Breaking Watchmen News...Not Good!

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Comic concepts
Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Key word is AFTER. So...

I have zero issue with the ending. The point of the ending is still there.
 
This is up on Fox's MySpace - some great stuff I hadn't seen before!
Funny that it's exclusive to a Fox website though...
<a href="https://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48917596">Watchmen Exclusive</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="https://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=48917596,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor="/><embed src="https://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=48917596,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor=" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"/></object>
 
Darklord Dave said:
This is up on Fox's MySpace - some great stuff I hadn't seen before!
Funny that it's exclusive to a Fox website though...
<a href="https://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48917596">Watchmen Exclusive</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="https://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=48917596,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor="/><embed src="https://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=48917596,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor=" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"/></object>
Click to expand...

It's not exclusive, you can get the full HD versions here:

https://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51626
 
All I can say is that if Fox do make a lot of money out of this, they should thank WB for having the guts at making it a R rated superhero movie that has full frontal nudity in it.

Fox would never take a risk like that, eg. Wolverine being toned down for the kids
 
eh by all accounts fox kinda early on asserted their rights and someone dropped the ball or ignored em and just went ahead and made the thing. soo so much fox bashing on so many sites like omg how could they, well if they had distrubution rights to the license well duh :p.

aside from all the legal bs, i am looking forward to this movie never read the novel initally tho i tracked down a copy but have not read it figured if i skip the book for now the movie cant dissapoint ;P.
 
i loved firefly also, but when it was on it never got good ratings, and even tho wheaton and producers shopped it around it never got picked up by anyone....it kinda of boggles my mind how if they shopped it around to scifi, tbs yadda yadda noone would pick up the series at all.

i do not think fox gave it a fair shot, tbh i mean i watched it when it was initially on fox and i dont even think they got through the full 1st season before it was axed, but on the other hand fox has given us; 24, the shield, nip/tuck, damages, rescue me some of the most daring shows on tv and some of the best.

ya fox and all stations mess up but fox does as much good as it does bad. and if your making a movie you just cant ignore someone's contract that says they got distribution rights. when the judge is saying that they should come to an agreement or else and is siding with foxes claim it seems hard to pin all the blame on fox for wanting its rights to the distribution. they could just agree to a number and get it out of court period or hammer out some kind of deal i am sure fox has something they want in mind.
 
cerebus23 said:
eh by all accounts fox kinda early on asserted their rights and someone dropped the ball or ignored em and just went ahead and made the thing. soo so much fox bashing on so many sites like omg how could they, well if they had distrubution rights to the license well duh :p.

aside from all the legal bs, i am looking forward to this movie never read the novel initally tho i tracked down a copy but have not read it figured if i skip the book for now the movie cant dissapoint ;P.
Click to expand...

Fox didn't say anything until principal photography started. WB didn't have the pertinent documents that Fox is using as the basis for their argument. It could be looked at that Fox dropped the ball for not challenging it back when Paramount or Universal were going to make the film.
 
Judge Will Settle 'Watchmen' Dispute on January 20th
I got this from spill.com
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that that lawyers for 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. have agreed to let a federal judge decide whether Warner Bros. will be allowed to release Watchmen on March 6th, forgoing a jury trial that could have put the high-profile film's future into even longer limbo.

In court papers filed Monday with U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, attorneys for Fox and Warner Bros. jointly said they would let the judge decide Jan. 20 whether Fox could block the film's theatrical distribution as Fox has been seeking all along as part of its copyright infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros.

In a preliminary ruling issued Dec. 24, Feess said Fox, and not Watchmen producer and distributor Warner Bros., owned the right to distribute the film. Warner Bros. is a unit of Time Warner Inc., and Fox is owned by News Corp.

In his December ruling, the judge urged the warring studios to negotiate a settlement, but no deal has been reached
 
So everything is in the hands of the judge who has already sided with Fox and urged WB to negotiate, which they didn't do. Unless he wakes up with a horse's head in his bed some time in the next two weeks, I predict that he will continue to side with Fox on the 20th and the March 6th date will not be allowed.
 
The judge urged BOTH sides to negotiate, and neither was interested. Fox is banking on the fact that (up til now) he's been siding with them and WB is banking on the fact that there is no precedent to actually block the release of a film like this.

