UPDATED: Watchmen Lawsuit Settled!

It's not us, it's him!!! HE's the bad guy you want! GET'EM!!!

Man, this sounds too much like Sin Lasalle goin after his money in "Be Cool".

I take it Gordon's fired then? Typical bullshit, they blame someone lese to take the fall as if they're not big enough to take responsibility for their own direction.

Ozymandias would have it no other way.
Larry Gordon must take the fall so that the rest of the world can unite in peace to enjoy this film.

I just hope to see more Ed Norton in Hulk. I really think the Incredible Hulk hit all the right notes and is a great movie version of this iconic comic book character.

I still say it comes out right on time. No reason to even get all worked up.

The Hulk hit all the right notes? Who are you, the guy who thinks a fart on a snare drum is music? I like Ed Norton, but that movie was garbage, I don't think I have to elaborate, I'm hoping 90% of the people here agree(If theyve seen it) and the other 10% are legally brain dead(IE of Britney Spears level intelligence).

The Icredible Hulk was pretty good, considering the character.

I liked the new Hulk just as much IF NOT MORE then Iron Man. The ending fight was 100 x better.

I guess this is good news. Its always the little Man that gets the shaft.

"The needs of the Many outway the needs of the Few".

Oh well somebody has to take the fall! Looks like WB and Gordon's lawyer didn't do their homework and ignored Fox to boot. Gordon had to know what he signed in 1991. At least it'll be out on time. Let's hope that with all this bullsh@t sideshow circus crap that it'll be worth it.

BTW, The Incredible Hulk was a very entertaining film. It's much better than the Ang Lee debacle and also better than 75% of the comic book adaptations that have been made so far!

xaosjerk, i dont think the hulk reboot was bad, but i certainly agree it was not that good! Ang lee made a thoughtful, interesting movie but the fanboys wanted more HULK SMASH! and you got it. shame the reboot was as deep as a puddle

Guys I gotta say, I was never really worried about this whole thing. As Fox only owned American distribution rights, they would have burned themselves badly in this ordeal when the whole world was seeing this movie except for those of us who live in the U.S. Personally I think it was all a big marketing stunt more than anything. It is good news though and I will be at the theater opening weekend to see this movie.

As I've known from the beginning, this was going to be settled in plenty of time for the Watchmen movie to come out on time. Now don't all of you people who were getting all worked up about that "evil Fox" feel silly? Anyone who knows something about how lawsuits work knew that this thing would come to a settlement. All Fox really wanted was a cut of the action, and that's what they're going to get. There was never any REAL threat of the movie not coming out on time.

I agree with Dr. Fever that the next thing everyone is all worked up over that will prove to be nothing is the alleged Samuel Jackson thing. He'll be there when filming starts. Bank on it.

And finally: xaosjerk: please learn some tolerance for divergent viewpoints! Just because I like something you don't doesn't make ME brain-dead. The same applies for something you like that I don't. It's all OPINIONS, my friend. Nobody is "right". The Hulk wasn't perfect, but as someone who grew up watching the old TV show, it was a fun and enjoyable film that captured a lot of the essence of what makes the Hulk interesting in the first place, imo.

why are people talking about the Incrediable Hulk on a watchmen post ?

I used the name "Xaosjerk" on here for a reason, I'm often a jerk, meh. I don't agree at all that the Hulk couldn't be a great movie, I did actually like the Ang Lee one better than the new one even though I really like alot of the actors in the new one, theyve all done tremendous jobs on other films. I'd chock this failure up to the director/and or producer. A movie doesnt have to be thoughtless and campy to be a great action flick, TDK, LOTR, and the Matrix are all examples of action flicks that worked really well.

Theres plenty of good story just in the concept of the Hulk(which is basically Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde, which has always been a great storyline) even if youre going to totally bastardize it from its original form. It just takes good acting, good directing and editing, good writing and reasonably good special effects. The Ang Lee one had it's faults as well, it built up to be really dramatic and then in the end his father as the bad guy just fizzled out into a bad execution as well as the dog fight being really cartooney.

Regardless If youre going to accept a movie like T.I.H. as an example of a good comic book movie, youre never going to make the studios realize that a comic movie can be, and most often should be more than a Van Dam movie with expensive CGI(especially with a classic like Hulk if you want to take a dump on a snare drum do it with some hollywood invention or something no one cares about like the Savage Dragon or something), and since you have gone further in patronizing this product ("Do I have the movie in my collection: Yes.") you've encouraged their complacency, explicitly telling them they done good, and the rule of evolution is that characteristic which is successful will be reproduced and reproduced infinitum.

I wasnt that big a fan of Iron Man either, though I think it was better than Hulk (Not by that much), For super hero comic movies I'd go something like #1 Watchmen (I'm pretty confident from what I've seen), #2 TDK (regardless of the I heart the Bush administration thing going on in it with the message that warrantless wiretapping and torture are cool if youre fighting a violent enemy, lying to the public is totally justified, and that democracy makes bad decisions and that instead elite individuals make better decisions IE justifying every monarchy dictatorship and junta the world has every suffered) , #3 the original batman movie, once you get there it falls off pretty steeply, but I have hope for the future if we reward the really good ones like Watchmen is going to be.

