Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

WATCHMEN in trouble, Fox wins initial judge ruling over distribution

The Watchmen started out in trouble by DOGSOUP	Dec 25th, 2008 03:38:23 AM
But Im in the minority on that score.
First? by TheMcflyFarm	Dec 25th, 2008 03:39:02 AM
fuck me
Yeah dude, you're first. by DOGSOUP	Dec 25th, 2008 03:46:18 AM
I take my victories where I can get them and I count being the first poster to NOT fucking say first high on the Little Victory list. Somebody bring great and lasting harm to Rothman. You'll be a hero.
What a bunch of assholes. by abysstare	Dec 25th, 2008 03:49:06 AM
I have never been one to jump on the whole "Boycott" bandwagon, but not a CHANCE will I see Wolverine in theatres now. This studio is the worst movie studio in the history of film. And as much as I am dying to see Watchmen, if the final outcome of this is greatly in Fox's favor, I'll pass on it just to say "fuck you."
You're a piece of shit Rothman. by slder78	Dec 25th, 2008 03:49:33 AM
I hope someone one day will go Rated R on your PG-13 ass.
Bullshit by BlackNacht	Dec 25th, 2008 03:49:47 AM
The fact that Fox waited until the movie was in the can to bring up some shit like this speaks to their intentions. They couldn't get the job done, someone else did - let the shit go. And in the end the people who suffer the most are the fans, fans that will not soon forget shenanigans like this, that is for certain. You blew it Fox, let it go. Try harder next time. Pricks.
Just in case people think nothing could be as bad as The Spirit. by Iblis_mage	Dec 25th, 2008 03:50:21 AM
Just imagine what Miller would do with this one. Then consider yourselves lucky.
It's not 3+ hours by TeenAngst73	Dec 25th, 2008 03:52:49 AM
According to IMDB it's 163 minutes long. Which is 17 minutes short of a 3 hour movie.
Ha! Too bad Fox doesn't own distribution rights to The Spirit... by Daytripper69	Dec 25th, 2008 03:53:44 AM
So is this what Rothman is reduced to? Since he can't make good superhero movies himself, he has to tear down the superhero movies of others?
Let's boycott Fox! by earlfist	Dec 25th, 2008 03:55:52 AM
I did wonder if Fox had deliberately delayed their action to put the other party over a barrel! FUCK Murdoch st all.
Sounds like the perfect reason to bittorrent ... by Pixeldriver	Dec 25th, 2008 03:57:11 AM
It would be a great kick in Fox's nuts if someone at WB "accidentally" uploaded a hi quality final print of the R rated version just as the PG13 hit the screens. Opening weekend for Fox: about $27.00
FOX's Watchmen : 87 minutes, PG-13, reshoots by MaxCalifornia.	Dec 25th, 2008 03:59:27 AM
Reshoots will make Dr. Manhattan "funny" with goofy Austin Powers almost-nudity scenes, Chris Tucker will be recast as Rorschach, Nite Owl will get a CGI wisecracking robot sidekick.
i kind of feel like boycotting this movie anyway by Toe Jam	Dec 25th, 2008 04:03:06 AM
snyder came off as a real prick in the ew article a few months back. was talking about how he begged fox not to let the "wrong" people make "watchmen" -- i.e., anyone not named zack snyder. as if the vastly overrated "300" qualifies him as the perfect/only director to make "watchmen." if you truly had respect for "watchmen," you wouldn't try filming it at all, unless you could do so as an eight- to 10-hour miniseries-type thing. also, quint, i'm pretty sure no school offers "juditial" studies. judicial studies, maybe.
Tom Rothman is a sick sick man. by iamnicksaicnsn	Dec 25th, 2008 04:03:59 AM
When will he learn? Oh yeah, when we get people to stop going to his movies. No more Fox movies, I've already stopped watching Fox TV.
Looks good by theplant	Dec 25th, 2008 04:08:28 AM
This might improve the movie box office. 88mn including the 12 mn end credits.
was it... by bright boy	Dec 25th, 2008 04:13:18 AM
...an injunction?
...a preliminary injunction? by bright boy	Dec 25th, 2008 04:17:57 AM

No Quint, Fox will NOT get to distribute this for free by ZeroC	Dec 25th, 2008 04:19:07 AM
Even if Fox ends up winning distribution rights to Watchmen, that doesn't mean WB has to hand the movie to them "on a silver platter" to distribute. WB financed and produced the movie and that means they own it no matter what. If Fox wants to distribute it, they'll have to work out a deal with Warner where both parties agree to do so. Otherwise, WB can just opt for the film to never be released, which I'm guessing would be preferable to giving Fox free money with nothing in return. It would be like if you wrote an X-Men comic for fun. Doesn't mean Marvel can automatically take it from you and publish it.
by JTWoods	Dec 25th, 2008 04:19:58 AM
So, just checking: that's Warner Brothers and Fox that are on the boycott lists from fans, due to Half-Blood Prince and Watchmen respectively...
It's all WB's legal dept's fault... by Duncan Irons	Dec 25th, 2008 04:23:44 AM
I mean if I were to get million dollars for free, I would... It's not Fox's fault... What they are doing is perfectly legible... WB should have gotten theşr facts straight before starting shooting..
but Duncan by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:32:15 AM
it's not like WB snuck this movie in, there were director announcements (Paul Greengrass-someone else I think-then Zak Snyder), casting announcements, designs online, an official website, video blogs, bitching by Alan Moore, praise from Dave Gibons, books published, they had pleanty of time to file their injuctions. Rothman and Co waited until production was in the can (or almost so) before doing anything about it. They WON'T get this movie "for free" they'll have to at least recoup WB the cost of the film, or WB can choose not to release it
Blame Dark Knight by spidermanfreak20	Dec 25th, 2008 04:33:09 AM
The Dark Knight was the biggest movie since Titanic. Also the best selling DVD this year. Watchmen trailer played on it and is included on the DVD it's awareness is extraordinarily high. So coupled with fans of the comics which are many and now public Fox knows they need to take a slice on this anyway they can. Rules is rules. WB will have to pony out the cash to get the release date for March.
by Duncan Irons	Dec 25th, 2008 04:38:20 AM
It's just that WB should have known better... The previous paperwork didn't appear out of nowhere. The possibility of an action was there, WB chose to take their chance by shooting the movie while it could be resolved if Fox had been contacted prior to shooting. Btw, when Greengrass was attached the movie was at paramount, after the executive change, the project was canceled.
But it's not illegal just shady. by spidermanfreak20	Dec 25th, 2008 04:39:23 AM
Think of it like Pink Five series for the Star Wars fan films. Lucasfilm knows they are being made. But only Atomfilms can distribute it. Lucasfilm makes sure they dont make any cash of it. If now trey was to make a full lengthed movie and said movie ended up being most hyped movie of next year Atomfilms would come in wanting to put the Kabbosh on it. Like I said they knew and did nothing thinking. "It's Watchmen no one will watch it. March release plus R rating and zero awareness." But Dark Knight showed a movie can hit big ANY time. Not just May but July. Fox dropped the ball big time and they are just playing the last card they have. WB will have to reach a settlement. Where in you will see 20th Century Fox logo show up in the front. It's funny because WB is like Rorschach and Fox is now Veidt. Veidt the bad guy wins and Rorschach loses. Same scenario here.
thanks for the clarification on Greengrass by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:41:44 AM
I still stand by the assertation that Fox should have said somethinig as soon as WB got it further then any other studio...espically after it had been to Paramount prior to WB I'm not saying that WB shouldn't have checked it out (and who knows, there may have been some verbal agreement that just got shat on), but it's a real a-hole move on Fox's part
Yes, the Judge can do this. by Darth Chef	Dec 25th, 2008 04:43:37 AM
Reason being, so WB doesn't say "Oh shit! Let's rush this thing out next week, so that it's released before the court case." It's basically just a temporary injunction until both sides have had their day in court, nothing more. It does mean that the judge does think that there is some merit to Fox's case... but not that he thinks that they will win. It's pretty common in cases like this.
Quint, here's my guess on the ruling by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:47:16 AM
What I'm guessing, and this is a guess based on very little I've read on the case, what the judge is doing is basically preventing WB from releasing it in some time for a limited engagement, say for example on the Watchmen site, here, Newsaskew, Dark Horrizons, and one or two other sites they posted an annouoncement "Watchmen showinng for 2 days only Dec 25 and Dec 26 in Buttfuck, Kansas" that way WB got the distrubtion out before Fox could stop it, the fans could see it and it would be some legendary showing or something, and gets released on DVD sooner or later
I may be a layman but.... by thecomedian	Dec 25th, 2008 04:47:54 AM
If this was drawn up in the early to mid-90s then there's probably no clause regarding web distribution. Unless they've got 1st pass on all forms of distribution and not just theatrical then WB could probably release it online in full HD or sell it on itunes, am I right? It would suck and it would mark a terrible precedent with one more nail in the coffin of people actually going to the movies. But if Fox wants to play hardball or that imbecile Rothman wants to make changes to the movie then WB would be best served making a big public stink by releasing Snyder's cut online as a first run itunes rental for around 5 bucks a pop at the same time the theatrical cut comes out or even several weeks before. They could build a cult around the itunes cut. The Fox film which would of course be shorter would bomb because no one's gonna pay 9 bucks to see a shorter version of something they can buy on itunes and watch on half a dozen different devices(including apple TV)for 5 bucks. People with HD projection home theaters could have Watchmen parties. It would become such a cult hit that once the 1st theatrical run of fox's shitty cut is done. The Snyder cut would get a theatrical run within 6 months and Rothman would have to just sit back and have a nice warm cup of STFU.
and Darth beat me to it by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:49:03 AM
but yeah, that's the reason
one thing by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:51:35 AM
I saw some Watchman preview thing on YouTube the other day, it was shown in theatres and had Zack Snyder talking about the film along with clips and I could have sworn it had the 20th Centruy Fox logo along with the WB logo in front of it
Nah, by Darth Chef	Dec 25th, 2008 04:53:01 AM
I seriously doubt Fox could force them to re-cut it. They could say to the judge "This is our definitive cut, the best cut of the movie we made and paid for." Fox can probably take it or leave it, unless they have a clause in there that allows them to edit it. I seriously doubt that's the case though. Now had Fox paid to make the movie? They could probably edit the shit out of it.
That was Paramount Bloo by thecomedian	Dec 25th, 2008 04:55:00 AM
They've got a piece of this already too accept they're classier than the creeps @ Fox.
yeah by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 04:56:18 AM
this is probably a take it or leave it situation...probably, who knows though, this is Fox and Rothman...I gotta wonder how much of this is payback and bitterness towards Superman Returns
Is Fox the only guilty party? by Darth Chef	Dec 25th, 2008 04:56:28 AM
What if WB doesn't want to pay the fair price for Fox to distribute? We'll see the movie, it'll all be settled before it's suppose to hit theaters.
what would be interesting to see by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 05:00:35 AM
is if anyone in Paramount (when they had the project) knew about this Fox 'problem' as well, that's what I want to know...someone geet someone at paramount on the phone
What idiot is in charge to greenlit a film without proper rights by Se7en	Dec 25th, 2008 05:05:50 AM
Somebody at WB is going to have their asses handed over to them.
Fuck Fox, Fuck them up there stupid asses by Porco Drunko	Dec 25th, 2008 05:06:36 AM
I'm sure they have have at least some legitimacy to there case but the way they've gone about it is just cuntish in the extreme. Oh and Merry Christmas everyone!!
The judge was paid off by Fox for this!! by BatPsycho	Dec 25th, 2008 05:15:14 AM
Thats the only way his ruling makes any sense at all. WB owns DC Comics. DC puts out Watchmen. So the parent company own all the rights. Dont they?
It's WB's fault! by FrodoFraggins	Dec 25th, 2008 05:19:05 AM
Stop blaming Fox for enforcing their rights. It's WB's lawyers mistake in not properly examining the legal trail.
Yeah, and just how big is WB's legal department? by Aloy	Dec 25th, 2008 05:21:22 AM
Say what you want about Fox (and it's all true I'm sure) but the blame for any shitstorm over this has to be on the boys in legal or whoever gives 'em they're marching orders at WB. I mean how much is the budget for this??
It was never going to be 163 minutes anyway by performingmonkey	Dec 25th, 2008 05:29:58 AM
It was always destined to have at least 20 minutes excised from it. You all know this to be true.
WB Legal Precedents by jasper Stillwell	Dec 25th, 2008 05:32:20 AM
Does Jack Nicholson have a precentage of this and all Watchmen sequels and properties? Just checking.
and... by jasper Stillwell	Dec 25th, 2008 05:35:07 AM
This is a film that may well be more well-known in time for the legal battle but I'm with Toe Jam and DerLanghaarige, this film looks like everything you'd expect from a Zack Snyder film I'm afraid. When Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass (and yes, George Miller!) wants to make a superhero film then we should be interested. (Merry Christmas everyone by the way!)
All this fuss by Eats_sandwich_gets_laid.	Dec 25th, 2008 05:50:43 AM
Over a movie that most TBers have been whining about for the past year anyway. At least if this stalls the release you won't have to bitch about the lack of alien humboldt.
I'd prefer that they didn't release it at all by Damien Chowder	Dec 25th, 2008 05:50:57 AM
just to show that these tactics don't work. Both parties are absolute idiots.
An intelligent talkbacker? by indiebum	Dec 25th, 2008 05:53:50 AM
Huh?
The wrath of fans that would happen.... by ribbitking	Dec 25th, 2008 06:09:39 AM
Fox would see an uprising of fans no studio in history has ever seen...mark my words.
AICN needs to stop the fear shit... by ribbitking	Dec 25th, 2008 06:13:00 AM
SAG took away our future by not nominating cast of 'Dark Knight'... something I admittedly don't understand just happened that might affect a movie!... wtf guys
this graphic novel by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 06:16:09 AM
has floated from at least 3 stuudios (Fox, Paramount, and WB), WB surly isn't stutpid enough to grenlight, hire and complete a movie they just decided to, thy've been in buisness far too long to do that, they must have thought they had the rights, I'm gussing that Fox slipped some back door shady legal thing in when it went to Paramount that WB didn't catch when it went back to them. This is all conjucture, but it seems like an assholish thing to do I'm at work and we have to keep one of our TVs on Fox News in the morning, and I saw a commercial for Fox Movie Channel featuring Rothman, i wanted to punch the screen
This sucks, but for movie news websites, the solution is a simpl by The Tao of Joe	Dec 25th, 2008 06:17:52 AM
For those of you who were not aware, this is a call to open war. Tom Rothman is like some nasty douche bag rich kid who broke all of his cool toys (X-Men, FF, Aliens, Predators, and pretty soon, Wolverine). So what does he do now that his meddling ways have flat-lined his company, leaving him an entire year without a single $100 million blockbuster? Well, he gets his cronies to go to Warner Brothers and steal the coolest toy they got running right now. Worst part is, Rothman is too stupid to appreciate this toy, and the chances he might break it are very likely. Now the question remains, what can we do about this? It's simple, a complete, total Fox blackout. It's simple. Yesterday, Fox had this really cool movie under their indie shingle called "The Wrestler" that I really loved and encouraged everyone to see. Today, they had a movie that was really good, but as the producer and head-writer of The Movie Show (on WUAG 103.1 FM), I am not going to talk about it. "Slumdog Millionaire" was decent (though not worth the hype so many people are giving it), but I won't be talking about it. I am not going to review either film on the air. I will talk about and review the films coming from the rest of the companies instead. As for "Wolverine," yeah, that trailer sucked balls, and I will gladly bring that up on the air. However, in the highly unlikely event that positive buzz starts to erupt from test and critics' screenings, since it's a Fox film, I won't talk about it. And if these clueless morons do go ahead and try to distribute Snyder's "Watchmen" - especially if Fox pulls another Rothman and tampers with the film in any way - you better believe I won't be seeing the film now. I wasn't the most positive person on the block about this film. I was keeping my mind open, and I was going to see it on open day. But when Fox pulls some insidious shit like allowing WB to develop, finance, and shoot an entire movie only to steal it away once it's completed, I'm done with them. You better believe that until this problem is fixed, I will not be talking about anything Fox-related until the dust settles on this "Watchmen" business for good. AICN, JoBlo, Chud, Cinematical, FilmThreat, Latino Review, and the like: The answer is simple. Until Fox pulls their creatively flaccid member out from the rectums of WB and the greater fanboy community, we should ignore any good or potentially good property they've got on the line, and only talk about the bad. In other words, if you can't say anything bad about Fox, don't say anything at all. They are our Sauron, they are our Palpatine, and they are our Voldemort. Until their evil ways have been stopped, WE MUST FIGHT!
imagine by Die_Hardest	Dec 25th, 2008 06:24:14 AM
If Fox got it and put Rothman put the Squid in. It would be a Christmas miracle, like The Grinch's heart growing 3 sizes.
damn Tao by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 06:37:06 AM
that like inspired me, if only you had cussed like George C Scott at the beginning of Patton...
This is gonna come out on time... by dr_buggerlugs	Dec 25th, 2008 06:50:39 AM
Potentially 3 studios are now involved with this film; there's no way each of them will do anything to upset the film's earning potential - personally I wouldn't be surprised they throw it into a few more screens, up the marketing and ensure they get a huge opening weekend - if anything the worst may that Snyder may have to have a few more minutes here and there but I can't imagine any of the studios want to see their 2009 tentpole effected in any way. Merry Xmas all btw
Oh well, Anyway here's a X-Mas gift from moui. by Stalkeye	Dec 25th, 2008 07:07:18 AM
http://tinyurl.com/6hq7of
THE PRIEST WARNED THE AMBASSADOR ABOUT TOM ROTHMAN by BringingSexyBack	Dec 25th, 2008 07:14:11 AM
when he was born. But he didn't listen. Now we are paying the price. This Christmas, evil rises.
by ribbitking	Dec 25th, 2008 07:20:19 AM

