Watchmen
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Update: Warner Bros. and Fox Settle Watchmen Dispute
Source: The Hollywood Reporter January 16, 2009
Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over Watchmen, with the studios scheduled to present the settlement to Judge Gary Feess on Friday morning and request that the case be dismissed, says The Hollywood Reporter.
Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's box office. Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it own a piece of the Watchmen property going forward. The studios are set to release a joint statement announcing the agreement Friday.
Fox sued Warners in February of 2008, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with producer Larry Gordon. Feess ruled on Dec. 24 that Gordon did not secure the proper rights to Watchmen from Fox before shopping the project and eventually setting it up with Warners. Feess' decision prompted settlement talks to heat up because Warners faced the prospect of an injunction stopping its March 6 release of the $130 million comic book adaptation.
While Gordon is not a party to the case, Warners is said to be pursuing the producer and his attorneys to reimburse it for the costs of the settlement.
UPDATE: Here is the official statement from both studios...
Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter January 16, 2009
Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over Watchmen, with the studios scheduled to present the settlement to Judge Gary Feess on Friday morning and request that the case be dismissed, says The Hollywood Reporter.
Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's box office. Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it own a piece of the Watchmen property going forward. The studios are set to release a joint statement announcing the agreement Friday.
Fox sued Warners in February of 2008, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with producer Larry Gordon. Feess ruled on Dec. 24 that Gordon did not secure the proper rights to Watchmen from Fox before shopping the project and eventually setting it up with Warners. Feess' decision prompted settlement talks to heat up because Warners faced the prospect of an injunction stopping its March 6 release of the $130 million comic book adaptation.
While Gordon is not a party to the case, Warners is said to be pursuing the producer and his attorneys to reimburse it for the costs of the settlement.
UPDATE: Here is the official statement from both studios...
Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Larry Gordon has say on 'Watchmen'
Blames Fox for debacle in letter to judge
By Matthew Belloni and Borys Kit
Jan 9, 2009, 01:00 AM ET
Read Larry Gordon's letter to the court
Larry Gordon is tired of being the villain in the "Watchmen" dispute.
In an unorthodox move, the veteran producer has fired off a lengthy letter to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess blaming Fox and his then-lawyers for the debacle and offering his version of events that led to the court's ruling that Fox owns distribution rights to the Zack Snyder-helmed comic-book adaptation.
Feess' Dec. 24 decision found that Gordon, who is not a party to the case, did not secure proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox before shopping the project and setting it up at Warner Bros. The judge also said Gordon had "refused to testify" to key questions during his deposition and, as punishment, would not be allowed to have his voice heard on "any aspect" of the case.
Gordon had remained silent since then but fired back Wednesday, stating in a letter filed by his litigation lawyers that he has been subjected to "significant public scorn" for his role in the studio battle and arguing his case that he answered deposition questions "to the best of his knowledge."
Feess refused to read the letter, issuing a terse one-paragraph response later Wednesday that called it an "improper communication" in violation of court rules.
In the letter, Gordon defends his actions during the negotiations of two key agreements with Fox during the early 1990s and in the course of the litigation. He also lays out several pages of evidence showing his responses to deposition questions.
"Mr. Gordon clearly testified that he does not recall any conversations he had with representatives of Fox in or about 1994 relating to 'Watchmen,' " the letter states.
Gordon is referring to a 1994 turnaround agreement signed by Gordon and Fox that allowed him to shop the project. During negotiations for that agreement, Gordon argues that he and apparently his attorneys were unaware of a 1991 quitclaim agreement that granted Fox distribution rights to the film and a share of profits if Gordon made it elsewhere.
Feess ruled that Gordon did not fully control "Watchmen" because he failed to reimburse Fox its development costs and to resubmit the project when key creative elements changed.
Gordon claims in his letter that during those negotiations, Fox sent his lawyer, Tom Hunter at the firm Bloom Dekom, a chain of title that did not include the 1991 quitclaim.
"It is Mr. Gordon's position that the execution of the 1994 turnaround agreement was the result of either a mutual mistake by both parties or a unilateral mistake made by his counsel, on which Mr. Gordon relied," the letter says.
Fox, Warner Bros. and Gordon's attorneys declined comment Thursday.
The development comes as the parties are scheduled to meet in Feess' courtroom today to determine a timeline for Feess to decide whether to issue an injunction blocking Warners' planned March 6 release of the potential tentpole.
