The London Times issued the first mainstream approbation after Tuesday's world premiere, suggesting that "as the first attempt to make a truly post-adolescent comic book movie, Watchmen is, literally, peerless." Neither critics from Variety nor The Hollywood Reporter seemed to disagree after viewing the film last night in LA. For what that was worth: At bigger issue, they wrote, is Watchmen's muddled mediocrity at best and stories "too absurd and acting too uneven to convince anyone," according to THR's Kirk Honeycutt. And by "anyone," the critic really does mean it, concluding, "Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009." Variety's Justin Chang was barely more optimistic about the long-awaited graphic novel adaptation:

[A]uds unfamiliar with Moore's brilliantly bleak, psychologically subversive fiction may get lost amid all the sinewy exposition and multiple flashbacks. After a victorious opening weekend, the pic's B.O. future looks promising but less certain.

"Whatever," studio partners Warner Bros. and Paramount might reply, reminding us that last week's distant fanboy screeching has crescendoed into a full-on market mating call. Harry Knowles led a generally rapturous second wave of praise ("I WATCHED THE FUCKING WATCHMEN AND FUCKING LOVED IT!" he bellowed this week on Ain't It Cool News), joined by admirers from CHUD, Hitfix and elsewhere. The studios' pricey, saturation marketing push nudges you from every direction — Web, print, TV, bus stops, even inside your coffee cup. Another classic case of review-proof comics fodder, a $125 million epic cut from Dark Knight cloth and tailored like one-size-fits-all robes for the geek choir. Right?

Not so fast. Full disclosure: We haven't seen Watchmen, and for all we know it's worthy of CHUD's comparisons to, ahem, The Godfather. But the ad hominem accolades overlook the bigger problem of two studios offering spring's biggest film as an R-rated, 161-minute, apocalyptic sex-and-violence fantasia. "[N]ot for the kids," acknowledges the Times, and possibly not even for the adults if leading critics — usually relied on to boost the prospects of indie and foreign fare — don't attest to director Zack Snyder's "art" when the films opens globally next week. So far, so bad.

Outside of Oscar season, it's an almost unprecedented scenario. The audience limitation is already beyond risky at these prices (particularly for a film that has no franchise future), but unofficially relying on critics to sell a blockbuster even its own source novelist vehemently disowns doesn't seem like much of a bet at all — it's like a prelude to a forfeiture. Of course Watchmen will open to $70 - $80 million domestically, and of course it will be profitable (most notably for the Satanic rights-claimants at Fox), and DVD perpetuity will be good to Snyder's even longer director's cut. But a sure thing it's not — and that's at best. Look out below.

Chatter has surfaced in recent years — specifically, since festival pickup Crash overtook Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture in 2005 — that the studios no longer wield the alacrity to bump off leaner, smaller awards hopefuls among an evolving Academy membership. It's not quite that simple, of course; Warner Bros. nabbed two wins in three years with Million Dollar Baby and The Departed, and was on the bubble this year with The Dark Knight and Gran Torino. Paramount led the nomination count and box-office tally with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Universal pushed Frost/Nixon into the Best Picture running at the expense of mini-major entries including Doubt and Revolutionary Road.

But it's not an honor just to be nominated (or simply considered) for those studios' respective bosses Alan Horn, Brad Grey and Ron Meyer. And while Fox's Tom Rothman surely appreciated Searchlight's Slumdog sweep and maybe Space Chimps' appearance in the animation montage, some consideration for his $120 million epic Australia would have been nice. However, being in the Oscar business requires a fresher approach than greenlighting today for awards season two years away. The short view is the new long view, meaning that for a handful of 2009 films, the future might be now:

· The Informant and The Human Factor: Warner's close calls last year did little to conceal the embarrassment of closing its boutique Warner Independent Pictures and selling off Slumdog Millionaire to Fox Searchlight. But at least Horn and Jeff Robinov were honest: They don't have a clue how to handle small films, and this year — with Steven Soderbergh's whistleblower intrigue The Informant and Clint Eastwood's working-titled Nelson Mandela biopic — they won't have to. The latter film in particular, reuniting Eastwood with Morgan Freeman, is prime-cut Oscar bait. Worst-case scenario, they overblow the hype (see: Changeling) and foot-soldier Soderbergh moves in. Either way, at least one studio is covered for — and invested in — the '09 derby.

