Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Search   
Empire Magazine and iPad
Follow Me on Pinterest YouTube Tumblr
Empire
Trending On Empire
The Future Of Film
The 100 Greatest Video Games
Robin Williams: The Big Interview
Kevin Feige:
My Movie Life

The Marvel supremo's pick of the flicks
Want To Be An Empire Journalist?
Find out how here
Movie News

LATEST HEADLINES
TODAY
Matt Damon May Tackle The Great Wall
He's considering Zhang Yimou's epic
The Maze Runner Sequel Has A Release Date
Prepare for Scorch Trials in 2015
Angelina Jolie Will Direct Poaching Tale Africa
A new true-life story
New Red Band Trailer For The Interview
Seth Rogen and James Franco are on a mission
The Maze Runner Sprints To The Top Of The US Box Office
A Walk Among The Tombstones strolls in second
More Movie News

RELATED NEWS
04 March 2014
Zack Snyder Blast Back At Gilliam's Watchmen
'I made it to save it from the Terry Gilliams of this world'
More Movie News

RELATED REVIEWS
Watchmen (2009)
Empire Star Rating
More new cinemas releases
DVD & Blu-ray releases

Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
First ruling goes against Warners

29 December 2008  |  Written by Helen O'Hara  |  Source: Variety

submit to reddit

Uh-oh. The release date for Watchmen is up in the air after the first judgment in the legal tussle for distribution rights between Fox and Warners went against the latter.

The issue is whether 20th Century Fox had (essentially) first right of refusal when Paramount put the film in turnaround a couple of years ago, rather than Warners, who have gone on to make the film. The preliminary ruling on Christmas Eve by a Los Angeles federal judge is that Fox has - at least - a copyright interest giving them the right to distribute the film, and suggested that the parties might want to start settling or appealing even before the main trial begins on January 20.

What does any of this mean or matter? Well, if the question can't be settled, the film's release could be delayed in the US (where Warners is currently to distribute), and that could have a knock-on effect to the release date for the rest of the world (where Paramount is the distributor). The worst case scenario would see the film mothballed while the dispute rolls on, but with the excitement at fever pitch and the fans baying for release, it's in neither studio's interest to shelve it indefinitely. Still, there will be tense moments and a whole lot of negotiation between the studios between now and the planned March 6 release date, so watch this space for more as we get it.


Have Your Say
To comment on this, and all articles, register for free or login now.

Inglourious Basterds Gets A Release Date
Tarantino goes to war on August 21
Exclusive Transformers 2 Images
On set with Bay's blockbuster sequel

Your Comments

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: thedrin I suspect that a good adaption is possible and I am nervous by Zach Snyder's apparent wish to stick as closely to the source as possible. ang on.  Snyder's intent to be faithful makes you nervous and is why you think he's unsuitable?   Excellent logic there. More

Posted by KeithM at 22:40 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: thedrin My objection is Snyder's suitability than because I think any one particular is especially suitable. n what way? More

Posted by Wilbert at 21:43 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
I don't have any specific director in mind. Didn't Gilliam give up on it because he couldn't put together an adaption he was satisfied with? That would make him a very bad choice for director. I'd be largely indifferent to Greengrass directing. My objection is Snyder's lack of suitability rather than because I think any one particular is especially suitable. More

Posted by thedrin at 20:51 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
Excuse my maths. I meant Options 3 or 5. More

Posted by Olaf at 20:44 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: Olaf L: thedrin L: Wilbert L: 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 t More

Posted by thedrin at 20:43 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: thedrin L: Wilbert L: 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 Sku More

Posted by Olaf at 20:37 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
://www.dccomics.com/heroes_and_villains/?hv=origin_stor ies/mr_terrific]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. do expect it to be a poor film, but I wasn't saying that in my first post. More

Posted by thedrin at 20:37 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: Wilbert L: 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. et me gu More

Posted by thedrin at 20:36 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
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. More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:33 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: thedrin dently 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.er 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 thi More

Posted by Mr Terrific at 20:29 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: Olaf You left out Option 4, "Greengrass Should Have Directed It"... knew I'd forgotten something! More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:14 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
You left out Option 4, "Greengrass Should Have Directed It"... More

Posted by Olaf at 19:52 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
L: 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. et me guess; you think it More

Posted by Wilbert at 19:36 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Watchmen Caught In Legal Confusion
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. More

Posted by thedrin at 18:50 on 04 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: Batman 1966
L: 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. 'm not completely sure about this, but I read somewhere that the sticking point with the Batman TV series is not with Warner but over a dispute with the family of one of the producers. As the series pre-dates Warner's aquisition of DC and it's properties they only obtained what More

Posted by Dpp1978 at 23:57 on 03 January 2009 | Report This Post

Batman 1966
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. More

Posted by ROThornhill at 10:36 on 02 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: The real villain...
read 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 More

Posted by Mr Terrific at 19:57 on 01 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: The real villain...
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 ( whi More

Posted by Dpp1978 at 18:01 on 01 January 2009 | Report This Post

RE: The real villain...
Having just read an article over at /Film, it would appear that Watchmen has indeed been delayed indefinately! ooks like that graphic novel will be getting an airing afterall! More

Posted by losthighway at 20:26 on 31 December 2008 | Report This Post

The real villain...
KeithM makes some good points - the fact is that so many aspects of copyright and IP law need a lot of work. The understanding of these has only recently taken off. This particular case of turnaround rights and the "changed elements" clause is not simple at all. Lawrence Gordon appears to be the villain here. He bought the rights from Fox (Fox contends not all the rights) and sold it to WB. Gordon made it clear to them that he owned all the rights when he sold it to WB. WB at first did not know More

Posted by vineethchacko at 06:13 on 31 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: 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.ll deals should have a time limit then.  Simple solution to what people go out of their way to make complicated, and that especially includes copyright lawyers. case Fox owned the right to distribute the movie.ays the judge in a "surprise ruling" (NY Times words - link seems to have gone awol though) - which at the very least indicates t More

Posted by KeithM at 21:05 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
I guess these things just don't bother me. More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:49 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: Wilbert Well, it's not actually like either of those thingshen you've missed my point - which was Stated Intent - Action - Reaction is not the way we generally deal with stuff - it's rather Stated Intent - Reaction - Action - Reaction.  Perhaps my metaphors were just bad, but I hope that clears up what I meant. Also though, please don't mistake the odd strongly worded typed forum posts as being the same thing as 'anger' - this isn't anger, this is... SPARTA!!! (sorry, lost my be More

Posted by KeithM at 20:39 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: Mr Terrific gal 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.B are at fault too. They new this when they started making the film...its a mess. bsol More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:39 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
gal 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.B are at fault too. They new this when they started making the film...its a mess. More

Posted by Mr Terrific at 20:27 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: 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).  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. More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:20 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
To back Ghidorah's point up - yes, every company wants to 'get as much money as possible', but some go about that by providing a quality product that people are happy to pay for - others, like Fox, don't give a damn about the product's quality or the customer experience (not that they've never produced anything good, just that those were more than likely good anyway despite Fox's involvement, not because of it) - they just churn stuff out and hope (as it seems that have no expertise or judgemen More

Posted by KeithM at 20:12 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: KeithM Also... your reasoning re: not getting pissed about anything until it actually happens... Come on - you don't really believe that do you?  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 havehas made clear their intent - to delay or stop the movie (and your reassurances to the contrary mean diddly More

Posted by Wilbert at 20:05 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Over the years Fox reputation has taken a beating thanks to it ever growing sloppy films and shit in my eyes sequels. While some of their films has been good but they haven't released an excellent one in years. When the World Stand still is a brilliant example. Reviewers were not allowed to publish their review until the pre release date and the film got a massive hammering. Fox went to such a length to hide the fact the film sucks in most people opinion. Another good example when AVPR and X More

Posted by Ghidorah at 19:58 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
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 d More

Posted by KeithM at 19:33 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Calm down?  Fuck no.  Where's the fun in that? 'm hardly bursting blood vessels here - just typing words. More

Posted by KeithM at 19:24 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Da CHUD take. chud.com/articles/articles/17576/1/WHAT-SORT-OF-ALAN-MO ORE-BLACK-MAGICK-IS-THIS/Page1.html More

Posted by Mr Terrific at 17:55 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: 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 ] profit, but somehow think they deserve more than that (i.e. gr More

Posted by Wilbert at 16:18 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
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 n More

Posted by Mr Terrific at 16:07 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: Stewie_Griffin L: KeithM Movies would be much better without studios, frankly. /quote] Who would finance the movies then? do hope that was tongue in cheek or you need a course in irony recognition. More

Posted by KeithM at 15:46 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
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 ] profit, but somehow think they deserve more than that (i.e. greed).  Do More

Posted by KeithM at 15:41 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: Stewie_Griffin L: KeithM Movies would be much better without studios, frankly. /quote] Who would finance the movies then? he magical movie pixies that live in KeithM's brain! More

Posted by Wilbert at 14:20 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: KeithM Movies would be much better without studios, frankly. /quote] Who would finance the movies then? More

Posted by Stewie_Griffin at 14:16 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: KeithM Fuck blame.  I don't care which of them is at fault.  Whoever screws with us watching it is who we WILL blame however, whatever the legal 'rights and wrongs' (which as we well know, often bears no relation to moral right and wrong). Greedy, petty arseholes, the lot of them.  Movies would be much better without studios, frankly. /quote] Drunk again, KeithM? I want to see the movie as much as anyone but Fox did issue cease and desist notices well in advance of More

Posted by Wilbert at 13:42 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Fuck blame.  I don't care which of them is at fault.  Whoever screws with us watching it is who we WILL blame however, whatever the legal 'rights and wrongs' (which as we well know, often bears no relation to moral right and wrong). Greedy, petty arseholes, the lot of them.  Movies would be much better without studios, frankly. More

Posted by KeithM at 12:44 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Fox are well within their rights to pursue this action. Put the blame at Warners for trying to pull a fast one. More

Posted by The Hooded Man at 11:56 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Fox are within their rights to do this - the fault is with Warners and the producers not crossing every t before the film went into production.   But its just something else that is giving the company bad publicity - there wouldn't be nearly the same outcry if Fox hadn't screwed over every franchise it had and was led by Rothman who seems like he would rather be a director (the stories from the Wolverine set suggest the usual tensions) than a studio head.   I would be amazed More

Posted by Rgirvan44 at 11:05 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
Fox are idiots. The Hollywood Reporter made a good point in that they stand to make more money from a settlement than an injunction blocking the film's release, so either they think Joss Whedon's involved or they're arseholes. Possibly both. More

Posted by Pigeon Army at 10:55 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Darn it!
If Fox had their way, Watchmen would have a 90 minute time slot. More

Posted by Ghidorah at 09:30 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Darn it!
www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51577p; Fox want to delay the release of Watchmen.   Great.   More

Posted by BatFan at 09:13 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

Darn it!
This better not push back the release date because I was looking forward to how good this film was going to be. More

Posted by geodude1990 at 06:06 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

Only one way to fix this mess: Honey, go get my checkbook...
I want to assume that the movie studios want to release this to everyone's joy. I really do. I want the question not to be "if", but "how much." I think the fans should rest assured. I think as long as the parties involved feel like they are getting a "fair share" of their cut in this, they will roll with it. Rejoice, movie-goers! A whole mess of people will be getting rich off this project...and you won't be one of them!!! lol More

Posted by chewynewyork at 05:11 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

tsk tsk tsk
Good day for Fox studios...bad day for movie fans everywhere...what a travesty this turned out to be! Let's hope some studio exec realizes that there's more to movies than the bottom line. More

Posted by coolieling at 00:45 on 30 December 2008 | Report This Post

Am I outta line?
Is it wrong for me want to shoot up a couple of boardrooms over hearing this? For god's sake...we just want to see the movie. How many of us really care which company gets the profits? I know it's not going to get a pool in my back yard. This is the movie I'm looking forward to this year and I think everyone will be FURIOUS if this gets pushed back over some stupid CEO squabble. More

Posted by robgordon23 at 22:40 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: BITE YOUR TONGUE
Maybe Fox will now actually make some money in 2009! More

Posted by Rgirvan44 at 22:29 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: BITE YOUR TONGUE
L: ROTGUT If Brett Ratner was directing Watchmen - none of this court business would be happening because no one would go and see the film! Zack Synder seems to have some genuine talent - whereas Ratner - on the other hand -is a bit of a hack. sp; What are you talking about?     More

Posted by Stewie_Griffin at 21:34 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: Overmind L: darko18 Yes, Warner Bros. shouldn't have made the film when Fox had the rights to it - but they had the rights for 20 years and did fuck all. If someone steals your bacon, you have the right to take it back. But if someone takes the bacon you haven't used for ages, makes a nice sandwich out of it, puts on some sauce, sits in their favourite chair, and *then* the person who legally owns the bacon jumps out and says "that's MINE!" then, well, that person is a greedy, sche More

Posted by punchdrunk at 21:15 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: Fox are arseholes.
L: darko18 Yes, Warner Bros. shouldn't have made the film when Fox had the rights to it - but they had the rights for 20 years and did fuck all. If someone steals your bacon, you have the right to take it back. But if someone takes the bacon you haven't used for ages, makes a nice sandwich out of it, puts on some sauce, sits in their favourite chair, and *then* the person who legally owns the bacon jumps out and says "that's MINE!" then, well, that person is a greedy, scheming, money-grabb More

Posted by Overmind at 20:41 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Fox are arseholes.
Yes, Warner Bros. shouldn't have made the film when Fox had the rights to it - but they had the rights for 20 years and did fuck all. If someone steals your bacon, you have the right to take it back. But if someone takes the bacon you haven't used for ages, makes a nice sandwich out of it, puts on some sauce, sits in their favourite chair, and *then* the person who legally owns the bacon jumps out and says "that's MINE!" then, well, that person is a greedy, scheming, money-grabbing dic More

Posted by darko18 at 19:38 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

If the film looked to be average then none of this would happen.
But it doesn't, going by the trailers and what I've seen of the production diaries this will be a definite five starrer, the best comic book movie ever, and Zack Snyder to be THE MAN in movies. He'd be the Michael Mann of the blockbusting variety. Both are visually astute, superb framing and story constructors, and with the aim to entertain. Mann going high brow-cool route and Zack the high concept, bombastic cool route. And, of course Fox won at the federal court, Fox is of course close to the More

Posted by Taz69 at 16:40 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

RE: BITE YOUR TONGUE
Not sick ........... cynical....... - if Brett Ratner was directing Watchmen - none of this court business would be happening because no one would go and see the film! Zack Synder seems to have some genuine talent - whereas Ratner - on the other hand -is a bit of a hack. More

Posted by ROTGUT at 15:00 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Bite your tongue!
ROTGUT - I'm not a great fan of Watchman (not read it just because I haven't got around to it, no ill feelings), but would you really want Bret Ratner directing it for any reason?? You're sick... More

Posted by captainamazing at 14:45 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

THIS IS AN APRIL FOOL JOKE? RIGHT.....?....... RIGHT?......
Isn't that just blinking typical! Now it seems the film will more than likely end up sitting on the shelf while the courts sort it all out - GOD FORBID! How long did it take before all that Spiderman kerfuffle was finally settled? 3 - 4 four years? James Cameron could have made 2 Spiderman films in that time! If Watchmen was being directed by Brett Ratner - none of this would be happening! More

Posted by ROTGUT at 14:17 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Jesus, I really hope this gets cleared up so that everything can go ahead for the March 6 release. More

Posted by Filmfan 2 at 13:49 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

It's just a business folks.........
And with our worldwide super-suck economy at the mo, I guess every penny counts. Can't believe Warner Bros legal dept gave the go ahead on this pic if there were even a whiff of a rights issue that might hold back the movie. It's a quick fix actually, Fox should pony up some cash for billboards and posters, y'know the whole advertising thing, which costs like millions, and Warners could relinquish foriegn distribution rights which often amount to 50% of the final gross. Everybody wins, the fans More

