Variety reports that ABC have made the decision to split the 13-episode first season in two, and to hold the show's back nine episodes until midseason, expected to be March next year. The March decision is charitably being explained as protecting the show from next year's Winter Olympics and traditional ratings juggernaut American Idol, but rumors persist that not only is the series in trouble - production is still halted, with no set date to restart - but also in danger of seeing the number of episodes reduced in an attempt to minimize damage for the network, something that ABC and studio Warner Bros. deny.

Developing.

ABC eyes 'pod' treatment for 'V' [Variety]

Mattel pulled the rights to the toyline from producer Joel Silver less than three weeks ago, but have already set up a new deal with Sony Pictures that'll see an all-new script and direction courtesy of Knowing and The Taking of Pelham 123 producers Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch's Escape Artists production company. As long as we get to keep Orko, I'm happy with whatever they come up with.

Barbie's a living doll at Universal [Variety]

If you care about comic, the answer to that last question is definitely yes... and the key ingredient may be Paul Levitz stepping down as DC Comics President and Publisher as part of the announcement. Leading comic book retailer Brian Hibbs put it best:

I'm absolutely shattered by this news — I was hoping we'd have AT LEAST another decade with Paul at the helm, and now everything — everything — is up in the air. Chances are that, by 2012, nothing in comics will even remotely resemble what it does today.

If you're wondering why one man leaving can cause such upset, here's writer Kurt Busiek with a quick history lesson:

Paul has been at the forefront of just about every industry development of the last couple of decades, and has been key to how the industry's shaped itself over those years. Shifting from a periodicals-only business to a strong backlist-oriented business with trade paperbacks and hardcovers, adding imprints like Vertigo, creating new opportunities for creators and for creator ownership, seeing that DC gave a fair (or at least fairer) deal to the creators who originated the concepts that turned up in DC-based movies, from Arkham Asylum and Lucius Fox to Robin's motorcycles (yeah, because they called Chris O'Donnell's ride the "Redbird" in one of the movies, Paul Levitz saw to it that Chuck Dixon got money) and more, Paul was an important part of a huge number of changes that DC's seen, and that the whole industry's seen. Some of them big changes everyone's noticed, some of them behind-the-scenes stuff few people know about... Paul is one of a very few people who've been absolutely key in shaping the comics industry from what it was in the mid-Seventies to what it is today. Staggering changes, built slowly over time, so that DC (and the companies that adopted DC's innovations) could build from strength to strength.

(Rich Johnston lists more of Levitz' achievements here; the opposing view of his time at the publisher is put forward by Dirk Deppey here.)

The loss of a chief executive so passionate about the comic medium and comic industry comes at a perilous time for DC Comics as a comic book publisher; the creation of DC Entertainment places it firmly under the control of Warners' movie-making wing (DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson reports directly to Warner Bros Picture Group president Jeff Robinov), instead of as the autonomous entity it had been previously, and Levitz' surprise departure leaves DC Comics without a president, at least temporarily (Nelson will not be taking that role, saying that she doesn't have the expertise to do it well).

He will be staying with the company as writer for Adventure Comics and consultant, although that last part seems somewhat nebulous in terms of what it actually means:

The longer term thing is to be available as both a creative consultant and a consultant on those things in the business that have mattered most to me – how we treat the talent and what the relationships are like there. That, I think, will vary project to project. There are times where I'm sure I'll be as welcome in the room as I have been with ["The Dark Knight" Director] Chris Nolan, who's turned into a wonderful friend, Jonathan [Nolan, co-writer of "The Dark Knight"] and Emma Thomas [producer of "The Dark Knight"], the whole team there. There will be other cases where Diane will tell me, "This one's under control, kid, we don't need you. Come see the movie when it comes out." That will be fine, too, and anything in between.

Rumors have it that Nelson and Robinov both wanted Levitz to stay on during the transition, but he refused; one particularly worrying version of the rumors is that he refused because he was uncomfortable with changes that Nelson and DC Entertainment would bring to DC Comics. Despite some saying that the creation of DC Entertainment amounts to little more than a corporate restructuring, as Warners already owned DC Comics, the loss of autonomy generally and the president of the company specifically makes this a greater shift - and may ultimately have greater impact - to the comic industry than Disney's purchase of Marvel, which (if all are to be believed) will result in little-to-no change creatively for Marvel Comics. Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer is already on record as saying that DC Entertainment will allow Warners to "exercise appropriate control over these properties," which sounds much more ominous than Disney chairman Bob Iger's "Marvel stays Marvel" comments about that sale, despite Nelson's reassurances that DC Comics won't be "deconstructed."
(One worry outside of Warners taking a stronger hand in DC's creative decisions - and perhaps a more important worry to the comic book industry as a whole - is that DC Comics still has an option to purchase Diamond Distributors, which has been the case since the implosion of the comic market in the mid-1990s. Diamond, now essentially a monopoly in terms of distribution to comic book stores internationally, is the speciality comic book market; whereas before Levitz was said to be the moral voice stopping any such sale from taking place, without Levitz and with Warners looking to make DC Entertainment a profitable company, what's to stop DC from buying Diamond now - especially as doing so would allow them to control the distribution of Marvel Comics?)

