'Watchmen' March ' 09 release in jeopardy?

The long, strange, improbable journey of Watchmen, from limited-run cult comic classic to widely acclaimed essential literary work to big-budget tentpole major-studio release, has taken yet another turn, and a rather ominous one (depending on your point of view, of course) at that. 20th Century Fox's lawsuit against Warner's and Legendary Pictures -- originally filed as principal photography was ending ten months ago -- alleging copyright infringement by WB and Legendary and seeking an injunction against its release by those companies, has just scored another in a series of major victories, the difference this time being that this latest one could very well be lethal to the WB / Legendary production. A prelimary ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess Wednesday clearly finds for the plaintiff, reading, in part: "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture". Feess will issue a more detailed ruling after the holiday recess.

This surprise determination comes just seven days after Feess had set a January 20 date for opening statements in one of the most high-dollar, high-profile, highly charged legal battles ever pursued by one major motion picture studio against another. Inasmuch as Feess appears -- oddly, without any motion for summary judgement having been made by either side -- to have sided with one participant before a single piece of evidence was introduced, witness was called or jury member was empaneled in the case, it is unclear at this time whether the trial will in fact continue as scheduled. Fox filed suit in Los Angeles District Court last February, alleging that it purchased the rights to the Watchmen graphic novel in 1986 and has retained them for over two decades, at a cost of an estimated $1 million in various development expenditures associated with the property. The suit demanded restitution by Warner Bros. and Legendary for Fox's outlays and also contended that producer Lawrence Gordon had violated his contract with Fox to develop the project when he began moving ahead with director Zack Snyder on the now-WB / Legendary production.

The rivalry between Fox and Warner's, dating back to their bidding war over First National Pictures in the late Twenties, has had many battlegrounds and casualties over the decades, but this is perhaps the ugliest and, potentially, the most costly chapter in this storied Hollywood feud. It is unknown what WB and Legendary's own expenses are at this time, but a New York Times piece on the lawsuit published last August estimates the film's budget at $120 million. (It is unknown whether additional material produced for a planned DVD / Blu-ray release, following the conclusion of Watchmen's theatrical run, is included in this cost estimate.) Given Watchmen's significant multimedia marketing effort, it's possible that the total cost of the production may exceed $150 million at this time, with that figure all but guaranteed to rise as the weeks tick by to its intended release date, March 6. This, of course, does not include potential litigation costs for both WB / Legendary and Fox, which may become the responsibility of whichever studio(s) ends up on the losing side.

Feess' language would seem to indicate that, at the very least, he will order WB and Legendary to share or even cede entirely all rights to Watchmen's domestic theatrical release. (Another possibility is that Judge Feess will strip Warner's and Legendary of ALL CLAIMS to the property, in perpetuity, including pay-per-view, cable and network television rights and remuneration, DVD and Blu-ray releases, potential future availability as a downloadable Internet property, and any other ancillary rights, such as licensing fees paid for property-related merchandise and print media publications. But I'd be absolutely flabbergasted if it went that far.) Assuming no mediation occurs in the very near future to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all concerned parties, WB and Legendary are almost certain to appeal to the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, and perhaps even to the U.S. Supreme Court. This would be sure to, at the very least, delay the theatrical release of Watchmen, perhaps significantly -- I'd be very, very surprised (take a shot!) if the Supremes took it on, so this could languish in the appeals process for months, even years, which might prove fatal to the property.

