the MTV article that I found, it seems that all of the actors are signed to sequel clauses in their contracts??? Very, very interesting??? Cut and paste the link and take out any space or spaces you see in the address as they appear whenever you try to post a link and that will give you an error addres you you fail to get rid of the space(s): http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008 /09/17/patrick-wilson-ponders- watchmen-sequel-its-been-talke d-about/
Wolverine flying toward a Helicopter by FuryofthefilmFan	Jan 10th, 2009 03:33:27 AM
Fox really loves Wire work huh? From Chun-Li's lightning kick to DragonBall Z's Slow air spins it's clear Rothman LOOOOVES the wires. Seeing wolverine fly toward a helicopter like that in slow motion is almost as bad as seeing Shia swing on vines with monkeys.
I'd gladly boycott Fox films for 2009... by Duke_Whittington	Jan 10th, 2009 03:43:05 AM
...If they were putting out any films worth watching this year. I remember when they brought us films like the original Star Wars, Alien, Aliens, Predator...Old friends long gone. What have they given us since X2?
Fury of the Film Fan by Dancingforever	Jan 10th, 2009 03:50:46 AM
I understand your resentment of the wire technique, but I would also add that Snyders use of slow mo is equally sickening. For all the complaints people are making about the film not having enough time, if he could eliminate or minimize he slow mo, which would have cut 300 down to about 30 minutes, it would allow more time for the story to develop. Not since "The Keep", a fantastic film, have i seen so much slo mo.
The slow mo in 300 worked for me. by Duke_Whittington	Jan 10th, 2009 03:54:57 AM
Just as long as Snyder doesn't use it in all of his films.
Unless of course they employ the effect... by Duke_Whittington	Jan 10th, 2009 03:57:47 AM
In a dialogue heavy scene with no action. How great would that be?
Fuck Fox, those brainless greedy monkeys. by Motoko Kusanagi	Jan 10th, 2009 04:10:17 AM
That's all I gotta say.
Fuckin' A, bubba. by quentintarantado	Jan 10th, 2009 05:45:34 AM
Will boycott Fox. Fox is clearly in the right, legally speaking, but I'm clearly in my rights, boycott speaking.
Whatever happens, there are three studios involved in this film by dr_buggerlugs	Jan 10th, 2009 06:14:16 AM
There's no way any of them are going to let Watchmen tank; my guess is they'll increase the number of theatres, maximise advertising and ensure it has a stupendous opening weekend; this film will turn a profit...none of the studios can afford for it not to. Besides the only major thing opening against it that weekend so far is a Sandra Bullock comedy which I think is a Fox film so either Fox aim for a stupendous weekend with two flicks or they minimise/delay the Bullock film to ensure March 6 is all Watchmen, all the damn time.
If there is no settlement by JoeSixPack	Jan 10th, 2009 06:34:48 AM
Fox is fucked
To be honest...(On second thought) by Stalkeye	Jan 10th, 2009 06:45:37 AM
I just can't boycott all things Fox after all the cool shit they put out over the years:Star Wars,Predator,Aliens,Die Hard,Commando,The Shield,24,X2 and the list goes on.I can't just diss Fox because the new "management" got fucking greedy and like Dingbatty said: Look how WB screwed over Siegal and Shuster with the Superman Movies. As for the Batman TV series on DVD, yeah I know some of you like the shit for nostalgia reasons, but the whole series was too damn chessy and it's only saving grace were Julie Newmar & Eatha Kitt (the Catwomen were hawt!!) oh and of course the Bruce Lee cameo in which Kato almost kicked the living shit out of Robin.Other than that I can do without.As long as Watchmen gets released, It wont stop me from purchasing Fox Blu ray movies or seeing Wolverine.Fuck that. However Fox news was always boycotted from the start.
Who here thinks "Avatar" will actually be released this year? by second cousin of phartegod	Jan 10th, 2009 06:50:22 AM
Not me. James Cameron probably doesn't think so either. Therefore, Boycott.
DON'T LET FOX EAT!!!! by BringingSexyBack	Jan 10th, 2009 07:38:41 AM
Starve them into oblivion!
BoneHeads, all by Hikaru Ichijo	Jan 10th, 2009 08:22:17 AM
May this be a lesson to all creative types in all media
I'll Boycott All Things Fox by Optimus V	Jan 10th, 2009 08:36:56 AM
Except Wolverine. Call me dumb, but the trailers have me intrigued.
I don't actually think we need a boycott. by rbatty024	Jan 10th, 2009 10:29:02 AM
After this shitty summer Fox has been doing a pretty good job of making sure no one comes to their films. My guess is this will be the case for the foreseeable future, except for films that try and cash in on past success, like T4 and Wolverine. Sooner or later that well is going to dry up.
INSTEAD OF BOYCOTTING FOX.... by Babba-Booey	Jan 10th, 2009 10:53:15 AM
SEND A REAL MESSAGE. MAKE THE 2009 FOX ROSTER THE MOST DOWNLOADED TORRENTS OF THE YEAR. SCREW 'EM.
Do you really expect this to be good? by relayer	Jan 10th, 2009 11:00:35 AM
Folks, the trailer(s) are terrible, do you really expect the movie to be any good? Maybe I'm just missing something here with all this blind loyalty.
Even if you think The Watchmen will suck... by rbatty024	Jan 10th, 2009 11:03:05 AM
(which I do) that doesn't mean it's cool for Fox to sit on this case as the film goes into production and then all of a sudden file suit as the film nears completion. In addition, Fox is known as being bullies to their talent.
