Well technically you can't sue until you are about to make money. Warner Brothers was warned by fox, yet they still shot the movie. it is like you writing a book and me making a movie about the book without your permission. I can do whatever I want until I am about to make money. The person that should be in trouble is the Warner rep or Zac Snyder for not securing the rights before starting the project.
From a fan perspective, I don't give a toss about Fox and this lawsuit, I just want to see Zack's movie. If this goes on any further, and the movie is delayed, I will officially hate Fox. I don't care if they're right or wrong, I just want to see the movie I've been waiting for. Is that TOO MUCH to ask for?
Well technically you can't sue until you are about to make money. Warner Brothers was warned by fox, yet they still shot the movie. it is like you writing a book and me making a movie about the book without your permission. I can do whatever I want until I am about to make money. The person that should be in trouble is the Warner rep or Zac Snyder for not securing the rights before starting the project.
agreed. if anything people should be harping on warner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icecream
From a fan perspective, I don't give a toss about Fox and this lawsuit, I just want to see Zack's movie. If this goes on any further, and the movie is delayed, I will officially hate Fox. I don't care if they're right or wrong, I just want to see the movie I've been waiting for. Is that TOO MUCH to ask for?
again, fox is not to blame. fox is only doing the right thing in protecting their rights. if blame is to go anywhere then blame warner and the director. they're the ones who have screwed the "fans" over. stop hating on fox. besides it's just a movie. if it never gets released then so be it.
again, fox is not to blame. fox is only doing the right thing in protecting their rights. if blame is to go anywhere then blame warner and the director. they're the ones who have screwed the "fans" over. stop hating on fox. besides it's just a movie. if it never gets released then so be it.
Without the technicalities, I couldn't care less who is right or wrong in this circumstance. From a business standpoint, it's obviously the right decision for Fox to file the suit, but from my standpoint and a fan interest, it's just absurd that it's pretty much been in development for years (dispite the confusion), and just as it's about to materalize, it's halted.
I'm thinking Warner and Paramount will cut Fox in for 1/3 just so they can get this movie out. With all the hype surrounding it, especially thanks to the law suit this could end up being the biggest movie of 2009 or the biggest flop. That is if people get sick of hearing about it and decide not to go see it just out of spite.
I'm very disappointed that Watchmen might get delayed from it's March release. I am very looking forward to seeing it, it would have been a great buffer before the summer movies come out from May & beyond.
Some previous comments analyze how much better Warner Bros. comic movies are vs. Fox. Let's not blow Warner Bros. b/c they let Christopher Nolan make two great movies.
Fox is not going to rail road a guaranteed 200 mil. (domestic) & 400 mil. (worldwide) hit. Remember Watchmen isn't a guarantee in the slightest. It's a 20+ yr old comic book not part of a franchise which has only been introduced to mainstream readers after the movie announcement & the subsequent trailer for it. Expectations are high for it but it's no Spiderman or The Dark Knight guarantee for it. And it's rated R so 300 million is really over estimating what it will gross.
I'm very disappointed that Watchmen might get delayed from it's March release. I am very looking forward to seeing it, it would have been a great buffer before the summer movies come out from May & beyond.
Some previous comments analyze how much better Warner Bros. comic movies are vs. Fox. Let's not blow Warner Bros. b/c they let Christopher Nolan make two great movies.
Fox is not going to rail road a guaranteed 200 mil. (domestic) & 400 mil. (worldwide) hit. Remember Watchmen isn't a guarantee in the slightest. It's a 20+ yr old comic book not part of a franchise which has only been introduced to mainstream readers after the movie announcement & the subsequent trailer for it. Expectations are high for it but it's no Spiderman or The Dark Knight guarantee for it. And it's rated R so 300 million is really over estimating what it will gross.
Hoping for Watchmen sometime in 2009.
Exactly, this is posturing at best by Fox to get as big a piece of the pie as possible. I doubt the movie gets released even one week later than the current listed date. The lawsuit will be in the news for the next three months anyway as a way to promote the movie itself (yes studio marketing types are shameless like that).
Well technically you can't sue until you are about to make money. Warner Brothers was warned by fox, yet they still shot the movie. it is like you writing a book and me making a movie about the book without your permission. I can do whatever I want until I am about to make money. The person that should be in trouble is the Warner rep or Zac Snyder for not securing the rights before starting the project.
