How did Warner Bros. get into this situation? Did their lawyers miss something?
Judge rules in favor of Fox in battle over Watchmen
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Some people simply like accuracy, rather than pointless, misguided, and inane barbs.How much did FOX pay you to say that?
Who says they missed anything? If this went to court, it could be ruled that WB was right all along. All the judge said was that their was enough reason to go to trial which is generally always the case in a contract dispute.
Man movie rights are a complicated lot aren't they. Am I reading this correctly? The rights were in the hand of a director/producer instead of the actually studio?
That's not uncommon, I think. For instance, the movie rights to Batman are owned, not by Warner Bros., but by Benjamin Melniker and Michael Uslan, which is why you see their names listed as executive producers on every Batman movie since 1989 (and Catwoman too), including the animated movies, even though they have no involvement with the TV shows on which those animated movies are based.
I'm sure most Watchmen fans hope they will, yes. But how can you be *certain* they will? Unless you work for their legal department, no one can know what they'll do.
Last edited:
Dennis does happen to work for their legal department. He's multi-talented.
If Fox causes Watchmen to be blocked. I swear upon the graves of my forefathers, I will Boycott everything that Fox has it's greedy little paws in. I will even boycott Dollhouse which I am excited to see.
I have waited 20 damn years for Watchmen, and its My Birthday present, I even have it all planned out. 5:00pm cake 7:00pm to 10:00pm Watchmen. It's going to be the perfect night.
If Fox ruins my Birthday, mark my words There will be blood.
I have waited 20 damn years for Watchmen, and its My Birthday present, I even have it all planned out. 5:00pm cake 7:00pm to 10:00pm Watchmen. It's going to be the perfect night.
If Fox ruins my Birthday, mark my words There will be blood.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
JESUS! GET OVER IT! God! How long has it been since Firefly has been canceled? GET OVER IT.
I am curious about this, since WB owns DC and DC owns Watchmen I believe. I can't remember who bought what but I believe DC publishes the TPB.
FOX SUCKS! THEY CANCELLED FIREFLY!
JESUS! GET OVER IT! God! How long has it been since Firefly has been canceled? GET OVER IT.
I am curious about this, since WB owns DC and DC owns Watchmen I believe. I can't remember who bought what but I believe DC publishes the TPB.
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
DC Vertigo. They own the rights to republish it as long as they keep it in print. God knows how long they have to ignore the story before it lapses back, they have a same sort of dealy with Wonder Woman which is why they kept publishing that book no matter how bad the sales got.
Internally the Vice presidents of Warner bros are just like the Princes of Mongo.
FOX SUCKS! THEY CANCELLED FIREFLY!
JESUS! GET OVER IT! God! How long has it been since Firefly has been canceled? GET OVER IT.
I am curious about this, since WB owns DC and DC owns Watchmen I believe. I can't remember who bought what but I believe DC publishes the TPB.
DC Vertigo. They own the rights to republish it as long as they keep it in print. God knows how long they have to ignore the story before it lapses back, they have a same sort of dealy with Wonder Woman which is why they kept publishing that book no matter how bad the sales got.
Internally the Vice presidents of Warner bros are just like the Princes of Mongo.
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
Actually, NBC canceled Star Trek. Your damning of CBS is unjustified.
Actually, NBC canceled Star Trek. Your damning of CBS is unjustified.
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
Hey, Grissom's leaving CSI. I don't care if that was William Petersen's decision or not, DAMN CBS TO HELL!
Hey, Grissom's leaving CSI. I don't care if that was William Petersen's decision or not, DAMN CBS TO HELL!
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
That was true, at least into the mid-1980s, but DC now owns the rights outright. The very first installment of Comic Book Urban Legends addresses this.
Absolutely. After a hard day's work and whenever I'm feeling overstressed, I just sit down in front of Bridge over a Pond of Water Lillies and I have the impression that all my cares sublime away.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
You are way too thick. Give up the internet. (And I don't even want a Watchmen movie.)
That'd be pointless, since Fox Broadcasting Company and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation are separate companies, albeit under the same corporate umbrella.
I'd be inclined to view that more as hyperbole than truth.
Difficult to comment on this without knowing the facts, what's in that 1991 agreement between Fox and Gordon, or what will come out of discovery. But I imagine this:
is less a declaration of true intent than letting WB know what is at stake when its time to break out their checkbooks.
This is a highly anticipated film and is all but the finished product. It smells very profitable. Assuming they won in court, Fox could take the rights back and produce their own film down the road. But this would seem - to me at least - to take near guaranteed money out of their pocket in 2009 for future potential earnings several years down the road. Unless Fox is seriously committed to making another version, I can't see why they would want to go that route.
And this assumes Fox are confident enough in their case to actually want to litigate. There's always risk when one goes into court. A judgment that doesn't go in Fox's favor removes both the guaranteed and future potential earnings discussed right off the table. And it incurs hefty out of pocket legal expenses.
Maybe Fox does see this as a monstrous cash cow that they want all to themselves, and are confident enough to think they can get the court decision then build the cow from scratch. However, if I were to wager without any more knowledge than what is here, I'd lay money on a settlement and this movie coming out on schedule.
is less a declaration of true intent than letting WB know what is at stake when its time to break out their checkbooks.
This is a highly anticipated film and is all but the finished product. It smells very profitable. Assuming they won in court, Fox could take the rights back and produce their own film down the road. But this would seem - to me at least - to take near guaranteed money out of their pocket in 2009 for future potential earnings several years down the road. Unless Fox is seriously committed to making another version, I can't see why they would want to go that route.
And this assumes Fox are confident enough in their case to actually want to litigate. There's always risk when one goes into court. A judgment that doesn't go in Fox's favor removes both the guaranteed and future potential earnings discussed right off the table. And it incurs hefty out of pocket legal expenses.
Maybe Fox does see this as a monstrous cash cow that they want all to themselves, and are confident enough to think they can get the court decision then build the cow from scratch. However, if I were to wager without any more knowledge than what is here, I'd lay money on a settlement and this movie coming out on schedule.
Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?
Keep trying to tell "Enterprise" fans that, but it just never seems to work. ;-)
FOX SUCKS! THEY CANCELLED FIREFLY!
JESUS! GET OVER IT! God! How long has it been since Firefly has been canceled? GET OVER IT.
Keep trying to tell "Enterprise" fans that, but it just never seems to work. ;-)
