Watchmen fans who have even a passing familiarity with the legal troubles brought about by Fox’s lawsuit against Warner Brothers can probably guess how the folks at Warner Brothers feel about the whole thing: After surviving the arduous process of developing and creating a film now surrounded by immense buzz all over the Web and in comic book circles, Warner Brothers found itself being taken to court by a studio whose top-earning film this past summer was What Happens In Vegas. How would you feel about it?


Until now, most of the speculation about Warner’s legal/philosophical/emotional position on this issue has been exactly that: Speculation. However, earlier today, Drew McWeeny (previously Moriarty from AICN) posted up an open letter written by Lloyd Levin, one of Watchmen’s producers. Levin’s letter is striking both for its candor and its detailed description about the trials and tribulations that went into making of the film:

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There’s a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s classic graphic novel that reads like a who’s who of Hollywood. We’ve been told the graphic novel is unfilmable. After 9/11 some felt the story’s themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience…

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

Levin’s letter lays bare the immutable truth: “One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.” Consequently, the letter is perhaps most notable for the staunch moral position that Levin takes. Levin concludes:

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.

However you come down on the issue, it’s a fascinating look behind the scenes of one of the most controversial film-related lawsuits in recent memory. Check out the whole letter by going to Hitfix.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

  • Me the Media
    I take that last statement back, it is the worst pile of shit i've ever seen...
  • Me the Media
    This movie was one of the worst pieces of crap i've ever seen. I have now banned superhero movie for life.... Thanks Dick Hole
  • WB is in the wrong here. But that's not to say that Fox has to act like an asshole just for the sake of it. Fox - take a percetage of the final domestic gross and settle up. If Fox delays the release and they do indeed get a percetage of the gross then they are purely messing up their own chances of earning more money by harming the film. Plus they'll be pissing off the 'fanboy' community which quite frankly is propping them up nowadays.
  • daniel clarke
    Cou;dn't agree with this more. WB forked this one big time and all they are doing now is trying to deflect attention.

    Flip reverse this and WB would do exactly the same back to Fox if they had gone out and made a film WB had the rights too. Would you all be shouting for boycotss of WB films then ? I suspect not.

    As for pigeon holing Fox simply because of what 'What happens In vegas' made at the BO is well ..... not even worth the time it would take to respond
  • 10 days till the verdict...
  • Garret McGuff
    wake up people. don't be fooled. warners screwed up and they fucked all of us fans in the process. Now they are have lloyd levin do their dirty work and try to make them look morally rightious. Like someone said; if my car is not being driven and someone decided to jack it and take it for a ride = it's still a stolen car.
  • Craig M.
    On a bookshelf, down the hall.
  • Where is your Watchmen now?
  • Warner Bros.
    Dear Fox,

    You give us this one movie, and we will gladly let you have any and all rights to make sequels to Watchmen.

    For the love of God,

    Warner Bros. Pictures
  • AlanMoore Fanboy
    Wait so they were involved with the project for a long time? Through several studios? Was one of them Fox? Even if it wasn't, shouldn't you have learned at some point that Fox owned the rights to the work?

    The law is the law. And stealing a car is stealing a car no matter how long it has been without use.

    Personally I hope Warner Bros. gives Fox 50% of the profits so that when the movie bombs, everyone loses.
  • I absolutely agree. Fox are completely within their rights here, it's unfortunate they're being pained as he bad guys when all they've asked for so far is claim to what is rightfully theirs. Warner Brothers legal team f*cked up big time.
  • Bullshit. Studios sit on scripts and licenses forever and most times never doing anything with them. Especially since it means other people wouldn't be able to make anything with them.

    If they don't move on it, then you can't either. Unless it's bought out.
  • Moviola
    There's no way to be sure, but this will probably be over well before the release date. I think they're both just milking it.
  • it's completely possible but highly unlike due to the comments spewed from all directions. To tell you the truth, I blame the media for just blowing this out of proportion, but in retrospect, it is a high profile movie and the buzz about it's future hanging in the balance does outrage most of it's hardcore fanbase, so I guess they are just feeding the machine.
  • Moviola
    Are you guys sure this isn't privately settled, and publicly a stunt to create more buzz? Last year, Ledger's death certainly didn't hurt the Dark Knight's figures. What if they just want to make this drama big enough to make the audience feel that this is a film "they might never have seen." This could just be both sides using reality as publicity.
  • This film will make so much money. They need to just give Fox their percentage and get on with the release.
  • joshi38
    Wait...what? So if I put in all my time and money and effort in order to paint a giant picture on the side of a building depicting... I don't know, a beautiful rendition of a ship at sea or something, should the owner of said building then just let me leave it up for the sake of art and because I put so much effort into it, even though I didn't ask permission?

    I mean I understand where this guy's coming from, if I were Snyder or any of the story team or the actors or whoever, yes, I'd be pissed about all this, and it's true, Fox likely wouldn't have done what WB has done now with the material, but at the end of the day, WB screwed up.

    I want to see Watchmen as much as you guys and yes, I'm annoyed that this has come to pass, but them putting in the money and effort to make a film that will likely be amazing doesn't forgive their major screw up over the rights for this film.

    Telling Fox to drop this all "for the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life"... seriously, that might work on the guy who owns the building I painted over, but Levin knows Fox won't buckle and so the only thing this letter does is paint Fox in a bad light.

    I hate Fox for a number of reasons, for not doing anything with Watchmen for 20 years, for giving us shitty movies and canceling great TV, but this was literally out of their hands as soon as WB started making Watchmen and now they're the bad guys for trying to get what they're owed?

    Really, I do hope Fox do drop the suit, or at least come to a settlement, but trying to guilt them into it is just wrong.
  • Bob
    Your analogy is flawed at best.

    This is not at all like painting a picture on the side of a building you don't own. If Levin and his guys made the movie using Fox's cameras and equipment, sure. This is a lot more like painting a monstrous mural on your own dang building, and then some guy from down the street, and all his buddies go, "Hey, we were gonna do that! .....Eventually."

    According to the other article (admittedly, posted later than this one), there's some question as to just *who* screwed up. The legal process involved in making a movie is not a simple one, and it seems like someone somewhere made a really bone-head move that just went unnoticed for a while. And now, with the movie nearly finished, and a lot of people's hard work about to go unfulfilled, Fox is going to pull a "Hey, you're infringing on my rights, man! Hey, G-man! Stop 'em!"

    Somewhere, buried in the deep, deep legislature of movie copyrights is a technicality that put some rights in the hands of Fox. And now, they've decided to be as loud and whiny about it as they can be, when the artists and fans just want their stinking movie.

    They're within their *legal* (for all that amounts to) rights, sure. But it's just not *right*.
  • joshi38
    Of course it's flawed, it's an analogy. Want something perfect? Okay, imagine I make a movie I don't have full rights to...

    And frankly "But it's just not *right*." well now that's a matter of subjective opinion, surely what's *right* would have been someone at WB figuring out where the rights lie before making this movie. Allegedly Fox contacted WB before production began and WB ignored them, is this Fox's fault?

    Why did Fox wait until February to take legal action? Because that's the earliest time they could possibly do it. Fox own the Distribution rights, thus, the only time they could legally take action would be when WB started motions to distribute said picture (which starts with marketing). Don't get all up in arms over Fox waiting so long when their hands were tied from the beginning in legal red tape.

    Why do Fox even have these rights, because they paid for them. Yes, the rights to make the movie moved on with the producer, Fox held on to the Distribution rights just in case someone didn't something decent with them (like perhaps, Hire a decent director) and by all rights (legal and otherwise) they should have had first dibs as soon as Snyder was brought on board, but they weren't. Fact is, whether they were going to make the movie or not, the rights to make the movie were forcibly removed from their hands without their say. I've got some DVD's on my shelf that I haven't watched in years, does that give someone else the right to take it without asking me, thus taking away my choices for viewing said movie later?
  • For starters, "What's right" is hardly a matter of subjective opinion, else the idea of a Justice department is a joke. Of course, the idea of a Justice department, and the actual Justice department are two separate ideas, but you get the idea.

    I will admit, I'm no copyright lawyer. Which means, among other things, I get to sit on the sidelines and ask questions like, "Wait, what? The producer has the right to make the movie, but not to distribute it? What kind of lame crap is that?" Lawyers can't ask those questions, because they're too busy weeding through the laws they're bound to stick with. Simply put, though, WB having the rights to *make* the movie, but not to *distribute* it is evidence of a bit of a screwed up system that, in the end, is just not right. To the viewers, this movie is art. This mucking about in lawyer code simply should not be.