err... what i meant to say was by ribbitking	Dec 25th, 2008 07:21:13 AM
Start the damn petition now...i'll sign it... fucking boycott fox.
Tao has a point, but it could go further by moviemaniac-7	Dec 25th, 2008 07:21:59 AM
Don't accept advertisement on the site for Fox features for a year. No reviews (this should also be on sites like EW, Variety, etc. - the sites, not the prints for commercial reasons of their own) and have editorials to damn the business Fox is running. Someone in Hollywood once said in an interview that it is not enough to succeed, the people around you have to fail also. And that is what Fox is doing. Warner is building up a nice superhero/vigilante slate (Batman, Watchmen and maybe whatever follows in the DC universe). Fox is busy fucking every potential franchise they could have in the ass, all under the proud direction of Rothman. There is one problem: those movies still make money and Fox will make a serious amount of cash from the Watchmen movie without ever having to invest a single cent in it. Although a serious slip on Warner's account, this is just plain evil from Fox which is getting in line with the tabloid antics of Rupert Murdoch's other sleaze publications. Work ethic like this starts in the gutter and goes downward after this. People working for Fox can be ashamed of a move like this. Fox is just aiming for a free ride and makes it obvious so. After Christmas, when Tom Rothman is done sucking Satan's cock so he can stay at Fox for the next year, he will probably announce so: "Yes, I never did anything I am really proud of, but I will continue to destroy stuff and intellectual property while trying to make money out of it." Legally, Fox may be right, but ethically they have pulled a fucked up thing there. Happy Festivus y'all!!
One of the big rumors going around about this is... by dihay	Dec 25th, 2008 07:22:47 AM
that Fox could care less about Watchmen but are using this ploy as a possible way to get the entire rights to the 1960s Batman TV series. WB on the other hand do not want the series released at this point due to the possible diluting of their most prized franchise, especially after the take Dark Knight brought in.
or Fox was mad about the SAG awards... by ribbitking	Dec 25th, 2008 07:24:56 AM
hehe, couldn't resist
by Bloo	Dec 25th, 2008 07:29:13 AM

