I know that it's way too early for this but I found this article on The Watchmen which is supposed to be release next March 2009.

Kevin Smith says 'Watchmen' is astounding (insert 'but' here)
Aug 21, 2008, 08:06 AM | by Hollywood Insider
--Written by Jeff Jensen

While comic book aficionados wonder if Warner Bros. will release its controversial superhero flick Watchmen as scheduled next March, one famous fan of the groundbreaking graphic novel says he’s seen Zack Snyder’s $100 million opus, and judging from his reaction, it appears all the fuss the film has stirred up is worth it.

Clerks helmer Kevin Smith — who apparently was invited to see the film at Snyder’s invitation shortly after Comic-Con last month — has posted an unabashed rave for Watchmen over at MySpace: “I saw Watchmen. It’s f---ing astounding. The Non-Disclosure Agreement I signed prevents me from saying much, but I can spout the following with complete joygasmic enthusiasm: Snyder and Co. have pulled it off. Remember that feeling of watching Sin City on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals? Triple that, and you’ll come close to watching Watchmen.”

Of course, depending on how you felt about Sin City, Smith’s assessment may or may not strike you as impressive. So EW.com asked Smith — currently prepping his R-rated lewd laugher Zack and Miri Make A Porno for a Halloween premiere — to expand just a smidge: “My God, the flick is amazing.” Okay. And? “Anything more and I start getting phone calls.” Fair enough.

Smith’s gush might be encouraging for those who’ve long doubted that even a good film could be distilled out of Watchmen’s dense, complex story, let alone one that’s “f---ing astounding.” But there is still reason to worry: as EW reported in July, Snyder is currently endeavoring to trim a nearly three-hour version of Watchmen (which is believed to be the iteration Smith saw) down to two hours and 25 minutes, the studio’s desired running time, even though Snyder’s preference is that the movie be released as long as possible.


In the wake of Twentieth Century Fox’s lawsuit against Warner Bros. over Watchmen’s distribution rights — a complaint that seems to be valid, based on available court documents — some fans fret that Snyder might be asked to cut even more to improve its chances at being profitable. The angsty logic, expressed on a different geek hub message boards, goes like this: if Warner Bros. has to settle with Fox, or is forced to share revenue with Fox, the $100 million movie becomes even more expensive for Warner Bros. Sure, Watchmen might be great at 145 minutes, but if it’s good enough at a shorter length, which could generate an extra showing per screen, per day, that’s more money for the studio. (We tried to run that bit of thinking past Snyder himself, but he declined to comment.)

As Watchmengate — perhaps the priciest whoopsie! in Hollywood history — continues to obsess fans and bloggers, there’s been much speculation about how much money might be at stake here. The Hot Blog’s David Poland at moviecitynews.com theorizes that Warner Bros. might have to fork over $25 million to settle with Fox. Then again, Fox might get even more if it becomes a profit participant in the film, provided the movie does blockbuster business, and especially if Fox gets dealt in on after-theatrical revenues like DVDs. Indeed, Warner sources indicated to EW last month that the property’s above-average potential as an ancillary media cash cow was a big reason why Warner Bros. greenlit the picture. Already, the studio could milk Watchmen for at least three different DVDs: the already-announced The Black Freighter companion disc, an animated film based on the graphic novel’s comic-within-a-comic; the theatrical version of the film; and possibly a separate director’s cut that restores Snyder’s three-hour vision and integrates the Black Freighter story into Snyder’s narrative, a kind of “absolute edition” of Watchmen: the movie the director is very keen on making available to fans.

Regardless, even Kevin Smith believes that no matter how the Warner Bros./Fox flap resolves itself, fans will be able to see Watchmen on March 6, 2009. “Nah,” Smith tells EW.com. “There's no way that situation doesn't get ironed out.”

This message has been edited. Last edited by: caresa,

After the astounding 300, we should expect more great things from Zack Snyder, especially working in the graphic novel genre, but glad to hear Kevin Smith confirms his adaptation of The Watchmen by the excellent Alan Moore (V for Vendetta) will blow you away.

And you know if Kevin Smith liked it, it must be a fantastic film. . . :eyeroll:

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
And you know if Kevin Smith liked it, it must be a fantastic film. . . :eyeroll:

That's funny coming from you... Kevin Smith's next film stars your favorite Apatow alumni, Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks... with the added bonus of Traci Lords! Or doesn't that count for you without the official Apatow imprimatur stamped upon it? ("Accept no substitutes")... Most out of character for you to reject out of hand another sterling entry in the bona fide genuine raunchy comedy extravaganza sweepstakes!