Several sources have said settlement discussions are heating up, but both studios denied late Thursday that an agreement had been reached in the stalemate.
Also Thursday, "Watchmen's" other producer, Lloyd Levin, lashed out against Fox in an open letter screed posted on the Web site HitFix.
Blames Fox for debacle in letter to judge
By Matthew Belloni and Borys Kit
Jan 9, 2009, 01:00 AM ET
Read Larry Gordon's letter to the court
Larry Gordon is tired of being the villain in the "Watchmen" dispute.
In an unorthodox move, the veteran producer has fired off a lengthy letter to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess blaming Fox and his then-lawyers for the debacle and offering his version of events that led to the court's ruling that Fox owns distribution rights to the Zack Snyder-helmed comic-book adaptation.
Feess' Dec. 24 decision found that Gordon, who is not a party to the case, did not secure proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox before shopping the project and setting it up at Warner Bros. The judge also said Gordon had "refused to testify" to key questions during his deposition and, as punishment, would not be allowed to have his voice heard on "any aspect" of the case.
Gordon had remained silent since then but fired back Wednesday, stating in a letter filed by his litigation lawyers that he has been subjected to "significant public scorn" for his role in the studio battle and arguing his case that he answered deposition questions "to the best of his knowledge."
Feess refused to read the letter, issuing a terse one-paragraph response later Wednesday that called it an "improper communication" in violation of court rules.
In the letter, Gordon defends his actions during the negotiations of two key agreements with Fox during the early 1990s and in the course of the litigation. He also lays out several pages of evidence showing his responses to deposition questions.
"Mr. Gordon clearly testified that he does not recall any conversations he had with representatives of Fox in or about 1994 relating to 'Watchmen,' " the letter states.
Gordon is referring to a 1994 turnaround agreement signed by Gordon and Fox that allowed him to shop the project. During negotiations for that agreement, Gordon argues that he and apparently his attorneys were unaware of a 1991 quitclaim agreement that granted Fox distribution rights to the film and a share of profits if Gordon made it elsewhere.
Feess ruled that Gordon did not fully control "Watchmen" because he failed to reimburse Fox its development costs and to resubmit the project when key creative elements changed.
Gordon claims in his letter that during those negotiations, Fox sent his lawyer, Tom Hunter at the firm Bloom Dekom, a chain of title that did not include the 1991 quitclaim.
"It is Mr. Gordon's position that the execution of the 1994 turnaround agreement was the result of either a mutual mistake by both parties or a unilateral mistake made by his counsel, on which Mr. Gordon relied," the letter says.
Fox, Warner Bros. and Gordon's attorneys declined comment Thursday.
The development comes as the parties are scheduled to meet in Feess' courtroom today to determine a timeline for Feess to decide whether to issue an injunction blocking Warners' planned March 6 release of the potential tentpole.
Several sources have said settlement discussions are heating up, but both studios denied late Thursday that an agreement had been reached in the stalemate.
Also Thursday, "Watchmen's" other producer, Lloyd Levin, lashed out against Fox in an open letter screed posted on the Web site HitFix.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.
An open letter.
Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.
No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.
We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.
After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.
There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.
Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.
After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.
Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.
And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.
The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.
From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.
Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.
Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?
Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."
Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?
Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.
By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.
For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.
My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.
Lloyd Levin"
An open letter.
Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.
No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.
We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.
After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.
There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.
Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.
After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.
Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.
And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.
The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.
From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.
Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.
Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?
Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."
Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?
Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.
By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.
For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.
My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.
Lloyd Levin"
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Fox to Seek Order Delaying Watchmen Release
Source: The Associated Press December 29, 2008
An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen, according to The Associated Press.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the film, scheduled for release March 6.
Feess said Monday he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.
Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner Bros. in February. Warner Bros. contended Fox isn't entitled to distribution.
Warner Bros.' attorney said Monday he didn't know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely.
Source: The Associated Press December 29, 2008
An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen, according to The Associated Press.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the film, scheduled for release March 6.
Feess said Monday he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.
Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner Bros. in February. Warner Bros. contended Fox isn't entitled to distribution.
Warner Bros.' attorney said Monday he didn't know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
rolotomasi99
- Professor
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
- Location: n/a
- Contact:
this sucks. i do not care how they share the profits, i just hope it does not delay its release.
