New York Times Explains the Watchmen Lawsuit

The New York Times has an extensive analysis of 20th Century Fox’s lawsuit with Warner Bros over the rights to Watchmen. Here is an excerpt which I think explains the situation better than anyone else:

“On its face, turnaround is a contractual mechanism that allows a studio to release its interest in a dormant film project, while recovering costs, plus interest, from any rival that eventually adopts the project. But turnaround is a stacked deck. The turnaround clauses in a typical contract are also insurance for studio executives who do not want to be humiliated by a competitor who makes a hit out of their castoffs. That trick turns on a term of art: “changed elements.” A producer of a movie acquired in turnaround who comes up with a new director, or star, or story line, or even a reduction in budget, must give the original studio another shot at making the movie because of changed elements, even if a new backer has entered the picture. Thus, “Michael Clayton” was put in turnaround by Castle Rock Entertainment (which, like Warner, belongs to Time Warner). When George Clooney became attached to star in it, however, Castle Rock stood on its right to be involved as a producer of what turned out to be an Oscar-nominated film.”

Basically, Fox’s lawsuit says that while the studio had declared a willingness to part with the project in 1991, the claim is that Lawrence Gordon was supposed to, but didn’t resubmit Watchmen to Fox every time he came up with a changed element. You can read the whole article on NYTimes.com.

  • Christopher Marc
    I don't know about everyone else but I'm just about to start boycotting movies by Fox...As the new interview by the Babylon A.D. director of notorious interference from Fox executives when it comes to creative control..Gavin Hood I hope doesn't have to deal with more of this from the studio or you'll see the death of the X-Men films, characters and all....If the studio can't pull off a Wolverine movie who is going to want to see a Gambit or Deadpool flick? This studio has become more of monopoly conglomerate interested solely in profits rather than expanding creative ideas and letting directors/movies evolve. They cannot make a watchable blockbuster and treating their employees like this makes me hope they go the way of New Line. Stick with tabloid and misleading news coverage. This is the same company that canceled both Futurama and Family Guy. Their biggest cash cow shows on DVD, which shows they have no idea what they are doing. The lawsuit is just another attempt from the studio to screw other people and audiences. I wouldn't be surprised if the projects start to dry up in the couple of years. Direct to DVD films will be their main bread and butter since that's what they seem want to do. Just like the Weinstein Company has done to many projects when the marketing money isn't there.
  • andy
    im still really confused
  • Christopher Edwards
    This lawsuit is interesting once of has been looked into, but alltbat is going to happen is the money is going to be shared and studios are going to be silent on the matter fora while.
  • lancelewis
    interesting read. thanks for the NYT link pete.
  • A.J.
    I just want to know the outcome, I just want to know if I'm going to see Zach Snyder's 'Watchmen' in march. That is all. I hope Christopher is right, and some other dudes just cash in on it, and nothing of the film itself is changed or hindered.
  • Danny Rabid
    I'm hoping Fox will eventually learn the error of its ways in this current money-mongering venture they're on, but that's unlikely. I'm just depressed with them overall because I seem to remember a time when Fox produced a shitload of high quality entertainment. Then again, there were always those dickheaded drawbacks, akin to the Family Guy cancellation and whatnot. So I don't know. I guess the moral of the story is do not trust Fox with innovative/high-potential projects. Or your money.
  • Agony
    1991? And how much money did Fox actually spend while it had rights? This still looks like a money grab because they know good comic films (if Watchmen is to be a good one, which it looks like so far) can make money right now. There should be some kind of statute of limitations on these kind of "contracts". Their decision to jettison Watchmen is almost 20 years old!
  • The NYT writer identifies Michael Clayton as "Oscar-nominated," is not recognized as "Oscar-winning" if the win is in an acting category?
  • jager
    This is very interesting, but why couldn't it concern something like High School Musical 3 that I have no interest in seeing!!
  • A.J.
    @ Jager

    You dont want to see High School Musical 3?!!!!????!?

    LOLOLZZZZZZ
  • Go Goya
    People need to stop crying about Fox and its "money-grab." Call it what you will, it's a legal money-grab. If folks want to be mad at someone, blame the lutz that failed to resubmit when he was supposed to.
blog comments powered by Disqus