· Public Enemies: Focus Features has done well by its parent Universal, finding awards love for Milk and In Bruges while exceeding box-office expectations this month with Coraline. But the studio had higher hopes for Changeling and all but conceded Picture, Actor and Director categories to Frost/Nixon's front-running competitors. They could go either way with this year's awards crop, perhaps led by Michael Mann and Johnny Depp's '30s-era crime drama Public Enemies. Test screenings are mostly positive, and the principals are perennial Oscar darlings. But the midsummer release date will either defuse its chances or, in a fairly fresh studio strategy, get out way ahead of the late-year glut — kind of like Dark Knight without the billion-dollar fluke factor.

· The Green Zone: Another Uni hopeful, reteaming Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass for a story about life inside Baghdad's occupation stronghold. Everybody knows audiences are allergic to Iraq films, but the Bourne overlap is enticing, and it doesn't need to make a fortune for the Academy to buy in. It may be an even surer thing than Public Enemies. In any case, it's cheaper — not mini-major cheaper, but definitely leaner, with more approachable talent, and perhaps that much more competitive.

· Up: Disney/Pixar will always face resistance from Academy purists, happy with the animated ghetto that contained WALL-E while bitterly maligned films like The Reader snuck into the Best Picture running. It can't last forever, though, and even if Up — another summer release with a potentially long shadow — can't amass its predecessor's plaudits, it'll bend the resistance a few degrees closer to breaking. Expect Pixar to follow its own WALL-E lead, launching this year's first "For Your Consideration" salvo by mid-fall.

· Avatar: December will welcome James Cameron's first film in 12 years, during which time the filmmaker designed Avatar's 3-D motion-capture technique essentially from scratch. It's got at least a visual effects Oscar in the trophy case, but why stop there? If The Dark Knight can cut an awards-season trail, what's a $40 million campaign on top of the couple hundred million onscreen? That is, unless it's abrogated its awards legend to Searchlight, getting out of the Australia business in favor of the Marley and Me trade. It wouldn't be the worst strategy. And if we haven't gotten over it already, we will.

Warner Bros. on Wednesday acquired the domestic rights to Edge of Darkness, featuring Gibson as a Boston detective grappling with his only child's murder. Martin Campbell directed, Robert De Niro walked out, and everyone remaining is preparing for the shitstorm forecast for Gibson's release back into the wild. It's his first leading role since Signs in 2002 and officially ushers in a new, post-SugartitsGate era for Gibson's PR squad. But at least the hard work is mostly done, with Warners having spent the last year rehearsing with one crisis after another and Team Gibson at the ready with its boilerplate mea culpa just in case. And anyway, Miley Cyrus's scandal game passed Gibson's by years ago. This is as win-win as it gets.

• WB nabs rights to Mel Gibson film [Variety]

That's why we at Defamer are always eager to pass along cost-efficient, stress-reducing services geared towards Hollywood's hardworking and high-powered men (and sometimes women, but not today, sorry girls). Look no further, pent-up-eroonies!

NOONER b/j !!!!!!!!!!!!! - 49 (bURBANK)
Reply to: redacted
Date: 2009-02-10, 11:49AM PST

Any Warner Brothers or Disney Execs
up for an AWESOME blow job this afternoon!?!?!?
I am on my knees to please sirs.
lets do it!!!!!!!!!!!!
You deserve it NOW!

Perhaps this could be the perfect opportunity to commemorate the DreamWorks/Disney distribution deal, with representatives from each studio—one in mouse ears, the other holding a fishing rod—availing themselves simultaneously of the Craigslist poster's services in a symbolic coming together as one.

