The Hot Blog

If it's about business, drop the injunction, let the movie be released, have a third party auditing the books and then hash out who gets what when it's all said and done. While I think that the movie WILL be released on March 6th, I do find it wacky to even try to fuck with a campaign that's been building for over a year now. If Fox wants to make money on the movie, interfering with the release is a way to not do that.

And your constant defense of Fox: it's a bad studio, Dave. Searchlight is the only thing that keeps them from being flat out embarrassing. They make bad movies, they interfere with talent like nobody's business and they're pretty bad at marketing as well. I honestly don't understand why anyone who has an option to go elsewhere would work with Big Fox anymore.

I would imagine, as Peter Jackson found out, it's a difficult thing to get a third party to audit the books AFTER the release of the film unless something has been set in stone before the film comes out - which is what Fox appears to be doing.

If Fox drops the injunction, Warners can drag its heels and, as accounting practices go, there's a chance for something to get missed.

This isn't about Big Bad Fox, really, but the simple legalities of chain-of-title - something that goes on more often in business real estate, but still happens every day (just seldom this visibly). All the other bluster around it to try and make it a crusade about the people who worked REALLY, REALLY HARD on the film versus a studio that had no interest in making the film is, I feel, a mis-direct.

But, this is an armchair opinion from someone who has zero real knowledge - just judging off what's been made public.

I guess I'm wondering why setting a court-appointed third party in stone now isn't the tactic Fox is using.

This whole thing feels like bad business in the same way that mob wars are bad business for Don Corleone.

Isn't that, at least in some way, what they're trying to do? If this judge decides the injunction has merit and stops the release, doesn't that force Warners to sign on to a settlement strategy with Fox?

I'd imagine there's already one pretty well negotiated through back channels - what Fox wants, what Warners is willing to give to keep from eating a large chunk of marketing budget, etc.

Again, I'd imagine they're just waiting to see if - legally - they have to do it in order to keep that release date, which is probably paramount to Warners.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that it's not a good thing for business, certainly. Whatever filmmaker commented over on HE that this may give studio execs pause when considering plucking a long-gestating property out of turnaround is probably right.

Devin It's not about auditing the books later and Fox has shown ZERO interest in getting in the way of the release. Have you seen an injunction applied for?

How do you get to "if it's just about the business" do the legal work differently?

And my defense of Fox is hardly constant. But legally, they are 100% in the right here. Period. It is not a moral call. It is the law.

And again... now you are falling into this game of "they don't make good movies." Does anyone make all bad movies or all good movies? Are they crazy when they make the crap or geniuses when they make the good ones? How do smart people like you get into this thing where you seem to believe there is some moral process going on?

Studios are about profit, first and last. If they can make "better" movies - since that is always an opinion - they are very, very happy to do so. But there is not a single major in this town at which if you offered them a five year run in which they would be personally humiliated to release every single film and yet every single film would make $100 million profit, that they would not LEAP to take your offer.

This "Tom Rothman is the devil" shit is just that... shit. Is Paramount better? Is that why DW couldn't wait to leave? Is Disney suddenly everyone's gentlest, kindest studio where they have artisans dancing up Dopey Dr, considering where their next statement will come from?

If you honestly don't understand why anyone who has an option to go elsewhere would work with Big Fox anymore than you don't need to get your next movie made.

Really... it has nothing to do with defending Fox... but this bang, bang, bang of turning Fox into the set of Hostel III... I mean... way over the top.

And btw, I assume that you are going to stop covering the studio... since they are evil... and make nothing but crap.

David

I am sure you don't care that I and others stopped reading during the period of your incessant helium intake weeks ago. After all, YOU know how many hits the site gets.
But this entire rant against Lloyd and Drew is boring (how many comments did the last one get? I think seven maybe). You refuse to ask the ONE question that matters. DID Warners fuck up? If they did it is a pretty big fuck up. Have you talked to anyone at Warners? Legendary? The production? I only ask because I have and they seem pretty confident. THEY aren't sure that they have lost. But you are. And I will answer my redundant question- you haven't spoken to anyone. Yeah yeah, the judge said....well actualy nothing binding.

