Who watches the Watchmen? Not us...

humanji

Well, that's unlikely to happen, but it is a possibility. From IMDB:

IMDB wrote:

Claiming that it bought the rights to DC Comics' The Watchmen in the 1980s, 20th Century Fox on Monday said that it will attempt to obtain an injunction to block Warner Bros., which owns DC Comics, from releasing an already-completed film based on the flawed superheroes. The film, directed by Zak Snyder (300) and starring Patrick Wilson and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is scheduled for release on March 6. Fox had sued Warner Bros. last February, and on Monday a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit. L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke commented on her Dateline Hollywood Daily website, "This is indeed a stunning development which could imperil Warner Bros' entire 2009 movie slate." But legal experts interviewed by Wired magazine predicted a settlement under which Warner Bros. would go ahead with the release of the movie with Fox getting a piece of the revenue.

Otacon

Another reason to hate FOX...

madrab

Fox: We're C**ts

rizzla

Just a follow up to this...

http://movies.ign.com/articles/941/941072p1.html

December 25, 2008 - Warner Bros. must be having a very blue Christmas.

Variety reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the right to distribute Watchmen, thrusting Warners' plan for a March 2009 release of the Zack Snyder-directed comic book movie into doubt.

The paper quoted the ruling as declaring "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the 'Watchmen' motion picture."

A more detailed ruling is reportedly expected soon.

I really hope it makes it's scheduled release date.

Valmont

Great, it's going to be a moronic insult to the graphic novel anyway. Just like Lord of the Rings was to the book. Go Fox!:p

fergisimo

Valmont wrote: »

Great, it's going to be a moronic insult to the graphic novel anyway. Just like Lord of the Rings was to the book. Go Fox!:p

Is that a ****ing joke?

Fysh

Interesting. Sounds like DC's legal department may have dropped the ball in a major way recently, between not checking whether there were legal troubles with producing and distributing the Watchmen film and not checking the legal status of their new comics line logo before rolling it out across the line.

MagicMarker

Otacon wrote: »

Another reason to hate FOX...

madrab wrote: »

Fox: We're C**ts

If Fox do own the rights then it's Warner Bro's who fúcked up royally here. This is millions of dollars in revenue we're talking about, would you just ignore that if you were in Fox's shoes? I highly doubt it.

Shryke

I think it's DC who made the **** up by selling the rights, not Warner Bros. for buying them.

I really hope this doesn't interfere with the release of the film. I have some hope it could be faithful. The trailer still gives me tingles after all this time. It could be the best trailer I've ever seen.

aidan_walsh

Sandor wrote: »

I think it's DC who made the **** up by selling the rights, not Warner Bros. for buying them.

I really hope this doesn't interfere with the release of the film. I have some hope it could be faithful. The trailer still gives me tingles after all this time. It could be the best trailer I've ever seen.

DC has been owned by Warners since 1969.

monkeyfudge

Sandor wrote: »

I think it's DC who made the **** up by selling the rights, not Warner Bros. for buying them.

It is pretty underhanded of Fox to sit there knowing they had the rights and let Warners make the film without notifying them.

Shryke

Never knew DC was owned by Warners.

Whatever the reasons I hope there isn't too much screwing about. I don't care who gets what percentage. I just want to watch this film.

It could be a case of Fox not knowing they had the rights and then discovering that they had purchased them. On the other hand it's difficult that no one copped to the fact until the film was in it's final stages and ready for a big release.

Nevyn

Muahahahahaha and people refuse to belive that Alan Moore did put a hex on anyone who would try and make a watch man movie.

excellent.

Shiminay

Yea, I'm kinda in favour of it not seeing light of day given how badly every other Alan Moore masterpiece has turned out when put to film. As he says himself, they're written so they can't be made into films and it's that way for a reason.

pixelburp

I hope it still gets released. As a major fan of The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, no one is more cautious about this movie than me after the crushing awfulness of that movie adaptation, but at the same time I can still enjoy the original comic without getting my knickers in a twist (as an aside the Black Dossier's enjoyable).

Valmont

fergisimo wrote: »

Is that a ****ing joke?

It bloody isn't. The Lord of the Rings movie is a bastardisation of a masterpiece and any "Blockbuster" attempt at Watchmen will be too. It will appeal to the moron in many I'm sure, but it will definitely not be a patch on the staggeringly brilliant original.

shenanigans1982

fergisimo wrote: »

Is that a ****ing joke?

Yeah the LOTR adaptations were pretty good.