But I'd also be very, very surprised (take another shot!) if Fox is willing to settle this, at ANY price, at this time. With a series of legal victories clearly spelling out their prospects for some level of compensation and damages, they're in the driver's seat, and at this point might well favor bleeding the defendants for all they can get out of 'em. Not to in any way disparage or flame their obviously meritorious case, but it's the timing of Fox's actions, here, that strikes me as particularly nasty. They waited to file suit until WB and Legendary were on the verge of wrapping principal photography, which meant that they had already sunk huge money and effort into the production -- a move that seems to me a clear intent to inflict maximum potential disruption and financial damage on the defendants. It's no secret that Fox is fairly reeling from WB / Legendary's recent successes, particularly in the comic-to-screen franchise milieu, and is desperate to get back into that particular game with the forthoming aspiring franchise, X-Men Origins. Being able to claim even half of Watchmen's domestic revenues -- I rather suspect that, no matter what else may transpire, WB and Legendary will retain international distribution rights, which are likely to be only minimally profitable anyway -- would put Fox in the enviable position of earning pure profit (with virtually no expenses), while cutting deeply into, probably eliminating completely, their rivals' own potential financial gains from what to any studio would have to be considered a major investment. There is, in short, nothing but upside for Fox at this point, the very likely possibility of destroying WB / Legendary's moneymaking prospects while stuffing their pockets with the other studios' hard-won proceeds.

There are other possibilities, too. What happens if Feess -- or whatever other jurist eventually issues a final ruling on the case -- demands that Fox have a say in how the film is cut, marketed and merchandised? Fox could be successful in arguing that, now that they have a financial stake in the property, they ought to be given some measure of input into or control over how the project unfolds, as its success or failure will now reflect on Fox itself, whose production credit will now appear on all Watchmen materials. Might the film have to be re-edited? What if Fox objects to how the original Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons work was adapted for the screen? Is it possible that Snyder will have to agree to being backstopped by a co-director selected by Fox? I think you'd have to say that, at this point, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

I want to be very clear: I don't have a dog in this fight. I liked the selection of Snyder to helm Watchmen, and have been generally impressed with what I've seen out of the production, but some of the details I'm aware of, particularly with regard to modifications made to the original story, trouble me. I favor neither Fox nor Warner's, although I must say that, again speaking generally, I am a HUGE admirer of Legendary Pictures and of Warner's current efforts to build and weave together the Marvel Universe. And, of course, I despise the events that transpired between Fox and Warner's which had the effect of, respectively, ruining and retarding two of my most beloved comic franchises, X-Men and Superman. (Though I am unapologetic in my very vocal advocacy on behalf of Bryan Singer's woefully underappreciated Superman Returns.)

What I will say is this: Shit like this is BAD FOR THE ART FORM, PERIOD. We, the filmgoing and -loving public that frankly pay for these sorts of endeavours, will NOT be served by a Netscape-Microsoft-esque rivalry breaking out among two of the true giants of the medium. NOR will we benefit by such an inventive, risk-acceptant, forward-looking partnership as that between Legendary and WB taking a massive fiscal hit. NOR will we profit by the chilling effect that will no doubt result from a significant awarding of proceeds and creative control to a company other than that which actually MADE a film; one wonders if, in the wake of such a ruling, ANY studio would EVER again take on the massive legal challenges associated by, say, an adaptation of Spider-Man, or Lord of the Rings, much less the sort of complicated and multidimensional venture WB, Legendary and Paramount (another heavy hitter) are embarking upon with the forthcoming (for now, anyway) The Avengers. We can only suffer the consequences of stupidity, pay the wages of greed and look to a future of far safer, more santized cinema.

I honestly don't care who did what. As in the WB-Peter Jackson debacle that very nearly killed The Hobbit, I just want it straightened out and for the product to be preserved and protected from any extracirricular nonsense the lawyers and studio execs and their advisors are brewing. (To quote Leo McGarry of The West Wing: "Somebody, PLEASE, talk to somebody!") I want the eventual outcome to be fair, amicable and sensible, but, most of all, I don't want to be able to perceive its effects, either on the screen or on my calendar. I spent many of my formative years in the military, piddling around the Atlantic and the Med on nuclear-armed submarines constantly under threat of discovery and / or destruction, so I have a very very goal-oriented approach to most challenges. You don't f@$% around with blame-laying or bellyaching or butt-covering when the ship is under attack, whether that attack comes in the form of water, weather or war. You IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM. You WORK THE PROBLEM. You SOLVE THE PROBLEM. And, God willing, survive to bitch about it when everyone's back in port and still able to bloviate and browbeat and breathe air they can't see (and, therefore, don't trust).

