Fox Tries To Kill Watchmen
from the thank-you-intellectual-property... dept
The movie version of DC Comics' Watchmen is getting a lot of hype these days, as the early buzz on the film is quite strong. But, you may not get to see it at all. That's because 20th Century Fox claims that it owns the rights to Watchmen, despite the fact that the movie was being made by competitor Warner Brothers. Fox had owned the movie rights to Watchmen decades ago, but was unable to make a movie out of it. However, the producer that Fox had originally signed to do the project eventually popped up at Warner Brothers with the project. Fox claims it still owns the rights and is suing Warner to stop the release of the movie entirely. Most expect that this will get settled long before the movie's scheduled release in March of next year -- but it will probably mean that Fox gets some of the profits for doing absolutely nothing.To be honest, the whole concept of selling off exclusive rights to a story idea for a movie never made that much sense. If multiple studios want to make multiple movies out of the same concept, why shouldn't that be allowed, letting the best movie win in the marketplace? If the original content creators feel strongly about a vision, then they can sign up to work with one particular studio to make sure the movie is more true to life -- but it shouldn't require "exclusive" rights. In fact, we've already seen this in practice. Technically, no one can copyright a true news story -- so movie studios have no exclusive rights to making a movie out of a news story. Yet, they will often still buy the rights -- without it being legally necessary. There are a few reasons why: it signals to others that you're making a movie on the topic and it often comes with ties to those close to the original story to get them involved in the project. Why aren't the same things done with adaptations?
We've seen a few authors recognize this. Jonathan Lethem freed up his latest book for anyone to make a movie out of it -- so long as they promised to put the movie into the public domain five years after it was completed. And then there's Paulo Coelho, who freed up one of his books and told fans to make their own movies about parts of it -- which he would stitch together into a larger movie. If Fox really wanted to make a Watchmen movie, it should have done so. It shouldn't now prevent someone else from doing so -- or, even worse, get a cut of the action for doing nothing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: movie rights, movies, watchmen
Companies: dc comics, fox, warner brothers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FOX needs to fire their PR people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOX needs to fire their PR people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOX needs to fire their PR people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fox did plenty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fox did plenty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fox did plenty
I'll bet that they took a big write off on all their failled attempts at making the Watchmen and they couldn't have made any money actually making the movie with those development costs hanging over their heads.
Superman Returns had that problem of including twenty-five years worth of other Superman film projects into the final cost.
It just makes sense to separate R&D from the actual budget even in the movie business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even worse?
Sorry, I'm picking nits, but sometimes I gotta know, y'know? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even worse?
Heh, well it seems problematic to have someone rewarded for doing nothing, because it encourages more of that behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
But if Fox "owned" the rights, then how is it that nobody @ WB noticed this before they made the movie? It seems like somebody royally screwed the pooch, if Fox has a legitimate claim. Of course, this is going to open the proverbial flood gates, and any ass hat at a film studio that's ever even heard of a comic book will now go looking to option everything that had even half-way decent sales.
Yay! Nobody wins but the studios!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
Although they should have investigated, it was a reasonable assumption that they had the rights, since Warner Brothers owns DC Comics, which in turn published the original Watchmen comic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Rorschach would say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOX needs to fire their PR people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If FOX .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If FOX .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchmen is more than just a "concept"
A concept might be "A world where superheroes are depicted as real people". I think the story that different people would create around that concept would be radically different.
Watchmen is much more than a concept. It has specific characters and plot. If the creator of the work wants to sell exclusive rights to that work, then I see no reason to disallow him from that.
A concept might be a "man who can fly"; yet Hancock and Superman are radically different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is allowed
It is allowed, remember all the Joey Buttafuco movies (I like the Alyssa Milano one best myself). This is about IP really (not just a "concept") and FOX OWNS the watchman IP aparently. WB could have stolen the basic premis and made a new story with new charactors, but they didnt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox did nothing?
Having purchased the rights from the creators of Watchman to make the movie is absolutely something...
But Mike's mantra is "Copyright is bad, Patents are bad, free music is good"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox did nothing?
Fox's claims have not yet been substantiated. Even if it's true, Fox would apparently rather force a much anticipated movie to never be seen by anyone, than simply negotiate a share in resulting profits.
Typical of a troll here to ignore this kind of logical argument while pulling in bullshit (free music, patents) that actually have nothing to do with the issue at hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox did nothing?
Threatening to stop a movie is just a tactic to settle for more money. The movie will not be stopped from release by Fox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox did nothing?
This isn't a hard concept folks. IF Fox did indeed purchase the rights to make the movie form those who created the story and characters then they own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox did nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox did nothing?
Yes. Because I'd be trying to make a better movie. And if Disney could make a better movie on their own, then so be it. That's competition. It's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, you don't know why?
Of course, you probably know all that and your question was rhetorical, but just in case.
* I'm not saying there are no good movies out of Hollywood, only that those good movies are a result of good directors, actors, assistant senior key grip boy, etc. The studio people have no idea what a good or bad movie is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really, you don't know why?
Or seeing one movie would interest more people in the other.
Even more devastating, they would have to really try to make a good movie, because if one of them was good and the other a stinker, guess which one would make money?
Oh what a shame. They'd actually have to really try, as opposed to not trying at all? What's the problem again?
Thus, it's in their interest to eliminate competition by buying exclusive rights.
Well, I'd argue it's not. Because if competition actually did force them to focus on making good movies, they'd get a lot more business and do better for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really, you don't know why?
While it's possible, it's not likely. This happens fairly frequently, where two studios are developing films with similar themes--two "asteroid is about to hit earth" or two "volcano" movies. The results are usually a cannibalization of viewership, especially in ticket sales. More common these days is for studios to reject to put into turn-around projects that have competition in development at another studio.
You seem to assume that without direct competition, studio's generally aim to make crappy movies. While there are certainly many crappy movies being made, it's not due to lack of competition; indeed, most of the crappy movies are made to capitalize on the success of good films.
But exclusive rights to specific property is different than studios competing on general themes. As another commenter noted, studios generally won't buy anything but exclusive rights to eliminate the threat that someone else will "steal" the market for that property. Under your scenario where exclusive rights did not exist, you'd likely get less quality as studios rushed to be first in the theaters. Even if a better film of the same property landed later, the audience for that property would be drastically diminished.
Then there's the original author to think about. Selling the exclusive rights to your comic book or novel is part of your livelihood. If everyone has the "right" to film your novel, why would they pay you a dime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exclusive Rights have to do with "authorship"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox like patent trolls?
Second, if Fox still does own the exclusive rights to the movie deal, aren't they just like the patent trolls? Just lying in wait to see if the WB movie looks like it will rake in bags of cash and then play their trump card? ("Ahem, I think some of that money is ours")
Just my 2 cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo fucking hoo, FOX.
The producer went to FOX in 1991. FOX FAILED to produce the movie. The producer left. Then 17 years later, the same guy goes to Warner Brothers, the owners of DC comics as well, to see if they'd like to make the movie.
FOX: You lost the rights when you failed to make the movie and then tossed the IP aside. But then, once the company that actually owns the company that made the comic decides they're going to make a movie out of it - you pipe up about it. If the judge has any sense he'll just tell FOX to fuck off, in those words exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]