Judge Rules Fox Has Copyright Claim To Watchmen

fermion writes "According to the NYT, a judge has decided that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen, not Warner. Is this an example of copyright law becoming so complex that companies can abuse the court system to prevent competition, or just extreme incompetence by Warner? In the current business environment, either explanation is believable. Yet it is unbelievable that seasoned producers would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create a movie that they can't even release. It seems the judge didn't want to bring this to a jury, and maybe daring Warner to appeal, or Fox to settle." The article says that Fox acquired movie rights to the Watchmen story in the late 1980s, but budget disputes and personnel changes have muddied the waters; Wikipedia has a bit more on the "development hell" which has plagued the film project.

Comments

Too Bad

[deathtopaulw]

Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

Re:Too Bad

[__aasqbs9791]

How did that get mod insightful? Funny, sure, but insightful? I guess it's insightful into that AC's stool, but come on!

Re:Too Bad

[grumbel]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

By cutting a lot and releasing an extended version later that is 220 minutes long.

Re:Too Bad

[jonr]

It's meta-humor.

Re:Too Bad

[Silvrmane]

I guess you know more than the artist who drew the graphic novel, and has, you know, SEEN the movie:
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film. I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better. I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily. Like a graphic novel, there are depths of detail and meaning in film that give themselves up on a first viewing, and I am really looking forward to getting the director's cut of the DVD so I can go through it frame by frame. Which itself is a similar experience some have the first time they read Watchmen, and which the film is cruelly denying me! [Laughs]
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/archaeologizing.html

Re:Too Bad

[philspear]

there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece.

How convenient: Your hypothesis cannot be tested because of copyright law.

Re:Too Bad

[philspear]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

Theres no way to keep 100% of it unchanged and uncut, but that's true of any media conversion. Many people seem to consider the original comic book form to be perfect, many of those people are going to be disappointed with the result no matter how good the movie is of it's own right. Some because they read the comics first, some because of a warped sense of elitism. That doesn't mean the movie is doomed to be worse than the comic books to an unbiased judge. It could be changed for the better.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you know more than the artist who drew the graphic novel, and has, you know, SEEN the movie:
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film. I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better.

Or maybe he hates it, but he gets a percentage of the gross, so he wants you to go and see this steaming turd of a movie, since he won't make any money otherwise.

Re:Too Bad

[FluffyWithTeeth]

Do remember that for every Watchmen project, Gibbon gets paid twice, both his share and the writer's. I'm sure he's happy about anything that has the name Watchmen...

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you know more than the artist who drew the graphic novel, and has, you know, SEEN the movie

Yes. Ignore the fact the the graphic novel's writter and creator, Alan Moore, thinks so poorly of the project that he doesn't even want his name attached to it:

'I will be spitting venom all over it'

But I guess that you know more than him.

Re:Too Bad

[Joce640k]

That's what they said about the Lord Of The Rings but it didn't turn out too bad, even though anal types still go on and on about how "unfaithful" it is.

Re:Too Bad

[timothy]

Those types will always be around; in the future, video rental stores (if they exist) will have entire wings devoted to various incarnations of "Batman," into which they can be shoved.

The Lord of the Rings movies went way past anything I expected, into the same class of story -- for me, tastes vary -- as L.A. Confidential, where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm.

timothy

"But what about Tom Bomba--" CRUNCH. SMACK. CRUNCH.

"I said, what about--" SMACKASMACKASMACKASMACKA!

"Honestly, if only--" RATTATTTAATATATATATAA!!

Re:Too Bad

[insllvn]

Moore hasn't seen it and has said he will assume it to be trash regardless of public reception, critical acclaim or the decent of the almighty to induct the work into some sort of cosmic hall of cinematic excellence. Moore has been burned so badly in the past, he fears the flame to much to come into the light. He is hardly unbiased. Neither is Gibbons, who, as others have noted, has financial interest in the success of the film. Shit, I guess the only fair thing to do would be to see it and pass your own judgment.

Re:Too Bad

[lysergic.acid]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

you don't need to. you can always make as many sequels as you need. just look at LotR.

as i understand it, Watchmen consists of only 12 standard comic books. and the hardcover release is listed on Amazon as having only 436 pages. it's not inconceivable that they could adapt the comic into a trilogy or quadrilogy/tetralogy. an adaptation doesn't have to be a word-for-word screen translation of the original work. otherwise, how would you ever adapt a comic book series like Ghost in the Shell, which spans across 3 volumes and totaling 834 pages? or how about Akira, which spans 6 volumes, each of which being anywhere from 288 pages to 440 pages?

full-length films generally have higher production values than TV series. you just don't get the same budget or writing & acting quality on TV. frankly, a well-produced film adaptation stands a much better chance of being good (and doing justice to its source material) than a TV series.

personally, i don't even think there's anything worth watching on TV outside of documentary shows (Horizon, Air Crash Investigations, Seconds to Disaster, Nova, Mythbusters, etc.). comedy is about the only fiction genre with decent quality programming on TV, and most of those are animated series like Futurama, American Dad, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, South Park, etc. the last truly great non-animated TV series i saw was Arrested Development, but that canceled after only 2 seasons.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.

All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it. ;)

Re:Too Bad

[spazdor]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then film is worth, oh let's see.

Yup. 24,000 words per second. It'll be fine. ;)

Re:Too Bad

[FishWithAHammer]

Moore hasn't seen it and won't see it and automatically assumes that a movie adaptation of his work will suck (admittedly, after V For Vendetta, I don't necessarily disagree), but using him as a source is disingenuous at best.

Re:Too Bad

[PCM2]

as i understand it, Watchmen consists of only 12 standard comic books. and the hardcover release is listed on Amazon as having only 436 pages. it's not inconceivable that they could adapt the comic into a trilogy or quadrilogy/tetralogy.

It's pretty inconceivable, though. Watchmen isn't an adventure story like LotR. It's really an exploration of characters and ideas set in the form of a murder mystery within the milieu of American comic-book superheroes. Breaking it into two or more movies would be highly unsatisfying. It might be possible to break it at the point at which [characters] decide to help [character] escape from [place], but most of the "action" up until that point takes place in flashbacks! The audience would be left looking forward to the big climax, sure -- but they'd mostly feel puzzled and ripped off, because the entire setup of the movie was the mystery of who killed [character] and they never found out who. In fact, they would barely have even been offered a suspect by that point.

Re:Too Bad

[fishbowl]

Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film.

Media Executive places a neat stack of cash on Gibbons' desk

Gibbons: I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better.

Media Executive places a second, even larger stack of cash on the desk. Camera pans to reveal a very expensive looking home theatre system, complete with an attactive female bartender.

Gibbons: I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily.

Re:Too Bad

[The Rizz]

[...] where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm.

Probably the greatest example of a book changing when made into a movie, yet both being fantastic in their own ways, would be Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner.

Re:Too Bad

[Kjella]

Some films take their source material seriously and change what they think is necessary in order to improve it as a film. Others seems to just want to change it all around for no good reason at all. Having listened to what Peter Jackson said in the extras, there no doubt in my mind that he knows how a good film should be. And then there's the plot of LotR, which doesn't fit that format at all. He shrank it, stretched it, tweaked it and rearranged it and I think the biggest testament of it all is how you most of the time don't notice it. Obviously bits and pieces were lost (Tom Bombadil) but in the hands of a lesser director LotR would easily become a mashup of incoherent scenes.

That said, some of the things are entirely Jackson's doing like Sam turning back which was never and would never have been a part of Tolkien's story. It heightens the drama but isn't true to the book at all, Sam is the unwavering cliff that carries Frodo through it all. Other movies, well sometimes I suspect the director has barely read a slashdot summary's worth of the content. A successful movie that you want to make a movie of has a good plot. Sometimes you have to make hard choices on what's vital and not but you don't just scrap the basics and make a completely different story set in the same universe. Jackson strayed a few times but most of the time he made it fit.

In movies you can say a lot with a few scenes, like the one with Arwen's future as there's burials and statues while she lingers on. Other times nothing is said at all like with the Elven struggles against the evil. If he hadn't put them at Helm's Deep, the Elves would be nothing more than the guys running away. At the best of times, you manage to give something to both - like in the scene with the soup where the LotR-fans gets to hear that he's a decendant of Numenor blessed with long life, while the regulars have a have a silly romantic scene as he avoids eating the yucky soup. A movie that's only great if you've read the book isn't a very good movie at all.

Re:Too Bad

[ushering05401]

"The Lord of the Rings movies went way past anything I expected, into the same class of story -- for me, tastes vary -- as L.A. Confidential, where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm."

I don't get why the book and movie need to share the same name if they are not going to share a plot.

Can't the movie be 'inspired by...' or do what another poster suggested and cop a Blade Runner - where the story and name changed significantly enough that no one expected a faithful translation.

Re:Too Bad

[Malevolyn]

Until you view it as NTSC, then it's 29,970 words per second. Unfortunately it's worth less in Europe, only 25,000 words per second.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

LOL, touché.

Re:Too Bad

[Cowmonaut]

Actually, its very accurate considering the parent poster put people who were fans of Watchmen before it was being made into a movie in a separate category. I've noticed some people, even if they have NEVER EVER read the original book/novel/graphic novel/comic book or what have you instantly rag on a movie version of the story. The only thing I too can think of is a "warped sense of elitism" in which their point of view is correct at all times and everyone else is a moron.

The previews, from someone who has never seen/read Watchmen, looked promising. It may be a live action "cliff notes" version of the novel, but I go to the theater to be entertained and out of the house, usually with friends. It could be a crappy conversion, but still a good movie.

Re:Too Bad

[SanityInAnarchy]

In fact, I would argue that most Phillip K. Dick books are better as movies, once Hollywood has a chance to make some kind of sense with them.

Re:Too Bad

[timeOday]

I'm more of an anti-comic-book-literalist - I wonder why studios are willing to pay big bucks for rights to comic books when it's just as easy to make up another superhero, since they're all pretty much the same. Two of my favorite movies this year were Batman and James Bond. But how much of that is due to the authors of the original series? Zilch, IMHO. The Bond movie could have been altered very slightly and passed for Mission Impossible or Bourne Identity. Batman is close enough to Spider Man, Superman, Iron Man, or random new made-up -Man. The Incredibles made up half a dozen new superheroes and they all seemed familiar even so. Batman, Superman - anything that has enough iterations has been good sometimes and sucked sometimes, so it's certainly no intrinsic value of the character or original comic book plotline that matters. I can see a producer shelling out for brand familiarity, but Watchmen doesn't offer much of that.

Re:Too Bad

[Silvrmane]

Except, how do you know it's a steaming turd of a movie? I don't know if it's bad or good. If I listened to everyone who hated a movie for one reason or another, I'd have missed out on some of my favorite movies, ever. But to dismiss a movie based on nothing more than opinion, or what you thought of the trailer, or whatever silly prejudice you want to foster, well, that's just not rational.

Maybe it's the greatest graphic novel of all time (I found it a bit self-indulgent and repetitive at times) but dude, it's only a graphic novel. Just like this is only a movie.

Note to Alan Moore: get over yourself already. You write comic books.

Re:Too Bad

[k_187]

Leaving off the mystery of "whodunit" until the second movie worked in Kill Bill ;)

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason 'I-just-made-him-up-man' doesn't generally show up in the box office is simply because there's no anticipated built in audience.

Even though Hancock was somewhat of a Zzzz movie for me, it managed to make $600m worldwide.. So it's not unprecedented.

Although, really what it comes down to is that good film ideas don't make it to the surface often in Hollywood. Regardless of the great ideas that may get bandied about on a daily basis, all you have to do is consider that they made _3_ movies in the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107438/ 'Look who's talking' series.

_3_

Sit and think about that for a second.

_3_.

__ 3 __

And yet, we still have yet to see Goonies _2_.

fuck Hollywood.

fuck them up their 'Lets bring Michael Knight back' asses.

They did the Watchmen movie for the simple reason that 'gritty' comic book movies were proven hot by Sin City and 300. Look on IMDB, Sin City 2 is in pre-production and Sin City 3 is in planning. They're already planning "300-2" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/.. Are you kidding me?

Hollywood finds one single good idea and then spreads it as thin as possible until we are revolted by the idea of _another_ film in the series coming out. Then they find a new idea. Then in 10-20 years it becomes retro and cool again and a new generation of dummies will line up for the rehashed garbage that the latest generation of sub-retarded writers belch out in-between the projects they _really_ care about..

