The Hot Blog

How did they prove that WB actually "induced" Gordon to breach the contract? Did Gordon admit as much?

Also I just love all the times "good faith" is mentioned in this suit. Can Fox actually say, in good faith, that it "found out only in July 2007 that WB was starting principal photography" on this film?

Does good faith extend to waiting to sue another studio 6 months after WB had the film in the can, and after giant marketing pushes like comic-con, two years in a row mind you?

Fuck Fox. They didn't know what to do with this material, they're creative staff is brain-dead and Rothman is a mental midget. They let this title wither for years and have released their lawyers now that they smell the cash.

And, since I've lately been in the mood to make sweeping statements, I won't be paying any money to see any of their films for a long time.

This even makes the conflict between Fox & Warner Brothers on the Batman 1966 Television series a bit juicier.

I know you are in the "fuck fox" camo, Aris, but good work is one thing and the law is another.

I don't know how fox failed on this. I know they hired Terry Gilliam, which seems like a good idea. They hired his writer, Charles McKeown.

But let's say they suck. Do they deserve to spend half a million dollars, agree to give the project back to Gordon with the agreement that they would get paid back, along with a small piece of the action for their expenditure of money and effort if the project moved forward... only to get nothing?

Really, man. Pay Fox to go away as a price of the greenlight... get them off of the 2.5%... given them $10 million. But pay them nothing? And they have it coming because you didn't like their movies last year?

And aren't you off of WB because they embargoed AICN?

You're running out of movies to see.

By Fox's timeline in this document, they claim to have learned last July that Watchmen was going into photography, and they 'promptly' told WB to desist in August.

Does WB have something up their sleeve? Did they really just otherwise think that nothing would occur here if they ignored the rights? Here's to us finding out. This is looking like it will go beyond settlement.

Gotta love those other property titles too. Alien Cop? Cop in the Old West? Gold Jerry, Gold!

Since the new Star Wars cartoon is with Warner Bro's, Fox should look at their old contracts with Lucas. But I doubt Lucas left anything to chance.

But there was going to be an movie called Alien Cop? Is is about a "killer robot driving-instructor that travels back in time for some reason" and a talking pie. Because if it is, I am so there!

Fucking Fox.

But there was going to be an movie called Alien Cop?

Which is all the weirder, since Fox was the producer of Alien Nation just three years prior. Unless there was some other 'high concept' twist to the whole affair.

I just find it unbelievable that Fox wasn't more upfront initially. They may indeed have the legal high ground, but there's no reason for them to "stick it" to WB in such a way. If anything, trying to sink this project is going to cause their studio harm down the road, just in the fact they didn't make their intentions (Supposedly, at least, trying to kill the movie) clear from the get-go.

Maybe they're just interested in a stake and are trying to increase publicity....either way, whether or not WB is at fault here, and it certainly appears that they are (you can see the heads rolling out of corporate on this one) Fox most certainly came out with extreme prejudice only recently. This project has been in development by Snyder pretty much since April, 2007.

And I can't resist...Goldstein's tomato streak continues with 19 out of 20 (19 straight live action movies) below 50% now that "The Rocker" has nosedived below 30%. Even better, "Taken" has been pulled entirely off their sked at the last second, and the 3rd biggest money flop of the summer continues to loom in "Babylon AD."

Thankfully for them, "The Rocker" only cost 15 million to make and may show only a small loss or small profit such as "Mirrors" and "X-Files 2." Still, the financial train wreck is going to continue overall with "Babylon."

"I don't know how fox failed on this. I know they hired Terry Gilliam, which seems like a good idea. They hired his writer, Charles McKeown."

Creatively, perhaps. But when was the last time Gilliam made a movie with a trouble-free shoot that was well-liked by either the public or the critics? I think the guy's a genius of sorts, but if I were a studio exec I'd think twice before giving him lots of money.

From what I've heard, Gilliam ultimately decided Watchmen couldn't be abbreviated enough to fit the running time of a movie. Also, Anton Furst was supposed to be the production designer and then he committed suicide.

I agree LYT it seems some have not seen "Brothers Grimm," or more importantly, the cinematic nightmare known as "Tideland," which I thought was one of the more unwatchable films to come around in the last few years.

We're talking about a man who hasn't made a good picture in a decade as if he were a sure bet to turn "Watchmen" into a success?

David, I'm not saying Fox get nothing for this... If it's in the contract then, sure, they are entitled to something. WB will go down in flames IMO before they agree to 2.5%, but yes, they have to pay Fox something apparently.

