Article III Against Warner Brothers

Now Warner Brothers is suing Mirchi Movies over their film, "Hari Puttar." Their argument? The Bollywood film's name sounds suspiciously like "Harry Potter," a Warner Brothers film.

I guess they learned about intellectual properties from FOX's Watchmen lawsuit, so WB wanted to sue someone. Unfortunately, they are still idiots.

Hari is a popular Indian name, and "Puttar" is Punjabi for "son." The fact that "Hari Puttar," sounds vaguely like "Harry Potter" is coincidental. This is not grounds for a lawsuit. That's because no one would confuse the Bollywood flic with Harry Potter. The plot has nothing to do with wizards and magic. If it was similar to the story in Harry Potter AND had a similar sounding name, then they could argue that Mirchi Movies was trying to confuse consumers by making a similar product to one they have a license for.

But no, this movie is about a young boy who is left Home Alone. While he is Home Alone, burglars try to steal the boy's father's secret formula. And because he is Home Alone, the boy decides to defend his house by setting up booby-traps to foil the burglars who are trying to break in while he is Home Alone.

Call me crazy... but that sounds lot like the Home Alone movies to me.

And guess what, Home Alone is a 20th Century Fox Property! Way to go Warner Brothers, you justs did Fox a a favor!

Who Watches The Warner Brothers?

Lending credence to my assertion that Warner Brothers is the worst movie house in Hollywood, it looks like they are going out of their way to screw up Watchmen.

Sure they got the right director, right screenwriter, right cast. Even "Watchmen" artist, Dave Gibbons, who was initially against a Watchmen movie, was so impressed with what he was seeing that he endorsed it. But aside from the production of the actual film, the WB has made several moves that subvert all those efforts.

The case against Warner Brothers:

Article I. The Lawsuit

In case you haven't been keeping up with Hollywood news, Warner Brothers is currently embroiled with Fox over rights to the Watchmen movie. So what's the story?

According to the Geeks of Doom website, the problem stems from the fact that WB did not get permission from Fox to make the movie. "Why should it be up to them?" you ask. Well, Fox has had the rights to make a Watchmen movie since it was published in 1986.

Fox has repeatedly failed to make the Watchmen movie, and has basically been sitting on the rights to the film for 22 years. Assuming (correctly) that Fox would never make the movie, Warner Brothers decided to make the movie themselves.

What? Really, Warner Brothers? Do you know how movie rights work? You have to pay the creators to use their idea. What, you figured because Fox paid for the movie rights that part of the transaction was complete? Just because someone has paid for the rights to a film doesn't mean it's up for grabs! The party that paid for the idea gets to use it! If YOU want to make it, you have to pay the person who owns the rights.

You thought you could just arbitrarily make a Watchmen movie without owning the movie rights? Have you heard of Copyright? Do you know what intellectual property is, Warner Brothers? Legally, Fox can sit on those rights forever. And now because Warner Brothers violated copyright law, Fox is suing to stop the movie.

Of course they aren't actually going to stop WB from releasing the movie. Rather, they are going to demand a large chunk of the profits. And given the success this film is bound to have, that sum is going to be many times greater than what WB could have bought the rights to the film for in the first place. Fox was never going to make it, they would have pawned it off for peanuts. It was a monument to their failure.

Now, Fox has WB by the balls because the movie has already been made and promoted. What can Warner Brothers do? Not release the movie? They will lose all the money they spent making it and marketing it. So the WB will have to pay whatever price Fox wants, when all they had to do to begin with was take the legal course of action.

As much as I want to hate Fox for probably delaying this movie's release with a time-consuming and costly lawsuit, the real culprits here are the intellectual giants over at Warner Brothers.


Article II. The Running Time

One of my favorite directors, and a comic-book fan himself, Kevin Smith was invited to an advanced screening of the Watchmen movie. Smith was so impressed that he raved about it on his blog. BUT, Kevin Smith saw the "Epic Length" version; with a running time of about three hours.

Well Warner Brothers, apparently unfamiliar with the Lord of the Rings movies, say that running time is way to long, and plan to cut it down to 145 minutes. For those who aren't too math savvy, that means they intend to cut 35 minutes from the film. 35 minutes. The Anglo-Zanzibar War lasted that long.

You're coming off a huge endorsement from a director with HUGE credibility with your key demographic for this picture, and now you want to completely hack that version to pieces?

Their rationale is a shorter running time will allow more showings, and thus generate more money. Great. You're now nickle and diming this movie to death.

And in the wake of the aforementioned what-the-f***-were-you-thinking lawsuit, the probability of financial concerns affecting the final quality of the movie greatly increases. Now the plan will probably be to screen Watchmen at about 90 minutes long and then release an extended version DVD.

Have you seen the Watchmen graphic novel? It's thicker than the Bible. How on Earth are you going to tell that story in two-and-a-half hours? Coherently?

