Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.
RSS

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Friday January 16, 2009 07:53am EST

The countdown to midnight is a go: Watchmen legal issues resolved.

Pablo Defendini

Well, it seems that the Watchmen fiasco is finally at an end, according to the Hollywood Reporter:

Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over “Watchmen,” with the studios scheduled to present a settlement to Judge Gary Feess this morning and request that the case be dismissed.

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but the deal is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film’s boxoffice grosses; Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it co-own the “Watchmen” property, but it will share in revenue derived from it. The studios released a joint statement last night.

This outcome is no surprise, and shouldn’t be to anyone not willing to make a tempest in a teacup. This was never about not letting the movie come out—it was about Fox wanting a piece of the action on something that they foolishly didn’t know what to do with when they originally had it in front of them on a silver platter (what? Fox screwing up a science fiction property? Naaaah).

Details are lacking, and it may be too early to tell, but one good thing may come of this, though (aside from Fox getting a bunch of money they didn’t have to work for, that is): if Fox and the Warners “will share in revenue derived from [Watchmen]”, it may put the preliminary kibbosh on any ill-advised sequels or spinoffs down the road. That, my friends, is a good, good thing.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: Movies
tags: watchmen, litigation, Fox, Warner Brothers

4 comments
Ben R
1.  sphericaltime
VIEW ALL BY · Friday January 16, 2009 09:41am EST
Hallelujah!

You say that this was never about not letting the movie come out, but if Fox didn't think it was getting a fair cut there was no reason for them to allow it to play. Aside from which, it assumes that they're bright enough to understand what is in their best interest.
Pablo Defendini
2.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Friday January 16, 2009 11:02am EST
Well, I suppose. But really, that depends on what you mean by a "fair cut". Fox had their chance to develop Watchmen, and they didn't know what to do with it. The Warners thought they'd acquired the rights (in good faith, I'm assuming. I could be wrong, but hey, who knows?) and proceeded to make something that, by all accounts, seems to be an amazing adaptation.

That's like me having a beautiful piece of double-sided, hand-crafted paper. At a loss as to what to do with it, I set it aside, and you pick it up some time later and make an origami swan out of it. You then start selling origami swans made out of this beautiful paper.

How would you feel if I came to you and demanded a cut from your swan sales? Not too happy about it, I would imagine.
Greg Morrow
3.  gpmorrow
VIEW ALL BY · Friday January 16, 2009 01:49pm EST
This is the second case in a few years that Warners has failed to adequately clear the rights for a tentpole film, the other being "The Dukes of Hazzard", in which they acquired rights to the TV series ... but not the film the TV series was based on. Again resolved by a last minute lawsuit by the rightsholders and big settlement by Warners.

There's a distinct smell of blood in the water, I think. And if I were in Warners' clearance office, I'd be looking around real nervous-like.
Pablo Defendini
4.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Friday January 16, 2009 05:51pm EST
@gpmorrow

Yeah, I'm aware of the Dukes instance. It certainly seems as if there's a slack-ass rights researcher somewhere in Warner's clearance office.

Either that, or a cynical exec who figures it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. I'm split even-steven on which it could be.
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):