Also, I hope to see some WB business affairs people possibly called to task for this potential fiasco.

My problem is with the way Fox seemingly has handled this. Everyone in this town knows everyone, and everything, at all times. The second WB claimed any right to this film in whatever stage of turnaround, Fox should have sent out mountains of letters to WB's business affairs (maybe they did, I don't know; so far it doesn't sound like it). I just feel they're playing some kind of rear-view-mirror hardball with this timing (and yes I know this suit was filed in Feb '08 but that's still a long time after WB decided to greenlight this). Why didn't they just deal with this early in the process? And I'd be curious to hear whether any letters were being typed by Fox when Paramount was oh so close to greenlighting it.

And no, I haven't embargoed WB -- I've actually embargoed AICN, because among a dozen other reasons, their site fucks with my A.D.D.

Fox should demand to have their logo attached to the film. It would be the first good movie from Big Fox since 2006.

Are we to believe no one at Fox reads Variety? If you search for "Watchmen," you get a story from December 2005, saying Gordon is producing it, picked up in turnaround from Paramount.

Even better, "Taken" has been pulled entirely off their sked at the last second

Wow, how about that. From September 09/19/08 to 01/23/09. The core audience got a taste of reviews this week, along with plenty of mentions that it has been released elsewhere for a number of months now. The illegal downloads have just become palpable.

EthanG,

Gilliam was on the movie TWENTY YEARS AGO.

If you go off a studio for legal shennanegans and general douchebaggery then you might as well just stop watching movies completely.

this is so typical, i wouldn't even call it news.

entertaining yes, but unexpected, no.

While the docs between FOX and Gordon are interesting, none matter as much as the ones between WB and Gordon from '86 and '96. WB's argument appears to be that it was always their property and Gordon only had two ten-year loans on development rights, not ownership. So Gordon, just to get out of FOX turnaround, signed away rights without having that explicit authority.

Think of it this way; what did Gordon actually own? Nothing. What did he lease? The theatrical film rights, for sure. What did he sign away? The distribution and points to the theatrical film. What was he left with? The rights to develop a theatrical movie that he no longer had the ability to distribute. So, from WB's perspective, where did Gordon get the authority to break the rights up, when the original company that obtained the lease from WB was dissolved? In truth, he never did have that authority, for that was the whole point of the original option between WB and Largo; a theatrical movie. But that's all dependent on the '86 deal.

The only other argument I can see WB making is that the '96 option expired in '06, which was one of the reasons I always felt the Paramount production was in a mad-dash to be made. Once that deal fell apart, the property returned to WB where Gordon, for some reason, was kept on. I can't believe WB allowed him to hold the re-up option in '96 since they were in the heat of developing superhero properties by then.

As for FOX, they really haven't done anything wrong. I'd bet Universal knew full well what they were acquiring, since there was a period of confusion as to who-had-what in the 90's. It now appears this could be the final reason Paramount bailed, because the odds they would know are pretty great. Arad had just signed the Par/Marvel distribution deal with Grey when Watchmen was in its final stages. If anyone would know what was up with Watchmen rights and FOX, it would be Avi, because shortly after he and Grey signed off, Watchmen was dead. I always assumed it was a no-compete, but if you look at when FOX sent its cease-and-desist to WB over Snyder's production, that would be about the same time Paramount would have gotten their letter.

For me, that would explain the "willful disregard", but not why Gordon didn't just buy the option out. He must have assumed it expired with the end of his first deal in '86-'96, and that his new deal '96-'06, wasn't a rollover. Then, WB waits for the '96 deal to end, restructures with Gordon, and moves ahead. Either way, WB should have booted him in '06 just because he couldn't get shit done for twenty years, and if he held the re-up, let him sue them, arbitrate it, then make the damn movie.

I've always felt Snyder should have done Conan or Miller's Ronin, or a new take of the 47 Ronin, instead of this. It's never been worth the headache.

Get a feeling that Fox let it slide thinking that Watchmen was going to tank.
But when Warner releases a picture based on a comic book property that makes over half a billion dollars in less than a month, someone at Fox realized that they had a dusty agreement (turnaround, yet) that said they were entitled to 2.5% of profits for a net investment of less than half a million dollars.
Douchebags.

Martin S makes an interesting point which asks another question - in making the original deal with Fox, did DC Comics retain any kind of rights that - as a subsidiary of Warner Brothers (since 1969) - that Warners felt they now how a claim on?

I'm not saying there's anything to that as I'm sure Fox is in the business of sewing up all the rights, but on character rights or some other technicality, can those rights always be kept in perpetuity?