Let's work the problem, people, and worry about who did what to whom later. Some money's going to change hands, I have no doubt of it, and, from the very little I know, it probably ought to. But right now, there's a movie that deserves to see the light of day, and I don't give a damn who screwed whom over -- if ANYONE prevents ME from seeing this film on March 6, I am personally going to rip open a can of whoop-ass and find some worthy soul whose lights I can punch out. I suffer neither foolishness nor the fools who manufacture it. I've been waiting two-thirds of my life for Watchmen, and I will be damned if I am going to wait any longer for it.

...Can I get an 'Amen'?

A Variety update, dated yesterday, is here: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1220001172.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

The NYT piece I mentioned above can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/business/media/19movie.html?_r=1&ref=business


This is just SO wrong.

Amen.

I think your completely right about Fox, they've had a shitty year and they're going to try and get as much out of this as they can.

This reminds me of the fight between Warner Bros., Sony and Sir Run Run Shaw over the Blade Runner rights, of which it took years to settle. But since this film doesn't have time for a long battle like that, I'd just expect a large settlement out of court while still meeting its release date.

My Idea Of A Scenario:

-Paramount keeps the foreign rights
-Warner Bros. keeps U.S. theatrical rights
-Fox gets from Warner Bros. the video/television/pay cable rights and possibly full domestic rights at the end of twenty years (similar to Blade Runner when Warner Bros. had theatrical rights but Embassy Pictures held video and television rights of the theatrical cut for many years before WB got all rights back in this decade)

What you proposed sounds pretty fair, Boussh (I really, really, really wish your secret identity was as a mild-mannered entertainment industry binding mediator: Anti-Litigation Man!), but the level of idiot brinksmanship going on here concerns me. I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that Fox was out to not merely earn compensation from WB / Legendary, but to POSITIVELY SCREW THEM TO THE WALL, forcing them to potentially throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in development, marketing and legal expenses and -- not making a judgement, here, just painting a picture -- fairly picking their pocket at the same time. Fox knew what was moving ahead over at Warner's for months, if not years, before a single frame of film was shot on Watchmen's set -- Hollywood is a company town, everyone at least talks to everyone else, if they're not (not necessarily figuratively, either) outright sleeping with each other. Literally, they added to insult to injury. Whatever their cause, whatever their case, THAT was simply malicious.

Neither does WB look likely to back down, as they could have at any time and avoided trial, which I am sure NO ONE -- except, of course, the attorneys involved -- really wants (Legendary may be in a rather different situation, however; despite the runaway success of The Dark Knight and decent earners like Batman Begins and 300, the company really isn't all that secure, financially. Lady in the Water, 10,000 B.C. and The Ant Bully were all fiscal and critical failures, and of course Superman Returns failed to generate anywhere near the revenue necessary to make any of its producers or financiers feel really comfortable about the future of that franchise. From what I understand, Spike Jonze's ambitious but -- putting it mildly -- schizophrenic Where the Wild Things Are is a total f@$%ing Charlie-Foxtrot; and the studio is already shoveling buckets of cash into future releases World of Warcraft, Paradise Lost and Gears of War (more on that in a minute). I admire Legendary's moxie, I do, but their nose is very much open right now. Like Pixar in its first decade or so, the failure of ANY release might place the company's entire existence in jeopardy; waving good-bye to the almost guaranteed $50 million-plus in profits it would no doubt net from Watchmen might drive a stake through the heart of Legendary, not to mention, ALL its uncompleted projects. Stay tuned.

