As Expected, Warner Agrees To Fork Over Tons Of Cash To Fox For Watchmen
from the money-for-nothing dept
It will come as no surprise to anyone that Warner Bros. Studios and Fox have settled over the rights to Watchmen. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion once the court sided with Fox and said that Warner couldn't open the movie without agreeing to pay up. And, indeed, Warner will be paying a chunk of change, plus a percentage of the profits -- all for a movie that Fox had less than nothing to do with. Legally, it may be right, but from a common sense standpoint it makes no sense at all. Fox did everything possible to say that this movie should not be made. And it took none of the risks that Warner took... but now it gets a ton of money for it.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: fox, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wait I thought the court never ruled on this. They said that Fox had a legal interest but didn't rule on issuing an injunction to block the movies release, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing less than just deserts for Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing less than just deserts for Warner
Warner Music and Warner Bros. studios are two totally separate companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The movie studios will look up and shout "Save us!"
And I will whisper back "No."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been disappointed in our local store ever since it opened a couple of years ago. Poor customer service, nothing priced correctly, and difficult to browse inventory. I only went there when they had extremely cheap deals. And of course I'll go back for their liquidation sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did it happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did it happen?
All this whining over Fox getting paid for rights that they OWN is like listening to my four-year-old whining that he doesn't get to play with some other kid's toy, even though that other kid isn't playing with it.
What isn't RIGHT in this case is that Warner et al started mucking around with something that wasn't THEIRS to play with. Their mistake, and they're paying for it. What would be fair about Fox investing in the distribution rights, and then the producer turning around and going to another studio for production?
Now, if you want to argue against the concept of being able to "own" distribution rights, that's something else entirely. But the laws being what they are now, even common sense tells me that I wouldn't be able to make my own Harry Potter movie if J.K. Rowling herself asked me to, because someone else has invested money in the distribution rights to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How did it happen?
All this whining over Fox getting paid for rights that they OWN is like listening to my four-year-old whining that he doesn't get to play with some other kid's toy, even though that other kid isn't playing with it.
What isn't RIGHT in this case is that Warner et al started mucking around with something that wasn't THEIRS to play with. Their mistake, and they're paying for it. What would be fair about Fox investing in the distribution rights, and then the producer turning around and going to another studio for production?"
Exactly. The only people that didn't do their job in this case was Warner's lawyers, I suspect they've been shown the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OF COURSE!
35,000 people out of work is "on a positive note"?
Of course, so a few little people get squashed. It is worth it if we can stick it to a rich man or a corporation. Didn't you know that in the United States of Obamma sticking it to the rich is job number one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OF COURSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least that's what their accountants claim when it is time to pay out a percentage of the profits to a writer, director, actor, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.slate.com/id/2124078/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone here even read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone here even read it?
"That's it, I'm not going to see Watchmen now.
The movie studios will look up and shout "Save us!"
And I will whisper back "No.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone here even read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Has anyone here even read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last I heard G'Dub is still in Office. Guess next you'll say the state of the economy and bailout were Obama's faults/ ideas.
Fox has to recoup all the free campaigning for the McCain camp some how...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First Gas shot up after the new congress. The dems were in charge of all the crap with house. Gas and Housing were the gas and flame. Then we had a slowing. The dems saw it as an opportunity to win. All the news orgs starting hopping on every news item that made it look worse than it was. That started people pulling out of the market and the lack of credit due to congress not doing its job brought that cards falling down. That allowed Obama to win. In 3.5 years we will start to see a nice little uptake. That will allow him to win number 2. If we do not elect him as dictator for life by then, maybe the bailouts long term effect will be seen. This will then make sure we are in a good old fashioned depression and if Republicans have grown a pair by then they may have a chance. If not hopefully a real party will come to fruition that cares about things like freedom, the constitution and getting us back to were we should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you believe that the government is responsible for the crash of the housing market?
On top of that, you believe that Obama somehow enabled the McCain campaign to completely self-destruct and yet still only lose by a couple of percentage points?
Just askin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also a positive experience in the sense that you can guarantee that Hollywood is now double-checking its procedures, contracts and the way it licences material to avoid this happening again. A studio coming close to losing a $100 million+ investment to a rival is sure to have woken a few people up over there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, anyone remember when people were astonished at the original Superman movie which spent a then unheard of sum of 30 million for a budget? (5 million of which went right into the pocket of Marlon Brando BTW.....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
So in real dollars, it would still be considered a very expensive movie, but not unheard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no guarantee that Watchmen will make money. If it stays true to the novel it is going to be disturbing to the general movie-going populace. It makes The Dark Knight seem positively cheerful. And if they move away from the novel then they tick off all the fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Bros. should be happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've Read It
My #1 recommendation: Read it before the movie comes out. I'm really excited for the movie but there's no way it can live up to the novel. Read the novel before the story is 'ruined' for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how much was it?
You said that Warner had to fork over a "ton" of cash and a percentage of royalties for "Watchmen." How do you know? I have been unable to find any kind of terms or numbers for the amount of the settlement, but you state it as a certainty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just how much was it?
"Both studios declined to divulge specifics of the agreement in a joint statement late on Thursday."
Must be nice to have the inside scoop on a document that the two parties have not made publicly available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just how much was it?
The terms were not disclosed, but we can suspect, based on the lengths that Fox was apparently willing to go, that Warner had to pay a ton of money [I have to wonder how much a "ton" of money is in U.S. dollars], and may have included royalties.
I guess with the number of posts that Mike puts up per day that it can sometimes be difficult to maintain his own editorial standards (I think that was an example of a criticism based on personal opinion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
An upfront payment somewhere in the range of 5-10 million (including legal fees), somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-8.5% of gross revenues, and they also get a cut of revenues for any future spinoffs or sequels. It appears Warner Brothers is retaining sole distributorship of the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
At the end of the article you linked to, the author pointed out that it was "likely" to be an amount greater than another amount mentioned in the article. Appropriate journalism there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
I may be wrong, but I believe the author simply meant that the combination of the upfront settlement amount and the percentage of gross revenues would wind up costing Warner Bros. more than 17.5 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
I apologize for using the word 'known' instead of 'rumoured' or 'speculated'. I didn't realize how vigorously you were prepared to defend your "no details" comment.
On the other hand, you're far too dismissive of what was reported. Since the details won't officially be released, we're stuck with what insiders report. And since the speculated terms would net Fox a hefty payday, it doesn't seem that outlandish.
But hey, at least it gave you material for a few snide comments if nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just how much was it?
Maybe this hearsay pronouncement has some degree of accuracy as to the money changing hands, but there is much more to a license/settlement contract than just the financials. Each party invariably assumes reciprocal obligations, and without knowing what these obligations entail it is impossible to determine what the financials actually mean in the context of the license/settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't Fox's beef be with DC for reselling rights they already sold to Fox. Does Warner Bros have a case against DC for selling them rights they already promised to another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since Warner Bros has owned DC Comics since 1969, they'd be suing themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this delusional rant of yours has what to do with the Watchman/Warner Bros/Fox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They were lazy. You say they took a risk? I say they decided that the risk was minimal because the underlying foundation the Watchmen provides was more than good enough to warrant the effort.
Apparently Fox owns something monetizable, and Warner wants in on it without paying their dues.
Warner was arrogant and got nailed for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]