--Clay Davis

For those who are confused by the "scenes not in the workprint but in the trailer" sentence, he is saying he THOUGHT that there would be scenes in the finished film that were not in the workprint, based on FOX's comments and the fact that a few scenes in the trailers were not in the workprint. However, it seems these scenes have hit the cutting room floor, and no "reshoots" are evident.

Count 5 better comic book films than Watchmen and Iron man.

Ironically, it neither motivates me to shave, buy Schick products, or see Wolverine in theaters.

That's like having Harry Potter get contact lenses halfway through the first film, or worse have someone heal his scar and restore him to 20-20 vision.

It's like aragorn gay for Legolas

Or having a jive talking Ebeneezer scrooge

Seriously. Who thought it was a good idea? or did it just occur to the makers that everyone would want Deadpool to win on account of his sheer goddamn brilliance? Hell it could have worked perfectly, *spoilers*

when wolvie slashes him, it could have opened up his mouth and fuxxored his eyes, ridding him of the muteness, the lazer-eye and maybe gotten rid of the control of Striker.

There in 1 sentence I fixed the fucking movie. Fox, I officially mock your shit writers.

Bet you support Man United as well....

Example: cocaine is illegal, but a scientist can compare two different types of cocaine in a lab and report the chemical make-up of each one.

In addition, what makes it "different" is that now the FINAL FILM IS BEING SCREENED. So the leaked version can be talked about in context, not just as the SOLE REPRESENTATION OF THE FILM. The film is out there now in an official version. It is fair game now.

Are you saying that no one in the history of the world should be allowed to talk about the difference between the two versions??? How utterly fucking absurd is that?

Now had they made Saladin turn up at the end, mute and with Lazer-eyes......

Unless he's been working on the film (at which point everyone shouts PLANT) it seems a reasonable assumption that it was seen via downloading a copy from the internet.

Aintitcool's posting of THIS review could also be seen as a tacit admission that it's ok, to download unreleased movies from the internet as long as you don't review them- which i am sure is not the case.

damn shame about Spiderman 3 though. damn shame.

But Supes 1 & 2 are the definitive superhero flicks. Fucking timeless.

Technically that's not a review of the workprint any more than any reviews of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter were reviews of the books.

Logic kids, it works.

As a result they tend to attract gloryhounds and people who feel the need to back the top dogs because they're scared that their team might lose.

Much like the kind of folk who only regard Superman, Spiderman and Wolverine as comics worth reading, because hey... if it ain't a household name then it must be a bunch of shit.

BUT - if I HAD seen the workprint - I may consider the film to have been OK if rushed towards the end and the recurring problem of throwing too many characters at something that just needs to be told simply. I may have thought the re-shoots and re-editing could have made the film fairly decent - but this appears to not be the case.

You know what would be really funny though?? Is if this film opens very strongly (and there are indication outside of the fanboy community that people are excited for this) then it will blow all the bullshit out of the water that downloading destroys films. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony?? I wait with baited breath.

Prepares for the fanboy barrage.

Reynolds is PERFECT as Wade. Seriously, I wanted to see more of him and to then suddenly see him wasted utterly in a bizarre decision that neither makes sense nor follows any decent logic is disheartening.

I mean it really it'd be like taking Han Solo and have him come out of the Carbonite deathly serious, a by the book soldier and suddenly and inexplicably gay.

But here's a character who has some of the least-epic powers in all of comicdom (claws and he's really hard to hurt), whose appeal lies mostly in his personality, attitude, and overall persona. So, wouldn't the best thing to do be to scale a film to that level?

It's the same problem I had with Van Helsing. Take all the CGI out of it, make it a grounded, simple, old-style monster film, and it could have been classic. Instead it was like watching a video game, and full to the brim with junk--stupid, stupid, unnecessary, outlandish junk.

I'd line up for a "First Blood"-style Hugh Jackman Wolverine film. But then I see Ryan Reynolds in some stupid costume and all the joy immediately leaves the idea of this movie.

But by that rationale then EVERY review will be a review of the workprint. no?

RE: WCME

OK I call bullshit on the faces not moving in Spiderman 1, I've been hearing that sad line trotted out ever since Kevin Smith came up with it. And I'll say to you what I said to my mates when we first heard it.

Spidey's mouth does move, or at least his jaw does (it's because he's actually got a solid mask with a movable jaw underneath the costume, watch the dvd extras) Also you can see through the Green Goblin's eyes and the mesh over his mouth. Which is one of the reasons it's such a great performance, you can still see him under the mask. fix the brightness on your tv set dude.