I don't care. I like Fox. I like Warners. I liked you. But the holier than thou stuff? Old man. Very very old.

Furthermore, you aren't a lawyer and I do play one on TV. Ask one about your fiduciary duty to protect your rights. Even IF you are right about everything you pontificate about, did FOX know the movie was being made and do nothing? Because that's a pretty important point too.

You can spare me your glib helium filled attacks. You provide this space for comments. PLEASE TELL US YOU BELIEVE WARNERS MADE A MONSTER FUCK UP MISTAKE.

So we can have it on the record.

And SJR - There is no reason at all why this would keep anyone from working on a turnaround project. That's idiotic.

Warners knew the score. They made a bad call. They are getting hit with it now. If they had paid out the $350k or $1 million or whatever, it would have been over that day. Fox would have no rights against the picture had they been paid what their deal said they were owed... not profit... not a percentage of Gordon's piece... nothing.

Yeah, my wife said the same thing to me ("that's idiotic") - saying that they handle complicated turnaround projects all the friggin' time at her studio.

But that doesn't keep me from being superstitious. I've been around filmmakers who didn't even know they're in the chain-of-title until a film's done (different title, different cast, different studio can do that to you) and the movie is being arbitrated for credits.

Suddenly, some studio has to quickly pay out a bunch of guys that they had no idea had a piece of a major release. It's clumsy and you don't think it can happen, but then it does.

Not that that's applicable, but it's why I'm superstitious and figure - at the end of the day - somebody will lose their bonus/job over that and, I feel, that might give someone pause.

To be fair, the second half of '08 saw the release of "Hancock," "Lakeview Terrace" and "The Women" which were all knocking around for well over a decade, too, but they managed to come out without legal dramz, so it should be said that "Watchmen" is definitely the exception, not the rule, so this is me proving I'm doubly wrong.

Yet, still somehow superstitious.

You're right, Don. Don't really care if you are reading. But you are always a delightful addition. And thanks for counting comments. I wish I had that kind of time.

I have written over and over and over again, Warners made a MONSTER FUCK UP MISTAKE.

You obviously haven't read much of anything, as the judge was very clear and Warners was very clear that knew exactly what paper was sitting there against this project. They decided that the turnaround agreement was not relevant because of the 3 year old quitclaim.

That's ALL that's at play here. Not Drew. Not Lloyd. One legal interpretation.

After that, it's just how much it costs to fix.

Drew has informed me, since this posted, that he has turned the corner on the issue as well, as of Dec 31. Bully for him.

Glad you came back to tell me what I don't know. You should probably try to make an effort to gather some small amount of information about what I have offered, in no small detail, without bringing up Drew or Lloyd or any other non-judge, before you start throwing shit next time.

You dissapoint me, man.

David-

Glad I disappoint, as I said, you let me down already weeks ago. So if someone who started behaving erratically feels that I have failed them I must be doing okay.

I never mentioned Fox or Drew or any of it. I do not believe Warners would make a mistake like that. I deal with BA offices all day and all night. They are much too thorough. So I am not arguing Lloyd's position. And I have read plenty, thanks. I know Alan Moore and have played in his world. In fact, IF you were right and Warners made the fuck up you so blindly claim they made, THEY WOULD be settling RIGHT NOW. They are not because, golly gee, they don't think they have made a mistake.

The only shit thrown is that you don't know shit, but you will continue to talk it. You even ignored my point of fiduciary duty because it was a multi-syllable word I guess.

Anyone notice the shot about counting comments from someone who spent a long time telling us how well he counts page hits?

Anyone notice the contradiction of not caring whether I read his helium anymore but then telling me I disappoint him?

I'll go away quietly David. But remember- ALL that you know is what you have read that other reporters have posted. That's ALL you have read. I don't believe that Fox has some "artistic rights" reason to let WB release the film. I just don't believe that WB made that kind of a mistake. THEY don't seem to believe it either.