Babba-Booey by gotilk	Jan 10th, 2009 11:27:58 AM
Probably wouldn't make a difference. Look at Dark Knight. HUGE torrent action on that one! Yet, somehow, in spite of everyone being told that torrents are killing the industry, it is going to make(and has made)more people money than any film since Titanic. Oh and music sales were up this last year. Wow. Those myths are going to keep getting harder and harder to pass off as reality. (of course, to be fair, it is worth noting that pretty much the only places left to buy music are itunes, walmart and target)
Won't put money in FOX hands if I can help it by Stormwatcher	Jan 10th, 2009 11:55:53 AM
Best way to see Rothman go is to ensure his shareholders are pissed at poor returns. 2008 was a terrible year for them save Marley and Me so they gotta be worried
Fox boycot by Truecoat	Jan 10th, 2009 12:42:59 PM
My boycot isn't just about the Watchmen, it's a culmination of badly run studio decisions by the idiot running Fox. X-men 3? Give me a break. Here's a list of movies through August that I won't see. Bride Wars-Won't see it Notorious-won't see it Taken-won't see it Street Fighter-won't see it All about Steve-won't see it Dragonball-won't see it X-men origins:Wolverine-won't see it in theater at least Night at the Museum-won't see it Ice Age-won't see it I love you beth-won's see it 500 days of summer-won't see it They came from upstairs-won't see it
Nerd and geeks are funny with thier little boycott talk by Xiphos_2	Jan 10th, 2009 12:43:16 PM
You freaks realize that A. You're full of shit, right? B. You have zero box offfice influnce. Zero, zip, nada, none. Go right ahead and scream out in your impotent geek rage at Fox or whoever next weeks studio boycot target is pointed out by Harry. Absolutely nothing will happen. As a matter of fact, the sun would rise in the west long before a geek/nerd movie boycott would have any affect. Your childish screaming, kicking and rantings are amusing, so please don't stop. It's especially amusing since the next thing that looks vaugly interesting put out by Fox, the chowder heads screaming the loudest about a boycott, will be the first ones buying a ticket. It's true and you goofs know it.
If you press rewind the sun could rise in the west by wackybantha	Jan 10th, 2009 12:47:06 PM
Read your TIVO instructions!
Nice try, Xiphos_2 (what someone had Xiphos, already?) by Truecoat	Jan 10th, 2009 01:03:54 PM
Listen, this isn't an idle threat. And I'm not calling for some geek nation boycot. I'm just unhappy with decisions they have made and I've had enough. With Star Trek, Bruno, Up, and Terminator in May, I have plenty to see. I can wait until dvd for Wolverine and if it has really bad buzz, I can wait forever.
Turd Furgeson by Broseph	Jan 10th, 2009 01:45:31 PM
i couldn't agree with you more
And would it kill fox to release werewolf on dvd by Broseph	Jan 10th, 2009 01:47:01 PM
i remember watching that and maaried with children on sundays
Xiphos's point is... by p0llk4t	Jan 10th, 2009 01:47:47 PM
...that even if every Watchmen fanboy boycotted Fox they wouldn't even notice one tiny, insy weensy bit. There will never be a Fox board meeting where they say "Oh shit, we're going out of business because Watchmen uber fans destroyed out our grosses with their massive boycott." So I guess it will make you feel that your in some way helping the "Watchmen"...but I hate to tell you...they aren't real. Oh and I believe Xiphos_2 is necessary due to Xiphos being banned? Could be wrong there.
Xiphos and Pollk4t by rbatty024	Jan 10th, 2009 02:02:14 PM
True, a boycott by Watchmen fans would only cause minimal harm to Fox's box office, but today's entertainment marketplace is predicated on far more than overall box office. Because of the recent rise of the long tail theory of economics, entertainment outlets are focusing more and more on the "uber" fan. Look at the recent rise of special edition DVDs that cost twice as much or reissues of albums with extras. Because fewer people are buying CDs and DVDs the marketplace has to depend more fully on the truly dedicated, like people who visit this website. If the geek population starts to download or wait to rent then it will hurt Fox more than if it was the same number of average movie goers. Does this mean Fox will all of a sudden turn around and treat their fans and talent with respect? Probably not right away but I think a boycott, in conjunction with the studio shooting itself in the foot, can have an impact.
Truecoat it was more then a nice try by Xiphos_2	Jan 10th, 2009 02:14:14 PM
It was a dead on accurate assement of the situation. My post was directed more at the extreme goobbers filling every TB with thier nonsense. Your post seems reasonable and I agree about Wolverine, I have no great desire to see it either. It seems like a cable/rental type of deal to me. p0llk4t is correct, I was Xiphos, but then I got banned and was too lazy to think up new name, and damn it I like the Xiphos handle.
Wackybantha by Xiphos_2	Jan 10th, 2009 02:18:02 PM
You are correct sir! I did not factor in TIVO in the equation.
rbatty024 by Xiphos_2	Jan 10th, 2009 02:25:05 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with your assement sir. I see it like this. Studios, that's all studios, are moving away from niche or fringe type of movies and orginal movies in genral. Thus the rise in remakes, reboots, relaunches and all the other REdiculous BS all studios are shoveling out. They are counting on the the name recognition to get the all important first weekend box office. Now as far as DVDs go, you could be right. I don't really know much about the economics of such things, so I'll defer to you on that. About the "boycott" concept. It will not work, at all. Fanboys are way to fickle to be united on any front. As I noted above, as soon as something cool comes out from Fox, which I admit could be long shot right now, the geeks and nerds will flock to it.
I believe in the power of the people by D.Vader	Jan 10th, 2009 03:00:35 PM
Xi doesn't think it will work, and I think his opinion is influenced a wee bit by the tiring ever-presence of whiney Watchmen fans on this site. However, I do believe if many geeks boycott Wolverine so it doesn't get a first in openig weekend, the message to Fox heads will be clear: we're mad as hell, and we won't take any of Rothmans shit anymore.
by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 03:17:08 PM
anyone calling for a boycott is a geek and a tool--everyone should have a little geek inside them, but geeks with a false sense of entitlement are the worst. what's even worse than that are the geeks who call for tv shows to be cancelled (what do they gain by this??? cancel it yourself by not watching it. problem solved) and the ones saying that they don't want watchmen to be released at all because of a change in the ending are the worst of all. What about the large group of people who have read the graphic novel and just want to see a movie made even with a changed ending? what about the non-comics fans who want to see this movie? even with a changed ending, there is the potential to gain new comics fans...there can never be enough, and new fans would be a positive for everyone involved. if this movie gets a quarter of the people who see it to go out an read watchmen, tons of new comics fans would result, and it would be great for the medium. i couldn't give a shit about comics until i read watchmen by chance (someone left it in my room in my fraternity house and i picked it up and read it...now i subscribe to tons of comics).