PS: Thank you for agreeing about Running with Scissors.

While you two have your little mud-slinging match, I do want to say this: Kevin Smith is a comic book fanatic, and because of his directorial work, he has been pushed to the forefront as one of the loudest. Having read the graphic novel as I'm sure he did, he probably entered the film as most comic book fans will (looking for flaws). And seeing as how he enjoyed it, that means that it will at least be a mild success with the fan base.

There. I've said my peace.

From The New York Times

August 24, 2008

SCENE STEALER: The Murky Side of Movie Rights

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

LOS ANGELES

HOW could this happen? The question springs to mind as 20th Century Fox claims it has the rights to the graphic novel on which Warner Brothers is basing “Watchmen,” its giant superhero movie.

Peer deeper into the murk of Hollywood’s business practices, though, and the question becomes: How could it not?

The film industry was buzzing last week after a federal judge here allowed Fox to proceed with a lawsuit contending that Warner had filmed “Watchmen” without bothering to acquire rights that Fox says it has owned for 22 years. This eagerly anticipated movie is directed by Zack Snyder, of “300” fame, and is based on the illustrated series (republished as a graphic novel) by Alan Moore and David Gibbons.

Warner, of course, begs to differ with Fox. So the studios are squared off for battle. Fox wants an injunction blocking the movie’s planned release on March 6. Warner wants Fox to go away.

Studios have certainly fought like this in the past. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Sony Pictures Entertainment, for instance, swapped lawsuits a decade ago over Sony’s plan to make a series of James Bond films to rival MGM’s. MGM won, more or less, after Sony settled and dropped its films. But Sony soon wound up distributing a Bond movie, the highly successful “Casino Royale,” as it became financially involved with a reorganized MGM.

That battle grew from a decades-old fight between the filmmaker Kevin McClory and the author Ian Fleming over the rights to “Thunderball” (Mr. McClory had contributed to the screenplay).

The Fox-Warner tiff turns on matters potentially more nettlesome to the industry at large. Central to Fox’s complaint is the mysterious matter of what is called turnaround.

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.

Fox, in its complaint filed in February with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, contended, among other things, that Lawrence Gordon, a producer of “Watchmen,” was given a somewhat unusual perpetual turnaround right under an agreement reached in 1994. Such rights are conventionally given for a finite period, but Mr. Gordon, as a powerful producer who was once a Fox studio chief, may have had an edge.

According to the court filings, Fox had declared its willingness to part with the project under certain terms in 1991. In any case, Fox says, Mr. Gordon was supposed to resubmit “Watchmen” to Fox every time he came up with a changed element.

There certainly were changes. At one point, Terry Gilliam (“Brazil”) was supposed to direct it, at another, Darren Aronofsky (“The Fountain”), and at still another, Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”). Writers have included Sam Hamm (“Batman”), David Hayter (“X-Men”) and Alex Tse (“Sucker Free City”), among others.

Paramount, still another party in the mix, was once close to making the film. But its new chairman, Brad Grey, backed away and created a turnaround of his own in 2005.

Tantalizingly, Fox’s complaint, which does not name Paramount, said that Warner settled a dispute with an unidentified “purported rights holder” by sharing part of its own claimed interest. Patricia S. Rockenwagner, a Paramount spokeswoman, says her studio has foreign distribution rights to the film.

Warner gave “Watchmen” the go-ahead when Zack Snyder, immediately after his surprise hit with “300,” took it under wing. Yet Mr. Gordon, by Fox’s account, never checked back with Fox about any of this.

Mr. Gordon did not respond to requests for comment. Warner, both in court and in a statement last week, said it had done everything legally necessary to make the film.

In the real world, of course, turnaround — along with much of Hollywood’s machinery for securing film rights — long operated with a certain degree of messy pragmatism. Elements might change. Producers would proceed on a wink and a nod. When things were stuck, a bit of horse-trading got them moving again.

But the stakes have become too high for that sort of informality. “It’s gotten a lot more difficult,” Larry Stein, a veteran Hollywood lawyer at Dreier Stein Kahan Browne Woods George, said of the entire business of rights protection.

Studios, Mr. Stein added, “are securing their self-interest in every way they can.” After all, who wants to slip up when the fifth sequel to “Batman” can take in half a billion dollars at the domestic box office?