who watches the rothman? by rodneyfaile	Dec 25th, 2008 07:35:02 AM

Uncle Pervy, I get it, you were molested. Ha Ha Ha! by Lance Rocke	Dec 25th, 2008 07:37:53 AM
I love a good child molestation joke.
Slightly on Fox's side here by EvilElecBlanket	Dec 25th, 2008 07:40:17 AM
Don't get me wrong. It's a shit underhanded move, but waiting like they did might get them some free money. It's BS, but its business. It also reminds me of this story about my Grandfather: He bought two wooded lots (acre a piece maybe.) Had one cleared which he built his house on, and left the other one as an investment. One morning a huge work crew shows up and starts clearing his second lot. He watches them work all day even making sandwiches and giving them soda during lunch. At the end of the day, the Foreman talks to my Grandfather and tells him they’ll be back tomorrow. My Grandfather just nodded and told them they were doing a great job. At the end of the second day, the company’s owner shows up, and almost has a fucking heart-attack because they were working on the wrong lot. My Grandfather might have been an ass for not saying anything, but I don’t blame him. In his defense, he did pay the crew to finish the job. And that’s my boring ass story. Merry Christmas all.
WE NOW CALL THE GIANT SQUID TO THE STAND!!! by rhcp2sweet	Dec 25th, 2008 07:46:39 AM
Frankly, Rothman is a fucking jackass for doing this in such a bullshit used car salesman manner. If he was really that pissed about it, he could've said something in pre production or before, not when the film is in it's final stages. I'll see Tom Rothman in hell (along with AvP, the fantastic four movies, X-men 3, and Live Free or Die Hard) Oh yeah, Merry Christmas everyone!!!!
As fans, we need to BOYCOTT FOX by hipnosismag	Dec 25th, 2008 07:59:30 AM
Since Fox is going to play hardball, we need to attack back. If they stop the release of Watchmen, we need to boycott all Fox movies and even protest....If fans strike back at Fox in their wallet, then they will be forced to work out a deal with Universal. I mean, Wolverine is set for a May release from Fox...so if no one went to see it and fans protested at showings, Fox would realize that it was because of what they did to Watchmen and they may be forced to allow its release. The only ways these studios can find reason is with the dollar....so, as fans, let's wait for Wolverine to come to video instead of making it a big blockbuster....and lets hold up signs that say "We Want the Watchmen" at the Wolverine premiere.....honestly, I want to see Watchmen a whole lot more than Wolverine. Fuck Fox!
Maybe some good can come of this... by CreatureCantina	Dec 25th, 2008 08:14:53 AM
Fox might insist they bring back the Giant Squid!!
WB is just as much to blame. None of their lawyers by CreasyBear	Dec 25th, 2008 08:25:44 AM
bothered to check who had the rights to this property during the long preproduction stage? The subject never came up? Absurd.
fuck fox. by palewook	Dec 25th, 2008 08:28:36 AM
seriously.
Attorney Opinion by Crooner1212	Dec 25th, 2008 08:43:44 AM
First Lawyer! The below is not to be construed as legal advice or analysis, but as general background on legal principles generally and speculation as to the current situation, as neither Variety nor AICN posted a link to the ruling. Judges frequently rule on issues that are either uncontested or highly likely to change before trial. In this case, it appears that the judge thought there was a reason to stop Warner Brothers from taking any action that could damage Fox’s rights to the movie. This type of injunction is not based on the likelihood of one side winning; it is based upon a balance of how much the claimant could be hurt versus how little the sued party could be hurt. In a case like this, Warner Brothers is not hurt at all by a pre-trial injunction because they were not planning on distributing this film before trial anyway; however, if Fox feared that Warner Brothers could cause them irreparable harm by distributing the film pretrial, such an injunction might be appropriate. This raises the question of what did Fox fear? The harm, generally, would be financial, and money damages would be calculated at trial, and therefore this would not normally be proper for an injunction. The only thing I can think of is that Fox feared that Warner Brothers would just dump the movie on the market without promotion, ruining the value of it, just to spite Fox and ruin their claim; this would make sense when what it being argued over is the right to distribute. Fox could be fighting for the right to distribute it rather than just take money damages because they think they can promote it better, and therefore make more money by means of their own promotion. Alternatively, if Warner Brothers were to distribute in advance of a trial that they suspected they would loose, they could go overboard on promotion, which, if Fox prevailed and won the rights, Fox might have to repay or have taken out of a judgment because it was money spend to Fox’s benefit by Warner Brothers, thereby lessening Fox’s recovery. An injunction like this preserves the status quo; while it is frequently interpreted as slanting towards the side winning the injunction, in this case I would suggest that the judge thinks it is more important to hold things as they currently are than anything else. More to come.
There's an article online by DannyOcean01	Dec 25th, 2008 08:46:10 AM
That goes through this case in fine detail and it does sound like WBs are at fault. I'm not saying Fox aren't fuckers for doing this, but it's their legal right to do so and WBs fault for not being more careful. Anyone got a link to the article?
Legal ruling by RetroActive	Dec 25th, 2008 08:46:57 AM
The judge can put a a "stay" on distribution until the trial is determined. Just like if you're accused of murder, you can't leave the state. Or how the five alleged steroid users in the NFL are allowed to play until their cases are decided. The judge could have just as easily said the show could go on with profits going retroactively, but that can cause bigger problems. I have a feeling that the judge wants this to be resolved quickly before the movie is released and there is no possibility of Fox trying to resubmit the case in another form. I don't know anything about the case, but I believe this is a backdoor victory for WB.
zom-bot.com by EvilElecBlanket	Dec 25th, 2008 08:48:40 AM
The land was worth much more money after it was cleared, so he wouldn’t have sued because the value was already gained. I can see Fox (like my Grandfather) just sitting back and laughing while this was being made knowing that they might be able to profit off of it in the end. If they jumped in when WB started pre-production, they wouldn't have gained anything. As much as I hate Fox, the legal beagles at the WB should have had rights nailed down before they even thought about starting the movie. I have no clue about the accomplice part, but I'm sure it's being brought up by the WB's side.
More attorney opinion by Crooner1212	Dec 25th, 2008 08:52:21 AM
Warner Brothers should raise the defense of estoppel; this is the idea, described by some of the talkbackers above, that Fox knew damn well what was going on and should have sued before Warner Brothers poured all their money into the film. Generally, courts do not look favorably upon people who sit back at let damage happen. What does that mean? That even if the court thinks Fox is right, they could still lose on the principle that they sat on their hands and let Warner Brothers very publicly spend money. Alternatively, even if the court were to rule that Fox was right and that they had absolute control of the movie, the would likely have to repay Warner Brothers for 100% of whatever was spend for production and promotion to date. Courts prefer to be equitable; on thing they detest is to give a windfall to any party. No judge would ever give a free movie to a studio; he might force a sale to Fox, but he would never give it to Fox for free, no matter how wrong he thinks Warner Brothers may be.
Brett Ratner is taking over by Charlie_Allnut	Dec 25th, 2008 08:57:22 AM
Stew on that idea Watchmen fans! Must be a bunch of weasels over there at Fox. This kind of stuff usually backfires in the long run. Esp in these days of co-financing, it'll be harder to cut deals if no one trusts the studio.
BOYCOTT ---- WOLVERINE!!!!!!!!!!! by Demode	Dec 25th, 2008 08:59:32 AM
If you want to make FOX shut up and pay attention, start a petition to boycott Wolverine because of what is going on with Watchmen. Hit em where it hurts!
Then will come the case of the music property's by DigitalDong	Dec 25th, 2008 09:00:19 AM
Yeah this soundtrack will be ripped from other sources.
Goddamnit by Magnum Opus	Dec 25th, 2008 09:00:47 AM
The worst part is that Fox is right. I fucking hate them, they are bastards, but WB didn't do their due diligence to make sure they could both make AND release this movie. They should have known this would happen, and maybe they did and just risked it, but like another TBer mentioned, I'm pretty sure Fox is doing this for leverage for other property rights or just a free settlement, but WB WILL settle before the March release date. They have no choice with the time and effort they've put into the marketing of this film.
Crooner1212, I think we wanted a talkback, not a treatise by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Dec 25th, 2008 09:05:55 AM
But good job! Your Civil Procedure professor probably just had a tingle go up his leg right now. If AICN ever has an evidentiary question, I'll jump right in there!
There was an 'Order after Hearing' or 'Stipulated Judgment' by hyeguy	Dec 25th, 2008 09:06:17 AM
There was likely a hearing, not a trial, an appearance before the judge and after the initial findings the judge makes an order, in this case the release of the picture. The attorneys draw up a document called 'order after hearing' which stipulates the judge's findings. Then the trial comes. During the trial the judge and pass judgment going either of two ways, Fox or WB. He can go against his original order thus nulling the original document. Or Fox's attorneys drew up a 'stipulated judgment' which lays out what they want from the trial, what they want the judge's opinion to be. Filed it with the court, a source for Variety probably found it and here we are now. This last one I could totally be wrong about. Yes, our legal system is a mess.
Pixeldriver has a great idea by batzilla	Dec 25th, 2008 09:07:23 AM
WB should let this out on the internet and say "ooops" and then everyone can go and grab it and say "FUCK YOU!" to Fox. I like the $27 comment Pixeldriver : )
Rothman WANTS the Squid by WerePlatypus	Dec 25th, 2008 09:11:05 AM
The Problem? Dr. Manhatten fights it in a 20-minute onscreen battle and beats it before it's "ticking clock" brain kills anyone. Roarsarch falls in love wtih Spectre, but bows out of the love triangle in a soulful tearjerking sacrifice. . . and Veidt gets away, but only because "Watchmen 2: Squid Burn" needs a bad guy.
Mountains out of Molehills, or Real, Legitimate Legal Analysis by The Look-at-Me Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 09:19:04 AM
So much to cover, so little time. First: to answer the questions about "how the judge could have done this without a trial," simply put: Fox asked the judge to do this without a trial. You can access the legal documents from the case here: http://blog.newsarama.com/2008 /08/19/watchmen-lawsuit-source -materials/. (Frankly, I'm not surprised that people at AICN--"reporters" and talkbackers alike--refused to look past Variety for their legal "analysis," but that's neither here nor there.) More accurately put, Fox asked or declaratory judgment, which means that the judge can issue a judgment based only on Fox's complaint and Warner Brothers's answer. Moreover, Fox's suit is based on contract and copywrite claims, which are issues of law. And as any first-year law student can tell you, issues of law are decided by judges only; juries decide issues of fact that are framed by the issues of law. The trial with which everyone is so enamored will address the only issue of fact that can exist in a case like this: damages, or, how much Warner Brothers owes Fox. Second: neither this, nor any forthcoming "trial," will affect the movie in any way. Yes, Fox asked for injunctive relief (I'm not going to take the time to explain that), but they don't seriously want Watchmen not to play. Like all large corporations that initiate litigation, what they want to gain is money, or, more aptly put, a pay-off. Let's face it, righteous indignation and upright moral stances regarding the true owners of intellectual property doesn't fill up the Land Rovers. My prediction: before the end of January, Fox and Warner Brothers will settle, with Fox getting either a lump sum or a percentage of Watchmen's box-office take. Third: I find if funny that Fox refers to the source material as "The Watchmen." In fact, the complaint is just oozing with potential geek commentary. You all would know that, well, if you took the time to read the complaint. Seriously, Quint: I enjoy your work. I really do. You're one of my favorites on AICN. But your legal "reporting" on this is just sloppy---half-assed even. I'm not asking you to raise your game to Greenburg's or Bazelon's level, but you have to at least look at the legal source materials to figure out what's going on instead of relying on Variety's "analysis" (which is inexcusably shoddy). I found these source documents by Googling "Watchmen complaint," and voila!, up they popped. And if, when reading the documents, you come across something that you don't understand, ask someone with a law degree and I'm sure that they'll help you out. Hell, e-mail me, and I'll break things down for you. Happy holidays.
Who Watches the by Sparhawk38	Dec 25th, 2008 09:25:02 AM

Who Watches the Watchmen's.. by Sparhawk38	Dec 25th, 2008 09:27:04 AM
rights to be distributed...not WB's lawyers apparently. Why do I stutter post? I am an idiot. I can't even post a simple paragraph.
Look at me by supertoyslast	Dec 25th, 2008 09:29:12 AM
Qunit's supposed to do all that at Christmas? It seems reasonable for him to quickly put up a link to a Variety article summarising a developing and complex story.
The Look-at-Me Guy by Stickman83	Dec 25th, 2008 09:29:51 AM
nice summary. but damn, you're a fucking jerk. feel superior enough now?
It would be cool if it NEVER got released! by Bob Cryptonight	Dec 25th, 2008 09:37:34 AM
Just like THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED...it will become this legendary movie that few have seen (although, realistically, bootleg DVDs probably already exist...it's a different era, folks).
OT: Anyone seen that Latino Reviews been hacked? by MRJONZ72	Dec 25th, 2008 09:37:41 AM

I mean, I would boycott Fox movies... by Gozu	Dec 25th, 2008 09:49:40 AM
But I generally avoid them anyway because they've been shit for the last decade!
Hang Rothman and burn his body by kafka07	Dec 25th, 2008 09:51:55 AM
that fucking fucker
I can't remember who suggested this, but... by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 09:57:50 AM
Someone on TB suggested a simple solution: Warners lets Fox release the Batman TV show on DVD. In the wake of Dark Knight and superhero mania, Fox cleans up, and everybody's happy.
in the grand scheme of things... by Ironhelix	Dec 25th, 2008 10:08:30 AM
no one is looking forward for to this movie anyway. the few "regular" people i work with that have even heard of this, think it looks retarded, and have no plans of seeing it. a protracted legal battle could actually do wonders for this movie.
FOX movies suck anyways. Boycott will be easy. by Alpha Trion	Dec 25th, 2008 10:10:32 AM
look, zach snyder had it easy because the graphic novel was so great (finally read it) so theres no loyalty to him taht moviegoers have to show. let this version of the story fail at the box office just to prove a point to fox that we, the people that keep them in business, wont tolerate corporate politics in our entertainment. the only thing we will tolerate is artistic integrity which we know fox and rothman do not have. boycott the movie if it becomes a fox movie and burn a copy of the dvd from one of your friends when they release it on dvd this summer.
Alan Moore... by Dead_Geek	Dec 25th, 2008 10:11:03 AM
...Is laughing his F*cking ass off across the pond. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'd join you in a Fox boycott but... by BurgerKing	Dec 25th, 2008 10:12:43 AM
We all know that no one here will actually boycott anything, as soon as something cool looking comes out you'll get over your little grudge.
and WOLVERINE is a farce by Alpha Trion	Dec 25th, 2008 10:14:13 AM
the trailer alone smells of rip off. it looks and feels just like the original x-men movie. nothing new, just rehashing the same old stuff that made the original kind of cool. down with FOX! DOWN WITH FOX!
re: Batman TV show by Daytripper69	Dec 25th, 2008 10:15:50 AM
I was about to bring it up, it seems other folks here were thinking the same thing. The Watchman distribution rights is giving Fox an insane amount of leverage--- not just for the Batman tv show dvd rights (and the money they can make off that is considerable already), but becoming some kind of partner for the Watchman movie. It would be interesting to see how this gets resolved. Snyder's movie had better be a damn good one for WB to go up to bat (whoops, bad pun) for it!
re: The Tao of Joe by Daytripper69	Dec 25th, 2008 10:18:28 AM
Hey, brutha, that was totally inspirational! Say it, buddy... say it!!
Because activist judges are America's royalty by Alfie Boy	Dec 25th, 2008 10:21:18 AM
They think they can do whatever they want.
anyone who uses the word "boycott" by FleshMachine	Dec 25th, 2008 10:27:21 AM
is a fucking idiot. get a grip on reality. seriously..boycott FOX? that's absurd. if they have legal rights to it then they SHOULD be fighting for it. also from what i've seen this is more shallow eye candy from a mediocre director. why they let the director of that piece of shit 300 to helm this is beyond me. "oh hey that was a comic and had lots of CG..this is a comic and will have lots of CG! ". prepare for a let down.
Holy shit i guess Alan Moore is a magician by drturing	Dec 25th, 2008 10:29:12 AM
nice trick, that.
I'd be a lot more on Warners side if... by Hedkickboy	Dec 25th, 2008 10:35:03 AM
... they hadn't had similar situations come up at least 2 other times in the last 12 years!!!! In 1997, they failed to secure the rights to use a sculpture in The Devil's Advocate Theatrical ad campaign and were sued by Sculptor Frederick Hart and the Episcopal National Cathedral. Then in 2005, they were sued by the estate of Bob Clarke for failing to secure the rights to the film "Moonrunners" which was the precursor for "Dukes of Hazzard". Not sure why so many people are on the side of a studio that doesn't seem to respect the intellectual property of others. Clearly, WB legal plays fast and loose with questionable rights issues, and this time, they might have gotten themselves burned.
well, if Fox wins the suit by Magic Rat	Dec 25th, 2008 10:36:40 AM
WB should just release the film online for free and screw Fox over.
of all the 'ideas' getting bandied around here by smackfu	Dec 25th, 2008 10:39:01 AM
The notion of a full on boycott of Wolverine sounds like a good idea. I don't care, I can download it. I'd much rather download wolverine and see Watchmen on the big screen than see Wolverine on the big screen and have to download Watchmen.
Fox currently is the worst studio to work for by drturing	Dec 25th, 2008 10:39:24 AM
Scuttlebutt in town period is that they are the nastiest, most lawyered up, moronic, cheap shithole to make a movie for currently. I've heard of directors who need the work, terrified of the SAG strike, actually saying they would not make another film at Fox even if they had a $200 million greenlight. Dispatching lawyers constantly to set to inform the directors of the tiny box they're supposed to be in because of their contract is a douche move.
The best way to spread Christmas cheer... by jimmy rabbitte	Dec 25th, 2008 10:46:32 AM
...is singing loud, for all to hear. I hope the Watchmen films survives this Fox intervention unharmed.
SAVE WATCHMEN by kgerm	Dec 25th, 2008 10:47:13 AM
It probably won't work, but fuck it. SAVE WATCHMEN
http://tinyurl.com/82h89k by kgerm	Dec 25th, 2008 10:48:41 AM
save watchmen
http://tinyurl.com/82h89k by kgerm	Dec 25th, 2008 10:49:03 AM
save watchmen
http://tinyurl.com/82h89k by kgerm	Dec 25th, 2008 10:49:28 AM
save watchmen
boycott fox forever by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 25th, 2008 11:11:30 AM
Sorry if someone already said this...but if Fox fucks this movie up, or fucks up its release, I think we need to call for a total ban on Fox films at the box office. The power of internet fandom has (for better or worse) influenced Hollywood before. Now is the time to make our voices heard. And fuck Fox anyway...when was the last time they put out a good movie?
WB-bashers... by moviemaniac-7	Dec 25th, 2008 11:15:32 AM
Warner Bros definitely isn't the nicest studio in town and was guilty of releasing Batman & Robin and The Avengers (now, where's the ruling on that). The issue here is that Fox sat on their lazy asses, let WB do all the work while it was common knowledge for nearly 2 decades that this movie was going to happen. Fox never did any real work on it and now wants to get some easy money. Given that Fox is already known as a fan unfriendly studio (especially their comic book driven side: FF, X3, etc.) this is just another nail in the coffin that is Rothman's.
Fox = Massive bunch of CUNTS by Steve Rogers	Dec 25th, 2008 11:16:12 AM
Seriously, fuck Fox and fuck Tom Rothman, right in the ass, face and ears. Wankers from top to bottom.
This 'ruling' is karma over fucking w/ the squid by OQuaTanginWann	Dec 25th, 2008 11:20:48 AM
I was so excited about this movie until I heard the squid news. Don't fuck with the classics.
You can lose a court case without going by stvnhthr	Dec 25th, 2008 11:26:16 AM
I don't think it is a well known fact, but you can lose a court case without ever having a court date. The one time I was sued I had a preliminary hearing. Basically you show up and they take your name and you let the court know your intent to fight in court. 2 days before my court date I was informed I lost the case because the judge had a full schedule and in those instances he is allowed to rule on the case without ever hearing an argument. I was stunned, but I guess it is a common practice. I imagine something similar happened here. Just because there is a court and a judge involved should not confuse anyone into thinking there is a desire to be fair.
If you're going to boycott Fox... by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 11:30:56 AM
DO it over its news division, not this. But that means no Family Guy, no Simpsons (although nobody I know admits to watching it anymore), no Star Wars... Good luck there.
whoever created that petition has a serious disconnect by smackfu	Dec 25th, 2008 11:36:14 AM
from reality. #1. you don't send a petition to THE JUDGE residing over the case. He can't simply choose to not follow the rule of law because of a fucking petition. He's bound, motherfucker. You write the petition to FOX, telling them to stop being douchebags and save themselves some backlash. #2. writing some big, over-dramatic, fan passion letter is not going to make anyone take you seriously. I can see the Judge you plan on sending that to reading the last line and going 'who watches the watchmen? what the fuck does that mean? Do they want to watch it, or not?'. You need to make a sane sounding rational case for why Fox needs to let it rest and back off. Not some bizarre diatribe about the hopes and dreams of geeks. You're just making people automatically dismiss you with that shit. #3. at the end of one paragraph you wrote: 'Please don't give us another film of misdirected passion.' Who is this line aimed at? Because you're writing to a Judge, right? He's not making the movie. He's ruling on case about distribution rights. Creator of this petition, you are absolutely retarded. I am making a petition to take down your petition.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- MERRY CHRISTMAS! by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Dec 25th, 2008 11:52:32 AM