Actually, the problem comes upon distribution, not when you start making income. For example. if I rip off Spider-man and give away my own comic for free, Marvel could still sue me.
As soon as Warner Bros. started putting out trailers and promotional material, that's when Fox should have sued, at least speaking of the matter in that way.
And actually, you can sue whenever you want for whatever reason you want. If it's not legitimate, it would get thrown out by the courts, but you can file whatever stupid lawsuits you might want for literally any reason.
Anyway, my feeling is that squatters shouldn't have any right. If they're not going to make use of the property, they have no right refusing the right of another individual or group (I mean, they DO have LEGAL right, I mean they don't have moral right). This applies to all things everywhere. You know, there are companies that buy up patents and just sit on them, waiting for someone to make something similar, so they can sue them and make money that way. That's REALLY messed up.
Actually, the problem comes upon distribution, not when you start making income. For example. if I rip off Spider-man and give away my own comic for free, Marvel could still sue me.
As soon as Warner Bros. started putting out trailers and promotional material, that's when Fox should have sued, at least speaking of the matter in that way.
And actually, you can sue whenever you want for whatever reason you want. If it's not legitimate, it would get thrown out by the courts, but you can file whatever stupid lawsuits you might want for literally any reason.
Anyway, my feeling is that squatters shouldn't have any right. If they're not going to make use of the property, they have no right refusing the right of another individual or group (I mean, they DO have LEGAL right, I mean they don't have moral right). This applies to all things everywhere. You know, there are companies that buy up patents and just sit on them, waiting for someone to make something similar, so they can sue them and make money that way. That's REALLY messed up.
Fox did file a lawsuit when the trailers released. Hence why the original release was in december of this year not March of next. All said and done, Warner Brothers is big and should have settled this long before.
As for Warner Brothers making better Comc movies, they made two of late and Superman Returns was extremely disappointing.
Ok, I have seen a lot of back and forth, with people not really understanding the details of what happened, so I figured that I would give a synopsis, for all who missed the details,
(I saw earlier someone even tried to blame the director (Zack Snyder), just so you know, directors have nothing to do with securing movie rights.)
--------
In August 1986, producer Lawrence Gordon acquired film rights to Watchmen for 20th Century Fox.
Fox put the project into turnaround in 1991, and made a deal with Lawrence Gordon in 1994 whereby Gordon was given the rights to watchmen.
Fox alledges that this deal still gave them the option of retaining distribution and sequel rights to the film, and a share of the profits, should it be made by any other studio.
Despite originally passing on the project, Fox also alleged that its agreement with Gordon contained a "changed elements" clause, meaning that if Gordon changed any of the key creative personnel on the film, Fox would have first option on participation. The studio said that Gordon did not inform them of Snyder's joining the production in 2005.
Fox's interpretation of the 1994 turnaround deal also meant that Gordon would not fully control the rights until the studio's development costs (estimated by Fox at $1 million) had been reimbursed.
After Fox, Watchmen went through many studios.
After Fox's turndown in 1991, Gordon set up the project at a new company, Largo International. Fox would distribute the film. Largo closed three years later, and the above mentioned deal was made regarding the rights in 1994.
Gordon and Silver then set up the project at Warner Bros., where Terry Gilliam was attached to direct. Gilliam abandoned the project due to these funding problems, and also decided that Watchmen would have been unfilmable.
In October 2001, Gordon and Universal Studios signed screenwriter David Hayter to write and direct Watchmen in a "seven-figure deal". Hayter and the producers left Universal due to creative differences, and in October 2003, Gordon and Levin expressed interest in setting up Watchmen at Revolution Studios. They had completed Hellboy at Revolution, and were intending to shoot in Prague. The project did not hold together at Revolution Studios and subsequently fell apart.
In July 2004, it was announced Paramount Pictures would produce Watchmen, and they attached Darren Aronofsky to direct Hayter's script. Producers Gordon and Levin remained attached, collaborating with Aronofsky's producing partner, Eric Watson. But Aronofsky left to focus on The Fountain. Paramount replaced him with Paul Greengrass and set up a target summer 2006 release date. In March 2005, Paramount's CEO Donald De Line was rumored to depart from the studio, endangering high-profile projects including Watchmen. Earlier that week, De Line was in London, urging a reduction in Watchmen's budget so the film could get the greenlight. As a result of the potential budget cut with the new CEO Brad Grey, Levin planned to move the project from Pinewood Studios (where it was going to be shot), hoping to curb the budget by filming outside the UK. Ultimately, Paramount placed Watchmen in turnaround.
In October 2005, Gordon and Levin were in talks with Warner Bros., originally the second studio to be attached to Watchmen. In December 2005, the producers were confirmed to have set up the project at Warner Bros., but Greengrass was no longer attached to the project. In addition, the film was marked an "open writing assignment", which meant David Hayter's script would be put aside. After Warner Bros. officially became involved, the studio claimed that because Paramount had not fully reimbursed Universal for its development costs, Paramount had no legal claim over the film rights. Therefore, it would not be entitled to co-finance the film with Warner Bros. After negotiations between the studios, they agreed that Paramount would own 25% of the film and would distribute it outside North America.
---------------------
SUMMARY
---------------------
So Warner Brothers optioned the rights for Watchmen from producer Lawrence Gordon who originally got the rights in August 1986 and is producing the 2009 movie. The film had gone through 5 other studios since Fox and still had the same producer, who had paperwork saying that he had the rights to Watchmen. The legal fight is basically over the 1994 deal between Lawrence Gordon and Fox, where Fox claims that they put in sub-clauses allowing them first option on participation. WB would have had no way of knowing this, and being how many different studios tried to do this movie - I doubt anyone but Fox and Lawrence Gordon knew of this contract and Lawrence Gordon might have actually thought that he did have all the rights.
So, if there is fault, it falls on:
1. Lawrence Gordon - He should have read the contracts and known all of the stipulations, and double checked to make sure that Fox didn't slide something in.
2. Fox - For nitpicking, and trying to prolong the situation rather than working toward a quick resolution. Even if they don't have the rights that they claim and lose in court, They have the money and lawyers to appeal, and drag this out as long as they want. Right now, they aren't offering anything to make this go away, which is a bit of an unreeasonable stance to take. I can understand that they believe that they have some rights to this film, but by refusing to negotiate, they are only hurting the fans and themselves (they didn't have to front any of the production costs or risk associated with the movie).
Last edited by arrow61095; 12-29-2008 at 09:36 PM.
All I know is that when the year is over they media reports about the "box office numbers" for the year. Not which studios. I don't think it will be as big as TDK or Iron Man but I think it will make a much larger chunk of money then some people give it credit for. I think if it gets held up it just hurts the industry as a whole in a time when they need money and bigger movies at the theater and the money from the DVD/Blu sales. I'm just glad the actors and film crews got paid, they did their job.
Ok, I have seen a lot of back and forth, with people not really understanding the details of what happened, so I figured that I would give a synopsis, for all who missed the details,
(I saw earlier someone even tried to blame the director (Zack Snyder), just so you know, directors have nothing to do with securing movie rights.)
--------
In August 1986, producer Lawrence Gordon acquired film rights to Watchmen for 20th Century Fox.
Fox put the project into turnaround in 1991, and made a deal with Lawrence Gordon in 1994 whereby Gordon was given the rights to watchmen.
Fox alledges that this deal still gave them the option of retaining distribution and sequel rights to the film, and a share of the profits, should it be made by any other studio.
Despite originally passing on the project, Fox also alleged that its agreement with Gordon contained a "changed elements" clause, meaning that if Gordon changed any of the key creative personnel on the film, Fox would have first option on participation. The studio said that Gordon did not inform them of Snyder's joining the production in 2005.
Fox's interpretation of the 1994 turnaround deal also meant that Gordon would not fully control the rights until the studio's development costs (estimated by Fox at $1 million) had been reimbursed.
After Fox, Watchmen went through many studios.
After Fox's turndown in 1991, Gordon set up the project at a new company, Largo International. Fox would distribute the film. Largo closed three years later, and the above mentioned deal was made regarding the rights in 1994.
Gordon and Silver then set up the project at Warner Bros., where Terry Gilliam was attached to direct. Gilliam abandoned the project due to these funding problems, and also decided that Watchmen would have been unfilmable.
In October 2001, Gordon and Universal Studios signed screenwriter David Hayter to write and direct Watchmen in a "seven-figure deal". Hayter and the producers left Universal due to creative differences, and in October 2003, Gordon and Levin expressed interest in setting up Watchmen at Revolution Studios. They had completed Hellboy at Revolution, and were intending to shoot in Prague. The project did not hold together at Revolution Studios and subsequently fell apart.
In July 2004, it was announced Paramount Pictures would produce Watchmen, and they attached Darren Aronofsky to direct Hayter's script. Producers Gordon and Levin remained attached, collaborating with Aronofsky's producing partner, Eric Watson. But Aronofsky left to focus on The Fountain. Paramount replaced him with Paul Greengrass and set up a target summer 2006 release date. In March 2005, Paramount's CEO Donald De Line was rumored to depart from the studio, endangering high-profile projects including Watchmen. Earlier that week, De Line was in London, urging a reduction in Watchmen's budget so the film could get the greenlight. As a result of the potential budget cut with the new CEO Brad Grey, Levin planned to move the project from Pinewood Studios (where it was going to be shot), hoping to curb the budget by filming outside the UK. Ultimately, Paramount placed Watchmen in turnaround.
In October 2005, Gordon and Levin were in talks with Warner Bros., originally the second studio to be attached to Watchmen. In December 2005, the producers were confirmed to have set up the project at Warner Bros., but Greengrass was no longer attached to the project. In addition, the film was marked an "open writing assignment", which meant David Hayter's script would be put aside. After Warner Bros. officially became involved, the studio claimed that because Paramount had not fully reimbursed Universal for its development costs, Paramount had no legal claim over the film rights. Therefore, it would not be entitled to co-finance the film with Warner Bros. After negotiations between the studios, they agreed that Paramount would own 25% of the film and would distribute it outside North America.
---------------------
SUMMARY
---------------------
So Warner Brothers optioned the rights for Watchmen from producer Lawrence Gordon who originally got the rights in August 1986 and is producing the 2009 movie. The film had gone through 5 other studios since Fox and still had the same producer, who had paperwork saying that he had the rights to Watchmen. The legal fight is basically over the 1994 deal between Lawrence Gordon and Fox, where Fox claims that they put in sub-clauses allowing them first option on participation. WB would have had no way of knowing this, and being how many different studios tried to do this movie - I doubt anyone but Fox and Lawrence Gordon knew of this contract and Lawrence Gordon might have actually thought that he did have all the rights.
So, if there is fault, it falls on:
1. Lawrence Gordon - He should have read the contracts and known all of the stipulations, and double checked to make sure that Fox didn't slide something in.
2. Fox - For nitpicking, and trying to prolong the situation rather than working toward a quick resolution. Even if they don't have the rights that they claim and lose in court, They have the money and lawyers to appeal, and drag this out as long as they want. Right now, they aren't offering anything to make this go away, which is a bit of an unreeasonable stance to take. I can understand that they believe that they have some rights to this film, but by refusing to negotiate, they are only hurting the fans and themselves (they didn't have to front any of the production costs or risk associated with the movie).
Actually Snynder, Warner Bros etc are just as fault as Gordon. Maybe not leagally but morally for Synder at least. They should have looked over the contracts and rights before they signed anything and went into preproduction. I think as we get closer to January 20th a deal will break out were it will be a joint venure of Fox and Warner Brothers where Fox maybe get a 60/40 profit split.
If the trail begins, then expect a delay and temporary shelving of the movie.
So since the judge has issued his order, there is no trial unless WB appeals. Latest is Fox is looking for an order to delay the release. Here's another article:
Quote:
An unnerving update on the Watchmen legal battle has arrived today courtesy of the AP. An attorney for 20th Century Fox told them that "the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen." And on the other side, an attorney for Warner Brothers also told them that "he didn't know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely." While it wouldn't be right of me to jump to conclusions, this seems to be getting worse every day. Naysayers believe this will be settled quickly, but news like this obviously shows that Fox and Warner Brothers don't want that.
We still don't know what this means for Watchmen, as we only get tidbits of news like this randomly. On Christmas Eve, we reported that Judge Feess had ruled that "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture." However, Feess has said today that he plans to hold a trial on January 20th to decide on remaining issues. While Feess did make that previous statement in a five-page written order released last week, it's obvious that Warner Brothers still wants to fight this and will probably file an appeal soon in hopes of keeping the March release date.
Those of you that think this is going to be solved quickly and Fox will just get their logo slapped on the front of Watchmen are very wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but it's not too hard to tell that this isn't just an open-close kind of court case. Obviously Warner Brothers is going to fight tooth and nail for this, just as I would, because they're the ones who made it what it is and they're the ones who have supported it all along. Fox doesn't deserve a single penny, or so I believe, and I'll be supporting Warner Brothers to the end. Who knows what is going to happen next, but you can be certain we'll be following this to the very end.
Actually Snynder, Warner Bros etc are just as fault as Gordon. Maybe not leagally but morally for Synder at least. They should have looked over the contracts and rights before they signed anything and went into preproduction. I think as we get closer to January 20th a deal will break out were it will be a joint venure of Fox and Warner Brothers where Fox maybe get a 60/40 profit split.
If the trail begins, then expect a delay and temporary shelving of the movie.
Wow.
Directors (aka. Snyder) have nothing to do with securing movie rights or distribution; that is done solely by producers and the movie studios.
Directors are hired much later in the process (sometimes even after the script has been written). Their job is to manage the actors and get everything ready and working together for the movie (Storyboards, Special Effects, prepare and give direction to Actors, etc...). Directors rarely even get to glance at contracts or papers regarding rights to make a movie.
As for WB, Gordon has papers saying that he has the rights to the film. He gives these papers to WB. How would WB possibly know that Gordon had a pre-existing contract with Fox unless someone gave it to them (which didn't happen)?
-----------
-----------
-----------
To put it in perspective for you: you go to buy a car. You sign all the paperwork, and send your chauffer out to get the car. After you finish signing the paperwork you find out that another salesperson at the dealership put a hold on the car for someone else yesterday but the salesperson didn't file the paperwork yet so the dealership was never informed.
So, who is in the wrong???
----The car isn't yours, but it isn't really your fault either.
you=WB
your chauffer= the director (Snyder)
the dealership/salespeople=the producer and his lawyers
the person who has the hold on the car=FOX
-----------
-----------
-----------
I have no love for WB due to their poor audio and video on many Blu-ray releases, but this one actually isn't their fault.
I also was not a fan of 300, so I have no love for Snyder either............but directors have nothing to do with securring movie rights.
Last edited by arrow61095; 12-30-2008 at 01:55 PM.
Directors (aka. Snyder) have nothing to do with securing movie rights or distribution; that is done solely by producers and the movie studios.
Directors are hired much later in the process (sometimes even after the script has been written). Their job is to manage the actors and get everything ready and working together for the movie (Storyboards, Special Effects, prepare and give direction to Actors, etc...). Directors rarely even get to glance at contracts or papers regarding rights to make a movie.
As for WB, Gordon has papers saying that he has the rights to the film. He gives these papers to WB. How would WB possibly know that Gordon had a pre-existing contract with Fox unless someone gave it to them (which didn't happen)?
-----------
-----------
-----------
To put it in perspective for you: you go to buy a car. You sign all the paperwork, and send your chauffer out to get the car. After you finish signing the paperwork you find out that another salesperson at the dealership put a hold on the car for someone else yesterday but the salesperson didn't file the paperwork yet so the dealership was never informed.
So, who is in the wrong???
----The car isn't yours, but it isn't really your fault either.
you=WB
your chauffer= the director (Snyder)
the dealership/salespeople=the producer and his lawyers
the person who has the hold on the car=FOX
-----------
-----------
-----------
I have no love for WB due to their poor audio and video on many Blu-ray releases, but this one actually isn't their fault.
I also was not a fan of 300, so I have no love for Snyder either............but directors have nothing to do with securring movie rights.
Wow you actually have no clue. Zack Snyder's wife Deborah is a producer of the film, so Synder should have looked into these things.
Also a car is a totally different entity then book rights. Also how many people go down buy car then have a chauffer pick it up? Also this is entirely different because a studio is set to make money on property that is not totally theirs and belongs to someone else.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Hybrid Mode