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong on two counts. arrested development went three seasons and heroes is absolutely worth watching and outside of your suggested safe zone.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

MOTION DENIED

Heroes after season two is merely a sci-fi soap opera for people of below average intelligence.

The only good moments left are those with Hiro, but COME ON. The chick GOES BACK IN TIME by running... carrying the other guy with her? She doesn't overshoot or anything, she just shows up at the right moment, DOESN'T EVEN STOP, grabs him and dashes back to the right moment when she left?

That show has gotten sub-retarded. My suspension of disbelief thwacked back and hit me in the face.

Re:Too Bad

[Nick Ives]

If it's being shot on film then it's 24,000 words per second. PAL and NTSC just duplicate some of those words and then mix them back in to give the appearance of more words per second.

Re:Too Bad

[Nick Ives]

PKD loved Blade Runner, he totally understood the fact that film is a different medium so even the same story has to be told in a different way.

I actually find the controversy about Deckard being a replicant, something that was played with in the the book and then discarded, highly amusing. You can construct arguments for and against depending on your point of view and the version of the film you're watching but those arguments are pretty much at the core of what the book was trying to get at - what counts as human?

Re:Too Bad

[lysergic.acid]

except that Arrested Development only had 2 complete seasons. it was canceled during the middle of the 3rd season--hence, "after" only 2 seasons.

and as i stated, i was giving my personal opinion. you might find American Idol 'absolutely worth watching' for all i care. that doesn't mean it's a quality programming.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's insightful into that AC's stool, but come on!

You want me to come on his stool?

Re:Too Bad

[Mozk]

Wow, and I thought that Das Boot: The Director's Cut was long at 209 minutes. Apparently there's a 293 minute version too. Still it's better than the 80–90 minute shit that gets passed as movies all the time.

Re:Too Bad

[hairyfeet]

Don't forget "Constantine" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which were both written by Alan Moore. So can you really blame him for thinking that when Hollywood gets a hold of anything he writes it turns into a giant bag of suck?

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an AC so this might sound sarcastic, but thanks for the spoiler censors there.

Re:Too Bad

[Fred_A]

I'm an AC so this might sound sarcastic, but thanks for the spoiler censors there.

Everybody knows that [character] killed [character] anyway.

Re:Too Bad

[Fred_A]

Can't the movie be 'inspired by...' or do what another poster suggested and cop a Blade Runner - where the story and name changed significantly enough that no one expected a faithful translation.

Some anal type at the studio suggested Blade Rimmer at the time but it was quickly discarded.

I'm glad they stuck with the original title (shudder).

Re:Too Bad

[SupremoMan]

but they'd mostly feel puzzled and ripped off.

So it would be like most movies you say?

Re:Too Bad

[Caraig]

Actually, Alan Moore does write comic books and is frankly incensed about adapting his work to any other medium. He disavowed any connection to both V for Vendetta and Watchmen. It's not really Alan Moore you need to tell off.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

oh my god. please stop talking.

Re:Too Bad

[Alsee]

Wow, that's kinda like a line of toys are pretty good once they've been through China for health and safety inspections.

-

Re:Too Bad

[Keeper Of Keys]

The Incredibles made up half a dozen new superheroes and they all seemed familiar even so.

You do get that that film was a parody, don't you?

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It was an alright graphic novel. I wouldn't pay for it. (Read my friend's copy that he DID pay for.)

Re:Too Bad

[fastest fascist]

The question is whether there's any point to making a film version of a book/graphic novel/whatever if you just try to make a carbon copy of the story already told. What's the point, beyond cashing in? Well, cashing in seems to be what most comic book adaptations on the big screen are about, but films made from novels provide examples of a director taking a book and successfully reinterpreting it. I'm told Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", but it's a phenomenal film, probably precisely because the director didn't let himself be tied down by the source material he was working with. Well, the director being Kubrick probably helped, too.

Re:Too Bad

[Cally]

Twelve feature-length episodes might be enough to capture Moore & Gibbons original on-the-page work but it'd be unbelievably boring. As Moore himself has said, one of the key things about Watchmen is that it's written to take advantage of all the possibilities of the ink-on-paper format. You can't flip back a few pages in the film to compare the composition of a frame with an earlier one.

Re:Too Bad

[Alsee]

Spider Man, Superman, Iron Man, or random new made-up -Man.

Made-Up-Man, dashing valiantly from cosmetic counter to cosmetic counter, rescuing tragic make-up victims such as Drew Barrymore, Beyoncé, and Christina Aguilera.

-

Re:Too Bad

[NoTailNoGoodnik]

I second your opinion of Heroes. I have become sorely disappointed with the series. It seems that after the writers returned from their strike, they decided to create TV scripts that appeal to the most subdued intellect, not only for Heroes but for almost the entirety of American television.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

Well, the argument is whether a faithful representation can be made, yes. I've read The Shining. I *was* a big Stephen King fan, years and years ago in my youth. I *am* a big Kubrick fan. I dislike both the book and the movie. But I would say that the movie, while obviously and noticeably different, didn't hack the story into snack-sized chunks so digestible by today's audiences with the TV-induced attention spans of gnats, like most movies do that are adapted from novels these days. In fact, that could never be said about Kubrick; his movies are methodical and precise, when I'm being kind. Plodding and ponderous when I'm not - I'm looking at you, Barry Lyndon (the one Kubrick film I don't need to see again). I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.

But this strays from the point. Of course I don't want a word-for-word, page-by-page regurgitation of a novel. But I also want a movie to at least resemble the novel that I've read; to do otherwise is misrepresentation. And movie studios, knowing this, very often create boilerplate contracts with authors that basically allow them to do this; I'm assuming mostly because they KNOW what's involved in faithfully representing a book, and for the most part they are incapable of doing that. The contract allows them to hack things to pieces, slap a high-paid actor's name on it, and call it "art".

To struggle to keep this on topic (which is often a task for me), I see this in no more prevalent situation than the comic book realm. I think that most comic creators don't have the kind of clout a big-name author does, and as such have even less power to protect their interest. Stan Lee is maybe the exception, and I think that his stories seem to have done well, for the most part. I should also state that am no comic fan; I can't tell you the backstory of any "superhero" besides maybe Spiderman and Superman. But I did read the Watchmen, a few times. And I can say that I can't conceive of a way that this movie will be anything other than a meandering mess, given the characters involved in the book and the short time in which to tell ALL their stories, plus their conjoined story(ies). I'd be happy to be proved wrong, however.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one. :)

That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"

I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance. ;-)

Re:Too Bad

[FredFredrickson]

I agree with you there, that's the main reason I'm a Batman fan. I don't mind spiderman, but I just can't stand to watch superman- since there are many circumstances where they have to find ways to make him not super to make a story. It's always pointless.

Re:Too Bad

[nabsltd]

I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.

The problem with The Shining was the casting, not the directing.

Like the Michael Keaton Batman movie, casting Jack Nicholson for the part of someone who starts out normal and then turns crazy is a mistake. You know Nicolson is crazy from the start. He has managed to convince people that playing a slightly more extreme version of himself on film is "great acting".

Re:Too Bad

[Leafheart]

Leaving the anal types behind a bit, the LotR trilogy was good, except The Two Tower. That movie was a deeply piece of s***, with terrible character, bad cutting, horrible scenes and direction (I'm looking at you Olympic Uruk-hai and exorcism). Except for the Fall of Gandalf on the beginning, that was amazing.

The RotK was amazing, with a sh*** Extended Version that not only added nothing good, but added some terrible other things. The FoR was very good, and the Extended version was plainly awesome.

The problem with LotR is that, more than Watchman, it is pretty unique on its setting. The way that everyone copied it latter. But not only that, the characters are extensively describe, and there is such a culture revolving around it that any slightly change is doomed to fail.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

I agree; sadly, I saw the movie YEARS after I read the book, so that's absolutely true - not only did I already know the character would go nuts, but fercrissakes, it's JACK NICHOLSON!

It's a beautifully (in the cinematic sense, maybe blood pouring down a hallway isn't technically "beautiful") shot movie that captures the feeling of "cabin fever" that the author intended, IMO. It's just based on a completely mediocre book using a totally miscast, er, cast. It didn't help that can't STAND Shelley Duvall - what a shrieking shrew. Go eat a cheeseburger for god's sake, you hop-headed drug-addled dope fiend. (Shelley Duvall, not you ;-) )

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material

Especially when the original material is, in fact, a comic book.

Re:Too Bad

[powerlord]

Batman is definitely one of the most interesting SuperHeroes for me precisely because he doesn't have any super powers, so he's (theoretically at least), someone that any of us could aspire to become, and yet, without any powers, he's still one of the most formidable "super heroes" in his universe.

Heck, in one story arc I remember he gets taken over by some foreign entity and essentially manages to take out every other member of the Justice League, single handedly (including keeping a piece of kryptonite on reserve "just in case").

The movies have done a good job of treating the idea the same way by having him using specialized but quasi-realistic devices. That, along with the phenomenal back-story and acting, are what make them successes.

Could a generic super hero fill in the same void? Sure, but someone would need to come up with the same sort of detailed back story, even if its just for the film writer to pick and chose from or reinvent from.

Re:Too Bad

[Hognoxious]

Batman is close enough to Spider Man, Superman, Iron Man, or random new made-up -Man.

But nothing like Supergran.

Re:Too Bad

[FishWithAHammer]

Nope (forgot those though). Hence why I said I don't necessarily disagree.

Re:Too Bad

[AviLazar]

436 pages of comic book - most of it spent on pictures, some of it on pages dedicated to advertisements. So 2 hours of movie for 436 pages of comic book (pictures and all) is not a big deal

This argument is old and frankly poor. How many comic books came out for Batman, and not many people are saying the latest Batman movie sucked.

It's all about the writer, director, and actors. If they do a good job then they can take out the elements of the book and make it into a great movie.

Then again, fanboys/girls will always complain - even BEFORE they see the product.

Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "Did you see the movie that hasn't been released yet?"
Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "..."

Re:Too Bad

[Joce640k]

There's these things called "lawyers" which mean you can't use an idea without paying royalties.

And ... if you're going to pay royalties for using an idea, you might as well use the name as well. That way people know what you're on about.

Re:Too Bad

[Joce640k]

The opposite example would be Judge Dredd - where the director obviously had no clue what it was that made the comics worth reading.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I found V to be a decent movie that got more relevant after release. Still haven't gotten the GN to compare it to. My guess is that the GN is as big a stinker as Watchmen.

I found Watchmen to be a pretty poorly written graphic novel that a movie adaptation stands at least a decent chance of improving on.

I fail to understand everyone's fascination with this. Moore just isn't as good as this community seems to want to make him out to be.

Re:Too Bad

[LKM]

There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words

The original is a comic book. It probably contains more pictures than the movie will contain scenes :-)

Re:Too Bad

[LKM]

So I take you have no idea what Watchmen is about :-)

Re:Too Bad

[LKM]

Sin City was a word-for-word, scene-for-scene version of the first three Sin City comic books. And it was pretty damn awesome, if you ask me. The draw here is to see in motion a story you already love, and to make it accessible to an audience that would normally not have experienced it.

Re:Too Bad

[grahamd0]

Leaving off the mystery of "whodunit" until the second movie worked in Kill Bill ;)

Maybe you're being facetious, but I thought they were pretty clear in the first one that Bill dunit.

Re:Too Bad

[LKM]

This argument is old and frankly poor. How many comic books came out for Batman, and not many people are saying the latest Batman movie sucked.

Regardless of whether the original argument is valid, your point makes no sense at all. The latest Batman movie isn't based on 400 specific pages of Batman comic books.

Re:Too Bad

[grahamd0]

Actually, Alan Moore does write comic books and is frankly incensed about adapting his work to any other medium. He disavowed any connection to both V for Vendetta and Watchmen. It's not really Alan Moore you need to tell off.

irony - noun
1. That Alan Moore, author of "The League of Extraordinay Gentlemen", believes that it is wrong for another artist to re-interpret his work in a different medium.

Re:Too Bad

[UncleTogie]

Heck, in one story arc I remember he gets taken over by some foreign entity and essentially manages to take out every other member of the Justice League, single handedly (including keeping a piece of kryptonite on reserve "just in case").

Actually, Superman GAVE him that kryptonite as a fail-safe in case Supes should turn "bad"... 'n' if I'm not mistaken, he used it to beat the crap outta Kal-El... right before he had a heart attack... {Dark Knight Returns}

The fact that Superman thought he was more trustworthy than ANYone else says volumes for Batman.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I am enjoying BigBang Theory - but then I find physics jokes hysterical

Re:Too Bad

[Random BedHead Ed]

Leaving off the mystery of "whodunit" until the second movie worked in Kill Bill ;)

Maybe you're being facetious, but I thought they were pretty clear in the first one that Bill dunit.