As for Watchmen I aint too pushed on it but people seem to think its going to revolutionize movies. Its going to be good to see all the " What a letdown" threads.;)

They have already commited a major crime when it comes to adapting a comic.

The ending has been changed.

Fysh

Valmont wrote: »

It bloody isn't. The Lord of the Rings movie is a bastardisation of a masterpiece and any "Blockbuster" attempt at Watchmen will be too. It will appeal to the moron in many I'm sure, but it will definitely not be a patch on the staggeringly brilliant original.

I like how you can predict with absolute certainty what it will or will not be, ahead of its release and based presumably on little more than the trailers thus far. Quite aside from the notion that the film will appeal to people's inner moron, if you're so against the film adaptation it's surely a simple thing to just not watch the film and re-read the comic instead. It's not like the film's going to retroactively change anything about the comic now, is it?

qwertplaywert

I dislike the arguement that remakes tarnish the legacy of their source material. Take Watchmen. At worst, we get a bad movie, but still have the fantastic book. At best, we get a great movie,and still have a fantastic book. Its win-win.

Pigman II

I'm struggling to be excited about this movie. I got my hands on the graphic novel and at about 1/3rd thru so far I'm finding it very boring. Add Zack "300" Snyder into the mix the the sense of underwhelment is complete. Hope fans get what they're looking for tho.

Valmont

Fysh wrote: »

I like how you can predict with absolute certainty what it will or will not be, ahead of its release and based presumably on little more than the trailers thus far.

You presume wrong, it's common knowledge that the ending has been changed for the movie and if you have read Watchmen you would know that the ending is one of the many strong and memorable points of the novel. That and the trailer has all the hallmarks of a sexed up, dumbed down remake.

Fysh wrote: »

Quite aside from the notion that the film will appeal to people's inner moron, if you're so against the film adaptation it's surely a simple thing to just not watch the film and re-read the comic instead.

I'm not going to see it and I will read the graphic novel again, gladly.

Fysh wrote: »

It's not like the film's going to retroactively change anything about the comic now, is it?

I disagree here. While the comic itself will endure, in twelve months time, as with Lord of the Rings, the title Watchmen could easily become synonymous with the movie and more and more people will overlook and forget what was behind this years 'special effects blockbuster', which is a darn shame in my opinion.

humanji

Where did you hear the ending is different? Sam Hamm was intending to change it when he was involved, but as far as I know the ending is one thing that is being carried over from the comic in this version.

monkeyfudge

humanji wrote: »

Where did you hear the ending is different? Sam Hamm was intending to change it when he was involved, but as far as I know the ending is one thing that is being carried over from the comic in this version.

Nope. It's definitely been changed. Snyder confirmed it:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php

The new ending doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

the flananator

The ending's not very important to Watchmen; far more important are Moore's take on dualism, creationism and the human perception of time, not to mention the sociological stances it takes.

Holsten

The ending in the book was crap anyway.

Came out of nowhere.

From what I've read of the new ending I think it's much better.

Nevyn

/headdesk

Sangre

monkeyfudge wrote: »

It is pretty underhanded of Fox to sit there knowing they had the rights and let Warners make the film without notifying them.

this will be reflected in any ruling. you can't just sit back on your rights and let someone else act to their detriment and then go and enforce your rights.

joe_chicken

Valmont wrote: »

I disagree here. While the comic itself will endure, in twelve months time, as with Lord of the Rings, the title Watchmen could easily become synonymous with the movie and more and more people will overlook and forget what was behind this years 'special effects blockbuster', which is a darn shame in my opinion.

You're overlooking the people who take an interest in the comic as a direct result of the movie.

I had been meaning to read it for a few years and the movie gave me an excuse to read it before it came out. I really enjoyed it.

faceman

Thaedydal wrote: »

/headdesk

+1
The book ending was vital to conclude the story. The rumoured movie ending not only changes the outcome, but changes the characters and their motivations completely. I dont really see why you would take something that is already fantastic and change it to something else. Unless of course you are adding value to the ending (e.g. what Darabont did with The Mist.) I could understand it if the novel was shoite, but its not. (And this comes from someone who could understand the obsession with the novel until he read it. And i dont read comicbooks normally)

Now i realise Im going to contradict myself with the next bit but what the hell...

I can understand how someone who hasnt read the book couldnt give a toss too. I liked the LOTR trilogy movies, but I havent read the books. (Dont ban me!) Im not ashamed of saying that, and its not that i dont read, everyone was reading them when I was growing up so i chose to read other books at the time. Therefore when i saw the movies i was able to enjoy them for what they are. I will probably never read them either. It was tough enough to sit through the hobbit scenes in the FOTR (especially the extended edition) so i imagine the book is even worse.

