Slashdot Log In
Watchmen Delayed, Or Worse
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Aug 20, 2008 08:00 AM
from the this-isn't-gonna-be-good dept.
from the this-isn't-gonna-be-good dept.
whisper_jeff writes "Due to some potential copyright issues, The Watchmen might be delayed, or worse. It seems that Fox claims it still owns copyrights which would prevent Warner Bros from releasing the movie. US District Court Judge Gary Feess decided that Fox had enough of a case that he's willing to hear things out. The geek in me hopes that it will be resolved quickly and the movie will hit theaters on time."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Two-Episode Watchmen Series Set as a Prequel 65 comments
We were a bit disappointed when we heard the recent two-episode Watchmen series announcement since it was to be set as a brawler. However, it seems that these two games will be set as a prequel with the ability to play either Nite Owl or Rorschach in the days before superheroes were outlawed. "If you're wondering who could possibly replace the much-revered Alan Moore in the scripting department -- as the story is the linchpin upon which the whole Watchmen experience pivots -- comic fans will be glad to know that respected comic veteran Len Wein (co-creator of DC's Swamp Thing and Marvel's Wolverine characters) is on board to provide the dialogue, and original Watchmen illustrator Dave Gibbons is lending his insights as the game's adviser. Due out around the same time as the film's theatrical release, the game will be released in multiple parts designed to lead the player up to the graphic novel/film's events."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Who watches the Watchmen...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who watches the Watchmen...? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the Judge will. He gets first screening. Ingenious plot - become a judge in a district that has copyright disputes involving huge studio movies - the ultimate Videophile... all his plans have finally come to fruition...
Parent
no big deal... (Score:3, Insightful)
this really isn't a big deal... worst case scenario, they'll just have to throw a lot of money at fox to get 'em off their case.
Re:no big deal... (Score:5, Informative)
Its true. WB had the same problem with the Dukes of Hazzard movie, and simply had to pay a bunch of money to make the problem go away. I doubt Fox actually wants to stop the movie, nobody makes any money then. They'll just be bought off if they win.
Here's a good writeup on the issue: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/ [deadlineho...ddaily.com]
Parent
Copyright Law (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Put into another way (Score:5, Insightful)
So in this case, a piece of work written by a couple of guys who are still alive, which was released not too long ago, and someone paid a lot of money for the rights to make and distribute a movie version of, you feel that this is a poor example of copyright law? I actually think this is an excellent example of the system working properly. If this was a work from 100 years ago, yeah, you'd have a legitimate beef. But copyright law needs to exist in some way.
Put into another way, it is a company A (in this case Fox) trying to prevent company B (in this case Warner) from releasing a piece of work (in this case a movie), on the ground that company A still has some rights secured for the corresponding IP.
I actually think this is a wonderful example of how the system is broken. If this was a company releasing a movie without paying the authors, yeah, you'd have a legitimate beef.
But in this case, the authors will get paid anyway from company B. Its just an infight between company A and B with company A trying to get a piece of the lucrative cake, even if it's B who put the biggest part of the effort into producing the movie.
Copyright law exist to protect the original author from abuses, so that the result of their hard working and sweating aren't used without proper compensation.
This isn't the case.
Parent
Re:Put into another way (Score:4, Informative)
But in this case, the authors will get paid anyway from company B. Its just an infight between company A and B with company A trying to get a piece of the lucrative cake, even if it's B who put the biggest part of the effort into producing the movie.
For company A to have a case, they must have already paid the authors some agreed sum of money in return to some right to the work. I very much doubt that it's quite as cut and dried as you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
Parent
Re:Put into another way (Score:5, Informative)
He did say however that David Hayter as the screenwriter is the only chance this movie has, but Moore HATES media crossovers.
Parent
Re:Put into another way (Score:5, Informative)
Do the Authors want the movie made - Yes
Do the Authors want the movie released - Yes
Alan Moore hates the idea of any of his comics being made into a movie. He believes he wrote his work for a particular type of medium in order to show the strengths of that medium and none of his comics will translate well to any other medium.
He has also said that although the Watchmen script is "as close to the original as it could be," that he still won't see the movie.