Also back to Watchmen I'm quite happy and satisfied with the settlement as consistent with the way our copyright and legal system work atm, I do have strong objections about that system, but it is what it is, and FOX did well enough in letting the film go forward for a cash reward.

The WHOLE reason that the character of Thor existed in the Marvel universe, was because his father (Odin) decided to teach the thunder god humility... So he attached his essence to a mortal being, and anchored him to midgard! (That's "Earth", for the laymen) It just wouldn't make any sense to just have Norse, Greek, Roman, or any other pantheons of Gods just APPEAR after hundreds of years of absenteism!
Now, with that said... Why the hell would we NOT see Donald Blake in the Thor movie?! Half of the character of "Thor" as he exists in the Marvel universe IS Donald Blake!
Sure, there have been alterations to this as of the last few decades, but look at any other character that goes through alterations, they're cyclical, and are important for character development and keeping the characters interesting.
(But I'm getting off point...)
If what I've read about the adapted screenplay online proves even remotely accurate, you won't even see the "Donald Blake" change up until the end of the Thor film, so what's the deal?!

For all the people who didn't understand what i had written about TIH as a movie, it meant it's a very enjoyable movie but not a great one. Great being TDK, IRONMAN etc. It also links to what i meant about Hulk's and Thor's character not having any depth or character development. The difference between them and Ironman/Batman is that in this case multi-billionaires that live double identities having to fight crime on each side of the medal all while upholding their values but having to live with solitude so no one around them gets hurt is called character developement. In the other case, two halfs of two different characters mixed into one doesn't leave much room for development. If i take Hulk's character, he's half bruce, half Hulk. That means he'll spend half the time smashing stuff and half the time trying to control himself to not spend more time smashing stuff he doesn't want smashed. That's not depth, that's not development, it goes nowhere. As for thor's character, he spends half the time as a wuss of a doctor and half the time as the god of thunder. Asgard meets ER, wow i can't wait. Donald "changes" into Thor being a "host" for him meaning that when he is donald he isn't Thor and when he's Thor, he isn't Donald. Now it really doesn't seem to show much learning ability from Thor having to do with humility now does it? If Odin wanted to teach Thor humility, he could've just emprisonned Thor on earth having to actually pose as a human. But the way it works with the good doctor doesn't go anywhere. No development what so ever. The only slight depth you could add to a character of that concept is by throwing in a love interest which is incredibly lame for our day and age. It worked back then but not today. People are sick of seeing Superman having to save lois every day, they want him to ditch the bitch and kick alien ass! Romance is LAME, it isn't considered depth anymore by today's standards. And it made TDK that much better having Rachel choose Harvey instead of Bruce. Killing her was the cherry on the sunday actually. Incidently, it was also one of the major problems with Spider-man 3. The more Peter grows as a character, the more love interests he gets which is lame. Is that all there is to life? Shit, if that's all it takes, they should make a movie about me, it would sell to the masses... NOT!!! By looking at all the characters in that movie, none of them had developement which is exactly what made Mary jane suck. She had developement in the first one and was amazing, she had some in the second one and was okay but she had none in the third and sucked. Now you've got people including myself, wanting her to be pushed down an elevator shaft! So if Adamant877 is right and the Doctor shows up at the end, well it might be a good movie but would mean that his next one will be less. UNLESS!!! Unless they fix it differently. If let's say... he was THOR all the time but TRAPPED in Donald Blake's body... THEN we would have intrigue, depth and character development. That would be interely different.

I don't know your politics Xaosjerk, but I share your opinion on The Incredible Hulk. It sucked, save for the final battle scene. But that could not save it from Liv Tylers bloodless turn as Betty Ross. In fact, I found most of the performances to be fairly bland. Ang Lee's Hulk was the superior film IMO. Less smash yes, but far more substance and character.

Yay! Finally...

xaos, you're not a jerk, you're just one of those pretentious dolts that finds something wrong in things that are liked on a mass level simply for the sake of being different. The only reason you couldn't find something negative to say about the Dark Knight was because there was nothing wrong with the Dark Knight so you just accepted it. Your entire scale of judgment is warped. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE HULK TO BATMAN (or the watchmen for that matter). Batman is a very deep character with many personality quirks and emotional turmoil and the Watchmen is developed around the concept of deep, personal faults within the characters. The Hulk... never that deep. The mechanics of his character are pretty simple... Internal struggle with the monster within, fugitive, in love with his greatest antagonist's daughter, that's the big green machine at his core. Sure they emphasize on him in certain story archs (Illuminati) but he's a pretty basic character. I'd say he's on a pretty low tier of complexity, only over characters such as Doomsday (Destroy... the end).
Basically what I'm saying is that you can't expect a deep meaningful movie for a character like the hulk. The Incredible Hulk was a perfect comic book movie for the kind of comic book it was based off of, without being too ridiculous like THE HULK (Ang Lee).

As for Ironman, sure they didn't get into how deep that character really is (substance abuse) but this was an introductory movie, hopefully the next SOLO movie will be much darker and delve more into his issues