Alt Title: "Who Gets to Watch The Watchmen? Not us."

Considering that "The Watchmen" is on Time Magazine's list of "the 100 best English-language novels" alongside "The Great Gatsby", "The Grapes of Wrath", "The Sun Always Rises" and "On The Road", I find it deeply condescending to refer to anyone who appreciates the book a "fanboy". I've never heard any of Thomas Pynchon, F. Scott Fitzgerald or Ernest Hemingway's readers called fanboys. Why don't Alan Moore's fans get the same respect?

(End rant, switch to decaf)

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

If this was still in the pre-production phase, the odds would be good that the movie doesn't get made. However having already filmed it, the clear business decision is to come to a settlement.

Gone are the days when movies are 'destroyed'..at worst they are released direct to home video. Unless you are a shareholder in Warner Bros, this issue has no impact on the average consumer.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Since the legal issues are not actually resolved as yet, it is premature to say whether Warner Brothers actually was in error as claimed by Fox.  But if indeed Warner Bothers made an expensive movie without first securing the rights to the novel upon which it is based, that was a tremendously stupid thing to do.  And Fox will cash in.

Setting aside the contract dispute for a minute - how likely is it that this movie is actually going to live up to the comic?  I'm hopeful, but I wonder about the release date...it's definitely not a typical release date for a movie that a studio expects to be a blockbuster.  Then again, with the probable R rating maybe they came to the conclusion that it would be better to be a big fish in a small pond than have to go up against a bunch of PG13 rated summer action flicks...

I'm sorry Warner Brothers might lose money, but it serves them right.  The man who wrote the book doesn't want a movie made: Alan Moore says "Watchmen works perfectly fine as a comic," and "'There are things we did that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off the things that comics can do that other media can't."

So, what are we doing making a movie of this?  If you enjoyed the book, do you really think you'll enjoy the movie more?  Is it that you don't have enough time in your busy fat-ass life to read the book?  It has, like, 50 words per page at most, and lots of pictures!

What is the appeal of going to see a movie where they take a comic book and laboriously recreate each frame on screen?  I look at the trailer, and it seems they've done a great job with make-up, costumes, and casting of recreating the looks of the major characters.  But, do you know what does an even better job of getting their looks right?  Yes: Gibbons' careful illustrations in the original book.

If they were to take the same characters and tell a new story with them--a story more suited to film than to the page--then I would understand better.  But this... why this??