Crap, now I know Kill Bill ends with Bill having done it, and presumably getting killed for it. Ever heard of a spoiler warning?

Re:Too Bad

[Enderandrew]

How many Air Bud movies did they make? It amazes me how well people are paid for awful scripts, and then paid even more to make sequels for them. And right now Hollywood is in a horrible creative rut where they only make remakes, adaptations and sequels, terrified to make anything new. Yet many of the properties that they want to remake, adapt or make sequels to were successful as new properties.

Re:Too Bad

[Blimey85]

Yea yea, blah blah. Make your own god damn films if you feel so strongly! No seriously. Make some films so we have something better to watch then the current batch of horse shit. You can't. Neither can I. Nor can anyone else. That is why we get the same shit recycled over and over. That's not always a bad thing. For example, I thought Rob Zombie did a good job with Halloween. To me he proved himself with his first couple of films and then he took on the remaking of a masterpiece. As far as slasher films go, you've gotta give props to the original Halloween. It paved the way for Jason and Freddie and everyone else. That's not to say it's one of the greatest films of all time, but in the horror genre, I think you've gotta put it in the top 10 or 20.

That said, if you could find the funding to make a really great non-recycled-horse-shit movie, how many people would ever get the chance to see it? There are a lot of great indie films but they don't get shown on every screen everywhere like the shit Hollywood churns out month after month and until society wises up and says fuck this, I want quality or I'm not going to spend my money anymore, nothing will change.

Then again, I like a lot of what Hollywood has been putting out lately. Vantage Point, Strangers, and Alphabet Murders are three movies I watched last night that I thought were decent.

Re:Too Bad

[Enderandrew]

Judging it simply as a film, not an adaptation, I think Two Towers is easily the best of the three. Fellowship doesn't even have a cliffhanger. It just ends abruptly for no real reason and offers very little fulfillment as a stand alone movie. The extended version is barely tolerable. Two Towers starts and ends strong. It can exist as a stand alone movie. It has the most action, and moves with a good pace. It has better editing, and perhaps the most emotional impact of the three movies. Return of the King continues some 30 minutes after the climax of the movie, which is the death of the Witch King. The series climax with the ring is horribly anti-climactic and boring. And then it continues some more, meandering for no reason, and yet still missing material from the end of the book.

Re:Too Bad

[1u3hr]

Two of my favorite movies this year were Batman and James Bond. But how much of that is due to the authors of the original series? Zilch, IMHO. The Bond movie could have been altered very slightly and passed for Mission Impossible or Bourne Identity.

Try reading some of Fleming's novels. The original Bond in his novels is far more like the one portrayed in "Casino Royale" than any of the previous movies (except perhaps Connery's "From Russia With Love"). And The recent Batman movies certainly do owe a lot to comic writers like Frank Miller.

Re:Too Bad

[Leafheart]

That's where we disagree. I think the Two Towers is the worst of them as a stand alone movie. It diverges with many subplots running and not bindingly strong enough in the end. It ends pretty blend either.

Re:Too Bad

[Longstar]

...you just don't get the same budget or writing & acting quality on TV..."

Rome, BBC Space Odyssey, Band of Brothers, The Earth to the Moon, to name but four.

Just one look on the first layer of one shelf of dvds. Ok, theyre mainly HBO/BBC, but im sure theres more of them out here.

Re:Too Bad

[TempeTerra]

Interesting that you should mention Akira - I've recently finished re-watching the movie then reading the 6 manga volumes as a comparison (doing the same with Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind next). My conclusion was that the movie was good but the manga was absolutely fantastic. Without wanting to spoil too much, the movie starts wrapping up when one of the characters reaches Akira and discovers something. IIRC, in the manga that happens at the end of the second of the six books, and something completely different is discovered.

I think the Japanese have a good scheme with their manga-movie transitions where the movie tells a roughly similar story and reuses some scenes, but changes some key plot points and has the same characters doing different things. It gives enough room to make a movie which can stand on its own merits and is also interesting even if you've read the manga.

Something similar could probably have been done with Watchmen; have a different character revealed as the killer and a different surprise revelation but still explore the same themes and interactions between the characters. Or not. But it's something I'd like to see more of in western filmmaking.

Re:Too Bad

[Khyber]

"Theres no way to keep 100% of it unchanged and uncut, but that's true of any media conversion. "

Umm, yes there is. Destroy all the churches, destroy the FCC, and ban religion. Then it will be QUITE EASY to go 100% from book to film. It is religious groups and the religious-controlled FCC that are destroying our right to expression by impressing their moral values upon us and confusing Ethics with Morality. It's their religious censorship that prevents 100% true conversions. Eliminate that and you're free to do as you please.

Re:Too Bad

[Dun Malg]

when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words.

Film pedantry, I know, but there's actually a standard conversion. The general rule of thumb for movie scripts is a page a minute--- and that's with the "see spot run" double spaced, 8 lines of nothing or character name and camera angle separating every block of dialogue or action description script format. So at max, you're probably going to fit about 100 pages of book into a 2 hour movie.

Re:Too Bad

[good soldier svejk]

Dick never saw the film. In fact he died before it wrapped. He loved the dailies Scott showed him because he felt they captured the feel of the novel very well and he was supportive. He also said he thought Sean Young was perfectly cast. I'd be surprised if he would have been happy with the finished product. It just wasn't his style to accept other people's interpretations of his work. He was very critical of Ursula Le Guin on that point. She OTOH was incredibly supportive of him, calling him "our own home grown Borges." Dick also had a big fight with the studio because they wanted him to write a novelization of the film.

Re:Too Bad

[westlake]

The opposite example would be Judge Dredd - where the director obviously had no clue what it was that made the comics worth reading.

He wasn't the only one.

Re:Too Bad

[LateArthurDent]

Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.

Eh...The best directors that have ever existed are living right now with the exception of hitchcock and kubrick neither of whom had a style appropriate for watchmen. If you say welles should be on that list of great dead directors, you suck...Citizen Kane is way overrated.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Yes, the directors above are great (even welles. Citizen Kane seems overrated if you watch it now because all the shots that were revolutionary in that movie are now used in every movie you've ever seen, so we completely miss out). I also ignored a whole bunch of great past directors, some of whom you probably enjoy quite a bit. That's what you're doing to today's talented directors.

Zack Snider isn't quite there yet, but he has proven that he can do something most good directors absolutely FAIL at: perform a straight adaptation from a different medium without inserting his own "vision" into it and changing it into something else. 300 captured everything that was good about the comic book, up to and including the artwork. If somebody is going to capture what made watchmen a masterpiece, I think he has the qualifications to do it...and lucky us, he's the one at the helm.

Try not to be that elitist...this is the best age of film, RIGHT NOW and we have plenty of great writers and directors. Yes, we have tons of crap, but we're putting out so many movies that we also have fantastic stuff coming out. You just need to learn to filter the noise from the signal.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

> In fact, I would argue that most Phillip K. Dick books are better as movies, once Hollywood has a chance to make some kind of sense with them.

That's because the Hollywood types are always on drugs, which causes normal movies to get screwed up, but which causes Philip K. Dick stories to make sense in a way they never could to an unimpaired mind.

(Seriously, I read some PKD because I had liked the movies. At no time did any part of the plot make sense, though the crazy gadgets were pretty cool. Lies, Inc. I'm looking at you...)

Re:Too Bad

[FishWithAHammer]

Watchmen isn't particularly good as a graphic novel, no. V For Vendetta, on the other hand, very much is--and the movie was shit in comparison. A pretty good movie, but very much shit in comparison. Personally, I think this is going to be a pretty good movie, but calling V a good movie compared to the original material really is a joke.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife applauds you sir or madam. Well put and spot on.

I am raising a glass to Goonies 2 as I type.

Re:Too Bad

[SlowMovingTarget]

The real shame is when you have great theatrical version that gets edited down for the DVD. The "edited" material gets plopped on the disks as "extended scenes". Grumble grumble (Iron Man DVDs... I'm talking about you).

Re:Too Bad

[SlowMovingTarget]

They're already planning "300-2" ...

It will be called "301 Spartans" where the lovable gaggle of Spartans must win out against the evil Persian Queen Cruella Divan.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote you a long one."

A close approximation of an often attributed saying. Meaning, it is harder to be concise than to just throw everything and hope something sticks.

Granted Watchmen is dense. But I have read it and contend it could be easily trimmed and still retain its message. Moore's original story was far less than the number of volumes that were released. He actually had to add each character's back story as filler to reach the contracted number of issues. And the general plot is almost identical to one from a single TV episode of The Outer Limits.

Whether the writers of the Watchmen have taken the time to be concise is an open question. But I not only believe it can be done, but it can be done in a way that improves upon the original. It may not have every bullshit backstory on every historical character, but all it needs is to give a rich feel for the Watchmen universe and present the primary themes in a compelling way.

Re:Too Bad

[moosesocks]

It's not always bad when things get left out. Some things simply don't translate well to film.

Honestly, I was pretty damn glad that the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring left out most of the first 1/3 of the book, given that it contained virtually nothing relevant to the story.

Even omitting Tom Bombadil made sense, even though I was disappointed to see it happen.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Hitchhikers Guide movie was sorely disappointing, as Adams' style of narration simply didn't translate well to the screen. The books and radio broadcasts were brilliant, while the film was decidedly lackluster, despite a talented production team with a big budget.

Re:Too Bad

[Bwana Geek]

the last truly great non-animated TV series i saw was Arrested Development, but that canceled after only 2 seasons.

If you really think (as I do) that Arrested Development was one of the last great series on TV, then I suggest you look for season 3.

Re:Too Bad

[CastrTroy]

I haven't gotten around to watching the new movie yet, but the old BBC 6 episode miniseries of HHGTHG actually impressed me quite a bit. They had to cut out quite a bit, but what was there was true gold. I'm sure it could be done well as a feature lenght movie. Just based on the fact that it was originally done on radio means that it would probably be quite well translated in to a movie.

Re:Too Bad

[lysergic.acid]

well, i also watched the Sci-Fi series The Lost Room and thought it was pretty good for a TV mini-series, but that doesn't put it at the same quality as a feature film.

i'm not saying all TV series are bad; but, generally speaking, films get more funding and have higher production values--yes, even compared to HBO and BBC shows (which i agree are superb). also, if you're referring to Space Odyssey: The Robot Pioneers/Voyage to the Planets(2004), they are more accurately labeled as a documentary or docu-drama than a true serial/drama. and while docu-dramas like Space Odyssey and Walking with Dinosaurs are excellent, they're still not quite on the same level as, say, IMAX feature films like Deep Sea 3D or Roving Mars (i watched both of those on DVD, so it's not just the IMAX screen).

OTOH, sitcoms like The Office and animated series like Aqua Teen Hunger Force--each episode of which is only ~11 min.--are a perfect fit for TV broadcast. that's because production values aren't that important in comedies, and animated series are relatively cheap to make these days. it also doesn't take half a decade to write a decent comedy story, whereas serious (fiction/non-documental) dramas are more difficult to write in a short period of time, since they tend to be more plot-based and demand greater literary ability to write.

to break it down further, a 2-hour feature film costs on average ~$102.9 million to make, meaning that the average mainstream film gets about a $50 million budget for each hour of content shot. compare that with a TV series, which generally gets about $1 (sitcom) to $1.5 (drama) million per episode.

Re:Too Bad

[bh_doc]

PAL typically just speeds everything up to 25 FPS, rather than duplicate frames which NTSC does. Thus, a PAL conversion actually has more words-equivalent-per-second than NTSC (but over a slightly shorter time and in higher pitch).

Re:Too Bad

[atrizzah]

The Godfather was a fantastic movie that is also reasonably true to the book, so I think it's very possible. Some of it probably won't translate. I imagine they might drop most of the detail from the newsstand and the comic-within-a-comic thing, and maybe simplify the backstory of the older heroes. The trailers looked pretty enticing to me though, and I can't wait to see how it comes out

Re:Too Bad

[CastrTroy]

Do the producers of Heroes have to pay for stealing the basic theme from X-Men? I mean, it's not exactly the same, but there are a lot of similarities. People get super human powers that are usually brought out during events of hightened aggression/emotion. And there's this company/school set up by people with these powers to try to get people to use these powers for good. And there's a bunch of bad guys with powers. Yeah. Pretty similar if you ask me.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"A movie that's only great if you've read the book isn't a very good movie at all."
Sounds like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Very pretty and devoid of context.