Not to mention Red Sonja, Tank Girl, Howard the Duck, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Son of the Mask...there are dozens more way worse than The Phantom and especially Ang Lee's Hulk.

As I understand it, Marvel sold the rights to characters like the X-Men and Spider-Man, Daredevil and The Hulk to studios like Fox with the stipulation that is the studio does not make a film utilizing that character within a specific time-frame, the rights revert to Marvel.

What I don't know is what this time-frame is and whether or not it resets each time a new film is made or what.

I also don't understand where the lines are drawn as far as the characters go. For instance: Does Fox own the rights to ALL characters ever appearing in an X-Men book or merely the mutants?

It seems as though, after the Ang Lee shitstorm that was his Hulk, the studio that owned those rights elected not to renew them by making another film and Marvel now owns the Hulk film rights again.

Presumably they now own the Daredevil film rights again as well (but I don't know for sure).

This seems the biggest reason why the Wolverine flick has the words "X-Men" in the title: so it fulfills the rights obligations that allows Fox to continue to control the rights to these characters.

Likewise it's why you are going to continue to see Spider-Man flicks: they have to make them or they lose the rights to the character.

As I said, it's all very fuzzy to me. I'd love to see a comprehensive breakdown of who owns what and what the obligations are to retain these rights, etc., from someone who knows.

Other top stories link the Pope to mysterious Christian sect called Caffolosism and Wolverine's X-Men Origins movie licks balls...more impossible revelations to follow.

However, some of the irrational fan view-points have me second guessing my decision not to see it.

First off, I don't get all the hate people throw at Watchmen. I never read the books; but I thought the film was very good. It was a solid 4 *'s out of 5.

Second, I laugh out loud any time someone defends Ang Lee's Hulk; and it happens at least once on every comic book related talk back. Lee's Hulk was a monumental waste of time. I remember when the studio went into damage control the week before it came out. They actually aired radio spots, trying to tell people what a great film it was. The spots actually said the words, "Ang Lee's Hulk is Spiderman's moody older brother." Complete and utter shit.

As for ranking superhero movies, I think it's tough to say because everybody has their favorite hero. Just for kicks though I'll list my top 5.

5. Watchmen 4. Tim Burton's Batman 3. The Incredible Hulk 2. Ironman 1. The Dark Knight

is Fox leaking the workprint

Fox telling us the workprint is missing reshoots

Fox screening the real film which does NOT have reshoots

Fox forcing attendees to sign something that they will not talk about this fact until 2 days before the film opens

Fox putting reshoots in the trailers to fool us

Is that about right?

I have the same theory on Fantastic Four. Looks great on paper, but seeing The Thing or Reed Richards move on film just looks terribly lame. The Thing of the comics is usually drawn very stylized and even abstract. Richards can have cool poses in comics, but just looks silly in motion. Some superheroes dont work outside of comics.

I've been burned far to many times at the box office recently; spending time and money to be shown rubbish or worse...insulted.

ALL movies should be shown in low res, unfinished form before opening in the theaters...it keeps filmakers and studios honest. Or better yet..Pay AFTER you watch it...just like a restaurant. If it sucks 30 minutes in and you leave..no charge, stay to till the credits..you pay.

You HAVE to agree..Hollywood has been churing out ever worsening shit year after year. The ticket prices keep climbing, the concessions are insane..and yet the quality drops with the customer having no recourse to a refund. Worse...Hollywood KNOW they are pumping out shit...this is why openings and the next 2 weeks are so important...they have to make back the investment before word of mouth kills the take. They are like snake oil salesmen...blow into town, hawk their wares..and get out before anyone wises up a week or two later.

Piracy is the natural reaction to getting screwed...and FOX deserves no pity for churning out yet another poorly thought out, badly scripted, piss poor product.

but anyway,the movie is going to be a hit.kids just love jackmans wolvie.

2. Superman 2

3. The Rocketeer

4. Batman Returns

5. The Shadow

6. Batman Begins

7. A History of Violence

8. Hulk

9. The Dark Knight

10. Batman

And to everyone who believed their horseshit for a fraction of a millisecond, fuck you too.

Now, I ain't saying I don't do it (file share/pirate). Quite the opposite, actually. But I'll never defend it as some virtuous activity or claim that "pirating increases box office."

I'll also never claim (as some other tool did) that intellectual property rights don't exist for movies, music, or tv shows because "it's the digital age and everything should be shared and free and it's the providers own fault that they don't keep up with the times and prevent us from stealing."

I have never seen the kind of intellectual gymnastics done by those who want to believe that piracy and file sharing is a noble thing. Of course, they're the same assholes who'd scream bloody murder if someone "pirated" THEIR intellectual property.

