jdoggydogg
Footballguy
No diggity. Perfect wierdness for that role.Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is![]()
No diggity. Perfect wierdness for that role.Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is![]()
Fox sues over 'Watchmen'
By Leslie Simmons
Feb 12, 2008
20th Century Fox has initiated a legal battle against Warner Bros. over the rights to develop, produce and distribute a film based on the graphic novel "Watchmen."
On Friday, the studio sued Warners, claiming it holds the exclusive copyrights and contract rights to "Watchmen."
Warners plans to release next year a big-screen version of the popular comic book written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. The cast includes Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman. It is the studio's policy to not comment on pending litigation.
But Fox seeks to enjoin Warners from going forward with the project, saying in the lawsuit that it seeks to "restrain (Warner Bros. Pictures) from taking actions that violate Fox's copyrights and which stand to forever impair Fox's rights to control the distribution and development of this unique work."
Fox claims that between 1986 and 1990, it acquired all movie rights to the 12-issue DC Comics series and screenplays by Charles McKeown and Sam Hamm. In 1991, Fox assigned some rights via a quitclaim to Largo International with the understanding that the studio held exclusive rights to distribute the first motion picture based on "Watchmen," according to the lawsuit.
When Largo dismantled, the rights were transferred to producer Lawrence Gordon. Under a "turnaround agreement" between Fox and Gordon, the producer agreed to pay a buy-out price to Fox if he entered into any agreement with another studio or third party to develop or produce "Watchmen," among other things.
The project apparently bounced around to Universal and Paramount before returning to Warners. Now, Fox claims that neither Gordon nor Warners has paid the buy-out price or advised the studio of any other conditions required under the agreement, including procedures necessary to acquire the rights to "Watchmen" from Fox.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it.But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
Not true -- graded, unread copies on eBay have been going for $100 or more.It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it.But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
Graded being the key. The grading costs $30, and unless you have a 9.5 or higher, you won't get much.Not true -- graded, unread copies on eBay have been going for $100 or more.It's worth practically nothing. That's a fantastic series, but it wasn't popular enough to make the series a collector's item. Of course, the film could change that.so what is the #1 issue of that comic worth these days? I remember buying that, and never even opening it.But its sealed in a bag somewhere around here.
started reading it as well.good stuff.I'm reading this graphic novel right now and I have to say it's sort of dragging ### a bit. Of course, I will still go happily see the movie as Carla Gugino is ... well ... super purrty and stuff.
It's not an action story. It's a character study. And it also says some very powerful things about post-war America, and the nuclear age. This is part of the reason I don't think it will be that effective as a movie, though it is one of the best things I have ever read. Some novels simply don't lend themselves to movies. The trailer for the movie had great visuals, but again, it's not the visual of the story that's important.I'm reading this graphic novel right now and I have to say it's sort of dragging ### a bit. Of course, I will still go happily see the movie as Carla Gugino is ... well ... super purrty and stuff.
I'm hyped for this movie.New Watchmen trailer playing before the new Bond movie
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1
I think I like the first one more, but this one shows a lot more.
I thought the new trailer was alright.nothing specialI'm hyped for this movie.New Watchmen trailer playing before the new Bond movie
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1
I think I like the first one more, but this one shows a lot more.
Agreed it looks like they just expanded on a few of the scenes from the first trailer. But, my goodness I loved the song they used in the first release (the beginning is the end is the beginning, by smashing pumpkins). It really gave you the feel of what Watchmen is all about.I thought the new trailer was alright.nothing specialI'm hyped for this movie.New Watchmen trailer playing before the new Bond movie
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1
I think I like the first one more, but this one shows a lot more.
I think he was resurrected a year or 2 ago, name of the film escapes me.I had no idea that they brought Kelly Leak back from the dead to play Rorschach. A+ stuff there.
