What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***OFFICIAL*** Watchmen movie thread (1 Viewer)

FOX is suing Warner Bros, claiming that they don't have full rights to make the movie, and that produciton must be halted:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...e4befec534c5382

Uuuuugh.... such a long delay already. Decades. Not now with the finish line in sight!

Fox sues over 'Watchmen'

By Leslie Simmons

Feb 12, 2008

20th Century Fox has initiated a legal battle against Warner Bros. over the rights to develop, produce and distribute a film based on the graphic novel "Watchmen."

On Friday, the studio sued Warners, claiming it holds the exclusive copyrights and contract rights to "Watchmen."

Warners plans to release next year a big-screen version of the popular comic book written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. The cast includes Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman. It is the studio's policy to not comment on pending litigation.

But Fox seeks to enjoin Warners from going forward with the project, saying in the lawsuit that it seeks to "restrain (Warner Bros. Pictures) from taking actions that violate Fox's copyrights and which stand to forever impair Fox's rights to control the distribution and development of this unique work."

Fox claims that between 1986 and 1990, it acquired all movie rights to the 12-issue DC Comics series and screenplays by Charles McKeown and Sam Hamm. In 1991, Fox assigned some rights via a quitclaim to Largo International with the understanding that the studio held exclusive rights to distribute the first motion picture based on "Watchmen," according to the lawsuit.

When Largo dismantled, the rights were transferred to producer Lawrence Gordon. Under a "turnaround agreement" between Fox and Gordon, the producer agreed to pay a buy-out price to Fox if he entered into any agreement with another studio or third party to develop or produce "Watchmen," among other things.

The project apparently bounced around to Universal and Paramount before returning to Warners. Now, Fox claims that neither Gordon nor Warners has paid the buy-out price or advised the studio of any other conditions required under the agreement, including procedures necessary to acquire the rights to "Watchmen" from Fox.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
 
so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it. :goodposting: But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.

 
so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it. :fishing: But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.
 
so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it. :thumbdown: But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.
Not true -- graded, unread copies on eBay have been going for $100 or more.
 
so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it. :lmao: But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.
Not true -- graded, unread copies on eBay have been going for $100 or more.
Graded being the key. The grading costs $30, and unless you have a 9.5 or higher, you won't get much.
 
Even if the movie does really well, the market price of the comic shouldn't change much. Not enough scarcity in those issues, or demand by people to own first printings of the comics vs. a reprint trade. If there is a small bump in price, it won't be sustainable.

 
Yeah, some of the other materials may be worth more, but the issues individually not much. I know they put out a set of cover posters, and the art pages are sometimes (although rarely) put out on Ebay (usually got for $3K+).

 
I'm reading this graphic novel right now and I have to say it's sort of dragging ### a bit. Of course, I will still go happily see the movie as Carla Gugino is ... well ... super purrty and stuff.

 
I'm reading this graphic novel right now and I have to say it's sort of dragging ### a bit. Of course, I will still go happily see the movie as Carla Gugino is ... well ... super purrty and stuff.
It's not an action story. It's a character study. And it also says some very powerful things about post-war America, and the nuclear age. This is part of the reason I don't think it will be that effective as a movie, though it is one of the best things I have ever read. Some novels simply don't lend themselves to movies. The trailer for the movie had great visuals, but again, it's not the visual of the story that's important.
 
Just finished reading the graphic novel a few weeks ago in anticipation of seeing the movie. It truly is more of a character study than an action story but I'm sure it'll be jazzed up appropriately for the movie. Dr. Manhattan alone should generate enough special effects to keep it lively.

The novel is fantastic BTW and I highly recommend it. Incredible artwork to boot.

 
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1596149/story.jhtml

'Watchmen' Sneak Peek: A Shot-By-Shot Look At Jaw-Dropping New Footage

MTV News caught 20 minutes of new material.

By Shawn Adler

Views 2,080

* Send to Friend

close

Send to a Friend

Fill out the information below to share this article.

Friend's email address *Multiple addresses must be separated by commas

Your email address

Comments

* Print

* del.icio.us

* Newsvine

* Digg

It's the apex of the form, the so-called "Citizen Kane" of comic-books, the only graphic novel to appear on Time magazine's list of the 100 greatest English-language novels.

Leave it to director Zack Snyder to make a film that, by all indications, is actually going to live up to it.

MTV News was among a handful of outlets invited to view about 20 minutes of occasionally incomplete footage from the upcoming "Watchmen," including its cold open and astonishing credit montage. (Footage was also screened at Comic-Con in July; watch Snyder talk about the trailer here.)

