New York Times provides an in-depth analysis of the Fox vs. Warner Bros. struggle over 'Watchmen'.
The article clarifies the basis for the legal arguments. The crux of Fox's argument is, yes, they put the movie in turnaround (a legal mechanism by which a studio divests its interest in a project) but the turnaround contract with producer Lawrence Gordon had many clearly visible strings attached. Writes NYT:
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.
And then...
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.
And then...
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.
Read the complete article for more interesting info about preceding cases (including some where an injunction was successfully attained to prevent the release of a film) and the other studio whom Warner already has a side-partnership with due to their turnaround attachments to 'Watchmen'.
LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
