Watchmen Update

[Red Hood]

Originally Posted by anomynous

Fox is evil, so I hope they lose.




Cancelling Futurama, Firefly, Terminator, cranking out shitty movies............

[Beast]

Originally Posted by scweb13

If Fox blocks (not delays) the release Watchmen, they will never receive the other half of the rights to the Batman TV series. I posted an article that stated that this was one of the reasons for the lawsuit.

Last time this was brought up, the issue isn't with Warner Brothers.

[scweb13]

Originally Posted by Beast

Last time this was brought up, the issue isn't with Warner Brothers.

How so? WB owns the charactor rights and Fox owns the footage.

[Kaiju]

Screw Fox!

[fighthefutureofhd]

screw warner!

[Blu Titan]

Don't need to freak out I have been reading on this, and I am pretty sure it will be released as scheduled. All of the legal proceedings will only affect the amount of $$$ that Fox is going to get. They movie will not be postponed.

[statikcat]

From yesterday

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/12/...y-the-release/

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

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.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

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.

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.

[anomynous]

If Fox does get their hands on this, WB should "accidentaly" leak a high quality version online

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

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.

First, you are making the assumption that WB had access to the contract between Gordon and Fox prior to production. There were 2 separate sets of papers: 1. the rights to the movie which are signed by the author. 2. A separate contract in which Gordon promised Fox first option on the movie. They would only have had access to this separate contract if Gordon or Fox had presented this separate contract to WB prior to production starting. How else would they have got it----there is no giant archive of all contracts or magical contract fairy. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it would be safe to assume that WB did not have pre-production knowledge of or access to this document based on the following facts:

*1. Fox obviously didn't give it to them pre-production, since Fox is claiming that they weren't informed that Zack Snyder was directing until they saw trailers; violating the contract between them and Gordon.
2. Gordon may not have remembered since it was 17 years ago.
3. Gordon was trying to get the movie made, and WB wouldn't have gave him money if they knew that his claim to the movie rights was hampered by another contract.
*4. If WB knew about the separate contract between Gordon and Fox, WB never would have made the deal with Paramount for international distribution and 25% stake, because the rights for distribution weren't Paramount's (they belonged to Fox). ----So why would WB have voluntarily given up a stake in the movie for no reason???

----------
Assuming that by some magical means, WB did know about the separate contract between Gordon and Fox and had access to it (Highly unlikely, since in this case why would they have paid Paramount?):

If you are referring to Deborah Snyder, then you may be right (depending on her job specifications). If she had any involvement in the contractual nature of the film production, then she should have looked into this in more detail. However, since there are multiple producers, if she was brought on as a producer purely to deal with promoting the film, she may not have had access to documentation regarding rights to the film. I tend to believe the later since the film rights were bought from the author back in 1986 by Gordon. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is possible in this extreme case to try to blame her.

If you are reffering to Zack Snyder (as you did by name in an earlier post), then you are wrong. He is the director. It isn't his job. Do you do your wife's or girlfriend's job?

----------
You claim that Snyder should have looked into this, but you fail to explain how Deborah or Zack could possibly look into a contract that they didn't know existed???

And how could they know about it, if Fox and Gordon never told them until after production had already started???

Personally, I think you just don't want to see the movie, so you are trying to unjustly blame everyone involved.

[thedarkangel1975]

First off it is a movie. If it comes out I will see the movie, if not I won't. There are more important things in life no matter how cool a movie looks.


Second click my link for my IMDB site. I was in a movie called The Lottery wth Seamus Davy Fitzpatrick (Omen). This movie was only allowed to be shown at film festivals and not allowed to make any money or profit, because the director who was also a producer did not look fully into all the rights. He thought since so many years past, the story was public domain. It happens that Shirely Jackson's son still owned the rights to the story. He was thinking of suing the director and all the producers of the movie until they settled. All the producers were laible because they funded and produced the movie just like Snyder's wife. Even if they did not read or research anything, they have agents and lawyers that should. Their fault like it or not. Snyder is more involved then just a director hired.
Next how does Gordon forget about the contract with Fox? I guess his only response is my bad? lol come on.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by anomynous

If Fox does get their hands on this, WB should "accidentaly" leak a high qiality version online

And get sued again for even more money. Brilliant!

[anomynous]

But WB wouldn't have anything to do with it

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

First off it is a movie. If it comes out I will see the movie, if not I won't. There are more important things in life no matter how cool a movie looks.


Second click my link for my IMDB site. I was in a movie called The Lottery wth Seamus Davy Fitzpatrick (Omen). This movie was only allowed to be shown at film festivals and not allowed to make any money or profit, because the director who was also a producer did not look fully into all the rights. He thought since so many years past, the story was public domain. It happens that Shirely Jackson's son still owned the rights to the story. He was thinking of suing the director and all the producers of the movie until they settled. All the producers were laible because they funded and produced the movie just like Snyder's wife. Even if they did not read or research anything, they have agents and lawyers that should. Their fault like it or not. Snyder is more involved then just a director hired.
Next how does Gordon forget about the contract with Fox? I guess his only response is my bad? lol come on.

