Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies News Entertainment

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Fox Has Copyright Claim To Watchmen

Comments Filter:
  • Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by deathtopaulw ( 1032050 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @08:49PM (#26232549) Homepage
    Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.
  • Re:Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HiVizDiver ( 640486 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @08:56PM (#26232579)
    Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.
  • by Brad_McBad ( 1423863 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @09:02PM (#26232595)
    ... another film that ignores the meaning of the source work in favour of appeasing popcorn fifteen year olds.

    Alan Moore goes about it the wrong way, but he's right. Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 25, 2008 @09:46PM (#26232737)

    appeasing popcorn fifteen year olds.

    That sounds about right. It is a movie adaptation of a comic after all.

  • by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @09:49PM (#26232747) Homepage
    I can easily imagine such an issue forming around something more important, such as a medicine or piece of life saving technology.
  • Re:Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @10:25PM (#26232853) Homepage

    That's what they said about the Lord Of The Rings but it didn't turn out too bad, even though anal types still go on and on about how "unfaithful" it is.

  • by The Faywood Assassin ( 542375 ) <benyjr AT yahoo DOT ca> on Thursday December 25, 2008 @10:37PM (#26232889) Homepage

    I would have to say that a decent level of special effects are required. This does not mean that enough SE will over ride a crappy or non-existent story, but we have achieved a level of sophistication that we want to see superpowers that are "conceivably realistic" (if that isn't an oxymoronic request).

    I want to see webbing come right out of Spider-man's wrist, not Spider-man making a hand gesture and a net flying at the villain from off screen

    A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by insllvn ( 994053 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @10:44PM (#26232899)
    Moore hasn't seen it and has said he will assume it to be trash regardless of public reception, critical acclaim or the decent of the almighty to induct the work into some sort of cosmic hall of cinematic excellence. Moore has been burned so badly in the past, he fears the flame to much to come into the light. He is hardly unbiased. Neither is Gibbons, who, as others have noted, has financial interest in the success of the film. Shit, I guess the only fair thing to do would be to see it and pass your own judgment.
  • by east coast ( 590680 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @10:52PM (#26232923)
    Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywood version that was visually cool?

    I can't speak for the entire Watchmen thing as I'm not into the whole comic book deal but I will tell you that I found the ultra-low budget Call of Cthulhu [imdb.com] was just the thing to helping me get my Lovecraft groove back on after a long time away from the old gents works.

    And it's not that I've ever seen Lovecraft as low budget but I guess most people do simply by his association with the word "pulp."

    Now, would I rather see a high rent version of the same thing? Only if it was spent on actors who can act. Eye candy doesn't mean anything if I can't get into the story. Eye candy is only good if it goes unnoticed instead of being the focus of a film.
  • Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HiVizDiver ( 640486 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @11:05PM (#26232981)
    I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.

    All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it. ;)
  • by Jabbrwokk ( 1015725 ) <grant.j.warkenti ... m ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday December 25, 2008 @11:33PM (#26233089) Homepage Journal

    I downloaded all of the comics

    And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

    Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

    I imagine someone will release this movie, eventually. Warner will pay off Fox, or hold their nose and come up with some kind of royalties deal. But the funny thing is, after reading the graphic novel three times now, I don't really care if I see the movie or not. I know it will look cool, and the story might even be OK crammed into two-and-a-half hours, but the graphic novel will always be superior because it was never about plot.

    SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!

    The ridiculous ending makes that clear. Even the characters can't believe it actually happens. The book, at its core, is about different kinds of characters and how they cope with the ugly world around them. The character development which happens in the book will never translate well to movie format.

    So, sorry to flame you, but please, if you haven't already, go buy a copy of Watchmen and support the original creators. Otherwise it's like not voting and then complaining about the government. You know, like half of North America does.

  • by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @11:41PM (#26233117)

    Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywooded version that was visually cool?

    The important question is not whether it keeps the spirit and meaning of the source work, but whether it's a good movie or not. Converting any source work to another medium is difficult because you have to keep the spirit of the original, but still maintain the best qualities of the medium you're transporting it to. Keeping the spirit and meaning of the original will already ruin a movie adaptation because the original source material is more than a 2 hour movie will provide. This means it will probably be upwards of a 6 hour movie and nobody would watch that.