Re:Too Bad

[badkarmadayaccount]

I don't think anything could be really passed as Spider Man, if you ask me. He's somewhat of parody of the stereotypical superhero, yet struggling to keep up with his self-assigned job as one, giving him a unique charisma. Either that, or I shouldn't post when I just skipped a night's worth of sleep.

Re:Too Bad

[bogjobber]

I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey.

The Godfather movies, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Wizard of Oz, The Graduate, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, and hundreds of other movies prove your point wrong. Generally speaking if you try to make a shot for shot remake of the book, then the movie will be awful (although sometimes it happens, like last year's No Country for Old Men). But if you manage to build a unique version of the *story* or the *point* of the book, then you can build and add on to the story rather than diminish it. The filmmakers have to understand how to tell the story from a filmmaker's perspective, not just simply copy the book. Whether or not Zack Snyder can do it with Watchmen remains to be seen.

No one's really made a version of 1984 or Animal Farm that matches up to the books, and it has nothing to do with the density or length of the plot. Those stories just don't translate easily into a visual format. No one has really ever made a great movie version of any Shakespearean play (IMHO of course), just because the theatrical format doesn't translate into a great movie. Hundreds of great movies have been based off of those same plays, however. They just have to be changed to reflect the unique style of storytelling films require.

Re:Too Bad

[badkarmadayaccount]

Just because of that post, I'm thinking of marrying you. [/joke]

Seriously, bravo sir.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the sentiment, but I was thinking more along the lines of formatting. Think about when a book gets made into a movie. Things have to be changed not just because of censorship. Metaphors, similes, and comparisons are a good example. If a book has something like "the car was crushed like a can," that cannot make the conversion. You could show a crushed car, but how would you make the parallel to the can? You could have a character say something like "That's crushed like a can," but that would be pretty cheap.

I, obviously, am no writer, but you can find examples in every book of things that just by media alone cannot be directly converted. Some of them are more important than others.

The watchmen specifically I haven't read beyond the first few pages, what I would guess would be most problematic from that would be the narrator or the character's internal thoughts. Showing what the character is thinking works well in comic books and regular books. It doesn't work as easily in movies, you'd wonder if the audio was messed up if the actor was talking but his character on screen was not. Thus it would have to be changed. Things like that.

Re:Too Bad

[Steve001]

This brings to mind another series Video Girl Ai. Both the manga and the anime tell the same story to a specific point. Then at that point the stories go in two different directions, with the anime going to a quick conclusion, and the manga going on for several more volumes, including a sequel series.

When it comes to translating the manga or comic to the screen, I don't expect a clone of the original work, but something that remains true to the original work. This is one of the strengths of the recent Batman movies.

Re:Too Bad

[keatonguy]

...Seriously? I always thought Blade Runner was a directionless brood-fest. I honestly don't understand what makes it so appealing to most folks, once you get past the atmosphere the plot is pretty thin and disjointed.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Hellsing did something similar, though the reason for that is that the anime team outran the manga team so they just made stuff up. That's why the two are similar up to a point, then diverge wildly.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of TV worth watching, Spooks (a BBC spy drama marketed as MI:5 in the U.S.) is actually the most consistently good show I have ever watched. The first season was only six episodes and each one was superb. Each season after that has been ten episodes. Some have had merely "good" writing, but most have been amazing.

For example, Alexander Siddig was in one episode of the second season. By the end of that single one-hour episode, he was a more developed character than he was after seven episodes of 24 in which he appeared.

Re:Too Bad

[Steve001]

FredFredrickson wrote:

I agree with you there, that's the main reason I'm a Batman fan. I don't mind spiderman, but I just can't stand to watch superman- since there are many circumstances where they have to find ways to make him not super to make a story. It's always pointless.

When they rebooted Superman in 1986, one of the best things they did was to reduce his power level by a significant degree. He went from being powerful enough to move the Earth with hardly anyone who is a significant threat to him, to being one of the toughest heroes around but with many who could give him a good fight and even defeat him).

Re:Too Bad

[tehcyder]

Try not to be that elitist...this is the best age of film, RIGHT NOW and we have plenty of great writers and directors. Yes, we have tons of crap, but we're putting out so many movies that we also have fantastic stuff coming out.

[Citation needed]

Re:Too Bad

[Khyber]

"If a book has something like "the car was crushed like a can," that cannot make the conversion."

Yes, it can. you watch a car get crushed by something much larger than it, and it's flattened. That sort of translation happens all the time and is accurate. you don't need a character to state the obvious if the book already stated it, you just have to make it SEEM like it was crushed like a can.

As for showing what a character is thinking - that's called inner monologue, and can be done rather easily as well. It's all in the presentation as to how effective the conversion is.

Well...

[ultramk]

I guess we have the answer to the question "who watches the Watchmen?"

Nobody.

Re:Well...

[sleeponthemic]

Sure, but maybe we can answer who watches the NotWatchingButCasuallyObserving(men).

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we have the answer to the question "who watches the Watchmen?"

http://watchmenwatch.com/

Re:Well...

[TubeSteak]

I guess we have the answer to the question "who watches the Watchmen?"

Nobody.

The correct answer is "the insurance adjusters.

No movie gets made without insurance and no film company can spend $100 million without a fat insurance policy.

Re:Well...

[jo_ham]

Coast guard?

Perfect tagline from movie poster

[actionbastard]

"Justice is coming to all of us no matter what we do."

Serves them all right.

Re:Perfect tagline from movie poster

[Cally]

"Justice is coming to all of us no matter what we do."

"I knew you'd say that."

Another Alan Moore IP...

[Brad_McBad]

... another film that ignores the meaning of the source work in favour of appeasing popcorn fifteen year olds.

Alan Moore goes about it the wrong way, but he's right. Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[chrisG23]

I know, like the whole time I was watching it I was like wtf? this isnt at all like the graphic nov@#(&$# Wait. I have not seen it. It has not been released. It may not be released now.

When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past? They were just ripping off fresher ideas (with notable exceptions of course, but the exceptions didn't come from Hollywood, it came from certain individual filmmakers/writers/directors working for Hollywood)

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywooded version that was visually cool?

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

appeasing popcorn fifteen year olds.

That sounds about right. It is a movie adaptation of a comic after all.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a comic book I couldn't possibly care less about, but if we change the question to the effects-laden Star Wars prequels versus a hypothetical low-budget film production of the classic Timothy Zahn trilogy, my answer would absolutely be yes.

Good visuals are part of film-making, obviously, but that doesn't require expensive technology. Hollywood and modern video gamer makers may think their audiences utterly lack any kind of imagination, but there's a lot to be said for the "don't fix the shark" technique.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[The Faywood Assassin]

I would have to say that a decent level of special effects are required. This does not mean that enough SE will over ride a crappy or non-existent story, but we have achieved a level of sophistication that we want to see superpowers that are "conceivably realistic" (if that isn't an oxymoronic request).

I want to see webbing come right out of Spider-man's wrist, not Spider-man making a hand gesture and a net flying at the villain from off screen

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[east coast]

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywood version that was visually cool?

I can't speak for the entire Watchmen thing as I'm not into the whole comic book deal but I will tell you that I found the ultra-low budget Call of Cthulhu was just the thing to helping me get my Lovecraft groove back on after a long time away from the old gents works.

And it's not that I've ever seen Lovecraft as low budget but I guess most people do simply by his association with the word "pulp."

Now, would I rather see a high rent version of the same thing? Only if it was spent on actors who can act. Eye candy doesn't mean anything if I can't get into the story. Eye candy is only good if it goes unnoticed instead of being the focus of a film.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

There are only a dozen or so basic story ideas, and they've been getting reused forever. Even Shakespeare was all retellings.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a serious question you ask in the end?

Because if it was meant as a rhetorical question, I don't know what answer you expected there.

I for sure would prefer the version that's true to the spirit of the source over a CGI-fest any day.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywooded version that was visually cool?

The important question is not whether it keeps the spirit and meaning of the source work, but whether it's a good movie or not. Converting any source work to another medium is difficult because you have to keep the spirit of the original, but still maintain the best qualities of the medium you're transporting it to. Keeping the spirit and meaning of the original will already ruin a movie adaptation because the original source material is more than a 2 hour movie will provide. This means it will probably be upwards of a 6 hour movie and nobody would watch that.

Another thing about your hypothetical question is whether less than half a mil is enough to make such a movie and keep the spirit. The Watchmen was made by 2 very talented people, and that's about how many it takes to make a great graphic novel. To put in the same amount of production value that the graphic novel had into the movie would be a large undertaking. You need actors, a director, producer, camera crew, etc. Something like Watchmen made for less than half a million will look like an Ed Wood film. Terrible acting, terrible set design, terrible costumes, etc. How can a movie like that ever do the original Watchmen justice - even if the script is the best Watchmen script ever written? If you're making that movie, you're throwing away the best parts of filmmaking so why make it?

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[anomnomnomymous]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

I agree that great special effects are not able to support a sub-par script, but I'd have to disagree that a story (how implausible/impossible it might be) can not be told without the use of great special effects.
One example I can think of now would be the first season of Heroes: Whereas the story was quite compelling (for me at least), and the events are quite out of the ordinary, the supporting special effects were quite marginal.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[tisch]

i would go out of my way to watch a low budget but wonderfully symbolic film, like 1984. but i am for people being brought in to the graphic novel realm by mass high-quality movies. a great number of people who will watch the watchmen (pun heh heh) may end up buying the book.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

uh... where did you see that review? Everythig I've read + clips of the movie I've seen has not only been in keeping with the book, but almost a complete fucking page-to-film adaptation.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[tm2b]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

Not a Doctor Who fan, I see.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[DerekLyons]

Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

Huh? Where have you been for last century plus? Hollywood has never been about coming up with it's own ideas - it's been all about adapting since Day One.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[rxan]

True. But I think a recent movie I saw with a less-rehashed storyline would be Iron Man. I was pleasantly surprised by the unorthodox flow of the storyline. But even parts of that movie were typical.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[bigstrat2003]

No, he's wrong. I will grant you that I haven't read V for Vendetta, so I can't speak to its faithfulness as an adaptation. However, it is an excellent movie on its own merits. Even if it does leave something to be desired as an adaptation of the book, well, it's in good company, many adaptations have that flaw. Something's faithfulness as an adaptation of the original material and its worth on its own are completely separate concepts. LOTR has some serious problems as an adaptation of Tolkien's work, but is an excellent movie nonetheless.

Alan Moore is pretty much whining about nothing with V for Vendetta. It's not like they took his work, ripped it up, and made a mindless action movie of it. Whatever was changed from the original material, the end result is still a moving and thought provoking movie. That's hardly a failure.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Paradise Pete]

I think a recent movie I saw with a less-rehashed storyline would be Iron Man.

A superficial cad is presented with an unexpected challenge. He makes a straight-forward attempt at solving this problem. The solution seems reasonable, but fails, and the hero learns that the problem is more complicated than he thought. He tries a more complex and convoluted solution which seems like it will work, but it too fails. Then when all hope seems lost and the only thing left to try is a daring, all-or-nothing last-gasp effort, he miraculously succeeds, and becomes a better man along the way.

The pattern of "simple problem, simple solution that fails, harder problem, complex solution that fails, extremely difficult problem, near-hopeless desperate solution saves the day" can be found over and over and over again. Three tries is important - less than three is unsatisfying, more than three is tedious.

However, i still think Iron Man was a good movie with some clever twists hung on that tried-and-true framework.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Score Whore]

One example I can think of now would be the first season of Heroes: Whereas the story was quite compelling (for me at least), and the events are quite out of the ordinary, the supporting special effects were quite marginal.

No! Heroes ended after about the fifth episode: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." OK. They saved the cheerleader. It's over. The world will be fine. Everything after that is just afterglow.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

To bake a cake you need flour.

Do you think you should stop at that step and everything following it is just afterglow?

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[rxan]

But the beginning of the story was not normal progression whatsoever. Trying and trying again I wouldn't call a plot pattern since you could make the same association with a love story, mystery, action film -- all of which have completely different plot focuses. Using your logic, Shrek has the same plot pattern as Iron Man.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Kjella]

Bad effects can be funny, it works when the series is trying to be funny. It's why you can laugh at films parodying other films with completely laughable effects, it's why series like "Red Dwarf" could even stay alive. Doctor Who can be fun with cringeworthy effects, 2001: A Space Odyssey couldn't. Unserious special effects will not be able to support a serious story and vice versa (aka the Hollywood boilerplate) is more like it.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Leafheart]

Alan Moore is pretty much whining about nothing with V for Vendetta. It's not like they took his work, ripped it up, and made a mindless action movie of it. Whatever was changed from the original material, the end result is still a moving and thought provoking movie. That's hardly a failure.

