Court Ruling Jeopardizes Watchmen Release

[szelim]

Fox, WB continue 'Watchmen' war

Studios have yet to reach a settlement

By DAVE MCNARY [Variety]

 

Fox and Warner Bros. remain at war over "Watchmen," with Warners proclaiming it's not moving off its March 6 release date.

 

No settlement emerged Monday, when U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess held a status conference with attorneys for the two sides. Feess, who found last week that Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," indicated he'll issue a fuller ruling prior to the Jan. 20 trial date to resolve the remaining issues.

 

Fox, which first acquired rights to the graphic novel in 1986, filed the suit in February at about the same time director Zack Snyder wrapped production. The studio contends it retains distribution rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement with producer Larry Gordon, who took "Watchmen" to Warner Bros. after attempts to make it with Fox, Universal and Paramount.

 

Feess found in the initial ruling that Gordon, who's not a defendant in the case, had never exercised his option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" nor had he honored his agreement since 2005 to offer the project to Fox under the "changed elements" part of the pact. For its part, Warner contended that Fox did not own any rights to "Watchmen."

 

In last week's ruling, Feess also rebuked Gordon over invoking attorney-client privilege rather than testifying. "The court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this court's ruling on the copyright issues under discussion," he wrote.

 

In its first comment since Feess' ruling, Warner Bros. took a combative tone Monday and announced it still expects to win the case.

 

"We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court's ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options," the studio said. "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. We have no plans to move the release date of the film."

 

Fox issued a measured response, saying, "We are gratified by the recognition of our rights in the judge's order, which speaks for itself."

 

Although the studios are expected to hammer out a monetary settlement to resolve the dispute, an attorney for Fox said Monday that the studio plans to continue seeking an order delaying the release.

 

[comicgrinder]

hope this doesnt delay the release

[Aman619]

it seems that Larru Gordon in trying to get the film made with a parade of successive deals, at some point, omitted the paperwork of his original deal with Fox. So when WBs lawyers signed the deal to finally make "Gordon's" film WATCHMEN, they did so having done due diligence on the papers Gordon presented them. They saw a clear paper trail and felt they owned the film rights exclusively until Fox sued.

 

whats sad is that even as well protected as WBs team of lawyers provided them, this slipped thru. Im surprised Gordon isnt wholly responsible since it was HIS agreement with Fox and his error that led to WB being in this weak position. And what's fascinating is that for all these years, certain people at Fox saw this coming someday if the film were ever made!!

 

My take is that Fox will drive a very hard bargain ---- because they can! And WB will have to pay up. Sucks for WB because with a March OD, they need to ramp up spending real soon... and it could all be wasted if Fox doesnt allow the film to open on time. Then again, even if WB bulls ahead and opens it on time (without an agreement in place) that might only strengthen Foxs hand as there will be actual $$$s to claim. And if its a smash? Fox might get to take it all, minus all ownership stakes..

[He11blazer]

, I've no sympathy for lame money grabbers bleating about their legal rights and pointing at obscure clauses in old contracts when they haven't done a thing to earn their pay. Fox don't deserve a penny.

 

- He11blazer, who is occasionally short-fused and unduly confident of his moral position

[Han]

"We own the rights and we didn't want to make this movie! PAY US! BLEH~!"

Does this sound like a twelve-year-olds fight to anyone else...?

 

I do hope it makes it out on time nonetheless. I was looking forward to it D:

[mikeyboy9000]

, I've no sympathy for lame money grabbers bleating about their legal rights and pointing at obscure clauses in old contracts when they haven't done a thing to earn their pay. Fox don't deserve a penny.

 

- He11blazer, who is occasionally short-fused and unduly confident of his moral position

 

Fox deserves it all in my opinion. If a contract is made you're honour bound to fulfill it (or NOT fulfill it with someone else) regardless of if an obscure clause A13,part c, section 25, sub section 29U is missed. That's YOUR fault for missing it, not theirs. That's it. Game over. Caveat Emptor. WB knew about this from what i can tell, heck i read of this debacle years ago that this was a very valid concern as aman619 said earlier.

 

I say fox should just agree to pay WB everything they've outlaid so far +10% and take all earnings, film gets released, WB loses the time invested, gains a little cash and Fox takes home everything owed to them as per their contract.

[Han]

, I've no sympathy for lame money grabbers bleating about their legal rights and pointing at obscure clauses in old contracts when they haven't done a thing to earn their pay. Fox don't deserve a penny.

 

- He11blazer, who is occasionally short-fused and unduly confident of his moral position

 

Fox deserves it all in my opinion. If a contract is made you're honour bound to fulfill it (or NOT fulfill it with someone else) regardless of if an obscure clause A13,part c, section 25, sub section 29U is missed. That's YOUR fault for missing it, not theirs. That's it. Game over. Caveat Emptor. WB knew about this from what i can tell, heck i read of this debacle years ago that this was a very valid concern as aman619 said earlier.

 

I say fox should just agree to pay WB everything they've outlaid so far +10% and take all earnings, film gets released, WB loses the time invested, gains a little cash and Fox takes home everything owed to them as per their contract.

Isn't it the other way around? Fox owns it and WB filmed it? So Fox wants the WB to pay THEM....

 

Fox knew of it, but apparently the guy who brought the idea to WB forgot to include the Fox paperwork that indicated their ownership, but he's decided he's not getting involved so he can't be brought in and made to step up for his mistake.

[szelim]

There's speculation that Fox might be interested in pushing Watchmen off its scheduled release date, so that Fox can move up the opening of Dragonball to that day to give it a couple of months before the summer movies start.

[BaltimoreLauren]

There's speculation that Fox might be interested in pushing Watchmen off its scheduled release date, so that Fox can move up the opening of Dragonball to that day to give it a couple of months before the summer movies start.

 

Yea, because Dragonball looks so gosh darn amazing................................

 

 

 

 

I'll happily go out of my way to not see any movies this year except for Watchmen, if that's the case. Screw Fox.

[Han]

There's speculation that Fox might be interested in pushing Watchmen off its scheduled release date, so that Fox can move up the opening of Dragonball to that day to give it a couple of months before the summer movies start.

Just the still-images people have shown me in jest make me want to hurl.

[mikeyboy9000]

, I've no sympathy for lame money grabbers bleating about their legal rights and pointing at obscure clauses in old contracts when they haven't done a thing to earn their pay. Fox don't deserve a penny.

 

- He11blazer, who is occasionally short-fused and unduly confident of his moral position

 

Fox deserves it all in my opinion. If a contract is made you're honour bound to fulfill it (or NOT fulfill it with someone else) regardless of if an obscure clause A13,part c, section 25, sub section 29U is missed. That's YOUR fault for missing it, not theirs. That's it. Game over. Caveat Emptor. WB knew about this from what i can tell, heck i read of this debacle years ago that this was a very valid concern as aman619 said earlier.

 

I say fox should just agree to pay WB everything they've outlaid so far +10% and take all earnings, film gets released, WB loses the time invested, gains a little cash and Fox takes home everything owed to them as per their contract.

Isn't it the other way around? Fox owns it and WB filmed it? So Fox wants the WB to pay THEM....

 

Fox knew of it, but apparently the guy who brought the idea to WB forgot to include the Fox paperwork that indicated their ownership, but he's decided he's not getting involved so he can't be brought in and made to step up for his mistake.

 

The company who has the long forgotten clause in his favour should get the money/rights/movie stopped ( paraphrased)

 

As for the original 'guy' it's WB's problem for not checking the contract, if the guy didn't know i'm pretty sure that's not negligent so it's not his fault...hell i don't know i only did business law for 1 sem...

[Han]

Right-o. -nod-

 

Legally...yes.

Morally...I think Fox is just being a . But.....media companies do that. They get their jollies off of it, and who am I to challenge that ;