Comments on: 'Watchmen' Producers Break Their Silence and Offer Up Very Little

By: GregM

GregM — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:07:06 +0000

@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.

By: justin casey

justin casey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:38:58 +0000

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

By: Kuro

Kuro — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:20:30 +0000

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.

By: Kuro

Kuro — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:18:53 +0000

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.

By: Brad Brevet

Brad Brevet — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:29:13 +0000

@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.

By: GregM

GregM — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:53:19 +0000

@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?

By: aerinpegadrak

aerinpegadrak — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:50:04 +0000

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?

By: Brad Brevet

Brad Brevet — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:00:26 +0000

@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.

By: Kuro

Kuro — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:23:10 +0000

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!

By: Israel Ortiz

Israel Ortiz — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:43:27 +0000

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.

By: GregM

GregM — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:26:59 +0000

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.

By: Phobia

Phobia — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:56:56 +0000

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.

By: Johnny Royal

Johnny Royal — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:27:55 +0000

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.

By: JD92

JD92 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:08:05 +0000

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.

By: Marcy

Marcy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:43:09 +0000

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!