Rothchild,

I was referencing Gilliam's involvement with Gordon around 2000, not WB. However you are partly correct in that it was almost 8 years ago, not more recently that the negotiations took place, with Gilliam coming off Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

However, given the problems with going overbudget on that film and those prior to that, I still can't imagine what Gordon was thinking.

Here's another question: why the heck would Fox want to go through killing this picture, not just for money reasons but purely in the fact Watchmen has been attached to Paramount and Universal in the past.

Fox had oppurtunities with both Paramount and Universal in the past as well as a previous attempt with WB to demand Gordon give them a stake or a buyout. So basically Fox is sending a message to the entire studio system in this case regarding how it does business.

Martin S., if WB's case is that strong, maybe they'll counter sue and both will drop it.

I think Fox has to make the power play of the threat to kill the project to be guaranteed cash and relatively soon. Why risk what could come of a court decision 4-5 years from now, then try to get a handle on what kind of grosses the film had, when they can get a deal they want now? WB has to play ball or they stand to lose everything.

The lack of effort getting this thing resolved sooner by Fox I think has to do w/cost benifit per the effort. Not sure how easy it would be to gain some kind of lein against shooting. It seems like that would be harder to do than halt the release of a more tangible product. The investigative work alone and filings...Before that, I think the assumption by Fox is that it wouldn't get off the ground. Why bother wasting time/money/effort jumping into something that's prolly not going anywhere anyway?

Maybe a few more phone calls could've been made inbetween but then Fox is on the hook to be more of a co-prod. This way, all the work is done, they can get a nice check up front to go away. Regardless of who knew what when, it's a low, line drive punt, you gotta run with it because it's not going to get much easier.

Triple - exactly right. A million dollar investment twenty years ago, could have a return of what, 3,000%?

T. Holly - Yeah, or WB is going to have to sue Gordon.

If this does become a "rights of an option" issue, I'm beginning to wonder if it's going to have a Boxing Helena size of effect. You could suddenly have a multitude of older deals revert back to the original owner if WB pursued this path and won to some extant.

IMO, Fox is going to end up with WB's domestic theatrical distribution fee, at FOX's rate, plus the points.

What gets even more complicated is Snyder's multi-tier medium approach. If WB has to settle, it will most likely kill the Black Freighter as a separate DVD release because FOX would also get a cut. If they throw it all onto an SE Blu-Ray, FOX has no claim. The DVD is beyond important at that point, since FOX could balloon the 90 million investment by another 50%.

Funny thing is I read the Watchmen and can't see the movie breaking even at all. Too high concept and too literary for the flyover states. Helll I know people bored during the Dark Knight. I think this movie with unfamiliar characters may make people run for the hills. If this could have somehow been made for under 60 maybe but at this cost everybody takes a bath. Fox would be smart to get a lump sum and not take points at all.

I could care less, really. Won't effect the price I pay for my ticket. Won't effect how much I like or dislike the movie. It's not really something primed for a sequel, so the franchise element doesn't matter, either.

Since I have a legal background but work in comics, I've posted an in-depth analysis of this ruling, but written for laymen types rather than people who spent a couple dozen grand on law school.

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/56klq8.

Martin S--you're right, a settlement could be a lot more complicated because of all the ancillary stuff, compared to say, Dukes of Hazzard.

I broke down the docs timeline and some outside factors, and this doesn't bode well for WB. The claim its quasi-extortion by FOX is more nonsense than I initially thought it was, and really stems from an anti-Newscorp prejudice than anything else. So as succinctly as possible...

Fox bought the Option from DC. Not Gordon from WB. Gordon was either President or just moving into a producer's role when this was initiated. Either way, he was at the heart of it, but it wasn't his money. Also, there is no sign of a Reversion clause. Fox owned the film rights.

Starting June 1991, Fox Quiclaimed the Option to Gordon's company, Largo, where he had a few drafts written. By July 1994, all Option rights had moved to Gordon through a Settlemen and Release Agreement in Turnaround as Largo was defunct. Gordon then agreed on the follwing:

A. Fox gave Gordon the right to acquire all of Fox's right, title and interest by reimbursing Fox for all expenses in a Buy-Out Price. Fox had incurred 500K in charges

B. Gordon had to Buy-Out Fox before any studio pitch, writers or principle photography commenced.

C. If elements change PRIOR to Buy-Out, Gordon was obligated to submit the new package each time to Fox to see if Fox wished to proceed with development/production with new elements involved. If Fox passed, Gordon could enact the Buy-Out.

d. Upon payment of Buy-Out, Gordon still owed 2.5% of 100% Net of each and every motion picture, remake or sequel.

e. Rights were personal to Gordon and could not be assigned or transferred without approval by FOX.