One thing that was masterfully done on V, was the "update" to the story so the message would get to the new audience. Alan's work is a fierce critic to the Iron Lady, has a lot of jabs at the mechanization and computer domination of society. Those things would get to anyone that didn't live on those times. And like it or not, you have to make money. Those small changes on the story, were worth on it own, and did just to the message, while delivering it slightly different (and the new High Chancelor was awesome.)

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Xerolooper]

Using your logic, Shrek has the same plot pattern as Iron Man.

Now you understand...

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[AviLazar]

How does the above get +5 insightful? The guy says Hollywood doesn't come up with fresh ideas with some exception. So he contradict ed himself. Then saying these ideas weren't from Hollywood, but from individuals who work in...wait for it Hollywood!

Dude - all films come from certain individuals. They each put a piece of their time/though into it and before you know it you have a film.

if this movie comes out I will go watch it. If this movie came out as a low cost budget I probably wouldn't. Then again that is not because I am against low budget films, but this is an action movie - and I want glitz and glamour when I see action movies. And those special effects cost money.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[LKM]

I actually thought V for Vendetta was both a surprisingly good movie, as well as a good adaptation of the source material. Sure, they cut a lot of the story out and changed some parts, but I thought the remaining story was pretty faithful to the source material.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[UncleTogie]

I agree that great special effects are not able to support a sub-par script, but I'd have to disagree that a story (how implausible/impossible it might be) can not be told without the use of great special effects.

Check the date on this movie... then grab a copy to watch. The effects were, to say the least, painful...

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[malchus842]

With regard to V, the graphic novel and the movie tell different stories. The movie is certainly inspired by the novel, but it's not the same story. Some of it was conversion, but other parts were artistic license. Personally, I loved both. I like the story of the graphic novel better, but I do understand that selling a hero who is an anarchist to movie goers is pretty difficult, but selling a hero who is anti-fascist, anti-authoritarian and something of a Jeffersonian revolutionary is much easier.

I saw the movie before I read the novel, so perhaps that colors my view...

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody says "To bake a cake, get some flour." Period.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[TRex1993]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

As a visual effects professional I respectfully disagree, even though my livelihood depends on Hollywood wanting to put more and better effects in every blockbuster. The role of effects is to enhance the story. If the effect suck, well, they suck, but a great story will shine through no matter what...it doesn't need a visual orgy to endure.

This reminds me of the gameplay vs. graphics arguments in gaming. Crysis looks stunningly beautiful for a real-time engine...but I can sit down with many "ancient" games and enjoy a much better experience, visuals be damned.

Great effects with a sub-par story? You get Michael Bay...

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[westlake]

When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past?

The short answer is "Never."

The Hollywood production represents a huge investment in time, money and talent.

It has always made sense to draw on sources where experiments are less risky.

Thorne Smith re-invents the ghost story in the twenties with sophisticated, light-as-air fantasies, like Topper.

Ten years later you have the perfect cast: Cary Grant, Roland Young, Constance Bennett and Billie Burke.

The tech is in place for the special effects you will need -

and you are off and running.

You have a hit on your hands.

You have an audience primed and ready for more.

This "script" has worked countless times for the studios.

Stage to Lordsburg appears in The Saturday Evening Post. It is strong enough to rekindle adult interest in the Western - and the production unites two veterans of the genre, the director John Ford and the actor John Wayne.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[cavebison]

When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past?

Depends what you mean by "Hollywood". I'd consider Woody Allen to be an integral part of Hollywood, and he comes up with this own ideas (much of the time). I mean hey, as much as anyone does. Truly original storyline ideas are fairly rare. So I'd say yes, Hollywood does make it's own stuff up, from time to time. Perhaps in the near future we'll see more integration between Hollywood and indie filmmakers. Mainly for facilitation & promotion I hope, not destroying it. There's money in them thar hills after all.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Brad_McBad]

Can you honestly see executives allowing the mass destruction of New York, with the perpetrator being allowed to go free, to be allowed on screen? Because that's the whole point of the piece.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Brad_McBad]

Read V for Vendetta, then a history if British politics and get back to me...

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[bigstrat2003]

You completely missed my point. I'm saying that, even if the movie completely fails as an adaptation of the book, it greatly succeeds on its own merits, which is by itself something Moore should be satisfied with.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[tm2b]

Yes, you really aren't a Doctor Who fan.

Over the years, Doctor Who was able to support some very, deathly serious stories and high quality drama with some pretty poor special effects.

It's called imagination.

Pfft! Cut the baby in half!

[Anonymous Coward]

OR Just leak it to BitTorrent already!

everyone wins!

Re:Pfft! Cut the baby in half!

[stonedcat]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Fox would then scramble to make a deal with WB so that they could actually make money on it somehow.

Re:Pfft! Cut the baby in half!

[SanityInAnarchy]

Fox would then scramble to make a deal with WB so that they could actually make money on it somehow.

And hopefully before the movie inevitably gets leaked. It would kind of suck for both parties if the movie was available only via BitTorrent for several months, while legal issues got sorted out.

Re:Pfft! Cut the baby in half!

[grahamd0]

No, Fox would sue WB for violating their distribution rights, and they would win.

WB doesn't want to stick it to Fox. Well, I'm sure they do, but not nearly as much as they want to recoup their $100M investment. You can bet that the deal with Fox is already in the works.

Alan Moore's curse strikes again!

[chartreuse]

The judge seems to have ruled quickly (the trial was going to be next month) so that Fox and WBros can make a settlement and get the damn thing out on time. Not that it's worth it without the squid ending...

Re:Alan Moore's curse strikes again!

[Culture20]

No squid ending? Where'd you learn that? The squid was needed to unite earth against an imaginary foe; I can't see another plausible ending except maybe a UFO.

Re:Alan Moore's curse strikes again!

[Culture20]

I succumbed to google; can't spoil a movie/book I already (think) know the plot of. Seems the director doesn't understand the ending.

Re:Alan Moore's curse strikes again!

[retchdog]

I was (really) hoping that they had ditched that script. I take it you are referring to the one with the tachyon-boosted sniper rifle?

Re:Alan Moore's curse strikes again!

[DannyO152]

Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Deadline picked up an interesting point from the Judge's ruling. Apparently the producer, Lawrence Gordon, on counsel's advice and invoking attorney/client privilege wouldn't testify as to his acquisition of his rights. One side not offering any evidence, perhaps, sped up the decision.

3-6-9

[Slur]

Look, if they don't release it on 3-6-9 the magic won't work, and I'll be damned if I pay $8 to go see it on 7-3-9!

Re:3-6-9

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these numbers? Is this some designation of HD vs non-HD? I can't find a clear indication via Google.

Re:3-6-9

[brizzadizza]

watchmen is being released in the states on March 6th, 2009. 03-06-09 (american dating, not international.) Thats all GP was referring to.

Re:3-6-9

[toddestan]

I suppose then it will be released overseas on June 3rd?

Re:3-6-9

[brizzadizza]

Nah, If that were the international date it would be released on March 7th '09. I think he was just saying that any delay ruins the "magic" of a moderately interesting release date.

Luckily this is just a movie

[pembo13]

I can easily imagine such an issue forming around something more important, such as a medicine or piece of life saving technology.

Re:Luckily this is just a movie

[Ahnteis]

I can easily imagine this rather banal comment applying to 90% of the stories on Slashdot. That doesn't mean it should be modded up every time.

Re:Luckily this is just a movie

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it was so unimportant, you read the summary, clicked the link, and typed up a self-important response.

Funny how that works.

Re:Luckily this is just a movie

[LKM]

I think you missed his point. Which, I believe, was that the laws preventing the movie from being released might prevent more important things from being released. So he said the story was important, not unimportant.

Re:Luckily this is just a movie

[LKM]

GP didn't say the story was unimportant, he said it was more important than it appeared at first glance.

horray!

[DragonTHC]

Hopefully this will allow the hollywood shitwigs to understand that copyright is not something for them to use at their leisure. It is a seriously flawed set of statutes that hurt everyone. I'm so glad they've finally been bitten by their own beast. Now maybe they will stop pouring so many dollars into making more draconian copyright laws that take rights away.

Re:horray!

[mabhatter654]

you kidding? to them this is what copyright is all about. They signed a contract 20 years ago and now that somebody else has done the work, they can get their "fair share". Fox fronted money 20 years ago for an option... they get their big payout now, this is working out well for them.

Re:horray!

[DrEldarion]

You have to be joking.

The only thing Hollywood does is create material that can be incredibly easily copied, and copyright and the laws that surround it are all that allows them to earn anything whatsoever.

Without copyright, film releases would look like this:

1) Film company pours tons of money and time into creating a movie.
2) Movie gets leaked before it's even released.
3) Everyone can grab a perfect copy of it from anywhere they want to.

Or, alternatively:

1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.

If films weren't copyrightable, the entire industry would come crashing down, along with a decent chunk of the US economy.

Copyright laws are abused a lot, but they do not, as you say, hurt everyone. The situation without them would be much worse.

Re:horray!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're wrong. Let's look at your scenario again:

1) Film company pours tons of money and time into creating a movie.
2) Movie gets leaked before it's even released.
3) Everyone can grab a perfect copy of it from anywhere they want to.

Please explain to me how this isn't a perfect description of what the situation is ALREADY LIKE RIGHT NOW.

It may not be legal, but anybody who wants to download a movie can do so, and a large number of people have no qualms about doing so, either. Yet the system still works, and Hollywood still makes a shitload of money.

Re:horray!

[meringuoid]

Please explain to me how this isn't a perfect description of what the situation is ALREADY LIKE RIGHT NOW.

Because suddenly the 'everyone' that pirates films includes the cinemas, who can charge the public to watch the film on the big screen, but don't have to pay the studio for it. Beats having to gouge on popcorn and Pepsi to turn a profit, doesn't it?

Re:horray!

[sabs]

The only thing Hollywood does is create visual stories. You can complain about there never being anything good or create and yet.

They brought us some amazing movies.
Lawrence of Arabia
One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
Clockwork Orange
StarWars(the first one)
I am Legend (both versions)
The Wizard of Oz
and many others.
Some of it is crap, but there is definitely some good stuff. Claiming that copyright is bad, is stupid. Certain copyrights are good.

All Heinlein and Asimov and Tolien ever did was create something that's easily reproduceable and distributable. Why should we reward them at all for the years they spent writing. Any jerk with a scanner and a printer can make millions of copies of their books. There's nothing special about them.

Since I've noticed that we have alot of members with early stages of Dimentia.

Re:horray!

[powerlord]

Beats having to gouge on popcorn and Pepsi to turn a profit, doesn't it?

Nah. They'd still gouge on concession stand food.

Then, once the movie studio's dried up, the movie theaters would have to either revert to "classics", pay for foreign films, or start making new movies themselves (perhaps including a contract clause in purchasing a ticket so that if they tracked a leak back to you, you would be responsible for sales losses, essentially bankrupting you for life).

Then the cycle would start all over again (except that the U.S. would lose out on the last thing we actually still produce in our own country, Movies and Television).

Re:horray!

[cdrguru]

We are pretty much looking at a situation where nobody respects copyright. 10-15 years and it will certainly be over for the movie studios if they are releasing stuff in any sort of digital format.

If they ship materials to theaters on DVD, they will be copied. If they make DVDs for consumers, they will be copied. About the only way to continue to have a "movie studio" would be for theater releases only and only distribute the materials over a private network. Nobody gets to have a real copy, ever.

And yes, prosecute anyone making camera copies.

Otherwise, it will certainly be the end of the studio because nobody is going to pay them. Why would they, when it is all for free? And as you say, any time, any where.

Re:horray!

[Tikkun]

Here is one possible business model for making movies without copyright laws.

Summary:

Without copyright laws, movies will have bad acting, lots of cheesy special effects, horrible plots, and be designed to get people out of their houses to enjoy the large explosions in a theater and buy snacks. Lots of them will be made to encourage people to go to theaters as much as possible, as well as to stay subscribed to rental services that don't have viruses.

Just like today, only at a fraction of the price.

Wall-of-text:

1. The year is 2019. Netflix (or some other rental service) needs more films to rent to subscribers, who pay netflix a monthly fee to quickly download or ship old and forgotten films (which they have easy access to) and shiny new ones (which have yet to be made). Netflix commissions several (2 or 3 people) filmmakers to make several films (2-12 over the next year) and gives them a small ($10,000 perhaps) stipend to come up with ideas.

2. The filmmakers come up with some outlines of stories for a particular film (generic horror movie 2, electric boogaloo for example). They use cheap cameras and computers (which they've likely already purchased themselves) to make a 5 minute short of each idea. Netflix decides which version they like (zombies, explosions, some guy with a claw and a hat, etc.) and throw some more money at the filmmakers ($20,000 perhaps), along with a contract to product it by x date assuming the filmmakers are able to raise x amount of money ($70,000 perhaps) by that time.

3. Filmmakers work with some 'producers' who know people that own movie theaters. Thousands of movie theaters around the world who also need new films pay a couple hundred dollars each to help move the production forward. The producers gets a 10% cut of the raised money for their time and efforts.

4. Movie is made, likely has bad acting and cheesy special effects. Advancements in technology over the past decade (have I mentioned that it is 2019 in my business plan and that no inflation has taken place?) make it look like the live action transformer movie, only with (zombies, explosions, some guy with a claw and a hat, etc.).

5. Some small local marketing is done by theaters. Netflix can advertise to it's own subscribers for free (duh) and offers 'limited edition' bree-vee-dee-pluses (or whatever we call discs in the future) signed by the film makers for a mere $200. Less devoted fans can buy regular discs in pretty boxes for $20 plus shipping and handling, which they will promptly put on their shelves and download the latest version directly from netflix (which is distributed by some p2p protocol that anyone can hook into and is easy for a 12 year old (or a nerd) to setup but most folks are lazy and pay the small monthly fee to have it work automagically).

6. People get excited about the movie and tell their friends via various online forums, blogs and whatnot. A leak makes it onto streaming video sites. It is of perfect quality, but the a few of the sites install some (trojan, worm, virus, etc.) into Windows boxes that visit (MS still has an iron grip on about 70% of consumer desktop computers). Most people, fearing loss of their computer to malicious programmers in some 3rd world nation like Nebraska opt to not visit.

People running Linux and OS 10.2019.1 make fun of people running Windows. People running Windows tell everyone else to get a job and stay off of their lawns.

7. Movie is released. Lots of people download it for free. Most of these people don't watch it, as it is crap. Some people watch it at home, others take their date out to the movie theater for a romantic night on the town to watch (zombies, explosions, some guy with a claw and a hat, etc.). Movie theaters let people watch it for 'free' (they have to spend at least $5 in snacks or soda each, no outside food or beverages) and makes money off of popcorn and ghb (chloroform, although now legal, is considered inappropriate for the first date).

Re:horray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Mr. MPAA!! Welcome back!

Re:horray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Option #3 is that the movie industry wakes up and realizes it pays its executives way too much money and actors need to start being reasonable on how much they make. 5 million for a film ? That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if that industry failed ... they are nothing but fat greedy assholes looking to screw over anyone they get their hands on.

Re:horray!

[Perky_Goth]

1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.

So, Nigerians are more intelligent than Americans?
Regardless of whether it would be a good or a bad thing, movies would still be made in Hollywood.

Re:horray!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.

...and there was much rejoicing. Seriously though, movies are not a major export of the US. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US exports break down as follows:
capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%

Given that total US exports are $1,000bn-$1,500bn, and movie industry overseas revenues are ~$4bn, this gives a maximum percentage figure of 0.4%, hardly a "major export" is it?

If films weren't copyrightable, the entire industry would come crashing down, along with a decent chunk of the US economy.

US GDP is approx $13,000bn and 2007 movie industry revenue was $9.67bn for a percentage figure of 0.07%. Not exactly a "decent chunk".

Copyright laws are abused a lot, but they do not, as you say, hurt everyone. The situation without them would be much worse.

[Citation needed]. The situation without them would be that the only people who would make movies would be the people who love to make movies. That is the people who are in it for the love of films, not for their love of the dollar. We may not have the CGI filled pop-corn violence $100 million blockbusters we have today, but that does not mean that the situation would necessarily be worse.

Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[Artifakt]

The original comic had a lot of political content - without committing any real spoilers for the few who read this without actually having read the comic, the most central plotline of the whole miniseries involves using the 'big lie' technique to manipulate the masses. There are some '9/11' parallels to this. There's also some more tangential stuff. Sticking with just what's revealed early in the series and trying to avoid spoilers, Nixon stays in power for his second term because the approximate Superman equivalent hero intervenes in Vietnam, a somewhat Captain America like hero, complete with a patriotic red, white and blue costume, is increasingly revealed as a real bastard, and the prior generation of heroes includes at least one that sounds like he got his costume idea straight from a KKK meeting.
      I'd gladly go into paranoid mode here and propose that this film's legal troubles might be from some people wanting to suppress the political criticism, but some of the rumors about what's still in and what's out make me wonder, is there actually anything left in it that involves even the tiniest bit of politically sensitive content? By some accounts, the only way the movie could make any comments the current administration might dislike would be by encouraging a few people to buy the graphic novel.

Re:Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[FooAtWFU]

That's pretty paranoid, considering that there's a lot more overtly political material that's more explicitly about the current administration, and it really hasn't seen this sort of suppression.

Re:Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[jjohnson]

When OJ Simpson was arrested for Nicole Simpson's murder, some believed that he was being framed by the government for his part in the movie Capricorn One, which was about a faked Mars landing--they thought it was revenge for obliquely revealing that the moon landing was a hoax.

If the Bush Administration wanted to suppress the movie, why wait until it's already filmed, gotten a lot of pre-release publicity, and has a lot of people excited about it? Why do it when the movie has sparked renewed interest in the comic book? Why not just tie it up in the development hell it's been in since the comic was first released?

Re:Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[brizzadizza]

While I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory outlined above, it occurs to me that if you are trying to serve notice that this kind of storytelling will not be tolerated, then it is in your best interest to wait until the maximal amount of pain can be caused. If that is the case, it is much worse for the studio/producer/director to lose the 100's of millions of dollars and the years of man hours.

Re:Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[roc97007]

You can't be serious. This is Hollywood -- they're as likely to take whatever the current administration wants and do the exact opposite. They make politically charged movies that even moviegoers don't care to see. That the producers decided to soft-pedal the negative portrayal of some dead President because of the views of a current administration of the same political party seems extremely unlikely. At least, this year. After January, who knows.

Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen , not Warner

[pleasechooseanother2]

Warner still can release the movie via The Pirate Bay.

I, for one, am disappointed

[blue l0g1c]

When the hype started for this movie, I downloaded all of the comics and read them in two sittings. That's how good it is. Unlike many, I was reserving judgement until I had actually seen the movie.

A fantasy film?

[Runaway1956]

Our nation's economic woes are due to our immersion in fantasy...... Who CARES who owns yet another set of fantasy figures? BTW - reading the article, the judge says that Fox has a copyright INTEREST in the movie. He doesn't say that Fox outright OWNS it, just that they have a legitimate interest.

Sorry to flame you but...

[Jabbrwokk]

I downloaded all of the comics

And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

I imagine someone will release this movie, eventually. Warner will pay off Fox, or hold their nose and come up with some kind of royalties deal. But the funny thing is, after reading the graphic novel three times now, I don't really care if I see the movie or not. I know it will look cool, and the story might even be OK crammed into two-and-a-half hours, but the graphic novel will always be superior because it was never about plot.

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!

The ridiculous ending makes that clear. Even the characters can't believe it actually happens. The book, at its core, is about different kinds of characters and how they cope with the ugly world around them. The character development which happens in the book will never translate well to movie format.

So, sorry to flame you, but please, if you haven't already, go buy a copy of Watchmen and support the original creators. Otherwise it's like not voting and then complaining about the government. You know, like half of North America does.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Ender Wiggin 77]

I downloaded all of the comics

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

To be clear, you're saying people should only pay to read a book, see a movie, etc, if they end up liking it?

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[edmicman]

Or you could buy it used on Amazon and screw the original authors out of royalties, etc., too!

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[WiiVault]

I think that is fair, and it seems to me like the library model- try it out for free but you don't get to keep it. If you like it then buy it and you have a copy for whenever you want. I see what you are saying but he could just as easily gone to the bookstore and read it, or borrowed it from someone. To be clear, you're saying that we should ban all libraries?

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[WiiVault]

Buying used indirectly helps sell new books by taking the cheaper used edition off the shelf causing future purchasers to buy a new copy. I often will check the used bin, but if what I want isn't there I move to the new shelf.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Sparklepony]

I borrowed it from a friend, read it, and gave it back to him when I was done. No extra copies were ever sold as a result. Did I rip off the orignal creators any worse than the guy who downloaded it? I'm actually not sure, it seems like I didn't but I can't think of exactly why not. The net result was exactly the same. BTW, I rea;;y liked Dr. Manhattan's time-awareness but thought the plot's ultimate resolution was ridiculous. I didn't pay any money for the experience, though, so some may consider my opinion invalid.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[BlueCodeWarrior]

And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

You do know that Alan Moore never really felt that he was properly compensated for the book, and it was bad enough that it caused him to split from DC and never work for them again, right?

But don't let me spoil your good feelings for you. Don't get me wrong, your intentions are well placed. But don't forget that you're not always supporting the artist when you buy.

This coming from someone who just got their dead tree Watchmen today. I re-read it all in one sitting. So good...

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[evanbd]

Why not? People have been trying to do that for quite some time. That's what book reviews are all about, right? So they've gotten better. Of course, there are probably those who would go with "well, I liked it somewhat, but not enough to pay for it." On the flip side, more exposure in many cases means more purchases as well.

The idea that every time someone reads / watches / listens to something the author should get paid is horribly antiquated. The idea that authors should get compensated for their work is not. Who cares if the dollars don't quite match the readership, if the new model increases both?

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[rossifer]

To be clear, you're saying people should only pay to read a book, see a movie, etc, if they end up liking it?

Sure. It's a tip for an entertaining evening. A gratuity for an excellent performance, if you will. The shame in it is how bad the deal is for the author. I'd much rather send the author/director/lead actor/whoever a "check for $12" myself and cut out the insane distribution scheme. But that's hard to do.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish: total rubbish.

Not that you necessarily don't have a point about supporting the creators, but you're conflating two issues, namely that somebody should support the creators if they enjoy a work, and that somebody should read (if it's a book or graphic novel) a work before they criticise it - that they cannot meaningfully criticise what they haven't read (kinda like Slashdot's advice to RTFA to overly trigger-happy commenters).

You appear to have mangled that into "one cannot meaningfully criticise a work if one hasn't supported the creators" - not just "one shouldn't" but in fact "one *cannot*".

And that, I'm sorry to say, is total poppycock.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[repvik]

Won't anyone think of the trees!?

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Qetu]

To be clear, you're saying people should only pay to read a book, see a movie, etc, if they end up liking it?

He is noting that it is better in the original medium. Did you read all the accompanying text? Did you see how the seventh issue is mirrored? The final product benefits from the medium in ways you need to see to know.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[AviLazar]

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

Are you implying that if you didn't like what you read you would not have bought it? If so then you are the hippocrit. I love the people who download stuff, use it and then say they shouldn't pay for it because it did not meet a specific criteria. I knew a person who downloaded games, played them from start to finish then justified it by saying it was crappy games. He only paid for games that required online subs (e.g. WoW). Copyrights are made to protect artists/studios from people who do that kind of nonsense. BTW plenty of companies offer previews, synopsis, and demo copies to try it before you buy it.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job falling for the blindingly obvious troll guys.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Oligonicella]

I'll assume you were being funny, but respond seriously. The author made his contractual money on the first sale. Thereafter, you have an object being resold. This is in no way copyright theft nor 'screwing' the author.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[brizzadizza]

This is a fabulous graphic novel, but at this point, you are no longer supporting the creators of the original content. Alan Moore has signed away his rights to all of his DC work, hence the flood of shitty Moore-inspired movies. I say steal away and buy the promethea comic line.

Just a note, I do own the graphic novel in print form, comic files are kind of a pain in the ass if you ask me.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[edmicman]

Haha, yes, I was being a smartass. Mostly I remember a professor in college who wrote the textbook required for his class. He encouraged students to *not* sell his book back to the bookstores at the end of the semester, because he said he didn't get royalties or whatever compensation on sales of used books - only new. I tongue-in-cheek treated this book story as the same way :-)

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Ender Wiggin 77]

The library model is an interesting point. The author and publisher were compensated by the library once, but beyond that they see no revenue from readers. This is mitigated by the fact that there is generally one copy of a book available and only one person can have it checked out at a time. Libraries are not like Blockbuster promising to always have a copy of the latest and greatest available.