Then again, how valuable could the "intellectual property" of someone who JUSTIFIES piracy and file sharing BE?

What did SW Xmas have? Crooning Carrie Fisher..without the benefit of showing her huge Traci Lords like Sweater Swimmers.

It also explains the seemingly ludicrous insertions of the likes of Cyclops and Storm into the film, which makes no sense at all. Somewhere there's a Marvel-Fox contract that probably defines "the X-Men" as including at least those 3 characters, and Fox is doing the least possible creative work to keep to that definition.

Bastards.

No matter how crazily anachronistic Thor may seem in today's culture, I think they have to play this one straight, not self-referential. Leave the wisecracks for the Avengers movie, when RDJ can make a crack about Thor, and then they and the Hulk go toe to toe with Ultron.

Whew, don't know if they'll film that, but imagine...

But this is my view, mate. I never said this THE definitive list of comic book adaptations. Just mine. For shits and giggles. Each to their own.

Can someone, somewhere, convince Noyce to release his original cut!?

It's not too much to ask is it, Phil? They did it for Payback.

THAT's the real reason the industry is in "trouble", though biggest BO take's dispute that claim. Even the best pirate copy is never as good as a legit DVD, if people like what they see, they will pay for it. Piracy isn't destroying the industry, greed and stupidity are.

Ominus, I don't *personally* think the Viking mythology stuff is bad--I was just addressing the Thor skeptics. Personally, I love all things Viking, love the Thor comic, and want to see them go all-out on it.

End of story.

but dont bother.aicn isnt going to answer to your question though.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I've seen my share of downloaded movies. All are ones I would never consider owning. The ones I buy are the ones I want to keep, and see in pristine condition to boot.

But this is different. This is (to my knowledge anyway) the first time a tentpole film has been leaked in its entirety prior to its public release. And this is the kind of shit that can bankrupt a studio.

I don't mind cheating "the man" of a few bucks every once in a while. Everybody does it. But two or three of these incidents happen, and before you know it the investment bankers who fund big budget movies get cold feet, and Hollywood as we know it collapses in on itself. No more Terminators. No more Watchmen. No more Potters. Especially at a time when investors are skittish to begin with.

I'll pay to see this because I try to see every big summer flick, and because I want to see Fox at least make their cash back after this debacle and keep making movies.

For a movie that's supposedly focusing on one character, there sure a lot of mutants in it. Shoe-horning in so many characters just waters it down.

Best comic book movies?

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles=one of the most accurate and enjoyable translations yet.

Spider-Man: Peter stuff is good. Goblin has nothing to do for half the movie.

Spider-Man 2: SM scenes are good. MJ already becoming annoying.

FF2: I think it's fun. I like the character relationships. Sue me.

Hulk: everything without Nolte is pretty good. Bruce is not very interesting.

Iron Man: great main character, inside and out of suit. Good fun.

Incredible Hulk: first 30 minutes are great. Kinda lame villain brings down the rest

Superman 2: great fight scenes. Lois is irritation. Luthor is great.

Batman: first movie feels a little confined. Keaton and Nicholson are great, though. Still prefer this Joker.

Batman Begins: music saves it. Good use of flashbacks and Nolan-style editing.

Dark Knight: boring. Lack of plot. Bruce Wayne is lame and whiney. Joker just isn't funny and is omnscient. Again, music is saving grace...rythm makes it feel like the movie has a pulse when it doesn't.

X-Men: silly plot. No character development other than Rogue and Wolverine.

X-Men 2: lame bad guys (army guys...yeah). No character development other than Wolverine. I truly don't understand the love for this movie.

X-Men 3: has a litte action. Big fight at end is enjoyable (at least something is happening). Unfortunately, it feel like nothing else happens before it. The X-Men just sit around yapping alot, yet still aren't interesting as characters. I think that's enough. I'm done for now.

She says, "What do you mean WE?"

He's says "huh?" and just swings away.

I would of slapped that bitch like she was Bale's mom and said, "You and me, we're done professionally!"

And I heard that Spidey 3 sucked because people kept strolling around like dah dah dah dah dah when Tobey was trying to do a scene with Bryce. It was fucking distracting.

I have no doubt quite a few writers, directors, and a few actors stop by and vent here under assumed names...saying what they REALLY think behind the anonymity provided here...Talkback is a cathartic experience.

We are Talkback...and we are Fucking Professional.

I don't read comics, so I don't know who the hell this guy is. HOWEVER, even considering the movie alone, it still sucks.

C'mon, a mutant that combine the power of all other mutants? That's just lame and generic. It plays out like a bad fighting game, where the final boss is just a bland creature which mimics the powers of other characters.

