Filed under: Legal Woes

'Watchmen' Producers Break Their Silence and Offer Up Very Little

Come on, one is self-serving the other is claiming morals...

If there is anything most avid online movie news readers know it is that Hollywood is a "money driven" industry. Without the moola there is no reason to exist. Morals play no part in such an industry and considering the lawsuit between Warner Bros. and Fox over Watchmen the only thing that is important is the money.

Warner Bros., director Zack Snyder and his crew put together what looks like it could be a fantastic adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ highly acclaimed graphic novel. To some unknown extent 20th Century Fox apparently still owns a stake in said film and based on a December 24th ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture." This certainly gums up the works for that proposed March 6 release and on January 20 we are expecting to find out if that March release date will be delayed or if Warner Bros. will go ahead with their marketing plan.

Until then, the producers behind the selling of the rights to the film adaptation, Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon, have decided to say a few words. Levin shares his via an open letter posted on the newly minted HitFix.com and Gordon had his "voice" heard via what was deemed "improper communication" as he sent a letter directly to Judge Feess, a letter Feess refused to read and issued a one-paragraph response which included some of the following statements as paraphrased by The Hollywood Reporter:

"Mr. Gordon clearly testified that he does not recall any conversations he had with representatives of Fox in or about 1994 relating to 'Watchmen' … It is Mr. Gordon's position that the execution of the 1994 turnaround agreement was the result of either a mutual mistake by both parties or a unilateral mistake made by his counsel, on which Mr. Gordon relied."

If Gordon believes calling it a mistake is going to solve things he can guess again. However, that moves us to Levin's open letter, which doesn't open up the possibility of mistakes as much as it asks Fox to do what is "morally right." I mean, come on, morals in Hollywood? Yeah right…

After a long opening with details regarding what happened and when, the meat of Levin's letter begins (and really ends) with these two questions:

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils – if any — of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

To answer both of these questions plainly: No. That is, of course, if Fox does have any claim to the rights of the graphic novel, which it appears they do. Just because Warner Bros. spent money to make it doesn't mean squat if they don't own the sole rights to the property. If Fox decided to go ahead and make a Batman film and spent millions of dollars to do so and it came out great would that mean they should have the right to release it even though Warner Bros. owns the Batman rights?

His letter continues:

Look at it another way… One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.

Well, if Fox owns the rights it is perfectly within their right not to make the film.

Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.

To answer the question posed in this one: Yes. Once again, as long as they own the rights they can "stand in the way" of whatever they want. Is it "beyond cynical" as Levin says? Yes, but that has no bearing on the matter.

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous – Fox should stand down with its claim.

My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

Sorry to say it, but this is where Levin sounds defeated and if this is any indication of the state of things it seems WB is going to have to pony up. You can't begin arguing morals and fairness in a legal proceding. If it really has gotten that bad who knows what is going to happen?

I still have optimism things are going to go in the favor of the fans, but perhaps not in the favor of Warner Bros. I agree, on a moral level Fox should back down. However, our country isn't a moral country or all those frivolous lawsuits wouldn't exist for people burning themselves after spilling coffee in their lap or slipping in a grocery store. We wouldn't have FBI warnings on our DVDs and claims from the studio that the commentaries are the opinion of those saying them and not the studio themselves. Those warnings exist because pain-in-the-ass consumers sued the studios over something that was said on a DVD commentary. Stupidity always tends to go full circle and it never has anything to do with morals. Unfortunately this is just one more example.

Beyond everything that was said above I believe the greatest line in Levin's letter comes after he discussed how hard it was to ever get the film made in the first place:

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

These guys couldn't get anyone to spend money to make Watchmen and now they are spending millions just to release what was eventually made, and one studio is spending millions to ensure it doesn't get released. I think we have fallen into what Don Birnam would call a "vicious circle… No end, no beginning."

Thanks to the boys at HitFix and all of you that sent in the link to their article.


Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

To Brad –

This is a terrific commentary. I read this site on a regular basis, and it's not because of all the goodies you post (although those are great). It's because you are such a good commentator. I may not always agree with you (although I certainly do here), but I always pay attention to your views, because you've earned it with columns like this one.

Thanks!

- Marcy
( January 9th, 2009 | 2:43 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

Seems Fox already realeses enough bad movies, or movies that should have been good but they end up makeing them suck. Now they have been delaying watchmen….can't be good press for the studio.

- JD92
( January 9th, 2009 | 3:08 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

Terrific commentary. I agree: Fox did acquire, with cold hard cash, the rights to make Watchmen and since they didn't make the movie, at the very least they deserve a return on that investment. If someone produced a property that Mr. Levin held the rights to , I doubt he'd let the other party's passion and daring trump his right to compensation for the rights he bought. It's basic copyright law.

- Johnny Royal
( January 9th, 2009 | 4:27 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

Then why can we not just 'return their investment' and let it be over with. I think that's all they deserve, but Fox is trying for something more. I hope that they don't try to delay the picture, because Fanboys will be at their throats. All I was to do is see Watchmen on my 18th birthday. That's all I'm asking. Throw a few million Fox's way and let this be over.

- Phobia
( January 9th, 2009 | 5:56 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

Anyone interested in learning how to avoid situations like this, maybe for your own projects, should check out Donald Passman's 'All You Need to Know About the Music Business'.
It obviously focuses on the music industry but I've found a lot of the information transferable to film and television.