If we take this "pay if you like it" concept and apply it to movies and plays, you would only pay on the way out, and only if you choose to. Downloading a movie or book from the Internet and paying later, maybe, is the same thing IMO.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[blue l0g1c]

For the record, I deleted the comics from my hard drive and fully intend to buy a hard copy. This had been done before I even made my post. I'm also one of the people that only supports musicians that come to my town (or close enough) and perform for their money, often buying CD's that I've already downloaded along with a T-shirt.

I resent being preached to, but seeing as how we share a common set of morals, I'll let it slide.

*sniff*

[CODiNE]

It's Miracleman all over again. Well at least we know how THIS story ends.

Just Saw The Trailer

[NormAtHome]

I remember reading about this dispute several months ago and that there'd been an injunction issued regarding a release until it was resolved. Then just last week when I was at the movies I saw a trailer for Watchmen and it included a release date, I more or less took that to mean that this had been resolved. While I never read the graphic novels the trailer looks very interesting and I hope that this can be worked out so that the movie can be released on schedule.

I really have to wonder if Fox has a good faith belief that they actually have the legitimate copyright or if they're using litigation for a payday ala Sco.

Adaptation rights != copyrights

[tverbeek]

The notion that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen is utterly absurd (and presumably just incompetent reporting). The comics series was produced by Moore and Gibbons under contract with DC Comics, a subsidiary of Time Warner, and (rightly or wrongly) that company owns the copyright. Fox might hold an exclusive license to the movie rights to the material, but that's a very different question.

Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie would be a derivative work. Derived works basically end up with two copyright holders. The copyright holder of the work it is based on and the creator of the new work.

So yes it is a copyright issue. That's the entire basis for adaption rights.

Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights

[tverbeek]

You've missed the point. Fox has no copyright claim to the original work, and it has no copyright claim to the movie currently in production. This whole dispute is a contract dispute, not an ownership dispute. Everyone who knows anything about copyright law can confirm this.

Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights

[the white plague]

I think the copyright issue is that they licensed the right to make a specific type of derivative work from the copyright holder. Whether they purchased that right outright or only for a specific film that was never made is unclear.

Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights

[ErkDemon]

I think there also seem to be disputed rights to copyright on a defining "project" script that Fox may (or may not) have had some rights to, and which the movie might (or might not) have been based on.

It seems that Fox are crying foul and saying that (amongst other things, like not buying out Fox's option), Warner made unuthorised changes to Fox's project. I'm guessing that Warner might answer that they didn't buy Fox's option out because (in Warner's opinion), the option had already expired (or become invalid for some other reason), making it worthless, and allowing the movie-production rights to revert one stage back along the IP chain.

As to the script, I don't think that we yet know which script the Watchmen movie was made from, and whether it's appreciably the same as the one Fox had. If its the same script, Fox might cry foul and say that they paid for that script to be written, they registered and own the script's copyright, and that the producers owe them right of approval to any changes made to it.

But if its not recognisably the same script, Warners can say, "We didn't steal your script and make radical unauthorised changes, the reason why our shooting script is so different to yours is that we thought that your script sucked, and we had a new one written."

Fox are saying "The producer didn't successfully fulfill the terms of our agreement with him to buy our option rights off us!"
ATM, Warner would seem to have trouble disputing that, so it looks as though they're planning on arguing, "That's right, he didn't. He didn't need to".

We haven't yet heard Warners' case, though.

Got Link?

[Dausha]

Anybody got a link to the actual judges ruling? I mean, it's nice to get a press release, but much better to get the actual ruling. There's nothing to show the actual merits to which the judge is opining on.

Re:Got Link?

[belmolis]

Here's an informative post about the suit, and here is the original complaint.

As they pointed out...

[Landshark17]

As Quint pointed out on Ain't It Cool News, Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film, suggesting it might be an attempt to scoop up the cash on a blockbuster they wouldn't have to pay for.

Full article here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39578

Yeah, who can stand those people?

[Weaselmancer]

Yeah. Anal types. Like those smug know-it-alls who read the books. They've got a lot of nerve. Don't they? Besides, books are no fun anyways. All those annoying words everywhere.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch Dune. Geez but I *love* that movie. Going to follow that up with Starship Troopers.

I just love movie night. Pass the popcorn!

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[rxan]

I think he was just saying that these anal people expect the movie to be exactly like the book. And yes, they usually do go on and on about every single difference.

It's not practical or feasible most of the time to have a movie follow its source book precisely. These anal types really have nothing to bitch about.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[Weaselmancer]

I respectfully submit that we anal types do in fact have something to bitch about.

I agree that it is not practical or feasible to follow the book exactly. Inner dialog is especially tricky, for instance.

But changes for the sake of change - that's wrong. And that's a lot of what I see. I could give examples, but I don't think you'd be interested.

But I will say this to Hollywood: If you think you can tell a better story...then write one, and don't mangle someone else's work.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[topham]

I watched the movie 'Wanted' and enjoyed it. I then bought the Graphic novel version of it and I enjoyed it. In many ways they aren't even the same story; HOWEVER they both are good and there is a core that is retained.

Had they made the movie 'Wanted' just like the Graphic novel it would NOT have made 10% of the money it made; half the theaters wouldn't have ran it. It probably would have been rated 'X' or NC-17. I think they took the redeeming qualities and used them for the movie; I'm sure others will disagree and would have wanted it to be more faithful. More faithful would have been unproducable.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[Caraig]

I agree with you. I don't think you can show a version of Wanted on the big screen in Western Civilization that's true to the theme and plot of the graphic novel. We're too used to our main characters being positive icons, or at least somewhat sympathetic, someone the audience can identify with. Western audiences just would NOT deal well with the main character, the pivotal character of the film, being anything like Wesley.

Now, if Wanted was shot in a noir style, toning down the language and the graphic violence -- putting it up in silhouette, say -- then... well, maybe. Wanted is a very noir film in it's theme but it's approach is a lot more graphic. (Hell, it even seems to look a bit grindhouse'y, too.) But you might loose some of the impact.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[LKM]

Both good movies if you manage not not expect the exact same as the book provides.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[LKM]

Wanted was a neat little movie, but watching it made me think the script writer missed the very point of the comic book. I have no problem with movies which change the source material to fit the medium. I do have a bit of a problem with movies which miss the very point of their source material.

Re:Yeah, who can stand those people?

[Weaselmancer]

So why bother giving them the same name then if they're different things?

Wouldn't you be pissed if you bought some fries and the waiter handed you a bottle of ketchup that was full of mayo? And if you had the audacity to complain, what if the chef told you both are good on fries so deal with it?

It's misrepresentation. It'd piss me off.

copyright interest != copyright

[SuperBanana]

Fox might hold an exclusive license to the movie rights to the material, but that's a very different question.

If you actually bothered to RTFA carefully, you'd see that they have been ruled to have a copyright interest.

Since you're clearly ignorant on the matter and think "copyright interest" means "copyright" or "exclusive movie rights", try educating yourself instead.

I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"

Re:copyright interest != copyright

[tverbeek]

If you can supress that knee-jerking reflex a moment, you might figure out that I was pointing out that the headline (which simply says "copyright") was misleading, and the statement in the summary that "Fox owns the copyright" is simply false. They don't. The judge didn't say they did. Neither did the Times.

Oh, and try not to make ASSumptions about the people's background or opinions based on such a quick, emotional reading; I happen to be a staunch defender of copyright. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that despite your ludicrous statement that "IP law is simpler than..." that you meant to say the opposite, which is certainly true.

Re:copyright interest != copyright

[Dirtside]

I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"

Er... did you mean "more complex"?

Re:copyright interest != copyright

[mabhatter654]

But the right they happen to own is the one to distribute a movie... that means the company that paid the money and actually made the movie for their distributor gets back seat. That means on teh eve of the release, FOX could get the right to rip up the existing contracts about who gets paid from receipts and keep all the money for itself, as the court put them in line to get paid first above the people that are actually paying money up front to actors, sets, cameramen, and Trailers.

After FOX applies "hollywood accounting" there won't be anything left for Warner's share to pay off people. It's not "Fox's" movie, but the director now has no contract to get paid by movie theaters for their work... They hold the movie up while they figure out how to get paid, or they release with no contract under FOX and try to fight out payment terms later.

Ghost rider anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

Meh. You know, the original story in the comic kicked ass (and is wildly anti-religious). Too bad those fuckers changed the storyline of the movie in order no to insult the american viewers too much (an angel forcing an abortion on a woman, angels discussing whether or not they should just have sticked to dinosaurs, a battle angel slaughtering an entire greyhound bus)... I want to see a remake of that movie, but with the original storyline :-)

  ok, i'm just a bit disappointed after watching the movie last week :-(

In other news, SCO, squeaks "We own Linux"

[G3ckoG33k]

In other, recent news, SCO, squeaked "We own Linux. The judges were wrong, so we'll appeal".

Funny. I thought judges were right. Probably they are right in this Watchmen case, too.

To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[denzacar]

I downloaded all of the comics

And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

No.. seriously.. Fuck off.

One's opinion is irrelevant since one has not payed for something? Then there is a shitload of stuff out there about which our opinions don't count.
From online comics to pop music on the radio to motherfuckin Bible and Qur'an. Free stuff all... But you can't have an opinion on it.
Unless you buy the printed/recorded version of it.

Or is the idea that one's opinion is irrelevant unless you pay the author of the work?
Well fuck... guess we should just stop talking about Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Byron, Da Vinci, Van Gogh and every single dead artist and their work cause as much as we try it ain't likely that they will ever see a dime from us.

And since I too have read Watchmen first in scanned form, only later getting my own printed copy, I guess that makes our opinions about on the same level.
BUT... Since I bought the more expensive Absolute Edition AAAAND a regular paperback edition for a friend of mine - my opinion counts more.

Now... had there not been that scanned version, I probably would never have heard about it until this summer.
And even then - I'd probably just watch the movie. Downloaded, naturally, since my town still lacks the cinema.
And it would remain at that.
Moore and Gibbons wouldn't get a dime.

Scanned comics and free online versions of comics (see Warren Ellis' and Paul Duffield's FreakAngels) are a great way for an audience other than the members of hardcore comic book geek society who practically live inside the comic book shops - to get introduced to the story.
Same goes for the fansubs of various anime series.
Get the stuff to the people. If they like it - they will buy it.
If it is good - they might buy it (eventually) even if they don't like it.

Let me end the rant with another Moore's work that illustrates this last point.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier.
I liked the first two volumes of "The League". In fact I found them to be great.
And I loved the start of the "Black Dossier", with it's 1984 references and all (actually it is done practically as a sequel to 1984)...

But the more you read, the more you see that there is no real story. Only obscure cultural reference, upon reference, upon reference...
The main characters just go from location A, to location B, to C with any real plot actually being in the stories in the dossier.
Its great work - but in the end you realize that nothing really happened. Moore practically tells you - "Forget it kid, its only a comic.".
And I could bet that he is laughing his ass off for making people wear those silly 3D glasses that come with the book.

Now don't get me wrong.
I love the obscure cultural references and seeing artists just letting loose their creative vibe - but in the end, I liked the original League stories more. Much more.
Did I like it? Sorta... In the beginning... less later.
Was it good? Undoubtedly.
Will I get it in printed form? Yes.
Would I ever have read it or the first two volumes after that terrible movie, had they not been around for free? Highly unlikely.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[DaveV1.0]

You are fucking idiot.

One's opinion is irrelevant since one has not payed for something?

The OPs opinion doesn't matter because he doesn't respect the laws in question. He would deprive the copyright owner's of their legally guaranteed rights, just like your worthless ass would.

Or is the idea that one's opinion is irrelevant unless you pay the author of the work?
Well fuck... guess we should just stop talking about Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Byron, Da Vinci, Van Gogh and every single dead artist and their work cause as much as we try it ain't likely that they will ever see a dime from us.

No, because you are to fucking stupid to understand that one's opinion about copyright issues is only as valid as one's respect and understanding of said copyrights. And, as the works of every one of those "authors" you listed is in the public domain because their copyrights expired, maybe you should shut the fuck up until you learn what you are talking about.

And since I too have read Watchmen first in scanned form, only later getting my own printed copy, I guess that makes our opinions about on the same level.

No, you opinion doesn't matter.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[kaizokuace]

I agree with you, though with less anger I suppose. You can't take the view of paying for it if you like it or not being allowed an opinion on it if you didn't help to compensate the author. That's just a load of crap.