Honestly, dude. Just release the epic length version, and bite the f***ing bullet. Because you screwed up on this one. And if you want to keep the fans of the comic book happy, and you better because they are going to be the large part of your audience, you better keep the movie faithful.

Unless Warner Brothers does that, I stand by my argument; Warner Brothers is the worst Movie Studio in Hollywood.

You're Kidding Right?

Because social networking sites don't get enough exposure already, Aaron Sorkin is penning a Facebook movie.

Sorkin, writer for "The West Wing" and "Studio 60 in the Sunset Strip," is currently working on writing a screenplay for a movie about the formation of Facebook.

What's going to be in it? Are they going to go all the way back? Like to when Zuckerberg stole the source code from other Harvard students? Will they have the lawsuits? And how recent are they going to make it? Will they show the idiots who got in trouble for dressing like Steve Irwin and Virginia Tech victims for Halloween? I guess at the very end the movie will become incomprehensible, like the new facebook.

I like Facebook. I have a facebook page; have since 2005. Anyone who has been on that long knows that the quality dipped once any moron could get an account. But it's still pretty cool.

But if you do a Facebook movie, you should do it like Myspace the Movie. What I want to see is the stupid trends on facebook. I don't care about it's foundation.

This is going to be a combination of 21 and Wall Street, right? Screw that. I hope Sorkin fictionalizes it a little. Let's have a battle royale between Facebook and Myspace. The Google shows up and the two must team up to save the internet.

In any case, Facebook, Inc. so far, is not on board. A facebook spokesman pretty much said that they get approached by filmmakers all the time, and while they are flattered by the attention, they have not agreed to cooperate.

Oh, in your face! In your face Sorkin! Facebook just shot you down like you were Uwe Boll trying to get a deal to make a Metal Gear movie!

Seriously, just stop this right now. make a movie about Napster instead. At least there is a real legal battle story there.

Directing 101: Don't Pan Your Own Movie

"Seriously, stop making movies."

This is definitely a first; a director slamming his own movie.

After a handful of bad reviews hit the internet, Mathieu Kassovitz has actually made statements to amctv.com that will ultimately torpedo Babylon A.D.; a movie he wrote and directed.

Basically he says there are no redeeming qualities for this movie. He said the action sequences were "like a bad episode of 24" (That's my favorite). He said that with the caliber of films so far this summer, Babylon A.D. will never hold up. Kassovitz is expecting the film to bomb and rather than weather the humiliation he jet-setted to the Caribbean for a vacation.

Even worse, the movie hasn't even come out yet. This is preemptively throwing the film under the bus. Jeremy Shockey thinks that's low.

Even waiter Joe Eszterhas has the good taste to wait until after Showgirls flopped to slam it. In a stark contrast to Kassovitz, Paul Verhoeven, the director of Showgirls actually went to the Razzies to accept his "Worst Director" award.

Kassovitz blames FOX for the films failure, (what failure? It hasn't even come out yet?) saying that they were way too touch feely and overly involved. Well that's going to happen when your film has a budget approaching $100 million.

He further criticized FOX for cutting 10 minutes from the film after its European opening. The running time is now about 90 minutes.

Even if all that is true, you cannot sabotage your own movie, especially before it opens.

I think Kassovitz probably did it to screw FOX. But this movie's performance is bigger than him; it's bigger than his feud with FOX. Have you ever seen the end credits? All those people need to get paid too. Not to mention all of his financial backers. This was not a shrewd move by any stretch.

Needless to say, after this review, it might be wise to steer clear of Babylon A.D.

Superman Reboot

It looks like the Superman franchise is taking cues from Marvel and the Batman series in their next move.

First, it looks as though Warner Brothers intends to reboot the series, considering the success of Batman Begins. All I can say is, "Not a moment too soon." Sorry DC, but "Superman Returns" was terrible. The high mark was Kal Penn, and they killed him off! They crushed Kumar with a giant monolith of Kryptonite!

And do us all a favor; when you reboot the series, get anyone other than Brandon Routh. I understand the whole "everyman" thing. Yeah I know you wanted to cast an unknown, yeah that's noble and everything. But look at the successful superhero franchises Spider Man (Tobey Maguire), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Batman(Christian Bale). Notice anything in common? The lead is played by a leading actor. And before you even think about it, don't get the guy from Smallville either.

Well Warner Brothers has indicated that, much as with the new Batman Series, they intend to make the new Superman series darker. I am now convinced that, not only will the new Superman series suck as badly as the last one, but Warner Brothers is the worst movie production company in Hollywood.

You want to make Superman dark? Have you ever read a Superman comic? You've got an fantastic, invincible character in in a flamboyant suit with laser eyes, and you are going to try to make that dark? The reason Batman worked as a dark series is because Batman comics were dark. The joker was killing people left and right. Scarecrow was a homicidal maniac equaled only by Marvel's Carnage. And at every turn he faced moral dilemmas.