turd ferguson by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 03:37:04 PM
you're right about fox--they have given me so many reasons to not like them, but this particular issue is not one of them (for me). I've hated them for a long time. I hate their news network (fair and balanced my ass) that's one of the big reasons. Secondly, they have an awful track record when it comes to cancelling the good tv shows they have. i was shocked they've stuck with terminator show as long as they have, but i'm bracing myself for a cliffhanger episode right before its cancelled. if that show can last, it will have been a great ride. They didn't even give firefly a chance, and i'm so happy that serenity was made, and made brilliantly. It boggles my mind that joss whedon keeps going with them. i can't remember the names of the shows they've prematurely cancelled (mainly because not enough episodes were made) but i always remember that they've cancelled good shows too soon. Correct about 24 and nfl, though.
media messiah by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 03:44:53 PM
you're still writing letters like you have insider info? "The Letter Nikki Finke Didn't Want You To See"??? did it cross your mind that nikki finke didn't think the letter was good enough to be seen? any jerkoff who has an opinion and can spell can write a letter...its far more likely she read it, laughed, and deleted it.
Deal NOT happening now... by Dead_Geek	Jan 10th, 2009 04:39:47 PM
...because Sony now claims they to own the film rights! Alan Moore just jizzed in his pants! Splash!!
but Fox is releasing Avatar.... by knowthyself	Jan 10th, 2009 06:07:50 PM
.....gotta see that.
Fox gave X-files a low budget and the short shrift by Chuck_Chuckwalla	Jan 10th, 2009 06:31:10 PM
And if they can fuck over their own franchise that just goes to show you they don't know what they're doing over there. Bad timing too. Because historically, in bad economic times, the public spends more on entertainment. So get your head out of your ass Rothman and make some better decisions. You had your chance with Watchmen, now eat it.
So... Adam West by Fuck The Napkin	Jan 10th, 2009 07:37:51 PM
Is he Hollis Mason or what? If he isn't, I'm going to watch Wolverine eight times instead of Watchmen, just to cancel out all you boycotters. ADAM WEST AS HOLLIS MASON!
the losers on this site by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 08:45:47 PM
am i the only one who doesn't know anything about this cameron movie AVATAR??? What, did the script hit online or something??? there hasn't been any footage released and you all are praising it as the most glorious movie ever made? I like cameron as much as the next guy...but all this eyeball fucking talk seems a little premature to me...i don't care how good the script is. Then, we've seen all this footage from watchmen, alot of which looks exactly like panels from the graphic novel, and so many of you are way more livid than you should be. slow mo seems like something to bitch about, when it's gonna be such a small part of the movie, yet some of you hate it just for that alone...if slow mo deserves to be used at all, it should be in a comic movie. I don't care (and nobody else should either) if this movie has a different ending, as long as i get a faithful movie for 2 hours and 45 minutes...i just find it rediculous that the footage from watchmen looks great, but you guys are writing it off already and then splooging over a movie i have yet to see a single frame of. maybe some of you should just get off this site and wait for movies (or TRAILERS for the matter) to come out, instead of bitching moaning and whining on this site where enough supergeeks visit to the point where you losers feel like your opinions matter. there are so many loser geeks on this site that its one big circle jerk of negetivity and entitlement. grow up.
Wixmmm: That Is The Problem With Nikki Finke by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 08:49:17 PM
When you are a blogger and you look at someone's letter, whether you agree with it, or not...as long as there is no cursing, slander, or hate speech...it should be published...and let the people decide, people like you Wixmmm, as to the merit of the letter. Nikki has openly laughed at the open letter by the producer of Watchmen, so that would put me in good campany, if we are to believe your theory of worthiness, if it is to be weighed solely against Nikki's opinion. Now, I predicted a settlement in my last 3 letters to Nikki's site when nobody, including her, was doing that. I find it interesting that Nikki Finke is currently reporting that WB and Fox are now in settlement talks, just as I outlined in my letters. So who is laughing now that I have been proven right once again??? The Watchmen will be released, and Warner will retain ownership of the movie as I have predicted, one way or another, and Fox will either agree to distribute the film as a releasing partner, or, more likely than not, they will accept a hefty cash settlement. Nikki Finke didn't say that, I did, so much for her publishing wisdom.
on another note--nfl by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 08:57:07 PM
Whoever said that titans baltimore game was good wasn't lying. i just finished it on dvr and loved it. I wanted to see baltimore win because they have a rookie coach and qb, which is a great story. But i'll say this much--they need to pass more...they were clearly worried about the rookie flacco giving up turnovers...so they settled for running with small gains...they weren't even letting flacco MANAGE the game...and everytime he threw, it was deep. If they want to make a serious run for the superbowl they need to put the ball in flacco's hands more, even if he throws one interception--i'd trade one turnover for a decent/quality passing attack...but what do i know, i'm not a coach. (message to some people on this site: its called sports--its what men watch and discuss...get off this site and turn off whatever video game channel you watch and tune into espn once in a while and grow some balls in the process. I think alot of you might end up enjoying it--its a main topic men invest their time in, argue over and bitch about...and i know how so many of you like a good argument and enjoy bitching about things you know nothing about.
I'll boycott when... by The Funketeer	Jan 10th, 2009 09:03:11 PM
AICN stops promoting, reviewing, and mentioning any Fox movies on the site. Easy for all you guys to call for a boycott when you see most of the movies for free.
media messiah by wixmmm	Jan 10th, 2009 09:09:03 PM
I'm sure alot of people expected a settlement...i know i did. did i feel the need to post about it? no. neither of us has any say in this matter...our opinions mean nothing, even if you write a decent letter. Anyone who thinks this movie will not be released are idiots...OF COURSE they'll settle, its just a matter of how much money goes to whom...both studios know there is money to be made, the only question is how much. and writing 3 letters in an attempt to get your opinion "published" (which is a joke, getting published is writing a book, or writing for a magazine...not getting a letter up on some BLOG.) She's talking about settlements cause that information probably just came out...she probably felt that predicting a settlement served no purpose, and YOU predicting a settlement serves even less of a purpose. This quote of yours is so funny i almost fell out of my chair: "someone's letter...as long as there is no cursing, slander, or hate speech...it should be published" That is such a rediculous comment i can't even think of anything to say about it. Imagine if every blog had that policy...we'd be sifting through shit for days before we'd find something worth reading.
