Watchmen Thread 3: FFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Kaneda]

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/christmas-bombs.html

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3416/picture80cc1.png

[Mr.Bookworm]

Dear Fox,

Fuck you.

Love,
Mr.Bookworm

P.S. I'm still mad about Firefly, you fuckers.

EDIT: Like, seriously, I think Fox is trying to set themselves up as the Antichrist of Fun.

[TheSparrow]

What did Warner Brothers do to this Judge? He appears to hate them. As he keeps ruling against them.

[Bells]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Jesus_facepalm.jpg

geez... what the hell was that all about? now what? the movie comes out as a "fox" production, they rake in all the money and the post franchise?

this movie wont come out for a long time if this keeps going on

[Solid Snake]

Are you guys kidding me?

Here's my letter to Fox:

Dear Fox:

Thank you so damned much I seriously love you all you have spared me the horrific terror of watching some crappy movie that would have totally ruined the last great bastion of comics with its pathetic modified ending and its campy costumes (seriously Ozymandias, seriously.) Please keep Watchmen from ever being released and I will love you for all eternity as I can still treasure the original, untainted version of comic supremacy.

Thanks again,
Snake

EDIT: Also the OP's image of me has been modified, it's true I was shouting "Fox!!!" at that moment, but it wasn't a shout of despair or outrage, it was a shout of celebration and ecstasy.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Are you guys kidding me?

Here's my letter to Fox:

Dear Fox:

Thank you so damned much I seriously love you all you have spared me the horrific terror of watching some crappy movie that would have totally ruined the last great bastion of comics with its pathetic modified ending and its campy costumes (seriously Ozymandias, seriously.) Please keep Watchmen from ever being released and I will love you for all eternity as I can still treasure the original, untainted version of comic supremacy.

Thanks again,
Snake

EDIT: Also the OP's image of me has been modified, it's true I was shouting "Fox!!!" at that moment, but it wasn't a shout of despair or outrage, it was a shout of celebration and ecstasy.

OBJECTION! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2886737)

I mean, seriously, you might think it'll suck, but saying you want something to be canned because of preconceived ideas is just snobbery.

[BitVyper]

I don't see in that article where it says the whole thing's been canned. Warner Brothers will probably just have to pay Fox a boatload of money.

Edit: And seriously people; when are you going to learn that Fox hates you and intends to destroy everything you love? We have weekly power meetings about how to screw you guys even more... er, I mean they do. Or they probably do. I wouldn't know anything about that. Seriously. I mean, I'm just guessing when I say things like that they get salary bonuses for every broken-hearted nerd.

[Invisible Queen]

The movie is not the comic. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? The movie can't ruin the comic because they are not the same thing. The comic has been the same for over 20 years, it doesn't change. Nothing anyone can do can change anything about it. If this movie sucks, and it probably will, there's a simple and cheap solution: Don't watch it.

Anyway, about Fox. Canceling Firefly was stupid and canceling Futurama was stupid. But I can understand what they're thinking about this. Sure, they're bringing closer the day when people will storm their offices and put their heads on sticks, but in the short term they'll probably make a profit, and we know the big corporations can only think about short term profits.

[BitVyper]

The comic has been the same for over 20 years, it doesn't change. Nothing anyone can do can change anything about it.

Oh, we're working on a remake of The Princess Bride that will be so terrible it will send shockwaves through time and make the original work suck.... is how I would respond to this if I were a Fox executive.

[Archbio]

The movie is not the comic. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? The movie can't ruin the comic because they are not the same thing.

I think people understand that just fine. What they also understand (possibly intuitively) is that an adaptation of a work can affect something outside of itself. It affects the perception of the work, in the audience and in other creators.

More tangibly, but as something of a corollary to that last point, this affects other hypothetical adaptations of the work in the future. So you can either get the Watchmen version of the green monster with neckbolts, or you can get no other adaption at all, which is a bummer who did want a quality movie adaption of Watchmen.

This is also known as 'ruining the franchise.'

[Mirai Gen]

That, and honestly fuck Fifth and Solid; I want to see this movie.

Naw I'm just kiddin' I love you guys.

[Invisible Queen]

But why would you allow an adaptation to change your perception of the work if you don't want it to? Why do you confuse adaptations and franchieses with original works if you're a fan of the original works? Why do you care about works of fiction if you don't like them?

[Mirai Gen]

Batman and Robin.

[Eltargrim]

Batman and Robin.

The Dark Knight.

[Fifthfiend]

OBJECTION! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2886737)

I mean, seriously, you might think it'll suck, but saying you want something to be canned because of preconceived ideas is just snobbery.

If by "preconceived ideas" you mean "extensive preview materials released by the movie's producers" and by "snobbery" you mean "judgment based on past experience" then okay, sure.

But no I mean I guess you have a point. Similarly you don't know that if you walked out into traffic right now and got hit by a car it'd hurt. That's just your PRECONCEIVED IDEA. Hey you know if George Bush said hey everybody I'd like to be President some more you wouldn't know he wouldn't totally screw it up again. That's just your SNOBBISH PREJUDICE talking!

[phil_]

I hate to jump on the hate-wagon, but did you miss this, IQ?So you can either get the Watchmen version of the green monster with neckbolts, or you can get no other adaption at all, which is a bummer who did want a quality movie adaption of Watchmen.I mean, doesn't that pretty clearly convey the idea that a crummy movie can change the public's perception of a work for almost eighty years now? Where are our cunning, vengeful Frankenstein's monsters? Are they behind the rubber masks in Walmart? Public perception of the original work is warped by the adaptation, and thus people who might have picked it up will think, "oh, that book about the green guy who grunts? Pass." And that hurts the feelings of fans of the original: not being able to share it because some crappy movie changes how the public perceives the work they're a fan of.

Same thing with this movie and its possible effect on the comic. Not that I give two shits either way about this movie or this comic, I just hate to see a good analogy go to waste.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

I still don't understand the hate Fox is getting.
I mean it looks like they have a valid claim to some of the movie rights and if you had a copyright claim to something and someone made an adaption of it you would do the exact same thing.
Cause if you are going to make a movie it's your responsibility to make sure you have all the rights for it.

[Kaneda]

I wouldn't be nearly so annoyed if this were any company but Fox. The movie is going to come out, possibly delayed, it's just that Fox will be benefitting from this. And fuck Fox.

[Archbio]

Public perception of the original work is warped by the adaptation, and thus people who might have picked it up will think, "oh, that book about the green guy who grunts? Pass." And that hurts the feelings of fans of the original: not being able to share it because some crappy movie changes how the public perceives the work they're a fan of.

Beyond that, though, when a derived work is created, there's a big chance that it'll affect every other hypothetical works derived from the same source material. The perception of the public is warped, but so is that of creators and producers.

This is why you won't have a second adaptation of Farewell to the Master, but instead a sucky remake/reimagining of The Day the Earth Stood Still.

But maybe that's not the best example.

The point is that if someone wants a quality adaptation of a work that they value, the first try is everything. Most works don't even get a second chance at all.

[BitVyper]

Naw I'm just kiddin' I love you guys.

I take this as proof of your mental instability.

I mean it looks like they have a valid claim to some of the movie rights and if you had a copyright claim to something and someone made an adaption of it you would do the exact same thing.

Well they were basically douchebags about the whole thing. They don't own the whole thing, just part of it, and they didn't bother to mention this when Warner Bros bought the rights originally, or at all during production until it was basically the eleventh hour and WB had no other options.

They have the law on their side, but they're still being assholes. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[Fifthfiend]

Well they were basically douchebags about the whole thing. They don't own the whole thing, just part of it, and they didn't bother to mention this when Warner Bros bought the rights originally, or at all during production until it was basically the eleventh hour and WB had no other options.

They have the law on their side, but they're still being assholes. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I still don't even see how they're ethically in the wrong. Is it your job to spend all your time making sure that nobody is robbing you? If someone walks into your house and takes your TV, are you a jerk for calling the cops on them because hey, you never told them that was your TV that they took out of your house?

If I make a movie before I'm sure that I have all of the actual rights to make it, then it's pretty much just my screwup, not the fault of the person whose rights I infringed on because I didn't do my homework. I mean we're talking about Warner Brother pictures here, this isn't exactly a small-time player. They should know the rules of their own game.

[BitVyper]

Is it your job to spend all your time making sure that nobody is robbing you? If someone walks into your house and takes your TV, are you a jerk for calling the cops on them because hey, you never told them that was your TV that they took out of your house?