wookie1972 by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 25th, 2008 11:59:25 AM
None of that is a problem for me, trust me. I already steer clear of Fox "News", and haven't watched either of those shows in a while (although if you're not a Nielson home it really doesn't matter...they're not making money off of you just for watching). And I haven't seen a SW movie in the theatre since Phantom Menace. The boycott is really just about not giving them money...not buying movie tickets or dvds or Fox merchandise.
Brett Ratner by Ulrich von Bek	Dec 25th, 2008 12:07:52 PM
to "re-direct" Watchman, and all subsequent sequels. Can't wait for the rat to get his grubby, talentless hands on this....
THE SPIRIT will hurt the B.O. for WATCHMEN by uberman	Dec 25th, 2008 12:10:36 PM
I think that the collosal bad review for THE SPIRIT and poor word of mouth will hurt WATCHEMEN. Why? The Look is so distinct and very simular to WATCHMEN that I would not be surprised if a great number of people avoid this and other all CGI painted flicks fearing more of the same (same being THE SPIRIT). They look as if they were painted from the same brush, even if one is great and the other crap, they still look like they play at the same double feature. Just my 2 cents-hope I'm wrong.
WB, if you lose, release online for free, BOYCOTT WOLVERINE! by Warcraft	Dec 25th, 2008 12:17:55 PM
If WB loses, they should just release it online for free. Everyone else, just download Wolverine if you MUST see it, just don't pay for a theater ticket.
Merry Christmas, Tom Rothman. by Johnny Smith	Dec 25th, 2008 12:28:06 PM
Here's a giant psychic squid blowing up your studio.
FOX does so POORLY how does Rothman keep a Job? by Stormwatcher	Dec 25th, 2008 12:30:25 PM
I mean really, do you own any FOX DVD's? Can you think of a movie you went to that is theirs recently? Not me. Christ how does he keep his job? And if they mess with Watchmen I guarantee I;ll never see any crap they do.
Umm I wasn't going to watch Wolverine by Rufferto	Dec 25th, 2008 12:34:12 PM
anyway.
People are still doing online petitions? by Bass Ackwards	Dec 25th, 2008 12:44:42 PM
I guess people just keep hoping the sheer abundance of them will somehow make them less silly.
Fuck Rothman up his miserable fuckin' ASS... by Kid Z	Dec 25th, 2008 01:03:05 PM
...with a 50 foot menorah! Happy Hanakkah you fat-ass piece of hack shit!
I'm getting a weird feeling............ by Evangelion217	Dec 25th, 2008 01:03:31 PM
that "Watchmen" will still be released on March 6th. If WB is smart, then they will pay Fox their money right on the spot. Or maybe they'll cut a deal, and give half of the box office gross on "Watchmen", to Fox studios, and then WB will attempt to make all of their money back with "Harry Potter." If that's going to be the case, then the only people who are suffering through this, are Harry Potter fans(lol).
Oh, and "Watchmen" is suppose to be 3+ hours long.... by Evangelion217	Dec 25th, 2008 01:05:41 PM
But the film might be cut down to 153 minutes long. Which still isn't a bad thing, but it'll be damn near impossible to put in all 12 chapters in a film that lasts 153 minutes.
why oh why by Dradis Contact	Dec 25th, 2008 01:33:37 PM
why couldn't this have been the end of this movie this movie is going to be like someone took Watchmen and made a cardboard cutout of it a standee
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT by wanderlust	Dec 25th, 2008 01:39:41 PM
You know Fox is all over these talkbalks - they even went on record discussing some sort of "geek boycott" - I'm with The Tao of Joe hipnosismag, Demode, Alpha Trion and everyone else above... BOYCOTT WOLVERINE!
Who cares, before ya know it, the screener will be leaked in due by Stalkeye	Dec 25th, 2008 01:41:58 PM
Bitorrent FTW! Fuck Fox! Now back to opening my gifts.
This is about the Batman 1960's series... by MrSentinel	Dec 25th, 2008 02:08:14 PM
This is Fox's way of getting Warner to give up the rights on the Batman series from the 1960's so Fox can finally put this out on DVD. Guarantee if Warner gives this up, Fox would drop the lawsuit. I would bet a year's salary that this is what Fox really has up their sleeve. For years Warner has blocked Fox from distributing this on DVD because they know people would buy these up in a heartbeat. So, Fox gets smart (good for them) and blocks Watchmen which will dump an ungodly amount of money into Warner's coffers. Smart move by Fox. Sucks for the fans, but if it means Batman comes out on DVD, I can wait a little while longer for Watchmen to hit the screen.
Ah Fox, truly the most notable black sheep of entertainment by tombseye	Dec 25th, 2008 02:12:07 PM
I already 'boycott' their so-called "news" network (granted it's good for some laughs to briefly listen to the low-brow babblings of O'Liely and Sean Vanity), BUT I was a big fan of some of F/X shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck's had its moments too. This is a bitch move though as everyone has noted, legal or not. I won't boycott Wolverine completely, BUT I may find other means of watching it just out of spite so as to not pay Fox anything. Plus, there's Dollhouse, which I'm curious about as well. Seeing as how that's on a Friday night me watching probably won't save that show anyway. Too many Ghost Whisperer fans will make sure of that (if that's the competition, not sure 'cause who freakin' watches network tv on fridays?!).
I get a kick out of reading whiny bitchboys whine by Proman1984	Dec 25th, 2008 02:16:49 PM
You are just pathetic fuckers. If Fox has the rights, than Rothman IS OUGHT to sue, he own it to his company. So stop the fucking witch hunt and get this through your pathetic heads first. He is not the enemy. Anyone, including WB would have done the same. AICNners always had this stupid pathetic beef with Fox. It's fucking annoying. Zip it, bitches.
FOX and Rothman are cunts. Simple as that. by G100	Dec 25th, 2008 02:19:26 PM