Information/content/whatever is inherently free. The exchange of ideas is free. It is free because the actual act of transferring the information to a person's mind costs nothing really. Yea distribution of mass info costs something but paying for distribution isn't paying for the creator.

Anyway, some of these guys here arguing about having the right to even talk about this piece of art if you haven't payed for it's consumption just sounds like a bunch of fans or kids bickering about who is cooler. It's a form of verbal domination to decide who has rights and who doesn't as this matter shouldn't even come into the argument.

Those that say everyone who read Watchmen and liked it should pay because the creators deserve it shouldn't mix this demand with the argument that one should not be allowed an opinion if they have not paid.

Also, there are those of us who do believe the copyright system is in failure due to long terms of rights. Art and media should belong to the public after the author makes the bulk of profits (about 10-15 years) allowing future generations the ability to use these ideas to create new ideas and innovate pushing society forward. But that's for another post!

Btw, I read Watchmen a long time ago. I never paid for it. I borrowed the book from a friend and read it all in one sitting. After that though I had no need to collect a book for the sole purpose of paying money. I probably caused many people to go out and purchase the book though. Regardless I don't think the author saw much of those profits.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[AK Marc]

The OPs opinion doesn't matter because he doesn't respect the laws in question.

So one shouldn't ask gay men about sodomy laws, because they don't respect the laws in question. And all those escaped slaves that talked bad about slavery shouldn't have been badmouthing the law because they didn't respect the law in question. No, I'm not equating copyright infringement to anything else, I'm just pointing out that such a statement is simply absurd.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[Oligonicella]

"Information/content/whatever is inherently free."

That is an opinion (or desire, actually), not a fact as you present it.

"... makes the bulk of profits (about 10-15 years) ..." -- "I don't think the author saw much of those profits."

You contradict your own point.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[LKM]

The OPs opinion doesn't matter because he doesn't respect the laws in question

Both statements may be true, but I really don't see how the first logically follows from the second.

And yes, I bought Watchmen.

Re:To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[kaizokuace]

I dont think that I contradict my own point. I understand that copyright is there to promote creativity by allowing for a compensation period via temporary monopoly. Ideas/content/info is still inherently free. You can give it so someone and they will have it in their memories. Transfer is instant by viewing/experiencing. As for the author not seeing much of those profits, that is another matter all together involving the system of distribution screwing over the author. This is a different subject of corporate entities taking advantage of individuals.

You got some 'splaining to do.

[DaveV1.0]

Fox acquired rights to the "Watchmen" graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon
...
Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

Looks to me like Mr. Gordon has some explaining to do.

As forpeople who think "Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film", you and your ilk don't know the whole story. Fox could have sent them a nice little note saying they already had the rights, maybe even offered to sell the rights, and Warner just ignored them. Remember, sometimes the best way to punish someone is to let them hang themselves.

Could always go the Brazil route ...

[rufus t firefly]

... and show the film as an audio/visual aid to film students. Of course, that was because Gilliam didn't like his film being cut to ribbons, and not due to legal entanglements with another studio.

Re:Could always go the Brazil route ...

[iluvcapra]

Zack Snyder is no Terry Gilliam, I think that is certain. Mr. Snyder is a good stylist, but after 30 Days of Night I think it's pretty clear he never heard a studio note he didn't like.

Re:Could always go the Brazil route ...

[rufus t firefly]

Zack Snyder is no Terry Gilliam, I think that is certain. Mr. Snyder is a good stylist, but after 30 Days of Night I think it's pretty clear he never heard a studio note he didn't like.

True. I wasn't placing Snyder in the same league (or indeed, in the same sport) as Gilliam, but rather pointing out that there are ways of letting a film out without going through the proper channels.

Re:Could always go the Brazil route ...

[iluvcapra]

True. I wasn't placing Snyder in the same league (or indeed, in the same sport) as Gilliam, but rather pointing out that there are ways of letting a film out without going through the proper channels.

Not in a way that makes any money, and it's not like Alan Moore is in the driver's seat on this show in the way that Gilliam and Arnon Milchan were when Brazil showed. Besides, the USC Norris screening was aborted (they never showed the movie there), and the CalArts screening the next day only went off because they kept it a secret from anybody who'd want to see the film. The "Hirschfield pool house screening" for the LA Film Critics was probably the more important screening. In all these cases, it was a scant few people that saw the picture, usually select groups, and really the screenings were just en passants in the broader turf battle between Milchan and Sheinberg, and not really "exhibition" in the sense I think we're talking about. We're also pre-supposing that The Watchmen is actually worth leaking, which I admit is a little questionable right now.

I went to USC and wrote a paper on The Battle, so don't get me going :) In any case, I remind you that the end result of this is that Brazil was still re-edited by Terry for the US, and both him and Milchan's careers were both essentially ended by the Battle and its aftermath (yeah I know Terry kept making movies, but the bloom was off the rose and his reputation has never recovered). Zach Snyder knows how to play ball and wouldn't consider such a thing, and they've succeeded in isolating the dangerous creative types, like Alan Moore, from the decision-making.

IMHO

Proposed movie concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Its got controversey, its topical but its allmost classical Greek in its story. It allso has a serial killer, lawyers, violence and gore best of all the oringal story is pd - so no pesky authors fees.

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you 'Hollywood Copyright Layers - hoisted by their own petard!'

The awful truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the public loses, all because of sour-grapes corporate greed.

At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues.

Let me paraphrase this. "Fox met my price."

gaah

[roc97007]

I agree that Warner must have really flubbed it to get so far into the process without a clear copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if people were fired over this.

That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that Fox waited until the film was ready to release before pressing their claim, else Warner would simply have dumped the project and Fox would have a copyright on nothing.

I expect Warner to appeal, but if they run out of options, it would server Fox right if Warner dumped the completed film on The Pirate Bay rather than hand Fox profits they hadn't earned.

On the topic of the faithfulness of the adaptation, I own the original comic books (carefully preserved in archive-grade sleeves) and the first printing of the graphic novel, and participated in the original discussions in net.comics as the issues were coming out. That said, I don't care a rat's behind whether every single image and line of dialog are on the screen.

I think the people who are translating the novel's "every picture is worth 1000 words" to the equivalent number of novel pages and then back to screen time should go outside right now and breathe the fresh air. Get away from the computer screen for awhile and your acne may even clear up. Geeze, I'm reminded of all the angst over the Lord of the Rings films before they came out, how the elves should only be done in CGI because human actors could not be pretty enough, how the books couldn't possibly be filmed in less than a 22 hour miniseries, and raging that Gandalf bumped his head in Bilbo's home because THAT SCENE WASN'T IN THE BOOK!. Ohfercrissake.

That said, I *am* glad they kept Watchmen in 1985 rather than try to translate the plot to 2008. The issues are different and the plot doesn't work in our time. Which is the reason I rushed right out and didn't see the latest Keanu Reeves CGI extravaganza.

Personally, I'm glad Ozymandias lost the miniskirt and the owl's costume was updated. I'd be perfectly happy if they soft-pedaled certain canine-dismemberment scenes, but will grit my teeth and get through it if they don't. (I agree the scenes with Rorschach taking the rorschach test were key, albeit the least-enjoyable part of the novel.) I don't expect the left-right symmetry of issue #6 to be somehow faithfully reproduced on the screen. You just can't do that stuff in film. These minor points should be more than compensated by, you know, having real actors actually speaking and moving about.

The visuals look great, but visuals alone don't make a movie. (Example: The first Harry Potter film, which was no more than a moving illustration to a mediocre book, with no life of it's own. The subsequent films were better.) I am a little worried about the pressure to produce a "theater-length" edit, as this tends to leave in the expensive special effects and cut out the, you know, plot. (And I'm a little annoyed that they refer to the group in the film as "The Watchmen".) But what I've seen so far is interesting enough that I'll see it if it ever comes out. This doesn't mean I subscribe to "You can't complain about it until you see it". You certainly can. You can enumerate in fine detail what advance information has caused you to decide not to pay good money to see a piece of excrement. But for God's sake, let's keep some perspective.

Who pwns who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Rules Fox Has Copyright Claim To Watchmen

Public Rules That The Pirate Bay Pwns Fox Anyway . . . and Warner, too!!

alt "disney" timeline

[ErkDemon]

Ah, but if the film rights for "Watchmen" were available for free to anyone who wanted them, there'd be one obvious winner. A large studio that for decades has specialised in making financially successful movie adaptations of popular stories that have gone out of copyright.

That company is Walt Disney.

Now, if you really wanted to see Watchmen remade as a harmless Disney animated family movie musical (for Easter school-holiday release) in which the Comedian is an amusing accident-prone lunk with an oversized chin whose defining feature is that he tells jokes, the Silk Spectre is a princess with magical powers, and Rorscach is a fifteenyearold kid with a squeaky voice (voiced by a female voice artist) who wears lifts to pretend to be a grown-up, so that he can hang out with the brave superheroes and win the princess's heart ... then that's up to you. Not only would the Disney version have gotten made (on time and on budget), but you'd now be able to get the Silk Spectre dolls and squeaky Rorschach toys in your local MacDonalds, free with Happy Heals.

Just be prepared for the new ending in which the Baddie realises the error of his ways, says sorry, doesn't press the button, gives his pet to Spectre as a present, and we then flash-forward to her marrying Rorschach, and after the screen fills with flowers when the bouquet is thrown, everyone links arms and sings one last Happy And Inspiring Song.

I tell you, it'd make money. Seriously. Disney have "cutesifying" dark stories down to an art, and most tenyearolds won't have read the graphic novel anyway.

the Watchmen movie, Warner, Fox, "quitclaim"

[ErkDemon]

Thanks for the links!

One important word is "quitclaimed". This means that Fox agreed to transfer any such rights as it owned to the film project in certain defined areas (production, not distribution), provided that certain conditions were met.

In other words, the agreement (that Fox say the producers ignored) was for Fox to transfer any claim that they had to certain production rights. The agreement didn't guarantee to the producers that Fox was actually the undisputed sole rightsholder for the film project, or that by paying Fox the money, they'd be guaranteed to have the undisputed rights to make the film.

So the wise thing for the producers to do, having agreed terms with Fox for any nominal rights transfer, would have been for them to go to the other potential rightsholders (such as Warner) to make sure that there weren't any nasty surprises lurking in the wings, and to make sure that Fox really had something to sell. If they'd then gone to Warners, and Warners had advised them that actually it was arguably WB who owned the rights, and that they should just deal with WB and ignore Fox's rights claim, and not tell Fox what they were doing (and that WB's lawyers would deal with any fallout), then that might explain how we got here.

Although nobody seems to be disputing that Fox bought the film production rights, these contracts are often designed with some sort of expiry or inactivity clause, so that if a production company buys the rights and never makes the movie, the rightsholder can claw the rights back if certain milestones haven't been passed within a certain agreed timeperiod.

We know that the Watchmen movie project was in production hell for years, so it may be that Fox's exclusive rights came with certain "required progress" conditions that Fox reckon that they met, but which Warners figure they didn't.

--
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (IANL). But you already know this. If I WAS a lawyer, I'd be a damned good lawyer, and I'd be filthy rich with a great house and a flashy car, and a wonderful girlfriend, and I'd have far better things to do with my Friday night than posting on SlashDot. This is obviously not the case.

Why do people think the movie won't be released?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox Blocks Release of Watchmen

Net Benefit To Them : Zero Dollars

Fox Settles For A Quarter of Box Office and DVD Sales

Net Benefit To Them : 100 Million Dollars

Yeah, I bet Fox is TOTALLY going to keep Watchmen From Being Released!

OT, but...

[badkarmadayaccount]

I AM a hop-headed drug-addled dope fiend, you insensitive clod!

Product placement

[wurp]

I'm sure there are lots of other ways to make movies without copyright protection (another poster mentions consignment), but product placement seems the most obvious to me.

I'm not arguing that copyright should be done away with, although I agree with the people pointing out that it will be insupportable within a decade or two anyway. I do think a 5 or 15 year copyright would be MUCH more beneficial to society (which is supposed to be the point, at least in the US) than our current 120 year copyright.

Of course, my opinion on what copyright should be like is irrelevant - your argument was that moviemaking is insupportable without it, which is just not true.

What would Ozymandias do?

[AlexanderPico]

If only we could devise a plot to bring the studios together, in "one accord" against a common foe. Perhaps we could release our own version of the film to "half of new york" and convince the studios that there is another even more powerful and greedy studio out there willing to act if they don't work together ;)