*Warner Bros. Loses Watchmen Suit*
Despite the fact that it has been more than ten years since Fox decided to abandon production based on the superheroes graphic novel Watchmen, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that it continued to own a copyright interest in the project. He advised Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures, which took over production of the film and plans to release its own Watchmen movie on March 6, to negotiate a settlement with Fox or appeal his decision. It was unclear how the dispute might be settled, although the judge appeared to suggest a way in his opinion. "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," he said.
*Warner Bros. Loses Watchmen Suit*
Despite the fact that it has been more than ten years since Fox decided to abandon production based on the superheroes graphic novel Watchmen, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that it continued to own a copyright interest in the project. He advised Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures, which took over production of the film and plans to release its own Watchmen movie on March 6, to negotiate a settlement with Fox or appeal his decision. It was unclear how the dispute might be settled, although the judge appeared to suggest a way in his opinion. "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," he said.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
BEWARE: MASSIVE, MASSIVE SPOILERS
WATCHMEN: THE FIRST 22 MINUTES
By Devin Faraci Published Yesterday
At this point I've seen about 45 or 50 minutes of Watchmen; I kind of wish I'd just get a chance to see the whole thing already, because viewing it piecemeal like this is giving me a Jon Osterman colored set of balls. The latest chunk of footage I saw was at Butt-Numb-A-Thon this weekend; while some people were bummed that the full film didn't play I understood the reasoning behind the scenes (even though I think showing an unfinished cut to that crowd would allow for serious positive buzz in the fan community, which is just waiting to turn on this picture).
Instead of the feature we got the first 22 minutes, introduced by Rorschach himself, Jackie Earl Haley. I had already seen the opening of the film through the credits, but what came after was new to me. It's also, I believe, the most important stuff I've seen yet, as I think it gives an idea of what the meat of this movie will look and feel like.
It will look and feel like a real movie.
That's a weird thing to say, but there are lots of people out there who, having only seen the trailers released to the public, are jumping to the conclusion that Zack Snyder has made a Watchmen filled with speed ramping and flashy money shots. From what I've seen this isn't even remotely true at all. The footage is stylish - well shot, with rich visuals and dynamic compositions - but it looked more like a modern take on a noir film than anything else. What I saw was moody, sometimes muted. Snyder allows his takes to be long, eschewing a quick cut style that many seem to think would rule the day in this film. The 22 minutes I saw didn't feel like an action film at all (except, of course, for the opening fight scene, which I've already described to you).
It was an interesting choice to show this footage and not just recycle what had been shown to the press. We got money shots in that presentation - The Comedian's death, the prison riot, Jon's origin - while the BNAT crowd got a more realistic representation of what the film would be like. It felt like a calculated decision to convince the fans that Watchmen is not 300 with superheroes.
So here's what I saw, starting after the credits:
The police stare out the broken window of the Comedian's apartment, discussing the crime. 30 stories below a figure holding a sign that reads "The End is Nigh" walks through the puddle of blood that is being sprayed off the sidewalk. The camera zooms away from the building, showing the alternate New York City of the story, filled with zeppelins and a huge Gunga Diner balloon.
Rorschach's narration begins, very faithful to the book. He rappels up the side of the building into the Comedian's apartment. Poking around, he discovers the Comedian's weapons cache and costume. The camera focuses in on a photo of The Minutemen, and then pulls out again, but this time the picture is hanging in Hollis Mason's apartment. We see other photos and newspaper headlines hanging on the wall, and a copy of Beneath the Hood, Mason's memoirs, on the table.
Mason is spinning stories of his days as the Nite Owl to Dan Dreiberg, the second Nite Owl. It's after midnight and Dan gets up to leave; they stop on the porch for a moment as rain falls outside and Hollis asks Dan if he ever misses the good old days. Dan says no, but it seems like he's lying. He leaves Hollis behind, and the camera lingers a moment on the sign for Hollis' auto body shop: Obsolete Models a Speciality. Much of the dialogue in this scene comes straight from the comic.
Dan walks home in the rain, and discovers that his front door has been kicked in. He walks into his brownstone cautiously, only to find Rorschach, mask up, eating cold canned beans at his kitchen table. When Rorschach tells him that the Comedian has been killed (the 'It's human bean juice' joke remains intact), they go down to the basement to talk more.