How the hell do you do a sequel to the Watchmen? by A for Aristocrat	Jan 10th, 2009 10:32:08 PM
Not to spoil anything for those that havent read it but it has a definite ending. Why is it so easy now to do video games and movie sequels when DC hasn't done anything but reprint the original for over twenty years?
Watchmen Sequel Contracts by A G	Jan 10th, 2009 10:39:57 PM
It's a simple formality.
BOYCOTT WOLVERINE! by hipnosismag	Jan 10th, 2009 10:43:11 PM
If anyone is a real fan of Watchmen, they'll boycott Wolverine, since that is Fox's big release. Show you are a true fan and wait till Wolverine comes out on dvd. Show Fox how much the fans appreciate them being dicks! I mean, really, if Fox wanted Watchmen so bad, why not make the film 15 years ago when they had the chance??
Nikki Finke Censorship: To Wixmmm by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 11:12:53 PM
When speaking about publishing, I am speaking in metaphor, of course, you know better than that Wixmmm. As for you attacking my view on letter policy, well, I notice it works here on AICN.com...and hasn't hurt one bit. Posts that I am not interested in, I simply don't read, but everything comes through here except for those which are deleted for offensive content. My letters to Nikki Finke's site did not fit that criteria, that of being offensive, and were strictly on subject and on point to the issues at hand. I was simply a victim of censorship, since Nikki has now publicly taken sides with Fox...and also viciously joked about the producer of Watchmen in her postings, featured in targeted, unfair as well as unprofessional...and some might say, even immature, comments about his open letter??? I suspect that the points I was making could come back to hurt Fox' cause, as they were too close to home, so Nikki decided to interdict them. When I write a letter, or a post, whatever it may be deemed, more times than not, I try to analyze a situation, and not only give an opinion, but add a view to the proceedings that can trigger change. Now maybe nobody is listening, but perhaps there are those whom are, and if I, or any of us, can reach one person in power who says, "That is a good point" and make a difference, then all the better. In service to that perspective, I feel that it is in the interest of both studios to get this behind them, as I want to support each of them and their product as a fan...but who gets injured in a case like this, are the fans en masse...not the big guys. I would suggest to Fox that they settle immediately and look to the future. It is best for them to buy several comic book companies (publishers) up...and develop their characters as Fox owned properties--that should be their new business model and would save them money in the long run. But, if they are going to do that, I would caution them to show respect to the comic book fans for once. Treat them with the same type of respect Warner has shown Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings fandom. You do that, and you will when the battle, and stand to when the war...or at least, continue to do well in it. I would suggest that they even purchase video game companies, in order to develop games into movies. The cross marketing potential is wide. As for Warner, they need to stop licensing their characters to outside companies. If they had followed such a policy in the first place, this case never would have occurred in regard to The Watchmen. Now that is the type of constructive posting or letter that I write, while most posters tend to say...I hate, or like, this person, or that person, or this, or that company--this movie will bomb, or this one will be big...oh, and doesn't that actress have big tits? There is no real analysis placed in most of these posts, not even on Nikki Finke's site??? Ultimately when that happens, it undermines the credibility of web based commentary, either by the so called pros like Nikki Finke, or by average ordinary people like you Wixmmm and others.
A G: On Watchmen Sequel Contracts by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 11:16:31 PM
It could be a formality, yes, but don't bet on it, as those contract clauses are also there just in case the execs change their minds. And if Watchmen is a huge hit, keep your eye on sequel talk starting anew, very serious talk.
wixmmm, first off by CharyouTree	Jan 10th, 2009 11:19:55 PM
calm down dude, here have a go of my fleshlight, it's clean, AVATAR has been talked about for years by Cameron and the scriptment I have has been online for as long, if you want it. Its not an amazing story but the images it paints make me want to see the movie, floating mountains, lots of alien life and such, its also an original story, not a sequal or based on a comic/book, something that I always hear everyone complain about, I agree its stupid to go ape for it without anything solid yet but as a fan of Cameron I remain optimistic.
A For Aristocrat: Dr Manhattan Can Do Anything by Media Messiah	Jan 10th, 2009 11:20:23 PM
And they, in the movie version, now have the machine that can mimic his powers. That means they can alter time, etc., and that means a sequel or sequels.
IF WB does produce a sequal to the Watchmen* by Xiphos_2	Jan 11th, 2009 02:25:25 AM
Will all the "true" fanboys of the Watchmen revolt? Will all "real" lovers of funny Book "literature" scream for boycotts? because as all the true believers know, there was a finite and definite ending to The Watchmen* * means, yes I know the title is just Watchmen and not The Watchmen. I wanted see if some crazy Watchmen uberfanboy nutter butter spazzes out over the inclusion of the word the. I find it funny when geeks lose thier shit over trivialities.
Watchmen Sequel=The Minute Men Prequel by Media Messiah	Jan 11th, 2009 02:47:37 AM
Although I rather hate prequels, large amounts of The Minute Men's history have not been explored. How many fan boys can really protest over a story that follows The Minute Men?
wixmmm by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 06:02:03 AM
did you even read your own post? you call people losers for getting excited for avatar, and then in the same post, again you call people losers for always being negative. so which is it? you know what constitutes a loser to me? one who has no faith and lack imagination. i dont need to see a single frame to get hyped up by a new cameron movie in 12 years. the guy gave us terminator and aliens. that's as solid a sci-fi movie resume as one could ever hope to attain in hollywood. if there's a movie i want to go into theater blind, it's this movie! seeing everything for the first time on the biggest screen will add that much more of an impact and make for a more enjoyable experience. why let trailers and all the media publicity ruin it for you when you can just wait for it a little longer? seems stupid to me.
dont care about the settlement by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 06:08:57 AM
if both studios have any dick at all, they'd do what's right and fork over some of that money to alan moore. i know he said to no, but still... do what's right. WB should eat just as much dicks as FOX if they think they can make money off someone else's property and not giving him a dime.
boycott you say? by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 06:22:28 AM
perspective, people. 800 pakistani are already killed in middle east conflict. india & pakistan are on the brink on war. who the fuck cares if one big studio is stealing money from another big studio? if you make a great film, i'll support the movie. you make shit, i'll boycott the movie. that's all it's always been and that's all it should be. i'd like to see harry, beak, and the rest of AICN crews who are now advocating FOX boycott stay home and skip avatar when it's out. yeah, right.
