Judge rules in favor of Fox in battle over Watchmen

[Aragorn]

Re: 'Watchmen' film in legal jeopardy?

CBS canceled Star Trek long before I was even born! Damn them and their CSIs to hell!

Actually, NBC canceled Star Trek. Your damning of CBS is unjustified.

Uh... okay then... Network TV canceled Star Trek before I was even born. So damn commercial television all to hell! PBS or bust!

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

But I imagine this:

From Variety:

Surprisingly, Fox said it would rather see the film killed instead of collecting a percentage of the box office.

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.

I agree. I can't see 20th Century Fox trying to remake the movie after an expensive version has already been made. Scrapping or delaying the production of the Zack Snyder movie helps no one. Its only use is a threat against Warner Bros. If Warner Bros. feels there's a real risk of them losing a lot of money here, they'll settle with 20th Century Fox.

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Gibbons, “Watchmen” tells the story of superheroes who have fallen into a netherworld of disgrace and personal torment. Long considered too difficult for a Hollywood film, it became a hot property after Zack-Snyder, the director of Warner’s hit “300,” took it as his next project, with a budget that published reports have put at about $120 million.

Funny. $120 million was its estimated budget when Terry Gilliam tried adapting it 20 years ago. Of course, $120 million was a lot more money back then, so the studios got skittish about the expense and scrapped the project. I'm surprised that Snyder was able to make the movie for that much in 2008 dollars.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Scrapping the movie will prove to either side the size of their balls, which will only help next time something like this happens.

People are getting excessively shitcanned right now.

 

[mredom]

Monet fixes everthing.

You're right! I feel much better after seeing this! (sorry couldn't help myself)

 

[TheArsenal]

I don't know that size of balls will come into play. There are issues of financial responsibility in play here for Fox, which - in my opinion - scrapping the movie will not fulfill.

Likely, it will be no more than a math problem. Both sides will sit down with their in house lawyers and outside counsel (additional hired legal guns) and plug various numbers into their litigation software, including perceived strength of their case based on discovery, and out will pop a dollar figure. Then they will posture, bare their teeth and beat their chests as they negotiate this number most favorably to themselves; the entire time having an eye toward a reluctant court date if the other side won't reasonably play ball.

In the end, likely, the settlement gets done and come next March we buy our tickets and come back here to complain how much of the graphic novel didn't make it to the screen.

 

[James Bond]

Slightly off topic, but I wasn't even aware that some people (like some in this thread) didn't want a Watchmen movie.

 

[James Bond]

Why not? Do you think Fox will fail?

They will settle.

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.

It's far more likely that a giant multi-billion dollar studio out to make money at the end of the day would accept monetary compensation from the other parties.

Maybe Dennis is wrong, but how can you be certain? Or are you just taking the piss?

 

[Harvey]

Slightly off topic, but I wasn't even aware that some people (like some in this thread) didn't want a Watchmen movie.

I wouldn't say that about myself. I'm much more in the "meh" category. But that's probably because I haven't read the book.

 

[James Bond]

Slightly off topic, but I wasn't even aware that some people (like some in this thread) didn't want a Watchmen movie.

I wouldn't say that about myself. I'm much more in the "meh" category. But that's probably because I haven't read the book.

Same here, but they showed the trailer before TDK, and and I thought it looked awesome. I'll be looking forward to it (assuming it does get released).

 

[Guy Gardener]

The Borg wouldn't assimilate the Kazon because it would diminish their perfection. Movies like From Hell, League of Extraordinary gentlemen, Hellblazer and to a point Swampthing have put shit in my cocoa.

I don't know that size of balls will come into play. There are issues of financial responsibility in play here for Fox, which - in my opinion - scrapping the movie will not fulfill.

Likely, it will be no more than a math problem. Both sides will sit down with their in house lawyers and outside counsel (additional hired legal guns) and plug various numbers into their litigation software, including perceived strength of their case based on discovery, and out will pop a dollar figure. Then they will posture, bare their teeth and beat their chests as they negotiate this number most favorably to themselves; the entire time having an eye toward a reluctant court date if the other side won't reasonably play ball.