I do think the blame lies primarily with Gordon.
While Warner does not have the rights to distribute, the only person in breach of contract is Gordon (since the original contract was between Gordon and Fox).

(Maybe they put the "Fox has first rights" clause in small print as a footnote in a 150 page contract document.......who knows???? )

Personally, I like your "my bad" from Gordon.
He probably figured that once he got his money from WB and the movie got made that he could find some way to wiggle out of the mess he was in & WB would be forced to try to bail him out because of how much money they have invested in the movie. He definatelly lied to WB and broke his contract with Fox; no one is ever going to hire him again.

--------------

My personal "best case" solution on this is:

WB gets the rights to release and distribute Watchmen.

Fox gets the rights to release and distribute the 60s TV Batman show.

Gordon has to pay Fox's re-coup costs and the buy out costs out of his pocket on all the work that they did before they scrapped Watchmen in 1991. (a little over 1 million).

Fox gets 30% of the profit from the film. (So, if it loses money Fox makes nothing, but also loses nothing. Once Warner re-coups its loses due to production costs, etc...., 30% to Fox)

Someone (either Fox or WB) sues Paramount for trying to sell distribution rights that they did not own & takes a portion of their 25% cut.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

I do think the blame lies primarily with Gordon.
While Warner does not have the rights to distribute, the only person in breach of contract is Gordon (since the original contract was between Gordon and Fox).

(Maybe they put the "Fox has first rights" clause in small print as a footnote in a 150 page contract document.......who knows???? )

Personally, I like your "my bad" from Gordon.
He probably figured that once he got his money from WB and the movie got made that he could find some way to wiggle out of the mess he was in & WB would be forced to try to bail him out because of how much money they have invested in the movie. He definatelly lied to WB and broke his contract with Fox; no one is ever going to hire him again.

--------------

My personal "best case" solution on this is:

WB gets the rights to release and distribute Watchmen.

Fox gets the rights to release and distribute the 60s TV Batman show.

Gordon has to pay Fox's re-coup costs and the buy out costs out of his pocket on all the work that they did before they scrapped Watchmen in 1991. (a little over 1 million).

Fox gets 30% of the profit from the film. (So, if it loses money Fox makes nothing, but also loses nothing. Once Warner re-coups its loses due to production costs, etc...., 30% to Fox)

Someone (either Fox or WB) sues Paramount for trying to sell distribution rights that they did not own & takes a portion of their 25% cut.

I think that is how it will play out. Midnight negotations right before the trial starts and hopefully the movie is released. It looks great and I want to see it. If I came across wrong, my bad lol.

[CptGreedle]

Originally Posted by Beast

Congratulations. You have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm sure if it was you being ripped off by someone, you'd have very different feelings.

I beg to differ, Fox has more to gain from a settlement than by blocking the movie. Fox will NEVER make a Watchmen movie. And by blocking it, they only hurt their reputation more and spend a lot of money on legal fees in court. I think that after WB exercises all their rights (trying to force FOX out of the deal legally, despite the recent events), they will also want to make a settlement.
Suing someone is merely filing a lawsuit against them, which can be done for any reason at all and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is "about to make money".
Once WB has done all their appeals and whatnot, they will be left to either face a trial (which delays the movie), a block (which delays or cancels the movie), or a settlement (which may or may not delay the movie). Either way, Both FOX and WB will not want this blocked cause it will only cost both of them money, instead of making both of them money. Obviously WB does not want FOX to have any money, and unless their appeals go through, they will have no choice but to give FOX money. So a deal will be made eventually.
The next trial date is on January 20th. They will talk about damages, appeals, and whatnot then. Only after that will it be clear if there will be a settlement, a delay, or a worse.

FOX wants the money. WB wants the money. Blocking a movie costs everybody money.

[fighthefutureofhd]

gordon most definitely remembered. it wasn't 17 years ago. that would put it at 1991 when he got the rights. the movie didn't just start production and shooting this year. this movie's been in the pipeline at warner now for at least 2 years. gordon screwed up royally and i think that warner knows this, but thought they could buy their way out of this. you'd think someone at warner would at least check this stuff out before green lighting a movie. oh well. maybe all gordon has to do is say "opps. my bad!" to fox and they'll all have a big laugh over it and it will blow over.

[CptGreedle]

I don't know if Gordon remembered or not, he most likely did. But I am sure they had the movie right before 1991, and so it would have been more than 17 years ago. However, unless he has alzheimer's, he should remember something as important as a contract with Fox over the movie rights.

[fighthefutureofhd]

i thought he aquired the rights in 1991. it doesn't matter i guess. gordon's though. can you say done in hollywood?