Oh, and a Fuck you to WB as well.. by Stalkeye	Jan 11th, 2009 07:20:37 AM
..for cancelling plans for a Captain Marvel Movie.Oh, since the success of The Dark Knight, they want to go for more "darker" superhero/comic films as that will be the new trend.(?) Assholes! Either way, I can give two shits if WB has to shell out for the rights to release WM, as long as I get to see it opening day.
Media Messiah: It would be easy to do a sequel but should they? by A for Aristocrat	Jan 11th, 2009 07:33:45 AM
Yes they could come up with ways to bring characters back to life or change time. Moore created enough background information from the old heroes supplement to do a dozen movies. However, Moore will never work on any new Watchmen material and I would be worried if he did. Returning to things that were great decades ago rarely works. Look at Frank Millers current Batman work, or George Lucas's recent Star Wars and Indy work, or ever Bryan Singers Superman Returns. Watchmen takes place in a certain time that Snyder embraced. Who out there today could do a sequel with the same political undertones, the same character studies, and with a logical reason to continue the story other than to try and make a buck. It is very hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice. Watchmen showed how things really would be if there were superheroes and how profoundly the world would change if there was just one person with superpowers. Most of the heroes were a little lame and some were pathetic losers. They all were tragically human with all of the flaws. The villians were practically non-existant. If some "hot" writer or director went ahead with the sequel would they honor that or make a traditional action movie? Given the track record I don't think anyone has it in them to do a good sequel, even if Alan Moore himself wrote it.
Jesus, a sequel? by Dancingforever	Jan 11th, 2009 09:02:03 AM
It's not enough that this project has deviated completely away from Moore's original vision by radical changes to the ending, the costumes, the group calling themselves "watchmen", additional subplots of the comedian killing JFK, but now a sequel? Why couldn't this have been on HBO as a mini series with minimal hollywood involvement.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 09:33:42 AM
'no faith and imagination???' i have a wild imagination...believe me, its gotten my into trouble. And I have all the faith in the world that cameron is going to make a good movie...but all the eyball fucking talk is what i'm against...its like its already up for an oscar with some people...i'm even more perplexed now that someone said that the story was 'alright' And i stand by what i said:there is WAY too much excitement for avatar (read: eyeball fucking) and on the other hand, there is WAY too much negativity towards watchmen...its not about picking one--both of these types of people are losers.
Just got off the phone with Tom Rothman... by Motoko Kusanagi	Jan 11th, 2009 09:34:17 AM
I told him to go fuck himself.
Blackknight: I know this is late, but whatever... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 09:40:12 AM
I'm totally in agreement with you. I used the example of Slumdog Millionaire, but the Wrestler works, too. Yes, Fox has produced a lot of crap in the past few years. But WB has given us such gems as Fred Claus, Speed Racer, the Clone Wars and Yes Man. According to IMDB, they're doing a freakin' CHiPS movie, for pete's sake. I'm not saying that Fox is pure as the driven snow (although legally they have the right) but let's not build up Warners as the preserver of everything that is pure and good in cinema.
As for Moore, it's not just about him refusing the money... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 09:51:23 AM
Warners and DC fcked him over long before either Watchmen or V for Vendetta were made. Legally, Moore had a contract that he* owned the property (notwithstanding the fact that he based the Watchmen characters on the Charlton characters mainly created by Ditko) after DC stopped publishing them. However, DC kept bringing out new editions, which is especially messed up in the case of V for Vendetta considering that Moore and Lloyd didn't start the project with DC. And, no, this has nothing to do with Moore, but Warners acted utterly shamefully with Siegal and Shuster.
NFL last night by STLost	Jan 11th, 2009 10:08:15 AM
During the Cardinals-Panthers game last night, they showed a trailer for Watchmen. I haven't seen a trailer for it on tv yet, so I was wondering if this is the first time they've started advertising on tv? It still showed the date of 3-9-09 so I'm not too worried. Fox and WB will settle and this movie will come out on time.
WB fucked over moore by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 10:32:03 AM
seems it's only karma then that they now got fucked over by fox. so why is this our concern again? oh yeah, because you geeks just HAVE to see it 3-9-09. that's your REAL reason. because if you really want to do what's right, you will BOYCOTT the movie itself for the way WB has treated the creator of your beloved watchmen GN.
People underestimate the appeal of the Batman TV show by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 10:46:03 AM
For comic fans it's a major embarrassment, but to the general public it's one of the most beloved versions of the character. Ask your parents who the defintive Batman is, and they'll probably say Adam West.
What's the story on Alan Moore? by trombone	Jan 11th, 2009 10:48:31 AM
Lloyd's letter makes WB look pretty good. Especially them backing the film when no-one else would. But what about Siegel and Shuster? And what happened to Alan Moore with this? Ditko? Are those guys getting taken care of? Oh, and did WB stand up for Donner?
trombone by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 11:01:50 AM
From what I understand, Moore had two beefs with DC. The first was that the agreement on V for Vendetta (and maybe Watchmen, not sure) was that once the book went "out of print," Moore would retain the rights to reprint it himself. However, it has never gone out of print. The other, more prickly thing, was that DC wanted to produce Watchmen merchandise without paying Moore and Gibbons, claiming that the merch was 'promotional material.' IMHO, Moore and Gibbons had a point.
wixmmm by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 11:02:33 AM
okay so one geek here said the script is average and you'd just take his words? over cameron's taste? personally, i'd take cameron's standard than any 100 geeks's here. if you have any faith like you said, then nothing any geek here say will deter you. it's cameron. the very best director alive today in making big budget spectacle. this is not the guy who did ET and jurassic park, far from it. his sci-fi is always edgy and cool and ground breaking. you think after 12 years hiatus, 12 years of watching from the sideline, watching how the matrix and LOTR upped the ante, 12 years after coming down from the highest grossing film of all time(adjusted for inflation my ass!), that he would come up with a film that is just "average"? now does that sound like someone who'd have faith and imagination? :) i know you got tired with all hype proclaimed here, but i think the hype is very much justified in this case. in a movie geek universe, you just cannot get any bigger than cameron's return.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 12:08:54 PM
ok, you have a point, i should take that opinion on the script with a grain of salt, however, cameron is not the best director alive...that'd be george lucas...(joking) cameron's never made a movie as good as eastwood's gran torino. you could call cameron the best genre director, though...i'd agree with that.
