quote:

ORIGINAL: Stewie_Griffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM


Movies would be much better without studios, frankly.

Who would finance the movies then?

quote:

No, not drunk. But doesn't all this nonsense piss you off too?

I guess it takes a certain type of person to empathise with a large corporation over a fan's simple (and purer) desire to just see a movie and it must take a certain type of person to equate greed with profit - they aren't the same thing at all - and one of the problems with the world is that certain companies are not happy with simply making a fair profit, but somehow think they deserve more than that (i.e. greed). Don't brand me naive either - I know the way the world works, but if you have learned any wisdom in your life then you must surely see that 'the way the world works' does not always mean that it should work like that and meekly accepting the status quo only ensures that things will never improve. We may not have the power to change things ourselves individually, but we do have the freedom to voice our displeasure - and that's what I'm doing.

You don't seriously think Fox hold the moral high ground or moral 'right' here, surely? They never had any intention of making the movie, only spent $1m on developing it the entire time they had it and while they may be entitled to something ($1m + inflation sounds about right) then I don't see how a legal loophole which failed to be closed (rather than a wholesale deliberate ignoring of existing rights, which is what you seem to be implying) equates to Fox deserving a sizeable proportion of the profits from the work which WB financed. I'm not saying WB are any less corrupt and greedy than Fox btw, but that was never my point anyway - just that the legal shenanigans are just downright fucking annoying for us (me) as fans.

Stick the legal rights and wrongs where the sun don't shine, frankly - I don't care - I just want to see the fucking movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM

No, not drunk.  But doesn't all this nonsense piss you off too?

I guess it takes a certain type of person to empathise with a large corporation over a fan's simple (and purer) desire to just see a movie and it must take a certain type of person to equate greed with profit - they aren't the same thing at all - and one of the problems with the world is that certain companies are not happy with simply making a fair profit, but somehow think they deserve more than that (i.e. greed).  Don't brand me naive either - I know the way the world works, but if you have learned any wisdom in your life then you must surely see that 'the way the world works' does not always mean that it should work like that and meekly accepting the status quo only ensures that things will never improve.  We may not have the power to change things ourselves individually, but we do have the freedom to voice our displeasure - and that's what I'm doing. 

You don't seriously think Fox hold the moral high ground or moral 'right' here, surely?  They never had any intention of making the movie, only spent $1m on developing it the entire time they had it and while they may be entitled to something ($1m + inflation sounds about right) then I don't see how a legal loophole which failed to be closed (rather than a wholesale deliberate ignoring of existing rights, which is what you seem to be implying) equates to Fox deserving a sizeable proportion of the profits from the work which WB financed.  I'm not saying WB are any less corrupt and greedy than Fox btw, but that was never my point anyway - just that the legal shenanigans are just downright fucking annoying for us (me) as fans.

Stick the legal rights and wrongs where the sun don't shine, frankly - I don't care - I just want to see the fucking movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM

Also... your reasoning re: not getting pissed about anything until it actually happens...

Come on - you don't really believe that do you?  That's like someone telling you they're going to punch you in the face and not doing anything until after they've done it...
It's like the government telling you they're going to put up taxes and not protesting until they already have.  Fox has made clear their intent - to delay or stop the movie (and your reassurances to the contrary mean diddly in all honesty - even though I know you're probably correct, I'm not prepared to stay meekly quiet just because you think it'll all work out for the best in the end...), so it's only natural to react to the intent, not wait until the damage is done.  Doesn't matter if venting on a movie forum is ultimately futile and has no bearing on what actually happens - who doesn't feel like moaning when outside forces threaten to spoil one's buzz?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM
Frankly, the judge should have made a common sense ruling and stated that if a license is not actually used (and shows no likelihood of being used in the near future), then if another company is prepared to front up and invest in the property then said value of existing 'dormant' license should have a capped 'value' ($1m sounds about right). 

quote:

Your legal thinking is a little odd KeithM. Just because someone isn't using something they own the rights to doesn't mean a judge can force them to sell. It's still their property. They own the rights to it! Is that so hard to understand? It may annoy you but...... so what? Who are you to complain about who does what with their properties? They can do whatever the hell they want with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Terrific

quote:

Your legal thinking is a little odd KeithM. Just because someone isn't using something they own the rights to doesn't mean a judge can force them to sell. It's still their property. They own the rights to it! Is that so hard to understand? It may annoy you but...... so what? Who are you to complain about who does what with their properties? They can do whatever the hell they want with it.

WB are at fault too. They new this when they started making the film...its a mess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert
Well, it's not actually like either of those things

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert
A lot of properties will have a time limit on them and the rights revert to the original owner eventually. Not all deals are like this.

quote:

In this case Fox owned the right to distribute the movie.

quote:


Also, why does $1m "sound right" to you? What are you basing that on?

quote:

Your legal thinking is a little odd KeithM. Just because someone isn't using something they own the rights to doesn't mean a judge can force them to sell. It's still their property. They own the rights to it! Is that so hard to understand? It may annoy you but...... so what? Who are you to complain about who does what with their properties? They can do whatever the hell they want with it.

quote:

This thread has everything. Right wing conspiricies, corporate greed, an occasional piece of cogent analysis muddled in with idealistic musings. It's nothing if not entertaining.

There are no good guys in this scenario. I read the court documents from the first trial in August and have been following this mess since before then.

Fox bought the rights (from DC which is ironically owned by Time Warner) to Watchmen in the late 80's. Work started by Larry Gordon's production company ( which was then under an exclusive contract with Fox). The budget required was obscene and the production stalled.

