20th Century Fox Suing Over Warner Bros. Watchmen

[BlackLantern]

Birds...from what I've read out of the court documents, it seems pretty clear cut to me....but that's just me

 

[FaT_tONle]

You can't blame Fox for leeching... this is what they do. They need money... there biggest hit in recent months has been a freaking film about a dog...

At the end of the day... you guys will EVENTUALLY see WB's theatrical cut of the film... on DVD... computer... something... no way this movie will be lost for eternity... never witnessed by the general public. That's all that matters. Unfortunately some of your money will go to Fox... thank WB for that...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Birds...from what I've read out of the court documents, it seems pretty clear cut to me....but that's just me

Birds?

 

[BlackLantern]

I was addressing another poster....BirdsDoThus

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ahhhh no worries

 

[SuperT]

Fox issued this statement in response to the letter:

"We appreciate Mr. Levin's passion for this project, but he has neglected basic facts and legal rulings. First, Fox notified Warner Brothers of our rights in this project months before production on the film began; they chose to ignore our rights on this occasion and several times after that and proceeded at their own risk.

"Two, only after having our rights in the film deliberately ignored by Warner Brothers did we take the action of filing litigation in order to have those rights recognized. In (the judge's) Christmas Eve order, he specifically ruled that Warner Brothers had been timely notified and that Fox, in fact, had the rights we asserted. There is no question of who is right and who is wrong."

Well, if the first part is true and Fox approached the WB before production even began and they have documentation to prove it, then it's pretty clear cut and proves that the WB is run by a bunch mentally challenged monkeys.

Who continues to produce a movie they don't even have the rights too?!

 

[Evil Twin]

just remember according to sources, watchmen has been pushed back to november at least...

Are these the same "sources" that told you about "Rorschach being reunited with a lost love"?

 

[Steelsheen]

You can't blame Fox for leeching... this is what they do. They need money... there biggest hit in recent months has been a freaking film about a dog...

At the end of the day... you guys will EVENTUALLY see WB's theatrical cut of the film... on DVD... computer... something... no way this movie will be lost for eternity... never witnessed by the general public. That's all that matters. Unfortunately some of your money will go to Fox... thank WB for that...

That isn't that good of an analogy. If it were that clean cut, there would be no argument.


Let's say me and my friend buy a video camera together. We are going to make this little movie, so we purchase it together. But stuff gets in the way, and we sort of forget about doing whatever we were going to do with the camera. We sort of brush it off, and he holds on to it, but I'm like "Hey don't do anything without me, let me know whats going on with that camera!"
A couple of years goes by and he approaches me saying he wants to make that little movie, and I'm all "Psshh. I'm not in the mood anymore." So he goes to his other friend and they make the movie together. I find out and I feel all left out, so after all of that time I start saying "I own a piece of the camera you used to make that movie!".
My very limited understanding is that Larry Gordon had the camera, but Fox wanted to know what he used it for when he was going to use it, so they could decide if they wanted in. Gordon pitched it to them, they passed, another cooler and more talented "Friend" came along and made the movie with him. Now Fox is claiming because they had paid of part of the instrument used to make the movie, they own the whole thing.

Wow, it really is...confusing. Point being, yeah. It isn't as clean cut as WB opening a lemonade stand on their land.

hmm, well then Fox should get an equivalent amount in return for however much they contributed to Watchmen's creation. but if what Levin's letter is true (that they were practically getting by on other people's charity), then at the very least Fox should put up the cost of making Watchmen if they hope to get all of the profits. i just cant see it happening where Fox gets the entire pie and WB doesnt even get a sliver of a slice. there is always a question of who will cover the cost of what has already been spent. and if the judge is said to be as respectable as they say he is then i cant see him ruling that Fox gets all the good stuff and WB gets the left overs.

 

[Solidus]

All I hope is if Fox wins, they do what most are predicting, do a pay out, give them a chunk of money and move on.

 

[Bubastis]

Are these the same "sources" that told you about "Rorschach being reunited with a lost love"?

Uhh.
What.

 

[Motown Marvel]

That isn't that good of an analogy. If it were that clean cut, there would be no argument.