Fox wins ruling in 'Watchmen' caseJudge finds in favor of studioBy DAVE MCNARYA Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," representing a setback for Warner Bros.' plans to release the pic in March.“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.Judge Gary Allen Feess issued the surprise ruling Wednesday -- a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit -- and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment.Warner Bros. has not backed off a release date of March 6 for "Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.The suit asserts that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement. Warner Bros. has denied Fox's assertions and contended Fox doesn't hold the copyright.Fox originally acquired the rights to "Watchmen" in the late 1980s and spent more than $1 million developing the project, which later went to Universal and then Paramount before landing at Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.
dammit. after finishing the comic, i was really looking forward to this movie even though i'm fairly sure it had no chance at all to match up.![]()
Fox wins ruling in 'Watchmen' caseJudge finds in favor of studioBy DAVE MCNARYA Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," representing a setback for Warner Bros.' plans to release the pic in March.“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.Judge Gary Allen Feess issued the surprise ruling Wednesday -- a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit -- and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment.Warner Bros. has not backed off a release date of March 6 for "Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.The suit asserts that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement. Warner Bros. has denied Fox's assertions and contended Fox doesn't hold the copyright.Fox originally acquired the rights to "Watchmen" in the late 1980s and spent more than $1 million developing the project, which later went to Universal and then Paramount before landing at Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.
I find that hard to believe. The hype for this is already huge. I can't think of another film that made it this far along and was derailed. $$$ always talks.This movie will never see the light of day. Fox is more interested in forcing WB to have wasted $$ on creating a film that will never get released instead of splitting the profits or working out some other settlement with Fox.
Wasting $$? Who cares? It's one movie. What did they spend making it? 100 mil? Maybe 150. That's nothing. It does no damage to WB to have a movie they spend 150mil on do nothing. It happens all the time. What does FOX care if they force WB to sit on a movie that makes nothing? It doesn't make anything for FOX. It doesn't hurt WB at all. How much did they spend on making "10,000 BC"? At least half the cost of the production of the movie is paid again in the marketing, release, advertising, etc. Not having to do that stuff, just making the movie and putting it on a shelf never to see the light of day, would be less of a financial hurt to WB than a film like "10,000 BC" was, since they don't have to spend all the money on putting it out there to watch it fail. So all FOX would do is force WB to put forth the production cost of one more "10,000 BC", without having to spend the marketing and advertising costs, with no chance to recoup. Big deal. One more movie on WB's fiscal calendar is a drop in the bucket. They make it up by raising the syndication price of "Two and Half Men" by 2% next year or bringing in just one more corporate tie-in sponsor for Nolan's next Batman movie.Echo Seven said:This movie will never see the light of day. Fox is more interested in forcing WB to have wasted $$ on creating a film that will never get released instead of splitting the profits or working out some other settlement with Fox.
Well the problem becomes that if WB is forced to share it's profits with Fox, It's gonna have to do something to make more money to counter what it's giving up. First thing they'll probably do is cut the film from 2.5 hours down to at least 2 hours so it can get more runs of the film in. The more they cut out, the bigger the disappointment it's going to be. As it is, I don't know how they managed to get most of the book done in 2.5 hours (I know they took out the pirate comic stuff)videoguy505 said:I still don't see why FOX would get in the way here. Just take their profit and let the movie proceed.
I guess that's possible, but, trimming 20% of the runtime with 3 months before release would be the biggest clusterfudge reconform ever. Would hate to be the mixer on that soundstage. You can't just cut time out like that, you'd have to go back and re-score all the music and stuff. Possible, but, a major headache.WB, I would imagine, might have other avenues to recoup the FOX losses. They could just begrudgingly push forward as is and give FOX their cut, but fold something else into the agreement to keep ancillary profits at a higher percentage. Or book a share with a flop to hide some profits... these guys have their ways of making a million dollars disappear here and there as necessary. I'd think WB would take the hit if FOX would settle for something hands-off. Looks like the ruling here hits only on distribution rights for now, so, WB has to see some glimmer there to sneak in some profit through other channels.Well the problem becomes that if WB is forced to share it's profits with Fox, It's gonna have to do something to make more money to counter what it's giving up. First thing they'll probably do is cut the film from 2.5 hours down to at least 2 hours so it can get more runs of the film in. The more they cut out, the bigger the disappointment it's going to be.
