Oh, yeah. Because you know what'll really hurt the box office for Superhero Movie?

Picket lines.

Weinstein still belives in his sorceress ways

Do we actually need a reason to boycott "Superhero movie?"

-and if they really wanted to stick it to em', they should have called him Anakin Weinstein.

Only one reason to see this movie. In any version.
KRISTEN
BELL
IN
LEIA
SLAVE
GIRL
OUTFIT

I'd say it was more the disappointing return of Drillbit Taylor also from the Apatow machine that has them covering their bets.

@Plague: I need a pic or it didn't happen.

Wired magazine did a great feature on "Fanboys" if any of you want to check it out here:
[www.wired.com]

@BloggyMcBlogBlog:
glad to oblige:

[icydk.com]

@Plague: Then I guess there's no need to see the movie now.

In the Wired article they don't mention the controversy but the filmmaker does mention his mother's cancer as a source of inspiration for the project. I assumed it was a silent nod to the original inspiration.

I saw a rough cut that was passed around LA about a year ago. Not great, but it did have a few funny moments.

Supposedly when the script first made the rounds, everyone loved it, and then it got picked up, and retooled. Scenes were added for more 'comedy' etc. I don't know who contributed to which scenes, as most likely they'll go uncredited, but the problem isn't the cancer plot [far more "the plot" than a subplot], it's the disjointed nature of the entire piece.

What's funny is -- few, if any, of these protesters have seen the movie, and from all legitimate reports I've read/heard, the final product is anywhere from terrible to mediocre.

But, there was enough good in it to get Judd Apatow to step in and offer to recut it into something watchable. Judd Apatow is a rich and powerful -- and, most importantly -- talented guy and did not need to help out this movie, but he did. Why are people so up in arms about a tried-and-true comedy wunderkind coming in and fixing up a movie made by a couple of guys who have never done anything before? (For the record, I've seen the results of Apatow's rejiggering power -- the first cut of Forgetting Sarah Marshall was mediocre at best. Then in comes Judd, and with is magic steenbeck turns out a really funny, affective movie.)

Is the outrage *solely* because it involves Star Wars fandom in some way? The Weinsteins are not guys without taste -- they've spearheaded everything from Clerks to Grindhouse. Sure they cash in every once in a while (because their company is tanking from investing in awesome movies that haven't made any money, i.e. Grindhouse, Clerks 2) with something like Doogle or Superhero Movie, but the guys know quality and have proven it again and again.

I don't know a whole lot about this movie other than what I have read on i09 and Wired, but the part of the story about a nerd dying of cancer sounds eerily similar to another fan film called "Saving Star Wars" that was released a few years ago. It even has a similar plot from what I can tell. It wasn't very well done, but it was at least commercially released. The more I read about "Fanboys" the more it seems like it shares a lot in common with "Saving Star Wars". Angry fans.

Anakin Weinstein !!!!

Outstanding

@hlkneedler: Actually Wired does mention the controversy and they have a seperate article all about it here: [www.wired.com]

This is so stupid. I don't understand why they'd want to change it in the first place. I don't remember cancer being so controversial. Perhaps they thought it was The AIDS.

Sounds like a fairly unfunny premise, needing to see a movie because someone's dying. It doesn't exactly scream "hilarious", and when the whole plot of a movie revolves around one of a close-knit group suffering a terminal illness I'd imagine it would seem like quite the downer. Even more of a downer is that, even if the crew manages to accomplish their goal, the poor guy just gets to see EPISODE 1. That's like using your Make-a-wish trip to go to Disneyland on the same day as a hurricane. In other words, hilarious.

I haven't seen the movie, obviously, but it doesn't sound like the cancer served any purpose other than to give the characters a reason to do something stupid. Having met my share of obsessive fans, I'd say that extra push isn't necessary at all. Doesn't seem like the cancer would enhance the movie, and taking it out seems a logical choice to me.

Good. Im happy they are releasing the original verison. With the cancer plot the movie will have some heart without it's just a stlap stick comedy about nerds.

@Balius Obviously cancer in an of itself is not funny. But as someone who has survived cancer I can tell you there are moments of comedy. Humor is one way people deal with horrible things happening. And while on the surface the premise reminds one of Jerry Lewis' ill-fated funny Nazi Death Camp Clown movie, I think this is a story that could work.
A bunch of friends going on a last road trip with a buddy; the internal conflicts they have, not only with the impending death of a close friend, but how they each deal with it, those can be some funny situations. All of this place within a very niche group like the devoted Star Wars fan, all ending with a "all of this for a crap movie" punchline could have been great.
I am going to see it, but who knows if it will be as good as we all hope it will be.

Aside from picket lines, what other sort of lines will there be at Superhero Movie?

I'm not really sure how this is a win for nerds or the filmmakers, though. Sure, it's nice that the original version is coming out, but the non-cancer version is still the one getting the theatrical release, which is what really counts.

All releasing the original version on DVD will do is jack up rentals and sales, and this whole thing is giving the film a ton of free publicity for when it does come out in theaters. So really, it's the Weinstein Co. that seems to be the winner.