• NOONER b/j !!!!!!!!!!!!! - 49 (bURBANK) [Craigslist]

But how gentle is "gentle"? David Carr asks and mostly answers that question in today's NYT, best characterizing Warner Bros.' strategy as some balance of print ads and ignoring press requests for comment. Which is no doubt working, as is the self-perpetuating momentum of critical and Globes plaudits. Yet oddly downplayed in the equation is the viability of a dead nominee — especially one of Ledger's stature, talent and now legend. Beyond the obvious boost for a film just theatrically re-released, why would Warner's spend any money pushing Ledger for an award his untimely death and ensuing mythology has bought and paid for already?

That's not to say Ledger's performance isn't excellent, awards-worthy, iconic, whatever, and Academy voters will reward it in accordance with its "competition" — a dude in blackface, the guy who killed Harvey Milk, Revolutionary Road's token nod and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who stole the 2005 acting Oscar that Ledger deserved in the first place for Brokeback Mountain. As Carr points out (and we recall from first-hand experience), Ledger was a lousy campaigner then.

His ghost, however, is not, which makes Warner's job much less complicated than today's survey implies. The studio's marketers are really the only ones who can get in his way, and it's mildly surprising they'd hazard the exploitation factor naturally accompanying Ledger's Oscar ads. We know that's "the way it's done" and everything, but it's not like it has to be. If the guy's grown wings, jumping on his back seems worse than ghoulish. It's just senseless.

• Delicately Campaigning for a Star Now Departed [NYT]

The news comes about a month-and-a-half after Paramount and Universal made similar cuts. The slack will be picked up by overseas labor from countries like India and Poland, outsourced through French company Capgemini. Because there's really nothing more helpful than having someone from Mumbai try to deduce how 98% percent of your paycheck was accidentally withheld for Polish state taxes.

The memo follows:

Dear Colleagues:

We’d like to take a moment and provide some follow-up information to the memo you received earlier this month regarding cost containment at the Studio. We are very sad to announce that based on the global economic situation and current business forecasts, the Studio will have to make staff reductions in the coming weeks in order to control costs.

This was a very difficult decision to make, and one that was not made easily. Despite the fact that the company performed solidly in 2008, this decision reflects changes necessary for stability and growth going forward. The changing entertainment business landscape, shifting consumer demand and the overall state of the economy have affected companies around the world, and Warner Bros. is not immune to these factors.

We have examined every aspect of our business in order to cut costs responsibly and to keep staff reductions to a minimum. One way to achieve these objectives is to outsource certain job functions to a third-party company. To that end, we will be outsourcing the U.S.-based components of certain parts of MIS and accounts payable. This initiative, as well as the ongoing analysis of our global MIS and finance and accounting structures, will be explained in more detail to those business groups directly impacted.

Over the next few weeks, specific information regarding cost cutting measures, including staff reductions, will be shared with you on a divisional or departmental level by your management team.

We will also continue to review our global operations to make sure we’re operating as efficiently and effectively as possible, without negatively affecting our divisions’ ability to conduct business.

We want to reiterate that these staff reductions and organizational changes, which are being made at every level across both corporate and divisional businesses, were our last resort to help position the company for its future.

We understand that these are difficult times for everyone and appreciate your patience and support as we move through them together.

Sincerely,

Barry Meyer Alan Horn

• Time Warner's Warner Bros. cuts nearly 800 jobs [AP]
• WB to cut 10% of its worldwide staff [Variety]

Lawyers on both sides were scheduled to present their motion just minutes ago to Judge Gary Feess. THR reports:

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but the deal is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's boxoffice grosses; Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it co-own the "Watchmen" property, but it will share in revenue derived from it. The studios released a joint statement last night.