Every other point I made you ignored as well.

Ciao, David.

[[ To anyone who actually cares about this crap, the fiduciary duty is linked to a mitigation of damages requirement which is a part of ANY potential lawsuit. THAT is- say you are Sony and own the rights to the best selling jokebook THE HOT BLOG. Now one day you are going to make a movie out of it. But then Don Murphy announces in the trades that he is going to make the movie at Disney. He even tells you this. It is WELL KNOWN in the business that Murphy is making The Hot Blog with Sandler for $75 m at Disney. And Sony does NOTHING. Not even a c and d letter. They just sue when it is done. Well, in order to win a lawsuit you have to show damages. And the first thing a judge will say is "Hey, if you knew you were being damaged why did you not act in a timely fashion?" And you can't say " I was sucking helium". So while you might have SOME damages, your case is really weakened just by this VERY fact.]]

Does anyone else care to note that Drew's monster hard-on for FOX might be at play here as well? Therefore making the whole "open letter" pretty one sided and lame? Anyone care...at all?

Drew has a monster hard on for Fox because he used an open forum to criticize them on and then they got him fired from a writing gig for one of their affiliates. I don't think he hides his hard on for them, so your observation is not especially keen. I agree with the Blog Owner that from Fox's end it is just business, nothing else- it isn't about Batman 1966 dvds or any of that shit. It is about business. I just find it pathetic that the Blog Owner believes that Warners would fuck something like that up so badly. But he does.

Don-
I was obviously being coy....but still. I didn't know Drew got shitcanned for talking smack though. Bummer.

However, if his new site is going to have the same M.O. as AICN, I think it's lame and is also bad "journalism."

I mean, I thought it was the job of a site like AICN (or CHUD?) to get info out on movies, not pick sides based on who might get them a film job later on or who flies them places or pats their fragile ego enough.

Also...is it cool to constantly diss a company that they perceive slighted them? Wouldn't it be in everyones best interest to just ignore FOX since they obviously aren't giving Drew any perks or info on their films?

I really don't blame him for not covering their movies since there's plenty of studios still willing to go through the motions of set visits, script reading and writing and whatever else placates him and gets some buzz for their films.

But the constant digs and subversive innuendo (like, an open letter basically against FOX) really muddies the waters.

In all seriousness....what "normal fan" cares about what big name studio launches what film? I know I don't give a shit. But when you make it an issue by constantly calling them out and not prefacing it with why you're bitter...that's just shitty. And, it's a conflict of interest.

First off sites like AICN and CHUD are not really journalist sites- there are no fact checkers or lawyers or really anything. They are sites run by people who PASSIONATELY LOVE FILMS and especially love geek/genre films. They enthuse and slag, injecting emotions into what they do. If you don't like them don't read them. I love Drew and Devin and like Nunziata. I think Knowles should be in prison for a variety of real crimes. But these are just my opinions.

But you managed to completely mis-read what I wrote somehow. DREW expressed his opinion about several moves that HE felt were stupid that were made by Tom Rothman. He then got fired from a writing assignment at New Regency. I am not arguing either side- just stating that I do not believe he HIDES his opinion of Fox as you stated.
He doesn't cover their films because they don't LET him.

Heat, i knew the second i saw this article you would have a comment, and i knew the comment would be negative.

Don's right when he says "it's old". I don't know what new angle you can take with this. `

Drew's got a hard on fox. You've got a hard on for Drew.

Either way, there's too many guys standing around with boners.

I do love how Heat gives the bad mouth to anything interesting on DVD these days. If you do not think putting the story of Black Freighter on a DVD is not somewhat daring. You are a piker because it's not like there's whole rather expensive made SUB-PLOTS extras on every BD or DVD. Take it outside. You shouldn't play here anymore.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed reading this post. It's an interesting ongoing drama and this was a thoughtful take that made me consider a different perspective.