Also, what does the creation of DC Entertainment mean about Warner Bros' priorities in general? During an interview with The Wrap, DC Entertainment president Nelson said that the new division was

quite a big deal for the future of our company. It will be such an engine for all our content.

As a new motion picture division, it "replaces" Warner Independent, which closed last year, emphasizing the company's increasingly genre-centric programming (Warners also owns New Line Studios, as well as Warner Bros Animation, Warner Bros Family Entertainment, Warner Bros Pictures and Castle Rock) and cementing moves to make DC properties a centerpiece of their movie slate that have been ongoing for more than a year now, including bringing comic writers Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and Marv Wolfman in as consultants this summer. As moviegoing audiences continue to vote for genre franchises with their dollars, Warners seem to be responding by finally playing with the toys that they've owned - but forgotten about - all along.

When Disney bought Marvel, I couldn't help but be reminded of Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada's infamous off-the-record-but-quoted-anyway comment about DC from 2002:

What the fuck is DC anyway? ...I mean, they have Batman and Superman, and they don't know what to do with them. That's like being a porn star with the biggest dick and you can't get it up. What the fuck?

Who knows, maybe seven years later, Warners looked at what they owned, and agreed. Maybe DC Entertainment is corporate Viagra. We'll have to wait until 2010 - DC Comics' 75th anniversary - to find out.

Perhaps the most damning part of the decision document was the revelation that executives at Warners shared fans' cynicism about Superman's potential (Remember, Warners and DC were the defendants in this case):

Defendants' film industry expert witness, Mr. [John] Gumpert, termed Superman as "damaged goods," a character so "uncool" as to be considered passe, an opinion echoed by Warner Bros. business affairs executive, Steven Spira... Indeed, Mr. [Alan] Horn [Warner Bros. President] admitted to being "daunted" by the fact that the 1987 theatrical release of Superman IV had generated around $15 million domestic box office, raising the specter of the "franchise [having] played out."

Almost as surreally, DC and Warners apparently argued to the court that

Superman was equivalent [in terms of public recognition and financial value] to a low-tier comic book character that appeared mostly on radio during the 1930s and 1940s and that has not been seen since a brief television show in the mid-1960s (the Green Hornet); an early 20th century series of books (Tarzan) or a 1930s series of pulp stories (Conan) later intermittently made into comic books and films; or a television, radio, and comic book character from the 1940s and 1950s, much beloved by my father, that long ago rode off into the proverbial sunset with little-to-no exploitation in film or television for decades (The Lone Ranger).

And these are the people in charge of the character?!?

There was, of course, legal value in downplaying Superman's status for WB and DC. But it's hard to shake the sense that even the character's owners don't understand the value and potential of Clark Kent's alter ego, or who (and what) he is and could be. But should we really be surprised, considering that these are the same people behind the pedestrian Smallville and almost-there-but-what-the-hell-is-with-the-stalker-thing Superman Returns?

Superman should, by rights, be up there with Batman. Certainly, he has the longevity and the high-concept, if not the moral ambiguity - and maybe that's one of the problems, that Superman's "goodness," his moral character and status as a reminder of our own potential, puts people off - to match Gotham's broodiest citizen. But what he lacks, and not necessarily for want of trying, is the pop cultural impact that Batman has had; it's not that Batman is necessarily a better character, but he's definitely one who has, at four specific points in the last decades (and, for the most part, in different ways), perfectly synched with the cultural zeitgeist to gain a weird standing as some kind of cultural avatar with a cape.

(Those points, for me, in case you're wondering: The 1960s TV show, which was less to do with Batman as a character as comic books as a medium, taking the "low art" trappings of the character and milking them for all their worth as pop art was doing the same. 1986's The Dark Knight Returns and 2008's The Dark Knight, which both used the character to embody and express paranoia and fear about politics and society in the real world, and 1989's Batman movie, which showed the power of branding, making the movie and the character foremost in everyone's minds by sheer force of making sure that no-one could turn anywhere without seeing a reminder of it.)