Just don't pay... by Fitzcarraldo2	Dec 25th, 2008 02:26:24 PM
Go to your local multiplex, pay to see a four hour, subtitled, black and white Polish epic about turnip-farming in lower Silesia then simply walk into the Watchmen auditorium. You get to see the movie but Fox doesn't get your money.
Rothman is a cunt!!!!! Fox is a collection of cunts!!!! by Gabba-UK	Dec 25th, 2008 02:29:46 PM
And Murdoch is the cunt that owns them all. I want to see this film on as big a screen as possible, but if ANY of my money is heading to Fox, Rothman or Murdoch then I'm sorry for Snyder and the rest of the crew but bit torrent is the way I'm going.
Rothman is cool by theplant	Dec 25th, 2008 02:29:54 PM
Watchmen is overrated crap, as is Alan Moore who isn't worth much than Miller these days re comic writing. Just cancel this movie and issue the Batman TV series, it's much better.
Imgine sticking up for pathetic cunts like FOX & Rothmans by G100	Dec 25th, 2008 02:34:39 PM
How BIG a corporate cocksucker would you have to be to suckle up to Fox's rancid tit and try to "spin" this as anything other than what it is. A Dick move by a corporation and guy who don't have the jiuice to make any good product of their own anymore but climb on the backs of others like parasites. No wonder FOX is in the shitter just now with assclowns like Rothmans in a job and not fired on the spot. Still, at least we can be sure there are no little FOX corporate minion drone plants in this talkback as the embarassment factor of being found out would be colossal.
I can't beleive people are blaming Fox for this....... by Evangelion217	Dec 25th, 2008 02:35:57 PM
When it's WB who f ucked this up. So instead of boycotting "Wolverine", boycot "Harry Potter."
The blame lies with Fox... by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 25th, 2008 02:45:59 PM
...because they should have pursued this in court when WB went into production on Watchmen, not once the film was finished, Fox realized that it would make a solid amount of money, and that all their 2008 films bombed...while WB had the 2nd highest-grossing film of all time, plus is poised to be box office king in 2009 with Watchmen, Terminator (not saying it will be good, just that it will make a lot of money), Where the Wild Things Are & Harry Potter.
I mean... by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 25th, 2008 02:50:42 PM
...looking at Fox's release schedule next year, all they have that has any real potential is Avatar, and that won't be fucking our eyeballs until next Xmas...so what else do they have? Dragon Ball Z? Street Fighter: Chun Li? Are you fucking kidding me?
Stop blaming WB for this by wanderlust	Dec 25th, 2008 02:53:51 PM
Fox had TWO DECADES to makes this movie...
Always wondered why they let WB shoot it by pokadoo	Dec 25th, 2008 02:56:12 PM
...before piping up. I mean, they're in the movie indistry, it's not like they didn't know there was a Watchmen film being made. Couldn't WB counter-sue?
generaljackcosmo by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 03:40:12 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I've always thought boycotting a communications company was futile. Newscorp owns HarperCollins, several newspapers, Myspace, IGN, and a helluva lot of other properties that you probably already use. Murdoch would probably care less about fanboys. I'm not saying this to be harsh - I want to see Watchmen, too, but I just think it's too hard to stick it to the man.
generaljackcosmo by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 03:40:13 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I've always thought boycotting a communications company was futile. Newscorp owns HarperCollins, several newspapers, Myspace, IGN, and a helluva lot of other properties that you probably already use. Murdoch would probably care less about fanboys. I'm not saying this to be harsh - I want to see Watchmen, too, but I just think it's too hard to stick it to the man.
stupid double posting again... by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 03:41:53 PM
And frankly, I want the Batman TV show on DVD. Adam West is 80 and he's not getting any younger, and judging by his commentary for the Batman movie, the package would be a blast.
Just for laughs? by StarWarsRedux	Dec 25th, 2008 03:45:45 PM
Lovely. More AICN rape humor. Classy, Quint. Classy.
Hate Fox all you want... by groorgman	Dec 25th, 2008 03:52:41 PM
With the millions of dollars these companies shit down the toilet, you'd think they would hire 20 lawyers to make sure they're in the clear then mayber 30 more lawyers to watch the first 20. WB dropped the ball, not Fox. If any of you were in the same situation you'd go for blood. Good job Fox!
Estoppel - specifically Laches by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 04:04:26 PM
The case is likely to revolve around precisely when Fox first officially (ie legally) advised Warners of their claimed rights. Both in terms of the strength of Fox's case and the extent of the relief/damages they might be awarded if they won. The affirmative defense of Laches (aka Estoppel by Delay) in Equity law asserts that the complaining party has wilfully "slept on its rights" and is therefore "estopped" from "waltzing in at the eleventh hour", having stood by and allowed the alleged "damage" to occur. This parallels the similar Common Law doctrine of Estoppel by Acquiescence and I believe the two defences are often raised together. Additionally, when considering injunctive relief/damages, a court also places a "Duty to Mitigate [damages]" on the complaining party - they may be denied relief for damages they could have reasonably prevented (eg by acting sooner). So for example: If Fox notified Warners of their claim early on, and Warners still went ahead, then that would strengthen their case and make the defense of Laches harder to to assert. But their delay in then actually bringing this action could seriously curtail any damages awarded to them even if they win. The judge could choose to award them only nominal damages - a phyrric victory. If on the other hand the judge found that Fox waited an unreasonably long time before even making a phone call to Warners, then Warners defense of Laches would prevail and their case would be toast. Things will at least be simplified by the fact that Fox won't be able to make the argument (often used in other cases involving copyright or contracts) that "we only just found out about this, honest your honor"! Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just an informed spectator of the law in action.
Fox Films Is BAD!!!!!!!!! by Ozzie_H	Dec 25th, 2008 04:12:43 PM
So How could Fox undermine the release of the WATCHMEN movie after winnig the ruling in court? Will the decide to edit the film and make it shorter? Will the release it in the fall? I hate Fox if they do, and I hate you Wolverine.
Watchmen is safe by dastickboy	Dec 25th, 2008 04:44:05 PM
My (wholly kneejerk) opinion, Watchmen will hit it's release even if the case is not settled, and the judge will simply award Fox the value of the rights and maybe a few percentage points on the gross.
Misdirected Anger by Liberty Valance	Dec 25th, 2008 04:59:59 PM
So WB's fucking ARMY of lawyers doesn't bother to secure the rights to this property before the movie is greenlit, Fox files suit last year to protect their legally-acquired rights, and somehow Fox is in the wrong? I hope this movie gets shelved forever just to spite all you fucking morons.
dastickboy, i think you're right... by wookie1972	Dec 25th, 2008 05:00:10 PM
Fox doesn't want to piss off exhibitors, and forcing an event movie out of theaters would do that. Exhibitors still have some pull, and if they want they could make life miserable for Fox execs.
By the way, we've actually been here before by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 05:09:57 PM
Fox did exactly the same thing to Warners over the Dukes of Hazzard movie. Though in that case they waited even later to assert their rights - just before the movie was about to be released. Fox accepted $17.5 million from Warners to settle and probably counted themselves lucky Warners preferred to pay them go-away money rather than go to trial. With that kind of "eleventh hour" move Warners probably had a chance of paying much less if it had done. Judges, especially in Equity law, frown on people using rights that are otherwise genuinely and legitimately held to deliberately ambush others. The whole point of Equity law is fairness - a person whose rights have been infringed on should be properly and wholly compensated. What they don't get to do (in theory!) is deliberately engineer a windfall profit out of the situation. Chances are something similar will happen with Watchmen. If Fox truly do have some rights then they'll get a settlement, in or out of court - but the chances of them actually derailing the movie or waltzing off with all the profits is mighty slim.
WB should have been better prepared. by mrfan	Dec 25th, 2008 05:16:20 PM
Simple facts. How the heck do you let a movie slip by the radar like this? WB is to blame.
Yes Fox are dicks but.... by A for Aristocrat	Dec 25th, 2008 05:22:44 PM
The WB completely deserved this for being such assholes over the Batman TV series. I'm sure Fox wanted payback and waited til the last minute to screw with the WB. Fox paid for the TV series saved batman the comic from cancellation and rebuilt the empire and they cant even sell the DVD's. Now the WB spent all the money and Fox isnt letting them show Watchmen. There is some poetic justice there but it sucks for us since we might lose out on seeing both.
Okay so I didn't see this headline... by jaddicoat	Dec 25th, 2008 05:24:02 PM
Apparently it's old news now... I haven't read the graphic novel so I don't have a vested interest in this per se. But you know how WB can get back at FOX? Offer Hugh Jackman some kickass starring vehicles and help him sever ties with FOX forever. Now that's how you fuck an arsefucker in the arse.
Crooner1212: Laches not Estoppel by jbs0209	Dec 25th, 2008 05:44:02 PM
Crooner1212: You are thinking of the Doctrine of Laches (Wiki it) not Estoppel.
Re: Crooner1212: Laches not Estoppel by jbs0209	Dec 25th, 2008 05:48:55 PM
That came out much harsher than I intended it to, sorry
Re: Misdirected Anger by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 05:57:13 PM
LV - From reading the filings in the case: The property has passed through so many hands and has had so many nested contractual obligations hung on it at every turn, it probably needs a court to work out exactly who owns what. But while it may ultimately be judged that Warners' interpretation of their rights in that mountain of paperwork was in error, their position (IMHO) is at least arguable. Ultimately though it's not Fox's defense of their rights (which the recent decision suggests they may indeed have) per se that's being criticized. It's the apparently cynical way they've chosen to assert them. With any impulse to give them the benefit of the doubt dispersed by the fact that they've already used the same tactics before - in an even more obviously calculated manner.
I have more important things to do with my life by DOGSOUP	Dec 25th, 2008 06:05:32 PM
Then to get pissed off over this.
Seems to Me ... by toxicbuddha	Dec 25th, 2008 06:10:31 PM
... like you geeks should be WAY more upset with WB than Fox. Apparently, WB's legal department consists of a sock monkey that's missing both button eyes. Fox had the rights or something close enough to the rights to make a stink. The time to get this sorted on WB'S part was before production began. NOW you wanna hate on Fox for doing what makes perfect sense on their part? If you meet my hot wife, take her on a cruise and buy her a car, a beach front ranch and a yacht in the hopes of boning her, only to have her thank you then have me move in an fuck her, you can be as mad as you want, but that's YOUR dumb ass. All this talk of what's sneaky and underhanded and unfair is just juvenile. Unless FOX pulled shenanigans with a time machine or a forged contract, it appears to me that WB just got their dick caught in the zipper on this one. Besides, if you aren't already boycotting FOX for the whole PG-13 thing and the general overall shittiness of everything from AvP to Die Hard 4 to Superman to X3, then your some kind of fucktarded cockbag and should die alone and in pain. Assholes like you are why babies die from cancer.
jbs0209 by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 06:18:00 PM
Laches is a form of Estoppel - aka Estoppel by Delay. Though the Doctrine of Laches can be considered sui generis (a doctrine in it's own right) it's practical application is that of an estoppel. Take a closer look at the wiki on estoppel.
IF FOX gets it and fucks with it - DON'T SEE IT by Russman	Dec 25th, 2008 06:46:59 PM
It's that simple. Keep your $ in your pockets and don't see it. Fuck 'em all. If WB was to stupid to not dot every "i" and cross every "t" too bad! And what a shitty move by Fox to let a move get mad and the "realize" that they had a claim on the material. Either way, WB should line their lawyers up shoot them and hang their bodies along Barham/Olive from the movie and TV posters.
At the most Fox will get a % for distribution by The Founder	Dec 25th, 2008 07:01:03 PM
Fox is not going to get a complete film that WB financed handed to them to release and get all the profits. FOX wil if the ruling holds up get o distribute the film and make money for distribution. They will not get the film and be able to go in and make changes and edit and other ungodly crap.
Supertoyslast & Stickman83 by The Look-at-Me Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 07:30:33 PM
You were right. I was uncouth. Very much so, in fact. I should not have been so harsh to Quint, particularly given the holidays. And for that, I apologize; whole-heartedly, in fact. And thanks to you both for pointing out how much I was acting like a dick. The fact remains that this site is lacking a clear voice to tell its readers what is happening in this litigation. Most of what is posted is pure conjecture. And that conjecture is perpetuated by talkback opinion that is flat-out wrong. In fact, all of the legal opinions regarding the case that have been posted in talkback (minus mine, naturally) are EGREGIOUSLY incorrect and based on nothing more than speculation. No one (even those “attorneys” who have offered “legal opinions” regarding “injunctions” and “estoppels,” as those respective terms have been used) has claimed to have read the source materials, much less try to explain them, or even refer to them. That's a problem, and I think that the readers of this site deserve more. I love this site. I love Quint’s work---as I have said, he’s among my favorite contributors to this site. But when it comes to legal reporting in instances such as this, this site is lacking in understanding and nuance---which is understandable, given that the law is VERY complicated and, often, contradictory. There is NO easy answer, and anyone who claims otherwise is other lying, delusional, or just plain dumb. The tone of my original post was uncalled for. I realize that. And I apologize for that. But at least my analysis was spot on---which is more than any other “attorney” who has posted here can claim. If anyone disagrees, they suck cock by choice.
I'm scared!!! by rev_skarekroe	Dec 25th, 2008 07:34:53 PM
No, wait... I'm not. Fox is just looking to make some cash off of this movie. Won't affect anybody reading this page in the slightest.
Fox doesn't WANT watchmen they just want money. by knowthyself	Dec 25th, 2008 07:36:05 PM
Either from a percentage of gross earnings or a settlement sum to get them to get off WB's back.
I'm almost hoping it bombs by Larry of Arabia	Dec 25th, 2008 07:48:57 PM
Having this project go down in flames would make it a Hollywood story for the ages. We've just had a half billion dollar BO hit that semi-deconstructs the most famous comic rivalry of all time. Fox is playing dirty pool to get the next one after failing to adapt it with superstar directors and producers for a decade. WB might have tried to pull a fast one to get the rights when Fox blew it (trust me, every lawyer involved knew where the rights were. This is Hollywood, not Grad School.). Fanboys are screaming it will be the end all and be all, or screaming about changing the ending ruining the movie. Meanwhile, in a parallel comics plot, Frank Miller, Moore's contemporary, is committing career suicide on screen The Spirit and in comics with ASSBAR, all while talking up how great he is. I never hope for a movie to fail, I want to be entertained with greatness every time I enter the theater. HOWEVER, if I had to pick one film I'd like to be a "Last Action Hero" level disaster it's this one.
Do you see what happens... by hypnotron	Dec 25th, 2008 07:52:59 PM

DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FUCK A SQUID IN THE ASS! by hypnotron	Dec 25th, 2008 07:53:36 PM

Look at Me guy - "No one ... has claimed to have read the source by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 07:58:22 PM
You obviously missed my comment above: "From reading the filings in the case ...". My opinions may be accurate, bullshit or more likely somewhere in between. But they're based on reading every single one of the public filings in the case from start to finish, including the latest ruling. Not on a Variety article and some random talkbacking.
Larry of Arabia by The Dum Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 08:03:12 PM
What a coinky-dink, I just watched Last Action Hero the other night, and found it even more enjoyable than back in the day... of course having people appreciate a movie years after it has come out isn't exactly a good thing. Either way, I just hope to see a good movie based on the comic.
Suggestion for people who nee to watch Wolverine... by wash	Dec 25th, 2008 08:09:48 PM
...in the theater: BUY A TICKET FOR ANOTHER MOVIE (a non-Fox film). Go into Wolverine instead. That way you can get another mediocre Xmen film fix and brag to your friends you saw it first day, but be proud of the fact you made a competitor of Fox's a few dollars richer.
need* by wash	Dec 25th, 2008 08:10:28 PM