I normally wouldn't feel the need to post this comment, but seeing other folks calling it "boring," or "old," or "helium" (huh?) prompted me to register my dissenting opinion.

I don’t pretend to know anything about this controversy other than what I’ve read in the newspapers. But I have no trouble believing that it’s all because somebody somewhere who should have known better didn’t know jack, and didn’t bother to learn it. Seriously. A few years ago, I was talking to an actor/producer who was very proud to tell me that he’d purchased the American remake rights to a French thriller by a fairly well-known director. I was intrigued by this info, because, as I told the actor/producer, I’d always had a problem with the French film’s third act, and I hoped a remake could maybe improve on the original in this way. On the other hand, well, that third act was more or less taken from the novel (British, not French) on which the movie was based… I don’t think I would be exaggerating to say the actor/producer turned white at this point in the conversation. You see, until I mentioned it, HE HAD NO IDEA THIS MOVIE HAD BEEN BASED ON A NOVEL. A novel, of course, for which he did not own the rights. A novel, I can only assume, that the owner of rights to the French movie didn’t tell him about. (P.S. The remake never did get made. Big surprise, huh?)

I think DP is wrong and DM is right.
And Don, we should talk off site about 'real crimes'.

The problem with Drew/AICN/CHUD/Fearci covering this is they've been tight with Levin/Gordon for years, via Del Toro, IIRC. Doesn't Nunziata have that shark movie pegged to these two?

Feraci - Riddle me this. If making bad movies is your judicial litmus, then how are you supporting a Zack Snyder film after you rained a shitstorm all over 300. What's the difference between a bad studio and a bad filmmaker?

Don - Whaddup. Whether you've got time to respond is up to you.

Lloyd Levin's own words...

Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved....

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then.

So Levin admits that from what Fox was offered in 2005 the elements changed and the new package never went back.

He doesn't clarify how WB "acquired" the rights, but the documents show they bought what Gordon had. Something he wasn't allow to sell to a third-party without Fox's involvement, IIRC, and was part of the same "changed elements" deal.

So what Levin is trying to deliver is that they were insulted by Fox's response and that freed them to work with WB. What he doesn't clarify is what he put in front of them. His story structure insinuates it was the 150Min hard-R opus and Fox was too ignorant to see its majesty. The problem, is that they brought them the Hayter/Greengrass amalgam that had passed from Universal to Paramount and was actually not that good. And that's the problem. What Fox was last brought bears little resemblance to what Snyder went to production with.

If Fox was so adamant about not making this project, then why not lay the 150-page beast in front of Rothman and demand a "yes or no". If he was so bound to say no, no matter what he was presented, then what was the risk?

The risk is that Fox doesn't have shit for superhero properties during the boom period. You bring them Snyder with Watchmen and the possibility of turning a 150-pager with 1+ hours of supplemental into 180 minutes theatrical that can be shot on one budget than cracked into two movies with staggered releases...

The assumption is that since Fox makes "bad movies" they would only make a "bad" version of Watchmen. Well, they had never been brought a good one, and since creative control resided with Gordon, and they couldn't do anything about it.

The canard of Levin's whole piece is the "it's the movie no one wanted to make". Bullshit. It was the movie no one wanted to make with those two. No offense, but look at Hancock and it falls into the same realm. Mann was willing to dust off a script sitting in a Lionsgate

I'm glad to hear that Drew is no longer one-sided in his view on this (although it would be nice if he actually posted that opinion in his piece). And let's face it, if this was some Sandra Bullock romantic comedy, AICN and HitFix wouldn't be giving the lawsuit a second glance. The only reason we're hearing about it from those guys is because they think they'll like the film and because their audience is supposed to care.

Martin, odd that you posted just before me. But even I aint reading all that shit.

CON'T...

The canard of Levin's whole piece is the "it's the movie no one wanted to make". Bullshit. It was the movie no one wanted to make with those two. No offense, but look at Hancock and it falls into the same realm. Mann was willing to dust off a script sitting in a Lionsgate

"There is no reason at all why this would keep anyone from working on a turnaround project. That's idiotic."

