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
Superman I-IV 5-Film Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.99
1 day ago
Karate Kid: Legends 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.97
2 hrs ago
The Howling 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
22 hrs ago
Back to the Future Part III 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Ballerina (Blu-ray)
$22.96
 
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$70.00
 
Jurassic World: 7-Movie Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$99.99
 
Back to the Future Part II 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.96
 
The Rage: Carrie 2 4K (Blu-ray)
$28.99
19 min ago
Jurassic World: Rebirth 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.95
 
Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$44.99
 
Death Wish 3 4K (Blu-ray)
$33.49
1 day ago
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
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-11-2009, 01:16 AM   #12
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
 
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



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 02:41 PM.