For those keeping score at home, that makes Fox and Fanboys the winners, and Warners and producers Larry Gordon, Lloyd Levin et al. the losers. For nostalgic purposes, we offer you a timeline of the ugliest studio battle in recent history:

July 08: · The public gets its first look at Zack Snyder's vision with a trailer cobbled together with what footage was yet available. Billy Corgan's banshee wail will forever be the soundtrack to 4 million spontaneous fanboy erections.

Aug 08: · What was thought to be some petty inter-studio bickering is quickly upgraded to "the Cuban Missile Crisis of fanboydom." Fox does the unthinkable, and suggests they'd rather have an injunction than a payout. Gasp.

· A Galactic Fanboy Republic convenes for an emergency session to discuss next steps. They emerge exhausted 48 hours later with their resolution: complain loudly on their Galactic Fanboy blogs.

Sept 08: · A court date of January 6 is set. Legal ball-dropping producer Larry Gordon begins to crap pants.

Oct 08: · Snyder continues to keep his head down and focus of getting his movie completed, which means making sometimes unpopular decisions. Eg. Cutting the Giant Psychic Squid ending, and airbrushing off Dr. Manhattan's blue wang.

Dec 08: · Judge Feess issues his ruling. Fox, already delighted with the performance of Marley & Me, declares it "The Best Fox Christmas Ever," allowing all employees one phone call to a loved one on Christmas Day.

· Both sides beat their chests and make "hoo hoo hoo" sounds, with neither studio making any gestures towards reconciliation.

· Glimmers of blue-wang light: THR points out that under "copyright law, a rightsholder still has to show, among other things, that it will be 'irreparably harmed' absent an injunction." Watchmen's opening day could be safe!

· In a promising turn of events, both sides agree to forego a trial of favor of a January 20th mediation.

Jan 09: · Watchmen producer Lloyd Levin produces a stirring appeal to the heart in the form of an open letter, in which he recalls how Fox had considered the project "one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years." Fox countered that the same could easily have been said of Marley & Me, which of course was a proud, profitable property.

· We notice chilling similarities between Michael Jackson and Rorschach. Stare at the hole in the middle of his face: What do you see?

· Mentions of "productive" discussions through the weekend point towards a Silk Spectre-administered happy ending.

· It's Watchmen VJ-Day Eve!

• Warners, Fox settle over 'Watchmen' [THR]

Numerous reports noted a hearing scheduled today for 3:30 — a day after the studios filed a notice of settlement status that presumably detailed the texture, dimensions and flavor of the pound of flesh Fox would be extracting from Warner's. THR now writes that the hearing has been delayed until Friday morning at 9:30, "at which point the parties will announce they have settled the case." And all will be right at last with the fanboy universe, at least until some imminent Dark Knight Oscar snub next Tuesday reignites their pants-wetting ire. Be prepared.

• WatchmenWatch: Settlement status report filed [THR Esq.]

The AP reports today that lawyers for each side asked Judge Gary Feess to delay a hearing scheduled for today, citing "productive" discussions expected to extend through the weekend. No additional details were released by either studio, but we've already started our informal Defamer HQ Settlement Pool. We'll call it for an announcement Sunday at 5, just before the Golden Globe news dump avalanche. Who's in?

• Attorneys: 'Watchmen' settlement talks productive [AP]

Not that Lloyd Levin's argument isn't persuasive and sincere enough to warrant some consideration: Fox, which insists it never relinquished the rights to the graphic-novel adaptation and has filed for an injunction to stop its release, reputedly turned its back on Watchmen in 2005 when Levin and original rightsholder Lawrence Gordon took a detailed pitch to both that studio and Warners. "It included," Levin writes, "a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved."

At which point, Levin adds, Fox gave 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." But Warners, despite its own problems with the script, decided to take a gamble on Zack Snyder, the R-rating, the budget, the running time, the DVD extras and every other hard-sell, years-in-the-making quality that was soon lobbed into production at the kinder, gentler studio.

If you're still waiting for the part where Levin asserts his and Warners' legal claim to Watchmen's distribution rights, it's OK — so are we. But in closing, straight from the Judge Judy School of Emotional Public Appeals, there is this:

By his own admission, Judge [Gary] Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.

Oh. Again, we're no lawyers, but our first impression is usually correct. So let's just say that for the sake of a judicial system already choked with inefficiency and predation, the answer of what is right seems even clearer by implication — Warner Bros. should probably bring its checkbook when a federal judge hears the case Jan. 20.

• Exclusive: An Open Letter From 'Watchmen' Producers [Source via HE]

20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. remain at odds over who owns the rights to Zack Snyder's blockbuster graphic-novel adaptation, but a few morsels of news have crept up to suggest that Warner's fear of an injunction (not to mention its testiness over the lack of a trial) may actually be unwarranted:

Despite the judge having apparently become convinced over the past week that producer Lawrence Gordon failed to do everything required of him to get the Watchmen film rights back from Fox in turnaround, an injunction certainly isn't a given here. Under copyright law, a rightsholder still has to show, among other things, that it will be "irreparably harmed" absent an injunction, and it's hard to see how Fox, which basically sat on its rights as the Watchmen project bounced from studio to studio, can't wait until a trial to get whatever money it's entitled to from any infringement.

David Poland, meanwhile, calls the "Fox sat on its rights" argument "utter bullshit," while giving similarly little quarter to the geek crowd accusing the studio of torching its long-nurtured Watchmen dream; "[W]izened old money-grabbing bastard murdoch and his retarded offspring," comes just one of the cries from their trail of tears. "Considering his position and influence, truly one of the few people in history the world would be a better place without." Hell, write a script — Warner will need a lucrative new franchise by the time this is over.

• Will Warners settle or fight to the cartoonishly-stylized death? [THR ESQ]

• Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film [NYT]

The latest reports suggest that neither studio is keen to settle over Fox's claim to the film, which was affirmed last week in a decision handed down by a judge in Los Angeles. A Warners attorney tells the AP this afternoon that its release plans stand despite Fox's continuing quest for an injunction, adding that "a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely."

No rush, though: That trial would take place starting Jan. 20, only 45 days before Watchmen's scheduled March 6 opening. (Paramount is handling the international release starting March 4.) We hope this isn't the same attorney whose due diligence — or lack thereof — was what drove the Christmas Eve judgment in the first place, but in any case, his posturing skills are first-rate.

• Fox says it will try to stop 'Watchmen' [AP]

Judge Gary Feess's decision arrived late on Christmas Eve, announcing a more detailed judgment would follow "soon," according to the New York Times. Doubtless it made for an even more joyous holiday at Fox, where news of its record-breaking Marley & Me opening was compounded by the potential to pull in between $35-$40 million next March on a film it turned around years ago and didn't spend a dime to produce or market.

Warners, meanwhile, wasn't talking after the decision, which stated specifically that "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture." Fox won't, of course; nor will Warner Bros. challenge their rivals' claim in a trial set for late January — six weeks ahead of Watchmen's opening, and thus squarely in the middle of marketing and press rounds.

As we presumed back in August when the squabble loudly spilled into court — with Fox claiming producer Larry Gordon didn't buy the graphic novel's rights before taking it door-to-door for the next two decades — a settlement is the likeliest outcome for all involved. It won't be cheap for Warners, which already has a split with Paramount (Watchmen's international distributor) and co-producer Legendary Pictures and could actually lose money on a fanboy sensation expected to earn more than $350 million worldwide. Nor will it be especially pretty for Fox, whose smartest decision of the last two years on the film side was the one to stay quiet while Warners' lawyers signed off on the studio producing Fox's film. Low class, but well-played. (EW notes today that Fox's lawyers did reach out, which we don't believe and would virtually guarantee a trial if Warners actively and knowingly defied them.)

Speaking of well-played (sort-of), does anyone still have any questions as to why WB moved Harry Potter to May '09? And Christopher Nolan, if you're reading this, WB bosses Jeff Robinov and Alan Horn need to talk to you about fast-tracking the next Batman film. Feel free to call either at home. Like, now.

• Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to a Warner Movie [NYT]

Never mind that the parties co-own a network together and have managed a smooth, lucrative relationship since well before Men became a hit six years ago — what's due is due, per a suit filed Tuesday in LA Superior Court:

The suit [...] alleges that as part of CBS' renegotiated license agreement to air Men for a fifth and sixth season, it agreed to pay WBTV a premium above the initial license fee schedule and reimburse the studio for costs associated with the production of TV's top-rated comedy. This "deficit recoupment," as the term is commonly known, required CBS to pony up if the show reached specific ratings milestones in its fourth season.

"CBS has reaped the benefits of the tremendous success of Two and a Half Men but wants to deny Warner Bros. the right to its agreed-upon share," the complaint argues.

True, Men did enjoy its current season's highest ratings last week, and true, Charlie Sheen's lavish $800,000-per-episode salary doesn't pay itself. But buried in the THR report is the more glaring reality that WBTV won't any time soon see a cent of the $23 million that the bankrupt Tribune Company owes it for syndicating Men and Friends, leaving Warners' the unusual but necessary option of Les Moonves unwrapping different kind of briefs than he's used to this season. And if you're going to accept responsibility for Men, you might as well get your money's worth. You can't really blame the guys.

• WBTV sues CBS over 'Men' [THR]

The comics site Superhero Hype noted this morning that Warners had backed out of its tentative plan to push TDK back in to theaters in January 2009 — something about not wanting to go up against Fox's rumored X-Files 2 re-release, we think, though no official reason was given. A more realistic suspicion is that if TDK isn't getting the awards love that many critics and industry observers once foresaw for it, then Warners will let the DVD ride this month and save its theatrical resources for Watchmen (and/or fighting Fox in court for the film's rights).

But one devotee is carrying its Oscar water either way at the site The Dark Campaign, featuring a fan-made TV spot rich with easy-to-read blurbs and a mission statement urging Academy revolution:

There are so many comic books done badly by studios that don’t understand. They all made plenty of money for their studios, but what makes Dark Knight different and special? What about all those qualities that make it a great film? The studios should understand the power of a great comic book storytelling translation and the pointlessness of a bad one. I’m hoping an effort to get a Best Picture nomination makes that clear to them. It’s rewarding the studio and filmmakers that did it right.

Not to mention that profound Obama boost they'd forsake by diverting The Dark Knight solely to video. Please, Warners — listen to reason.

• The Dark Campaign [Dark Campaign]

• WB Drops 'The Dark Knight' Re-release Plans [Superhero Hype]

I think that’s what freaked the studio out about the movie too. It wasn’t a studio film for kids, or it wasn’t a traditional film about kids. We didn’t have like a Movie Kid in our movie, or a Movie Performance in a Movie Kid world. We had a real kid and a real world, and I think that’s sort of where our problem was. In the end they realized the movie is what it is, and there’s no real way to... it’s sort of like they were expecting a boy and I gave birth to a girl.

[Laughs] So they just needed their time to sort that out and figure out how they were going to learn to love their new daughter.

It could have been worse, Spike: We hear Baz Luhrmann's newborn faced a full-blown sex-change over at Fox.

• Moriarty Sits Down With Spike Jonze... [AICN]

Clearly it depends on whom you ask. By at least one person's standards Batman is already Turkish, and Hancock recently depicted cinema's first drunk, misanthropic superhero as a black dude living on the streets. Global audiences threw $624 million at Will Smith in the latter film, and according to Craig, may be color-blind enough to greet a black Bond with similar largesse:

"After Barack Obama's victory I think we might have reached the moment for a coloured 007. I think the role could easily be played by a black actor, because the character created by Ian Fleming in the '50s has undergone a great deal of evolution and continues to be updated."