(For more news from the event check out Splash Page.)

Because the movie departs (in some minor ways) from Alan Moore's graphic novel, consider this your one spoiler alert if you'd like to remain completely fresh.

Cold open: "It's a joke. It's all a joke."

The film opens with a yellow screen, against which the familiar logos for Warner Bros. and DC Comics are superimposed. Imperceptibly at first, the camera zooms out, revealing bit by bit something larger — a smiley-face button — and still more, until the button's wearer, the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is seen in full view. He's in his apartment making a cup of tea, watching a "McLaughlin Group"-esque group of talking heads (including Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan!) discuss the rising Russian aggression.

For several moments, their voices are all that's heard. One asks if Russia will attack. Another responds that they might, not knowing that the U.S. has a walking nuclear arsenal, Dr. Manhattan. And yet, Russia continues to stockpile weapons, the third chimes in. The Doomsday Clock moves three minutes to midnight as the Comedian looks bemused. He flips the channel and sees President Nixon giving a speech, flips it again and watches snippets of a Veidt perfume commercial, which blares Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" through his speakers.

Suddenly, a hooded figure appears outside his door, smashing it in. "Just a matter of time, I suppose," the Comedian says matter-of-factly to the intruder. He throws a coffee cup, the intruder sways, reaches for a gun, the intruder bobs, throws several knifes (which he literally grabs out of the air). "It's a joke," the Comedian laughs through blood. "It's all a joke."

The fight is all but over. As "Unforgettable" continues to play, the burly Comedian is thrown around his apartment, smashed into tables and walls (one of which has the Sally Jupiter pinup poster leaked online last month), and, finally, mercifully, thrown out the window to his death. His smiley-face pin hits the ground seconds after, blood staining its clear, yellow surface.

The camera zooms into the button as Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin' " plays; the credit montage then begins.

In a brief introduction before the footage, Snyder explained that the credit montage was a way to showcase a lot of the film's backstory, which stretches from the late 1930s to the mid-'80s. It's the type of sequence you wish you could watch 50 times. As Dylan twangs, the following shots are shown in slow-motion:

» The original Nite Owl punching a criminal outside of a theater

» Sally Jupiter at the head of a press conference, holding a newspaper that reads "World Goes Ga-Ga Over Silk Spectre"

» A photo opportunity for the original Minutemen

» Americans celebrating V-J Day in Times Square in 1945, when Silhouette, a lesbian, kisses a nurse, replacing the sailor in the famous photograph

» Dollar Bill shot dead, his cape stuck in a door

» Mothman being dragged to a mental hospital against his will

» A shot of young Rorschach alone in a hallway, a seemingly revolving door of men entering his mother's room

» Dr. Manhattan shaking hands with John F. Kennedy ... soon seen being shot in Dallas, with Jacqueline Kennedy falling over the trunk. A pan reveals none other than the Comedian on the grassy knoll.

» Young Laurie Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre II) running into her parents' bedroom amidst an argument

» Silhouette dead, gutted on her bed beside her lover

» Two criminals tied to a fire hydrant, the only clue a Rorschach puzzle beside their limp bodies

» Andy Warhol exhibiting a gallery piece of Nite Owl in the style of his Marilyn Monroe portraits

» Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, saying the apocryphal "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." The videographer is none other than Dr. Manhattan, naked, beside him.

» A hippy student placing a flower into the muzzle of a gun — seconds before getting shot

» A retirement party for Sally, framed like DaVinci's "Last Supper"

» Ozymandias outside Studio 54 in NYC, where he shakes hands with David Bowie

» The new Crimebusters gather for an updated portrait

» President Nixon on TV, the bottom crawl reading "Term Limits Repealed." The camera zooms out to showcase the TV in a windowed showroom. A graffiti artist is painting the words "Who Watches the Watchmen" when a Molotov cocktail is thrown through the glass, exploding the screen.

» Dr. Manhattan's Origin: "I feel fear for the last time."

If some of the earlier material was tonally faithful rather than literally so, Dr. Manhattan's origin sequence is where the true brilliance of Alan Moore is allowed to shine through, unabridged. Just like in the novel, the action jumps from one seemingly random point in time to another, as Manhattan is heard in voiceover explaining his transformation: A young Jon Osterman fixes a watch as his father looks on; he attends a carnival with his new girlfriend; he finds himself trapped in a field chamber; he transforms, then re-appears, first as a circulatory system, then in full glory. "My God!" people scream. He trains with the government, "They are shaping me into something gaudy, something lethal," he says. Armed thugs are eviscerated, their innards exploding against the ceiling. A friend dies of cancer. He escapes to Mars.