Vic Vinegar

faceman wrote: »

+1
It was tough enough to sit through the hobbit scenes in the FOTR (especially the extended edition) so i imagine the book is even worse.

Ha! agreed on that. Cringeworthy!

BlitzKrieg

I liked the LOTR trilogy movies, but I havent read the books.

I liked the films (mostly the first one, second and third one are weaker but still good) but I hated the books (really...dont ban me) They're always read like the bible to me which just made it uncomfortable to read.



Anyway on topic.

Underhanded of Fox, maybe, but I assume that is why there was already a ruling by a judge on if it should be dismissed or not. Meaning Warner probably tried to argue the underhandedness of it and Fox has something to prove it wasnt.

Most likely Warner didnt get that thing they sent them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlHnSZYmRk

On if Watchmen will be a good film or not.

Well Snyder did a good remake of Dawn of the Dead (by good I mean it was alot of fun) but he messed up 300 (by messed up I mean it was sort of fun but it had all this extra crap stuck into it that made it sink like a lead brick)

So I am not entirely impressed by him as a *visionary* director but I degress like everyone else here its the changes that has me worried. Not so much that the ending has been changed, but more so what it has been changed to, the changes that were reported from the preview screening indicates that to get the new ending to fit large chunks of the films mainplot line will have to be retooled to make it fit. And even then it goes against one of the major messages of the book about human nature.

Besides that the trailers have never really *wowed* me anyway.


anywho just my 2 cents.

faceman

There is an article i read on io9.com (sorry dont have link) and their opinion is that the launch date wont be delayed because so much has been invested in it including merchandise etc.

Diogenes

Muahahahahaha and people refuse to belive that Alan Moore did put a hex on anyone who would try and make a watch man movie.

excellent.

Au contra, Moore was stoked about the Watchman Movie in 87

I have got as much confidence as it is possible to have in the people who are handling the Watchmen film. Sam Hamm is an excellent screenwriter, he's been signed to write the Watchmen film. I think that it's got, therefore, as good a chance as any of being a good film ...

The problem being the 87 script was fecking dire.

--The script begins with a prologue about terrorists taking hostages at the Statue of Liberty during the 1976 bicentennial celebrations. Adrian Veidt (never referred to as Ozymandias) leads a superhero team actually called "The Watchmen" to stop them. During the rescue attempt, the Comedian intentionally kills a hostage that's being used as shield by a terrorist. He quips, "The joke's on you."

--Almost all of the comic's back story is gone except for flashbacks to Dr. Manhattan's origin and the night that Rorschach splits the dog's head. Also gone is the sense of a rich alternate history so painstakingly established in the book.

--Speaking of Rorschach, his dialogue -- some of the most memorable passages in the comic -- has been replaced with out-of-character utterances like, "Hiya pardner, long time no see." And, "A doggy. A big old floppy-eared dog." And, "Two things I hate: street mimes... users of recreational drugs." Street mimes? After dispatching Big Figure (needlessly renamed Little Bigger in the script), Rorschach gets into the quip game by telling Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, "Toilet clogged. Big fat turd." Zing!

--Hamm's script ultimately hinges upon the revelation that Veidt's plan all along was to essentially create a hole in time through which he can assassinate Jon Osterman before his transformation into Dr. Manhattan, thereby altering the course of history to prevent a potential World War III and also eliminate superheroes from existence. (This makes little sense, since costumed adventurers existed decades before Manhattan and would presumably have gone on influencing events even if the good doctor ceased to be.)

--After some more ballyhoo, Veidt is foiled, but Dr. Manhattan is able to save his younger self from the fateful radiation blast, so time is indeed changed and Nite Owl, Rorschach and Silk Spectre find themselves -- inexplicably, since they were just in Antarctica -- in the New York City of our mundane, superhero-less reality. The kid by the newsstand is now reading a comic book called -- wait for it -- The Watchmen. And to add final insult to injury, Nite Owl sees a mounted policeman and exclaims, "Oh my God, they still ride around on horses!"

Television without pity

You can say many things about what we've seen so far of the watchmen but it's storyboard perfect to the comicbook in many shots.

monkeyfudge

I've never understood why Sam Hamm is appreciated.

The highlight of his career was Batman the movie and that pissed all over the comic book.

Diogenes

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I've never understood why Sam Hamm is appreciated.

The highlight of his career was Batman the movie and that pissed all over the comic book.

Personally I've always felt that Burton's batman's were just dark camp reinventions of the 60s series. Instead of "BOWS" and "KAPOWKS" you had actual deaths but thematically the movie was exactly like the series.