Like Shang Tsung in Mortal Kombat, from which Baraka was totalled ripped off by this movie, by the way.

I seriously believe this.

And yes, I noticed that it wasn't in the top ten anymore, which is surprising, because this time last night it had almost 800 posts.

For the man to bitch about how comic book movies are not living up to the source material when its clearly obvious he hasn't read the comic since before the 90's x-men cartoon is insulting and condescending to the readers of this site. And its not like Emma Frost is a minor character in the comics either.

think about all the negative things you've heard about this film, any of which would have been a fine target.

as for your question, harry is still lamer. Fox makes movies with little input from its audience. I wish they would change, but they haven't. they've earn their reputation. Harry Knowles describes himself as the Head Geek, and not only did put his foot in his mouth (if he looked up the wiki article, he could have seen her powers without even scrolling down) but he still managed to curse Fox for his mistake.

Just sayin'.

By the by, does anyone think if Buffalo Bill only used Harry, not only would he would have saved a lot fat ladies lives, but he'd also have a whole fall wardrobe.

Whud are you, 'bout a size 74?

I'm not sure its an apology that people want, its just how self-righteous he was about it.

And yes, I'll still go to the stupid midnight showing. I'm widdling some bone claws out of some turkey legs as I type this.

Hulk was shit too, by the way.

Which essentially means that he saw the workprint, waited until an official screening and then wrote his review. no matter which way you play it, this reviewer had the workprint.

The interesting thing is, why not just review it on its own merits? Why compare to the workprint at all?

Who on Earth thinks that a good review is based upon comparing it to the trailer or a half complete version?

This is just a lazy attempt to cover up the blatantly obvious.

So they track down wolverine, they convince him to get the adadictome and next thing he's being lowered into the tank, he gets the injection. he's dead????????? is he????????????? and then, NO - he's alive. and then they start shooting at him so he has to run. "Get him back" they say for the rest of the time, yet they keep trying to fucking kill him.

it was just a stupid fucked up film.

So was Watchmen - but for different reasons.

The biggest problems...the guy they cast as The Spirit has none of the charm or comedic timing required for the role and Scarlett Johansson..I've never seen an actress care LESS. At least when Samuel L. Jackson collects a check he gives you SOME kind of entertainment for your money. She is a waste I dread to think of her in Iron Man 2. Their are so many scenes improperly blocked.

Characters just TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK while they WALK WALK WALK or stand still. Miller forgot that directing and writing are two different things. Their was some dynamic camera work but something tells me those weren't his idea. Everything is just so static. Like a Kevin Smith film, but at least smith admits his directing is bland.

Miller tries so hard to emulate Sin City and I think it proves that Sin City was no fluke because Spirit failed at everything that film did so well. Heck even the campy performances in Sin City are fun to laugh at...in The Spirit they are just depressingly sad

Holy Shit!

Victor Creeds son and NOT Wolve's bro. Who cares?!"

I wanted to be a submarine captain (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, anyone?) or just to be able to breath fire at will (thanks Gene Simmons and The Phantom of the Park, assholes) but the fates had different plans for me (God Emperor of the known Universe and unknown Multiverse) but I wonder what these modern day vacuum cleaner salesmen wanted to be before they became plants? We're they like all those vocationally miscast english teachers/professors who wanted to be working authors and novelists? Is it that kind of dream crushing let down? Or is it the kind of let down a failed rock star has lamenting the McDonald's cash register picture buttons?

Perspiring minds want to know...?

What do you think happens then? Well, the first thing that happens is a few talented people get together to start a filmmaking co-op. Sure it might be small, but if the put out a few good films they will make some bank.

Before you know it, they take the fruits of their success and bankroll other people's films and - oh - guess what? They just became a studio.

So then - just because of the overarching rules of economics - a few of these films do well because they appeal to a lot of people, and a few of them tank. Before long, the people who run the studio begin to learn what works and what doesn't. What will virtually allow them to print money and what will send them to the poorhouse. And eventually they're focus-group testing everything they touch to make sure it appeals to everyone under the sun. And welcome to Hollywood 2.0.

Face it dude, Hollywood is the way it is today because it's a BUSINESS. No matter the vertical, every company wants to make money. It's at the number one position on their mission statement. Show me a company that doesn't make money and I'll show you a company in bankruptcy or complete insolvency.

So, after all that, why would you want Hollywood to fail? Why burn down Rome today if tomorrow you're just going to rebuild it again.

(and don't say we can rebuild it differently, because we can't. Capitalism is capitalism. Market forces are market forces. Period.)

Ok, Logan would kill the Blue Beetle. I can admit that. Ted could prolly take Deadpool, tho.

Never to be seen again.