In May of '96, WB Optioned the rights from Gordon. WB knew of 1991 Quitclaim as it identifies it in chain of title. WB told Fox it would honor the Quitclaim.

At some point after '96, Gordon had apparently taken it to Universal who put its own Quitclaim on it in October of 2001. David Hayter involvement.

May 2002, Gordon has an Assest Purchase Agreement of rights from Largo.

July 2004, Gordon ends up at Paramount. Aronofsky and Greengrass involvement.

In December 2005, Gordon officially sets up at WB.

March, 2006 - Moriarty breaks Snyder as director

April, 2006 - WB buys option from Gordon for $1, which quitclaims all of Gordon's rights to WB if they exercise Option to shoot

May, 2006 - Final signed agreements between Gordon and WB for rights

June 23, 2006 - Snyder is announced as director.

June, 2007 - Targeted shooting date

JULY 2007 - FOX says that "learned" WB is producing Watchmen and commencing principal photography. Prior to that, Fox was unaware, and had no reason to suspect, that WB was disclaiming Fox's Quitclaim.

August 2007 - Fox sends cease and desist. Fox also learned that "another purported rights holder" has claimed rights arising out of alleged co-financing agreements with WB and resolved with a portion of WB claim.

Sept, 2007 - Shooting commences

And here's the part of the filing that stood out to me...

"

The Parties

"Fox does not know the true names and capacities of these defendants sued herein as Does 1 - 10, and therefore sues those defendants by such fictious names. Fox will see leave to amend this Complaint to set forth those defendants true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Fox is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that each of the ficitiously-named defendants acted as an agent, employee, servant, principal, partner, shareholder, co-conspirator or aider or abettor of WBP to engage in the wrongful conduct described herein, acted within the scope of thier authority as such agents or abettors of the other defendants or, in the alternative, approved and ratified acts and omissions of other defendants or is otherwise responsible for the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint.

That is most likely going to be Paramount, Gordon's partner Lloyd Levin and surprisingly, Snyder.

Snyder seems to be the linchpin. Once he agreed, WB and Gordon didn't give a damn what was signed in the past twenty years, and they were certainly not going to run any of this buy Fox who would have said yes in a heartbeat. There's a distinct possibility WB and Gordon played Snyder and Paramount in regards to ownership. I can't see Grey agreeing to international distribution when Fox's most solid claim is over all distribution. As for Snyder, I want to believe he was drunk in the success of 300 and just jumped at the chance. Otherwise, he knew what was up.

Also, the waters are murky when it comes to merchandising and home video. Fox relinquished them to Largo, but had to be notified and paid off if they didn't get the video rights. The odds are good Fox could end up with a huge chunk of all theatrical, plus the documentary and Black Freighter.

Damn Martin, I don't know how right you are, but I'm going to have to start paying you.

T.Holly - That is such a great self-promo line, I might jam it on a business card or put up a site.

Maybe you could qualify for a spot on crack team legal at WB.

David got a quote at USAToday.com:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-08-27-watchmen-battle_N.htm

Perhaps the fans don't understand the moviemaking process because, well, how many folks in Hollywood do? Has it progressed one iota since the bad old days of "Coming to America" when no one seemed to know where any of the money was going? When rights and contracts were treated with great disdain, easily demolished in the right court of law?

Also, when I read about the proposed boycott of Fox described in that article, my reaction was "Is that the best you can do?"

If a few fanboys decide to forego Wolverine I'm sure Fox could care less, but how would they feel if these same geeks decided to use the power of internet chatter to sink their 2009 tentpole? Once people start saying "I heard Wolverine sucks--let's see something else", Fox might start praying for Wolvie to pull in the same numbers as Grindhouse.

Idle chatter, right? Remember, you're dealing with comic-book geeks here--folks who have been waiting twenty years for a Watchmen movie. Folks who can still remember Gilliam sporting the bloodied happy-face pin on Comedy Channel (not Comedy CENTRAL, but Comedy CHANNEL--I'm talkin' late '89, early '90 here). Folks who agonozied over the dialogue choices in early scripts (Who calls anyone a "cad" anymore? This film's set in the 1980s, not the 1880s), before seeing all work sputter and die.

We've been waiting a long time, and Fox needs to learn that we're not going to wait any longer.

Does anyone have a link to the joint report? Filed Friday, August 29. Seems interesting.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: