As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
The Howling 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
3 hrs ago
The Bone Collector 4K (Blu-ray)
$33.49
11 hrs ago
Death Wish 3 4K (Blu-ray)
$33.49
13 hrs ago
Back to the Future Part III 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.96
1 day ago
Superman I-IV 5-Film Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.99
18 hrs ago
Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$44.99
 
Death Line 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.99
3 hrs ago
Spotlight 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
9 hrs ago
Signs 4K (Blu-ray)
$27.00
4 hrs ago
Vikings: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$54.49
 
Lawrence of Arabia 4K (Blu-ray)
$30.48
 
The Toxic Avenger 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.33
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2009, 07:31 AM   #1
J_UNTITLED J_UNTITLED is offline
Power Member
 
Jul 2006
Default An Open Letter from "Watchmen" Producer

From Hitfix.com...

By Drew McWeeny


Quote:
I recently heard from Lloyd Levin, one of the producers of this year's hotly-anticipated adaptation of "Watchmen," and he wanted to get in touch regarding the ongoing conversation about the legal battle that's been raging back and forth between Warner Bros. and Fox.

There's been a lot of virtual ink spilled in the last six months about the rights and the wrongs of this lawsuit, and it all boils down to two separate agreements. There's a 1991 quitclaim that was issued by Fox, and then a 1994 turnaround agreement, and when the federal judge issues his verdict on January 20th, those are the two things he'll be considering.

But is that enough?

Does that really answer the issue?

Lloyd told me that his own feelings on the matter were complicated, and the more we spoke, the more it became apparent that he had something he really wanted to share with people, some point he needed to make in this larger conversation, and so I offered him an unfiltered venue in which to do so. The following is an open letter that Lloyd wrote regarding the "Watchmen" lawsuit and, more importantly, the 20-year-struggle to wrestle this project onto the screen.

It's provocative stuff, and I'm glad he decided to share his thoughts. For once, this isn't just empty speculation from the outside, but the opinion of someone intimately involved in the entire thing.

Check it out:

"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.

An open letter.

Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.

We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.

After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.

There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included 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.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was 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. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.

Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.

By his own admission, Judge 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.

My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

Lloyd Levin"
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 07:34 PM   #2
fighthefutureofhd fighthefutureofhd is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
fighthefutureofhd's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Dry County
Default

well i think this is not looking good for warner brothers. it appears as though they're begging or pleading their case to the people and fans so to speak cause they know they have no case. i say pony up warner brothers and you wouldn't have this problem. stop the whining.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:10 PM   #3
thecroshow thecroshow is offline
Power Member
 
thecroshow's Avatar
 
Jul 2008
Victoria BC
459
10
1
Default

cliff notes anyone?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:46 PM   #4
NARMAK NARMAK is offline
Blu-ray Prince
 
NARMAK's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
United Kingdom
141
18
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd View Post
well i think this is not looking good for warner brothers. it appears as though they're begging or pleading their case to the people and fans so to speak cause they know they have no case. i say pony up warner brothers and you wouldn't have this problem. stop the whining.
From reading the letter it seems Fox doesn't deserve jack or have any claim so what is the legal basis of Fox's claim?

Anybody know cause it would be interesting to see how Fox are claiming rights
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:55 PM   #5
fighthefutureofhd fighthefutureofhd is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
fighthefutureofhd's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Dry County
Default

they own the distribution rights to the movie and have so since 1994. read the other thread on this for fuller information. fox does clearly have rights and a case. or warner brothers wouldn't bother will settling right now.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:56 PM   #6
fatediesel fatediesel is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Nov 2007
Iowa
410
47
Default

This has been dumb on Warner Brothers part from the beginning. Supposedly Fox warned WB before and during production that they believed they owned the rights to the movie but WB ignored them. Now they are paying for it, possibly big time.
I understand the frustration by the producers who have spent 15 years trying to get this made but it seems Fox has a serious claim.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:10 PM   #7
Y3k Bug Y3k Bug is offline
Senior Member
 
Y3k Bug's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
Arizona
666
Default

I wonder what this producer's reaction would have been if someone had made the movie without him (and without rights) not paying him any money? Would he still have been just as happy to see it because it was "made"?

If HE was honest, I think he'd have to say he wouldn't stand for it and would sue, just like Fox is doing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:54 PM   #8
thedarkangel1975 thedarkangel1975 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
thedarkangel1975's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Pennsylvania
34
374
12
357
1
Default

This letter can be looked at two ways.

The producer is obviously one sided and wants the film to be made. No one can argue that.

They handed the same package to two studios at the same time? Doesn't that sound a little fishy to anyone?

Also no where in that letter does he discuss why Fox believes they own the rights to distrubute the film. From what I read Gordon made a deal with Fox and the clause was they had the rights to distrubute the film.