Again, it's all going to come down to one thing: $$$$ It's all just posturing,
 
i just want to see the movie.... who wants to join me to try and steal a print from the WB offices? we would be the robin hood(s) of the internet geek community! :p
 
The latest posturing: WB wants the hearing moved up to next weekL

Warner Bros. asks for "Watchmen" call sooner
Thu Jan 8, 2009 12:46am EST
By Borys Kit and Matthew Belloni

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - January 20 could be D-day in the "Watchmen" dispute between Fox and Warner Bros.

Or rather I-day, when the studios have agreed to let a judge decide whether to issue an injunction against the superhero film's scheduled March 6 release by Warner Bros.

But Warners is asking that the hearing be moved up to as early as Monday because "time is critical," the studio argues in papers filed this week. The studio must soon commit tens of millions of dollars in marketing for a film it isn't sure it can release.

The injunction fight stems from U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess' Christmas Eve preliminary ruling that Fox has a right to distribute the Zack Snyder adaptation of the popular graphic novel. Feess found that producer Lawrence Gordon failed to acquire Fox's entire interest in "Watchmen" after the studio abandoned the project a decade ago.

The studios are now battling over the key issue of whether that decision allows Fox to stop the film's release or whether the parties should proceed to a trial over monetary damages.

The studios laid out their arguments in papers filed this week. Warners cites a precedent-setting decision involving eBay that says a plaintiff in a copyright-infringement case must, among other things, prove that it will be irreparably harmed without an injunction and that money damages will not be an adequate remedy.

In fact, Warners claims, the opposite is true in this case. While Fox had "abandoned" the "Watchmen" property, Warners claims it has spent more than $150 million to make and market the film in a "carefully choreographed" plan to pique moviegoer interest March 6. Barring the release would do grave damage to Warners and third parties like exhibitors who are counting on the movie, the studio argues.

Fox claims that the eBay case does not apply in this instance and that Warners' infringement of its rights entitles it to stop the release.

A status conference is scheduled for Friday morning in Feess' Los Angeles courtroom to determine when the hearing will take place. Warners is seeking to bring witnesses to the proceeding, while Fox instead wants Feess to stop the release based on arguments submitted to the judge in writing. The hearing is expected to last two to three days and could feature testimony from top studio executives like Warner Bros. domestic distribution president Dan Fellman.

If the injunction is granted, Warners would be barred from releasing the film, though it likely would appeal immediately. Feess has encouraged the parties to settle the dispute.

Fox initially filed suit in February.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Click to expand...
 
As if we needed further proof that FOX is run by a bunch of a-holes...

Open-Letter from WATCHMEN Producer Lloyd Levin:

"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.

An open letter.

Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.

We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.

After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.

There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

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.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of ^^^^ they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of ^^^^.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

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?

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.

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.

By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.

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.

Lloyd Levin"
Click to expand...
 
Well jeez, that sells it to me. If Fox honestly flat out turned down the project, then I honestly don't think they should be able to claim any kind of ownership. Let alone be able to stop the release of the film.
 
Odowankenobi said:
Really? You think that a film based on a cult hit book (Yes, cult. Watchmen is not mainstream, and the ones excited for it represent a small niche) could potentially outperform the latest installment in an already established franchise that does have mainstream popularity?
Click to expand...

After 300 with its R rating blew its chains off 'cult' and made a huge bundle, I wouldn't be surprise if this followed suit. It trailored for The Dark Knight, it's a super hero movie, and it's got more buzz than 300 ever had.
 
Odowankenobi said:
Well jeez, that sells it to me. If Fox honestly flat out turned down the project, then I honestly don't think they should be able to claim any kind of ownership. Let alone be able to stop the release of the film.
Click to expand...

The creative executives who rejected the project at that point probably had no idea that Fox technically owned the project at that time and had for many years. But it certainly does help WB's case I think.

That letter from Levin was well written, but doesn't mean a whole lot from a legal standpoint.
 

Similar threads

Captain Clown
Hasbro Launches Their Own Movie Studio, Allspark Pictures
Replies
19
Views
2K
Bardoon
Bardoon
Z
Breaking: How Jiaou Misled Consumers through False Advertising,Undermined Phicen
Replies
19
Views
6K
fosing
fosing
Natrix
Original unaltered Star Wars Trilogy to appear on blu ray after all?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
10K
RIDDICK
R
Kamandi
Warner Bros Wins Superman Copyright Case Against Co-Creator’s Heirs
Replies
8
Views
1K
Shropt
Shropt
The Josh
The Josh's Comic-Con 2014 Coverage Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
8K
The Josh
The Josh

Latest posts

Back
Top