Didn't someone around here say, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If TERRY GILLIAM walked away from the project, then you know there's something fundamentally wrong with it."

Martin
Changed elements don't apply AFTER another studio picks up the rights

Good reporting David.
What has shocked me the most in all this is how the Watchmen fans led by Drew aren't seeing how they are being manipulated by Warners. The bottom line is WB failed to correctly clear the rights, then they then ignored Fox's attempts to clear up those rights prior to start of production, now after loosing the case in court to Fox, they are clearly attempting to manipulate fan and general public opinion in order to reduce the amount that will eventually be awarded to the legal rights holders.

MArtin S, I gave 300 an 8 out of 10. http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/9207/1/REVIEW-300/Page1.html

Would fanboys care if this was happening to NEW IN TOWN? Of course not. But it's not, so why bring that up?

And I think that you can acknowledge that Fox is legally right without wishing that Warner Bros takes it in the pooper.

What's "Black Freighter"?

Tales of the Black Freighter

It's basically an extended and slightly heavy-handed allegory of the main plot, which Snyder is doing as a direct-to-DVD animation. More power to him, but (at the risk of bringing down a hail of beards) it's not exactly essential and I'm leery of how well it'll work as a movie, even a short one.

Oh yeah, there are spoilers in that article.

Devin - That's my mistake. For some reason, I recall you as coming down hard on 300. I should have looked it up.

Really Bob, when I read Watchmen over Christmas, I couldn't help but think Tales of the Black Freighter would make an awesome movie.

If I was betting man and this was a poker game, the very last fucking person I would bet against in a legal showdown in this town is Tom Rothman. And I think Warners has finally figured that out.

This whole gambit about asking the judge to decided ASAP is not about expediency, but face saving. It must have finally dawned on them they will lose and better go for the quick pull of the band-aid than drawing this out.

Because Warners' main argument seems to be that Fox didn't yell loud enough when they protested and I think we are all about to see the judge say they should've listened harder...

I couldn't agree more with Poland's points. But this line was a stopper:

"Daring was, to be fair, financing There Will Be Blood after no one else would for years (and we found out, financially, why)."

Wait... wha? Is Poland saying this was a bad decision that turned out poorly? There will be blood cost 25 million, which is less than the budgets of at least half of his movies, and made 75 million in the theaters worldwide and surely doubled that in TV revenue and DVD. In short it cost about the same as any other PTA movie and it made money (more than any other PTA movie, in fact). His movies aren't ever blockbusters, but they're like Kevin Smith movies... they bring in a base amount of bucks and if you sign off on a PTA movie with a relatively frugual budget you can be almost certain to get at least a specific return on your income.

That doesn't strike me as daring at all. Just good economic sense.

I will ignore Don's bile, but repeat what I have repeated before... I am not basing my reporting on the reporting of others, since they keep getting it wrong.

I have the judge's opinion (who Don must also think is a know nothing idiot who can't understand how much smarter WB lawyers are than it seems) in my hand. Right now.

Again... it states... "Warner Brothers exercised its option to acquire Gordon's rights after (italics and bold his) being placed on notice of fox's claim and having received the documentation upon which this court bases its ruling."

Don is still arguing based on what - unless the judge is delusional - WRONGLY was being argued weeks ago.

If the judge is wrong - not in his determination of who should win, but in this fact, which he writes was argued by WB - than my position would be changed significantly.

Warners has not made any public claim that the FACT of what they knew is wrong.... there has only been private murmuring. But in this legal finding, they argue - repeating again - NOT that they were not aware or that Fox had laid in wait, but simply that Fox had NO RIGHTS because the Quitclaim preceded the Turnaround Agreement.

Plus, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by Fox, which serve as the basis for damages.

Don doesn't seem to know ANY of this... or he is willfully choosing not to believe it.