No, but if I tell someone they can borrow my pen, and then call them a thief for taking my pen LID, I'm being an asshole. That matter aside, most of these big production companies are paying people to do exactly that; make sure no one is robbing them, so even in the most favourable circumstances, I find it pretty unlikely that they just weren't aware that they had the rights, and the movie was in production. It's possible, but I'm more willing to believe they just chose not to mention it until WB was in the most vulnerable position.... not that I don't think WB would do exactly the same thing given the chance.

Edit: Of course, it's equally likely that WB was fully aware they didn't have all the rights, so basically, everyone involved is an asshole. I'M SURROUNDED BY ASSHOLES!

[Solid Snake]

In today's increasingly litigation-based society I can nearly guarantee that any media company would have done the exact same thing Fox did if the positions were reversed. All joking aside (and I realize I've done my fair share of needling in this thread, as my personal perspective regarding the Watchmen movie is now well-known) I've never really understood the concept behind demonizing particular companies when competitors act in identical fashions.

The history of copyright law and intellectual property law in general is filled with cases just like this, the only difference (and the only possible grudge you can really hold against Fox, or the WB, whoever was at fault during negotiations) is that the vast majority are settled prior to reaching trial. From the consumer's standpoint we subsequently don't know about most cases because most are settled amicably and do not impact the dates of movie releases.

But seriously, this has nothing to do with Firefly or Futurama or my personal negative opinion of Watchmen. It's a legitimate legal issue; the WB was stupid not to have realized that Fox owned rights prior to making their movie, and Fox was smart enough to capitalize on WB's mistake by waiting for just the right moment to pounce. In reality, Fox probably did so under the assumption that WB would settle, thus minimizing any potential losses for the movie WB already made. Fox was hoping the movie would still come out on time; they weren't trying to screw over viewers at the theater, just WB over a legitimate grievance. Is it a tad underhanded for Fox to have waited? I guess so. But WB was still the company that made the critical error, and if the positions were reversed, and Fox made the same error and made a movie that WB owned the rights to, you'd better believe in a heartbeat that WB would wait for a postproduction stage in the film's progression before forcing Fox's hand. It's just sound economic sense in a capitalist society.

[Kaneda]

I've never really understood the concept behind demonizing particular companies when competitors act in identical fashions.

Fox is a pretty terrible company though. Even putting aside Futurama/Firefly/Arrested Development/Whatever and their (arguably) shitty news, it's one of the worst movie studios.

They forced Baz Luhurmann to rewrite and reshoot a happier ending to Australia (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/fox-does-it-again-luhrmann-forced-to-alter-australia-ending), Babylon AD's director admitted his own movie was bad, and blamed Fox, (http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/08/babylon-ad-mathieu-kassovitz.php) who interfered with the editing and cut out significant portions of the film, Fox chairman Tom Rothman had the set of the Wolverine movie to be repainted while the director was away. (http://www.pinkkryptonite.com/2008/08/wolverine_gets_a_bit_of_a_face.html)

That's just three very recent examples. If Fox were the ones making Watchmen, it would undoubtedly suck. Legally they may be in the right, but what irritates me is not only that Watchmen will most likely be delayed, but that such a shitty company will benefit from this.

[BitVyper]

In today's increasingly litigation-based society I can nearly guarantee that any media company would have done the exact same thing Fox did if the positions were reversed.

And it would be equally douchebaggy. The fact that this happens a lot doesn't make the people doing it any less dicks. As far as litigation being such a big business these days; I don't really consider that a good thing either. It's been built into an overcomplicated system that does just about nothing but feed itself.

Like I said; everyone involved is an asshole.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

No, but if I tell someone they can borrow my pen, and then call them a thief for taking my pen LID, I'm being an asshole. That matter aside, most of these big production companies are paying people to do exactly that; make sure no one is robbing them, so even in the most favourable circumstances, I find it pretty unlikely that they just weren't aware that they had the rights, and the movie was in production. It's possible, but I'm more willing to believe they just chose not to mention it until WB was in the most vulnerable position.... not that I don't think WB would do exactly the same thing given the chance.

Edit: Of course, it's equally likely that WB was fully aware they didn't have all the rights, so basically, everyone involved is an asshole. I'M SURROUNDED BY ASSHOLES!

It's WB legal responsibility to check they have all the rights before they undergo production. It is in absolutely no way Fox's responsibility to check no one is stealing their rights.
If WB didn't check out the rights before production they are FULLY in the wrong. Especially when you consider this is one of the largest movie studios in the world so this should clearly be matter of course for them.

[Solid Snake]

Let's Give A Warm Welcome for The Truth:

Feess' plainspoken declaration that Fox has always been in the right on this matter should represent vindication for the studio. Since Fox filed its lawsuit earlier this year, Watchmen fans and entertainment bloggers (including myself) have questioned why Fox waited until Snyder wrapped production before laying claim to the movie. Our questioning, of course, rested on two assumptions. 1. There was no way Gordon and Warner Bros. could have been so dim as to shoot a movie they had no right to make. 2. If Fox was so possessive of Watchmen, how come it didn't try harder to stop Warner Bros. from wasting millions and millions of dollars on a movie it had no right to make? But as EW subsequently reported, Fox’s lawyers did contact Warner Bros. prior to Watchmen's production with the goal of resolving the matter and allowing Warner Bros. to roll film with a clear conscience… albeit one purchased, no doubt, at great expense.

...straight from Entertainment Weekly, folks. Of course no crazed fanboy would dare listen to the sound of logic, so I fully expect to go to other message boards over the next month or so and watch fanboys rant and rave about how Fox is the antichrist.

[Invisible Queen]

But that doesn't sound like logic. If WB knew all along they'd have to pay Fox, why didn't they? And why won't they? It doesn't explain anything just because it says how Fox have acted properly and according to the law. And it's not like saying anything in defense of Fox is going to be hailed as a triumph for logic to start with. . .

[Kaneda]

...straight from Entertainment Weekly, folks. Of course no crazed fanboy would dare listen to the sound of logic, so I fully expect to go to other message boards over the next month or so and watch fanboys rant and rave about how Fox is the antichrist.

I don't think Fox is the antichrist for benefitting from this and delaying Watchmen. It bothers me that they're benefitting from this and delaying Watchmen because Fox is the antichrist.

[TheSparrow]

Let's Give A Warm Welcome for The Truth:



...straight from Entertainment Weekly, folks. Of course no crazed fanboy would dare listen to the sound of logic, so I fully expect to go to other message boards over the next month or so and watch fanboys rant and rave about how Fox is the antichrist.

No no no....Fox CLAIMED that they told WB before productions, but even Fox themselves were not able to verify that to the court, the only documents they could come up with were from well into production. Just because Fox told EW (and everyone else who listened) that they did it doesn't mean they did.

While Fox claims that they gave Warner Bros. a heads up on Watchmen long before production began, the source documents did not arrive until Watchmen was deep into production.

It doesn't change the fact that they still did apparently have a claim on the rights to the film.

[Mirai Gen]

Okay well first I'd like a source rather than just "Hey they totally said this."

Also,But as EW subsequently reported, Fox’s lawyers did contact Warner Bros. prior to Watchmen's production with the goal of resolving the matter and allowing Warner Bros. to roll film with a clear conscience… albeit one purchased, no doubt, at great expense.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Fox's lawyers contacted Warner Bros. and...what? Did they forget to meet? Did Warner Bros. refuse to purchase? Why so cryptic?

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Okay well first I'd like a source rather than just "Hey they totally said this."

Also,
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Fox's lawyers contacted Warner Bros. and...what? Did they forget to meet? Did Warner Bros. refuse to purchase? Why so cryptic?

One would assume there was a disagreement over whether Fox had valid rights to stop the film. Or it just got lost in paperwork.

[Masked Jedi]

Guys you can argue all day about whether or not Fox is in the right, but after all is said and done, they're still morally wrong. This (http://www.cracked.com/blog/fox-can-eat-several-dicks/) article puts it better than I ever could:

A lot of people worked hard to make this movie what the fans want it to be and, based on the trailer, the behind the scenes video clips, most of the early reviews, this is as close as anyone will come.
You, Fox, did not do any of the work to get this movie to where it is, but you’re still going to make money off of it. And that’s a concept that I don’t quite understand, and I never will understand it. I can’t imagine that Warner Brothers has money tucked away specifically to pay to you, Fox, so I have to assume that whatever money goes to you was originally intended for someone else, someone who probably actually deserves it. You haven’t been able to make a decent hit blockbuster, so you’re pulling this crap.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Guys you can argue all day about whether or not Fox is in the right, but after all is said and done, they're still morally wrong. This (http://www.cracked.com/blog/fox-can-eat-several-dicks/) article puts it better than I ever could:

Hahahhaahaha.
We've got a lot of writers on this forum. I'm going to take all of your works and make movies out of them. I'm not going to give you any money or any acknowldgements for them. I expect no retaliation because I worked real hard on them and I going to make a cool movie.
There is a reason we have copyright laws. It's so that the correct people can get money and acknowldgement. If you just blatanly ignore them then you are clearly the villain.
I am simply astounded that anyone can cast Fox as the villains here when they are legally in the right and WB are the ones making a movie without all the correct rights.

