Originally Posted by The Destroyer (Post 2304943)

My money's on Alan Scott. :shifty:

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 2322197)

I love to have a red X too.

Originally Posted by U-Warrior (Post 2327384)

Wasn't everyone just saying how mr. freeze, robin, and poison ivy wouldn't work in Nolan's vision of Batman? But now we're all okay with them adding GL and Superman?

I'd rather see them try and integrate the former, as GL and Superman is just too far-fetched for the universe Nolan has created. I disagreed with the popular opinion, and thought you could stretch the realism of Nolan's movies to create a grittier, more suitable version of some of baman's more out-there rogues, but extraterrestials is where I draw the line.

Originally Posted by Beyonce

I want to do a superhero movie and what would be better than Wonder Woman? It would be great, and it would be a very bold choice. A black Wonder Woman would be a powerful thing. It's time for that, right?

Originally Posted by icv2.com

'Watchmen' Still in Judicial Limbo
Judge Passes on Pre-Trial Ruling
Published: 12/16/2008, Last Updated: 12/17/2008 01:49am
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the federal judge hearing the lawsuit brought by Twentieth Century Fox against Warner Bros. over the rights to release the Watchmen movie has indicated that he will not make a pre-trial ruling on the merits of Fox’s complaint, leaving open the very real possibility that the suit could go to trial on January 20th. That's the new trial date set by the judge, who moved the original court date of January 6th back two weeks. Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s groundbreaking graphic novel is set to debut in theaters on March 6th.



According to The Times U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess told lawyers for both sides that “a series of 1990s contracts between Fox and Watchmen producer Larry Gordon are so open to interpretation that he could not render a pre-trial judgment for either party, as the lawyers had requested.”



The judge’s failure to make an early determination raises the stakes in what is turning into a nasty game of “chicken” rooted in the murky world of “turnarounds,” the process in which potential movie properties move from one studio to another after the original studio sours on the project (see “Fox and Warners Watchmen Feud Escalates”). Warner Bros. has already put a good deal of effort behind the March debut of the Watchmen movie. Trailers for the Watchmen movie have accompanied the mega-hit The Dark Knight (resulting in a huge surge in sales of the Watchmen graphic novel) and the new James Bond film, Quantum of Solace.

Originally Posted by mitchables (Post 2373280)

So Fox waited until the movie was basically finished to cause a scene about this becaaaaaaaause...

Originally Posted by parkmania (Post 2373375)

Because what better way to screw your competitor than by waiting until they spend a lot of money making and advertising the movie, THEN get the injunction?

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man (Post 2373297)

Hey, it means more people are reading the comic. That always happens when a graphic novel gets adapted.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD (Post 2376172)

The Cat's Last Meow:

Eartha Kitt, the first and only black Catwoman and one the best to play the part, died at age 81. You may remember her tenure as Catwoman on the campy yet charming Batman TV series from way back when. She never minded giving a fan her signature purr when asked.

http://shirleybassey.files.wordpress...hacatwoman.jpg

Originally Posted by Jeritron (Post 2376357)

I'm going to have to lodge a complaint about your avatar matching Supreme's

Originally Posted by icv2.com

'Watchmen' Judge Rules in Fox's Favor
March Release in Jeopardy
Published: 12/27/2008, Last Updated: 12/29/2008 01:53pm
In a stunning about-face Judge Gary A. Feess has ruled that 20th Century Fox “owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture." Just a week earlier the same judge indicated that he couldn’t make a ruling and set a new trial date of January 20th for Fox’s lawsuit (see “Watchmen Still in Judicial Limbo”). In issuing his decision in favor of Fox the judge opined that “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review.”



A more detailed ruling in the case is coming soon, but Judge Feess’ decision in favor of Fox could really put a crimp in Warner Bros. plans to release the Watchmen movie on March 6th. Fox could of course accept a payment (or a fee plus a percentage of the film’s gross) and allow Warner Bros. to proceed with its planned March release, but it appears that, if the judge’s ruling stands, Fox could get an injunction preventing Warner Bros. from distributing the film, if Fox so desires. Warners could eschew a settlement and appeal, but that route would be costly and time-consuming.



In a previous case regarding the rights to the Dukes of Hazard movie, Judge Feess ruled against Warner Bros. and the studio ended up paying millions of dollars in a settlement in order to release the film. The judge’s ruling puts Warner Bros. in a very difficult position—if the studio decides to appeal the decision rather than to settle, it could be years before the film is finally released.



The dispute stems from the fact that Fox was the first studio to option Watchmen in the late 1980s. The project went from Fox to Universal to Paramount before finally landing at Warner Bros. in what is one of the most tortuous examples of the murky Hollywood practice of “turnaround” in which a studio sours on a project and relinquishes its rights (with conditions) to another studio (see “Fox and Warners Watchmen Feud Escalates”).



Producer Larry Gordon, who has been with the project from the beginning, is at the center of the dispute. In a surprising development that has just come to light in Judge Feess’ latest ruling, it appears that Gordon has refused to testify concerning the key 1994 “turnaround” agreements citing attorney/client privilege, contending that he could not separate his own recollections from what he learned from his counsel, a use of attorney/client privilege that evidently upset Judge Feess considerably. In his opinion the judge noted that “The Court takes a dim view of this conduct and questions whether the assertion of privilege was proper. Moreover the assertion of privilege does have a consequence: having now reached a decision based on the record before it, 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.”



If Gordon, who reportedly told Warner Bros. that he had cleared the rights with Fox, can't testify, it would appear to make an appeal more difficult and some sort of settlement more likely.

Originally Posted by parkmania (Post 2379532)

Well, the ball is in Fox's court right now as to whether they'd even accept being paid. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that a Fox exec was quoted that they weren't looking to get money, they just didn't want the movie to come out.