distribution rights by chaoslover01	Dec 25th, 2008 08:10:33 PM
If I understand the business correctly, FOX might be able to distribute, but they cannot recut the film, because final cut is in no way connected to distribution. They can refuse to distribute it, refuse to let anyone else distribute it, but they don't get to take it away, recut it as they choose, and then release it. Feel free to correct me on this if I'm mistaken.
Dum Guy by The Look-at-Me Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 08:31:21 PM
You're right: I did miss your comment. I am glad that you took the time to look at the source docs, and I thank you for pointing out that you did. That's more than a lot of people have done, so I applaud you. Well done. Still, I can't bring myself to trust the legal opinion of someone who had to go to Wikipedia to explain (or find out) what "estoppel" means. Either you're someone who has never learned of estoppel until the Talkbacks, or you thought that Wikipedia would be a good source to refer others to so they can find out what estoppel means, when Law.com or other, more reputable legal sites exist that explain more thoroughly what estoppel actually is. In other words, either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or show extremely poor judgment when explaining what estoppel means. I’m sorry if I’m harsh. But law is not a feel-good business. But just the same, I am impressed that you read the source docs. That’s a lot more than a lot more people (including Variety) have done. So, on that score, well done. Again, I'm not trying to be a dick. I truly hope that everyone is having a pleasant holidays.
Man, forget The Joker's gang... by BurnHollywood	Dec 25th, 2008 08:39:32 PM
...The Fox attorneys are this year's biggest badasses. I'm appalled as a fan, but at the same time, completely impressed at the sheer audacity of this maneuver. If they pull this off, it will be one of the most impressive heists in Hollywood history...and fully legal! Swoop in at the last possible moment and steal a completed movie from a rival studio...fucking brilliant! If they get DVD release rights, everybody in the law firm deserves their own yacht, even the receptionist and filing clerks.
How much for someone to kill Rothman? by montimer	Dec 25th, 2008 08:47:26 PM
Seriously. If everyone who reads this site sends just one dollar I'm sure we'd have enough for a hit. (Just a note to Fox legal team, I'm joking. Please don't sue me)
The Look-at-Me Guy by The Dum Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 08:52:33 PM
I think you may have mistaken me for someone else... or there was something about The Last Action Hero I missed. Either that, or I got black-out drunk again and posted some legal babble BS (if so I need help).
Watchmen is a DC comic... by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 25th, 2008 08:59:58 PM
DC Comics, and all the IP that belongs to DC comics, is owned by the same parent company that owns WB. Any DC property made by another studio is licensed out by said parent company. Once the license expires, that third party (this time Fox) has no rights to the property. That's what this case is about. Fox is saying they still have rights. WB is saying "no, the option expired", and since Watchmen is OWNED by DC, Warner Bros., working under the assumption that it had, indeed, expired, had no reason to think there would be any problems. They don't need someone's permission to make a movie adapted from something THEY OWN. And, since I don't recall Fox making any noise when Paramount and Paul Greengrass were going to make this, but only now seem to care since the film is poised for release, obviously this is fucking bullshit. Fox is trying to make money off of another studio's film--period--because they are no longer capable of making profitable films themselves.
Look at me guy - conclusion-jumping again by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 09:02:41 PM
If you took the time to properly read through this talkback you might have noticed that when I said "Take a closer look at the wiki on estoppel" it was in direct response to (and mild criticism of) jbs0209 saying to Crooner1212: "You are thinking of the Doctrine of Laches (Wiki it) not Estoppel." In other words, I was advising jbs0209 that if he really wanted to quote wiki as a source then he should at least spend a bit more time reading it! As for myself, I'm not a lawyer and have stated so. I have however spent the last 20 years working for various law firms in the City of London, in many and various roles, including as a paralegal specialising in IT matters. I do not need an accuracy-free "resource" like wiki to understand or explain basic legal principles that I was taught a couple of decades ago. You, on the other hand, have spent the evening criticising other people's understanding of the law - without demonstrating even the slightest knowledge of its workings yourself. Walking away now - your posts are making my troll-alert flicker. Sorry.
its FUNNY to me by shogunshin	Dec 25th, 2008 09:33:27 PM
these guys are millionaires and billionaires running the studios. so who cares if 'poor' warners loses 200 million? they are MILLIONAIRES people. and they are whining because they will only make 3 billion this year, instead of 3.5 billion. who gives a shit, the film will be out in the end, and im glad some millionaires got shafted in the meantime.
ITS CALLED A TRO by J-Dizzle	Dec 25th, 2008 09:53:49 PM
or a temporary restraining order in case WB pulls a fast one and releases the movie before a judge can make a decision.
DAMN YOU DARTH CHEF by J-Dizzle	Dec 25th, 2008 09:55:05 PM

Dum Guy and Corwin by The Look-at-Me Guy	Dec 25th, 2008 09:57:05 PM
Dum Guy – You’re right: I attributed things to you that you didn’t say. That is my mistake, and I am sorry for that. Chalk it up to the holiday stress. Judging by your comment, though, it sounds like you have a great sense of humor and that we could tip one back. So cheers, and I wish you the best. Corwin – My comments in my previous response apply: I applaud that you tracked down the source docs, and that you directed someone over to Wikipedia. But you’re an admitted paralegal. In London. Meaning that (a) you’re not an attorney (or solicitor or barrister); and (b) you do not regularly work with issues involving with American law. You’re relying on Wikipedia with no basis of expertise. NONE. So, please, explain to me, how am I a troll by pointing this out? And I’m not trying be a meritocracy whore about this, but I’m curious: what training do you have regarding the law, particularly American copywrite or contract law? As far as my bona fides: I graduated from a top American law school. I have had three years of experience clerking for federal judges at the appellate level. I work at one of the largest law firms in the world, representing the largest corporations of the world. I don’t say this to be a dick and to throw this in people’s faces. I truly don’t. I only offer this to show that I know what I’m talking about. And to those who question me: I’m actually working right now (as I have been for the past 12 hours), and these Talkbacks are my respite (as crazy as that might seem). Anyone familiar with the American legal market can vouch for that. Again, happy holidays to all; I truly wish the best for you and yours. And I hope that this post doesn’t spur any more vitriol.
Warner's has no one to blame but themselves by Amadeo Zeller	Dec 25th, 2008 10:12:31 PM
If they would've done their due dilligence and took Lawrence Gordon to task on who owned the actual distribution rights, this whole legal cluster fuck could've been avoided. The worst case scenario will be Warner's shelving the finished project indefinitely, or until they and Fox can reach some sort of agreement that both can live and profit from. In retropect, Warner's should've paid Fox, their initial buyout fee of $400+ thousand dollars before this whole thing escalated into an unnecessary pissing match.
Just read the comic... by SmokeFilledTavern	Dec 25th, 2008 10:13:37 PM
according to early fanboy reports it will be identical to the graphic novel. Who needs the film?
GeneralJackCosmo by Amadeo Zeller	Dec 25th, 2008 10:17:27 PM
The problem with your argument, is that Warner's started production before said rights expired. Legally, that's a big no, no.
SmokeFilledTavern by Thrillho77	Dec 25th, 2008 10:19:45 PM
That's how I feel. I consider getting a Watchmen movie to be a bonus. But the Comic will ALWAYS be the greatest medium to tell this story in.
So Fox can't make good movies and now they are trying to stop ot by spectrebeeyatch	Dec 25th, 2008 10:48:32 PM
Fox is the evil empire in making movies. They take properties, hire the worst directors and make everything pg-13. I booed the Wolverine trailer because I'm positive that movie will be horrible. Fox needs to go away or be destroyed haha. That studio really is the worst though and I hope we get to see this movie soon.
OK, against my better judgement, one more time by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 10:55:00 PM
1) Where in my posts do you allege that I have relied on Wiki instead of my own knowledge and training? 2) Specialising in IT matters in the City means, by definition, American (and Asian, and European) law. When did you last hear of a global IT company fighting a case under English law? 3. There are no significant differences between US and English law when dealing with the basic principles I've described. I have however described them specifically in terms of US law. 4. You're clearly way more qualified and experienced than I am - so why don't you explain to the viewers: a) What statements have I made regarding the law that you consider inaccurate, and what is the correct explanation? b) Do you have any other opinion on the case other than your assertion that you understand the law better than anyone else? At least I've stated an opinion on the actual facts of the case, and backed it up with a (right or wrong) interpretation of the law. You just appear to be in a dick-waving competition over who's even qualified to have an opinion, in your oh so humble judgement.
can't develop their own franchises... by thewizardofoz	Dec 25th, 2008 11:00:29 PM
...so they mooch off the studio that's best at it! Hope Fox realizes the shit storm they're about to open on themselves from fans of this website alone (there are lots of them). Not sure how they could have a worse summer than 2008, but I'm sure the AICN crowd will do their best in finding a way.
That was a bit verbose - let's make it simple by Corwin_X2	Dec 25th, 2008 11:13:18 PM
Please pick any one statement I've made above regarding US law and describe, in detail using your vast legal training, how it is inaccurate and/or inapplicable. The fact that Warners haven't actually raised Laches as a defence is excluded - the discussion was about the possible merits of such a defence should they choose to.
This just in! by seanny_d	Dec 25th, 2008 11:55:30 PM
Corporations are a bunch of selfish, greedy assholes and the general public doesn't understand the complexities of intellectual property rights. Therefore it's entirely appropriate for idle speculation regarding who is in the right or who should be shot. But in all seriousness, I do find all the law stuff rather fascinating. So keep bringing it on, lawyers. I'm genuinely intrigued.
When Rothman is physically attacked... by crankyoldguy	Dec 26th, 2008 12:11:19 AM
by some fan-person over the edge, I won't shed a tear for the Fox-head's severe loss of limbs or other injuries. what an asshole. On the other hand, can't wait for the worldwide hate campaign as it mounts up against Fox to the point that it's covered by all media on TV, too, except, of course, for Fox stations.
Understand that I'm not saying that... by crankyoldguy	Dec 26th, 2008 12:13:58 AM
someone should actually drive a stake through Rothman's heart, cut off his head and stuff the mouth full of garlic. But I'm not saying I wouldn't call it justice, either.
I'm still convinced... by tensticks	Dec 26th, 2008 12:18:34 AM
Watchmen is going to suck balls, no matter when, and by whom, it's released.
I just don't see the appeal of this flick by DarthJedi	Dec 26th, 2008 12:27:50 AM
It has got to be one of the most overrated pieces of print in the history of comics. Give me Marvel any day or even a good DC over this tripe. I hope for the fans it turns out to be what they're expecting.
Amadeo Zeller by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 26th, 2008 12:29:29 AM
I don't know that they did. I mean, that IS what Fox is alleging, but, again, why no legal action when Paramount was spending millions on preproduction for the Greengrass production? WB claims the distribution rights expired in (I believe) the late 90s...WB did not start preproduction on Watchmen until 2006/2007. So, again, Fox is ALLEGING that they still have the rights. And, again, why didn't we hear one peep from Fox when this was in the works at Paramount?
Re: This just in! by Corwin_X2	Dec 26th, 2008 12:34:31 AM
It is indeed intriguing and fascinating in a "watching a train wreck" sort of way! (grin) What I find funny in watching how Intellectual Property (IP) litigation like this has been exploding over the last few years is this ... Let's take your perfectly accurate statement and reword it a little - "Bankers are a bunch of selfish, greedy assholes and the general public doesn't understand the complexities of leveraged financial derivatives". I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that it won't be too long before the "market" in IP is flushed down the very same toilet, by the very same assholes, as the financial market!
Ha ha, Warner's legal team is taking notes: by moviemaniac-7	Dec 26th, 2008 12:36:31 AM
"Estoppel, your honor!" & "Laches!!" -- "And the people on AICN TB said that Rothman is a douchebag!" That should do it...
Here's the key right here: by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 26th, 2008 12:37:19 AM
"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 will not see this unless it is edited by Tim Story. by Cotton McKnight	Dec 26th, 2008 12:48:16 AM
Thank goodness Fox has it's hands on this. They really showed me with the Fantastic 4 that they know how to deal with multiple superheroes in one movie.
GeneralJackCosmo by Amadeo Zeller	Dec 26th, 2008 12:50:15 AM
Fox still had "Turn around rights". During Warner's production, there was probably confidential mandatory settlement hearings, but Warner's (for some reason) refused to pay Fox their buyout fee, which at the time was probably the standard 400,000+ dollars. Now with the interest and legal fees, that costs has probably escalated to well over into the millions.
Thundercats Fan Film by dixieflyer	Dec 26th, 2008 01:26:44 AM
Totally off topic but I just came across this and though it was REALLY funny and wanted to share it with you guys. Enjoy! http://tinyurl.com/9npn5b
Fox is releasing Avatar by theplant	Dec 26th, 2008 02:57:33 AM
So all you guys talk is moot. Rothman is a genius.
Um, The Plant... by LlGHTST0RMER	Dec 26th, 2008 05:11:12 AM
Fox is releasing Avatar because James Cameron signed an Eleven picture deal with Fox back in the early 90's, and he's only released 2 so far (True Lies and Titanic.) Rothman was'nt even at Fox back then. Plus, Rothman really has very little to do with Avatar's creation anyway, being that Cameron is one of the few directors who is given pretty much free reign to do whatever the hell he wants. If Jim wanted to make Phone Book: The Movie, Rothman would not get in his way. It's fairly senseless to credit Tom Rothman with anything having to do with Avatar other than having the sense to stay the fuck away from dicking with it and letting Cameron do what he does.
I know I sound like a total douche for saying this, but... by LlGHTST0RMER	Dec 26th, 2008 05:27:13 AM
AICN talkbackers chiming in on corporate law, copyright law, intellectual property law, or studio politics is like watching monkeys trying to fix the space shuttle. Yeah, you're free to have your opinions or your own interpretation of the subject at hand, but don't blame me for laughing my ass off at it. I give credit to the few guys in here with legal backgrounds having an actual discussion about the details of the case, but there's only a handful of them. Everyone else is coming off as a raving lunatic. I think my favorite part in this whole TB came from Smackfu - one of the few rational people to show up so far - when he pointed out, "you don't send [an online] petition to THE JUDGE residing over the case." LMFAO!! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Trust me, folks, this whole thing is operating at a level you guys aren't fully wrapping your heads around. It is much larger and much more grounded in reality than you seem to get. As I said, you're allowed to have your own interpretation of it, but to assert it as reality is hysterically funny. Let's see how this thing plays out, ok? I mean, if you're blaming either Fox or Warners and saying "Fuck [whichever studio you hate], they're totally to blame for this," and it comes out in the trial that it wasn't them, it was the other studio that dropped the ball, you're going to look quite foolish. That's all I have to say. Feel free to lambaste me for promoting pragmatism.
Tao of Joe... by LlGHTST0RMER	Dec 26th, 2008 05:39:48 AM
I think you have some good points (The Rothman "breaking his toys" metaphor is perfect,) but I don't think your suggestion for press outlets to put a blackout on Fox movies isn't "simple," but simplistic. It's not very realistic. Do you think AICN, IGN, or DarkHorizons will ignore news about Avatar (which, to date, has only just NOW released it's first behind-the-scenes photo to the press) just to spite the studio over the Watchmen case? That's crazy, my friend! Very few major news outlets are going to give any kind of coverage at all for Avatar until much later in the year, I expect, when it becomes more relevant. But geek news sites like this EXIST to post the slightest development on movies like that. I just don't see it happening.
Stop referring to it as a 'deconstruction' of the genre by Lone Fox	Dec 26th, 2008 06:39:04 AM
Sorry for liking a comic-book! But it really is legitimate!
1 question...... by kingoflight	Dec 26th, 2008 07:30:29 AM
Will this movie still come out ? Its the only thing that i want to know
It's a summary judgement motion, which can be made after discove by dr sauch	Dec 26th, 2008 08:20:13 AM
There are a lot of issues in a lawsuit, not just one yes-or-no question. The judge ruled on that issue, but now there will be a trial on other issues.
Hey Tim Story deserves an Oscar! He's really that good by Stormwatcher	Dec 26th, 2008 09:15:24 AM
No, he's not. How can you take something like FF and make the most bland, boring, Two and a Half Men like episodic shit with it? Not even having the balls to introduce Franklin or the idea of the negative zone. That franchise needs another five years of wait then a true reboot like Hulk.
lightstormer, you're pretty much right by wookie1972	Dec 26th, 2008 09:25:21 AM
I know jack all about corporate law, and while I'd be sad if Watchmen gets held up, I think on the chart of injustices in the world right now it would rank somewhere near the bottom. Nonetheless, I think it won't come to that because, like I said before, the exhibitors will not be pleased. "Oh, we don't get Watchmen? Well, then we'll put Street Fighter on 200 screens. How 'bout them apples?" (Or Bride Wars. Or Night At The Museum 2. You get the point). Even in the pirate DVD age, exhibitors have some clout, and they probably wouldn't be pleased with an event movie getting cancelled on them.
WB really screwed this up. by mrfan	Dec 26th, 2008 09:39:51 AM
Not FOX. Obviously they, FOX, knew that they can do something and went ahead to do it. They must really believe they have a decent case to present.
Oh, yeah. Please, oh please... by mrfan	Dec 26th, 2008 09:53:07 AM
REBOOT THE FANTASTIC FOUR.
"I Hate You Wolverine" by applescruff	Dec 26th, 2008 10:49:34 AM
HAHAHAHA!!! Reading that made me cry I laughed so hard. To say that as if Wolverine is a person that you can say that to is hilarious. Oh and dixieflyer, I been posted that shit like 4 days ago. What's probably gonna happen is the same shit that happened with Warner Bros. and The Dukes Of Hazzard movie. They had to settle out of court to the tune of 17.5 million because they overlooked a pretty obvious copyright claim that had been staring them in the face throughout the production of the film (sound familiar? the warner legal dept. is a cesspool of incompetence). Only with that movie they only had to settle with a producer and ended up paying him more than they spent to cast the movie. Imagine what they're gonna have to pay Fox. Oh, and a REALLY INTERESTING side note: The reason they were forced to settle on the Hazzard movie is because a judge issued an injunction stating that the plaintiff's case had merit, just like what's happening now. What's interesting about this is that its the SAME JUDGE in both cases that killed things early for Warner in favor of the other guy. Does Judge Gary Allen Feess have some kind of agenda against Warner Bros?
by MrSentinel	Dec 26th, 2008 11:21:37 AM

Should handle it on People's Court by mrfan	Dec 26th, 2008 11:44:10 AM
Televise it. Let's see WB and FOX go at with an audience.
Amadeo Zeller by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 26th, 2008 11:45:12 AM
Dude, I completely understand what you're saying, but you are missing my point: Fox is ALLEGING that they have turnaround rights. WB is DENYING it. That's why they're going to court. That's exactly what the article in Variety reports...I quote it above. If WB wins this whole thing, then no one is going to be blaming them for anything (except making a bad movie if it sucks). My point is, if this is all bullshit, then Fox is just trying to fuck with WB and WB is in the right here. And WE DON'T KNOW
This sounds like a job by Scumcock	Dec 26th, 2008 11:51:32 AM
for Harry and his brand new laser! Take out somebody's eye, Fatboy!
by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 26th, 2008 11:54:08 AM
sorry...posted last one early. What I meant to say was WE DON'T KNOW IF FOX REALLY STILL HAS THE RIGHTS OR NOT. That's the point. Obviously, is SEEMS like they probably do, or I would hope the judge would have ruled the other way, but nothing is set in stone, yet...so obviously WB thinks they have cause to fight this ruling, which means they probably don't think they are in the wrong. I find it hard to believe that after licensing this property to Universal and Paramount (both after the agreement with Fox expired, according to WB, WB's legal team was somehow unaware that Fox still had rights. It seems to me like Fox is just trying to take advantage of some loophole at best. And, I say again, if Fox legitimately believes they're agreement has not expired, why did they take no action against Uni and Paramount? "During Warner's production, there was probably confidential mandatory settlement hearings, but Warner's (for some reason) refused to pay Fox their buyout fee, which at the time was probably the standard 400,000+ dollars. Now with the interest and legal fees, that costs has probably escalated to well over into the millions." This very well might be the case, but as there is no hint of this anywhere in any of the reporting since this whole debacle began several months ago, then no offense, but it is pure, 100% speculation. I'm basing everything I'm saying here on the reporting, which says Fox alleges, WB denies. And thus, litigation.
Liberty Valance by most excellent ninja	Dec 26th, 2008 11:57:40 AM
you are a fucking cunt. and you probably work for fox. fuck yourself.
That petion above is a pathetic read by Xiphos_2	Dec 26th, 2008 01:37:03 PM
The doleful moaning of basement bound losers is heartbreaking to behold. Man the fuck up nancy boys.
This Makes Me Physically Sick by grievenom	Dec 26th, 2008 02:19:48 PM
FUCK FOX, FUCK THE JUDGE, FUCK EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE if this movie doesn't get released in Zack's intended form on 3/09/09. FUCK!!!
Well, this clinches it for me. by Chest_Rockwell	Dec 26th, 2008 02:41:46 PM

Well, this clinches it for me. by Chest_Rockwell	Dec 26th, 2008 02:41:47 PM

Well, this clinches it for me. by Chest_Rockwell	Dec 26th, 2008 02:43:31 PM
Uh, ignore those other two posts, something glitched on my pc. This clinches it for me. No more watching/renting/etc. Fox movies. If I can't download it illegally, I aint gonna see it. Gotta fight back with what little bit of ammo you got, and that's your pocketbook.
FUCK YOU FOX by mfcorleone	Dec 26th, 2008 03:35:08 PM
You are the ones who are the fucking ball lickers. Why does this happen to the Watchmen? Why can't it happen to some stupid fucking joke of a movie involving Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie or one of those fucktard equivalents. I mean really. Valkyire? FUCK YOU. Wanted? WHAT THE FUCK? Gobs of hollywood shitstains on our faces and one seemingly decent film can't come out...FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL FOX. OH AND JUDGE ITO FUCK YOU TOO.
Yeah. Screw Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. by Larry of Arabia	Dec 26th, 2008 03:57:20 PM
That's what you are doing if you Boycott Fox. Danny Boyle! HE sure needs to be punished, and punished HARD. Your jackass theory hurts people who are currently making great movies and television. House, The Shield, and more. Don't be so shortsighted.
bahaha fox TV by mfcorleone	Dec 26th, 2008 04:00:27 PM
House? BWAHAHAH. Go fucking kill yourself.
Tom Rothman will "fix" the Watchman movie when... by Leafar the Lost	Dec 26th, 2008 04:44:14 PM
...he gets his hands on it. First, he will edit it to change it from R to PG-13. Second, he will cut the 3+ hour long movie to a lean, mean 90 minutes. Third, he will quickly film a few more scenes to change it from a "super hero deconstruction story" to an action packed, family movie that will leave the audience with a smile on their faces at the end. Yes, that will mean changing the original ending from the Watchman comic book. I can't wait!!!
Slumdog and Wrestler by GeneralJackCosmo	Dec 26th, 2008 04:55:03 PM
were both indie produced. Fox picked them up at festivals and simply distributes them. If, in theory, the boycott were uber successful and Fox lost a ton of money, and thus could not afford to distribute these kinds of indies any more, I am sure another studio (like maybe Warner Independent) would jump right in.
I KNOW WHY FOX IS SUING by TakeItEasyMon	Dec 26th, 2008 04:59:55 PM
They caught wind of the squidless ending. (haha)
Rothman to put Cephalopod back in by Larry Sellers	Dec 26th, 2008 05:54:30 PM
This film is going to do all kinds of mixed business REGARDLESS of who distributes it. I was with a friend last week and when we spotted the standees of The Comedian and Silk Spectre and Nite Owl she thought it looked "Really fucking stupid." Granted, she has very questionable taste in...everything. Yet she represents for me the mindset of the mainstream audience. She doesn't like unusual things, ironic camp goes right over her head, and she's never read the fucking GN. When I told her that the GN was really great and the standees don't represent exactly what the film will be like she goes "But it looks like a ripoff of Batman." Like most movies, the marketing team seems to be in a bubble separate from the production itself. I was surprised at the in-theatre advertising myself. The Comedian's button with the blood drip would've sufficed.
BTW "Boycotters" by Larry Sellers	Dec 26th, 2008 05:58:38 PM
Just say you aren't going to see the movie. It's not nearly as important as you're making it out to be.
Larry Sellers... by mfcorleone	Dec 26th, 2008 06:00:26 PM
..you friend sounds like a souless, shit mongering, vacuum of a cunt. What's her number and does she have big cans?
AICN has bred some of the dumbest cunnies the web has ever known by genro	Dec 26th, 2008 07:44:37 PM
To all you stupid shits... Fox is 100% justified. AICN will never say that. If some of you had half a brain you'd know why. Nothing will happen to this movie. No edits or release changes. Fox wants a money percentage that they are owed. How are they owed you ask? Because the main producer, Larry Gordon, owes them fucking money for the rights. Money he's never paid even though he's had the rights from day one. How could he have the rights for so long? Because he held Rothman's job back in the 80's. And when he quit, he took the Watchmen rights with him. WB knew what was up and they didn't care. Why didn't they care? Because if they followed Gordon's agreement, Fox would have jumped at the chance to produce this film. Why? Because of Snyder's success with 300. The contract states that whenever any creative elements change, Fox retains a first refusal. If Fox passes on the producing with the new changes, then Gordon could take it to another studio. Gordon hadn't honored this clause since David Hayter was on board. Fox had brought this to his attention before production started. Fox brought this to WB's attention, twice, before they started shooting. What did WB do? Shoot the fucking movie, anyway. So please. Stop it with the "Fox Is Evil" you stupid, ignorant, logic challenged, mouth-breathers. Your balls are so embarrassed, they're shriveling to avoid any chance of reproduction. WB knowingly screwed themselves. Someone at Warners felt that since Watchmen is a DC property, that WB has some kind of divine right over it. The problem is that DC sold the fucking rights to Fox twenty fucking years ago, to then chief Larry Gordon. Stop drinking the kool-aid and chill. Nothing is going to change, except who gets paid what. I've broken my own Talkback embargo because no one at AICN feels the need to set the record straight. What a shocker.
Pissy move from Fox by bender7	Dec 26th, 2008 07:47:44 PM
you have to say. Even though I wasn't really looking forward to it, you have to feel a bit sorry for Snyder and WB. I'm pretty sure there will be some arrangement made though allowing the film to be released hopefully
Larry of Arabia is right... by wookie1972	Dec 26th, 2008 07:48:57 PM
The whole idea of a boycotting a communications company is silly and counterproductive to me. If push came to shove, I would rather support Danny Boyle than Zack Snyder. Plus, there's this idea that because Fox is being dickish that somehow Warners is pure as the driven snow. Bullsh*t. If the situations were reversed, Warners would do the same thing.
Maybe they can make some deal and... by mrfan	Dec 26th, 2008 07:59:56 PM
WB will allow FOX to finally release Batman the series on dvd.
NICE MOVE FOX!!!!!!!!!!!! by Earthquake WestCoast	Dec 26th, 2008 08:16:11 PM
That was a sneaky, sly, and IMPRESSIVE move on their part. Fox didn't do anything illegal. Studios are sleazy. WB's vast array of lawyers should of been on the ball, especially considering how much money they get.
FOX DIDN'T SCREW THE "LITTLE GUY" by Earthquake WestCoast	Dec 26th, 2008 08:22:02 PM
WB is a GIANT. They're both big boys. It's not like Fox screwed some little newbie who didn't know better. Plus, when it comes down to it, no laws were broken. I don't feel sorry when BIG CORPORATIONS get screwed by other big corportations. WB been in the movie business for about 100 years. Really now, they should of known better. Don't ya think?
there will be some sort of deal/settlement by Rupee88	Dec 26th, 2008 08:25:28 PM
I don't think one studio would blatantly fuck another one this hard...there would certainly be retribution and that benefits neither side...some deal will be made
PRETRIAL MOTIONS/DECISIONS--QUINT LOOK HERE by captain_kirk	Dec 26th, 2008 09:07:54 PM
Hey Quint, as you may know, I'm not just Captain Kirk, but I also play a lawyer on a major television show. I've also got law enforcement experience as a beat cop. Anyhoo, in any lawsuit that gets filed, there are several issues and standards, divided into legal issues and factual issues. Most factual issues are reserved for the trial, where a judge or jury determines what the facts of a case are. The judge is a referee, deciding, what laws are at play, and often how the facts apply to the law. Sometimes, facts are so clear or legal issues are so obvious, that a trial court will make a ruling that as a matter of law, one of the parties wins on a particular issue. In this case, there are several issues. The first is the issue of an injunction. An injunction, or enjoining someone, means to either prevent or mandate that they do something. In this case, shortly before the movie's release, the trial court has apparently ruled that Fox owns the right to the movie. And since the movie was already made, Fox owns, minially the rights to distribution of the film. That includes the right to make all the different distribution agreements which means, bottom line, profit. The judge's decision was apparently vague, and so the extent to which the court has empowered FOX is unclear. What is clear is that by deciding Fox owns distribution rights, theoretically Fox could can the film's distribution altogether and say FU to Warner, et al. Of course, this isn't likely. Remember, all hail the mighty dollar. Fox is in a position now to call the shots regarding distribution and leverage what it wants. Surely, Fox could kill the project, but that's not likely. The court's ruling seems designed to force a settlement, so that some type of monetary split can be made, and Fox receive its fair profits. So your initial question was this: what's left for the trial in January? Two issues. 1 is a permanent injunction. The other is damages. Fox's legal position is still that it wants to kill the project. The other issue is damages. Fox lost creative control and financial control over the creation, distribution, and licensing of the film. There are tons of variables at play here. Contract and production costs, stars' salaries, licensing and merchandising rights, etc. Hundreds of million in profit are at stake. Fox may have won the round, but no one thinks Fox wants to kill a chance at money for doing nothing. So that matter will probably settle in January. The judge is basically doing what he can to make everyone play nice and compromise.
a quick note about waiting till the last minute.. by captain_kirk	Dec 26th, 2008 09:21:19 PM
No one knows what went on behind closed doors. Or, for that matter, the relative strengths or weaknesses of legal positions. Additionally, the original rights issue might have been an oversight or a confusion. Given complex scenarios, it's entirely plausible that a movie could be made without the complete rights: look at Thunderball/Never Say Never Again / McClory v. MGMUA. It happens. Since no one knows how long this has been percolating or what happened behind closed doors, it's unfair to say anyone waited until the last minute. I can't comment on whether a strategy of pursuing damages after the fact is better or not anyhow. And no one can. It is what it is: a mess.
A CURSE ON FOX AND ALL ITS MOVIES TO COME by BringingSexyBack	Dec 26th, 2008 09:26:30 PM
That is all.
LAWSUITS LIKE THIS ARE WHAT'S DESTROYING AMERICA by BringingSexyBack	Dec 26th, 2008 09:28:29 PM
Instead of trying criminals our courts are drowning in these frivolous multi-million dollar lawsuits. Destroy Fox! Save America!!!!!
Motherfuck me my post disappeared. by hst666	Dec 26th, 2008 10:42:23 PM