Yes, he said "coloured," it's how they roll in the UK, calm down. Craig noted as well that the politically incorrect (at best) Fleming probably wouldn't approve were he alive — a qualification hardly as significant as whether or not viewers who voted in a black president would approve. And even that is an impossible dynamic to parse considering how — if we are the "changed" nation we say we are — Obama's victory owed more to economic and political factors (not to mention pure timing) than the color of his skin. Do we really think we've "reached the moment," or will we only know when the right black Bond comes along?

Beyonce's Wonder Woman scenario is simultaneously simple and more complex. Moviegoers and critics were decidedly stingy to Halle Berry's Catwoman, yielding only $82 million in 2004. Warner Bros., which released Catwoman and whose president Jeff Robinov drew fire last year after allegedly suggesting the studio was done with female leads, has Wonder Woman in limbo (along with Joel Silver) since Joss Whedon abandoned it last year.

So that settled it, we thought, until Beyoncé came along — appropriately Amazonian and looking for her next opportunity coming off her turn as Etta James in the forthcoming Cadillac Records.

"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? [...]

"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."

"It's time for that, right?" Is it? Seriously, we're asking: Is it time for an epochal presidential election to influence Hollywood casting? This town may have helped get Obama elected, but does it have the balls to prove it wasn't a fluke? And are women invited to the party?

• Discuss: Is the World Ready for a Black James Bond? [Cinematical]

• Beyoncé wants to lasso the role of Wonder Woman [Source]

Frustrated over the superhero's incursion into his centuries-old city's cultural turf, mayor Hüseyin Kalkan's proposed lawsuit would nevertheless omit Batman creator Bob Kane, publisher DC Comics and film franchisee Warner Bros. as Nolan's co-defendants. Instead, it would hold the filmmaker himself singly responsible for the region's growing international reputation as a brooding, froggy-voiced world capital of mayhem — none of it in glorious IMAX:

“The royalty of the name ‘Batman’ belongs to us … There is only one Batman in the world. The American producers used the name of our city without informing us,” Kalkan told to the Doğan news agency.

Mayor Kalkan, speaking to the Hürriyet Daily News and the Economic Review, said last year foreign media picked up on Batman and the city’s increasing suicide rates among women. He said a columnist asked why Batman’s mayor did not sue the movie Batman for royalties while struggling with economic problems. “We found this criticism right and started to look for legal possibilities of a case like that,” he said.

Naturally, we sympathize with the mayor's social crisis, not to mention the bind in which Batman natives have found themselves outside the country; one Turk in Germany told reporters that Warner Bros. issued a cease-and-desist from naming his two restaurants after his hometown. To be fair, however, Batman Grill, The Dark Bite™ and a spectrum of other eatery variations are in fact the fiercely protected province of Six Flags, and a lawyer in Istanbul noted that the Batman Municipality has already missed the periodduring which it could file an objection to Batman's trademark as a superhero.

Still, we think this is far from over, with the whole scenario prompting noted Oscar diplomacy expert Dave Karger to reconsider his controversial theory on "How Obama Helps Batman." This is NATO's jurisdiction all the way.

• Real life Batman faces super test [Hürriyet Daily News via Hollywood Newsroom]

"Just now, leaving work at Warner Brothers in Burbank, CA, I was horrified to see a plane scarring the sky with a 'vote yes on prop 8' message, prefaced with something about traditional marriage that was already illegible.

It's a breezy day out here, so the message was hardly readable for more than a minute or so. Let's hope the proposition doesn't even last that long tomorrow morning."

We're hearing reports of similar messages appearing in the skies above the Westside, too. As a counterpoint, we offer some blurry footage taken by Defamer video editrix emeritus Molly McAleer of Zooey Deschanel urging concertgoers to vote No On 8.

If you're still feeling helpless after watching that and want to actively contribute, the No On Prop 8 campaign is accepting last-minute donations that will "fund one million last-minute phone calls to pre-identified No on Prop 8 voters." Give for what's right!

• The Wicked Witch of the West is Over Southern California [Towleroad]