rotfl

Some new photos...

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080801g.php

I always thought the girl and night owl would be a little older, like in their 30s

She is 35 in the novel, the actress playing her is 30.

Those posters are great. I need them all.

Ozymandias is the only casting I'm not too thrilled about - the actor looks way too young and far too twee.

Malin Akerman is hot as fuck.

Guess i should have imdb her and looked at her age. I was going off the trailer and pics alone and judged 22-24. I failed

Oh man! I have -totally- changed my mind about her lately. I first saw her in "The Heartbreak Kid" but she was just another cute blond actress. But then I saw her in this new Watchmen role and wow.

I even saw "Heartbreak Kid" again recently and suddenly she really stood out to me.

I thought she was hot in Harold and Kumar but something about her in Heartbreak Kid rubbed me the wrong way. She looks fantastic in The Watchmen trailer/stills. Good ol' Swedish genes.

Good to know "Freakshow's hot slutty wife from that stoner movie" is building up a decent resume.

Once again I should have read imdb. Had no idea thats who that was.

"Heartbreak Kid" was the 1st time I ever heard of her and I never saw the H&K movies. Hell, I didn't even know she wasn't American until I looked her up on imdb after seeing the Watchmen trailer; and when I did, I was like "oh shit! she was the girl with the puffy pubic fro in "Heartbreak kid!" :eek:

Plus, if she rubbed you the wrong way in "Heartbreak Kid" then I think she did her job well. :lol:

That's probably true :lol: but "irritated" by a movie should still be somewhat enjoyable by comedy standards.

Go rent Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle asap. You'll thank me later (or maybe not, but either way.)

That's the same song from the Batman and Robin soundtrack, isn't it?

Yup

#134

Fox's 'Watchmen' lawsuit heats up
Judge denies WB's motion to dismiss
By DAVE MCNARY, TATIANA SIEGELMore Articles:

A judge has denied a Warner Bros. motion to dismiss 20th Century Fox's lawsuit over the right to make a film based on the graphic novel "Watchmen."

Ruling is potentially a huge victory for Fox, which could wind up being a profit participant in the film, costing Warners millions considering the film's box office prospects. Project, which has been in development for two decades, finally began lensing in September, with Zack Snyder at the helm. Warners was set to release the film, which stars Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley, March 6 in the same slot in which "300" opened.

Judge appears to conclude that Fox retained distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons through a 1991 claim, and he concludes that under the 1994 turnaround with producer Larry Gordon, Gordon acquired an option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen," which was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under the 1994 agreement.

Here's an article on the history of the lawsuit.

I read 2 different drafts of the screenplay. Perhaps, I should read up on the graphic novel because the script didn't do anything for me. Are we supposed to respect it because it was a pioneer?

Hey, if Kevin Smith gives his thumbs up on it, it has to be good.

Fox seeks to stop WB's "Watchmen" after court win
Monday August 18 9:26 PM ET

Twentieth Century Fox said on Monday it will seek an injunction to block release of the Warner Bros movie "Watchmen" after a Los Angeles court ruled a copyright lawsuit against Warner can go forward.

The movie about raffish, flawed superheroes -- which has already been shot -- is slated for release on March 6, said Warner Bros spokesman Scott Roe.

The highly anticipated film, with a budget believed to be about $120 million, is based on a 1980s DC Comics graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.

In his decision released last week, Judge Gary Feess of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California wrote that Fox could hold some of the rights to the material, even if it did not hold all rights.

Fox argues it acquired motion picture rights to the "Watchmen" graphic novel in the last 1980s, and that even though it relinquished certain rights to the material in 1991 it held onto the right to distribute the first movie.

"We will be asking the court to enforce Fox's copyright interests in "The Watchmen" and enjoin the release of the Warner Brothers film and any related 'Watchmen' media that violate our copyright interests in that property," said Fox spokesman Gregg Brilliant.

"The Watchmen" is directed by Zack Snyder, who made the 2007 hit movie "300." The film is based on edgy material and takes an unorthodox approach to the superhero movie by focusing on flawed antiheroes.

Scott Rowe, a spokesman for Warner Bros, said the ruling only means that the case will go forward.

"The judge did not opine at all on the merits, other than to conclude that Fox satisfied the pending requirements," Rowe said. "We respectfully disagree with Fox's position and do not believe they have any rights in and to this project."

Feess' ruling was issued on Wednesday, in response to Warner Bros' request to have the case dismissed. Warner Bros made the request after Fox sought an injunction against release of "Watchmen."

Fox filed its lawsuit against Warner Bros in February. Fox's accusations against its rival studio included copyright infringement, interference with contract and breach of contract.

DC Comics, the company behind the "Watchmen" graphic novel, is a subsidiary of Warner Bros, which is owned by Time Warner Inc. Fox is owned by News Corp

---
*sigh*

I would be stunned if the court granted an injunction prohibiting the release of the film. To get an injunction, you need to show irreparable harm. If a plaintiff allows a significant period of time to lapse (normally 3 months or so) after learning of the harm but before asking for the injunction, that's a pretty clear sign that the harm is not irreparable. In this case, Fox has known for a long time that Warner bought the script, hired a director, cast the movie, shot the movie, etc. Fox is just seeking a payday from Warner, and it will probably get one. The movie will still come out on time.

I don't doubt that it will come out, because after all, like you said, they could have prevented it being made (if they do indeed have a claim to the rights for the movie) a long time ago. I just think it's pathetic for them to do this now, when the movie is pretty much complete. It's painfully obvious they just want Warner Bros. to cut them a big, fat check.

OK is anyone else here ready to burn Fox to the fuc*ing ground. All they make now are pretty much shit films and shitty dvd's (Their TV releases are the exception of course).

SO apparently since they cant make movies people want to see they get jealous and pull some shit like this at the tail end of what has to be their worst summer in many years.
Look, Fox, I know you guys have a vendetta against making a film that lasts over 90 minutes or making one that is rated R but are you such megalomaniacal douches that you dont wish other studios to make a 2.5 hour R-rated movie that looks good?
Seriously The judge should give the people over at WB a commendation for making the film over what would surely be the nightmare of a Watchmen film made by fox.

Shouldn't we be more angry at Warner? Let's see...

1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - delayed until July 09

2. Guy Ritchie's Rock N Rolla - more than likely won't be released or delayed indefinitely

3. Watchmen - Warner's lawyers obviously didn't do enough to stop this from happening.