Slashdot Mirror
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.
... 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.
I can easily imagine such an issue forming around something more important, such as a medicine or piece of life saving technology.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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.
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.
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.
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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
This sig is false.
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.
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..