DISQUS

curtis · 11 months ago

fucccccccccccccccccck

Voltron · 10 months ago

that is the exact same thing i said when i finished reading

TL_is_now_TJL · 11 months ago

I'm a little fuzzy on the details about this whole thing, so if anyone has any answers please reply:
I read online today that FOX has owned the rights to The Watchmen for a long time, and they never did anything with it.
But, how can Warner Brothers make a Watchman movie if they never owned the rights to it? Did FOX give WB permission to make the movie or not? I would think a major movie studio would make sure they had the rights to make a movie before they started filming!

Kevin_Carr · 11 months ago

My guess is that Fox will gladly take a piece of the gross. Having not invested any money up front, they're sitting pretty, and they can cash in on a mistake that WB made. Basically, they'll take a portion of the door, even though WB footed the bill. That's WB's fault, but a co-distribution deal of a blockbuster is better than a no-distrubtion deal for a film that clearly will make money.

Basically, this ruling means that WB is going to FOX with its tail between its legs, saying, "Yeah, you guys can cash in on this."

My prediction is the release date will not change at all and this whole WB/FOX distribution deal will be all signed, sealed and delivered by mid-January.

MoMo · 11 months ago

i'm not entirely sure jmoney, but i think the copyright law that states ownership for the lifetime plus 50 years after death or the original version. so basically this means any musical artist or any other artist for that matter owns his or her creation until 50 years after death (the estate would inherit after death). since Fox bought the rights to the book, and aren't the originators of the book (that being DC and the authors themselves), there may have been some clauses and other legal jargon that may weigh in WB's favor (though that's very unlikely).

i also may be totally wrong, in which case i appologize or my dumbness.

Kevin_Carr · 11 months ago

If you purchase the copyright, you own the copyright. if a corporation purchases the copyright, the corporation (a legal "person") owns the right for its lifetime (which is infinite, unless the corporation is "killed", aka legally dissolved). That's why Disney owns Mickey Mouse for now until forever as the corporation will never die a natural death.

However, Fox does not own the full copyright. Copyright is like a bundle of sticks. There's a lot involved... right to adapt, right to distribute, right to make sequels, character spin-offs, etc. It sounds like the judge is saying they at least have a right to distribute, if not more.

JMoney · 11 months ago

what happened to the earlier comments?

Rob_Hunter · 11 months ago

Excellent question. Neil's looking into it ...

Spider-Man · 11 months ago

I bet FOX was worried about WB having another huge successful superhero movie that will make a bunch of money. And with the exception of the X-Men franchise, they really haven't had any other blockbusters (Daredevil, Fantastic Four).

JMoney · 10 months ago

Fox is a business, obviously they are goin to make sure they get their share of a blockbuster. If it was a dud then obviously they would have let WB have it. Why is everyone upset about this? I'd be questioning whoever is running Fox if they didn't try to get their share.

Hage · 10 months ago

why wait till only now?

Rob_Hunter · 10 months ago

I'd disagree... there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless.

That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty.

JMoney · 10 months ago

Despite what you may think, Copyright law is pretty much set, the owner of the rights to copyrightable material has the exclusive right to distribute that material for their lifetime plus 50 years (or it may now be 70 years in the US). So yeah Fox sat on the rights for 20 or so odd years, but that was their right, they had plenty of more time to sit on the material, the WB should have been more thorough in their investigation into who owned the rights, if anyone is to blame in all this, it's whatever lawyer the WB ordered to look into this before they started making the movie.

Alericc · 10 months ago

I have to agree with Rob. Fox knew what they were doing, they are trying to make money on someone else's effort. But that is why they are a sleeze bag Hollywood characture of the old adage.

JMoney · 10 months ago

Your tone seems to suggest that Fox is doing something wrong here and screwing over WB. If a judge says they own copyright then it was the WB who was the wrongdoer. It's their own fault for not fully investigating who owned the rights to the movie before going forward. Fox is not bending WB over, they are simply getting their legal share of the distributive rights to the movie.

Nish · 10 months ago

At the end of the day, the people that run the studios need to make money. Its a sad truth that seems to result in decent movie-goer folk like us being bent over and shafted repeatedly. Maybe someone could make a movie out of this saga. Give a traditional Christmas message where their stone cold hearts melts (I never got that phrase, surely melting someone's heart is freaking heart attack?) and decide to show the movie early. For free. I've watched too many christmas movies this year.

rejectnation · 10 months ago

I agree with you, JMoney. There are a lot of people out there vilifying Fox in this case -- because it's easy to hate on Fox -- but in reality the court's ruling states that WB did the wrong. Either way, so many people are concerned with what effect this might have on the release of the film. I think Rob makes a good point above in a roundabout manner -- if Fox and WB can't play nice on this, fans will be in for a world of hurt. And in order for them to play nice, it looks like WB is going to have to bend a little and open up that checkbook.

JMoney · 10 months ago

I think they mean melt the ice that has frozen the heart, not the actual heart

Ronnie_S · 10 months ago

Money for money's sake. We won't see this movie in March.

JMoney · 10 months ago

"translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox"

"If WB refuses to bend over on this"

I'm sorry I misinterpreted, I guess these two statements gave me the impression you were attacking Fox.

Although, my opinion on who is the wrongdoer is based on the circuit judge actually knowing what he's taking about. I'm not an expert in American law but aren't your judges elected officials at the lower levels? and perhaps this judge isn't an Intellectual Property expert, so maybe he is just trying to get these two sides to the table to get a deal so the movie can be released. IP is all about balancing the rights of the owner of the material versus the desire of a large distribution of Intellectual Property like movies for the public's consumption. Perhaps this judge is leaning more towards the public's side than the WB's