Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox settle over WATCHMEN

[JacksonArcher]

Well, good news. Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox have reached a settlement over it's dispute over the property rights for Watchmen. WB has to pay Fox a "sizeable" cash amount upfront and a percentage of the film's eventual grosses. Fox will not co-distribute the film or have any share in the rights to the film.

Bad news for producer Lloyd Gordon, who helped develop the film over the span of nearly two decades. WB is asking for Gordon and his attorneys to reimburse the studio over the costs WB will have to give Fox. Since this was an oversight on WB's part, I think it is highly unfair for Gordon to have to pay the likely huge costs.

 

[Brikar99]

Well, that sucks for Gordon, but I'm glad they're not gonna stop the movie or anything.

 

[Dream]

Hopefully this has taught Warners a lesson about making sure to CHECK copyrights thoroughly before greenlighting anything in the future. I hope someone was fired for this. At least now we know Watchmen won't be delayed...

 

[Maurice]

The copyright wasn't in question, for pete's sake, it's what film and distribution rights to the property had been sold. Hollywood bookkeeping and endless development cycles make this kind of thing more likely than you'd think.

 

[S. Gomez]

Not that I'm suspicious of your word or anything like that, but is there a link?

 

[Pilot Ace]

Not that I'm suspicious of your word or anything like that, but is there a link?

I'm with you, posts like this should include a link to the article verifying the information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_en_bu/watchmen_movie_lawsuit

 

[JacksonArcher]

Sorry for not including the original link. I was posting this from my iPhone which makes it difficult to copy and paste links.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Bad news for producer Lloyd Gordon, who helped develop the film over the span of nearly two decades. WB is asking for Gordon and his attorneys to reimburse the studio over the costs WB will have to give Fox. Since this was an oversight on WB's part, I think it is highly unfair for Gordon to have to pay the likely huge costs.

The producer is Larry Gordon. Are you certain that it was WB's oversight rather than Gordon's? The issue at hand is a payment that Gordon failed to make to Fox to secure all rights. WB should have uncovered that failure and resolved it before moving ahead with the film, but it seems that Gordon either wasn't aware that he'd missed the payment or misrepresented the rights situation. He certainly has at least some culpability here. That's at least my understanding from what I've read of the case, although if someone has followed it more thoroughly and has a differing view then I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Not surprised. Of course it was going to be settled. Fox just wanted lots of money, and the embarrassment of WB is a little icing. But there was no way this moving wasn't going to be released.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Bad news for producer Lloyd Gordon, who helped develop the film over the span of nearly two decades. WB is asking for Gordon and his attorneys to reimburse the studio over the costs WB will have to give Fox. Since this was an oversight on WB's part, I think it is highly unfair for Gordon to have to pay the likely huge costs.

The producer is Larry Gordon. Are you certain that it was WB's oversight rather than Gordon's? The issue at hand is a payment that Gordon failed to make to Fox to secure all rights. WB should have uncovered that failure and resolved it before moving ahead with the film, but it seems that Gordon either wasn't aware that he'd missed the payment or misrepresented the rights situation. He certainly has at least some culpability here. That's at least my understanding from what I've read of the case, although if someone has followed it more thoroughly and has a differing view then I'd be interested to hear it.

Here are a couple of quotes from a January 13 article in the Los Angeles Times:

It is unclear whether Gordon has initiated an insurance claim against the law firm that negotiated his "Watchmen" deal with Warner Bros., but Gordon has said in a letter that the same lawyers may have made "a unilateral mistake" as part of an earlier deal involving the film's rights.

So Gordon himself believes (or he's going to claim) that his lawyers were negligent. Warner Bros. will sue Gordon, and Gordon may sue his former law firm in response.

Although Warner Bros. has long insisted that Fox's case was meritless and sought to have the case dismissed, the studio stated in court papers that Gordon or his lawyers may have failed to give Warner Bros. the proper documentation about "Watchmen's" rights in a timely fashion when the production was coming together.

Of course WB would say that. But it may be true and we'll see how Gordon defends himself.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-watchmen13-2009jan13,0,794434.story

 

[Norrin Radd]

I think it'll bomb at the box office.

 

[Davros]

I think it'll bomb at the box office.

That just means I won't have to wait as long in line when I go to see it.

 

[crookeddy]

I think it'll bomb at the box office.

That's just nonsense. With the kind of buzz it has, it's probably a lock for $300 million.

 

[destructive]

there's very little buzz, only in the geek-o-sphere is it on anyone's radar

 

[Pilot Ace]

there's very little buzz, only in the geek-o-sphere is it on anyone's radar

This is not true. It is on anyone's radar who follows entertainment news too, Yahoo has been somewhat regularly been headlining the proceedings on their website.

 

[Captaindemotion]

there's very little buzz, only in the geek-o-sphere is it on anyone's radar

Mainstream movie magazines like Empire and Total Film have been covering this movie, as have some of the newspapers in their guides to the big films of 2009. If Snyder could make 300 a huge hit, then Watchmen, from an altogether superior source material, is likely to be a similar box office success.

 

[Trent Roman]

The hyperviolence of "300" had a built-in audience; the only question was whether the stylization would turn off audiences (which it clearly did not, and for good reason I'd say). "Watchmen" is an exercise in deconstruction, and not readily as accessible as buff men slaughtering each other. I don't think it will bomb, particularly if it manages to position itself as a dark superhero story in the vein of "Dark Knight", but I doubt it'll replicate the success of "300".

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Ethros]

Not much of a surprise I guess, but stil very glad its over and can now finally await March 6th in peace.

And seen as there won't be a sequel or whatnot, I don't really care if it bombs, as long as its as good as I hope it to be...

 

[Captaindemotion]

The hyperviolence of "300" had a built-in audience; the only question was whether the stylization would turn off audiences (which it clearly did not, and for good reason I'd say). "Watchmen" is an exercise in deconstruction, and not readily as accessible as buff men slaughtering each other. I don't think it will bomb, particularly if it manages to position itself as a dark superhero story in the vein of "Dark Knight", but I doubt it'll replicate the success of "300".

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Who knows? This time last year, a lot of people were predicting that the fun, upbeat Iron Man would triumph over the dark, brooding The Dark Knight. I think the marketing of Watchmen will play up the costumed heroes, the vistas, the cinematography and the visual effects. That may leave a lot of casual viewers feeling somewhat short-changed once they see the actual thing, but I think it ought to guarantee a considerable box office intake.

 

[Nick Ryder]

Honestly, Dark Knight won out at the box office, because of Heath Ledger, and people wanting to see 'his last film'. If say, Jeff Bridges died before Iron Man came out, I'm sure some people would see it simply to see 'the Duder's last movie.'