I rather think we might see some sort of horse trade in the works, here -- it's a little complicated, but bear with me. Something I only remembered last night, after writing my initial piece on this matter, is that Legendary and WB practically STOLE Gears of War from 20th Century Fox; in a situation not terribly unlike the one detailed above regarding Watchmen's chaotic development as a feature film, Jeff Katz (a former writer of comics who was once VP of development and production at New Line), after less than a year and a half at Fox as production VP, suddenly left Fox for the upcoming WB / Legendary Pictures effort, and by some reports is overseeing production on the game adaptation for a Christmas 2010 release. (Legendary Pictures, not coincidentally, recently purchased Epic Games, the developer of the smash game.) Given Gears' potential viability as a multimedia property -- one could argue that its potential is far, far superior to that of Watchmen, which by necessity will have NO sequels and, for all its notoriety, is really a "household name" among only a fractional portion of the general filmgoing population -- its dominance among console and PC gamers, its potential for spawning an entire industry of related toys and games, not to mention paperback volumes and even comic books, it might not be too hard to imagine that Fox will relent and offer to take their compensation in the form of a significant share of and stake in Gears, so as to avoid reducing the Watchmen property to smoking rubble. And WB / Legendary might well be motivated to reach the same conclusion -- ESPECIALLY since Fox could very well have ANOTHER action on their hands against WB and Legendary, concerning the arguably below-board manner in which Gears of War slipped out of their control.

(Note the timing of Katz's departure from Fox, btw. Clearly, his bouncing around didn't exactly provoke Fox's suit against WB / Legendary with regards to Watchmen, but it couldn't have helped matters, either. I guess he forgave WB for shitcanning New Line, yeah?)

It's becoming very very clear to me that, behind the scenes and out of the sight of practically every single media outlet in the world, a savage, brutal, costly covert war is being waged between Fox, WB, and WB's proxy Legendary, one that no one is talking about but that may well affect the near future of the industry, particularly with regard to comic-book properties, which are becoming the bread and butter of some studios. Since no one else is covering this, I intend to. Again, stay tuned.

Here are some of the sources and media reports I found useful while researching this story:

Katz's initial Spring 2007 departure from New Line for Fox was profiled here: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964711.html?categoryid=30&cs=1

Variety's October 23 report detailing Legendary's acquisition of Epic Games may be read here: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994567.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

newsarama.com had an EXTREMELY interesting sit-down with Katz, in which he hinted at the reasons for his abrupt departure from Fox, as well as his future plans, available here: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090812-JeffKatz.html

Also, MTV Multiplayer recently interviewed Katz regarding Gears...and another comic-to-film project he was until very recently involved with: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/11/25/film-exec-did-gears-deal-over-xbl-now-talks-wolverine/

(Interestingly, btw, Katz is listed NOWHERE on Fox's production credits for X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But, then, neither is he currently listed for Gears of War, or on ANY publicly available profile of current WB or Legendary Pictures employees that I could run down. Hm.)

I'll keep ya posted...


This only happens in cartoons.

Swedgin! wrote: Jeff Katz (a former writer of comics who was once VP of development and production at New Line)

What comics did this guy ever write?

My hope, one that I'm sure would never happen, is that the suit costs enough that it shuts down both companies completely. I hear the Watchman, of which the entire comic-con panel agreed needed to be 3 hours, was cut to 1 hr 45 min...which is not nearly enough time to tell the story. And Fox would have done the same. Fuck all of these companies who would ruin art for the sake of dumbing down a product to make it more palatable for the idiot mainstream who read US Weekly and think what happens in Britney Spears life is actual news. They both can go to hell.

Ugh...I have a feeling this movie is just going to be a disaster...

Wow, Fox is unbelievable. You know it's bad when a baby studio has had a bigger hit than one of the original studios in Hollywood (Summit - Twilight).

Fox is fail in every way fathomable.

The further I get into this book, the more this thread makes me want to cry.

BanksIsDaFuture wrote:Wow, Fox is unbelievable. You know it's bad when a baby studio has had a bigger hit than one of the original studios in Hollywood (Summit - Twilight).

Fox is fail in every way fathomable.

Marley and Me may pass Twilight though. $50 million in four days is very promising and it's also a legs film. $200 million is very possible.

And Summit reminds me of Orion Pictures in the late 1980's-early 1990's. They have big hits (Dances With Wolves, The Silence Of The Lambs, RoboCop) but have even more flops (UHF, The Hot Spot, State Of Grace, Erik The Viking, RoboCop 3) and the flops end up biting them in the ass.

Buscemi wrote:


And Summit reminds me of Orion Pictures in the late 1980's-early 1990's. They have big hits (Dances With Wolves, The Silence Of The Lambs, RoboCop) but have even more flops (UHF, The Hot Spot, State Of Grace, Erik The Viking, RoboCop 3) and the flops end up biting them in the ass.

Comeon, UHF is a classic!

geezer9687 wrote:The further I get into this book, the more this thread makes me want to cry.

Geez - As I keep telling people, it only gets better the farther you get into it. It jsut makes you wonder how so much amazing shit can be in one person's brain.

From what I have heard from Zack Snyder, he has filmed the Pirate comic scenes (Tales of the Black Freighter), and that they will appear on the DVD.

You would have to be familiar with the inner workings of the DC offices of the mid 80's to understand what Moore was trying to do with the TotBF aspect of Watchmen.

Mannix2121 wrote:

Buscemi wrote:


And Summit reminds me of Orion Pictures in the late 1980's-early 1990's. They have big hits (Dances With Wolves, The Silence Of The Lambs, RoboCop) but have even more flops (UHF, The Hot Spot, State Of Grace, Erik The Viking, RoboCop 3) and the flops end up biting them in the ass.

Comeon, UHF is a classic!

I really like UHF too (and Yankovic especially), but it was a big flop when it first came out and hurt Orion badly. People didn't notice it until it came to video.

things are looking grim for the scheduled release date......

though we might not hear anything official until jan 20

Well. Unsuprisingly, the last week or so has emphatically NOT led to cooler heads prevailing in the orgasm of insanity that has become known as Fox v. Warner Bros., Legendary Pictures et al. Both sides are digging in, which might be noble and admirable were the whole situation not so completely and totally f@$%ed up, and if all participants weren't so positively and irredeemably full of shit.

In a statement released Tuesday (as if anyone but the fiercest partisans and most singularly devoted, not to mention the hopelessly Stridex-addicted, noticed), WB said:

"We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options. We continue to believe that Fox’s claims have no merit and that we will ultimately prevail, whether at trial or in the Court of Appeals."

...which is lawyer-speke for, "Be f@$%ed, Fox. We'll see you assholes in court."

Conventional wisdom seems to favor the notion that Fox is angling for a high-dollar settlement and/or a substantial piece of the eventual Watchmen pie. However, I disagree. As I outlined last week, there's a simply extraordinary amount of bad blood between these two Hollywood giants, decade upon decade of salvos and slights, outflanking and (pun not particularly intended) outfoxing, hate and discontent; projects won and lost, properties acquired and burgled, talent wooed and won over, culminating (thus far) with this, a knife fight on the crumbling edge of an abyss between two proud, stubborn, stupid titans. A few days ago I characterized it as the Hatfields versus the McCoys... I was wrong. It's the Israelis versus the Palestinians, the Spartans versus the Persians, the Romulans versus the Klingons, the Henricksons versus the Grants, the Clintons versus the Obamas. Frankly, at this point I wish it would blow up BOTH studios -- let's face it, there are no good guys to root for here, only variously assorted thieves, miscreants and cluster-f@$%s -- and leave the film miraculously unmolested, but this is reality, not fantasy, and, with all apologies to Jim Kirk, there IS such a thing as the no-win scenario, and (as Watchmen most emphatically asserts) sometimes justice can prevail and STILL knock the whole bloody mess into a cocked hat. This is brinksmanship at its most idiotic, Russian roulette with a loaded gun, scorched earth with no place to retreat to... in other words, mutually assured obstruction. And, like all wars, it will spare -- reward, even -- the jerks who started it, and only ever injure the innocent, and burn a whole lot of real estate down in the process.