Both Fox and WB both seem extremely sneaky here to me and everyone is getting screwed. WWB should give the rights to Fox to release the Batman TV series on DvD and Blu and WB gets to release this for the fans and others excited by the film. Any delay of this film being released will seriously hurt the movie's box office intake. If this movie gets pushed back until Transformers comes out, this will only make half of what the movie could.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 08:42 AM   #9
J_UNTITLED J_UNTITLED is offline
Power Member
 
Jul 2006
Default

Another producer speaks out with his own letter here or here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 10:43 AM   #10
Afrobean Afrobean is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
-
Send a message via AIM to Afrobean
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Y3k Bug View Post
I wonder what this producer's reaction would have been if someone had made the movie without him (and without rights) not paying him any money? Would he still have been just as happy to see it because it was "made"?

If HE was honest, I think he'd have to say he wouldn't stand for it and would sue, just like Fox is doing.
The difference here is that Fox DIDN'T want to make this movie. They didn't want to make a Watchmen movie at all, least of which the production that WB eventually followed through with.

It all comes down to whether you believe squatting on IP is ok to do or not. If they're not going to develop the property, they have no moral right to it, even if the law is on their side.

You know, there are firms that actually buy up patents and sit on them. They might be great patents too. But they don't develop them and they don't make the rights available to those who would develop them. They sit on them and wait. Wait for someone to try to produce something that is similar to their patent.

Then they sue them. That's how they make money. They don't do anything. They buy patents, then sue if anyone tries to create anything like it.

This is essentially what Fox is doing in this case. They had the rights to this for so long, had plenty of opportunity, but failed to act. But now that WB took the necessary steps, they want a piece of the pie without investing in the project? You think that's fair?

Quote:
They handed the same package to two studios at the same time? Doesn't that sound a little fishy to anyone?
Not at all. That's how its done.

If Fox deserves anything, it'd be the relatively paltry sum that the distribution rights were worth BEFORE any of this business about WB producing this film went down. Back when the rights they had were meaningless theoretical distribution rights for a movie they didn't want to be involved with, that for all intents and purposes appeared as though it would never be made.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 11:01 AM   #11
bajor27 bajor27 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
bajor27's Avatar
 
Nov 2007
BC, Canada
1031
2
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
Not at all. That's how its done.
That's how it's done? Why wouldn't you wait for a no from the company that actually owns the distribution rights before looking for a different distributor? I find that extremely hard to believe.

And as for my opinion on the matter, if Fox warned WB before and during production than I say they are in the right. That would mean they didn't just wait until the movie was getting a good buzz or fan interest before stepping in and saying give me a slice of the pie.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 08:57 PM   #12
STARSCREAM STARSCREAM is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
STARSCREAM's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
Dagobah
148
67
Default

Hmmmmmm, I think it's total bull**** of Fox though to tell them the script was a piece of S*** and they wanted no part in making the movie. But now they want a cut of the money! The d*** movie wouldn't have ever been made if it weren't for WB picking it up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 10:08 PM   #13
Beast Beast is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Beast's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
376
3
Send a message via AIM to Beast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecroshow View Post
cliff notes anyone?
"Waaah. Fox passed on the movie and they don't deserve a penny. Waaaah."
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 10:14 PM   #14
Beast Beast is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Beast's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
376
3
Send a message via AIM to Beast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
The difference here is that Fox DIDN'T want to make this movie. They didn't want to make a Watchmen movie at all, least of which the production that WB eventually followed through with.
Doesn't matter. They own distribution rights for the film.

It was what they recieved for the money the initially invested back in the day in regard to developing the picture. It doesn't matter whether they passed on the film or felt the script they were presented was utter crap.

And Fox informed WB about their claim. WB was the sneaky party in attempting to ignore Fox's claims and go ahead without paying the piper. Now it's biting them on the ass. Hopefully Fox gets what they're owed and more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 10:32 PM   #15
lutefisk69 lutefisk69 is offline
Senior Member
 
lutefisk69's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Westminster, MD
427
1
Default

So during the Ravens-Titans game, they should a trailer and a release date of 3-6-09 showed up. Is this for real or is this still held up in court?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 10:39 PM   #16
icecream icecream is offline
Member
 
icecream's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
Default

Should have started and ended with this, and I would have still agreed.

Quote:
Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 12:47 AM   #17
Beast Beast is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Beast's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
376
3
Send a message via AIM to Beast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icecream View Post
Should have started and ended with this, and I would have still agreed.
You would have agreed with a flawed argument?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 01:16 AM   #18
Afrobean Afrobean is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
-
Send a message via AIM to Afrobean
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bajor27 View Post
That's how it's done? Why wouldn't you wait for a no from the company that actually owns the distribution rights before looking for a different distributor? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Considering that Fox seemed to be the only one who knew they had the theoretical distribution rights, I don't think it's too extreme to think that the producers probably figured WB would be able to do whatever they want, being a part of Time Warner along with DC Comics.

Quote:
And as for my opinion on the matter, if Fox warned WB before and during production than I say they are in the right. That would mean they didn't just wait until the movie was getting a good buzz or fan interest before stepping in and saying give me a slice of the pie.
My guess here is that WB thought Fox was bullshitting. I mean, this is WB with direct ties to DC. Why would they have reason to believe that they don't have legal rights over their own film properties?

And yes, it seems pretty clear that Fox does have legal right here, but morality is not always in line with the law. Not only that, but it's not like WB just set out to make this film that they knew they didn't have rights for; they thought it was within their rights to produce and distribute this. They didn't go "oh well, we know Fox has rights to this, but screw them!" They thought they had gone through all necessary legal hoops for this thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beast View Post
Doesn't matter. They own distribution rights for the film.
Again, legal right and moral right does not always coincide.

Quote:
It was what they recieved for the money the initially invested back in the day in regard to developing the picture. It doesn't matter whether they passed on the film or felt the script they were presented was utter crap.
It wasn't JUST that they passed on this iteration. They have been sitting on this property with absolutely no plans of actually developing it.

Quote:
And Fox informed WB about their claim. WB was the sneaky party in attempting to ignore Fox's claims and go ahead without paying the piper. Now it's biting them on the ass. Hopefully Fox gets what they're owed and more.
WB did not try to "go ahead without paying the piper". I'm sure they figured they had the rights to their own property.

Morally speaking, Fox deserves very little here. They've had the rights all of this time and have actively decided not to develop the property. If Fox had a film adaptation in preproduction, I'd say Fox had a moral claim to this, but it's not fair for them to squat on this thing, only bringing legal action this late in the game. You may say "oh well Fox warned them". This "warning" should have been the time when legal action was brought. Doing it this late in the game was a tactic to extort money out of WB, because WB has this finished film in their hands and they really must meet a deadline on this thing.

The bottom line here is that Fox invested a VERY small amount of money on this thing, then strategically waited until late in the game to try to get WB more willing to pay to get their movie out on time. They want an inordinate return on their investment; they want a big slice of the pie without investing in the property like WB has.

I stand by what I said before. Fox should only be entitled to what the distribution rights were worth before WB began preproduction on this picture. WB shouldn't have to plunk down a large slice of their potential profits here, only pay what the distribution rights were worth back when Fox was sitting on this property with no plans to do anything involving it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 01:24 AM   #19
Beast Beast is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Beast's Avatar
 
Feb 2008
376
3
Send a message via AIM to Beast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
Considering that Fox seemed to be the only one who knew they had the theoretical distribution rights, I don't think it's too extreme to think that the producers probably figured WB would be able to do whatever they want, being a part of Time Warner along with DC Comics.
They weren't. Fox made WB well aware. WB chose to ignore Fox's claim.
Quote:
It wasn't JUST that they passed on this iteration. They have been sitting on this property with absolutely no plans of actually developing it.
They didn't have the rights to make it. Just the rights to distribute it.
The rights to make the film were with the Producer. So they weren't sitting on the property.
Quote:
Morally speaking, Fox deserves very little here. They've had the rights all of this time and have actively decided not to develop the property.
Again. FOX did not have the rights to make it. Those rights were given up over a decade ago. I believe it was 1995, I'd have to re-read the facts again. All they had was the rights to distribute it. It would be stupid to the extreme if they, as you suggest, started developing a property they didn't have the rights to.
Quote:
This "warning" should have been the time when legal action was brought. Doing it this late in the game was a tactic to extort money out of WB, because WB has this finished film in their hands and they really must meet a deadline on this thing.
Again. FOX made WB aware of the facts numerous times. WB chose to ignore the facts. Fox couldn't really do anything about it until WB attempted to release the film. Then they were in violation of FOX's ownership of the film's release. It has nothing to do with extorting anything. Just trying to get what is rightly deserved.
Quote:
Again, legal right and moral right does not always coincide.
Get back to me when someone attempts to screw you out of money you're owed.

Last edited by Beast; 01-11-2009 at 01:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 01:33 AM   #20
thedarkangel1975 thedarkangel1975 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
thedarkangel1975's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Pennsylvania
34
374
12
357
1
Default

I am not sure if Fox is owed money here, but if they did not want to make the movie and had the rights to distrubute the movie, they should have sold those rights to the WB who was willing to take a chance and make the movie.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
"Open Range" France Release?? Wish Lists WyldeMan45 4 03-29-2009 12:24 AM
Is buying "open box" items from Newegg a bad idea? Speakers dj02bothell 7 12-18-2008 02:35 AM
"Open Season" Blue rayaudio issues on PS3 Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology Chrisf 2 03-21-2008 11:15 PM
Microsoft "open" to Blu-ray add-on Blu-ray Players and Recorders Slec 0 01-09-2008 01:05 AM
UK gets "Kill Bill" 1&2, "Pulp Fiction", "Beowulf", "Jesse James", and more in March? Blu-ray Movies - North America JBlacklow 21 12-07-2007 11:05 AM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21 PM.