In 1991 Gordon's contract was ended by mutual agreement. As part of the severence he was allowed to take a few titles including Watchmen, but only under certain conditions, primary of which was that Fox retained distribution rights should in future it go into production. This was framed in the usual opaque language lawyers love so much.

Of course this means everything depends on the interpretation of the document. One interpretation is that the agreement was merely an option to acquire the rights in the future (ie first dibs to Gordon to buy them if he chose to). If that is the case, as Gordon never took up the option Fox will still own all the rights. Another interpretation is that Fox gave Gordon all the rights, but retained the right to distribute. If that is the case Fox still has the right of first refusal. Warner's view was that Gordon got all the rights, but I cannot see for the life of me how that can be. It appears neither can the Judge.

The document containing the above agreement was the one Warner claimed to derive its rights to Watchmen from.

To add another layyer of confusion in 1994 a separate agreement was undertaken between Fox and Gordon, containing further conditions Gordon must comply with to exercise his option. .

This document reads even worse from Warner's position as it gave Fox the right to reassess its position every time an element changed, and opt to finance the project internally. A new director comes on board; Fox gets first right of refusal. A new script treatment; Fox gets first right of refusal. And so on it goes. Of course they retained the right to distribute from before.

Warner claimed ignorance of this. However due dilligence dictates that when someone purports to sell something the purchaser should bloody well make sure the seller has the right to sell it. If they don't they will still be bound by any pre existing rights, and any rights they obtain can be usurped. This is the crux of the Caveat Emptor ("let the buyer beware") doctrine, and only in very specific conditions will this be undermined

The first step in any investigation is to trace the chain of ownership to a good root of title. Here the original 80's Fox acquisition is absolutely certain, everything after is questionable. Warner should have at least asked Fox what rights it claimed at this point; it appears it didn't. If Fox had refused to play ball at this point it would look very bad for it later if they tried to rely on the document.

Later when Fox sent notice of its purported rights this should have set alarm bells ringing, but all they did was sent an incredibly patronising letter back to Fox and carried on their merry way. All of this occurred before Fox went to court in mid February. to claim they sat back and waited until Warner had reached post production is not only wrong it would be legally stupid. If you sit on something in such a way as to unreasonably inflate the claim you are liable to have this used against you. Then awards will be reduced and in extremem cases the entire claim can be struck out.

Fox then had no choice but to issue proceedings. If they didn't they would not be looking out for the company's best interests, and the shareholders would be able to file suit against them.

Warner really should have seen this all coming, especially seeing as the lawyers they employ charge enormous fees, and are supposed to be among the best. It's possible they did and took an educated risk that the potential profits outweighed any expense incurred by continuing.

That isn't to say Fox is without blame; and they certainly can't claim to be the good guys. They didn't pursue the issue any of the myriad times it almost got off the ground before; at least as far as we know. This very issue may have directly contributed to the project's previous collapses. It also does smell a little greedy from the outside. Fox certainly has done little to appear to be anything other than a greedy manipulative entity over the last few years. But to label them the bad guys in this situation is just wrong.

The worst part of this whole mess is that Larry Gordon would probably have been within his rights to exercise his option at any time up to the point where production started. This would have likely cost less than a couple of million dollars and would have averted this whole mess. Now the legal costs alone are likely to be more than that.

Warner's moral position here is in no way better than Fox's. Fox is merely asserting the rights it bought and paid for, and claims to still have. DC which is part of the same parent compay as Warner has been at odds with Alan Moore since the 80's over Watchmen, and in particular with respect to his rights to royalties. DC is certainly no stranger to rights issues; they recently lost a case against the heirs of the creators of Superman.

Whatever happens from here it seems that Fox has a very strong position from which to negotiate. If they do get the injunction they seek, and the judge here has granted them before in similar cases, Warner will be forced to settle.

Everything we are reading from both sides at the moment is posturing, and while it isn't impossible that this will be resolved soon, I won't be holding my breath.

I hope I'm proven wrong on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ROThornhill

Rumours are that this is as much (if not more) about the DVD release rights to the Adam West Batman TV series. Fox made it but Warners own the characters. Only the 1966 movie has had a DVD release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedrin

I confidently predict that when the film is released, those most enraged by a delay to the release date, or the possibility of a delay to the release date, will be the most likely to wish that Fox had ensured that this film never seen the light of day. In other words, following its theatrical release, the backlash of disappointment against Watchmen will be epic compared to the backlash against Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You left out Option 4, "Greengrass Should Have Directed It"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedrin

I confidently predict that when the film is released, those most enraged by a delay to the release date, or the possibility of a delay to the release date, will be the most likely to wish that Fox had ensured that this film never seen the light of day. In other words, following its theatrical release, the backlash of disappointment against Watchmen will be epic compared to the backlash against Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.



Let me guess; you think it's 'unfilmable'/would be better as a mini-series/should have been directed by Gilliam/if they have to sacrifice even one frame of the comic then it will be an abomination and will lead to The Rapture?


Why not wait until you've seen it before making predictions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedrin

I confidently predict that when the film is released, those most enraged by a delay to the release date, or the possibility of a delay to the release date, will be the most likely to wish that Fox had ensured that this film never seen the light of day. In other words, following its theatrical release, the backlash of disappointment against Watchmen will be epic compared to the backlash against Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Let me guess; you think it's 'unfilmable'/would be better as a mini-series/should have been directed by Gilliam/if they have to sacrifice even one frame of the comic then it will be an abomination and will lead to The Rapture?


Why not wait until you've seen it before making predictions?

quote:


http://www.dccomics.com/heroes_and_villains/?hv=origin_stories/mr_terrific

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert

I got the impression that he was speaking as someone predicting the film would suck. If I'm wrong I'll happily apologise to Thedrin.