Avatar hype by A for Aristocrat	Jan 11th, 2009 12:18:53 PM
Again I stand by the old man theory. When genius artists are young and have the fire they produce classics like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Aliens, Godfather, Dark Knight Returns,....etc. When they get older, not so much. Jury is out on Cameron right now. Everyone is remembering Aliens and Terminator but it has been a long time since he made those. I'm hoping for the best but the track record isnt great.
best director alive... by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 12:34:14 PM
for big budget spectacles is what i meant. best director of all time would be kurosawa, fellini, or truffaut. take your pick.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 01:04:03 PM
i'll give you that cloudrider... i said he is probably the best genre director, which isn't that much different than saying he's best at big budget spectacles--which he is. His big movies own other attempts at blockbusters. however, as A for Aristocrat said--its been a long time since he's made a movie, its not a gaurunteed success... last thing i can remember him working on was aquaman, the highest grossing movie of all time. (seriously, wasn't his last thing some 3d under the sea movie?)
track records isn't great??? by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 01:05:31 PM
terminator and aliens are not the only two movies of his worth remembering. the first matrix, die hard4, M:I3 all have scenes derived from true lies. it can't be a weak film if it's that much studied and imitated, can it? abyss is solid despite the ending. titanic is the biggest moneymaker of all time and was crowned 12 oscars, so that should at least mean something. unlike spielberg and lucas, there's no hack job in his entire filmography. no signs anywhere that he's ever doing something half-assedly. he's meticulous in his planning, never rush just to make quick cash in the box office. this is a director who has yet make a bad movie(that corman produced movie aside), i highly doubt he's gonna break the habit and start making a bad movie now. if anything, he deserves our faith.
nothing is a guarantee, sure. by cloudrider`	Jan 11th, 2009 01:17:07 PM
just saying, based on his track records, cameron, more so than any other director, deserves our optimism. he saw how lucas came out of his hibernation with 3 shitty movies. he saw how LOTR changed the game. if you think he doesn't learn from those, he must be a complete moron. i dont think the guy who did the terminator is a moron. do you? :)
I'm still pissed at Fox for... by Life Proof	Jan 11th, 2009 01:38:30 PM
not letting Wes Anderson put out a Darjeeling Limited Criterion DVD.
cameron's track record by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 02:32:22 PM
I definately agree with cloudrider--while its been a while since his last big movie, his track record is about as great as it could be. Spielberg has had flops, lucas has had flops (and THX, his first feature, was GOD AWFUL...i had to watch it at usc when i was in the 'star wars phenomenon' class (which he actually came in to take questions) and even with that 'young fire' i was counting the seconds until that terrible movie ended) but cameron hasn't had a flop. I actually finally got around to watching true lies a couple weeks ago (can't believe i hadn't seen it sooner) and it shows cameron knows genre...it also showed how rediculously slow arnold shwartzenager (can't spell it) was...i mean, outrunning all those snowmobiles was really a stretch...great movie though.
Track record for old movie makers by A for Aristocrat	Jan 11th, 2009 03:01:10 PM
I wasn't talking about Camerons track record, I was talking about the track record of old movie directors. Cameron is a legend and he deserves it. It will be a long time before anyone breaks the record he did with Titanic. I'm saying that if you look at the things produced by filmmakers later in life, it is the rare one that can pull off movies as good as the ones made when they were hungry. Maybe Cameron is the exception but it has been over a decade since he made Titanic. I'm just a little hesitant to assume that Avatar will live up the pedistal some people are putting it on.
Cameron is overrated by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 03:01:51 PM
The first two Terminators were great visually, but they were hardly brilliant in terms of script and acting. Aliens had some incredibly corny scenes (compare the dialogue with Alien), and Titanic was a fairly lame romance stretched out over three hours. Yeah, flame away, it's my opinion, but since 1997 we have had The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men, Kill BIll v. 1 and 2 (I know I've been down on Tarantino, but I still liked them), I'm Not There, Magnolia, There WIll Be Blood, Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aqauatic, the LOTR trilogy, Batman Begins, Dark Knight... in other words a crapload of movies I would rather see than Titanic or anything from Cameron.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 03:13:22 PM
kill bill doesn't deserve to be on that list, and most of the best parts were blatantly stolen, so, you can say tarantino finds good stuff for his movies, but its not like he imagined all that stuff. And life aquatic was so god awful it blows me away that you think it should be on that list...i can't even count how many people i know who hate that movie...man, thinking about it gets me angry cause it was that bad.
It's called personal taste, wixmmm by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 03:42:26 PM
I just don't like Cameron, period, as either a director or a person. When he made Titanic he came off as an arrogant prick.
Finnaly you guys are getting it.. by CharyouTree	Jan 11th, 2009 03:51:44 PM
its about a master at his particular field coming back and kicking out the shit that Bay and Weissman have been feeding us. Thats why some of us are excited.