Again, this scene plays out pretty much the way it does in the book, with Dan and Rorschach discussing who might have killed the Comedian. Dan dismisses Rorschach's claim that it's a mask killer, and here was one of the deviations that might leave fans up in arms: Dan says to Rorschach 'Watchmen are over.'
You may remember there was some controversy when that line, and a Rorschach line about one of the Watchmen being killed turned up in the trailer. The Rorschach line is not delivered in the film the way it is in the trailer - ie, there's no mention of 'Watchmen' - but Dan's line is. Later in the Q&A Haley called the second, brief superhero team The Crimebusters, which leads me to believe means that 'Watchmen' is a phrase used in the film in place of superheroes or alternatively with vigilantes.
As Rorschach walks down the subway tunnel beneath Dan's house, Dan asks him whatever happened to the old days. "You quit," Rorschach responds. Dan sits before the display case of costumes and looks at the Comedian's blood-stained smiley face pin.
That was what we saw. The pace of these scenes were deliberate but not slow; Snyder isn't rushing the introductions of these characters. He's playing it like a drama. Still, I wonder if this stuff will be this way in the finished film - 22 minutes just took us to page 13 of the first issue (although some of Rorschach's voice over in the apartment search comes from his journal entries on page 14). Watching this footage helps you understand why the opening fight scene has been expanded - there's no more real action for some time in the story, and Snyder needs a way to hook virginal viewers into this story, especially because the first half hour is going to be a lot of exposition and background material. Between the credits and Hollis telling his stories there's a solid ten minutes of history; there's more history slipped into the Dan/Rorschach conversation.
The film is packed with details. Every frame seems to have something that lends depth to the world or background to the characters; there were elements in the opening scene that I missed the first time around and only caught here. This is definitely a movie that will have a high replay value, both for the uninitiated and the hardcore fan.
Finally, the performances seemed right on. Maybe it's because I've been seeing more and more of this footage over time, but both Patrick Wilson and Haley seem perfect in their roles. My first look at Stephen McHattie as Hollis Mason was a good one; he gets across a certain air of wistfulness without forcing it. He's also instantly likable, a trait that's key since he'll only be in a few short scenes in the film and his character needs to have an emotional pay off.
Even as a champion of the film I was surprised at how subdued some of this footage was. People who think they have a handle on who Zack Snyder is as a filmmaker are in for a big surprise when they finally get a chance to see Watchmen; neither Dawn of the Dead or 300 define who this guy is.
Edited By MovieWes on 1229547394
WATCHMEN: THE FIRST 22 MINUTES
By Devin Faraci Published Yesterday
At this point I've seen about 45 or 50 minutes of Watchmen; I kind of wish I'd just get a chance to see the whole thing already, because viewing it piecemeal like this is giving me a Jon Osterman colored set of balls. The latest chunk of footage I saw was at Butt-Numb-A-Thon this weekend; while some people were bummed that the full film didn't play I understood the reasoning behind the scenes (even though I think showing an unfinished cut to that crowd would allow for serious positive buzz in the fan community, which is just waiting to turn on this picture).
Instead of the feature we got the first 22 minutes, introduced by Rorschach himself, Jackie Earl Haley. I had already seen the opening of the film through the credits, but what came after was new to me. It's also, I believe, the most important stuff I've seen yet, as I think it gives an idea of what the meat of this movie will look and feel like.
It will look and feel like a real movie.
That's a weird thing to say, but there are lots of people out there who, having only seen the trailers released to the public, are jumping to the conclusion that Zack Snyder has made a Watchmen filled with speed ramping and flashy money shots. From what I've seen this isn't even remotely true at all. The footage is stylish - well shot, with rich visuals and dynamic compositions - but it looked more like a modern take on a noir film than anything else. What I saw was moody, sometimes muted. Snyder allows his takes to be long, eschewing a quick cut style that many seem to think would rule the day in this film. The 22 minutes I saw didn't feel like an action film at all (except, of course, for the opening fight scene, which I've already described to you).
It was an interesting choice to show this footage and not just recycle what had been shown to the press. We got money shots in that presentation - The Comedian's death, the prison riot, Jon's origin - while the BNAT crowd got a more realistic representation of what the film would be like. It felt like a calculated decision to convince the fans that Watchmen is not 300 with superheroes.
So here's what I saw, starting after the credits:
The police stare out the broken window of the Comedian's apartment, discussing the crime. 30 stories below a figure holding a sign that reads "The End is Nigh" walks through the puddle of blood that is being sprayed off the sidewalk. The camera zooms away from the building, showing the alternate New York City of the story, filled with zeppelins and a huge Gunga Diner balloon.
Rorschach's narration begins, very faithful to the book. He rappels up the side of the building into the Comedian's apartment. Poking around, he discovers the Comedian's weapons cache and costume. The camera focuses in on a photo of The Minutemen, and then pulls out again, but this time the picture is hanging in Hollis Mason's apartment. We see other photos and newspaper headlines hanging on the wall, and a copy of Beneath the Hood, Mason's memoirs, on the table.
Mason is spinning stories of his days as the Nite Owl to Dan Dreiberg, the second Nite Owl. It's after midnight and Dan gets up to leave; they stop on the porch for a moment as rain falls outside and Hollis asks Dan if he ever misses the good old days. Dan says no, but it seems like he's lying. He leaves Hollis behind, and the camera lingers a moment on the sign for Hollis' auto body shop: Obsolete Models a Speciality. Much of the dialogue in this scene comes straight from the comic.
Dan walks home in the rain, and discovers that his front door has been kicked in. He walks into his brownstone cautiously, only to find Rorschach, mask up, eating cold canned beans at his kitchen table. When Rorschach tells him that the Comedian has been killed (the 'It's human bean juice' joke remains intact), they go down to the basement to talk more.
Again, this scene plays out pretty much the way it does in the book, with Dan and Rorschach discussing who might have killed the Comedian. Dan dismisses Rorschach's claim that it's a mask killer, and here was one of the deviations that might leave fans up in arms: Dan says to Rorschach 'Watchmen are over.'
You may remember there was some controversy when that line, and a Rorschach line about one of the Watchmen being killed turned up in the trailer. The Rorschach line is not delivered in the film the way it is in the trailer - ie, there's no mention of 'Watchmen' - but Dan's line is. Later in the Q&A Haley called the second, brief superhero team The Crimebusters, which leads me to believe means that 'Watchmen' is a phrase used in the film in place of superheroes or alternatively with vigilantes.
As Rorschach walks down the subway tunnel beneath Dan's house, Dan asks him whatever happened to the old days. "You quit," Rorschach responds. Dan sits before the display case of costumes and looks at the Comedian's blood-stained smiley face pin.
That was what we saw. The pace of these scenes were deliberate but not slow; Snyder isn't rushing the introductions of these characters. He's playing it like a drama. Still, I wonder if this stuff will be this way in the finished film - 22 minutes just took us to page 13 of the first issue (although some of Rorschach's voice over in the apartment search comes from his journal entries on page 14). Watching this footage helps you understand why the opening fight scene has been expanded - there's no more real action for some time in the story, and Snyder needs a way to hook virginal viewers into this story, especially because the first half hour is going to be a lot of exposition and background material. Between the credits and Hollis telling his stories there's a solid ten minutes of history; there's more history slipped into the Dan/Rorschach conversation.
The film is packed with details. Every frame seems to have something that lends depth to the world or background to the characters; there were elements in the opening scene that I missed the first time around and only caught here. This is definitely a movie that will have a high replay value, both for the uninitiated and the hardcore fan.
Finally, the performances seemed right on. Maybe it's because I've been seeing more and more of this footage over time, but both Patrick Wilson and Haley seem perfect in their roles. My first look at Stephen McHattie as Hollis Mason was a good one; he gets across a certain air of wistfulness without forcing it. He's also instantly likable, a trait that's key since he'll only be in a few short scenes in the film and his character needs to have an emotional pay off.
Even as a champion of the film I was surprised at how subdued some of this footage was. People who think they have a handle on who Zack Snyder is as a filmmaker are in for a big surprise when they finally get a chance to see Watchmen; neither Dawn of the Dead or 300 define who this guy is.
Edited By MovieWes on 1229547394
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Has it occurred to anyone else that this could actually surpass The Passion of the Christ as the highest grossing R-rated film of all-time? Right now, unless the reviews are less than stellar, I think that $400 million is not impossible for Watchmen.
I think that, at the very least, The Matrix Reloaded is going down. I believe that $300 million is assured at this point, regardless of critical reception.
Edited By MovieWes on 1227028639
I think that, at the very least, The Matrix Reloaded is going down. I believe that $300 million is assured at this point, regardless of critical reception.
Edited By MovieWes on 1227028639
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)