A photograph of happier times is dropped on the dusty, red, Martian surface. A glass palace emerges, ticking clockwork, from the sand as the sun rises.

"It's too late," Manhattan says, mournfully. "Always has been. Always will be. Too late."

"Watchmen" opens March 6, 2009.

 
total nerd chub workin now. Fingers crossed the studio suits can have the ability to realize that in order for this movie to be great it can't be some 2 hour "commercial" flick. I think a condensed version could feasibly be told in 3 hours, but we're likely to see a 2 hour 40/45 minute cut.

 
New Watchmen trailer playing before the new Bond movie

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1

I think I like the first one more, but this one shows a lot more.
I'm hyped for this movie.
I thought the new trailer was alright.nothing special
Agreed it looks like they just expanded on a few of the scenes from the first trailer. But, my goodness I loved the song they used in the first release (the beginning is the end is the beginning, by smashing pumpkins). It really gave you the feel of what Watchmen is all about.
 
:tumbleweed:
Fox wins ruling in 'Watchmen' caseJudge finds in favor of studioBy DAVE MCNARYA Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," representing a setback for Warner Bros.' plans to release the pic in March.“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.Judge Gary Allen Feess issued the surprise ruling Wednesday -- a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit -- and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment.Warner Bros. has not backed off a release date of March 6 for "Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.The suit asserts that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement. Warner Bros. has denied Fox's assertions and contended Fox doesn't hold the copyright.Fox originally acquired the rights to "Watchmen" in the late 1980s and spent more than $1 million developing the project, which later went to Universal and then Paramount before landing at Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:banned:

Fox wins ruling in 'Watchmen' caseJudge finds in favor of studioBy DAVE MCNARYA Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," representing a setback for Warner Bros.' plans to release the pic in March.“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.Judge Gary Allen Feess issued the surprise ruling Wednesday -- a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit -- and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment.Warner Bros. has not backed off a release date of March 6 for "Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.The suit asserts that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement. Warner Bros. has denied Fox's assertions and contended Fox doesn't hold the copyright.Fox originally acquired the rights to "Watchmen" in the late 1980s and spent more than $1 million developing the project, which later went to Universal and then Paramount before landing at Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.
dammit. after finishing the comic, i was really looking forward to this movie even though i'm fairly sure it had no chance at all to match up.
 
This movie will never see the light of day. Fox is more interested in forcing WB to have wasted $$ on creating a film that will never get released instead of splitting the profits or working out some other settlement with Fox.

 
This movie will never see the light of day. Fox is more interested in forcing WB to have wasted $$ on creating a film that will never get released instead of splitting the profits or working out some other settlement with Fox.
I find that hard to believe. The hype for this is already huge. I can't think of another film that made it this far along and was derailed. $$$ always talks.
 
Echo Seven said:
This movie will never see the light of day. Fox is more interested in forcing WB to have wasted $$ on creating a film that will never get released instead of splitting the profits or working out some other settlement with Fox.
Wasting $$? Who cares? It's one movie. What did they spend making it? 100 mil? Maybe 150. That's nothing. It does no damage to WB to have a movie they spend 150mil on do nothing. It happens all the time. What does FOX care if they force WB to sit on a movie that makes nothing? It doesn't make anything for FOX. It doesn't hurt WB at all. How much did they spend on making "10,000 BC"? At least half the cost of the production of the movie is paid again in the marketing, release, advertising, etc. Not having to do that stuff, just making the movie and putting it on a shelf never to see the light of day, would be less of a financial hurt to WB than a film like "10,000 BC" was, since they don't have to spend all the money on putting it out there to watch it fail. So all FOX would do is force WB to put forth the production cost of one more "10,000 BC", without having to spend the marketing and advertising costs, with no chance to recoup. Big deal. One more movie on WB's fiscal calendar is a drop in the bucket. They make it up by raising the syndication price of "Two and Half Men" by 2% next year or bringing in just one more corporate tie-in sponsor for Nolan's next Batman movie.