WARNER has been stung lately in some very different situations involving rights. In March, a federal judge here ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel, a co-creator of Superman, the studio’s mainstay hero, were entitled to reclaim a share in the copyright of the character. Lawyers for the studio have not yet given up the fight, and proceedings are continuing over what that will mean in dollars and cents. The studio’s New Line Cinema unit is also embroiled in continuing litigation with the heirs of J. R. R. Tolkien over their claim to have been defrauded of profits due from the blockbuster “Lord of the Rings” series.

In the “Watchmen” case, it remains to be seen whether the presiding judge, Gary A. Feess, will grant an injunction blocking the movie’s release while sorting things out. But in 2005, Judge Feess issued an injunction blocking the planned release of Warner’s film “Dukes of Hazzard” in a rights dispute, leading to a settlement under which the studio paid $17.5 million to a producer who claimed infringement.

There will be motions and hearings aplenty, however, before it comes to that. And those who watch closely may see enough of Hollywood’s process to wonder how movies get made at all.

Hopefully all of this can resolve itself before March 2009. But from I read, I'm begining to think that it possibly won't.

But my question is this: Why is all of this coming out now? Fox had to have known that WB was making this film, and now - only now - they're fighting WB on this almost at the eleventh hour? THAT doesn't make any sense to me.

Perhaps they saw the trailer and realize that The Watchmen is going to make loads of money (TDK type money? um, we'll see about that), and it's Fox's way to try to get a piece of that change ($$$).

This is from Daily Variety:

September 3
Judge sets 'Watchmen' trial for Jan. 6

The judge has set a Jan. 6 trial date for Fox's lawsuit against WB claiming distribution rights to "Watchmen," which is due for release March 6.

The trial date is sooner than what either studio requested, with WB pushing for April and Fox for June — both well after the current release date. The judge has indicated the case is not suitable for Fox's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the release of the film.

NYT's Micheal Cieply fills in the story with arguments from Warners, which says Fox said nothing about its rights while producer Larry Gordon shopped the project around town and that Gordon offered the project to Fox in 2005 only for it to be rejected. Previous reports had focused on Fox's side, in which the studio argues producer Larry Gordon never acquired the distribution rights from the studio.

While it makes a great story to play up the idea that this big-budget film could somehow be scuttled by this dispute, it's hard to imagine a situation where doing so would be in anyone's interest considering the film's already in post-production. It's likely going to come down to working out exactly how much has to be paid to whom. With the film looking at this point like a sure-fire hit, that number could be large.

Almost more interesting than the case itself is the way fans, bloggers and the media have been drawn to the story. Could the dispute's high-profile help settle the case by convincing both sides there's too much money to be made to risk missing the release date? Or could it entrench both sides and make it harder for either side to settle for fear of being made out as the "loser" in all this?

The long history of Watchmen rights and the dispute itself might make for an interesting film of its own. Just think of the fun that could be had with speculative casting for the part of Alan Moore disowning the entire project ...

From The New York Times

September 20, 2008

Battle Over ‘Watchmen’ Surrounds a Producer

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Visible through the glass door of the film producer Lawrence Gordon’s office here, a poster for his coming movie “Watchmen,” framed and ready for hanging, was propped against a wall this week.

Still to be determined: whether the black-and-yellow artwork, its distinctive happy face spattered with blood, will have some of its most important credits revised before joining Mr. Gordon’s crowded poster gallery.

A rapidly escalating legal fight between Warner Brothers, which has already shot “Watchmen,” and 20th Century Fox, which claims to own rights to the graphic novel on which it is based, is headed for trial in federal court in Los Angeles next January. That is just two months before Warner is scheduled to release the film in the United States, while Paramount Pictures distributes it abroad. (Legendary Pictures helped finance the film.)

The collision is extraordinary. Major studios have rarely if ever been known to sue each other over a $100 million-plus picture that has already wrapped.

The fight is still more puzzling in that it centers on Mr. Gordon, a 72-year-old show business veteran behind movies like the “Die Hard” and “Hellboy” franchises and “Field of Dreams.” This is a man, after all, who has taught more than a few producers how to work the studios without getting crushed between them.

“To a whole generation of us, Larry was our mentor,” said John Davis, whose producing credits include “Norbit,” “I, Robot” and, 21 years ago, “Predator,” on which he collaborated with Mr. Gordon and the producer Joel Silver.

During his brief tenure as president of Fox in the mid-1980s, Mr. Gordon built a staff that included now-prolific producers like Laurence Mark (“Dreamgirls”) and Scott Rudin (“No Country for Old Men”). Amy Pascal, currently co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, was another executive mentored by Mr. Gordon at Fox. And James L. Brooks — whose Fox film “Broadcast News” picked up seven Oscar nominations — began working as writer, director and producer at the studio under Gordon.