Now... it is always possible, though enormously unlikely, that another judge will at some time decide that the Turnaround Agreement is, indeed, invalidated by the Quitclaim.

As a pre-law student, for whom contract law was the first big step into the mire, this doesn't seem likely.

But Don isn't arguing this anyway. He's just raging and supporting one side, suggesting in the same blush, without saying it, that the other lawyers are too stupid to be right... since, of course, Fox would not have behaved in the ways it has if their lawyers saw it coming to an unhappy conclusion.

I am going to go read Larry Gordon's letter now...

Back from that comedy.

Gordon's argument is that neither he nor his lawyers knew there was a Quitclaim agreement between Fox and Largo.

"Mr. Gordon clearly testified that he does not recall any conversations he had with representatives of Fox in or about 1994 relating to Watchmen"

Uh huh.

And it's Fox's fault...

"Gordon claims in his letter that during those negotiations, Fox sent his lawyer, Tom Hunter at the firm Bloom Dekom, a chain of title that did not include the 1991 quitclaim."

It's mind boggling.

What I really, really, really want to know is who signed off in Gordon's office and who signed off at WB based on this notion that Fox had no rights because of the Quitclaim... whether arguing that the negotiation was fraudulent or that the Quitclaim superceded the later turnaround deal.

Someone made this call.

Right now, that person is a phantom.

There is still this little fact. Fox paid $320,000 for these rights in 1991. At 5% interest, that's over $800,000 today.

Everyone on the other side of this argument determined that this money meant nothing and proceeded with a deal and then production without adressing it.

Why?

Because they decided that there was a legal loophole, whether it was the Quitclaim proceeding the Turnaround or the notion that the Turnaround - signed by both sides - was an act of fraud by Fox.

A million dollars vs what is now an investment of around $250 million.

What part of that is good lawyering?

Even if, somehow, WB prevails... what kind of attorney takes that kind of risk with their employers money?

Sorry... this is not an issue of the end result being right or wrong. This process was 100% fucked up by WB no matter who is "right."

Dave - I think Don is pretty busy. It feels like his info is coming straight from the Gordon/Levin camp and as a guy who's been in the muck with Fox over another Alan Moore property, I don't blame him for instantly seeing Fox as being in the wrong. If anyone, IMO, could justifiably defend Gordon/Levin, it was Don. I don't agree with his ad hominens, but, it's part and parcel.

If anyone thinks this one-two from Lloyd and Larry is a coinkidink...what you've got are two guys who pulled every lever they could to paint Fox as the villain and expected the fanboys to carry their water, again. But Fox doesn't give a shit about the ire of the geeks, and that is a fact that shouldn't be lost. A studio with a big genre release just gave the middle-finger to its audience, and it's going to have zero effect on either opening. I think it's appropo that the last AICN write-up was still a feign to boycotting Fox.

What I find most deplorable is how Gordon/Levin have taken this position that they are the lifeblood of this project. Like Thulsa Doom to Conan, "I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me?"

In truth, they've been lampreys. Look at what Levin said - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film... donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment...for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes.

So what these two have now told us is for all this effort, Larry Gordon couldn't have someone, in fifteen years perform due diligence. Where's the responsibility? Oh, I'm sorry. It was his lawyers fault. It was Fox's fault. His dog ate the quitclaim. Bullshit. This was classic OPM except the money was sweat equity. And they had gotten so much free mileage already, let WB fight it out with Fox so they don't have to fork over a million bucks.

Gordon's letter claims he never possessed the 1991 quitclaim. If that's true, doesn't it reason he gave a broken chain to WB? I truly hope they don't get sued, but there's a paper trail that leads through Universal and Paramount. God help them if there's a contradiction.

A WB sidenote...

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6054&Itemid=99

Yeah. The masterplan is called "find some money, quick".

Anyone who can read can see that I haven't spent bile anywhere above- the Webmaster simply doesn't like that I have learned a lot about him as of late.

Anyone who can read has not seen me attack Fox once. I am certain that they believe they have a position and they are arguing it.