Fysh

Valmont wrote: »

You presume wrong, it's common knowledge that the ending has been changed for the movie and if you have read Watchmen you would know that the ending is one of the many strong and memorable points of the novel. That and the trailer has all the hallmarks of a sexed up, dumbed down remake.

To be honest, I couldn't give a damn what "common knowledge" is regarding the film because until we've actually seen the film in cinemas we can't really know for definite what's planned.

Valmont wrote: »

I disagree here. While the comic itself will endure, in twelve months time, as with Lord of the Rings, the title Watchmen could easily become synonymous with the movie and more and more people will overlook and forget what was behind this years 'special effects blockbuster', which is a darn shame in my opinion.

I like how you've decided that nobody who goes to see the film without having read the comic first will notice or pay any attention to the bits in the advertising that says "based on the greatest graphic novel of all time"...

Also, regarding whether Fox contacted Warner Bros. or not about the rights to the film - this article at EW makes for interesting reading on the subject.

BlitzKrieg

Also, regarding whether Fox contacted Warner Bros. or not about the rights to the film - this article at EW makes for interesting reading on the subject.

so my summery was sort of right.

They did get that thing that fox sent them

they just didnt respond to it.

The producer seems to be a right tool though.

norrie rugger

Valmont wrote: »

It bloody isn't. The Lord of the Rings movie is a bastardisation of a masterpiece and any "Blockbuster" attempt at Watchmen will be too. It will appeal to the moron in many I'm sure, but it will definitely not be a patch on the staggeringly brilliant original.

I am rereading the LOTR at the moment and can see where Jackson took massive liberties (it is called artistic licence, or some crap)
To keep the moive storyline flowing I also can see why he did the changes.

The movie is 9 hours long and still he had to cut out huge tracts. The movie was an outstanding ADAPTION, of its sourse material, to another medium and not a transference/translation

Valmont

Fysh wrote: »

To be honest, I couldn't give a damn what "common knowledge" is regarding the film because until we've actually seen the film in cinemas we can't really know for definite what's planned.

We do know for definite. The ending has been changed. Plugging your ears is not going to change this.

Fysh wrote: »

I like how you've decided that nobody who goes to see the film without having read the comic first will notice or pay any attention to the bits in the advertising that says "based on the greatest graphic novel of all time"...

Of course there will be a bunch of people who will go back and read the book and that's great but there will also be a whole bunch who won't. It is the latter bunch that I was referring to in my previous post.

faceman

Diogenes wrote: »

Personally I've always felt that Burton's batman's were just dark camp reinventions of the 60s series. Instead of "BOWS" and "KAPOWKS" you had actual deaths but thematically the movie was exactly like the series.

Keaton made an excellent Batman though. An under-rated actor IMO. As much as I love the Batman flicks, I find Keaton's Batman/Bruce wayne character a bit easier to identify with, from a human perspective. (if that makes sense? )

faceman

Further news on the watchmen scrap - a spokesperson for Fox has said they intend to delay the release of the movie through the courts!

norrie rugger

Valmont wrote: »

We do know for definite. The ending has been changed. Plugging your ears is not going to change this.



Of course there will be a bunch of people who will go back and read the book and that's great but there will also be a whole bunch who won't. It is the latter bunch that I was referring to in my previous post.

Why are these people important?
they are not fans, they will never be fans. Their opinions do not count

unless there is a triolgy or somesuch, at which case there should be a law that they have to read the original stories

johnnyskeleton

faceman wrote:

The book ending was vital to conclude the story. The rumoured movie ending not only changes the outcome, but changes the characters and their motivations completely.

Valmont wrote: »

We do know for definite. The ending has been changed. Plugging your ears is not going to change this.

What exactly are the rumored changes to the end (that's what spoiler tags are for)?

From what I've heard, the squid monster is replaced with a bomb but otherwise the plot to force a peace agreement remains intact. I don't know how a bomb in New York would encourage the USSR to make peace, but it remains to be seen if they pull it off. If Rorschach refuses to accept that it is wrong to kill some people to save an even greater number then the point of the film remains intact. But maybe I put undue importance on this because I'm a Rorschach fan.

monkeyfudge

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What exactly are the rumored changes to the end (that's what spoiler tags are for)?

From what I've heard, the squid monster is replaced with a bomb but otherwise the plot to force a peace agreement remains intact. I don't know how a bomb in New York would encourage the USSR to make peace, but it remains to be seen if they pull it off. If Rorschach refuses to accept that it is wrong to kill some people to save an even greater number then the point of the film remains intact. But maybe I put undue importance on this because I'm a Rorschach fan.