- GregM
( January 9th, 2009 | 9:26 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

Very strange, mixed feelings… especially with the idea that they might advocate (unofficially, of course) an en masse, state-side pirating of a flick that was made here since it seems Fox has domestic distribution and Paramount is handling the international release…?

Sounds as goddamn silly as the boycott if you ask me but at least some of us could directly 'benefit' from something like that. I've had the same sentiment for a while that Brad has: Fox and WB are just businesses with legitimate intentions like most others and for better or worse we have to respect basic property rights. From the beginning folks have been reporting that Fox still had a claim to *something* so it's not like we didnt see this coming folks!

But in all honesty, as much as I really want to see this movie in the theater with no unwarranted Fox edit on March 6th, I just don't care anymore. It has to come out eventually and last but not least: WE STILL HAVE THE GRAPHIC NOVEL.

- Israel Ortiz
( January 9th, 2009 | 10:43 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

I for one disagree with just about everything in this commentary, Though I did still enjoy it. I just finished reading on another site the release that one of the producers put out this morning and from what he explains. Fox and Warner Bros were both sent the same package and while fox said no, warner bros said yes. I understand that fox owns part of the distribution rights but for those saying that they are not in the wrong to sue are missing the fact that warner bros has part of the rights as well. Fox has rights to distribution, not necessarily the entire rights to the property. Warner Bros is asking that Fox not be a dick just because they couldn't pull of the time talent and forethought to make a great movie. I do believe that Fox has the right to speak up somewhat, I just believe that they lost said rights when the movie was announced 3 years ago and they waited til they knew it would make ass loads of money to say ANYTHING. I know that the world is based on laws and regulations but just because that is the case, it doesn't mean that underhanded business should be tolerated. I blame Warner Bros for not securing all the rights, but honestly, this is one of the greatest endeavors i've seen in film in a very long time. Some may disagree, but this much thought and attention to detail has rarely been seen in film in my opinion. Fox is standing in the way of Art that could bring about more great movies. They aren't focused on laws being upheld, they are greedy. If Warner Bros loses this case, I feel that it wont matter, because the movie will "LEAK" online somehow. I would love to see it in theaters because nothing beats that to me. I just dont see anything right about Fox's actions and I dont think it should be tolerated. Laws are laws and contracts do bind, but we all know that may be how it is, but it doesn't have to be that way. Sometimes you have to step outside these things to show that you know whats Right!

- Kuro
( January 9th, 2009 | 12:23 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

@Kuro: The problem with your argument Kuro is that if someone owns the rights to something first, someone else cannot buy them. Therefore, Warner Bros. potentially may have NO claim on Watchmen if Fox still owned the rights. The release you say you read is the exact same one I am referring to in this article.

@Phobia: Because that's not how investing works.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( January 9th, 2009 | 1:00 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

It sounds like the producers who negotiated the turnaround are the ones that dropped the ball. Fox should sue THEM for the reparations, not the studio, since from everything I've read, Warner Bros acted in good faith that things had been properly handled; I doubt they would have proceeded with a property that they knew was still held by another studio. That should be the basis of their argument.

I'm sick of hearing about all of this. I just want to see this movie. Is that so much to ask?

- aerinpegadrak
( January 9th, 2009 | 1:50 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

@Brad Brevet: What about ticket sales to The Dark Knight. The first Watchmen trailer (approx 2m20s) and a Harry Potter title card (approx 10s) were both distributed on the reels of The Dark Knight (approx 153m), at least in North America.
So about 1.5% of the product people received by purchasing a ticket to TDK was actually content that Fox apparently has the right to distribute. From a straight time calculation, that works out to be just under $8 million in domestic earnings alone.
Thoughts?

- GregM
( January 9th, 2009 | 8:53 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

@GregM: I think you just blew my mind… Don't studios have to pay to have their trailers in front of films? Are you saying Fox owes back dollars for the marketing that has already been done?

From what it sounds like they are finally coming to some kind of settlement based on today's report, which is really what should have happened a year ago.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( January 9th, 2009 | 9:29 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

See, from what i read, and this may be where i folly, I thought that Fox didn't own all the rights of the film. I believe they only own some of the rights, and more in particular, the distribution rights. My statement only stands if this is true. I dont think they own ALL the rights though.

However, if they do, my thoughts do not change completely. If they do in fact own ALL of the rights, then I would hold them accountable for being criminally negligent. Everyone on this planet that wasn't under a rock knew that this film was being made. I still stand by my statement that they forfeit their ownership out of criminal negligence with intent to be assholes and milk a cash cow.

I will look up the specifics again on what exactly is owned, but thank you for setting me straight if that is in fact the case.

- Kuro
( January 10th, 2009 | 3:18 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

ANd i dont mean that last statement with any disrespect…..my friend pointed out that it could be taken as me being a smart ass. That is not my intention. It helps to have the facts straight.

- Kuro
( January 10th, 2009 | 3:20 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #14
Gravatar

if this gets pushed back i'm gonna be so pissed

- justin casey
( January 12th, 2009 | 11:38 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #15
Gravatar

@Brad Brevet: Yeah. But I think it's different with trailers like the Watchmen and Wolverine. My only rational is that when IMAX theatres show movies without trailers, they still show the advertised trailers released with the film. So the Wolverine footage had to be delivered with TDTESS or else Fox couldn't advertise that if you see the movie, you'll see the trailer.

- GregM
( January 13th, 2009 | 7:07 am )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!