    Of course, that's a bit idealistic of me, as I'm sure all the lawyers aren't gonna lay down arms and go, "You know what? This guy on the internet is right."

    The fact remains, though, this is one gloriously screwed up mistake, not a vicious attack on either's part. At least, not when it started out. Now it's getting ugly. And that sucks. For everyone.

    P.S.
    I may disagree with you, but I gotta give you kudos for your debate style. You're thinking, and you got your info straight before you came in. *tips hat*
  • joshi38
    Arguing that the Justice system (even as an idea) is a joke is counter-intuitive to your argument. The System is put in place so that the law is followed, in this instance the law has not been followed since WB didn't have full rights. What you're arguing is whether it's morally right for Fox to step in over this. Now I'll agree, it would be morally wrong for Fox to halt the release of this movie altogether (as much legal right as they have), but they do deserve something since they do own the rights.

    As for why the producer had the rights to make the film but Fox had distribution rights is... well iffy. From what I understand (and I'm not10% on all of this), the rights to make a movie go from a studio to a producer once they start to make the movie (because usually the producer/director will have their own production company set up to make the movie and simply get funding from the studio... think of X-Men, got funding from Fox, but made by Bryan Singers own production company, Bad Hat Harry productions... there's also various insurance reasons I won't go into) and since the movie was in pre-production with Fox back in the late 80's/early 90's, that's exactly what happened.

    Then it went into development hell and eventually the producer, moved on with the rights. Now, Fox basically had a deal with the producer that said any changes made to the production meant the producers are obligated to option Fox for financing and distribution before going to anyone else (because a change could mean the film has a chance of going somewhere and making money, so Fox would want in on that, this happens a lot), so once Snyder was brought on board, the producer should have contacted Fox first... he didn't. The fact still remains though, that Fox still had distribution rights over the film since they were going to distribute it all along when they first tried to make the movie and the rights never left them. The producer (and I'll keep calling him that until I remember his name) likely didn't know this and WB probably took it as given that he had full rights.

    That's as much as I understand it, I'm also not a lawyer but I read an article somewhere explaining this much better than I could (so don't take my word on all of this!).

    Really, I'm a fan, I want this film to come out as much as you do. But that's just personal to me. And it's personal to the fans. And it's personal to the people who made the movie. But personal isn't the same as right.

    P.S. Basically ditto, you perhaps didn't have as much information of your own, but you had the guts to admit as much and I admire that. Having an actual conversation with someone instead of an argument is always preferred.
  • To clarify, I don't think the Justice system idea is a joke. I was saying that IF "right" is subjective, THEN Justice is a joke. If what I say is right is only based on my personal experience, and it's totally different for someone else, how can a Justice department argue objectively? Laws (in design, at least) are created when a person or group recognizes that something is right or wrong (generally conforming to some form or another of "don't harm other people"). The Justice department then upholds those laws. Uphold the idea of not harming other people. The idea that you shouldn't steal, in this case, ideas, has to be real, outside of personal experience, or it's pointless bickering.

    I still think the application of this idea needs thorough renovation, but I digress.

    And yeah, I admit. I don't know squat about this. I've read a couple articles, blah de bloo. Of course, I hang out in places (in real life and online) where things like Creative Commons licenses are the norm. Of course, to me, it seems like Fox is being more than a little tantrumy.

    But in the end, I am just arguing morally right, and not legally. I'll leave that part to you. :-P

    Related: You ever see the Monty Python Argument sketch? Hehehe.
  • joshi38
    But obviously right is subjective, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Clearly in this instance, what is morally right may not be what is legally right, and yet what is legally right, again, in this instance, has just as much reason to be morally right as what you deem morally right (man do I hope that makes sense).

    Think about it from both sides, as far as, say, you and Levin are concerned, it would be morally right for Fox to back down and simply let the movie be released. From the point of view of Fox (and yes, I'm well aware that Fox are, for the most part, thinking with their wallets), they have effectively been stolen from (and there's no getting away from that, if I don't drive my car for 20 years that car is still mine, even if someone does take it away, give it a full tune up and overhaul so it's the best car it could be, they had no right) and Fox deserves what it's owed. This is also morally right, from a certain perspective.