Let's say me and my friend buy a video camera together. We are going to make this little movie, so we purchase it together. But stuff gets in the way, and we sort of forget about doing whatever we were going to do with the camera. We sort of brush it off, and he holds on to it, but I'm like "Hey don't do anything without me, let me know whats going on with that camera!"
A couple of years goes by and he approaches me saying he wants to make that little movie, and I'm all "Psshh. I'm not in the mood anymore." So he goes to his other friend and they make the movie together. I find out and I feel all left out, so after all of that time I start saying "I own a piece of the camera you used to make that movie!".
My very limited understanding is that Larry Gordon had the camera, but Fox wanted to know what he used it for when he was going to use it, so they could decide if they wanted in. Gordon pitched it to them, they passed, another cooler and more talented "Friend" came along and made the movie with him. Now Fox is claiming because they had paid of part of the instrument used to make the movie, they own the whole thing.

Wow, it really is...confusing. Point being, yeah. It isn't as clean cut as WB opening a lemonade stand on their land.

your analogy doesnt make any sense. WB and Fox didnt buy the rights to the movie together. they didnt have co-ownership of the film rights.

So when they passed on the idea of making a movie out of it, what were they planning on doing with it? Just keeping it locked away for no apparent reason so no one else could touch it? Yea, they really appreciate their customers don't they.

if that was their legal right to do so, which it may have been, then yes that is an option for them. if they have the rights to it, then they're allowed to do anything or nothing with it. and them choosing to do nothing with it, doesnt give anyone else the right to do something with it, unless it's allowed.

 

[Heretic]

I still say that if Fox has HALF A CHANCE they will edit this movie to their standards, cutting another hour or so out of the film.

Also, if they end up with the rights and it is a hit, there WILL be a sequel.

I look at the facts, and it appears that Fox is legally right...and I cant explain it without sounding like a *****e...but i dont care. I want Fox to be wrong. I want the directors vision of this film to come out, and I dont want Fox to profit. It makes no sense to me...I call it Fantastic-Rider-X3-itis. I am all about a massive Fox boycott (and I watch Fox news religiously) and if it looked like a legitimate boycott was possible, id be organizing press releases and protests right now...fully aware that Im legally on the wrong side.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I still say that if Fox has HALF A CHANCE they will edit this movie to their standards, cutting another hour or so out of the film.

Also, if they end up with the rights and it is a hit, there WILL be a sequel.

I look at the facts, and it appears that Fox is legally right...and I cant explain it without sounding like a *****e...but i dont care. I want Fox to be wrong. I want the directors vision of this film to come out, and I dont want Fox to profit. It makes no sense to me...I call it Fantastic-Rider-X3-itis. I am all about a massive Fox boycott (and I watch Fox news religiously) and if it looked like a legitimate boycott was possible, id be organizing press releases and protests right now...fully aware that Im legally on the wrong side.

there is no chance fox can change the content of the film. even if they win everything they want to win, they cannot change the film. they only have distribution rights. which means, if they wanted to, they could never release the film. but they do not have any rights over the content of the film or the ability to change it.

 

[Shifty]

The other producer has his say.

Larry Gordon has say on 'Watchmen'
Blames Fox for debacle in letter to judge

By Matthew Belloni and Borys Kit

Jan 9, 2009, 01:00 AM ET
Larry Gordon is tired of being the villain in the "Watchmen" dispute.

In an unorthodox move, the veteran producer has fired off a lengthy letter to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess blaming Fox and his then-lawyers for the debacle and offering his version of events that led to the court's ruling that Fox owns distribution rights to the Zack Snyder-helmed comic-book adaptation.

Feess' Dec. 24 decision found that Gordon, who is not a party to the case, did not secure proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox before shopping the project and setting it up at Warner Bros. The judge also said Gordon had "refused to testify" to key questions during his deposition and, as punishment, would not be allowed to have his voice heard on "any aspect" of the case.

Gordon had remained silent since then but fired back Wednesday, stating in a letter filed by his litigation lawyers that he has been subjected to "significant public scorn" for his role in the studio battle and arguing his case that he answered deposition questions "to the best of his knowledge."

Feess refused to read the letter, issuing a terse one-paragraph response later Wednesday that called it an "improper communication" in violation of court rules.

In the letter, Gordon defends his actions during the negotiations of two key agreements with Fox -- during the early 1990s and during the course of the litigation. He also lays out several pages of evidence showing his responses to deposition questions.