Directors can make great movies late in their careers by standundermyumbrella	Jan 11th, 2009 03:55:13 PM
Fincher just did with TCCOBB.Don't count Cameron out yet.
wookie1972 by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 03:57:05 PM
who cares if he's arrogant. if i were him i'd be a little arrogant myself--knowing that i can get greenlit for any movie i can imagine, or any script i like. I'm a Milwaukee Brewers fan and a Packers fan--our #5 pitcher is the nicest, most charitable guy on the team, yet he gives up so many home runs and breaks my heart on a weekly basis. Then there's brett favre, who has shown himself to be a primadonna who only cares about himself and has done some very unethical and questionable things since leaving the packers. Now ask me who i would choose: the pitcher who is nice but sucks on the mound, or the arrogant bastard who has been so much fun to watch for a large chunk of my life--i'd go with the dick who wins games for me. Cameron may be arrogant, but i'd rather see a movie by him than a thousand tarantino flicks (don't get me wrong, tarantino makes good movies) Sports players need to win games for their fans. movie directors need to entertain their audience. nothing else matters. And i still don't know what you saw in life aquatic--honestly, i'd like to know--what about that movie makes it on your list of bests? i don't think kill bill deserves to be on that list of yours, but i'll admit they were fun movies.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 03:59:13 PM
correction: i'd rather see a movie from cameron than a thousand michael bay 'blockbusters' i didn't mean tarantino
I didn't say Life Aquatic was one of my favourites... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 04:07:50 PM
I just used it as an example of a movie that came out since 1997 that I'd rather see than Titanic. I just thought it was fun and crazy and full of a lot of witty moments. It's not just that Cameron is arrogant, it's that he is convinced that his type of movie is the only movie worth making, and he thinks he's a good writer, which he is emphatically not. TItanic was good-looking but it had a shit script, and the Terminators were good for Arnold movies but nowhere near the top of the sci fi genre. Also, your sports analogy doesn't really work because movies aren't "competitive" in the same way sports is. And plenty of directors manage to be gret without being arrogant.
And I'd rather see a movie from Scorsese... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 04:09:51 PM
than a thousand Cameron movies. What drives me nuts is that Cameron's style of filmmaking - epic visuals but not so much emphasis on character or plot - is considered by some to be the "only" kind of filmmaking. It's like when Fargo was up against English Patient at the Oscars - some just couldn't realize why Fargo was such a great movie.
I see it as a little like Kubrick... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 04:13:36 PM
I know it's considered blasphemy to say anything bad about Kubrick, but there were some very lean years after Clockwork Orange. The Shining is okay, but not the "horror classic" it's been sold as. Full Metal Jacket has its weak moments, and Eyes Wide Shut is good but not great. I just don't understand why people who are usually incredibly cynical suddenly go gaga over Cameron.
Old man director theory doesn't really apply. by Orbots Commander	Jan 11th, 2009 04:20:28 PM
Just look at John Ford, Hitchcock and Howard Hawks. Also, boycotting Fox movies isn't really going to be that difficult; their only tentpole movies this year are Night at the Museum 2 and Wolverine, in other words: whooo caaaares.
by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 04:22:03 PM
what blows me away is that AVATAR has been hyped on a whole other level, yet i'm seeing more cameron criticsm and no avatar gushers...although i'm sure that if they discover cameron talk here, they'll show up. And it really should go without saying that a scorsese movie is worth a thousand cameron movies--yeah, now there's a guy who can make movies. And i may not have made my point well with the sports analogy--i meant it in the sense of expectations--sports fans expect players to win games, film buffs expect great directors to make great movies. that's the deal...and it has nothing to do with the personality or arrogance a sports player or movie writer-director has. that said, i misinterpreted your 'list.' I would agree on all of your choices (except for life aquatic) as movies i'd rather watch than titanic, no question there--sorry for misinterpreting. plus, even i'll admit that the records titanic set were greatly inflated because of all the teen girls seeing it so many times...and teen girls (as a demographic) don't know what a good movie is....they just don't.
old directors by wixmmm	Jan 11th, 2009 04:25:54 PM
first i want to get this out of the way: boycott talk is insane...a boycott will not happen and if by some miracle a large boycott did happen, it wouldn't even make a dent in the numbers...so just stop. stop. My main point is you can't list aging directors without throwing eastwood in. i respect the guy so much because i believe that he has peaked so late in his life. gran torino kicked my ass so hard i had trouble walking for a week...it was such a fantastic movie.
Hitchcock started to slip at the end... by wookie1972	Jan 11th, 2009 04:27:34 PM
The Birds and Frenzy have champions, but I know few people who will go up to bat for Torn Curtain or Family Plot. Not so sure about Hawks or Ford. But I think it's more that Cameron hasn't made a movie for twelve years, so I think it's easy to be a little sceptical.
A For Aristocrat: You Have Many Great Points About Sequels by Media Messiah	Jan 11th, 2009 07:34:53 PM
I look at films like Fight Club and I say to myself, no sequel necessary. Perhaps Warner should have structured The Watchmen to take on certain chapters of the original work, very much like Lord Of The Rings, in that way they could have gotten a Trilogy out of it? But yes, I am for stand alone classics. I suppose Warner can start making The Authority films? The Authority, being very much in line with The Watchmen. I, myself hate prequels as every prequel that I have seen, is horrid, especially the Star Wars prequels which were made on the fly, and seemingly prove once and for all, that Lucas lied when he claimed that he had the story all written out years ago, and that there was indeed a grand plan to all of the proceedings. I have read fan fiction about the prequels that was much, much better. So yes, I could do without a Watchmen sequel/prequel, but could we say the same thiing for the WB, when it comes to taking a BIG pay-off for the bottomline??? If The Watchmen is indeed big at the box office, suddenly those sequel contracts for the actors of The Watchmen will take on a whole new meaning. Who knows, perhaps they'll give us a side-quel of the Watchmen from the villain's perspective, or from the perspective of a reporter, or a cop, or another hero, in a film that covers the same events of the original movie. Yes, the same events, or many of them, but seen from another angle, very much like how the New Galactica is doing an episode on the attack of the colonies, from the Cylon perspective. It won't change or alter the events of the original Watchmen film, but it will serve to nuance them with certain surprising twists on what we know, and what we thought we knew...or simply add to the story as it stands. Who knows, it could be that a former Watchman or Minuteman was observing and spying on the heroes of The Watchmen as the proceedings of the story were told, so we get to see his or her take on things in respect to the story? I don't think to many fans of The Watchman could argue against that, if handled right.
Amended: A For Aristocrat: You Have Many Great Points About Sequ by Media Messiah	Jan 11th, 2009 07:46:54 PM
I look at films like Fight Club and I say to myself, no sequel necessary. Perhaps Warner should have structured The Watchmen to take on certain chapters of the original work, very much like Lord Of The Rings, in that way they could have gotten a Trilogy out of it? But yes, I am for stand alone classics. I suppose Warner can start making The Authority films? The Authority, being very much in line with The Watchmen. I, myself hate prequels as every prequel that I have seen, is horrid, especially the Star Wars prequels which were made on the fly, and seemingly prove once and for all, that Lucas lied when he claimed that he had the story all written out years ago, and that there was indeed a grand plan to all of the proceedings. I have read fan fiction about the prequels that was much, much better. So yes, I could do without a Watchmen sequel/prequel, but could we say the same thing for the WB, when it comes to taking a BIG pay-off for the bottomline??? If The Watchmen is indeed big at the box office, suddenly those sequel contracts for the actors of The Watchmen will take on a whole new meaning. Who knows, perhaps they'll give us a side-quel of the Watchmen from the villain's perspective, or from the perspective of a reporter, or a cop, or another hero, in a film that covers the same events of the original movie? Yes, the same events, or many of them, but seen from another angle, very much like how the New Galactica is doing an episode on the attack of the colonies, from the Cylon perspective. It won't change or alter the events of the original Watchmen film, but it will serve to nuance them with certain surprising twists on what we know, and what we thought we knew...or simply add to the story as it stands. Who knows, it could be that a former Watchman or Minuteman was observing, and spying on the heroes of The Watchmen as the proceedings of the story were told, so we get to see his or her take on things in respect to the story...a whole other storyline that vectors off from the the original characters in ways, but eventually ties into the final end of The Watchmen as we know it, maybe on the other side of the city or the other side of the world? I don't think too many fans of The Watchmen could argue against that, if handled right.
Fox sucks by JoeSixPack	Jan 11th, 2009 11:05:55 PM
dirty tricksters, pure and simple.
Media Messiah by yiannis	Jan 12th, 2009 12:00:08 AM
"... seemingly prove once and for all, that Lucas lied when he claimed that he had the story all written out years ago, and that there was indeed a grand plan to all of the proceedings" You should really read "The Secret History of Star Wars" by Michael Kaminski (just google it as it's free to download in pdf format from the author's website). It's a fascinating read for any Star Wars fan, as it explains a lot of the REAL creation of Star Wars, as opposed to the Lucas spin, and addresses your point in a lot of detail (believe me, that shit about "one big script" is not so much spin as outright lie!)
There are exceptions to the old director theory by A for Aristocrat	Jan 12th, 2009 02:01:32 AM
Eastwood is definitely an exception and part of that may be from all those years as a struggling actor. He still has the fire. I would also say Ridley Scott is an exception,Cameron could be too. Avatar could be his best movie ever but I dont want to get my expectations too high. I just look at George Lucas and Frank Miller today. I see the Spaceballs animated series from Mel Brooks. Pick some random later movies like Godfather III from Coppola or Ghosts of Mars from Carpenter. Even Speilberg removing guns from E.T. It's hard to look at that stuff and not wonder what the hell happened to those guys. And none of this is to take away from their earlier work. They are geniuses in their craft but it is a little disappointing to see.
Thanks Yiannis!!! by Media Messiah	Jan 12th, 2009 08:27:16 AM
I will check it out immediately!!! Sorry I didn't get bac to you fast but my computer went down last night.
Boycott By Default by Animation	Jan 12th, 2009 08:40:34 AM
I dont know of any films FOX is making that I wanted to see anyway, including Wolverine. I mean, I saw X-Men 3, so I assume Wolverine will be bad also.
wolverine is gonna kick ass, moron. by shitjet	Jan 12th, 2009 08:56:04 AM
its directed by gavin hood.
You're welcome Media Messiah by yiannis	Jan 12th, 2009 11:17:17 AM
I guarantee you'll never look at George Lucas the same way again! If we catch each other in a future talkback once you've read it you'll have to let me know what you think
Just like Janine Garrafallo by ArcadianDS	Jan 12th, 2009 11:32:47 AM
who, on her failed radio show, called Fox 'the business arm of the Devil', has now taken Fox money to star on 24. Just like her, your stupid little platforms and protests will wither and fade away at the very next sign of a big blockbuster movie from Fox.
Boycotting Avatar is not the answer. by Archive	Jan 12th, 2009 02:05:46 PM
If we pay to see good movies more consistently, that's where the focus will go - and people won't get this twitchy about knifing each other when a good movie with some marketability comes up. This industry has a kneejerk reaction to it's comsumer base. We'd better not have the same reaction to the industry, or we'll be stuck with crappy comic book licensing deals and toy spinoff films for the rset of our lives.
I will boycott until the settlement is reached and Watchmen is r by Particularly Hard Vato	Jan 12th, 2009 02:52:10 PM
I think tha is the logical thing to do. Let the business peopel get their panties in a bunch, let them fight, and refuse to supposrt or take part in it. When they get it resolved, then go watch the movie. Until their get their bickering BS out of the way, no fox movies for me.
Everyone who says that it's WB's fault for not by tjrmusic	Jan 12th, 2009 04:22:06 PM
doing do dilligence in checking who had the rights. I am sure they beleived they had secured the rights, but that's still misssing the point. THE REAL POINT is that if FOX WAITED! They waited until it was in the can before doing anything about it. If it was really about rights, they would have brought it up sooner. The fact that they waited till the film was done, is what makes them louses. THE FACT THAT THEY WAITED is what makes it worth not seeing Wolverine or any of their films this year. Don't worry about people who say "It won't make a difference". Just show some spine and Just say "NO" to FOX. I'm going to.
tjrmusic... except that they didn't. by wookie1972	Jan 13th, 2009 12:35:23 PM
Wait, that is. Fox objected before one frame was filmed, and WB told them to take a hike. The first legal motion was filed in February of 2008, while filming was still going on. Read the EW article if you don't believe me. And through Fox Searchlight Fox has released two of the best movies of the year. So boycott all you want, I'm not joining in.
Re: old directors by wookie1972	Jan 13th, 2009 12:41:21 PM
It's not that directors lose their touch when they're older, it's more that staying out of the game for over a decade makes you out of touch. Yeah, I know Cameron is on top of the latest technology, but so is George Lucas. As well, directors should NEVER revisit their old material. Chaplin recut his films in the 70s with disastrous results.
Is it safe for Orcus to come out? by Orcus	Jan 28th, 2009 11:03:38 AM

Talkbacks

Court Hearing Delayed As WB & Fox Talk WATCHMEN Settlement!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks