Fans anxious to know whether Watchmen will be released in March as scheduled will have to wait a few weeks. The New York Times is reporting that the judge in the Watchmen case has decided to refrain from ruling on the injunction sought by Fox until after a hearing set for January 20, 2009.
For anyone who wants more details on the judge’s 12/24 ruling, I’ve uploaded a set of documents that includes not just the Christmas Eve order, but both parties’ motions for summary judgment as well as fascinating material filed by Fox just yesterday.
These three rulings in particular provide detailed allegations as to how Warner Brothers got into this mess. In a nutshell, Fox claims that it has evidence that Warner Bros. initially relied on an inaccurate chain of title provided by Paramount. Once Warner Bros. was aware of Fox’s documented claims, it nonetheless decided to proceed in a deliberate “business calculation” that it would be more profitable to deal with a court case than clear the rights before making Watchmen.
Fox’s claim that Warner Bros. has an established “studio practice” of bad faith in clearing title is central to its argument that the court should enjoin Warner Bros. from releasing the film.
Besides these documents, I also recommend checking out Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily and Rodney Perkins’ Film Esq., which provide detailed analysis of the latest developments.
A quick editorial addendum to Jeff’s post: On Monday, Warner Bros. issued a statement about the ruling, saying: “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 responded with: “We are gratified by the recognition of our rights in the judge’s order, which speaks for itself.”
December 30th, 2008 at 8:38 am
why cant they just give them a proportional share of the sufficiently big profits and get on with it.
Although apparently the squids not in it and stuff so they have fucked up the ending, if thats the case lets hope it stays in legal limbo
December 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“why cant they just give them a proportional share of the sufficiently big profits and get on with it.”
They can. The question is if they will. And whether or not Fox will accept said profits.
It’s quite possible Fox wants more than just money - they may even ask for a piece of any FUTURE watchmen-related product (Jim Henson’s Watchmen babies!) or even a piece of some other films.
Right now, it sounds like Fox has the high ground. I hesitate to say whether that’s legal or moral high ground.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I think the big kicker of all of this would be if this movie ended up being a (financial) flop, regardless of who publishes it.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
i would totally love for this film to flop. just so all the fanboys moan about it failing cause it didnt stay close to the source material.waaahaaaaa.
plus watchmen aint all that. that title belongs to civil war. followed a close second by RULK
December 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I don’t know what version of WATCHMEN others have been reading, but the squid is NOT the ending. The climax maybe, but the ending is the characters deciding what to do and some poor schlub with ketchup on his shirt potentially having the power to undo that decision. By all accounts, that hasn’t changed and that’s the thematic core of the book.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“We have no plans to move the release date of the film.”
Wow. If Fox wins even after the appeal and the date isn’t changed and is released anyways, what are the legal repercussions of that? Will Fox get an even bigger cut of the money? All of it? I mean this sounds like WB is just going to end up making things worse for themselves.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
i’m actually looking forward to the studios settling this so the movie can just come out already.and if they do change anything, its a improvment over the book which was long winded, boring, and slow
December 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
“plus watchmen aint all that. that title belongs to civil war. followed a close second by RULK”
ROTFLOL
thanks, I needed that laugh!!!
December 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
The trial will be over and damages assessed long before the release date. There’s no way that Fox actually wants the release date blocked. Not unless they want a bunch of theater chains mad at them for taking away a major release in March. Fox just wants their cut.
Here’s what will happen. Pre-trial motions will be addressed and then WB will make a decision to settle or go to trial based on their potential risk. A settlement/damage value will be decided upon. WB will write a check. WATCHMEN will be released on 3/6/09.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I don’t get it. it make sense WB has rights to make the movie because it is DC comics? AND why did FOX wait until WB finish the production of watchmen movie. WB paid millions money to make that movie and now FOX sue them? Why not sue them before WB make the movie? that’s why it is not make sense.
comments?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“plus watchmen aint all that. that title belongs to civil war. followed a close second by RULK”
Lord help me, this is a joke, right?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Tabitha Viselli wrote:
I don’t get it. it make sense WB has rights to make the movie because it is DC comics? AND why did FOX wait until WB finish the production of watchmen movie. WB paid millions money to make that movie and now FOX sue them? Why not sue them before WB make the movie? that’s why it is not make sense.
According to Entertainment Weekly, Fox DID contact WB before they started shooting. WB just ignored them.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Is this the Nikki Finke who told us that Dan DiDio was being fired? Just before he reupped his contract for two years?
December 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Anybody a big enough Watchman fan and conspiracy theorist to ponder whether News Corp. cog Fox might want to squelch the movie at least in part to forestall injecting radical questioning into the public discourse?