I really don't see why FOX wants to hold this up for anything other than a negotiating ploy to get a higher percentage on the distribution back end. I mean, really, what does FOX have to lose by having WB spend the money to make, promote, and market the film if FOX just steps in at the last stage, takes half or more of the distro fee, maybe even does the release themselves, for their fee? They'd get their $100 mil fee up front, and 1/4th the cost of every ticket. Much better deal than them taking ownership of the property back, spending years making their own movie (which has just been sitting around collecting dust for years on end--they've shown they can't put it together themselves), worrying about the financial risks involved, etc., just to get an extra 1/4th of each ticket. Real money's in the distribution anyway.

I'd think eventually FOX will just come to some sort of settlement. It's all reward and no risk to just take a chunk of WB's profit.

 
videoguy505 said:
I still don't see why FOX would get in the way here. Just take their profit and let the movie proceed.
Well the problem becomes that if WB is forced to share it's profits with Fox, It's gonna have to do something to make more money to counter what it's giving up. First thing they'll probably do is cut the film from 2.5 hours down to at least 2 hours so it can get more runs of the film in. The more they cut out, the bigger the disappointment it's going to be. As it is, I don't know how they managed to get most of the book done in 2.5 hours (I know they took out the pirate comic stuff)
 
Well the problem becomes that if WB is forced to share it's profits with Fox, It's gonna have to do something to make more money to counter what it's giving up. First thing they'll probably do is cut the film from 2.5 hours down to at least 2 hours so it can get more runs of the film in. The more they cut out, the bigger the disappointment it's going to be.
I guess that's possible, but, trimming 20% of the runtime with 3 months before release would be the biggest clusterfudge reconform ever. Would hate to be the mixer on that soundstage. You can't just cut time out like that, you'd have to go back and re-score all the music and stuff. Possible, but, a major headache.WB, I would imagine, might have other avenues to recoup the FOX losses. They could just begrudgingly push forward as is and give FOX their cut, but fold something else into the agreement to keep ancillary profits at a higher percentage. Or book a share with a flop to hide some profits... these guys have their ways of making a million dollars disappear here and there as necessary. I'd think WB would take the hit if FOX would settle for something hands-off. Looks like the ruling here hits only on distribution rights for now, so, WB has to see some glimmer there to sneak in some profit through other channels.
 
As it is, I don't know how they managed to get most of the book done in 2.5 hours (I know they took out the pirate comic stuff)
The scuttlebutt is that Snyder wanted the movie to be released with a three to four hour length, but the studio resisted.
 
:kicksrock: stupid fox

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business...30watchmen.html

Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

Published: December 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Who’s watching the “Watchmen”? Come March 6, it may not be moviegoers.

A federal judge, having ruled last week that 20th Century Fox has distribution rights to “Watchmen,” an eagerly anticipated superhero movie shot by Warner Brothers, said he was inclined to decide after a hearing scheduled for Jan. 20 whether the release of the film should be blocked.

At a morning conference, lawyers for both studios heard the judge, Gary A. Feess, elaborate on his ruling, issued last Wednesday, that Fox owned an interest in “Watchmen,” a film Warner was preparing to release on March 6, in association with Legendary Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

“I thought we ought to talk,” Judge Feess told the lawyers in opening the session. In an exchange that quickly became testy, Steven A. Marenberg, a lawyer representing Warner challenged the judge’s decision to rule in Fox’s favor without a trial. But Judge Feess said he planned to move on to the question of remedies rather than fighting the issues again.

“I have spent more time than I think you can imagine working on your case at a time when I didn’t expect to be working on it,” Judge Feess said, referring to an expedited schedule that was intended to resolve the movie’s status before its planned release.

Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. In court, neither side gave any sign of a settlement. Mr. Marenberg said he believed a settlement would be even more difficult given the judge’s order.

“Watchmen” has been the talk of the fan world since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on a famous graphic novel of the same title.

But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures, and then Paramount.

From the beginning, Fox has contended, among other things, that Mr. Gordon — who was never named as a defendant in the case — failed in an obligation to offer the movie to that studio when Mr. Snyder became involved. Mr. Snyder signed on in the wake of his success with “300” for Warner and Legendary, giving the project a cachet it had lacked.

Warner’s lawyers argued that Mr. Gordon and his lawyers had signed over rights to “Watchmen” without mentioning a crucial agreement between a company Mr. Gordon controlled and Fox. Also, they said that if anyone still owed a buyout fee to Fox, it was Mr. Gordon.

Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.

“The Court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “The Court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this Court’s ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.”

“Watchmen” acquired almost mythic status in Hollywood as a project that could not be filmed. Based on a series written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, its story follows the tawdry lives of superheroes in a world that had rejected them.