    And no, I have not seen the Monty Python argument sketch, no such sketch exists. You obviously imagined it. That'll be £30. ;)
  • I think we may be at least partially agreeing. I will admit, that there's rarely a universal rule that applies in all situations regardless of the circumstance. I mean, even, "Don't kill babies" would fly out the window if that baby happened to be a zombie monster that was killing everyone.

    But I would still say that the right or wrongness of either of the parties involved in this dispute is measured against something outside either of their experiences. Because if it is done solely from their respective positions, then it's a stalemate. Both have been offended. Both had something done to them they don't like, and both have done something wrong, be it negligence or greed, or what-have-you.

    In the end, the judge isn't gonna decide who was the one who didn't do anything wrong. He's gonna decide what, given this situation, is the best resolution to get back on the right track.

    It would be right for Warner Bros. to do their due diligence on the rights they need to obtain long-before shooting. It would be right for Fox to not hold on to rights it has no intentions of doing anything with. It seems (again, based on my half-information ;-)) that neither happened. So what do we do now?
  • joshi38
    Well, since the Judge already ruled against WB once (saying that indeed, the rights belong to Fox and the film will not be released until a deal is made), I'm assuming that he'll side with them again since that's legally what should happen.

    If that's the case, then WB's only option would be to cut it's losses and made a deal with Fox, one that would leave them both coming out well in this, although obviously Fox would come out better because right now, they hold all the cards.
  • And on that, I can agree. Making a deal, rather than drawing this out, would be the best thing for everyone.

    Well, spoken, Joshi. And now, I adjourn. It's Friday night! Time to party.
  • I hope it all works out for the people behind the film. I also hope the film is as good as it appears to be.

    There's probably only one person out there who has enjoyed the trials and tribulations that have gone in to making this film, and that's Alan Moore.
  • I hope it all works out for the people behind the film. I also hope the film is as good as it appears to be.

    There's probably only one person out there who's enjoyed the trials and tribulations that have gone in to making this film, and that's Alan Moore.
  • What I'm curious about, aside from all the trial news, is his comments about the previous tries at adapting the film. I wonder what director and stars were lined up to make this previously. That would be an interesting read.
  • Well put, Levine. I think he is of the same mind of a lot of Watchmen fans. Warner Brothers put the time and effort into it, they had the faith to bring it to life, so they should have complete control of the property. Fox had all but thrown Watchmen out. Unfortunately, out judicial system doesn't work on right on wrong.
  • Joe
    I'm re-reading Watchmen for the fourth (fifth?) time in a year right now, and this lawsuit just makes me depressed. Not because I think Fox are being d-bags (well, I do...) but because this could have been cleared up a hell of a long time ago with no problems at all a while ago.
  • FOX would have given up the copyright on the film if they "flat out had no interest" in producing the project. Maybe they wanted a different take (obviously with Tim Story at the helm to make it more cheery) and didn't feel their script was up to their liking. Still, they have the right for first refusal and when it comes down to it... they want to get paid. Sucks but it's the truth.
  • Bob
    That has got to be one of the most naive attitudes I've heard on this subject.

    Studios, for all their "creative" prowess, are businesses. There was a Wal-Mart near me that abandoned a building when they moved to a new location. That building remained empty for years, until a local newspaper article did an exposé, talking about how they refused to sell/rent the property to decrease competition in the area.

    That a studio would *only* sit on the rights because they "didn't feel the script was up to their liking" is wistfully naive. And "they have the rights" is becoming a very flimsy (even if it is legally binding) excuse for putting the literally hundreds of artists working on this project out in the rain.

    I don't care if you have the rights, Fox. Screw. You.
  • Sadly, when your interest is money, you'll throw all the artists, actors, emotions and moral standpoints under the biggest, fastest train you can find.
  • i wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Levin, but i think we all know that with the release date getting closer and closer everyday and no settlement coming from anywhere, fox is going to make a shitload of cash and all they had to do was sit on the property for 20 years.

    like peter said, this whole thing is coming from a studio who's highest grossing film this past year was "what happens in vegas," so why are we surprised that they would squeeze their greasy, grubby hands into the goldmine that is Zack Snyder's Watchmen.

    (obviously it's not just his, im just saying that he was a huge creative force behind this film, theres no doubt about that. props definitely go out to Gibbons and Moore for creating a groundbreaking graphic novel as well as Levin and his partners who tried to get this movie made for as long as they did)
blog comments powered by Disqus