December 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
>>Anybody a big enough Watchman fan and conspiracy theorist to ponder whether News Corp. cog Fox might want to squelch the movie at least in part to forestall injecting radical questioning into the public discourse?<<
But if you accept that idea, wouldn’t you have to support it with other places Fox has done this, and a strict rule against “radical questioning” or subversive elements in all Fox programming, something which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny? I mean, can you go through even this year’s Fox films and in any way say that is what is happening? And no, I don’t accept Watchmen as some “special case” of radical questioning. There have been and will be far more subversive stories told through the media.
When it comes to “control public discourse” versus “make money at all costs,” “make money at all costs” wins 99.9% of the time. Fox is no different than any other company. If News Corp. suddenly felt that skewing right would no longer bring in revenue, or there was more revenue to be made skewing in another direction, all of the conservative pundits on Fox News would be bounced before their next show.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Is this the Nikki Finke who told us that Dan DiDio was being fired? Just before he reupped his contract for two years?”
Rich, are you saying that rumor columnists are often wrong?
December 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
marvelbhoy Says:
“plus watchmen aint all that. that title belongs to civil war. followed a close second by RULK”
HAHAHA. Good one.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Poor, poor Zack Snyder.
He and his crew, and the cast of Watchmen worked so hard on this film to get it made.
“Poor little dominoes, your empire took so long to build …”
“And now, with a snap of history’s fingers: …. down it goes” (excerpt from V for Vendetta).
Personally, I think FOX overplayed their hand way too soon.
They should have waited until after the Watchmen have been shown, and if it became a “blockbuster” in the level of “The Dark Knight”: then demand whatever slice of the pie from the box office profits.
Doing it this soon well before the movie comes out, is like counting your chickens before they’re hatched.
On the other hand, with all this publicity (negative or positive) would feed to the public’s curiousity and get them interested in seeing the movie (if only to see what’s the fuss is all about).
It’s a huge gamble either way by FOX. They could suffer greatly from the backlash over their actions toward Warner Bros. or even the movie. There’s alot of comic fans that may or may not be rooting for the movie but will support the movie anyway. It’s because of those same comic fans, that FOX will need to support the Wolverine: Origins movie. FOX cannot afford to lose that portion of the public.
Just an opinion.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” -one of Newton’s three laws of gravity.
If FOX gets their way, and the Watchmen movie is delayed, all fans and non-fans should unite against FOX’s stepping on the people’s right to see a movie by: eschewing (or foregoing) all FOX’s tv and movie medias such as House, Prison Break, 24, Bones, Wolverine: Origins, etc.
FOX would lose more revenues than they would gain by preventing the Watchmen release.
Just a suggestion.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
@ Tom: I suggest that FOX’s risk of offending comic geeks (of which I’m one) is minimal at best. I suppose it could have an effect on Wolverine or any future X-Men related films, but I think it’s pretty minor. FOX pissing off theatre owners, as another person suggested here, is a greater risk.
WB’s put a lot of money into this project though. If FOX appears to have the upper hand, I’m sure they’ll be desperate to come to a settlement of some kind. I think it’ll make release date, or at least shortly thereafter.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Personally, I think FOX overplayed their hand way too soon.
They should have waited until after the Watchmen have been shown, and if it became a “blockbuster” in the level of “The Dark Knight”: then demand whatever slice of the pie from the box office profits.”
I disagree. Were they to do that, it would severely weaken their case, which is that WB did not have suffcient rights and permissions to make the film in the first place. Making the case after the fact would make it seem FAR more like a mere cash grab than it does now.
Having perused some of the documentation, it does seem that WB is suffering from a bit of arrogance concerning its standpoint of going ahead with the film and trying the plausible deniability route about any discrepancies about the rights. I’m reminded of Fight Club, where the “Big” auto company the narrator works for has a formula where they compare the cost of a recall against the cost of settling every potential lawsuit, and just go with the cheaper of the two.
Not that it makes it okay, but I’m willing to bet that every film company has does the same thing lots of times in the past. Fox has just made a cottage industry of making money off of those errors.
And as much as I hear that suggestion about boycotting Fox’s output in retaliation for what they’re trying about Watchmen, it’s just never going to happen, and Fox know is. Getting comic fans to cooperate on something is like trying to herd cats. And asking them to pass on a Wolverine movie…well, you might as wel ask them to stop posting their opinions on the Internet.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“plus watchmen aint all that. that title belongs to civil war. followed a close second by RULK”
oh god…make it stop…sides hurt…so hard…laughing…
December 31st, 2008 at 6:01 am
Go Fox, go! *g*
January 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
““For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” -one of Newton’s three laws of gravity.”
If you’re going to misuse Newton’s laws of MOTION to prove a point not at all related to physics, at least get it right.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
@Bairfanx
My bad, it’s been 23 or 25 years since I took Physics in high school. I always associate Newton with gravity. heh.