The scuttlebutt is that Snyder wanted the movie to be released with a three to four hour length, but the studio resisted.As it is, I don't know how they managed to get most of the book done in 2.5 hours (I know they took out the pirate comic stuff)
stupid foxJudge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 29, 2008
LOS ANGELES — Who’s watching the “Watchmen”? Come March 6, it may not be moviegoers.
A federal judge, having ruled last week that 20th Century Fox has distribution rights to “Watchmen,” an eagerly anticipated superhero movie shot by Warner Brothers, said he was inclined to decide after a hearing scheduled for Jan. 20 whether the release of the film should be blocked.
At a morning conference, lawyers for both studios heard the judge, Gary A. Feess, elaborate on his ruling, issued last Wednesday, that Fox owned an interest in “Watchmen,” a film Warner was preparing to release on March 6, in association with Legendary Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
“I thought we ought to talk,” Judge Feess told the lawyers in opening the session. In an exchange that quickly became testy, Steven A. Marenberg, a lawyer representing Warner challenged the judge’s decision to rule in Fox’s favor without a trial. But Judge Feess said he planned to move on to the question of remedies rather than fighting the issues again.
“I have spent more time than I think you can imagine working on your case at a time when I didn’t expect to be working on it,” Judge Feess said, referring to an expedited schedule that was intended to resolve the movie’s status before its planned release.
Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. In court, neither side gave any sign of a settlement. Mr. Marenberg said he believed a settlement would be even more difficult given the judge’s order.
“Watchmen” has been the talk of the fan world since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on a famous graphic novel of the same title.
But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures, and then Paramount.
From the beginning, Fox has contended, among other things, that Mr. Gordon — who was never named as a defendant in the case — failed in an obligation to offer the movie to that studio when Mr. Snyder became involved. Mr. Snyder signed on in the wake of his success with “300” for Warner and Legendary, giving the project a cachet it had lacked.
Warner’s lawyers argued that Mr. Gordon and his lawyers had signed over rights to “Watchmen” without mentioning a crucial agreement between a company Mr. Gordon controlled and Fox. Also, they said that if anyone still owed a buyout fee to Fox, it was Mr. Gordon.
Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.
“The Court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “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.”
“Watchmen” acquired almost mythic status in Hollywood as a project that could not be filmed. Based on a series written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, its story follows the tawdry lives of superheroes in a world that had rejected them.
The tale was long considered too dark for a mainstream film. But the culture changed, as heroes in the “X-Men” and “Batman” films took on more somber tones without losing their audience. As a result, “Watchmen” could be a lucrative prize for the winning studio. Warner leads all studios in box office results for 2008 based on hits including “The Dark Knight,” “Sex and the City” and “Four Christmases.” Fox lags far behind but has had big hits recently, included “Marley & Me.”
Mr. Snyder has walked a difficult line in adapting “Watchmen,” which has cult status among its fans. He has made a point of remaining true to the tone of his material and much of its story, but has clearly made concessions to the limits of a feature-length film, for instance, by withholding an elaborate “Tales of the Dark Freighter” subplot for a separate film to be released on DVD.
Mr. Snyder has said he would not become involved with any sequel to “Watchmen,” out of respect for the integrity of its story.
stupid fox
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business...30watchmen.html
Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 29, 2008
LOS ANGELES — Who’s watching the “Watchmen”? Come March 6, it may not be moviegoers.
A federal judge, having ruled last week that 20th Century Fox has distribution rights to “Watchmen,” an eagerly anticipated superhero movie shot by Warner Brothers, said he was inclined to decide after a hearing scheduled for Jan. 20 whether the release of the film should be blocked.
At a morning conference, lawyers for both studios heard the judge, Gary A. Feess, elaborate on his ruling, issued last Wednesday, that Fox owned an interest in “Watchmen,” a film Warner was preparing to release on March 6, in association with Legendary Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
“I thought we ought to talk,” Judge Feess told the lawyers in opening the session. In an exchange that quickly became testy, Steven A. Marenberg, a lawyer representing Warner challenged the judge’s decision to rule in Fox’s favor without a trial. But Judge Feess said he planned to move on to the question of remedies rather than fighting the issues again.
“I have spent more time than I think you can imagine working on your case at a time when I didn’t expect to be working on it,” Judge Feess said, referring to an expedited schedule that was intended to resolve the movie’s status before its planned release.
Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. In court, neither side gave any sign of a settlement. Mr. Marenberg said he believed a settlement would be even more difficult given the judge’s order.
“Watchmen” has been the talk of the fan world since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on a famous graphic novel of the same title.
But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures, and then Paramount.
From the beginning, Fox has contended, among other things, that Mr. Gordon — who was never named as a defendant in the case — failed in an obligation to offer the movie to that studio when Mr. Snyder became involved. Mr. Snyder signed on in the wake of his success with “300” for Warner and Legendary, giving the project a cachet it had lacked.
Warner’s lawyers argued that Mr. Gordon and his lawyers had signed over rights to “Watchmen” without mentioning a crucial agreement between a company Mr. Gordon controlled and Fox. Also, they said that if anyone still owed a buyout fee to Fox, it was Mr. Gordon.
Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.
“The Court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “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.”
“Watchmen” acquired almost mythic status in Hollywood as a project that could not be filmed. Based on a series written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, its story follows the tawdry lives of superheroes in a world that had rejected them.
The tale was long considered too dark for a mainstream film. But the culture changed, as heroes in the “X-Men” and “Batman” films took on more somber tones without losing their audience. As a result, “Watchmen” could be a lucrative prize for the winning studio. Warner leads all studios in box office results for 2008 based on hits including “The Dark Knight,” “Sex and the City” and “Four Christmases.” Fox lags far behind but has had big hits recently, included “Marley & Me.”
Mr. Snyder has walked a difficult line in adapting “Watchmen,” which has cult status among its fans. He has made a point of remaining true to the tone of his material and much of its story, but has clearly made concessions to the limits of a feature-length film, for instance, by withholding an elaborate “Tales of the Dark Freighter” subplot for a separate film to be released on DVD.
Mr. Snyder has said he would not become involved with any sequel to “Watchmen,” out of respect for the integrity of its story.

Dork alert!FOX is angering a lot of nerds with these shenanigans.
With an avatar from star trek I certainly hope you count yourself as aFOX is angering a lot of nerds with these shenanigans.

I will be the one leading the nerd chargeWith an avatar from star trek I certainly hope you count yourself as aFOX is angering a lot of nerds with these shenanigans.![]()

I will be the one leading the nerd chargeWith an avatar from star trek I certainly hope you count yourself as aFOX is angering a lot of nerds with these shenanigans.![]()
![]()

I will be the one leading the nerd chargeWith an avatar from star trek I certainly hope you count yourself as aFOX is angering a lot of nerds with these shenanigans.![]()
![]()

?Yes. But there are varying levels of nerdiness. You have guys like Otis who live in NYC and party like a rockstar. Then you have guys like me who use 'drinking birds' to continually hit F5 while surfing these forums.since we're posting on a FF message board isn't everyone here at FBG a
?
Yes. But there are varying levels of nerdiness. You have guys like Otis who live in NYC and party like a rockstar. Then you have guys like me who use 'drinking birds' to continually hit F5 while surfing these forums.since we're posting on a FF message board isn't everyone here at FBG a
?
