TPWW Forums

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   entertainment forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   DC Universe Thread (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=60221)

Fignuts 12-18-2008 10:25 AM

Depp or Crispin Glover for the Riddler.

Kalyx triaD 12-18-2008 10:39 AM

I wanted Glover for Joker years back, but he'd be a great Riddler as well.

Reavant 12-18-2008 02:13 PM

johnny depp as riddler..... rachel would be a very good catwoman tho

Indifferent Clox 12-22-2008 07:42 PM

watchmen animated comic is pretty cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYX9Cn9-_mg

parkmania 12-22-2008 08:08 PM

Quote:

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.

this could take a while... :(

mitchables 12-22-2008 08:40 PM

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

mitchables 12-22-2008 08:41 PM

Quote:

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)
This angers me. While I'm glad that Moore's work is getting the attention it deserves, it deserved it on its own merits, not just beause it's being turned into a two-and-a-bit hour summary for bored teenagers.

Nowhere Man 12-22-2008 08:53 PM

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

parkmania 12-22-2008 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchables (Post 2373280)
So Fox waited until the movie was basically finished to cause a scene about this becaaaaaaaause...

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?

mitchables 12-22-2008 09:54 PM

Quote:

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?

Well, they're kinda screwing themselves, too, because they're pissing off all the people who are waiting for this movie as well. Not that it will really make a huge difference, because people will still go see Fox movies, but you know what I mean.

mitchables 12-22-2008 09:55 PM

Quote:

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.

It also means more dickheads suddenly changing their Facebook statuses to things like "James will whisper 'No'", and "Gordon watches the Watchmen" and all I want to do is headbutt every one of them.

XL 12-23-2008 04:06 AM

So I read today that Sam Neil was "officially signed on" to play Clayface in the next Batman installment.

Yeah right.

Kalyx triaD 12-23-2008 10:29 AM

lol Matt Hagen? People are having fun with this.

Seriously, Chris Nolan is chillin for a while. The only real news is the studio mulling names, there's no story or anything like that. The only rumors close to 'consistent' is Depp donning the question mark and Weisz getting catty.

Corporate CockSnogger 12-23-2008 10:53 AM

Apparently the Sun newspaper over here in the UK is claiming Eddie Murphy will be The Riddler. Ha.

mitchables 12-23-2008 10:55 AM

We debunked the Murphy-as-Riddler thing like a page ago.

Jeritron 12-23-2008 01:16 PM

It's all debunked. None of it has any merit other than fanboy casting. It's not even known what the status of the movie being made is. Nolan and Goyer haven't come up with anything, and aren't even sure if they're going to. It's 100% up in the air. They need to have story/script/director, and enter pre-production before casting is discussed. They don't even have characters to cast.

XL 12-23-2008 02:57 PM

Precisely.

I can't even think how they would do Clayface in this Batman universe. Yet every man and his dog are talking about "official" castings of Weisz, Murphy, Depp, Neill.

Kalyx triaD 12-24-2008 11:19 PM

Who Watches the Watchmen Now?:

Fox won the case.

Nowhere Man 12-24-2008 11:26 PM

So....no Watchmen?

Destor 12-24-2008 11:27 PM

Someone sum up this watchmen buisness. What was the case over and what does this mean. Please.

Kalyx triaD 12-24-2008 11:30 PM

Don't know. I imagine Fox will try to work a deal where they distribute the movie. This has nothing but gain on Fox's end. Fucked up really. Like, I'd seriously give Fox execs the eye if I meant them in real life. I understand this is a business, and maybe a certain somebody should have done some homework before giving The Watchmen production a greenlight, but its no less fucked up practices at work.

Destor 12-24-2008 11:39 PM

What was their argument? They had the right already? I know nothing about this.

Kalyx triaD 12-24-2008 11:43 PM

They had the rights in the 80's, but dropped the production for whatever reason. Then they sat on their ass and let a widely known production go on and they waited until the fuckin buzz was fever pitch until they decided "hey that's our shit, by the way."

Fignuts 12-25-2008 12:12 AM

It's actually pretty brilliant.

Reavant 12-25-2008 01:06 AM

as long as the movie comes out, who gives a shit

Kalyx triaD 12-25-2008 01:41 AM

I care.

.44 Magdalene 12-25-2008 03:15 AM

As long as it's not my infant being beaten, who gives a shit am I right

Kalyx triaD 12-25-2008 05:49 PM

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

Vastardikai 12-25-2008 07:41 PM

Quote:

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

Someone forgot about Halle Berry...

I'm Jealous. :(

Nowhere Man 12-25-2008 10:29 PM

The Halle Berry Catwoman doesn't count, since 1) it had nothing to do with the DC Catwoman, and 2) it was fucking terrible.

Jeritron 12-26-2008 12:42 AM

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

YOUR Hero 12-26-2008 03:34 PM

Oh man about the Watchmen stuff.

The rights from what I read were very confusing. I would think this FOX winning news isn't as bold a win as we might think.

Nowhere Man 12-26-2008 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron (Post 2376357)
I'm going to have to lodge a complaint about your avatar matching Supreme's

S'allright. Now that Christmas is over I'm changing it to something else.

Jeritron 12-26-2008 06:10 PM

No real worries, I just got confused haha

Kalyx triaD 12-26-2008 06:29 PM

Dethklok!!!

parkmania 12-29-2008 05:46 PM

Quote:

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.

Let the bodies hit the floor.

Blitz 12-29-2008 06:18 PM

If Warner Bros. would pay millions for Dukes of Hazard, they'd be retarded not to do it for Watchmen.

parkmania 12-29-2008 06:33 PM

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.

Blitz 12-29-2008 06:43 PM

Quote:

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.

I suspect that was never said. It'd be idiotic of Fox to not release the movie themselves. It's already made for them, it's already heavily advertised with a ton of buzz behind it, it's a dark, gritty superhero flick which is in vogue right now, directed by a young director on something of a hot streak, with a well respected cast and a rabid fan base eager to see it. It'd take a hell of a lot for this thing to flop, and even if it does, Fox hasn't spent a dime on making it. In all likelihood though, it'll be a huge hit. Why would Fox spend all this money in a legal battle just to shelve the movie?

.44 Magdalene 12-29-2008 11:30 PM

They're not looking to get money, but they'll be glad to take care of it if it shows up


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®