Posted by boredbluekoala at 13:46 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

"THAT'S RATHER A PERSONAL QUESTION, SIR..."
The only question now is...HOW LONG IS IT? If Fox decide to further cut down Watchmen, we may lose something very special. Not that I'm a mental Watchmen fanatic (Just an honest to godness fan of the book) but this film could be the first superhero film that treats itself like a Scorcese, not a franchise attention-seeker. At the end of the day, since The Dark Knight, Warner Bros. is less likely to cut the shit of Watchmen. Fox has a bad record with this and we don't want a Live Free Or Die More

Posted by Mopictures at 12:58 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Bit early now is it?
Man Fox must have some dumbass executives, first they cancel Futurama, then they cancel Family Guy (more than once, and after its been re-commisioned), then they release Alien VS Predator Requiem...NOW they've decided to start this crap, 3 months before Watchmen's meant to be released...arseholes! More

Posted by dgribble at 12:39 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

So the film's been in production for about 2 years...
...and Fox wait until now to claim a copyright interest? It's all a bit pathetic really, isn't it? More

Posted by Kmadden2004 at 11:13 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Rest of the World?
jUST RELEASE ROUND THE WORLD AND ONLINE IN AMERICA,STUFF FOX,EVERYONES WAITING FOR THE SPECIAL EDITION DVD/BLURAY WITH THE EXTENDED CUT ANYWAY. More

Posted by danbo1138 at 11:01 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

Curse you Fox!
First firefly, crap simpsons and now you pull this shit. Fucking wankers. More

Posted by The Comedian at 10:57 on 29 December 2008 | Report This Post

SPECIAL FEATURE
The 301 Greatest Movies Of All Time EMPIRE READERS' POLL: THE 301 GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME
You turned out in your hundreds and thousands, and here are the results... Browse the full list


CURRENT HIGHLIGHTS
The Future Of Film: The Streaming Services Will Be Major Studios
(Or how Hollywood will have to start worrying about Netflix)

The Empire Podcast #129: Liam Neeson Interview
Plus Max Irons, Sam Claflin, Douglas Booth, Holliday Grainger and Jessica Brown Findlay drop by to talk The Riot Club

The Future Of Film: We'll Be Watching Films In Virtual Reality
Immerse cinema aims to become the must-have experience for the filmgoers of the future

The Future Of Film: Cinema Will Cross The Uncanny Valley
The future of VFX, from believable digital humans to underwater mocap

The Future Of Film: There Will Be Another Indie Golden Age
Independent producers are growing from micro-budgets to something a lot bigger

Empire's Epic Interstellar Subscribers' Cover
The countdown begins to Christopher Nolan's sci-fi masterpiece

Shut Up, World! Gary Busey Is Talking!
Strap yourselves in and meet a true Hollywood original.

Subscribe to Empire magazine
Get 6 Issues Of Empire For Only £15!

Get exclusive subscriber-only covers each month!

Subscribe today

Subscribe to Empire iPad edition
Get The Empire iPad Edition Today

Subscribe and save maney on annual digital subscription

Subscribe today
Buy single issues

Get 6 issues of Empire for just £15!
Get the world's greatest movie magazine delivered straight to your door! Subscribe today!
Empire's Film Studies 101 Series
Everything you ever wanted to know about filmmaking but were afraid to ask...
The Empire iPad Edition
With exclusive extras, interactive features, trailers and much more! Download now
Home  |  News  |  Blogs  |  Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Interviews  |  Images  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  iPad  |  Podcast  |  Magazine Contact Us  |  Empire FAQ  |  Subscribe To Empire  |  Register
© Bauer Consumer Media Ltd  |  Legal Info  |  Editorial Complaints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Bauer Entertainment Network
Bauer Consumer Media Ltd (company number 01176085 and registered address 1 Lincoln Court, Lincoln Road, Peterborough, England PE1 2RF)