The tale was long considered too dark for a mainstream film. But the culture changed, as heroes in the “X-Men” and “Batman” films took on more somber tones without losing their audience. As a result, “Watchmen” could be a lucrative prize for the winning studio. Warner leads all studios in box office results for 2008 based on hits including “The Dark Knight,” “Sex and the City” and “Four Christmases.” Fox lags far behind but has had big hits recently, included “Marley & Me.”

Mr. Snyder has walked a difficult line in adapting “Watchmen,” which has cult status among its fans. He has made a point of remaining true to the tone of his material and much of its story, but has clearly made concessions to the limits of a feature-length film, for instance, by withholding an elaborate “Tales of the Dark Freighter” subplot for a separate film to be released on DVD.

Mr. Snyder has said he would not become involved with any sequel to “Watchmen,” out of respect for the integrity of its story.
 
:confused: stupid fox

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business...30watchmen.html

Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

Published: December 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Who’s watching the “Watchmen”? Come March 6, it may not be moviegoers.

A federal judge, having ruled last week that 20th Century Fox has distribution rights to “Watchmen,” an eagerly anticipated superhero movie shot by Warner Brothers, said he was inclined to decide after a hearing scheduled for Jan. 20 whether the release of the film should be blocked.

At a morning conference, lawyers for both studios heard the judge, Gary A. Feess, elaborate on his ruling, issued last Wednesday, that Fox owned an interest in “Watchmen,” a film Warner was preparing to release on March 6, in association with Legendary Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

“I thought we ought to talk,” Judge Feess told the lawyers in opening the session. In an exchange that quickly became testy, Steven A. Marenberg, a lawyer representing Warner challenged the judge’s decision to rule in Fox’s favor without a trial. But Judge Feess said he planned to move on to the question of remedies rather than fighting the issues again.

“I have spent more time than I think you can imagine working on your case at a time when I didn’t expect to be working on it,” Judge Feess said, referring to an expedited schedule that was intended to resolve the movie’s status before its planned release.

Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. In court, neither side gave any sign of a settlement. Mr. Marenberg said he believed a settlement would be even more difficult given the judge’s order.

“Watchmen” has been the talk of the fan world since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on a famous graphic novel of the same title.

But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures, and then Paramount.

From the beginning, Fox has contended, among other things, that Mr. Gordon — who was never named as a defendant in the case — failed in an obligation to offer the movie to that studio when Mr. Snyder became involved. Mr. Snyder signed on in the wake of his success with “300” for Warner and Legendary, giving the project a cachet it had lacked.

Warner’s lawyers argued that Mr. Gordon and his lawyers had signed over rights to “Watchmen” without mentioning a crucial agreement between a company Mr. Gordon controlled and Fox. Also, they said that if anyone still owed a buyout fee to Fox, it was Mr. Gordon.

Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.

“The Court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “The Court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this Court’s ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.”

“Watchmen” acquired almost mythic status in Hollywood as a project that could not be filmed. Based on a series written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, its story follows the tawdry lives of superheroes in a world that had rejected them.

The tale was long considered too dark for a mainstream film. But the culture changed, as heroes in the “X-Men” and “Batman” films took on more somber tones without losing their audience. As a result, “Watchmen” could be a lucrative prize for the winning studio. Warner leads all studios in box office results for 2008 based on hits including “The Dark Knight,” “Sex and the City” and “Four Christmases.” Fox lags far behind but has had big hits recently, included “Marley & Me.”

Mr. Snyder has walked a difficult line in adapting “Watchmen,” which has cult status among its fans. He has made a point of remaining true to the tone of his material and much of its story, but has clearly made concessions to the limits of a feature-length film, for instance, by withholding an elaborate “Tales of the Dark Freighter” subplot for a separate film to be released on DVD.

Mr. Snyder has said he would not become involved with any sequel to “Watchmen,” out of respect for the integrity of its story.
:kicksrock: :rant:
 
:goodposting:since we're posting on a FF message board isn't everyone here at FBG a :goodposting: ?
Yes. But there are varying levels of nerdiness. You have guys like Otis who live in NYC and party like a rockstar. Then you have guys like me who use 'drinking birds' to continually hit F5 while surfing these forums.
 
I read part of the graphic novel a long time ago, when it first came out. Don't remember much and I don't think I made it halfway through it (youth). Should I read the novel before seeing the movie, or let it be a surprise in the movie, then read the novel? I'm leaning towards reading it first.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top