Watchmen Delayed, Or Worse

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."

Comments

Who watches the Watchmen...?

[clickety6]

... possibly none of us, it seems!

More details

[GBC]

There is a more detailed account - including a useful chronology - over at Deadline Hollywood Daily if you are so inclined.

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.

Re:gotta wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell didn't Fox realise this before?

$$$

Re:Copyright Law

[kidgenius]

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. And even under the old system which gave copyright for 35 years, which most /.ers agree with that system, this work would still be covered under those conditions.

they aren't going to delay or cancel

[circletimessquare]

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

I will, however, reiterate that, no matter how dire the situation looks (per the filing - which, at 112 pages, is probably longer than the shooting script for X-MEN: THE LAST STAND), you will have your WATCHMEN on March 6, 2009. Fox may be able to get away with mugging a rival studio for eight figures, but they're not going to actively impede the rollout of a $100 million-plus motion picture. Though Rupert Murdoch and his garbage-greenlighting toady Tom Rothman are certainly a pair of ruthless operators, knocking a potential blockbuster off the spring release schedule would be bad, bad, bad for the movie business in general (e.g. I can't imagine the exhibitors, who've been cycling through tepidly performing Fox releases all year, would be terribly pleased).

The question right now is whether Fox will settle for a lump sum buyout or a percentage of the gross. My guess is that they'll gladly take the former - and I'm quite sure they've already a number in mind. $10 million? Too low. $50 million? Too high. $25 million? If David Poland's numbers make sense, The House of Rothman should be happy with that haul - especially since there's no guarantee that WATCHMEN will catch on with rank-and-file moviegoers. (I might've been one of those dipshits who lowballed THE DARK KNIGHT's domestic take, but there was still no doubt it would make more than BATMAN BEGINS. WATCHMEN isn't a franchise; it's a standalone gamble. And an R-rated one at that. There's no telling at the moment if it'll bomb or hit.)

Re:Copyright Law

[falcon5768]

They dont own the rights though, they own the rights to EVERYTHING THIS ONE PRODUCER MAKES. Basically they claimed that anything this producer, produces is Fox property, even AFTER killing the guys hopes of working at fox. They did this one before with Dukes of Hazzard and got 17 mill out of it. they are doing it again with Watchmen now.

Re:Why I oughta!!!

[alexgieg]

No wonder Alan Moore gets so annoyed over what's done to his old works...

Put into another way

[DrYak]

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.

Re:Put into another way

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Doesn't bother me.

[falcon5768]

Whaaa????

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.