Anyone who can read has not seen me take Gordon or Levin's side. I think they are foolish to address the public in ANY way over a legal dispute. I learned about that five years ago the hard way.

Anyone who can read will note that the Webmaster who was prelaw but couldn't go the distance hasn't addressed my point about mitigation of damages even once. He refuses to be drawn into a logical legal argument because of those $3.00 words that are used.

Prelaw genius Webmaster argues that the judge is a no nothing idiot, without taking note that the judge is a low level, first point of entry judge. Webmaster assumes I have read or know nothing when that is far from the case. Fact is I know enough to know that an opinion from that level judge is almost always ignored. As Warners has in fact been doing.

PreLaw Genius Webmaster STILL knows shit about Turnaround insofar as he believes that the "change of elements" clause applies AFTER the film is set up at another studio.

The REAL question is this and only this- at what point was the film TURNEDAROUND from Fox correctly.

The film went from Fox to I believe Universal. Then To Paramount. THEN to Warners. I find it impossible to believe that NONE of three studios turned the film around by paying Fox's costs. Webmaster wants you to believe it was Warners. But Universal paid Hayter over a million to do a rewrite- did they not turn the film around properly? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. And IF they DID then Fox is out of the ball game circa 1999.

Again, don't believe me. That's fine. Warners seems to believe they are right. Sure both sides are chatting, but that's what you do at this point. So don't believe me. But don't believe Webmaster either. He can't even read what I wrote correctly. And further to that, if you read his latest blather, he believes his job is to "praise good work and eviscerate bad work." His qualifications for such? "Me see much movies Don."

Webmaster has become pedantic, pompous and pernicious, 3 P's that are not attractive. After this debate fades from the mystery site stats I am outey. But don't believe what he tells you, and don't listen to ludicrous commenters who tell you I was sent to defend a position when at this point four people are reading this thread.

Trust your guts. You need cocky webmasters to guide you just like you need critics anymore.

Hey, Murphy, just remember: If people would have listened to some of us critics, a hell of a lot more folks would have bought tickets to Permanent Midnight. And Double Dragon.

And what is this newfound knowledge that you have gained about DP (a.k.a., The Webmaster)? You mean all those rumors about his starring in porno films during the 1980s are true?

Don's first and last sentence show how crazy he is. Who cares, people in this town call everyone else crazy. How did WB Biz & Leg Aff mess up Duke of Hazzard copyright research?

T. Holly: As I wrote earlier: "Somebody somewhere who should have known better didn’t know jack, and didn’t bother to learn it." I think we'd be shocked, and maybe even scared, to learn how often that happens. And not just in the movie biz. (Hey, did someone say The Bush Administration?)

Biz and legal usually needs to reach out to intellectual property, and they're not easy to get on the phone; they don't number many and they're usually away at conference.

"PreLaw Genius Webmaster"

Is there anyone more transparently insecure about how they reached their station in life than Don Murphy? Always with the ad hominems.

Little wonder comic books and kiddie show adaptations appeal to him, because dealing with others has never progressed past whatever he learned on the playgrounds of Long Island.

D Groupie
I probably am wasting my breath addressing an anonymous web dick like yourself but I'll take a chance-

David cited his PreLaw status as if that gave him superior arguing position. It does not.

David speaks nowadays as if he and only he knows everything about journalism and film and, well, everything. This means, at least in his mind that he is a genius.

He is clearly the Webmaster of this site.

Hence Prelaw Genius Webmaster.

In addition, even though in another rumination he says "attack the point not the person" he has ( to anyone who reads the above) consistently attacked me as a person.

Hope this clears it up for you kiddo.

Actually, Don has a point. Seriously. If you don't want to post under you own name... well, why should anything you post be believed?

There is a logical fallacy in that argument. For example, if "Lizard People" can be a legitimate write-in candidate for Minnesota's Senate Seat, then surely "Deathtongue Groupie" can be a blog commenter. The content of the posts are surely what matters more.
(FYI, I am not "Deathtongue Groupie").

as usual Jeff your retardation holds you back and keeps you cleaning the lavatory...Lizard People IS NOT a legit write in candidate insofar as such a candidate CANNOT WIN the seat and take office. It is a joke. Like Groupie.