Mr. Gordon declined to be interviewed for this story, as did lawyers from the Beverly Hills firm Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette & Feldman, which has done much of his legal work over the years. Executives at both Warner and Fox also declined to comment.

But people on both sides of the dispute — who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing complications of the court fight — said Mr. Gordon was in a particularly delicate position.

Even though he has not so far been named as a defendant in the suit, Warner insists that Mr. Gordon is ultimately responsible for the validity of his claimed rights to the project. If Warner does not prevail in court, or chooses to settle, the producer could be pressed to cover any losses.

Crusty and charming by turns, Mr. Gordon, a Mississippi native, is no stranger to Hollywood roughhouse. In a 1983 go-round, for example, he secured a temporary restraining order against Paramount when its executives tried to throw him off the lot. Only a year after his spectacular success with “48 Hrs.,” studio executives had changed the locks and shut off the phones at his producer’s office in a tiff, according to news reports at the time, over his dealings with competitors.

As early as 1980, Mr. Gordon was already known for his skill at using the studios’ competitive instincts to get his movies made.

“Larry seems to have the record for setting up ‘turnaround’ projects,” read the studio notes for “Xanadu,” a Universal Pictures film that was released that year after first being developed at Warner. The notes referred to the complex process by which a studio may let another adopt one of its projects — sometimes to its embarrassment, if the resulting movie is a hit.

A dispute about turnaround now lies at the heart of the fight over “Watchmen.”

Beginning in 1986, Fox acquired rights to the graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, about superheroes who have fallen into disrepute. The plan at one point was for the film to involve Mr. Silver, a young producer who worked at the time in partnership with Mr. Gordon, whose tour as Fox president had been cut short by heart surgery.

But Mr. Gordon had soon formed Largo International, an independent company with Japanese backing — and he had a falling-out with Mr. Silver. In 1991, Fox, accommodating Mr. Gordon, granted Largo its rights in “Watchmen.” The studio was paid $320,000, according to recent court filings, and retained the right to distribute any movie Largo might make from the book.

Three years later, however, Mr. Gordon left Largo. And Fox again accommodated him, with a new agreement that granted Fox a right to become involved with the project any time a star, director, budget or other material element changed.

Warner now questions how Fox could have created a turnaround in rights it had already given to Largo. Fox argues that it still had rights under its original agreement, and consented to let go of the project both in 1991 and in 1994 only under conditions that were never met.

In any case, according to a person briefed on the dispute, the 1994 turnaround agreement did not find its way into Universal’s pile of documents when that studio checked the movie’s rights before putting “Watchmen” into development.

When the project hit a dead end at Universal, Mr. Gordon, well versed in the art of turnaround, moved it to Paramount. In keeping with industry practice, Universal’s paperwork regarding the rights followed — still without the 1994 agreement.

In 2006, “Watchmen” moved again, this time to Warner. Again, the documents arrived without the 1994 turnaround agreement.

“Watchmen” picked up heat early in 2007 when Mr. Gordon, having been through a series of prospective directors, Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass among them, signed a new director: Zack Snyder, who had just delivered Warner a surprise blockbuster with “300.”

Meanwhile Fox, after remaining passive for years, grew restive — perhaps because no one before had come close to starting principal photography. Shortly after Mr. Snyder announced his plans to make a “Watchmen” movie amid great hoopla at San Diego’s fantasy convention Comic-Con in 2007, Fox lawyers sent Warner a letter claiming rights under both the 1991 agreement and the later turnaround.

Fox has said in its court filings that Mr. Gordon never complied with a requirement that he resubmit the project to the studio when elements changed. Warner is expected to contend that Mr. Gordon offered “Watchmen” to every studio in town, including Fox. Still, Mr. Snyder came aboard and the entire cast was recruited after that contact, so elements had again changed.

Warner executives, according to people briefed on the matter, have privately speculated that Fox, faced with weakening performance at the box office, was angling for a small cut of the movie — perhaps 5 percent of its gross receipts. But Fox executives, also according to people briefed on the matter, were put off by what they saw as Warner’s failure to take their claims seriously, and delivered a shock by filing suit in February. As of this week the studios were jostling each other over what Fox now claims is Warner’s slow and inadequate compliance with orders to supply documents and witness lists under a schedule that may well put the movie — and at least four studios — in front of jurors rather than fans.

Mr. Gordon, meanwhile, appears to have made good on a philosophy he described almost 30 years ago.

“Most pictures are made because somebody else wants to make them,” he was quoted as saying in a 1979 issue of Screen International.

“As a producer, the only club you have is to have something that somebody else wants.”

From Daily Variety

Watchmen Preview: Review
[Posted by Marc Graser]
You’ve got to give Zack Snyder a lot of credit for knowing how to sell his movies.

The Watchmen director showed off nearly 30 minutes of new footage from the comicbook adaptation Wednesday to two groupings of bloggers and entertainment media.

He did the same thing two years ago for 300,”screening additional footage that wasn’t shown at Comic-Con to generate advanced positive word-of-mouth.

He got it then, he’ll get it again. The visuals are stunning. With Watchmen, he’s created a faithful adaptation of Alan Moore’s graphic novel that will satisfy fans. The characters pop off the screen; you can almost feel the texture of their suits, meticulously designed by Michael Wilkinson. The production design by Alex McDowell is overly theatrical but a world you want to visit. Overall, the sequences are mesmerizing and almost trance-like. And it’s dark. Very dark. The Dark Knight has nothing on the grit and violence that’s on screen. But it’s the over-stylized nature of how it’s handled that doesn’t make it cringe-worthy or unwatchable.

DC Comics has spent the past 20 years trying to adapt the comicbook, considered a bible of the superhero genre that other graphic novels and filmmakers have freely borrowed from. Snyder wants the film to be just as important to superhero movies as the graphic novel has been and he may get his wish. But he still has a lot to prove. The final film runs 2 hours and 45 minutes. It could still prove too faithful to the book.

But Snyder’s thought of that, too. The book gets too cerebral at times, with the reader wanting the characters to just start pummeling someone or do what superheroes do. A self-professed action geek, Snyder’s added more action. And while the superheroes do the prerequisite poses one might expect, the punches they throw are choreographed in a way that makes the fight scenes stand out from other similar fare.

What works about Snyder is not only what he puts up on the screen. It’s his infectious attitude, as well. He loves the experience of making movies. He loves the genre of films he makes. And you can’t help but want to get behind him, whether you end up liking the final product or not. 300 can hardly be called a masterpiece or even a great movie, but you have to respect the attempt to make something cool and badass – something you’ve never seen before. He’s delivering. And isn’t that the reason we all go to the movies?

The NYT's Michael Cieply filed a report remarkably quickly after the first Watchmen unveiling. Here's Anne Thompson's interview with Snyder at Comic-Con. And the trailer that was first shown there:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: caresa,

The Watchmen is in jeopardy of not releasing per Variety.

Posted: Wed., Dec. 24, 2008, 11:00pm PT

Fox wins ruling in 'Watchmen' case
Judge finds in favor of studio

By DAVE MCNARY

A Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns the distribution rights to "Watchmen," representing a setback for Warner Bros.' plans to release the pic in March.
“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.

Judge Gary Allen Feess issued the surprise ruling Wednesday -- a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit -- and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment.

Warner Bros. has not backed off a release date of March 6 for "Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.

Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.

The suit asserts that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in "Watchmen" was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement. Warner Bros. has denied Fox's assertions and contended Fox doesn't hold the copyright.

Fox originally acquired the rights to "Watchmen" in the late 1980s and spent more than $1 million developing the project, which later went to Universal and then Paramount before landing at Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.

The Watchmen is a complex, adult graphic novel, one that explores themes similar to TDK but makes that film look like a kid's cartoon.

You know how Warner Bros. can ram their tentpole pictures next year right up Peter Chernin's ass? Open Terminator Salvation 3 weeks or so early to eff up Wolverine's business. Hold back the next Harry Potter until Christmas...and schedule it same day vs. Avatar. Make it clear to Fox they'll keep doing it, and then see how long Rupert and Rothman are prepared to play chicken.

A plague on both their houses.

WB is the company that thought Slumdog Millionaire had no business in it and got Fox to distribute it in the US after shutting down Warner Independent and Picturehouse. And they now have announced that as of tomorrow midnight, Time Warner Cable across the country will not be showing Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and other Viacom channels.

These people are all venal idiots. WB in the case of Watchmen screwed up bigtime, and for better or worse, Fox seems to have the law on its side.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
These people are all venal idiots.

'
Oh, the studio that brought us "The Dark Knight" is a bunch of "venal idiots"?

Who ever would have guessed?

Accidents do happen.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
WB is the company that thought Slumdog Millionaire had no business in it and got Fox to distribute it in the US after shutting down Warner Independent and Picturehouse. And they now have announced that as of tomorrow midnight, Time Warner Cable across the country will not be showing Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and other Viacom channels.

Where did you hear this at?