In the end, likely, the settlement gets done and come next March we buy our tickets and come back here to complain how much of the graphic novel didn't make it to the screen.

if it was just a question of money, then the matter would never would have entered the public arena. We wouldn't know shit. Now it's impossible for WB to back down without everyone knowing it's possible to fuck them up so easily. It's that whole opening the floodgate to terrorism malarkey. If Fox wanted only money then they never would have put WB in such a moral quandary. They made it more difficult to get less money.

 

[TheArsenal]

Not necessarily. Whether the intent is a settlement or to shelve the movie altogether, public posturing of this kind is fairly commonplace in suits like this unless there is something like a gag order in place. It's not a moral quandary of any kind. It's a legal question, and to a large extent, a financial question. No floodgate can be opened because not just anyone can waltz in and "fuck them up" by making frivolous claims to a film's distribution rights. It would be dismissed. To even get this far a judge has to believe there is some merit to Fox's claims.

In any case, we shall see soon enough. I imagine with a March release date things will be clear in a few months.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

All foolishness. The movie will be released on time.

The question right now is whether Fox will settle for a lump sum buyout or a percentage of the gross. My guess is that they'll gladly take the former - and I'm quite sure they've already a number in mind.

He's got it exactly right.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

This is excellent. There should never be a Watchmen Movie. It's a crime against nature.

This won't prevent the movie from being released, so don't gloat too much.

Why not? Do you think Fox will fail?

Fox doesn't want to block the release of this movie. Fox wants the $$$$$ from the release of this movie.

So far, all we've got is a judge saying "there MAY be something to their claim." Not "their claim is valid."

If it turns out that Warner's legal concludes that they screwed up... most likely there'll be a cash settlement for some percentage of the revenue. It's unlikely that anyone will block the release of the film... because that doesn't give anybody ANY $$$.

And $$$ is what it's all about for those guys.

EDIT: Seems like I'm not the only one who thinks this, in this thread, either, huh?

 

[Klaus]

I was one of those whose instinctive reaction to a Watchmen movie was 'no-no-no-oh-god-please-no', but what I've seen so far has moved me to very cautiously optimistic.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I found this link that seems to have the documents regarding the suit...a quick glance through this thread, and I didn't see anything like this posted...forgive me if has.

I haven't read them yet...I need a nap and a law course before I do...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

All foolishness. The movie will be released on time.

The question right now is whether Fox will settle for a lump sum buyout or a percentage of the gross. My guess is that they'll gladly take the former - and I'm quite sure they've already a number in mind.

He's got it exactly right.

Yeah, on Ain't-It-Cool no less. Who knew?

 

[Ethros]

Just to dig this thread up, but I just saw this online-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html?_r=3

LOS ANGELES — In a surprise ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles said he intended to grant 20th Century Fox’s claim that it owns a copyright interest in the “Watchmen,” a movie shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures and set for release in March.

The decision was disclosed in a five-page written order issued on Wednesday. Gary A. Feess, a judge in the United States District Court for Central California, said he would provide a more detailed order soon.

Fox has been seeking to prevent Warner from releasing the film. The superhero adventure, based on the “Watchmen” graphic novel, is being directed by Zack Snyder (who also directed “300”) and has shaped up as one of most eagerly anticipated releases for next year.

A Warner spokesman, Scott Rowe, declined to comment on the ruling and the studio’s plans.

At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues.

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

Fox acquired rights to the “Watchmen” graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon, but eventually dropped its own plan to make a movie from its story, about the underside of life for superbeings.

Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

In ruling on Wednesday, Judge Feess advised both Fox and Warner to look toward a settlement or an appeal.

“The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,” he said.

I'm not really a legal/bullshit expert, so what does this mean for the release of the film?

 

[Mike Farley]

All it really means is that Fox is going to make some money off the release of Watchman. And maybe they'll get their name tacked on to the credits.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

WB really needs to hire better legal people. Seriously. I mean... they didn't PROPERLY ENSURE THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHTS TO THE DAMN BOOK! Did they just assume that because it was a DC comic that they had the rights?

 

[Mike Farley]

Well, to be fair, the Fox licensing deal is two decades old. Although Warner's legal department certainly should have looked closer.

How embarrassing is it to not hold the rights to a property that is owned outright by your parent company?