Judge Rules Fox Has Copyright Claim To Watchmen 262
fermion writes "According to the NYT, a judge has decided that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen, not Warner. Is this an example of copyright law becoming so complex that companies can abuse the court system to prevent competition, or just extreme incompetence by Warner? In the current business environment, either explanation is believable. Yet it is unbelievable that seasoned producers would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create a movie that they can't even release. It seems the judge didn't want to bring this to a jury, and maybe daring Warner to appeal, or Fox to settle." The article says that Fox acquired movie rights to the Watchmen story in the late 1980s, but budget disputes and personnel changes have muddied the waters; Wikipedia has a bit more on the "development hell" which has plagued the film project.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.
By cutting a lot and releasing an extended version later that is 220 minutes [scifi.com] long.
Re:Too Bad (Score:2, Informative)
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film. I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better. I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily. Like a graphic novel, there are depths of detail and meaning in film that give themselves up on a first viewing, and I am really looking forward to getting the director's cut of the DVD so I can go through it frame by frame. Which itself is a similar experience some have the first time they read Watchmen, and which the film is cruelly denying me! [Laughs]
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/archaeologizing.html [wired.com]
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.
Theres no way to keep 100% of it unchanged and uncut, but that's true of any media conversion. Many people seem to consider the original comic book form to be perfect, many of those people are going to be disappointed with the result no matter how good the movie is of it's own right. Some because they read the comics first, some because of a warped sense of elitism. That doesn't mean the movie is doomed to be worse than the comic books to an unbiased judge. It could be changed for the better.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1, Informative)
I guess you know more than the artist who drew the graphic novel, and has, you know, SEEN the movie
Yes. Ignore the fact the the graphic novel's writter and creator, Alan Moore, thinks so poorly of the project that he doesn't even want his name attached to it:
'I will be spitting venom all over it' [latimes.com]
But I guess that you know more than him.
Adaptation rights != copyrights (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Informative)
[...] where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm.
Probably the greatest example of a book changing when made into a movie, yet both being fantastic in their own ways, would be Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? [wikipedia.org] and Blade Runner [wikipedia.org].
Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
copyright interest != copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Fox might hold an exclusive license to the movie rights to the material, but that's a very different question.
If you actually bothered to RTFA carefully, you'd see that they have been ruled to have a copyright interest.
Since you're clearly ignorant on the matter and think "copyright interest" means "copyright" or "exclusive movie rights", try educating yourself instead [google.com].
I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"
Re:copyright interest != copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and try not to make ASSumptions about the people's background or opinions based on such a quick, emotional reading; I happen to be a staunch defender of copyright. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that despite your ludicrous statement that "IP law is simpler than..." that you meant to say the opposite, which is certainly true.
Re:Another Alan Moore IP... (Score:3, Informative)
Alan Moore is pretty much whining about nothing with V for Vendetta. It's not like they took his work, ripped it up, and made a mindless action movie of it. Whatever was changed from the original material, the end result is still a moving and thought provoking movie. That's hardly a failure.
One thing that was masterfully done on V, was the "update" to the story so the message would get to the new audience. Alan's work is a fierce critic to the Iron Lady, has a lot of jabs at the mechanization and computer domination of society. Those things would get to anyone that didn't live on those times. And like it or not, you have to make money. Those small changes on the story, were worth on it own, and did just to the message, while delivering it slightly different (and the new High Chancelor was awesome.)