An Open Letter from Lloyd Levin (one of the producers of Watchmen)

<borkis>

C.H.U.D.
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Points
11
Here's the link:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...09-1-8-an-open-letter-from-watchmen-producers


and here it is inline:

Watchmen. A producer's perspective.

An open letter.

Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.

We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.

After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.

There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of **** they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of ****.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.

Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.

By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.

My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

Lloyd Levin
 
Unfortunately what he states has little effect on the outcome as it is a result of contractual law.
 
But it doesn't exactly helps Fox's reputation as a moral, intelligent and creative bastion of moviemaking... or lack thereof, by comparison.

I'm not surprised coming from Fox execs about their initial response to Watchmen. The type of product anyone makes always reflects on them.
 
This is my point on this mess, wht should Fox get any monetary damages on a project they sat on? I wonder if the produsers have records showing how much time, money, and resources Fox put into the film?
 
Fox deserves to rot in hell...damn greedy bastards!
 
From now on, everytime you listen to Take a Bow, remember the Fox execs at the "Yeah, you'll burn in hell" part.

After reading this, I kinda understand why Snyder got angry at the fans reaction of not having a squid at the end. His team really fought to keep the material as faithful as possible.
 
Double post, sorry.
 
Last edited:
this was good letter...fox are greedy...like I Am Knight said...I hope the judge reads this
 
Once again, companies are meant to make money. They aren't "greedy", they're profitable.
 
That's beyond greed. they didn't want the film but now expect the return for something they had no interest in doing anything with.

Why should Warners Bros give them a share of something they made no effort to help with. if FOX want their share, the ruling should be that they cover half of the budget and the companies split the profits 50/50.

That's fair, I think. it's not like FOX were desperately trying to get the movie off the ground and were shafted by Warners at the last minute.
 
Legally, I don't think this will end well. It may be years before we see this film if things go the way I suspect. But at least Levin confirmed what most of us have suspected about 20th Century Fox for some time: that thinking is not a strong point amongst their inner ranks.
 
Legally, I don't think this will end well. It may be years before we see this film if things go the way I suspect. But at least Levin confirmed what most of us have suspected about 20th Century Fox for some time: that thinking is not a strong point amongst their inner ranks.
A little overreacting? :huh:
 
Could it have been that I didn't check the front page within the last hour? Yes, I think it might've... :huh:

The last part is not overreacting, though. I wouldn't call them creatively bankrupt, but Fox executives have been dubious in their assessment of artistic material for some time now.
 
I'm no legal expert but my whole thing, and my problem with lawsuits concerning works of art in particular, is why wait until a few months from release to start all this? This movie has been in production for about 3 years now, that's plenty of time to file any kind of lawsuit you want. I suspect the real problem here is that, like Levin said, Fox had no faith in a movie like this being at all successful. That is until the summer of '08 saw Ironman, and to a larger extent, TDK, come out and be successful.

These were comic movies dealing with adult themes that were still big earners. TDK in particular, is by far the most violent and intense comic film that's been commercially and critically accepted to such a high degree, and Fox now realizes that Watchmen is the one property that can take things to yet a whole new level in terms of themes and character exploration. I can say with conviction, that IMO, if TDK would've failed, Watchmen would have had no problem from Fox getting released, in fact Warners themselves may have second-guessed it. Likewise, and ironically, Batman & Watchmen are set to rearrange the way comic based movies are made just like they changed the landscape of comics back in the 80's....
 
From Levin's letter.

'The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of **** they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.'

Wow is all I can say. I don't care if Fox get their name on and get a cut I just don't want this movie delayed.
 
Fox doesn't deserve a film that they passed and had no interest in only now to want it because of what's been happening.
 
Fox doesn't deserve a film that they passed and had no interest in only now to want it because of what's been happening.


They also don't deserve it because of the fact that in that letter it says how Fox considered the script "most unintelligible pieces of **** they had read in years".

It sounds like the depth went right over their heads and so they dropped it in anger/ignorance. Doesn't surprise me seeing alot of their films in the last 10yrs or so and how dumbed down they can be.
 
the only unintelligible pieces of **** i have seen in years are Rothman and the whole damn fox company
 
the only unintelligible pieces of **** i have seen in years are Rothman and the whole damn fox company

Damn right. They should stick to making Wolverine movies instead of messing with important pieces of work.
 
Last edited:
if this movie is not released this year,

then I will personally take a dump on Rothman's face. the evil bastard!

At least WB had the brains to realise its past mistakes and gave Chris Nolan the chance to create a great Batman Series, and now Snyder the chance of another great graphic novel movie translation.

Yet fox comes in with their pathetic scum theives to try to hijack it!
 
Reports are that Fox and WB are close to a settlement in the case. Both studios asked the judge to delay his decision today to allow for further negotiations.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"