It looks like this is going to court after all, unless someone starts making actual sense, which in the echo chamber of La-la Land is about as likely as Jack Kevorkian being named Surgeon General. Within the next three weeks, expect to see Watchmen's release postponed INDEFINITELY. What effect this whole fiasco might have on the film, as a potential entertainment property, is debatable... For some titles, ANY publicity is ultimately to the good, but other, less robust investments can and often do take a major hit from these sorts of shenanigans, as the general theatergoing public is likely to remember nothing other than that a film that was SUPPOSED to come out, didn't, and that CAN'T be a good thing, folks. This is already a crowded year, and my bet would be that, regardless of the outcome of litigation, the film won't be released until the next holiday season. Under whose masthead it will finally appear, no one can be sure at this time. But I'd wager that Fox is just as likely to try and KILL THE MOVIE ALTOGETHER -- claim title to it, take possession of it, and seal it in a concrete bunker until the end of time, like the automatic windshield wiper, the Ark of the Covenant and the records of who got what after the first U.S. Government bailout of the banks -- as they are to attempt to profit off its release, even on a rival studio's dime. Which would really, really, really piss me off, folks, so much so that I might consider boycotting Fox and ALL its releases -- theatrical, DVD, television -- until same end of time, f@$% them very much. Being right doesn't give you license to be a punk-ass bitch, you feel me?

In other words: For those Super Contest participants eyeing the film adaptation of, arguably, the best graphic novel of all time, I'd be cautious to commit. Who will watch the Watchmen? In 2009, the answer might very well be: NO ONE.


I SO have a stiffy right now

[quote="Buscemi"]

BanksIsDaFuture wrote:\
Marley and Me may pass Twilight though. $50 million in four days is very promising and it's also a legs film. $200 million is very possible.

True, true. But Marley was a HUGE surprise, probably even to the FOX execs themselves.

But you know a studio is floundering when it releases 20 movies and not one makes over $80 million, sans Marley & Me & Horton Hears A Who. Especially considering some of those cost a considerable amount more than that to make and market (I'm looking at The Day The Earth Stood Still, Jumper, The Happening, Australia, etc).

Don't forget Meet Dave.

This suit seems like the film Flash Of Genius (few people saw it but it was a really good film). Warner Bros. is Robert Kearns, Fox is the Big Three car companies, place your bets now!

Watchmen Featurette

Well. The theatrical release of Watchmen itself may be flirting with disaster (or oblivion, depending on what you read and how much you're inclined to believe), but the [Spoiler! swipe] Tales of the Black Freighter DVD appears to have garnered an 'R' rating, which ought to please fans of the original graphic novel.

No word yet on its release date.


The world will look up and shout, "Save us!" ...And I'll whisper, "Good grief!"

Swedge... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the super-cyan albeit painful to look at, is not in fact invisible.

Yeah but at least if you see it you do know that its a spoiler alert and you can avert your eyes before reading it.

Apparently, WB has agreed to let the District Judge in the case rule unilaterally (summary judgement), forgoing the prospect of a trial. It's clear now that WB is hoping to fast-track an appeal, probably to ensure they can still release Watchmen on-time. I wish them good luck, but I have a feeling the first thing that the Fox attorneys will do after Warner's files its papers with the appelate court will be to ask the high court to stay the film's release.

This is looking grimmer and grimmer.

becs: I'd prefer a different font color, but that may be the only feature here at the AlternaFantaverse that doesn't quite live up to the original.


"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." --Shakespeare (Henry VI)

Swedgin, bring me the picture of Lloyd Christmas maniacally killing Mary's husband in Dumb and Dumber. That should be Warner Bros. right now.

Erm, no. Shan't.


When George met Dick: Commander-in-Chief and Commanderer

I really saw Lloyd Christmas as Warner Bros. and his antagonists (such as Mental and Mary's husband) as Fox.