The issue is that

it isn't a nuke. It's a series of explosions in several cities that are made to look like they were caused by Dr. Manhattan. This doesn't really work as Manhattan was a symbol for the US Military, so making him the bad guy to unite the worlds forces against doesn't quite work.

Nevyn

faceman wrote: »

Further news on the watchmen scrap - a spokesperson for Fox has said they intend to delay the release of the movie through the courts!

Good may it languish on some dusty shelve.

Roar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7832719.stm

Superhero movie Watchmen will be released as planned on 6 March after two Hollywood studios resolved a legal dispute over copyright.

20th Century Fox blocked the $130m (£87m) Warner Bros movie claiming it had held the film rights since 1986.

But Warner Bros argued Fox had lost the rights to the celebrated graphic novel and was owed nothing more than a right of first refusal.

The studios settled after a judge ruled Fox did have an interest.

Set in an alternative 1985 and with the world perched on the brink of nuclear war, the story follows a group of costumed crime fighters trying to solve the murder of one of their own.

The studios released a joint statement which said: "Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's 6 March release in theatres."

The novel, written by British author Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, has had a tortured course to the big screen and numerous attempts have been made to adapt the material.

The book is still considered "un-filmable" by some devoted fans .

Watchmen's director, Zack Snyder, turned another graphic novel, Frank Miller's 300, into a blockbuster in 2007.

Holsten

Huzzah!

FionnMatthew

http://www.cracked.com/blog/fox-can-eat-several-dicks/

BlitzKrieg

there's an article posted by fysh on the 1st page that puts things in better perspective.

All the internet hate for Fox is stupid if you dont know the circumstances and just makes people like the writer of the above article look like f*cking morons.

pixelburp

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

there's an article posted by fysh on the 1st page that puts things in better perspective.

All the internet hate for Fox is stupid if you dont know the circumstances and just makes people like the writer of the above article look like f*cking morons.

Well according to Lloyd Levin, one of the producers of Watchmen who wrote an open letter on the issue, Fox never once showed any signs of being interested in following their script / production, so I have been slow to feel any sympathy for Fox or see the court case as anything else except a pointless p*ssing contest over a movie they never had the slightest interest in making.

BlitzKrieg

pixelburp wrote: »

Well according to Lloyd Levin, one of the producers of Watchmen who wrote an open letter on the issue, Fox never once showed any signs of being interested in following their script / production

Thats not the issue Fox is contesting.

Fox bought the option to produce a film. Regardless of if they make a film or not, they still own that option.

The article Fysh posted says one of the producer conveniantly *forgot* the arrangement with Fox over that option (does it run out etc) when he went on to try and find someone else interested in funding the film.


It also says in the article that Fox did go to the producers before the film went into production and stated that they owned an option in the film what is warner brothers offering for that option.

The producers knew Fox held onto part of the rights, I dont know if WB knew or not, but the bloody producers did and they seemed to have hoped that it was so far buried under legal movement (the number of studios attached to Watchmen over the years had it rights going all over the place) and that the WB production was so far along, that Fox wouldnt rattle the cage over the issue.

This is not an issue about a film, its about copyright protection and media property.


EDIT:

update article which pretty much confirms what I am saying:
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/01/watchmen-its-se.html

Footnote: This entire case hinged on a contract that Fox had with Watchmen producer Larry Gordon -- a contract which Gordon told the court he couldn't properly recollect. According to the legal papers filed by Fox, Gordon always had the opportunity to buy out Fox’s stake in Watchmen at anytime. It even spelled out the terms: a cash buy out of Fox's previously accrued costs and a smaller percentage of revenues than the one Warner Bros. now has to pay. If only Gordon had remembered to honor his obligation, he could have saved Warner Bros. some money here. Oh, well. Those Warner Bros. are good egg people -- I’m sure they’ll just forgive and forget. Right?

I like this tidbit which says alot to why the producers maybe didnt push to solve the issue until now

And so ends months of enormous free publicity for Watchmen, which not so long ago was deemed a marketing-challenged gamble, being that it’s an R-rated, 2 hour-plus superhero epic based on characters nobody knows. But director Zack Snyder's dark opus now enjoys intense Must See buzz thanks to the mainstream media’s intense interest in Fox’s dogged pursuit of justice, not to mention Warner Bros.' decision not resolve the matter until six weeks prior to the movie’s March 6 release, just as billboards and TV ads begin flooding the national mediasphere. Well played, folks. Well played.