your heading is a fabrication. "they know she wants it and they want her for it." IS NOT "naomi watts wants the birds lead". she said clearly on the regis & kelly show that she would like to see the script before making a decision, it was leaving her options open in a diplomatic way.

I have a terrible fear they're going to try and explain the bird attacks in this remake. The first time I saw the original, when I was 15, I remember feeling damnably let down by the ending, or rather the lack of an ending, but as time went by I came to appreciate it. Hitchcock apparently refused to film the ending as written because he thought the explanation it offered was inadequate, and he was right; I can't imagine any explanation for the horror in that film being adequate to it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the original, and really the only thing that seriously lets it down is the over-obviousness of some of the travelling matte effects. And I'm not sure those obvious mattes still wouldn't be preferable to what is likely to be an orgy of over-obvious CGI.

'Fraid not steandric. One of the meanings of Fabrication is...

"an untruthful statement"

It's not. She clearly wants the film dependant on the script. That is made clear in the story itself.

James I haven't read the original story, do you think we're going to be treated to something like mutated birds or something?

sorry she had never said she wanted the film dependent on the script. she said she "wanted to read the script" (for making a decision), said from her own mouth.

whatever stories said or reported by anyone that she "wanted the film or the role" were fabrication, untruthful statement.

Well the sources I've read say that she's wanting the role depending on the script. If she reads it and it's rubbish she'll not take it, if she reads it and it's good she'll do it.

According to IESB at The Hitcher press junket the Producers themselves said she wants to do it, hence the quote in the article.

Unless IESB are lying about what the Producers said, then I think it's pretty clear.

She wants it dependent on the script. Which is not a complete fabrication for the title.

your headline does not even match the body of your article, which says they want her not she wants them. i don't know why you, therefore, felt you had to argue something that was not even in the article.

why don't you change your article, then, to reflect the responsse you made to steandric?

thus far, watts was going to be the bond girl. she was going to play daisy scarlett. she was going to be in far cry w/the rock. she was going to be in king arthur. she was going to be in rain falls w/kate beckinsale. she was going to be in the corrections w/pitt & dench. she was going to be in
constant gardener. she was going to be in the betty ann waters story. the list goes on. (she had to turn down meirellos for gardener because of her promise to pj. she agreed to waters but like painted veil it has been delayed for years.)

all gossip from the ISEB. not all gossip is lies. you should know better. speculation is not a lie. Like she was breaking up w/Schreiber earlier this year, & breaking off w/her best friend Nicole. & she was only going to do dumb romantic comedies for money--as if what she is shooting now w/cronenberg is that, or michael haneke's funny games about 2thugs torturing her hamptons family.

When I emailed her mum in England, I got the idea that she is waiting to be persuaded. Maybe you are a secret boyfriend & know more than her mum does. your site is called stalker, isn't it?

The original birds movie scared the heebie jeebies out of me.

IF they don't over cgi the film then i will be heading to watch my first horror film at the cinema in near on a decade.

forgot to say: think she would be a terrific option as the lead.

Listen John, with all due respect I'm not going to change the title of the post and the title does match the story as I have already said in my comments, she does want the role dependent on the final script.

No, I will not change the headline thank you very much for the suggestion, perhaps you could change it on your story on your site.

As common with all outlets of news and discussion on news, whether they be papers, magazines, TV, radio, and the entire Internet, the headline reflects the story, is attention grabbing, but does not give the entire story. That would be something like:

"According to IESB Producers of the upcoming The Birds remake from Platinum Dunes Production company have said that Naomi Watts wants to play the lead in the aforementioned film although this will dependent on the finalised script, as well as the final deal negotiated between her and the studio, her working calendar, and whatever other deals are offered to her at the time."

Now that does not work as a title, whereas the current one does. It's accurate for the story, as the story contains all the explanations.

If you're so concerned with truth why aren't you off telling IESB to get it right since you so believe they are inaccurate? Why aren't you off fixing sites like Digg?

As concerns those other rumours you list about Watts there are only one has appeared on Filmstalker:

The Haneke film: Source Variety through HorrorMovies.ca

Filmstalker does deal with speculation and rumour when the casting rumours are interesting enough to be discussed, and this one is, although coming from the Producers of the film, as IESB claim, it's more interesting than most.

Filmstalker does not carry celebrity personal gossip and so would not be discussing her relationships with boyfriends unless they directly relate to her career and roles.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the site first other than half the site name.

If someone connected with Watts career wants to correct me then there are direct email links in the About and FAQ section and I'd be happy to write that up. However forgive me if I use a large Internet news site as a source in the meantime.