Why can’t the two studios come to a dual agreement to split profits and costs on BOTH “Watchmen” and the Adam West series…? Everyone wins, surely.

It all depends on the terms of the deal. Saul Zaentz, for example, has owned the movie rights to The Lord Of The Rings since the early 1970’s.

If they had managed to get off their duffs and actually make the movie - it would probably have been disasterous as LoEG and From Hell turned out.

I think WB somewhat better understands the product than any other studio would.

~

Coat

Just remember, the grass is always greener in a Paul Greengrass movie.

Kind of a pointless argument on my part, since, yeah, ideally you are right.

It doesn’t speak well of Warners that they didn’t completely vet the project in the first place.

You don’t invest millions in a project where you have the chance of it taken away!!! What were they thinking?

Fox did the right in letting Warners go ahead and spend the millions, put themselves in a REALLY VULNERABLE position then pounced. You absolutely expect this from studios because that’s what the tiger does…

And Warners was stupid enough to run around with a pair of beefsteak underwear on yelling “Here kittty, kitty kitty…”

I don’t claim to know who’s right and who’s wrong. But ignoring that question and making a snap decision based on how much one wants to see the movie is, well, as silly as judging the Siegels’ case against DC by how much one wants Superman comics to continue uninterrupted.

The judge said “It is particularly noteworthy that nothing on the face of the complaint or the documents supplied to the Court establishes that Gordon, the claimed source of Warner Brothers’ interest in ‘Watchmen,’ ever acquired any rights in ‘Watchmen.’”

Pretty damning…is it actually possible they just assumed that since they owned the comic that they owned the rights to the movie, and didn’t check? That seems mind bogglingly irresponsible.

@Michael “When I heard about this, I expected the average fan reaction to ignore any questions of legality and simply paint Fox as the mustache-twirling villain out to deny the world its rightful Watchmen movie.”

Regardless, the movie has been in development far long enough that if this was a case of Fox being a “complete innocent”, they could have halted production before it “hurt” the team of artists (actors and director and designers, as well as Gibbons) get [not completely] screwed by this potentially not getting released. Instead Fox waits till its a completed product, sees all the unexpected hype the movie is generating, and THEN decides to try to stop its release.

If a rights case in the entertainment world only becomes “worth it” when the property becomes this [potenially] huge, to me (who is not in the industry nor a lawyer) it reeks of the case itself not being completely legit. In another words, Fox had to wait it out to gauge whether the risk would be worth it, that itself possibly hints at the case itself being one of straw (of course maybe they are in the right, and just initially didn’t care, you could argue).

But at the end of the day the general audience (me for ex.), doesn’t care whether Fox is in the right or not (at this early juncture, I mean) , we’re just reacting how completely shady a move this is by Fox, for waiting so effing long to stop production. And I think thats fair for now.

What happens if Fox wins? Do they gain the right to distribute the film? And in which markets? Can Warner/DC release the movie direct to video?

Even the the most jaded comic readers who were bitching about Moore’s Watchmen responses are now pry admitting, “well… I guess he wasn’t just being a crotchety old coot.”

Didn’t expect that from the actual reporting on it, though.