Superman, by comparison, is almost never allowed that level of contemporaneous value by the people telling his (mass media) stories, instead finding himself portrayed as either an anachronism due to his values or a naive outsider who doesn't fully understand the darker side of human nature (I have to separate comics from this; many comic creators such as Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek and Grant Morrison have tried to demonstrate how Superman can and should work in modern, cynical society); I don't know whether it's that those making the stories think that that's how everyone else views Superman and that they should match that, or whether they see the character as someone out of step with modern times, but simply by taking that approach, they limit the impact Superman can have, and prevent him from becoming the success he should be.

(There's also a third route, as Bryan Singer's Superman Returns demonstrated: Superman as Jesus. But the problem with that is that, in order for the story to work as a superhero story, he has to stop turning the other cheek at some point. If you dropped a couple of "I am floating outside your window" scenes and added some more scenes of derring-do, Returns would've been a much better movie.)

Here's the thing: I firmly believe that now should be Superman's time. As The Dark Knight took all of our Bush-era worries and concerns and made them into an action movie, so should Superman be around right now to embody Obama's (still-resonant, even a year after campaigning) message of hope and positive change and being the best we can be. Instead of using Superman's inherent positivity against him, or thinking that it pushes him out of step with today's world, focus on the way in which he personifies that which we want to believe in, and the people that we want to be. If we elected a president because we believed in the ideals of Yes We Can and Hope and Change and all those buzzwords, I refuse to believe that we wouldn't want to see a movie that sold us the same message but with added punching, flying and action.

(I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Star Trek's success comes as much from it being positive and colorful and optimistic escapism as it being a good movie, this time around. Superman has those qualities in spades.)

Is Superman damaged goods? To an extent, yes, but he shouldn't be; there's nothing wrong with the character, or the concept, when done right, and I think that the audience is more ready for what he's selling now than they have been in years. What damages him most, perhaps, is the attitude from his owners that he's a problem that they don't know how to solve. The first step to stopping him being damaged goods is to stop treating him that way.

The new Superman ruling was just the latest development in a running battle over the legal rights to the last son of Krypton. The heirs to Superman's creators, Joe Siegel and Jerry Shuster, have been battling over the rights, and legal control, of Superman for years now. This time around, they were arguing that Warners paid sister company DC Comics too little for the movie and TV rights to Superman, in a "sweetheart deal." In order to win this case, Warners had to prove that Superman's screen incarnation wasn't worth that much — which the company did, by citing the poor performance of Superman IV: The Quest For Peace and the lukewarm box office and critical reception of Superman Returns.

Horn told the judge:

What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman [Begins] got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us.

He also said, flat out, that the company doesn't have a Superman film in development — at all. So forget all the speculation about whether Bryan Singer or Brandon Routh might come back. Judge Stephen G. Larson wrote:

No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a ‘Superman' film could be theatrically released would be in 2012.

According to Variety, there may be a bit of a deadline for Warners to figure out its issues with Clark Kent, and get a movie rolling. At least, attorney Marc Toberoff, representing the Siegel heirs, claims that his clients and the Shuster estate will own all copyrights to Superman:

This trial was only an interim step in the multifaceted accounting case which remains, in that it only concerned the secondary issue of whether DC Comics, or DC Comics and Warner Bros., would have to account to the Siegels. To put this in further perspective, the entire accounting action pales in comparison to the fact that in 2013, the Siegels, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, will own the entire original copyright to Superman, and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros. will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.

He also claims that the court ordered that if Warner Bros. doesn't start production on a new Superman movie by 2011, the Siegels and Shusters will be able to sue for damages.

So there may be a bit of urgency for Warners to change its mind about Supes. But only one thing is really certain: scads more litigation are in the Man Of Tomorrow's future. [Variety and New York Times]

Digital Spy reports that Impossible Pictures, Primeval's production company, have started planning for a spin-off from the British television series that will "take the show's mythology beyond the UK," potentially all the way to the US.

So far, no US networks have been namedropped by anyone spreading the story, but if the rumors turn out to be true, don't be too surprised to see the show co-produced by Warner Bros. (responsible for the upcoming movie), and showing up on SyFy, which currently re-runs the British series after its first US broadcast on BBC America.

Reports: 'Primeval' spinoff in the pipeline [Digital Spy]

Warners have picked up the rights to adapt Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata's suspenseful 12 volume series about a teenager who ends up in possession of a notebook that allows him to murder anyone anywhere in the world, as long as he has seen them and knows their real name, according to Variety, and are clearly looking at the potential for a franchise; the movie will, apparently, only adapt the first quarter of the series.

Death Note has been phenomenally successful in its native country, spawning anime, three live action movies, a video game and a prose novel. It has also - somewhat unsurprisingly, given its amoral nature - inspired some copycat crimes, including one Belgian murder where the killer claimed to Death Note's fictional killer, Kira. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, steps Warners will take to avoid similar controversy from this more mainstream movie version.

Warner brings 'Death' to bigscreen [Variety]

Both studios will formally present their settlement to Judge Gary Feess tomorrow morning and request that the court case be dismissed, according to reports. While terms of the settlement are not being released, Fox will not be involved in the distribution of the movie, nor will it make any claim to the Watchmen property moving forward, apparently (although it is believed that the studio will share in profits from the movie's release). Neither studio is confirming the settlement; Warners are refusing to comment, and Fox deny that a final deal has been reached.

Part of Warners' cash may come from the pockets of producer Larry Gordon, whose involvement with the property brought about the rights confusion in the first place; Warners are rumored to be looking at ways to make Gordon pay the studio's legal fees for this case, including possible court action.

Nonetheless, one thing is now known; barring any more unexpected lawsuits, Watchmen will be released March 6th as planned.

Warners, Fox settle over 'Watchmen' [Hollywood Reporter]

After asking Judge Gary Feess to issue an early ruling on Friday about whether or not Fox had the right to block them from releasing Zack Snyder's adaptation of the 1980s classic comic, Warner Bros. yesterday withdrew the request and joined with Fox in agreeing to delay any further legal action until Monday in the hope that negotiations over the weekend could produce some kind of agreeable settlement for all parties.

(For those playing along at home, that means we've gone from January 20th to January 9th to January 12th in terms of an expected resolution to this part of the battle - Remember, at this point, all that's really under discussion is whether or not Fox can delay or stop Warners from releasing the movie altogether.)

This move, while surprising in light of Warners' initial "Hurry it up" request to the court, makes a lot of sense; Feess was, after all, the person who ruled that Fox had "at the very least, the right to distribute" the movie, so rushing him to issue a second ruling that went against that original decision seemed both unlikely and somewhat suicidal at the time. What this may mean is that Warners has realized how difficult a situation they're actually in - both in terms of fighting their case and also managing to release the movie on its original March 6th date, and that they're beginning to come around to the idea that negotiating (and offering Fox some part of the pie) is the best option they have.

Hopefully, by Monday, this whole situation will have come to some kind of conclusion. Although don't be too surprised if we have to tell you tomorrow that everything you know is wrong one more time.

WB, Fox eye 'Watchmen' settlement [Variety]

Literally a day after both Fox and Warner Bros. had apparently agreed to forego a trial and allow Judge Feess to rule on whether or not Fox had the right to delay or block Warners' movie from being released, Warners filed papers that, essentially, asked if he could do it eight days earlier, because they'd really like to know whether or not they should spend all that money on advertising or not. I'm not joking; Variety quotes Warners as explaining,

Because the release date for 'Watchmen' is less than two months away and Warner Bros. must imminently commit to spending tens of millions of dollars on its marketing and promotional campaign for the picture, time is of the essence.

According to court papers, Warners' investment in this movie will amount to somewhere in the region of $150,000,000... making it slightly more understandable that they'd like to see an answer sooner rather than later. Feess is expected to announce today whether or not he'll allow Warners' request, and issue a ruling earlier than January 20th.

Meanwhile, Watchmen producer Lloyd Levin wrote an "open letter" about the situation, posted at filmsite HitFix.com, in which he recounted the experience of pitching the Watchmen film at both Fox and Warners.:

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

... The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any — of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen?

Clock is ticking on 'Watchmen' case [Variety]

According to the New York Times' Michael Cieply, lawyers working on behalf of Warner Bros. are now claiming that Fox's lawyers are blocking evidence that would show that Warners is a "better" studio than the "underperforming" Fox. This is, in part, in response to a deposition from a Fox executive who claimed that his studio was both "unique" and "the best in the business."

If this is the kind of legal battle we can expect from the upcoming trial, we can only hope that - at some point in the proceedings - a Warners' attorney will feel the need to tell a Fox lawyer that he should, in fact, eat all the dicks.

(Related: Judge Gary Feess' December 24th ruling in Fox's favor is now online for you to read for yourself.)

Warner and Fox Debate: Which Is Better? [NYT]

Fox has an almost unbroken record of putting out crap genre films over the past few years. Based on the studio's track record alone, you'd have to be a bit of a masochist to want to consume any more films like X-Files 2, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Eragon, Max Payne, The Happening, Space Chimps, Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem, Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer, Meet Dave, Jumper, or X-Men: The Last Stand. (To be fair, the studio also released City Of Ember, which I loved, and the Simpsons movie, in the last few years.)

These are not just movies you're better off renting. These movies are the reason there's a 4:20 in the morning as well as the afternoon — they probably look pretty good if you're both sleep-deprived and stoned.

Proving there is some justice, Fox has been suffering financially as a result. Says the Wall Street Journal:

Operating income at Fox Filmed Entertainment dropped 31% to $251 million for the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 30, in part because this summer's results were weak in comparison with last summer's.

Fox's losing streak only ended with the release of Marley And Me, which looks to be a minor success.

And, by all accounts, Fox's output hasn't gotten wretched by accident. One hears stories about studio execs, hacking up movies to shorten them and dumb them down. Director Alex Proyas has publicly sworn never to work with Fox again, after his experience making I, Robot, and Matthieu Kassovitz has said similar things about Babylon A.D.

The main Fox movie people are talking about boycotting is Wolverine — and by coincidence, it's also the most recent movie to have reports of studio meddling. So far, the stories are pretty minor: director Gavin Hood left the filming for a short time, and when he'd returned, the studio had repainted one of the sets a brighter color, on the orders of studio chief Tom Rothman. More recently, Rothman said in an interview that he hadn't seen a final cut of the film, but he assured fans it's a dark storyline: "It's not Rebecca Of Sunnybrook Farm." Is Rothman going to keep his hands off the film's editing? We won't know for a while, if ever.

(To my mind, the biggest reason not to see Wolverine is that too many second- and third-string X-Men seem to have been shoehorned in, including Emma Frost, Gambit, the Blob, and a ton of others. It's supposed to be Wolverine's story, but it looks like it may be non-stop X-cameos. On the other hand, the trailers do make it seem like an entertaining slice of cheese, what with the "cut your head off" repartee and the truck/helicopter explosions. And Liev Schreiber does look great.)

What else is Fox releasing in the first half of next year? There's Dragonball: Evolution, which already has horrendous buzz based on the trailers and images that have come out so far. And then there's They Came From Upstairs, the cute-looking family-friendly movie about a group of teens (led by High School Musical's Ashley TIsdale) who stop an alien invasion. You probably won't suffer much hardship from skipping either of those, to be honest.

So if a boycott implies actually depriving yourself of something good in order to make a point, I'm really not seeing it here.

The hardship doesn't come until next December, when Fox releases James Cameron's long-awaited Avatar. And you'd have to be psychotic to skip that over something that happened a year earlier. Even if Avatar isn't among Cameron's best works, it could still be the best science fiction film of the year. And it's a film that has the potential to reinvent both film-making and science fiction. (Or it could be an underwhelming dud. But I really, really hope not.)

So I'd advise you to skip Fox's movie output for the next year, but don't deprive yourself of Avatar. And don't bother calling it a boycott — it's more a matter of exercising good taste. Oh, and let's not even talk about boycotting Fringe, Sarah Connor or Dollhouse. It's a different division of the Murdoch empire, and those shows actually deserve our support.

A spokesman for Fox announced today that the studio is going to be seeking an order to delay release of Zack Snyder's three hour superhero epic. In addition, an attorney for Warner Bros. has said that he doesn't think that a settlement is likely, and that the trial - due to start on January 20th, despite Judge Gary Feess urging both sides to negotiate outside of the courtroom - is "necessary."

Considering that most industry watchers had considered January's trial a worst case scenario for Warners, as it would most likely delay the movie from its March 6th release date even in the increasingly unlikely case that they would win, this is a surprising move from the studio, and either a bold bluff or crazy piece of lawyerly bravado. Nonetheless, it does mean that the year looks set to get off to a good start for fans of juicy industry gossip.

Fox will fight for 'Watchmen' delay [Hollywood Reporter]

What Did The Ruling Say?
Short version is that Judge Gary Feess' ruling said that Fox was right. The most important sentence from the ruling is:

Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture.

It's what that "at the very least" means that is now the point of contention. In addition to the five-page ruling issued on Wednesday, a longer and more in-depth ruling is apparently to be released soon.

Does This Mean No Court Case?
Not necessarily; this was a pretrial ruling, requested by both Fox and Warners due to the closeness of Watchmen's release date. Although the ruling encourages both sides to find a non-trial resolution, officially the trial will still begin on January 20th unless further action is taken.

So Will There Be A Court Case?
I doubt it, unless Warners is somehow convinced that their lawyers are so good that they can not only overturn the pretrial ruling, but do it very, very quickly. Much more likely, conversations are already taking place amongst appropriate parties to sort this whole thing out as quickly and profitably for both parties involved.

Is This All Really A Convoluted Way For Fox To Get Warners To Release The DVD Rights To The Batman TV Show?
That's a rumor that's been going around for a few months, thanks to Comic Book Resources' Rich Johnston. Thing is, says website TV Shows On DVD, it's not true:

[E]verybody will have to remember that DC Comics is only ONE of the rights-related hurdles that Fox needs to leap over! In fact, the sheer scope, depth and breadth of all the right-holders who have to be brought into various agreements, to get this program released on DVD, can be absolutely frightening!

Amongst the frightening agreements: A lawsuit from the estate of one of the show's producers, claiming owed residuals from the show's TV broadcasts. Even if Watchmen freed up DC's share of the rights, it wouldn't mean that the show could be released on DVD immediately... and isn't worth as much as Watchmen itself is, right now.

How Is The Fanbase Taking The News?
Let's look at Ain't It Cool talkbackers, shall we?:

"I have never been one to jump on the whole "Boycott" bandwagon, but not a CHANCE will I see Wolverine in theatres now. This studio is the worst movie studio in the history of film. And as much as I am dying to see Watchmen, if the final outcome of this is greatly in Fox's favor, I'll pass on it just to say "fuck you.""

"The fact that Fox waited until the movie was in the can to bring up some shit like this speaks to their intentions. They couldn't get the job done, someone else did - let the shit go. And in the end the people who suffer the most are the fans, fans that will not soon forget shenanigans like this, that is for certain. You blew it Fox, let it go. Try harder next time. Pricks."

"For those of you who were not aware, this is a call to open war. Tom Rothman is like some nasty douche bag rich kid who broke all of his cool toys (X-Men, FF, Aliens, Predators, and pretty soon, Wolverine). So what does he do now that his meddling ways have flat-lined his company, leaving him an entire year without a single $100 million blockbuster? Well, he gets his cronies to go to Warner Brothers and steal the coolest toy they got running right now. Worst part is, Rothman is too stupid to appreciate this toy, and the chances he might break it are very likely. Now the question remains, what can we do about this? ...The answer is simple. Until Fox pulls their creatively flaccid member out from the rectums of WB and the greater fanboy community, we should ignore any good or potentially good property they've got on the line, and only talk about the bad. In other words, if you can't say anything bad about Fox, don't say anything at all. They are our Sauron, they are our Palpatine, and they are our Voldemort. Until their evil ways have been stopped, WE MUST FIGHT!"

Yes, that's right; a movie studio is the combination of a giant floating flaming evil vagina, a wrinkled old man who can shoot electricity out've his fingertips, and Ralph Fiennes without a nose. As you can see, they're taking it very well.

Will We See Watchmen In Theaters March 6th As Planned?
Most likely. With so much promotion already having been done for the movie's release, and with merchandising tie-ins both already in stores and on their way, there's no real alternative for Warners at this point. Yes, they could pull the movie altogether to spite Fox, but that would be both embarrassing and an insanely high loss of money for them.

Admit It; You Think The Surprise Last Minute Change Of Heart And Ruling From The Judge Was The Work Of Alan Moore's Magical Powers, Trying To Halt The Release Of The Movie Altogether, Don't You?
Mmmmmmaybe.

So What Next?
We wait for the more lengthy ruling or, perhaps, the sight of Fox and Warners issuing a press release letting us know that everyone is friends and that the movie will be released by the two studios jointly. Either way, expect something to happen within the next couple of weeks. No-one involved has that much time before the movie's due date in March, after all.

Judge Gary A. Feess had said he needed a trial to untangle the thorny issues involved in Fox's and Warner Bros.' dueling claims to Watchmen. (At issue: Lawrence Gordon, a producer who developed the film at Fox before taking it to Warners.) But today, Feess abruptly changed his mind and ruled in favor of Fox.

"Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture," Feess wrote.

But before you start worrying, this is probably business as usual. Feess, in his ruling, urged Fox and Warners to reach an agreement. And that's just what they'll do. In fact, Feess probably decided to rule early, instead of having a trial in January, to give the two giant companies more time to agree on a settlement. Fox will get a giant payout, and the movie will still come out on time.

If you want to worry about something, worry about the fact that Watchmen just became a much more expensive movie. That makes it much harder for the film to break even, and help ease the way for more thought-provoking and non-Ratnerized superhero projects in future. [NY Times]

The legal action brought by Fox against Warner Bros. claims that the former studio was the true owner of the movie rights to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' comic, and that Warners had essentially purchased non-existent rights from producer Larry Gordon. With a trial due to begin January 6th next year, both sides were pushing for U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess to render a pre-trial judgement. And then Feess decided to mess up everyone's plans; not only did he refuse to offer a judgement without trial, he also pushed the trial date out two weeks, meaning that the studios won't have their day in court until January 20th at the earliest, claiming that the argument is so complicated, only a full trial will unravel the truth behind the shenanigans.

Assuming that one or both of the studios don't flinch, that gives the courts thirty days to work out who owns the movie before its planned release on March 6th. I'd lay money on some kind of unusual settlement happening before that happens, however.

Quick Takes [LA Times]

Talking to the LA Times about the role, Beyonce said,

After doing these roles that were so emotional I was thinking to myself, 'OK, I need to be a superhero.' Although, when you think about the psychology of the heroes in the films these days, they are still a lot of work, of course, and emotional. But there's also an action element that I would enjoy... I want to do a superhero movie and what would be better than Wonder Woman? It would be great. And it would be a very bold choice. A black Wonder Woman would be a powerful thing. It's time for that, right?

I have to admit, while it may take some rewriting of the mythos, I'd love to see a Beyonce take on the character - and she's enough of a star to move the movie out of the eternal pre-production limbo that it's been in for years now. Beyonce is taking the idea seriously; she's apparently already met with people at DC Comics and Warner Bros about the possibility, and she's even thinking about what it'll take to fill out those satin tights she'd have to wear to fight for our rights and the ol' red white and blue:

I would definitely have to keep it right for that costume. The way that Lynda Carter wore it, she was sooo fine. She was amazing. I saw her costume at the Met. Her waist was unbelievable. It was pretty crazy, actually, her proportions. But I love Wonder Woman and it'd be a dream come true to be that character. It sure would be handy to have that lasso. To make everybody tell the truth? I need that. It would come in very handy.

You know you want this to happen. If nothing else, think of how awesome the theme song would be.

Beyonce wants to lasso the role of Wonder Woman [LA Times]

Neither Spacey nor producers commented on the project in the piece, though it’s debatable whether Spacey still demands a sizeable salary by A-list standards, given his lower profile of late. Regardless, the actor did turn out a potent performance in the last Supes movie, and it looks like he may very well face off once more against embattled, where-is-he-now lead Brandon Routh — who mentioned he’d be stepping up his work-out regime while Dan Harris, Mike Dougherty, and Superman Returns director Bryan Singer script what the latter promises to be certifiably action-packed.

But does Warners know what they want? One exec declared, “It might be better to start from scratch.” Meanwhile, Rabinov ominously noted that all the company’s spandex adventures will “try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it.” Fans, in turn, summarily freaked out, citing how Singer’s dark, thinky Superman Returns — though a noble endeavor exploring the doldrums of an alienated alien — was a bit of a bummer. (It’s worth noting that despite its reported runaway budget of $270 million, the movie’s worldwide gross reached nearly $400 million, so it wasn’t exactly a bust.)

The participation of Singer, meanwhile, has itself been thrown into question after he sidelined Man of Steel to helm the Tom Cruise-starring Hitler-assassination thriller Valkyrie. Compounding this vaguery: Wanted and Kick-Ass comics scribe has claimed he’s been in talks with an unnamed director to drum up a new Man of Steel pitch, in the event that Singer drops or gets forced out. Depending on whom you listen to, Valkyrie — which has been entwined in a notoriously messy production process — could ultimately vindicate Singer and vault him back into Oscar-ville, which can only perk Warners' interest. So as Valkyrie’s December release approaches, we’re eager to see how all this real-life drama will play out.

Firstly, if you don't have a clue what's going on despite reading all about the case, Harris wants you to know that that's okay:

It doesn’t help that this case involves both copyright–one of the most complicated areas of law, because it’s about property that doesn’t physically exist–and Hollywood contracts, which were invented by jacket-strapped lunatics clenching nubs of graphite between their teeth as they scrawled out Cthulhu-summoning rituals on the padded walls of their asylum cells. Think the Watchmen graphic novel was complex? That Rorschach was crazy? That Ozymandias’s plan represents the labyrinthine scheme of a delusional megalomaniac? Ha ha ha. You’ve never read a Hollywood contract. Watchmen is a Johnny DC pop-up book compared to a Hollywood contract.

Where we should all be focusing our attentions now is the most recent ruling to deny Warners' motion to dismiss, apparently:

[W]hat does happen occasionally, however, is that the court will rule on something that actually affects the posture of the case down the line. For example: if the authenticity of a document is in dispute, the judge might rule that, pretending the document has been proven 100% authentic (as the rules of the motion require him to do), it would be overwhelming evidence that one side is right (or wrong). Then the lawyers know that the real target of the trial will be proving whether that document is authentic or not. There’s something similar (different in specifics, but along the same theme) that happened here. The court ruled in a way that at least on the surface appears to give added staying power to the veracity of Fox’s claims. Again, the details are boring, but the decision helps provide a trail map for the Blair Witch journey that the rights to the film have taken–and for Fox, that’s a very good thing. Said another way: the ruling itself (rejecting the motion) isn’t all that notable; but the content of the ruling looks like it gives Fox a helluva lot to work with.

A lot of work with towards what end, though...? Stopping release of the movie, or something else? Harris plumps for the latter:

[F]ans should be encouraged that nothing about this litigation will realistically keep the movie out of theaters next year. At the end of the day, Fox wants money; it doesn’t want an unreleased and unreleasable film canister. And, yes–while it’s true that Fox has also filed for an injunction to shut down the film’s release, that too should give the fans no alarm. It is, like Fox’s other maneuvers, just a negotiating tactic; a successful injunction simply represents the fastest way since God invented light of getting a settlement offer on the table.

Ultimately, then, there's nothing for anyone who isn't a Warners employee (or entertainment lawyer) to worry about - Come May next year, everyone can watch the Watchmen as planned... unless a giant alien appears in the middle of Manhattan in the meantime or something.

The world will look up and say “sue us.” And I’ll look down and whisper, “okay.” [Andrew Steven Harris]

Stay True To The Characters. This is one of two places where Superman Returns failed massively; not only would Superman not leave the Earth for years without telling anyone, but even if you bought into that, he still wouldn't have become creepy floating stalker ex to Lois afterwards. It shouldn't be that hard, really; Look at what's made the characters popular for decades, and then analyze how best to translate that onto the screen. Don't try and impose the latest fad or "radical reinvention" on characters that don't need it; save that for your inevitable reboot of Harry Potter in ten years' time. In other words, "dark Superman"? No.

Talk To Your Comic People. Take a page out of Marvel's playbook; run your ideas past the people who've been living with these characters and concepts day-in, day-out for years before things go too far (It's what saved Iron Man from the Mandarin, after all). If, as has been reported more than once, the Warner Bros plan is to use superhero movies to bring all the various WB arms into synch from publishing to movies to video games, then start as you mean to go on, and bring the movies into place with the comic books before you go any further.

Don't Overthink Things. You know what people want from a Superman movie? Action. It's very easy to remember; just think about the name of the comic where Superman made his first appearance. Failure number two of Superman Returns: With the exception of the falling plane, there weren't enough ridiculous set-pieces to give the audience something to distract themselves from Superemo. Even The Dark Knight had the awesome chase sequence that got pulses racing. Superman should be a movie that is almost stupid in its simplicity: The ultimate good guy against the ultimate bad guy. With punching and exciting action sequences.

Casting Is Key. If it wasn't for the fact that Smallville is kind of a mess, I'd suggest keeping Tom Welling as Superman, if only because he's already set in that role in many people's minds (and then the WB could use Smallville as a launching pad for the movie's promotion), but let's ignore Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey and the weird casting of Returns and look more to (again) Iron Man's outside-of-the-box collection of actors. Let's go for believability and no Kevin Spacey melodrama once again.

If All Else Fails, Give It To Geoff Johns. All you have to do is look at the Superman stories he's been writing for the past few years to know that he understands the character and can come up with some good stories about him. He's worked with The Dark Knight's co-write David Goyer in the past, and is already working in Hollywood himself (Amongst other things, he's producing a Metal Men movie and writing a Robot Chicken feature). And as if that wasn't enough, he's made noises about rebooting the franchise before: Where, exactly, is the downside to just giving him the keys to this particular car and letting him drive for awhile?

Alternatively, you could invite Tim Burton in to take a crack at the character; that worked out so well before.