What's Superman's dilemma? "Oh man, it's hard making myself lame enough to pass as a regular guy," and "I'm the last of my kind." That's a bit one-note isn't it?

The fact is, you can't make a good Superman movie today. Much like you can't make a goot Hulk movie today. It's not the right time. He isn't identifiable today.

The invincible Superman was needed in the depressing Holocaust era for young Jewish boys to identify with. They needed a hero who was indistructible because they wanted to be indestructible. It was their ultimate fantasy, their escape from a world of unconscionable evil, and so it was a success.

There is no peril like that today. Say what you will about terrorism; it isn't the same. It has not affected our lives the way World War II, the Holocaust and the Cold War shook the American foundation. There was an omnipresent enemy with a face. And in a time of uncertainty, everyone could rally behind Superman, a proxy of American might.

Our enemy today is obscured. We aren't staring down a rival country; our enemy is concealed within our very own nation. And so what sells in the post-9/11 era is moral conflict and obscurity; darkness. We don't need a hero to hide behind, we need a hero to do our dirty work. To take the confusing and scary moral decisions out of our hands. To be cruel where we have been ordered to be kind.

Again, look at the superheros that succeed now: Spiderman, Iron Man, Batman, the Punisher; vigilantes who operate outside the law to do justice. They do what is right even if the society around them says it is wrong. They all have a certain vulnerability that goes well beyond simoly Kryptonite. Iron Man has alcohol, Spider Man had Mary Jane, and Batman has his moral compass.

They are hated by the government, and often the very people they protect because they do what ordinary people cannot, and yet they fight on. But most importantly, evil men fear them. And in our-modern era of fear, we want a hero that the bad guys fear. Not respect; fear.

Superman does not belong in our time. He is the relic of a bygone era in comics history.

But still, even more upsetting, is that DC is going to follow in Marvel's footsteps and follow several single-hero movies with a large movie with several of the established heros. Oh, f*** me.

If you stick Superman in a movie with this Batman, I will massacre you all. Don't mess with this franchise, it's doing too well. And you can't just stick Superman in with Batman! Batman is in a realistic world. Now you want to merge that world with a world that has a flying, laser-eyes hero in it? Again, Warner Brothers is the worst movie company on Earth.

Sank Like A "Rocker"

I think we can safely engrave the trophy for "Biggest Turkey of the Summer," with the name Rainn Wilson. I think he has even wrested the trophy away from Mike Myers.

The Rocker had an absolutely abysmal opening weekend, puling in an almost comedic $2.75 million. To put that in perspective, even the fiasco that was Love Guru opened with $13.9 million. I think even more telling, Vicky Christina Barcelona, in it's second week, and a nonexistent promotion campaign, made $3 million despite the fact that it is showing in 2,100 fewer theaters. That measly sum was only enough for The Rocker to earn the number 12 spot in the weekend box office.

Part of what has hurt The Rocker are criticisms that it is a blatant rip-off of School of Rock. The other part seems to be that Rainn Wilson cannot carry a movie on his own.

In all likelihood, I think Rainn is at the risk of a Costanza-esque typecasting. When an actor plays a character so iconic, like George Costanza, or Dwight Schrute, it can be hard for the actor behind the role to break out of that mold. And if you have any doubts that Dwight Schrute is an iconic character, simply Google the name "Dwight." A fictional TV character tops a former president.

But adding to the difficulty of trying to escape fan expectations and a Jack-Black-did-it story, Rainn doesn't have the supporting cast he does on The Office. Steve Carell, John Krasinsky and Jenna Fischer has been replaced with the fresh-faced Teddy Geiger, Josh Gad, and Emma Stone.

Of course the cast isn't bad, and the movie is certainly better than it's performance indicates, but this whole experience does not bode well for Rainn if he ever intends to do movies after The Office.

Caine: Heath Ledger Will Get An Oscar Nomination

Michale Caine, co-star of the presumptive mega-hit Dark Knight, made his mark on Hollywood Friday. The acting legend was honored by leaving his hand- and footprints in the cement in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater. But the real news were his comments at the ceremony.

The 75-year-old actor lauded the late Heath Ledgers performance. "I think he'll get a posthumous Oscar nomination at least," Caine said. That's high praise coming from a two-time Oscar winner.

Caine is right in saying "at least." If Ledger is nominated I don't see how he cannot win. His performance as the joker is apparently both intense and entertaining; early viewers are raving about this latest apparition of the Joker.

His riveting performance aside, what actor wants to be the one who robbed the late Heath Ledger of an Oscar? I'd hate to be that guy; no one wants to be in that position! Well , maybe Leonardo DiCaprio, he's been robbed of Oscars so many times he'd probably want to win one regardless of whom he was running against.

But I think there could be no more fitting tribute than to award one of the world's most talented actors with an Academy Award for the last role he ever played; one of his best roles, no less. We will always remember how he went out on top and we will have to pause to reflect on what we lost.

Dark Knight opens on Friday.