"Mr. Gordon clearly testified that he does not recall any conversations he had with representatives of Fox in or about 1994 relating to 'Watchmen,' " the letter states.

Gordon is referring to a 1994 turnaround agreement signed by Gordon and Fox that allowed him to shop the project. During negotiations for that agreement, Gordon argues that he and apparently his attorneys were unaware of a 1991 quitclaim agreement that granted Fox distribution rights to the film and a share of profits if Gordon made it elsewhere.

Feess ruled that Gordon did not fully control "Watchmen" because he failed to reimburse Fox its development costs and to resubmit the project when key creative elements changed.

Gordon claims in his letter that during those negotiations, Fox sent his lawyer, Tom Hunter at the firm Bloom Dekom, a chain of title that did not include the 1991 quitclaim.

"It is Mr. Gordon's position that the execution of the 1994 turnaround agreement was the result of either a mutual mistake by both parties or a unilateral mistake made by his counsel, on which Mr. Gordon relied," the letter says.

Fox, Warner Bros. and Gordon's attorneys declined comment Thursday.

The development comes as the parties are scheduled to meet in Feess' courtroom today to determine a timeline for Feess to decide whether to issue an injunction blocking Warners' planned March 6 release of the potential tentpole.

Several sources have said discussions are heating up, but both studios denied late Thursday that an agreement had been reached in the stalemate.

Also Thursday, "Watchmen's" other producer, Lloyd Levin, lashed out against Fox in an open letter screed posted on the Web site HitFix.

 

[Mercurius]

"Greedy".

Fox is a company. Their objective is to make as much money as legally possible, just like any other company.

It seems you hold this, ah-ham, "law" together with the Gospels, right?

If only Zeus would be gracious enough to... forget it. t:

 

[Evil Twin]

Uhh.
What.

"AchiIIes" came into the "Can People Who Appreciate the Book Appreciate the Film" thread on the 5th and spouting several "rumors" claiming that these were changes that Snyder was making. Maybe he's misinformed, maybe he's playing games, but he's shown no signs of actually having knowledgable "sources". When a guy with about a dozen posts to his name starts making claims of "sources say", I think it's a good time to ask, "what sources"?

 

[Shivsguy616]

It seems you hold this, ah-ham, "law" together with the Gospels, right?

If only Zeus would be gracious enough to... forget it. t:

Um, no. The law is written by educated people, voted upon by the populace and refined as is seen fit. The gospels are shoddy fairy tales written by bronze age arabs which claim to be divinely inspired. . . there is no comparison.

 

[Shivsguy616]

. If it were that clean cut, there would be no argument.

You fail to see how pedantic and desperate people will get when this much money is concerned.

 

[Solidus]

Um, no. The law is written by educated people, voted upon by the populace and refined as is seen fit. The gospels are shoddy fairy tales written by bronze age arabs which claim to be divinely inspired. . . there is no comparison.

Yea in a perfect world. But that does not exist. They can be just as bad as the fairy tales you speak of.

Just like anything in this world, its subjective.

 

[Shivsguy616]

Yea in a perfect world. But that does not exist. They can be just as bad as the fairy tales you speak of.

That's how the law works in most of the world. Are you insinuating that it's usually written by idiots, not voted on, and never updated?

 

[Solidus]

That's how the law works in most of the world. Are you insinuating that it's usually written by idiots, not voted on, and never updated?

Perhaps.

 

[Mercurius]

Um, no. The law is written by educated people, voted upon by the populace and refined as is seen fit. The gospels are shoddy fairy tales written by bronze age arabs which claim to be divinely inspired. . . there is no comparison.

Indeed.

The drill was to show you that even "educated people" etc. can agree on a very unethical and stupid chore of written garbage.

And that you were accepting it on terms of religious belief, otherwise you wouldn't come justifying greed with lawful talk, but would agree in questioning lawful mistakes.

On a side note: the gospels, divinely inspired or not, are finely written and imaginative. The law is just a stinky piece of robotic writing.

 

[Evil Twin]

At least some people are reporting that a settlement is likely.

 

[BestGirl]

At least some people are reporting that a settlement is likely.

Good. Anything to get this film out on time.

 

[Octoberist]

finally, get on with the settlement (if it happens). I'm over this lawsuit.