Fox Is A Bunch of Dicks. - Page 2

**Opunaya** · 09-17-2008, 08:36 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/bu...ss&oref=slogin

"LOS ANGELES — The dark and damaged superheroes of Warner Brothers’ “Watchmen,” set for release next March, have a new problem on their hands: a federal judge here ruled last week that they may belong to 20th Century Fox.

The judge, Gary A. Feess of United States District Court for the Central District of California, denied a request by Warner last Wednesday to dismiss Fox’s infringement claims.

In the suit, Fox said Warner had infringed its copyrights and interfered with contracts by filming the movie in spite of earlier agreements under which Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel on which it is based.

Fox lawyers have said they plan to seek an injunction blocking release of the film — one of next year’s most anticipated — pending a trial over its rights. In a statement, Scott Rowe, a Warner spokesman, said the judge’s ruling, while allowing the litigation to proceed, did not reflect on the merits of the case. “We respectfully disagree with Fox’s position,” Mr. Rowe’s statement said.

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Gibbons, “Watchmen” tells the story of superheroes who have fallen into a netherworld of disgrace and personal torment. Long considered too difficult for a Hollywood film, it became a hot property after Zack Snyder, the director of Warner’s hit “300,” took it as his next project, with a budget that published reports have put at about $120 million.

According to Fox’s lawsuit, however, Warner, in acquiring rights through the producer Lawrence Gordon, failed to acquire certain rights already owned by Fox, including the right to distribute any picture made by Mr. Gordon’s company.

The case, originally filed in February, echoes an earlier court fight that was resolved in 2005 when Warner agreed to pay the producer Robert B. Clark at least $17.5 million to settle claims that it had infringed his rights by making the “The Dukes of Hazzard” film with Johnny Knoxville.

The settlement came after Judge Feess, who presided in that case as well, issued a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the film’s release."

Fox's 'Watchmen' lawsuit heats up - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety

"A judge has denied a Warner Bros. motion to dismiss 20th Century Fox’s lawsuit over Warners’ right to make a film based on the graphic novel "Watchmen."

Ruling is potentially a huge victory for Fox, which could wind up as a profit participant in the film, and could cost Warners millions considering the film’s box office prospects. However, Fox’s legal team says it isn’t looking for monetary compensation and instead wants to prevent the big-budget film from being released altogether.

Project, which has been in development for two decades, finally began lensing in September with Zack Snyder at the helm. Warners was set to release the film, which stars Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley, on March 6 in the same slot in which "300" opened.

At the heart of Fox’s suit, filed in February, is the contention that it never ceded rights to the property. And according to the federal Judge Gary Allen Feess, Fox retained distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons through a 1991 claim. Furthermore, Feess appears to agree that under a 1994 turnaround deal with producer Larry Gordon, Gordon acquired an option to acquire Fox’s remaining interest in "Watchmen," which was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under the 1994 agreement.

"It is our company’s policy not to comment on pending litigation and thus will not comment on the specifics of this case," Warners said in statement. "That said, the court’s ruling simply means that the parties will engage in discovery and proceed with the litigation. The judge did not opine at all on the merits other than to conclude that Fox satisfied the pleading requirements. We respectfully disagree with Fox’s position and do not believe they have any rights in and to this project."

The court has asked the two parties for expedited discovery; generally the discovery process can take up to two years. Because the film has already wrapped and is dated for spring 2009, the judge wants to move forward quickly.

"Warner Bros.’ production and anticipated release of ‘The Watchmen’ motion picture violates 20th Century Fox’s long-standing motion picture rights in ‘The Watchmen’ property," Fox said in a statement, though the graphic novel’s title is simply "Watchmen."

"We will be asking the court to enforce Fox’s copyright interests in ‘The Watchmen’ and enjoin the release of the Warner Bros. film and any related ‘Watchmen’ media that violate our copyright interests in that property."

Surprisingly, Fox said it would rather see the film killed instead of collecting a percentage of the box office.

"When you have copyright infringement, there are some damages you never recover," said a source close to the litigation.

Fox spent more than $1 million developing "Watchmen" but had not previously taken legal action against the project, which had been in development at Paramount several years ago.

The case resembles to some extent the copyright suit, also involving Warners, over "The Dukes of Hazzard," in which Feess also presided. The studio agreed in 2005 to pay producer Robert B. Clark at least $17.5 million for infringing on the copyright to his 1974 United Artists film "Moonrunners," which became the basis of the Warners TV skein "The Dukes of Hazzard."

Warners settled the "Hazzard" suit while faced with a preliminary injunction, issued by Feess, which would have canceled the release of the feature and seen all copies impounded by federal marshals."

How DARE they try to keep Watchmen from being released????

El Pirata · 09-18-2008, 02:27 PM

battle of the titans, hmm

*goes to read greek mythology*

on a serious note, yea that movie looked awesome, too bad Fox sucks

Kreg D. Nooks · 09-18-2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

Would you rather not know, and then when the release date comes and goes, and Watchmen never comes out, you sitting there wondering what happened?

Yes. Actually, yes.

**Opunaya** · 09-19-2008, 05:55 AM

Well, that's sad.

the-man-of-honestly · 09-22-2008, 05:25 AM

THANK YOU FOX

Look how many comic books have been destroy by their movie

Spiderman
Batman
FF
X-men

**Opunaya** · 09-22-2008, 05:56 AM

...How did they destroy Batman? They...they've never OWNED Batman...

the-man-of-honestly · 09-22-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

...How did they destroy Batman? They...they've never OWNED Batman...

I know that I was talking about Christoper Nolan

**Opunaya** · 09-22-2008, 07:50 AM

O...kay...so...what does that mean about FOX? Nolan worked with Warner Bros....

the-man-of-honestly · 09-22-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

O...kay...so...what does that mean about FOX? Nolan worked with Warner Bros....

well Maybe Fox does not want to see what Happen to Batman to Happen to their hero

I mean Thanks to Nolan everyone want Comicbooks to be realistic and want hero to be dumb down

**Opunaya** · 09-22-2008, 08:02 AM

Batman is the only character that needs to be realistic. Where do you get this idea that everyone wants the heroes to be "real" now? No one has said that...

You're getting off-topic anyway, this has nothing to do with Batman, this is about Watchmen, and the Warner Bros./FOX lawsuit.

the-man-of-honestly · 09-22-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya

Batman is the only character that needs to be realistic. Where do you get this idea that everyone wants the heroes to be "real" now? No one has said that...

You're getting off-topic anyway, this has nothing to do with Batman, this is about Watchmen, and the Warner Bros./FOX lawsuit.

im trying to comparing the two