    Another thing about your hypothetical question is whether less than half a mil is enough to make such a movie and keep the spirit. The Watchmen was made by 2 very talented people, and that's about how many it takes to make a great graphic novel. To put in the same amount of production value that the graphic novel had into the movie would be a large undertaking. You need actors, a director, producer, camera crew, etc. Something like Watchmen made for less than half a million will look like an Ed Wood film. Terrible acting, terrible set design, terrible costumes, etc. How can a movie like that ever do the original Watchmen justice - even if the script is the best Watchmen script ever written? If you're making that movie, you're throwing away the best parts of filmmaking so why make it?

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @11:44PM (#26233139) Homepage

    as i understand it, Watchmen consists of only 12 standard comic books. and the hardcover release is listed on Amazon as having only 436 pages. it's not inconceivable that they could adapt the comic into a trilogy or quadrilogy/tetralogy.

    It's pretty inconceivable, though. Watchmen isn't an adventure story like LotR. It's really an exploration of characters and ideas set in the form of a murder mystery within the milieu of American comic-book superheroes. Breaking it into two or more movies would be highly unsatisfying. It might be possible to break it at the point at which [characters] decide to help [character] escape from [place], but most of the "action" up until that point takes place in flashbacks! The audience would be left looking forward to the big climax, sure -- but they'd mostly feel puzzled and ripped off, because the entire setup of the movie was the mystery of who killed [character] and they never found out who. In fact, they would barely have even been offered a suspect by that point.

  • by Ender Wiggin 77 ( 865636 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @12:10AM (#26233211)

    I downloaded all of the comics

    Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

    To be clear, you're saying people should only pay to read a book, see a movie, etc, if they end up liking it?

  • by Landshark17 ( 807664 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @12:58AM (#26233349)
    As Quint pointed out on Ain't It Cool News, Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film, suggesting it might be an attempt to scoop up the cash on a blockbuster they wouldn't have to pay for.

    Full article here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39578 [aintitcool.com]
  • by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:04AM (#26233371) Journal

    A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

    Not a Doctor Who fan, I see.

  • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:15AM (#26233405) Homepage

    Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

    Huh? Where have you been for last century plus? Hollywood has never been about coming up with it's own ideas - it's been all about adapting since Day One.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:18AM (#26233413)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:32AM (#26233443)

    No, he's wrong. I will grant you that I haven't read V for Vendetta, so I can't speak to its faithfulness as an adaptation. However, it is an excellent movie on its own merits. Even if it does leave something to be desired as an adaptation of the book, well, it's in good company, many adaptations have that flaw. Something's faithfulness as an adaptation of the original material and its worth on its own are completely separate concepts. LOTR has some serious problems as an adaptation of Tolkien's work, but is an excellent movie nonetheless.

    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.

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:43AM (#26233477)

    The reason 'I-just-made-him-up-man' doesn't generally show up in the box office is simply because there's no anticipated built in audience.

    Even though Hancock was somewhat of a Zzzz movie for me, it managed to make $600m worldwide.. So it's not unprecedented.

    Although, really what it comes down to is that good film ideas don't make it to the surface often in Hollywood. Regardless of the great ideas that may get bandied about on a daily basis, all you have to do is consider that they made _3_ movies in the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107438/ [imdb.com] 'Look who's talking' series.

    _3_

    Sit and think about that for a second.

    _3_.

    __ 3 __

    And yet, we still have yet to see Goonies _2_.

    fuck Hollywood.

    fuck them up their 'Lets bring Michael Knight back' asses.

    They did the Watchmen movie for the simple reason that 'gritty' comic book movies were proven hot by Sin City and 300. Look on IMDB, Sin City 2 is in pre-production and Sin City 3 is in planning. They're already planning "300-2" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/ [imdb.com].. Are you kidding me?

    Hollywood finds one single good idea and then spreads it as thin as possible until we are revolted by the idea of _another_ film in the series coming out. Then they find a new idea. Then in 10-20 years it becomes retro and cool again and a new generation of dummies will line up for the rehashed garbage that the latest generation of sub-retarded writers belch out in-between the projects they _really_ care about..

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nick Ives ( 317 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @02:15AM (#26233571)

    If it's being shot on film then it's 24,000 words per second. PAL and NTSC just duplicate some of those words and then mix them back in to give the appearance of more words per second.

  • Re:horray! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @07:58AM (#26234307)
    Please explain to me how this isn't a perfect description of what the situation is ALREADY LIKE RIGHT NOW.

    Because suddenly the 'everyone' that pirates films includes the cinemas, who can charge the public to watch the film on the big screen, but don't have to pay the studio for it. Beats having to gouge on popcorn and Pepsi to turn a profit, doesn't it?

  • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @09:12AM (#26234441) Journal

    I downloaded all of the comics

    And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

    Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

    No.. seriously.. Fuck off.

    One's opinion is irrelevant since one has not payed for something? Then there is a shitload of stuff out there about which our opinions don't count.
    From online comics to pop music on the radio to motherfuckin Bible and Qur'an. Free stuff all... But you can't have an opinion on it.
    Unless you buy the printed/recorded version of it.

    Or is the idea that one's opinion is irrelevant unless you pay the author of the work?
    Well fuck... guess we should just stop talking about Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Byron, Da Vinci, Van Gogh and every single dead artist and their work cause as much as we try it ain't likely that they will ever see a dime from us.

    And since I too have read Watchmen first in scanned form, only later getting my own printed copy, I guess that makes our opinions about on the same level.
    BUT... Since I bought the more expensive Absolute Edition AAAAND a regular paperback edition for a friend of mine - my opinion counts more.

    Now... had there not been that scanned version, I probably would never have heard about it until this summer.
    And even then - I'd probably just watch the movie. Downloaded, naturally, since my town still lacks the cinema.
    And it would remain at that.
    Moore and Gibbons wouldn't get a dime.

    Scanned comics and free online versions of comics (see Warren Ellis' and Paul Duffield's FreakAngels [freakangels.com]) are a great way for an audience other than the members of hardcore comic book geek society who practically live inside the comic book shops - to get introduced to the story.
    Same goes for the fansubs of various anime series.
    Get the stuff to the people. If they like it - they will buy it.
    If it is good - they might buy it (eventually) even if they don't like it.

    Let me end the rant with another Moore's work that illustrates this last point.
    The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier.
    I liked the first two volumes of "The League". In fact I found them to be great.
    And I loved the start of the "Black Dossier", with it's 1984 references and all (actually it is done practically as a sequel to 1984)...

    But the more you read, the more you see that there is no real story. Only obscure cultural reference, upon reference, upon reference...
    The main characters just go from location A, to location B, to C with any real plot actually being in the stories in the dossier.
    Its great work - but in the end you realize that nothing really happened. Moore practically tells you - "Forget it kid, its only a comic.".
    And I could bet that he is laughing his ass off for making people wear those silly 3D glasses that come with the book.

    Now don't get me wrong.
    I love the obscure cultural references and seeing artists just letting loose their creative vibe - but in the end, I liked the original League stories more. Much more.
    Did I like it? Sorta... In the beginning... less later.
    Was it good? Undoubtedly.
    Will I get it in printed form? Yes.
    Would I ever have read it or the first two volumes after that terrible movie, had they not been around for free? Highly unlikely.

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HiVizDiver ( 640486 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:16AM (#26234651)
    As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one. :)

    That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"

    I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance. ;-)
  • Re:Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grahamd0 ( 1129971 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:53PM (#26235757)

    Actually, Alan Moore does write comic books and is frankly incensed about adapting his work to any other medium. He disavowed any connection to both V for Vendetta and Watchmen. It's not really Alan Moore you need to tell off.

    irony - noun
    1. That Alan Moore, author of "The League of Extraordinay Gentlemen", believes that it is wrong for another artist to re-interpret his work in a different medium.

  • Re:Too Bad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LateArthurDent ( 1403947 ) on Friday December 26, 2008 @04:40PM (#26236599)

    Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.

    Eh...The best directors that have ever existed are living right now with the exception of hitchcock and kubrick neither of whom had a style appropriate for watchmen. If you say welles should be on that list of great dead directors, you suck...Citizen Kane is way overrated.

    See how ridiculous that sounds? Yes, the directors above are great (even welles. Citizen Kane seems overrated if you watch it now because all the shots that were revolutionary in that movie are now used in every movie you've ever seen, so we completely miss out). I also ignored a whole bunch of great past directors, some of whom you probably enjoy quite a bit. That's what you're doing to today's talented directors.

    Zack Snider isn't quite there yet, but he has proven that he can do something most good directors absolutely FAIL at: perform a straight adaptation from a different medium without inserting his own "vision" into it and changing it into something else. 300 captured everything that was good about the comic book, up to and including the artwork. If somebody is going to capture what made watchmen a masterpiece, I think he has the qualifications to do it...and lucky us, he's the one at the helm.

    Try not to be that elitist...this is the best age of film, RIGHT NOW and we have plenty of great writers and directors. Yes, we have tons of crap, but we're putting out so many movies that we also have fantastic stuff coming out. You just need to learn to filter the noise from the signal.

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

Working...