Watchmen

Yes! So hyped for that.

Hope they make another one after/before that.

I would say not so much "godlike" but hollow, resounding and eerily even. Like an absent, uncaring god.

Good point.

Aye, I'm with you guys there. I "get" why his voice wouldn't necessarily change, but it feels all wrong to just hear an unaltered Billy Crudup speaking for what we see on screen. I wouldn't want anything over the top, but definitely something a bit deeper/emotionless. "Hollow" was certainly a good word for it.

Not only would this feel a bit more natural given the character's striking appearance and back story, but it'd allow them to ease into a more normal voice during a few select moments, heightening the contrast and highlighting the fact that he's expressing a bit more emotion than normal.

They should have just gotten David Mamet to direct him after his transformation

__________________
“A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.”
-Mikhail Bakunin

ADMIN EDIT: please use spoiler tags.

__________________

Is that good?

And here is a link to that "dialogue" from http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39131.

The comic-con footage is finally released:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...ic-con-footage

I think this trailer looks amazing, this gives me so much hope for the movie.

I like it.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I suppose it's a good thing Snyder is more about style rather than substance, should look good and maintain Moore's story.

__________________

I also like it.

__________________

Yeah, that was me saying i liked it btw.

New Trailer

I want to see this movie so badly that it hurts.

Update on the Fox vs Warner Bros lawsuit over Watchmen. A Los Angeles judge has decided to rule in favor of 20th Century Fox in their copyright lawsuit against Warner Bros. He will apparently award them distribution rights for the film scheduled to be released in March 2009. The story from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/bu...r=1&ref=movies

They may be awarded rights to distribute a Watchmen film, but not the one Warner Bros. just made; at least, not as if it were their own. If you wrote a Watchmen expanded universe novel without permission, for example, you could be sued and not allowed to release it, but DC Comics couldn't then take and it release it as their own.

Anyway, hopefully all this is probably going to mean is that Fox will get a cut of the money. And that a lawyer at WB is probably going to lose their job, if they haven't already.

It's my understanding that the case isn't until January and this whole thing is only to make sure that WB won't release the film, like tomorrow instead of the original release date.

Actually this ruling (which has not been officially been released yet) does refer to the Watchmen movie by Warner Bros. that everyone is so eagerly waiting for. The judge has indicated that Fox has shown sufficent proof of their copyright interest in the movie.
And yes Fox was only looking for a cut of the money and the judge has decided to award them distribution rights as compensation. Warner Bros. will still be on the credits I would imagine.

According to this decision by the judge the January trial is now off. The judge indicated that Fox and Warner can come to a different settlement or Warner can appeal this ruling which if successful will put the trial back on. If Warner digs in its heels and fights this ruling than IMO the release date for Watchmen will be pushed back.

Here is the link, which I posted earlier (#308) which gives greater detail on Fox's case against Warmer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/mo....html?ref=arts

I'm not suggesting that this ruling has nothing to do with the Watchmen film that has recently been completed; that'd be ridiculous. What I'm getting at (perhaps awkwardly) is that distribution rights don't entitle Fox to the film itself. WB, if so inclined, could simply not release it.

The expanded universe novel analogy I used sums it up as well as anything, I think. When someone violates some copyright, and you sue them, you get to stop them from releasing it as-is, but you don't get ownership of the thing. I think that's an important distinction, given that it would presumably preclude Fox from making any editorial changes to the film.

Anyway, I'll guess it still comes out in March. I guess we'll know soon enough.