[Kaneda]

I am simply astounded that anyone can cast Fox as the villains here when they are legally in the right

There's a key word in there. If we were arguing whether they were legally in the right, this thread would be notably shorter.

We've got a lot of writers on this forum. I'm going to take all of your works and make movies out of them. I'm not going to give you any money or any acknowldgements for them. I expect no retaliation because I worked real hard on them and I going to make a cool movie.

Unless Rupert Murdoch is Alan Moore's secret alter-ego, that's just a terrible analogy.

[Invisible Queen]

What's "the correct people" in the above argument, mr Smartypants? Do Fox deserve money and acknowledgment for their hard work of purchasing the distributing rights to a movie they anticipated someone else might make? I'd say they deserve their money back and nothing more. Or maybe they deserve to wait until that right expires in a few years and the long anticipated movie is released and becomes a cult classic which, regardless of its quality, will always be remembered as the movie Fox fucked over while trying and failing to leech money from it. Man, that'd be funny.

Yeah, there's a reason there are copyright laws, it's to protect the rights of the 'creators' of immaterial properties. Fox are very much excluded from that protection by any moral standards that I understand. What they have is the right of the non-creative, money grubbing corporation to seek loopholes in copyright legislation to profit from other peoples' work with the least possible effort. As far as moral rights go, that one doesn't get a whole lot of sympathy points.

[Solid Snake]

I just can't understand how everyone thinks that Fox is such a villain in this scenario when it was WB's responsibility to ensure that they had the legal right to distribute the movie they made. The arguments against Fox all seem to ignore the notion of WB's responsibility as a corporation and instead concentrate on moralistic arguments about how "evil" Fox is. I'm not sure how that's a remotely legitimate argument against Fox. The bottom line is it's WB's responsibility to ensure that it has foolproof, 100% legitimate rights to Watchmen and if they don't, they're acting improperly. To try to excuse them of their mistake because "WB's the good guys, Fox is evil" or some bullcrap is to create a ludicrous situation in which you'd be arguing for selective circumvention of the law.

With due respect to Watchmen fanboys, not all of whom are crazy (and I'm not really addressing anyone here, more addressing the state of Watchmen message boards at large), I'd just like to say; put down the nerd goggles, stop thinking from your own limited perspectives and actually view the situation objectively, as opposed to assigning "good" and "evil" to "the side that will allow me to see the movie I feel entitled to see" and "the side who's inadvertently preventing me from seeing said movie in three months." The world does not revolve around our pleasure as consumers, and there are objective standards corporations must be held to. WB can't be exempt from the law just because the movie they're making "kicks ass." If our legal system made decisions on the basis of "what decisions will allow greedy consumers to feel most content with the system?" we'd be actively encouraging companies to break the law and violate all kinds of copyright restrictions if it just meant a really neat movie came out soon.

Actually I feel this is a problem with society in general, we've all become such spoiled arrogant brats that we can't tolerate the law being followed if it means our sources of pleasure are deterred for a matter of months. I mean one similar example was when Harry Potter got pushed back a few months and it was like the world was goddamn coming to an end on all the message boards and though no legal issues were involved, I kept thinking to myself, "Is this what's society's come to? We're really this pissed off because we'll have to wait another six months to see a movie?" We've really taken rampant, valueless consumerism to a whole new level of entitlement that isn't the least bit deserved. I'm not saying we shouldn't buy stuff, I'm just saying we need to understand that the quality of a product or its imminent release should not influence the following of legal statutes. The legal system shouldn't bend over backwards and contradict itself to support the ravings of disgruntled fans.

EDIT: Furthermore, the notion that "WB did all the work, so Fox doesn't deserve any credit for WB's work" is based entirely on an improper series of assumptions regarding the nature of Fox's rights to Watchmen. The situation is equivocal to the following hypothetical: you sign a contract with a homeowner to paint someone's house, and then, in the middle of the night, a "superior" painting company swoops in unannounced and paints the house. The other company can't claim that your contract is voided and that they deserve the money because "they did all the work." Your contract is still legitimate. Likewise, the homeowner can't respond with "Well these guys did a better job than you could have ever done, so I'm happier with their product." It still doesn't change the fact that you hold the signed contract and they completely circumvented your rights as a business.

If Fox has a legal right to Watchmen as a property, no other company can produce and distribute a Watchmen film. I don't care if Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg get together with WB to create a damned magnum opus out of such a work, doing so is still against the law and a settlement must be procured to ensure the legal authority of holding distribution rights. Once you create an exception to the system (ie, We like WB more then Fox, so let's let WB get away with it just this once) the entire system falls apart.

[Fifthfiend]

Of course no crazed fanboy would dare listen to the sound of logic, so I fully expect to go to other message boards over the next month or so and watch fanboys rant and rave about how Fox is the antichrist.

put down the nerd goggles

Actually I feel this is a problem with society in general, we've all become such spoiled arrogant brats that we can't tolerate the law being followed if it means our sources of pleasure are deterred for a matter of months.

There's no need to be calling everyone crazed fanboys and spoiled brats and nerd-goggle-wearin' nerds and whatever other thing, knock it off with that.

I say this as someone who basically agrees with you but however right or wrong you are isn't an excuse to go calling everyone who disagrees with you crazy. As it is I'm kinda concerned that the fact that I do agree with you isn't the only reason you're not outright banned right now cause the more I look at this the more I'm not seeing any reason why say, Invisible Queen shouldn't feel amazingly insulted by a lot of what you've said above, so don't be too shocked if this this warn turns into a ban at some point.

[Krylo]

The situation is equivocal to the following hypothetical: you sign a contract with a homeowner to paint someone's house, and then, in the middle of the night, a "superior" painting company swoops in unannounced and paints the house.

Actually, it's equivocal to if you sign a contract to have your house painted, and then the person you signed the contract with doesn't paint your house for twenty years but somehow keeps the contract valid.

So then, eventually, because, you know, your house hasn't been painted in twenty years, another painting company is like, "Hey, you want this painted?" and you're all "Sure."

So then the first company watches the other company set up the new contracts, and paint the entire house, and then they sue for the money because they had the original contract after everything is done after never doing an ounce of work.

Your hypothesis ignores a lot of things here.

Firstly: Fox only had the rights to make the first Watchmen movie. This is not a right you usually take. You take a right to make a movie of a franchise, and then the rights to the characters, etc. etc. WB made sure they had all of those.

Then Fox sat on that right for twenty years. They did nothing with it for two decades. Enough time for records of it to be lost and/or forgotten about.

Then, Fox didn't contact WB until well into production to let them know they had the rights.*

Basically, Fox spawn camped. Spawn camping is valid, sure, but it still makes you a massive dick.

*Your article says only that Fox said that they informed WB, but they were never able to produce any proof of this, WB denies it, and the only papers that show that WB was ever contacted by Fox's legal team were dated well into production. But don't let The TRUTH get in the way of blindly defending businesses for exploiting legal loopholes to screw over as many people as possible like they've done since the beginning of time.

Edit: If Fox has a legal right to Watchmen as a property, no other company can produce and distribute a Watchmen film. I don't care if Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg get together with WB to create a damned magnum opus out of such a work, doing so is still against the law and a settlement must be procured to ensure the legal authority of holding distribution rights. Once you create an exception to the system (ie, We like WB more then Fox, so let's let WB get away with it just this once) the entire system falls apart.

You mean like when we allowed companies to pressure our government officials into extending copyright claims into near infinity, so that nearly nothing ever enters public use?

Like when the system fell apart then?

Or maybe when we let them abuse those laws to do shit like holding license on movies for over two decades?

How about when they broke the system there?

Yeah, that was pretty shitty.

Further--with all the extenuating circumstances of this case, the biggest of which being sitting on the rights for twenty years and not doing anything, this would not cause the system to fall apart anymore than, say, letting someone off for murder because of self-defense. There's a reason we have extenuating circumstances laws.