Parent
Re:Put into another way (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
More details (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming that version of events is correct, then it looks like Fox may still have a legitimate claim on distribution rights for Watchmen. If so, then this lawsuit is probably more likely a way for them to get a cut of the action rather than to stop the whole thing outright.
gotta wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the hell didn't Fox realise this before?
Re:gotta wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell didn't Fox realise this before?
$$$
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They probably did, but waiting a bit means they can squeeze more money out of the ordeal.
Re:gotta wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
They realized it. This is SOP. (Score:3, Interesting)
They did, but if you show your hand early enough, the project is simply scrapped and you don't get any money. You have to wait until the project is all but released (with tons of money already spent) before you come forward with your claims, as that way the choice becomes "Buy us off with some of the money or lose *everything*."
The only item of significance here is that apparently Fox is asking for a large enough amount of money that WB sees fit to argue the point in court instead of just paying and being
Aren't Fox... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they did and just wanted to keep it to themselves after the trailers circulated for a bit.. build the hype before making demands?
Unless Fox learned of this production through said hype, Warner could use this as evidence of Fox's prejudicial delay. It's probably not enough for estoppel by laches [wikipedia.org], but it might convince the judge to rule less favorably to Fox. But aren't Fox [arentfox.com] Warner's attorneys anyway?
Parent
Re:Why didn't Fox realize? - wrong question! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Faux (Score:2)
Fox will let it out, believe you me. They'll just want a percentage of the royalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with the way movie studios do accounting, that could be interesting. We're talking about an industry which tried to tell Marvel that they didn't make any money from Spiderman 3 and therefore didn't owe them money.
I think if Fox really believes they owned the rights, some corporate bickering could leave the movie DOA. If it does get released, and unless it does exceptionally well in the box office, WB could be left l
What is it with Fox?! (Score:4, Insightful)
It will still be released (Score:2)
meh (Score:4, Funny)
This explains everthing... (Score:4, Informative)
4) Waiting - Waiting is a common game in Hollywood. When you see someone doing something you don't like, you usually wait until they are fairly pregnant, because that's where the money is. Had Fox stepped in the second they saw this occur, the movie probably just wouldn't have gotten made by WB, and Fox would be sitting on a property they hadn't developed in decades. BUT... by waiting until WB finished production, now there's money! Now Fox can see some cash because WB is so pregnant that they have to do something to release the movie. It is possible that WB can make an equitable claim of laches (sitting around trying to maximize the damages), but that's in equity, not in law; and that's strictly up to the court.
they aren't going to delay or cancel (Score:5, Informative)
if they screw up the release schedule, fox reaps massive ill will from the distributors
if they cancel, fox won't make any money on their claim
what will happen is the lawyers will argue about numbers, fox will get $25 million, and fox will walk away
this happened on the johnny knoxville/ jessica simpson dukes of hazzard movie. the legal wrangling left some producers with a claim on the property with $17 million
someone looks red faced in wb legal, they screwed up
better analysis at aintitcool.com [aintitcool.com]
Fixed (Score:3, Funny)
Money (Score:4, Interesting)
None of this "or worse" crap. We all know it's about the money. Fox won't do anything that doesn't make them money, and for them to make money, they need this movie to be released. With Fox as partners, of course.
A simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Allow Warner Bros to release the movie into theatres on the promise that Warner show a bunch of trailers for Fox movies. I'm pretty sure a similar thing happened regarding Austin Powers, but I could be wrong.
Due diligence, motherfucker, did you research it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stories like this blow me away. I have no idea what the budget on this picture is, can't be arsed to look it up, but Dark Knight was $150 mil before marketing so I would not be surprised if Watchmen is in the same ballpark. That's a shitload of money, people. I know if I had to answer for it, I'd be paying lawyers up one side and down the other to make sure that there were no surprises. "Who's optioned this property in the past? We bought the rights now but are we sure we're free and clear on this, now encumbrances, no crazy surprises?" Funny thing, Ghostbusters the name was free and for the taking when it came to shooting a movie but there was a shitty live-action show with a similar name, Ghost Busters. So when they cut the licensing deal for toys and the cartoon, suddenly there's this other Ghost Busters product coming out with toys, a cartoon, and there was nothing they could do about that. So that's when they changed the name and branding of their product to the Real Ghostbusters.