Don how's Transformers 2 coming along?

What did Deathtongue_Groupie say that could or couldn't be believed? He asked a question and made a statement. He didn't say he lived in a mansion and has a large penis (which I do, by the way).

Same old Don.
Yes, "Lizard People" was a joke, but it was still heavily debated by people who earn huge salaries but that's not my point; which is "Deathtongue Groupie" is no more 'anonymous' than, for example, "Martin S" or "Blackcloud" or "The Big Perm". And for that matter, how do we know that "Don Murphy" is really someone named Don Murphy (aside from the vast amounts of personal charm on display?)

"as usual Jeff your retardation holds you back and keeps you cleaning the lavatory."

Exactly same old Don - incapable of responding to an argument without the usual character attack.

Thanks jeff and Big Perm for pointing out what should be apparent to anyone who progressed past this playground horseshit. What does it matter who the hell I am if we are debating facts and ideas? Only a blustering bully needs to make it personal. My, in fact, large penis has nothing to do with it nor my rather average house.

In addition to ad hominems, add straw man fallacies. "...cited his PreLaw status as if that gave him ..." is not the same thing as that he do so.

A special prize for the first English Speaker who can correctly interpret anonymous coward's last sentence.

And having the balls to stand behind what you say does make a large difference. If not, go edit Wikipedia where I know the poster is a moron. Here I can't be sure.

I don't know what I did to turn Don from a clever, if harshly opinionated person into a raving 12 year old with a persecution complex... I'm still trying to figure out "helium." Seems like you think I did something profoundly wrong.

But I did address your issues directly. WB knew... according to WB... as they presented it to the judge.

And if your new theory - and thank you for adding something other than rage and bullshit - that the turnaround was paid out at another studio, then you are 100% right.

But you are the first and only person who I know of who has actually suggested that in public.

If Universal (or Paramount or anyone else) paid the turnaround, then the situation is dramatically differnt.

ALL I know is what is in the court documents, Don. You know who was on the grassy knoll, you have me. Absolutely. If that is the case, I am dead wrong.

But someone at Warners might want to mention it to the judge. And if they haven't already, they should be disbarred for that.

I don't know everything about law... not by a long shot. But I know how to read contracts and court documents. I also don't know everything about journalism. But I know shotty, cheap-shot, stealing when I see it. And I do know when people who cover the beat I have been on for the last decade-plus are being played. And so do you, so I don't know why you are shitting acid and calling it champagne.

'Helium' = marijuana, David. You were in Amsterdam. Jeez.

I will knife fight anyone who thinks I won't back up what I say. I have fought about thirteen men with knives over my lifetime. They wish they had some lifetime left, if you know what I mean.

Knives? Knives? Where's my pen? I need a pen to deal with these KNIVES!

Don,

If you're implying that I think you were "sent" by anyone to defend anything, then you're wrong. My point was that you were tits-deep in two Alan Moore projects, one that did not go smoothly at Fox under the current regime. My second point was that you currently have a superhero project set-up at WB with Del Toro as partner. That gives you insight and access very few have.

In fact, you sort of proved my point. As Dave highlighted, you're the first person to mention Hayter's check and why would Universal write it if they hadn't done correct diligence. It's a valid point, but neither Gordon nor Levin came close to breaching that argument. At this point, how could they not?

As I said, if the chain was broken like Gordon claims, then he's only at fault for shoddy work. But something stopped Hayter cold at Universal. And before Universal it was at WB once before when Silver was still attached. This would have been right around the same time as the '91 and '94 quitclaims. So how could WB not have known about it when they let it go for the second time?

And the thing about the Universal deal - no one knows why they split. All that's been said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/movies/20watc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=watchmen%20movie&st=cse&scp=9

"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.

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