AND, even if it WERE to set a precedent, that precedent would merely be, 'hey, don't just buy the rights and sit on them for two decades and expect to be paid for the movie you didn't make'.

And ignoring all that, people aren't saying 'let WB get away with it'. They're saying, "wow, what a total dick move."

Edit 2:

And for clarification, I've never read Watchmen, don't like print comics, and could give a shit less about this movie.

It's still a dick move.

[Wigmund]

FROM NY Times - Judge Says Fox Owns Rights To 'Watchmen', Made By Warner Brothers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1230182193-JBYRcs9tnqIwlweFonY7ng):

Fox acquired rights to the “Watchmen” graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon, but eventually dropped its own plan to make a movie from its story, about the underside of life for superbeings.

Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

I'm by no means literate in Legalese, nor do I have any knowledge of Hollywood's laws regarding movie rights. But I'd assume Lawrence Gordon, the producer of Watchmen, deserves some blame for this brouhaha. Because the way this reads it's like he waited for Fox to do something with the movie, then he must have figured they didn't want anything to do with it - so he went shopping for a studio that would make the movie.

But I could be horribly wrong there. Who knows. I just want the movie to come out regardless of who's distributing it so I can decide for myself whether the movie is good, decent, or crap.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Actually, it's equivocal to if you sign a contract to have your house painted, and then the person you signed the contract with doesn't paint your house for twenty years but somehow keeps the contract valid.

So then, eventually, because, you know, your house hasn't been painted in twenty years, another painting company is like, "Hey, you want this painted?" and you're all "Sure."

So then the first company watches the other company set up the new contracts, and paint the entire house, and then they sue for the money because they had the original contract after everything is done after never doing an ounce of work.

Your hypothesis ignores a lot of things here.

Firstly: Fox only had the rights to make the first Watchmen movie. This is not a right you usually take. You take a right to make a movie of a franchise, and then the rights to the characters, etc. etc. WB made sure they had all of those.

Then Fox sat on that right for twenty years. They did nothing with it for two decades. Enough time for records of it to be lost and/or forgotten about.

Then, Fox didn't contact WB until well into production to let them know they had the rights.*

Basically, Fox spawn camped. Spawn camping is valid, sure, but it still makes you a massive dick.

*Your article says only that Fox said that they informed WB, but they were never able to produce any proof of this, WB denies it, and the only papers that show that WB was ever contacted by Fox's legal team were dated well into production. But don't let The TRUTH get in the way of blindly defending businesses for exploiting legal loopholes to screw over as many people as possible like they've done since the beginning of time.

Edit:

You mean like when we allowed companies to pressure our government officials into extending copyright claims into near infinity, so that nearly nothing ever enters public use?

Like when the system fell apart then?

Or maybe when we let them abuse those laws to do shit like holding license on movies for over two decades?

How about when they broke the system there?

Yeah, that was pretty shitty.

Further--with all the extenuating circumstances of this case, the biggest of which being sitting on the rights for twenty years and not doing anything, this would not cause the system to fall apart anymore than, say, letting someone off for murder because of self-defense. There's a reason we have extenuating circumstances laws.

AND, even if it WERE to set a precedent, that precedent would merely be, 'hey, don't just buy the rights and sit on them for two decades and expect to be paid for the movie you didn't make'.

And ignoring all that, people aren't saying 'let WB get away with it'. They're saying, "wow, what a total dick move."

Edit 2:

And for clarification, I've never read Watchmen, don't like print comics, and could give a shit less about this movie.

It's still a dick move.


So basically what you are saying is that if I have the rights to something I pretty much have to use them otherwise I'm just being a dick?
I have a few problems with that.
Firstly, it is not at all how the legal system currentely works. I mean you could change it but if you start changing laws retroactively you cause all kinds of problems and start making criminals out of totally honest people.
You might not like how the current system is but all the film studios, including WB, exploit it so you can't demonise one and say the others are fine when they would do exactly the same thing.
And if you're arguing for changes to the legal system that is a completely different thing. As it is Fox acted within the bounds of laws that EVERY FILM COMPANY also acts within the bounds of. They all do it.
Sure they had bizarre film rights but then the world of movie studios and copyrights is a murky one (Just ask "To Kill a Mockingbird"). You can't particularly demonise Fox for what is common pratice and is actually fairly straightforward.
If WB wanted to make the movie they should have bought the rights not just said "you haven't used them for ages so we're going to use them". 20 years is not all that long. And they still hold the copyright.

What exactly are you advocating? You can ignore copyright laws if you think somebody has been holding them to long and hasn't done anything with them?

Secondly, again you are telling off Fox for coming in late to the system. But it is not their responsibility to check at all times whether someone is using thier copyrights. What are they going to do, drive round to every single movie studio everywhere in the world every day to find out what they are doing? This is why it is the responsibility of the person making the new film to check the rights and just ignoring the rights and thinking "It'll be cool" is totally a dick move.

In response to Invisible Queen, why does it matter that Fox currentely hold the rights. They acquired them legally by payment to appropriate companies who pay the creators of works. It's not a perfect system but its far far better than just saying "Let's ignore all copyright laws, you can make whatever you want based off whatever you want/"

[RickZarber]

You can't particularly demonize Fox for what is common practice and is actually fairly straightforward.I don't mean to speak for Krylo here, and this isn't really analogous at all, but for the sake of trying to clarify a point: talking on your cell phone while ordering food is common practice, totally legal, and lots of other people do it. It doesn't make you less of a dick.This is why it is the responsibility of the person making the new film to check the rights and just ignoring the rights and thinking "It'll be cool" is totally a dick move.Now we're getting somewhere!

Speaking strictly for myself here, it seems to me that the thing to be upset about is not the question of legal rights, but that both studios took the "dick move" approach to this. WB either didn't know or didn't care, and Fox waited until the 11th hour to reciprocate. Not that there's anything that we can do about it in any case, but it seems like we're arguing across purposes here.

[Nikose Tyris]

Question.

Will the Actors who participated in the Film be paid, or will WB be responsible for every aspect of payment, including reimbursement for the actors?

[RickZarber]

Depends on the contracts, but likely WB is obligated to pay the actors and all other film crew regardless of whatever money Fox recieves. The actors who worked on the film will not be negatively affected (unless issues arise due to the movie's delay, such as no longer being able to do press junkets due to scheduling conflicts). The studio itself will likely lose a vast sum of money.

[Masked Jedi]

Which will prolly end up being paid for by deducting the pay of and/or firing the lower class workers WB has, the kind that worked on the film. Therefore, the people who did the work lose the money they deserve, which is why Fox is comprised of asswipes.

Also, Smarty, WB bought the rights to make the film, but Fox wouldn't sell them the distribution rights, and I wouldn't put it past Murdoch and Co to plan something like this. That pretty much invalidates your argument.

[NonCon]

I didn't know that there were low class workers involved in movies. I guess maybe the people that move shit around. Hmmm. I dunno.

Both companies are at fault. Fox for buying the rights to make a movie that fans very much wanted to be made, and then just not making that movie just cause. WB for making the movie without talking to Fox. All in all it's a huge clusterfuck. I just hope it is able to get resolved without the movie being delayed, and that the movie still shows because I have high hopes for it.

[Krylo]

Firstly, it is not at all how the legal system currentely works. I mean you could change it but if you start changing laws retroactively you cause all kinds of problems and start making criminals out of totally honest people.Right, like when the movie and music industries paid off... wait, I'm sorry, that's not the word rich people use... lobbied congress with their big bags of cash... errr... lobbyists to extend copyrights so that they could abuse them in just such a manner.
You might not like how the current system is but all the film studios, including WB, exploit it so you can't demonise one and say the others are fine when they would do exactly the same thing.Like Zarber said, a bunch of people doing it doesn't make it any less of a dick move.

And if you're arguing for changes to the legal system that is a completely different thing.I'm arguing that the legal system has been repeatedly changed by buisnesses such as Fox, and, yes, Warner Brothers, to allow them to exploit it in such a way, and that such exploitations, regardless of legality, are completely unethical.

You know what else was perfectly legal?

The way the banks fucked our economy over here.

Totally and one hundred percent within the workings of the law. Well, you know, after they had it changed.

That doesn't make it ethical. That doesn't make it moral. That doesn't make it right.

The law is not a moral compass--especially not when centered around large business practices where it is regularly bought and sold.

They all do it.So if I, hypothetically, had enough money to give everyone in New Zealand one hundred dollars to punch you in the face, and pay for transit, and any lost work hours, and the vast majority took me up on it--would it make punching you in the face ok?

Last I checked 'They all do it' is not a valid argument toward the morality or eth..i...cal... ity? Whatever the word is, of something.

Sure they had bizarre film rights but then the world of movie studios and copyrights is a murky oneAnd not at all because they continue lobbying to change the laws to best suit themselves, to the point that they no longer protect the consumer?

is actually fairly straightforward.What, exactly, is straightforward about getting strange rights to a movie and hiding them for twenty years?

Seems kinda shady to me.

Straightforward would have been informing WB that they had the rights BEFORE production--and we only have their PR department's word that they did that. But, of course, the PR departments of multibillion dollar companies never lie.

What exactly are you advocating? You can ignore copyright laws if you think somebody has been holding them to long and hasn't done anything with them?I'm advocating that obvious abuses of a system which has been altered specifically to allow obvious abuses of it are total dick moves.

Also that the limit on copyrights should be moved back to where it previously was and extensions should no longer be able to be bought.


Secondly, again you are telling off Fox for coming in late to the system. But it is not their responsibility to check at all times whether someone is using thier copyrights. What are they going to do, drive round to every single movie studio everywhere in the world every day to find out what they are doing?Considering they have people they pay to do exactly that? Yes.

Well, no. They probably SHOULDN'T waste money on that, but every studio does. Hell, every company with a legal department does. Claiming that they were ignorant is just silly.

This is why it is the responsibility of the person making the new film to check the rights and just ignoring the rights and thinking "It'll be cool" is totally a dick move.]Except they did check the rights. Then bought the rights. It was just one total odd right that they didn't think to check for that got them.

If Fox would have had the rights to one of the characters, or the story in general, or whatever normal right that companies usually pursue, I'd be less inclined to call this a total dick move, and just a minor dick move. They didn't, however. It was also the only right they didn't forfeit or sell over the years--as they were actually planning on making this movie twenty years ago, they most likely had a couple more rights than just that one.

The whole thing points to Fox knowing their ex-producer was trying to get someone else to do it, sitting on one oddly named right they figured no one would check into, and then pouncing on them like a lion glutting itself on a fat hunk of lamb.

As you've pointed out--WB has an entire department of people to find and buy rights. If said right was something that a company would normally bother checking into, they would have found Fox had it.

It's not a perfect system but its far far better than just saying "Let's ignore all copyright laws, you can make whatever you want based off whatever you want/"Yeah.

You need more money than WB alone has to do that. Gotta get an industry or two together.

[Solid Snake]

[COLOR="Red"]There's no need to be calling everyone crazed fanboys and spoiled brats and nerd-goggle-wearin' nerds and whatever other thing, knock it off with that.

...Huh?

With due respect to Watchmen fanboys, not all of whom are crazy [b](and I'm not really addressing anyone here, more addressing the state of Watchmen message boards at large),

I mean I guess I could have been slightly more explicit but the intention of that remark was to make it crystal clear that my more "angry" comments weren't at all directed towards the mostly sane, rational people I adore at NPF, but rather the state of the fanboyish Watchmen message boards where legions of irrational folks are going absolutely insane and slinging mud at Fox that makes this conversation seem downright timid.

[Fifthfiend]

I tend not to put a lot of stock in statements to the effect of like "Everyone who disagrees with me is crazy! I mean no not you guys you're cool, I mean all those unspecified other people who disagree with me, they're all totally bonkers." Call it a pet peeve, I don't know. And you didn't even bother to caveat the spoiled-brats / nerd-goggles comments that way.

one odd right

strange rights

What?

I'm not a huge expert or anything but my impression is that distribution rights are a pretty huge deal in the movie business.

[Krylo]

What?

I'm not a huge expert or anything but my impression is that distribution rights are a pretty huge deal in the movie business.

"still held exclusive rights to distribute the first movie based on the graphic novel." (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/02/12/fox-suing-warner-brothers-over-watchmen-movie/)

The wording is set in such a way that it's not something one would look for. It's not the right to distribute a watchmen movie, or the watchmen movie, but the FIRST watchmen movie.

Generally one just gets the rights to distribute the movie they are making. They don't word it as the first movie or whatever else.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I'm going to cut short anything else I might say and just say that I basically agree with everything Krylo has said. Fox being in the legal right isn't the issue, the thing that bothers me is the degree of douchebaggery that being in said legal right brings.

If by "preconceived ideas" you mean "extensive preview materials released by the movie's producers" and by "snobbery" you mean "judgment based on past experience" then okay, sure.

But no I mean I guess you have a point. Similarly you don't know that if you walked out into traffic right now and got hit by a car it'd hurt. That's just your PRECONCEIVED IDEA. Hey you know if George Bush said hey everybody I'd like to be President some more you wouldn't know he wouldn't totally screw it up again. That's just your SNOBBISH PREJUDICE talking!

Er.

"Extensive preview materials"? You mean the commercials? Those really are not the best way to judge something by, ever.

I'll assume the later parts are overblown to try to make your point, so I'll ignore them.

I think we can just chalk it up to differing opinions on how to judge something. You (and Snake) think that it's A-OK to judge something based on part of it, and I say you need to look at the whole work to judge it. Neither of us is wrong, they're both valid viewpoints.

[Fifthfiend]

"still held exclusive rights to distribute the first movie based on the graphic novel." (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/02/12/fox-suing-warner-brothers-over-watchmen-movie/)

The wording is set in such a way that it's not something one would look for. It's not the right to distribute a watchmen movie, or the watchmen movie, but the FIRST watchmen movie.

Generally one just gets the rights to distribute the movie they are making. They don't word it as the first movie or whatever else.

Again, what? Big movie studios distribute movies they haven't personally made all the time. It's like half the point of big movie studios.

Fox tried to produce a Watchmen movie, it sank into development hell, so they sold the rights to make the thing back to the producers with the understanding that if it got made, they'd be the ones to sell it so they'd still get to make money off of the whole thing.

Getting rights to the first movie just means that if whatever hypothetical Watchmen movie ends up getting produced does big enough business to rate a sequel, then the producers can sell those distribution rights off to whomever they liked instead of being locked into Fox for the rest of eternity.

[Krylo]

The whole thing points to Fox knowing their ex-producer was trying to get someone else to do it, sitting on one oddly named right they figured no one would check into, and then pouncing on them like a lion glutting itself on a fat hunk of lamb.

I'd just like to point out here that in looking for the quotes that it was the rights to distribute the first movie, I found this: In 1994, Fox and producer Larry Gordon entered into an agreement that would require a buy-out payment if a Watchmen movie was ever produced, in addition for profit participation of 2.5 percent of 100 percent of net profits on any motion pictures that result (this includes sequels and spin-offs such as The Black Freighter).

So yeah. This is exactly what Fox did.

This also changes nothing about everything else I said.

You know, the whole copyright laws have been artificially extended specifically so that companies can pull this shit on each other and smaller authors and musicians and indie producers and what have you.

The law in this case is blatantly unethical, as it was altered for unethical purposes, and then used for unethical purposes. The fact that this is not the first time does not make it better. It makes it worse.

Edit: Getting rights to the first movie just means that if whatever hypothetical Watchmen movie ends up getting produced does big enough business to rate a sequel, then the producers can sell those distribution rights off to whomever they liked instead of being locked into Fox for the rest of eternity.In 1994, Fox and producer Larry Gordon entered into an agreement that would require a buy-out payment if a Watchmen movie was ever produced, in addition for profit participation of 2.5 percent of 100 percent of net profits on any motion pictures that result (this includes sequels and spin-offs such as The Black Freighter).
Except no.

[Solid Snake]

Touche, Fifth. If anyone was offended by my comments and took them personally, all I can really say is that I'm sorry, and the insults weren't intended for you or anyone else at NPF. I often use NPF as a place to attempt "intelligent" rants on issues I notice permeating the internet community "at large," and maybe I took that one a little far.

Heh. I still love the word "nerd-goggles," though.


I think we can just chalk it up to differing opinions on how to judge something. You (and Snake) think that it's A-OK to judge something based on part of it, and I say you need to look at the whole work to judge it. Neither of us is wrong, they're both valid viewpoints.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if Watchmen's publicity operated more like your standard movie adaptation, but given that we already know some rather explicit details about exactly how the story's ending has been changed in the movie, I'd say we know a lot more than usual. By contrast, I remember going into LoTR movies relatively clueless as to what scenes from the book would be represented and which wouldn't. (let alone the endings.)

My thing with Watchmen is that I really think the only way to effectively adapt something as powerful and visceral as Watchmen is to adapt it to the big screen "unchanged" in practically its entirety, so every significant change from the graphic novel seemed a huge slap in the face to the brilliant writers. The costumes also generally look like crap to me, but I was more forgiving of that, as I really don't care nearly as much about the costumes as I do about the plot and the characterizations. The "Squid-Creature reveal" as I'll call it was the moment I lost all faith in the Watchmen movie because seriously that's just too huge a dramatic change in the storyline and it really messes up a lot of Watchmen's endgame.

Could the movie still be "a good movie" based on its own independent merits? Quite possibly. Will it be a good adaptation of Watchmen, my favorite graphic novel ever? No. Unfortunately with something like "Watchmen" I really can't tolerate anything satisfactory that nonetheless alters the perceived themes of the storyline in such a way that future generations associate "Watchmen" with the movie and not the graphic novel. This is pretty much what's happened across the board with movie adaptations -- heck, ask anyone who currently considers themselves "huge LoTR fans" and then ask them if they know who Tom Bombadil is. ("Who?") Even if this movie is decent it's still going to take a giant crap on a mythology I'm very much invested in, and as a purist that's a sad realization for me to deal with.

Now am I really applauding Fox for ruining everyone's chances to see the movie? Nah. I'm not that cold-hearted. I just wanted to have some fun and comment in an exaggerated manner regarding my relative indifference to the implications of the judge's ruling and Watchmen's inevitable postponement. As for the ruling itself, defending the logic of the ruling and defending Fox as owners of the distribution rights to win their lawsuit is something I'm more staunchly invested in then "whether Watchmen is going to be an awesome movie or crap." But even then it's not "I love Fox, and I hate all you fools for hating on Fox," more like "I'm a law student who loves the law, and the law must be upheld under all circumstances." The fact that it's going to prevent me, at least temporarily, from seeing a movie I perceive will be an absolute atrocity is just a bonus.

EDIT: Krylo: I think the difficulty in reconciling my position and yours is that I'm coming from a "the law must be colorblind" perspective and you're coming from a moralistic perspective in which the law should (ideally) selectively apply only in cases in which a moral foundation is present. This is a very convoluted way of saying that you seem more interested in Fox's motives, whereas I could honestly care less whether Fox was trying to totally fool some random passerby corporation into trying to make the Watchmen movie just to shock them with a "Surprise! We have distribution rights!" message during or after production. From my perspective, any exception to a distribution right causes such an enormous domino effect to the whole concept of distribution rights and intellectual property that the ramifications would be extraordinarily negative for the entire industry. (Unless you'd enjoy dozens of movie studios all doing the same exact popular remakes and sequels as each other in a world where copyrights and intellectual property have little meaning.)

I mean the bottom line is, I can't really debate from an ethical perspective because none of us really know what the heck WB or Fox's executives were thinking or who's "really at fault." This is one of those classic situations where the "truth of the matter" will never fully be known. We can all speculate in regards to morality, but our speculations are all inherently biased. If you hated Fox before, you're going to come in with the preconception that they were obviously total jerks about this, even though they might have done everything they could to inform WB before production. We won't know for sure, and neither can the judge know for sure, so all that could be done was to objectively decide based on the pure, raw, objective facts of the case, which were in favor of Fox.
Now I personally think it's more "WB's fault" than "Fox's fault" because the record of Fox owning the distribution rights to "the first Watchmen movie" or whatever convoluted wording was used are still authentic (even if the intent was malicious) and still in plain sight (Fox couldn't hide the existence of said rights if they tried, it's all "on the record") so you'd think a huge company like WB would have people looking this information up and confronting Fox about it pre-production. Since they're making the movie, it's their responsibility to make sure they're not intruding on anyone's legal rights, no matter what one thinks of the ethical validity of those legal rights under aggravating circumstances. Just my two cents.

[Krylo]

"I'm a law student who loves the law, and the law must be upheld under all circumstances."

If you love the law, then shouldn't you be as angry as me about how companies buy and sell the law, and alter it purely to meet their own unethical demands?

It's what put us in a recession.

It's why musicians can no longer sample rhythms from each other, as was done with music since the dawn of time. Well unless the musicians work for the same label, because musicians no longer get the rights to their intellectual property.

It's why we have to deal with companies being able to sit on a right for twenty years with no intentions to do anything with it, and really longer. Indefinitely really. It wouldn't matter if this had taken three hundred years. Fox could have still sat on that.

The laws in this country are constantly molested by people with money so that they can make more money. What had originally been intended to protect artists, now only protects the people who abuse those artists.

[Masked Jedi]

On the subject of the ending, I read somewhere (and I don't remember where, so don't ask me, but it was trustworthy) that they've filmed the squid ending, but the execs don't think it'll play well, so they're testing the other ending in screenings. Which means if we bitch loud enough, they might change it back.

[Solid Snake]

If Fox legitimately paid for the rights to "the first Watchmen movie," then exactly how large or small the corporation is shouldn't matter. The distribution rights are distribution rights. If I legitimately purchase the rights to distribute a product and decide not to distribute it, the transaction was still entirely valid. I now own the intellectual property of a marketable product that I'd like to profit from. If I own it and you want to make a movie from it, you should come to me first and acquire the rights I possess.

The idea from Fox's perspective (if they really never wanted to make a Watchmen movie) was that the distribution rights to Watchmen was an investment, like investing in the stock market, whereupon another company interested in making the movie (like WB) would have to negotiate with Fox for the rights. It's completely legit. Now we can argue whether the entire system is fucked up and screws people over but honestly, that's an entirely different conversation that strays into the realm of capitalism VS socialism and free market economies and the legal concept of intellectual property and whether "intellectual property" can actually have a "price-tag" associated with it. All of those are philosophical questions outside of the scope of the decision the judge was asked to make.

Now, in regards to Fox's motives: well, if I were Fox, I'd have to sue WB out of sheer principle! I owned distribution rights that I paid for, and I'd lose out on the distribution rights I legally acquired if I just said "Okay WB, you worked awfully hard on that movie of yours, I guess I can let your Watchmen movie get released and make tons of profits." Fox's choices are to either lose out on a prior investment entirely (leading to a net loss) or at least garner something from the aforementioned investment. No one in a capitalist society is going to choose to lose money and lose legal rights to said money willingly, no matter how "big" or how "small" or how "greedy" or "benevolent" they are.

[Krylo]

If Fox legitimately paid for the rights to "the first Watchmen movie," then exactly how large or small the corporation is shouldn't matter. The distribution rights are distribution rights. If I legitimately purchase the rights to distribute a product and decide not to distribute it, the transaction was still entirely valid. I now own the intellectual property of a marketable product that I'd like to profit from. If I own it and you want to make a movie from it, you should come to me first and acquire the rights I possess.

That's not the point.

The point is--Fox, Warner Brothers, Disney (if memory serves, Disney was one of the biggest villains, when they attempted to hold onto Mickey Mouse), other movie companies, the RIAA, other music labels, etc. lobbied congress to extend the length of copyrights. They then lobbied to allow them to purchase extensions, etc.

The point is that they only own these rights legally because they bought off our government to grant them the legal right to extend their rights.

It's not whether they bought THESE rights, or how big they are. It's that the industry as a whole raped our copyright laws until they no longer resembled what they once were.

[RickZarber]

What had originally been intended to protect artists, now only protects the people who abuse those artists.Hrm. It surprises me a bit to find myself more cynical than you on this point. I can't really believe it was ever intended to be anything so altruistic, but has only ever been to protect companies' financial interest in properties created under them.

[Fifthfiend]

That's not the point.

The point is--Fox, Warner Brothers, Disney (if memory serves, Disney was one of the biggest villains, when they attempted to hold onto Mickey Mouse), other movie companies, the RIAA, other music labels, etc. lobbied congress to extend the length of copyrights. They then lobbied to allow them to purchase extensions, etc.

The point is that they only own these rights legally because they bought off our government to grant them the legal right to extend their rights.

It's not whether they bought THESE rights, or how big they are. It's that the industry as a whole raped our copyright laws until they no longer resembled what they once were.

If you're arguing that copyright laws as a whole are unethical then yeah, I agree, but we've moved into an entirely different argument from where we started, which was mostly about people getting pissed off particularly at Fox for drinking Warner Brothers' milkshake.

[Krylo]

If you're arguing that copyright laws as a whole are unethical then yeah, I agree, but we've moved into an entirely different argument from where we started, which was mostly about people getting pissed off particularly at Fox for drinking Warner Brothers' milkshake.

True, however the argument went thusly:

This is a dick move.

It was legal and ethical. Also other people do it.

Just because it's legal and other people do it, that doesn't make it ethical.


Therefore whether the law is ethical has come to the forefront. It's still a dick move, and still unethical regardless of legality, because the law in this case is unethical and has been altered considerably to allow dick moves by the very people making them.

[Fifthfiend]

True, however the argument went thusly:

This is a dick move.

It was legal and ethical. Also other people do it.

Just because it's legal and other people do it, that doesn't make it ethical.

Therefore whether the law is ethical has come to the forefront. It's still a dick move, and still unethical regardless of legality, because the law in this case is unethical and has been altered considerably to allow dick moves by the very people making them.

Other people doing it is exactly what makes it ethical when it's being done to the same people who do it to everyone else. Warner Brothers, Fox, and other similar companies all lobbied for the state of law which currently exists, so there's nothing at all unethical about holding Warner Brothers to the requirements of those laws. If the defensive line for Giants runs a blitz and knocks the shit out of the quarterback from Dallas nobody gets to complain that it's "unethical", because both teams agreed to play a game where the rules clearly allow for one side knocking the shit out of the other team.

Battle Over ‘Watchmen’ Surrounds a Producer
By MICHAEL CIEPLY (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/movies/20watc.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Visible through the glass door of the film producer Lawrence Gordon’s office here, a poster for his coming movie “Watchmen,” framed and ready for hanging, was propped against a wall this week.

Still to be determined: whether the black-and-yellow artwork, its distinctive happy face spattered with blood, will have some of its most important credits revised before joining Mr. Gordon’s crowded poster gallery.

A rapidly escalating legal fight between Warner Brothers, which has already shot “Watchmen,” and 20th Century Fox, which claims to own rights to the graphic novel on which it is based, is headed for trial in federal court in Los Angeles next January. That is just two months before Warner is scheduled to release the film in the United States, while Paramount Pictures distributes it abroad. (Legendary Pictures helped finance the film.)

The collision is extraordinary. Major studios have rarely if ever been known to sue each other over a $100 million-plus picture that has already wrapped.

The fight is still more puzzling in that it centers on Mr. Gordon, a 72-year-old show business veteran behind movies like the “Die Hard” and “Hellboy” franchises and “Field of Dreams.” This is a man, after all, who has taught more than a few producers how to work the studios without getting crushed between them.

“To a whole generation of us, Larry was our mentor,” said John Davis, whose producing credits include “Norbit,” “I, Robot” and, 21 years ago, “Predator,” on which he collaborated with Mr. Gordon and the producer Joel Silver.

During his brief tenure as president of Fox in the mid-1980s, Mr. Gordon built a staff that included now-prolific producers like Laurence Mark (“Dreamgirls”) and Scott Rudin (“No Country for Old Men”). Amy Pascal, currently co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, was another executive mentored by Mr. Gordon at Fox. And James L. Brooks — whose Fox film “Broadcast News” picked up seven Oscar nominations — began working as writer, director and producer at the studio under Gordon.

Mr. Gordon declined to be interviewed for this story, as did lawyers from the Beverly Hills firm Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette & Feldman, which has done much of his legal work over the years. Executives at both Warner and Fox also declined to comment.

But people on both sides of the dispute — who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing complications of the court fight — said Mr. Gordon was in a particularly delicate position.

Even though he has not so far been named as a defendant in the suit, Warner insists that Mr. Gordon is ultimately responsible for the validity of his claimed rights to the project. If Warner does not prevail in court, or chooses to settle, the producer could be pressed to cover any losses. .

Crusty and charming by turns, Mr. Gordon, a Mississippi native, is no stranger to Hollywood roughhouse. In a 1983 go-round, for example, he secured a temporary restraining order against Paramount when its executives tried to throw him off the lot. Only a year after his spectacular success with “48 Hrs.,” studio executives had changed the locks and shut off the phones at his producer’s office in a tiff, according to news reports at the time, over his dealings with competitors.

As early as 1980, Mr. Gordon was already known for his skill at using the studios’ competitive instincts to get his movies made.

“Larry seems to have the record for setting up ‘turnaround’ projects,” read the studio notes for “Xanadu,” a Universal Pictures film that was released that year after first being developed at Warner. The notes referred to the complex process by which a studio may let another adopt one of its projects — sometimes to its embarrassment, if the resulting movie is a hit.

A dispute about turnaround now lies at the heart of the fight over “Watchmen.”

Beginning in 1986, Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, about superheroes who have fallen into disrepute. The plan at one point was for the film to involve Mr. Silver, a young producer who worked at the time in partnership with Mr. Gordon, whose tour as Fox president had been cut short by heart surgery.

But Mr. Gordon had soon formed Largo International, an independent company with Japanese backing — and he had a falling-out with Mr. Silver. In 1991, Fox, accommodating Mr. Gordon, granted Largo its rights in “Watchmen.” The studio was paid $320,000, according to recent court filings, and retained the right to distribute any movie Largo might make from the book.

Three years later, however, Mr. Gordon left Largo. And Fox again accommodated him, with a new agreement that granted Fox a right to become involved with the project any time a star, director, budget or other material element changed.

Warner now questions how Fox could have created a turnaround in rights it had already given to Largo. Fox argues that it still had rights under its original agreement, and consented to let go of the project both in 1991 and in 1994 only under conditions that were never met.

In any case, according to a person briefed on the dispute, the 1994 turnaround agreement did not find its way into Universal’s pile of documents when that studio checked the movie’s rights before putting “Watchmen” into development.

When the project hit a dead end at Universal, Mr. Gordon, well versed in the art of turnaround, moved it to Paramount. In keeping with industry practice, Universal’s paperwork regarding the rights followed — still without the 1994 agreement.

In 2006, “Watchmen” moved again, this time to Warner. Again, the documents arrived without the 1994 turnaround agreement.

“Watchmen” picked up heat early in 2007 when Mr. Gordon, having been through a series of prospective directors, Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass among them, signed a new director: Zack Snyder, who had just delivered Warner a surprise blockbuster with “300.”

Meanwhile Fox, after remaining passive for years, grew restive — perhaps because no one before had come close to starting principal photography. Shortly after Mr. Snyder announced his plans to make a “Watchmen” movie amid great hoopla at San Diego’s fantasy convention Comic-Con in 2007, Fox lawyers sent Warner a letter claiming rights under both the 1991 agreement and the later turnaround.

Fox has said in its court filings that Mr. Gordon never complied with a requirement that he resubmit the project to the studio when elements changed. Warner is expected to contend that Mr. Gordon offered “Watchmen” to every studio in town, including Fox. Still, Mr. Snyder came aboard and the entire cast was recruited after that contact, so elements had again changed.

Warner executives, according to people briefed on the matter, have privately speculated that Fox, faced with weakening performance at the box office, was angling for a small cut of the movie — perhaps 5 percent of its gross receipts. But Fox executives, also according to people briefed on the matter, were put off by what they saw as Warner’s failure to take their claims seriously, and delivered a shock by filing suit in February. As of this week the studios were jostling each other over what Fox now claims is Warner’s slow and inadequate compliance with orders to supply documents and witness lists under a schedule that may well put the movie — and at least four studios — in front of jurors rather than fans.

Mr. Gordon, meanwhile, appears to have made good on a philosophy he described almost 30 years ago.

“Most pictures are made because somebody else wants to make them,” he was quoted as saying in a 1979 issue of Screen International.

“As a producer, the only club you have is to have something that somebody else wants.”

Fox was doing a deal known for embarrassing the fuck out of studios who make them, with a guy known for embarrassing the fuck out of studios who make these kind of deals with him, so it included provisions to keep this guy from embarrassing the fuck out of it. The guy didn't live up to the terms of the agreement, Warner brushed off their rights claims, so they filed suit. Outside of the general argument that copyright law as a whole sucks, I'm not seeing what Fox is supposed to have done wrong. Certainly if Warner wasn't expected to have done research past what it got handed by Lawrence Gordon, they were at least obligated to look into the matter when Fox informed them of its claim in the summer of 2007. I hardly see where it's Fox's fault that they instead decided to say screw 'em and move the film into production.

[Krylo]

Other people doing it is exactly what makes it ethical when it's being done to the same people who do it to everyone else. Warner Brothers, Fox, and other similar companies all lobbied for the state of law which currently exists, so there's nothing at all unethical about holding Warner Brothers to the requirements of those laws. If the defensive line for Giants runs a blitz and knocks the shit out of the quarterback from Dallas nobody gets to complain that it's "unethical", because both teams agreed to play a game where the rules clearly allow for one side knocking the shit out of the other team.

But the consumers didn't, and they're getting tackled too.

[Fifthfiend]

But the consumers didn't, and they're getting tackled too.

Which again, is Warner Brothers' fault for making a movie they didn't have the rights to make.

[Krylo]

And is also Fox's fault for waiting until the last minute to take them to task on it.

[Fifthfiend]

And is also Fox's fault for waiting until the last minute to take them to task on it.

Again, no it's not, cause that's the rules both Warner and Fox agree to play by.

And it's not even factually true, unless someone wants to show me where Warner Brothers is claiming that the letter Fox sent them in June 2007 doesn't exist.

(Note: the blogwriters from Sparrow's link earlier are apparently under the impression that said letter can't have been sent in June because the actual lawsuit was not subsequently filed until the following February, which is just ridiculous. Fox states that it sent said letter in the linked legal papers, and I don't see anywhere in Warner's responses where it disputes that such a letter was sent.)

(EDIT: Did I say link? I meant Sparrow's quote that I had to put into Google to find out what he was quoting because he didn't actually link to anything. So here's the link for that (http://www.canmag.com/nw/12062-watchmen-lawsuit-fox-defense), with the relevant court documents linked from there.)

[Mike McC]

ATTENTION EVERYONE

I have one nitpick for all of you right now.

The Fox movie studio and the Fox televesion network are run by entirely different people.

Yeah, they share a name, and are part of the same massive corporation, but really, taking the faults of the Television execs and placing it on the movie execs is really petty and shows you know very little about how the company actually works. ESPECIALLY those of you raising a fit simply because it's Fox doing it. Seriously, do a little research before you fling about these insinuations. It's kinda like complaining about that headache you have in your foot.

End nitpick.

Begin actual commenting.

Everything Fox has done they have absolute and complete rights to do so. The producers were originally with Fox, but left, under the promise they'd buy Fox's distribution rights out. They never did. WB did not check this out, follow up on this, or anything. If anything, you should be pissed at Warner Brothers for commiting such a serious gaffe in the first place.

Also, yeah, the movie looks sucky. I want fucking Terry Gilliam to direct, goddamnit.

[Kaneda]

Yeah, they share a name, and are part of the same massive corporation, but really, taking the faults of the Television execs and placing it on the movie execs is really petty and shows you know very little about how the company actually works. ESPECIALLY those of you raising a fit simply because it's Fox doing it. Seriously, do a little research before you fling about these insinuations. It's kinda like complaining about that headache you have in your foot.

As one of the people (if not the only person) having a problem with it because it's Fox doing it, I feel the need to say again that my problems are indeed with Fox the movie studio, because I personally believe that they are simply one of the worst movie studios around.

[Mike McC]

As one of the people (if not the only person) having a problem with it because it's Fox doing it, I feel the need to say again that my problems are indeed with Fox the movie studio, because I personally believe that they are simply one of the worst movie studios around.Care to illuminate us as to why? I mean, a studio that put out Fight Club and Borat is pretty aces in my book.

If you look for bad examples, you will find them. That is true of any movie studio, however. For example, I Am Legend, a film put out by Warner Brothers, had it's ending changed right before the release.

If you're gonna be critical of one side, submit all the other sides to the same scrutiny.

[Odjn]

Also, yeah, the movie looks sucky. I want fucking Terry Gilliam to direct, goddamnit.

Has he done anything recently?

[Mike McC]

Has he done anything recently?He's co-wrote and has been directing The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imaginarium_of_Doctor_Parnassus), which was the movie Heath Ledger was filming when he died. He is also gonna restart The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Killed_Don_Quixote) soon.

[Kaneda]

Care to illuminate us as to why? I mean, a studio that put out Fight Club and Borat is pretty aces in my book.

If you look for bad examples, you will find them. That is true of any movie studio, however. For example, I Am Legend, a film put out by Warner Brothers, had it's ending changed right before the release.

If you're gonna be critical of one side, submit all the other sides to the same scrutiny.

That type of behavior seems more prevalent with Fox, only minus the whole "usually making a few good movies" thing.

They forced Baz Luhurmann to rewrite and reshoot a happier ending to Australia (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/fox-does-it-again-luhrmann-forced-to-alter-australia-ending), Babylon AD's director admitted his own movie was bad, and blamed Fox, (http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/08/babylon-ad-mathieu-kassovitz.php) who interfered with the editing and cut out significant portions of the film, Fox chairman Tom Rothman had the set of the Wolverine movie to be repainted while the director was away. (http://www.pinkkryptonite.com/2008/08/wolverine_gets_a_bit_of_a_face.html)
which is only three very recent instances.

I admit there is a possibility that it's another case of "everyone sucks too," but Fox in particular seems to have been frequently interfering with the creative process, even after filming is completed.

Has he done anything recently?

He co-wrote and directed The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which was (is going to be?) Heath Ledger's last film.

Edit- Ninja'd by Mike

[Mike McC]

Another WB example: Warner Brothers was unhappy with the way The Invasion originally turned out, so hired The Wachowski brothers to punch up the script, and hired a new director (James McTeigue, who was uncredited) to film the reshoot.

If I dig a little more, I'm positive I could find more examples. Fox does not hold a monopoly on, or even have a significant lead (if they even have one) in the studio meddling race.

[01d55]

Hey guys it's nitpick time!
equivocal
I don't think that word means what you think it means. (Equivalent.)

Intellectual Property
See this article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html) regarding the term. What we're discussing here is copyright law, which involves limited legal rights granted by the government and which are not property.

[Odjn]

Seriously how do people mispell my name when they quote me goddamn it.

[Kaneda]

Seriously how do people mispell my name when they quote me goddamn it.

Fffff. My bad, added it in manually for double quote.

[Invisible Queen]

It's not a perfect system but its far far better than just saying "Let's ignore all copyright laws, you can make whatever you want based off whatever you want/"
Why is that better? I really can't think of any reason.

Sure, there's a blurred line between derivative works and stripping an author's name off something and putting in your own. Taken to extremes, "You can make whatever you want based on whatever you want" may be a bad idea, but I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it if it applied to things like making movies based on books. See my earlier posts re. not giving a crap about stuff you don't like.

And as one who believes in free culture, I'll say even the extremist version would work better than the current system.

[Nikose Tyris]

Why is that better? I really can't think of any reason.

Sure, there's a blurred line between derivative works and stripping an author's name off something and putting in your own. Taken to extremes, "You can make whatever you want based on whatever you want" may be a bad idea, but I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it if it applied to things like making movies based on books. See my earlier posts re. not giving a crap about stuff you don't like.

So if you wrote a bestselling book, I could make a movie off it and keep the profits for myself, and not involve you. Oh, but I will put a tagline saying that you wrote the books the movie is based on.

EDIT: Okay I'm not trying to come off inflamp, inflim, as a dick here, I'm just trying to see your viewpoint from your perspective.

[Invisible Queen]

Yes, I'm saying that would be fine. Way better than if you're an indie movie maker who might make an awesome adaptation but can't afford to release it because Fox some bigwig pressured me to sell them exclusive rights, anyway.

[NonCon]

Well, I don't know about that. Just because an "indie" film maker decides he can make an awesome adaptation of something, and his friends are all like, "Yeah, you can totally do that, it'll be awesome," does not mean he actually would, or should. I, for example, would be quite distressed if I wrote a novel and someone was making it without my permission. I would not allow anyone to make a movie based on something I wrote unless I thought they would do it justice, and would want to be a part of the creative process of the movie the whole way through. If someone thought it good fun they would make an "indie" adaptation of something I wrote because they have all these cool ideas, I would promptly sue them into the ground so hard the very Earth itself would tremble. Not for the money or anything like that, just to stop them, and keep anyone who violated my rights as the creator of the thing from making the same mistake.

Really, though, for this situation, it's pretty clear that Fox and WB are both to blame, though WB a little bit more, and arguing who screwed up first is irrelevant to the fact that the fans are being screwed over because two major companies can't learn to play nice.

[Fifthfiend]

Yes, I'm saying that would be fine. Way better than if you're an indie movie maker who might make an awesome adaptation but can't afford to release it because Fox some bigwig pressured me to sell them exclusive rights, anyway.

Personally I'd be cool with the original notion of copyright where it's all yours for like, fifteen or twenty years or some decently sane interval like that, then after that it's open season and tough junk if you're Alan Moore or whoever and you don't like a dozen people all writing their own Watchmen II. Or better example, you're George Lucas and you're torqued because a dozen people decide to produce Star Wars prequels that are a million times better than yours.

Anyway, page limit.