But back to the original story. WTF? I seriously, seriously doubt that Fox's goal is to stop distribution. No, this is like patent squatting. The squatter does not want the target company to stop selling the product, that means the parent stops making money. No, no, no! The successful parasite does not kill the host! No, the squatter wants the mark to make lots and lots of money because that makes the squatter's take all the bigger. Fox will let this studio do all the work of putting the movie together and then get a juicy cut off the take.
It amazes me how such an elementary mistake could be made with such big dollars at stake. I see similar mistakes on a smaller scale all the time. The most common one is zoning screw-ups. Some poor schlub invests a lot of time and money in putting up a sports bar or some other business and later finds out that the area isn't zoned for it. What the hell? Shouldn't this have come out at some point during the process? Shouldn't his lawyer have seen it, shouldn't it have come up during permitting, applying for an alcohol license, something? And with this guy putting up so much money, you'd think he'd have done his homework. But no, so sorry, business goes buh-bye. Holy shit.
I saw another one of these where a builder didn't do the proper soil testing that was supposed to be done before beginning construction of a sub-division. The long and the short of it was that the lots needed massive preparation to support the weight of a house because a lot of infill was used. Was that prep done? Nope. So the slabs were cracking shortly after construction. WTF? Apparently it's a successful tactic to do fraudulently incompetent work under a corporation, then bankrupt it before the lawsuits are filed. I don't see how people can get away with it but they do.
Argh. (Score:4, Funny)
Argh.
I saw the trailer when I went to go see Dark Knight a couple of weeks ago. At first, I wasn't sure what I was looking at, until I saw the pair of CGI-ified Billy Crudups floating around with the little atom symbol on their foreheads.
"Wait a minute. That looks like Dr. Manhattan."
Then the serious special effects started, and I saw The Comedian's smiley face button, and my eyes rolled back into my head and I went into a blissed-out fugue state. So, I dunno, maybe this is for the best, for the sake of my fragile sanity, but damn I wanted to see this movie.
Please Note (Score:5, Funny)
If the Watchmen movie is killed due to copyright reasons I will destroy the universe.
Have a Nice Day,
Dr. Manhattan
It will be released (Score:3, Interesting)
Fox doesn't want to shut down the movie. Hiring lawyers to pursue this in court is, from the perspective of an executive, a business decision. It wouldn't be done unless there was a profit to be made.
So, where's the profit? There are two possibilities.
1) Fox is planning on releasing their own "Watchmen" film, and they want theirs to debut first.
This is an unlikely scenario. The Watchmen is not a well-known mainstream franchise and if they had already started production, we'd probably have heard of it. If they haven't started production yet, then the businessmen are probably more interested in scenario 2, since it has a guaranteed return (guaranteeing a return on investment is important in business. Yes, this includes lawyer fees, and everything else).
2) Fox sees that they can get a portion of royalties or a settlement from WB for the licensing rights they're entitled to.
This is the most likely scenario. Fox will show that they own the copyright, WB will be up shit creek without a paddle because they've produced a movie they aren't legally entitled to release, and then WB will settle out-of-court with Fox for 10% of the royalties, or $20 million, or something similar. My prediction is that we'll see the movie eventually, but there is a possibility that it will be delayed due to proceedings (however, WB will have a great incentive to settle before the theatrical release date, Fox probably realizes this). There is also a distinct possibility that the producer will not enjoy as much of the profits as they would have.
But we will still get our movie. Of course, depending on the nature of the settlement, you may want to boycott the box office in order to minimize Fox's profit (they are, after all, peddlers of pedantic mind-rotting boob-tube junk).
Re:Why I oughta!!! (Score:5, Informative)
"Warner Bros.' production and anticipated release of 'The Watchmen' motion picture violates 20th Century Fox's long-standing motion picture rights in 'The Watchmen' property," Fox said in a statement, though the graphic novel's title is simply "Watchmen."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990722.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2563 [variety.com]
Nice goin', Fox. You don't even know you're talking about.
Parent
Re:Why I oughta!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No wonder Alan Moore gets so annoyed over what's done to his old works...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice goin', Fox. You don't even know you're talking about.
Actually Fox does know what it's talking about. This isn't a trademark dispute (although "Watchmen" and "The Watchmen" are confusingly similar), it's a copyright dispute. Copyright covers expressions, and to the extend that the plot and characters of the movie are similar to the ones in the graphic novel, if Fox owns the rights to make movies of the novel, then WB is SOL.
I'm curious as to why WB's attorneys let this one get by them...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how Warner Bros can presumably spend millions of dollars producing a movie without first securing the rights to the work the movie is based on. Do they not have a legal department?
"Do not believe?" These guys kill me. Do you have a legal document with the copyright holder's signature on it saying you are entitled to make a movie based on their character? If you don't, it's pro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can never know for sure who the copyright holder of a work is. Even if you know who created it you can't be sure that they didn't already sell the copyright to someone else.
What if an author was tricked into signing away the copyright (or at least exclusive movie rights) but didn't realise they had done so then later signed another movie deal with a different studio. What if the contract with the first movie studio was somewhat ambiguous as to whether it was exclusive or not?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I guess five years of SCO vs the universe demonstrates that.
Is that what happened here? Did Alan Moore sign away the movie rights to Fox, then turn around and sell them to Warner? Did Warner not do their "due diligence" and have thier lawyers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the number of directors and studios that this project has p
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't understand how Warner Bros can presumably spend millions of dollars producing a movie without first securing the rights to the work the movie is based on. Do they not have a legal department?
Yes, but it's too busy fighting pirates, YARRR!
Re:Why I oughta!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a legal document with the copyright holder's signature on it saying you are entitled to make a movie based on their character? If you don't, it's probably not a good idea to green-light the project.
DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros and has been since at least the early '70s. Watchmen was published in the mid '80s, before comic creators truly asserted their muscle and won creator rights, so as far as I know, DC holds the copyright to Watchmen. (I can't imagine Alan Moore owning the copyright because he would never have allowed a movie based on his work to made in the first place.)
Now if somehow the rights got away from DC/Warner Bros and they didn't realize it until they had all but finished a movie, then yeah, that's a major legal gaff and someone's head ought to roll.
Parent
Re:Why I oughta!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You wouldn't get sued over copyright. Just like Fox isn't suing over trademark. See how this works?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i won't hate fox for the sake of both firefox and megan fox
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Could be, from TFA:
If he ain't a superhero I'd like to know who is!
Re:Doesn't bother me. (Score:4, Informative)
The damn thing is going to be heart-breakingly bad anyhow from what I've seen & read about it.
That is what I had assumed. I didn't figure there was any way Hollywood could possibly turn out a decent version of Watchmen.
But then I read this [slashfilm.com], and now I'm vaguely hopeful.
Parent
Re:Doesn't bother me. (Score:5, Informative)
Some real bullshit in your post here we need corrected.
1) Alan Moore DOESNT DO MOVIES... PERIOD. It would have been 100% impossible for the author to be involved when the author ABSOLUTELY FUCKING REFUSES TO BE REGARDLESS OF QUALITY.
2) From everything seen and printed they are being as faithful as possible to the book down to the color scheme of key scenes which are staying on the pastel range like the comic. They are going so faithful as to keep everything minus black freighter, which WILL BE IN THE DVD which will be clocking in at over 5 hours. The movie cut it to keep from going over 3 hours. The movie is planned to be just shy of 3 hours. Everyone who was involved in the comic minue Moore has been involved in the movie from the start. Its just Moore who has become somewhat a recluse. Dave Gibbons even begged him to reconsidered, telling him he would like what they where doing and Moore would have none of it.
Get your facts straight bub before you start spouting off rumor. They are positively being faithful to the book, and Moore chose not to be involved so that he could "bash it with a clear conscious" his quote, they didnt keep him out. Moore got burned and now takes it out on EVERYTHING regardless of quality.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read, the theatrical release will be toned down, and fans of the book should wait until the full version comes out on DVD. I also read that they've added in some action scenes to make a better movie, and that it is *chock* full of sexiness... The uncut version will probably be rated 18+.
I'm of mixed feelings -- but as always, I have low expectations. That way, if it's decent, I'll be pleasantly sur