Quint, by hst666	Dec 26th, 2008 10:52:29 PM
This will be shorter than my last post, which was lost when my fucking connection dropped out. I am not about to look up the record on this case, but I assume this was a summary judgment decision by the court. Juries are only supposed to be fact-finders. They hear the trial testimony and decide what happened and based upon what they believe the facts are, they are told what legal conclusion to draw by the judge, or the judge simply decides what the legal outcome is based upon those facts. The jury is not supposed to be interpreting the law. That power always stays with the judge. Both parties may have made motions regarding Fox's right to distribute the film and the judge may have decided there was no substantial dispute regarding the facts of the issue. If the parties basically agree on the facts of an issue, the judge can and should decide the issue. If the judge decided that the facts were not in dispute with regard to Fox's right to a distributorship, he would have been correct to issue an opinion deciding who legally had the right to distribute the movie. With respect to criminal cases (as opposed to civil litigation) the matter is a little more complicated and the judges freedom to decide issues is more limited.
Everyone read ew.com's article on this by submarinevoyage	Dec 26th, 2008 11:54:04 PM
EW's article on the judge's ruling is very good, going into some specifics I haven't seen anywhere else. Also, they reveal that Fox DID approach WB about this before production began.
BOYCOTT FOX! by DarthBakpao	Dec 27th, 2008 03:37:50 AM
Let's do it until they go bankcrupt
Who were the lawyers on this? by hallmitchell	Dec 27th, 2008 04:43:53 AM
Didn't the mountain of lawyers at Warners tap any executive on the shoulder and say " Hey I think we've got a problem on this one" Talk about asleep at the wheel.
The Squid Would Be A Giant Cloud : by PTSDPete	Dec 27th, 2008 06:06:41 AM
At least, there is the Squid. Let's hope the ' Watchmen ' flick doesn't turn into a giant mist, too. Or DO NOT DESERVE to become so. ( Even GORT became a sort of ' giant cloud '. Funny. Though that, at least, was kind of ' creepy cool '; sort of metallic ' micro-pestilence ' and shit with an ACTUAL PAYOFF ! Not enough of that bleak, unapologetic stuff in this day and age, quality issues aside, of course....)
"I don't really have an Uncle Fred..." by beatleMatt	Dec 27th, 2008 07:03:05 AM
You TOTALLY wrecked that joke by putting that "I don't really have an Uncle Fred,.." line after it!!
Watchmen needs to be canceled by theplant	Dec 27th, 2008 07:33:59 AM
It's a piece of crap anyway, so let Fox do the right thing and bury this turd.
THE WATCHMEN'S BLOOD IS ON ROTHMAN AND HIS CHILDREN by BringingSexyBack	Dec 27th, 2008 07:34:22 AM
Eternal damnation is too good for him.
Until James Cameron remake it by theplant	Dec 27th, 2008 07:35:41 AM
Of course. At Fox.
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHEN CRANK 2 IS FUCKING OUR EYEBALLS by Stuntcock Mike	Dec 27th, 2008 08:07:30 AM

EW article says nothing new if you followed this case seriously. by genro	Dec 27th, 2008 08:46:43 AM
...As in not relying on AICN for certain news. Here's the deal kiddies - Larry Gordon is the producer of Hellboy and MEG. OK? He's been AICN's and CHUD's pipeline for all the Watchmen "scoops'. They have always talked about this project in his favor, whether it was merited or not. Fox, meanwhile, is despised by AICN because they don't kowtow to its place as geek authority. Yeah, Fox makes a lot of crap, no question, but the way this article was written should clarify for every reader with half an iota of thought that AICN is not an impartial source. They want rabid talkbacks so outlets like EW, a Time-Warner company, can write about how incensed the geek community is. So if the illusion becomes reality, then WB can press Fox to take whatever deal is first offered, lest they incur geek wrath for all time. Get it? By talking about Fox/Rothman hatred, you're a bunch of rubes. As I said and EW verified, Fox did nothing wrong. I've read every legal piece connected to this case, and the blame lies 100% with Gordon. WB's game is hoping that they never have to admit in court what they knew and when they knew it. What the EW piece gets wrong is that Fox doesn't possess sole distribution rights. They gave up a good size piece in the 90's. What Gordon most certainly didn't have the right to do was negotiate the foreign distribution rights with Paramount. His contract perfectly stated that he no legal authority to sell any part of it to a third party. But, he did. So try this one - if Goron didn't have a stranglehold on this property, isn't it possible that this would have been made years ago?
I still think a boycott is a silly way to go.. by wookie1972	Dec 27th, 2008 09:11:10 AM
For one thing it punishes creators who have nothing to do with this. As well, with a gigantic corporation like Fox, it's essentially meaningless. As I've said, exhibitors might have a little more pull, and if it comes to delaying the movies they might have a Restraint Of Trade suit against Fox (I'm not a lawyer, could be way off here). But why should James Ellroy (a fine author who writes for Harper Collins, owned by Fox) suffer because of a dispute between two mega corporations (and, like many have said here, it's downright foolish to consider Warners the "little guy" in this situation)
THE LAW OF USE IT OR LOSE IT APPLIES by BringingSexyBack	Dec 27th, 2008 09:50:04 AM
Fox didn't use it so they lose it. Simple. Only lawyers can complicate shit like this. Fuck lawyers and fuck Fox!!!!!!
BringingSexyBack: this isn't the playground here... by wookie1972	Dec 27th, 2008 10:11:34 AM
And very simply, Fox was never given the option to pass. After reading the EW article, I don't see how the judge could have ruled another way. (And BTW, "The Watchmen's Blood is on Rothman and his children" is an out-and-out anti-semetic slur.)
BringingSexyBack: this isn't the playground here... by wookie1972	Dec 27th, 2008 10:11:40 AM
And very simply, Fox was never given the option to pass. After reading the EW article, I don't see how the judge could have ruled another way. (And BTW, "The Watchmen's Blood is on Rothman and his children" is an out-and-out anti-semetic slur.)
I think you guys take this more seriously than by David Cloverfield	Dec 27th, 2008 10:12:37 AM
Warner. Fox. Lawyers. Judges. Snyder. Alan Moore.
Lone Fox by Thunderbolt Ross	Dec 27th, 2008 10:30:23 AM
Word
"you're a bunch of rubes" by Xiphos_2	Dec 27th, 2008 10:39:34 AM
AICN Talkbackers overacted and get played like a cheap violin? No never happen. I mean, how can a group that wrote a petion to a judge in a trial saying that a funny book changed thier lives be rubes? Nope, can't happen, they obviously are with it individuals with a a lot happening in thier lives.
Being Pissed at Fox is Stupid (in this case) by Wrath4771	Dec 27th, 2008 11:00:25 AM
Even though the trial was set for January, both sides asked the judge (once again) to make a ruling before hand so the two studios knew what the score weas going to be. For everyone blasting Fox for this....I'm sorry you're retarded. Fox owns the distribution rights to the movie plain and simple. WB had their heads up their asses filming one shot of this movie before securing the distribution rights and from what I've been reading on other sites, Fox didn't exactly ambush them with this. They've been in contact with WB for quite some time. Fox does a lot of crappy things, but in this case WB screwed up and screw them for thinking they can get a judge to over look the convenient fact that they didn't have the rights to the material. And double screw WB for trying to get the judge to make a judgement on how much WB should have to pay Fox for the rights to the distribution. Sorry, WB - you messed this one up royally.
Obviously, FOX has a case of some kind or... by mrfan	Dec 27th, 2008 11:25:29 AM
they wouldn't have got this far. WB messed up. Heads are going to roll. All studios are one ruthless business and play unfair. This has been going on since Hollywood was born. WB has played shitty with others before. All a huge asshole game. Cannot feel sorry for WB.
genro by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 27th, 2008 01:09:55 PM
Quote: "AICN has bred some of the dumbest cunnies the web has ever known" Stand up and be counted!
I thought "spreading the wealth around" was in? by Immortal_Fish	Dec 27th, 2008 02:12:51 PM
Fox wants in on bailoutpalooza, so cough it up, WB. It's unpatriotic if you don't!
Tao of Joe is right by Particularly Hard Vato	Dec 27th, 2008 05:23:37 PM
and I for one will not pay for anything that fox has done. Fuck them.
DUDE I JUST SAW WATCHMEN!! by BilboFett	Dec 27th, 2008 08:17:09 PM
at my local bookstore so I picked it up. Great book.
eha by Stimpson J Cat	Dec 28th, 2008 10:39:00 AM
CiM fokIn Dics FOK!Ziop the Simaw

Talkbacks

WATCHMEN in trouble, Fox wins initial judge ruling over distribution

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks