UPDATED: Watchmen Lawsuit Settled!

<font color="red">UPDATED:</font> Watchmen Lawsuit Settled!

We've received word that a settlement has been reached between Warner Bros and Fox. There will be a joint announcement Friday!

Our sources say that there will be continuing suits filed against producer Larry Gordon and the legal team that botched the deal, but that Warners and Fox will be set straight sometime today.

A "Notice of Settlement Status and Request For Further Hearing" has been presented to the court by Warner Brothers and FOX attorneys regarding the Watchmen case, IESB reports. The "further hearing" is requested for January 15 (today) at 3:30PM to discuss the settlement between the two parties, or, if the court rejects it, how to proceed with the scheduled January 20 hearing.

Stay tuned right here for more as it comes in...

More news now coming via the Hollywood Reporter...

Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over "Watchmen," with the studios scheduled to present a likely settlement to Judge Gary Feess on Friday morning and request that the case be dismissed.

Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's boxoffice. Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it own a piece of the "Watchmen" property going forward. The studios are set to release a joint statement announcing the agreement Friday.

A Warners spokesperson would not comment on the settlement. A Fox spokesman said no final deal had been reached.

Fox sued Warners in February, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with producer Larry Gordon. Feess ruled on Dec. 24 that Gordon did not secure the proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox before shopping the project and eventually setting it up with Warners. Feess' decision prompted settlement talks to heat up because Warners faced the prospect of an injunction stopping its March 6 release of the $130 million comic book adaptation.

While Gordon is not a party to the case, Warners is said to be pursuing the producer and his attorneys to reimburse it for the costs of the settlement. During the course of the litigation, Gordon's then-attorney admitted that he negotiated Gordon's 1994 separation from Fox without knowing about a pre-existing 1991 agreement on which Fox has based its lawsuit.

The rare showdown between studios became particularly nasty in recent weeks, with Gordon and the film's other producer, Lloyd Levin, lashing out at Fox for making a claim on the film. Fox repeatedly has stated that it asserted its "Watchmen" rights before Warners began production on the film and that it sued only when its assertions were ignored.

With the settlement giving Fox a piece of "Watchmen's" revenue, the studio now has a rooting interest in the film's success.
Posted By:
Member Since 4/25/2005
Filed Under "Watchmen" 1/15/2009
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
Shaman - 1/15/2009, 12:38 PM
It's not us, it's him!!! HE's the bad guy you want! GET'EM!!!

Man, this sounds too much like Sin Lasalle goin after his money in "Be Cool".

I take it Gordon's fired then? Typical bullshit, they blame someone lese to take the fall as if they're not big enough to take responsibility for their own direction.
GUNSMITH - 1/15/2009, 1:01 PM
StarksNStripes - 1/15/2009, 1:52 PM
Ozymandias would have it no other way.
Larry Gordon must take the fall so that the rest of the world can unite in peace to enjoy this film.
Shaman - 1/15/2009, 1:55 PM
Good point! It was all a conspiracy against Gordon. Come on Gordy, take one for the team!
Acerimmer1 - 1/15/2009, 3:19 PM
Screw that it's his fault anyway.
DrFever - 1/15/2009, 3:44 PM
Next geek boy nightmare that will prove to be pointless....

Nick Fury.
ItsNotASchooner - 1/15/2009, 4:28 PM
I just hope to see more Ed Norton in Hulk. I really think the Incredible Hulk hit all the right notes and is a great movie version of this iconic comic book character.
loganoneil - 1/15/2009, 4:46 PM
A settlement - can it be the movie will be released ON TIME? Oh happy day! Oh bliss! Oh rapture! Oh ambidextrosity! And I quote, "My nipples EXPLODE with delight...!"
DrFever - 1/15/2009, 5:05 PM
I still say it comes out right on time. No reason to even get all worked up.
redrum010 - 1/15/2009, 6:16 PM
Lets all now pray this movie lives up to the hype. To have it bomb after all this would be disastrous.
xaosjerk - 1/15/2009, 6:23 PM
The Hulk hit all the right notes? Who are you, the guy who thinks a fart on a snare drum is music? I like Ed Norton, but that movie was garbage, I don't think I have to elaborate, I'm hoping 90% of the people here agree(If theyve seen it) and the other 10% are legally brain dead(IE of Britney Spears level intelligence).
GUNSMITH - 1/15/2009, 6:44 PM
iNsaneMilesy - 1/15/2009, 6:56 PM
The Icredible Hulk was pretty good, considering the character.
xaosjerk - 1/15/2009, 7:04 PM
so we have 2 of the 10% so far, any more? Good to know who you are so I don't have to consider you opinion valid on anything in the future.
DrFever - 1/15/2009, 7:30 PM
I liked the new Hulk just as much IF NOT MORE then Iron Man. The ending fight was 100 x better.
DegenX - 1/15/2009, 8:13 PM
Hulk was awesome and he better be in The Avengers. Hope to see Edward Norton reprise the role in Avengers and hopefully a sequel.
Spock - 1/15/2009, 8:45 PM
I guess this is good news. Its always the little Man that gets the shaft.

"The needs of the Many outway the needs of the Few".
DrFever - 1/15/2009, 9:16 PM
also for the record...

Who watched My Name Is Earl tonight?

If you are a boycott person, I hope it wasn't you. Airs on NBC but turns out Fox makes it.
usclerkguy - 1/15/2009, 9:23 PM
Oh well somebody has to take the fall! Looks like WB and Gordon's lawyer didn't do their homework and ignored Fox to boot. Gordon had to know what he signed in 1991. At least it'll be out on time. Let's hope that with all this [email protected] sideshow circus crap that it'll be worth it.

BTW, The Incredible Hulk was a very entertaining film. It's much better than the Ang Lee debacle and also better than 75% of the comic book adaptations that have been made so far!
DrFever - 1/15/2009, 9:27 PM
without the internet...fans would have never EVER known this went down.

One needs to look at most news like that any more to not go crazy.
RorMachine - 1/15/2009, 10:16 PM
xaosjerk, i dont think the hulk reboot was bad, but i certainly agree it was not that good! Ang lee made a thoughtful, interesting movie but the fanboys wanted more HULK SMASH! and you got it. shame the reboot was as deep as a puddle
Shadowelfz - 1/16/2009, 1:12 AM
Xaosjerk, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yet everybodys opinion is worthless to everyone else's. so please, there is no need to insult anyone for thinking different than you. Learn some damn respect!
TheMyth - 1/16/2009, 6:42 AM
Guys I gotta say, I was never really worried about this whole thing. As Fox only owned American distribution rights, they would have burned themselves badly in this ordeal when the whole world was seeing this movie except for those of us who live in the U.S. Personally I think it was all a big marketing stunt more than anything. It is good news though and I will be at the theater opening weekend to see this movie.
Shaman - 1/16/2009, 7:38 AM
As for Watchmen, it's hype, whatever. I'll go see it like any other movie.

As for Hulk, was it a great adaptation? Tremendously! Was it a great sci-fi action experience? Undisputedly! Was it better than the previous movie? Duh! Was it a great "movie"? No. There is simply nothing that can be done with this "type" of character that would make the story "great". Even in the comics, it sucks. Even in it's tv show, it sucked. Even in all the movies that were made of it, it sucked. It's also the reason why Thor's movie has a greater chance of sucking balls because they ARE going with the whole "host" storyline with Donald Blake. It will suck like history has proven time and time again. There is no "depth" or "character development" that can be produced with this concept. I really don't know why they're continuing on with it. Putting that aside, do i have my copy of the dvd? Yes. Did i enjoy it? You DAMN right i did! Is it a "great" movie? Hell NO! But it doesn't mean that we can't still apreciate it. Not every movie can be as good as TDK but they can still be enjoyable.
comicb00kguy - 1/16/2009, 8:18 AM
As I've known from the beginning, this was going to be settled in plenty of time for the Watchmen movie to come out on time. Now don't all of you people who were getting all worked up about that "evil Fox" feel silly? Anyone who knows something about how lawsuits work knew that this thing would come to a settlement. All Fox really wanted was a cut of the action, and that's what they're going to get. There was never any REAL threat of the movie not coming out on time.

I agree with Dr. Fever that the next thing everyone is all worked up over that will prove to be nothing is the alleged Samuel Jackson thing. He'll be there when filming starts. Bank on it.

And finally: xaosjerk: please learn some tolerance for divergent viewpoints! Just because I like something you don't doesn't make ME brain-dead. The same applies for something you like that I don't. It's all OPINIONS, my friend. Nobody is "right". The Hulk wasn't perfect, but as someone who grew up watching the old TV show, it was a fun and enjoyable film that captured a lot of the essence of what makes the Hulk interesting in the first place, imo.
TheMyth - 1/16/2009, 8:20 AM
I gotta disagree with you about the "Incredible Hulk" movie. I concede that in the comics he is a somewhat limited character, but if you want to see some great writing with the character, Bruce Jones was the writer for a longtime about 5 years ago. He made a great story with incredible artwork... it's what got me buying Hulk comics on a regular basis versus the occasional big event. And Edward Norton and William Hurt were incredible. Tim Roth didn't stand out, but he wasn't bad. I always find Liv Tyler a little vacant. It doesn't rank with "Empire Strikes Back" or "Fight Club" on an Epic greatness scale, but it did stand out and is a very entertaining movie on many levels.

Thor however probably will suck. I didn't like him in the comics anyway and the Donald Blake origin just never settled with me either. This is one character I wish they would take the Ultimates route with. I swear if I see him in that goofy winged helmet I will poop myself laughing.
gamerjoe - 1/16/2009, 8:51 AM
why are people talking about the Incrediable Hulk on a watchmen post ?
RorMachine - 1/16/2009, 10:54 AM
Because we can
xaosjerk - 1/16/2009, 11:11 AM
I used the name "Xaosjerk" on here for a reason, I'm often a jerk, meh. I don't agree at all that the Hulk couldn't be a great movie, I did actually like the Ang Lee one better than the new one even though I really like alot of the actors in the new one, theyve all done tremendous jobs on other films. I'd chock this failure up to the director/and or producer. A movie doesnt have to be thoughtless and campy to be a great action flick, TDK, LOTR, and the Matrix are all examples of action flicks that worked really well.

Theres plenty of good story just in the concept of the Hulk(which is basically Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde, which has always been a great storyline) even if youre going to totally bastardize it from its original form. It just takes good acting, good directing and editing, good writing and reasonably good special effects. The Ang Lee one had it's faults as well, it built up to be really dramatic and then in the end his father as the bad guy just fizzled out into a bad execution as well as the dog fight being really cartooney.

Regardless If youre going to accept a movie like T.I.H. as an example of a good comic book movie, youre never going to make the studios realize that a comic movie can be, and most often should be more than a Van Dam movie with expensive CGI(especially with a classic like Hulk if you want to take a dump on a snare drum do it with some hollywood invention or something no one cares about like the Savage Dragon or something), and since you have gone further in patronizing this product ("Do I have the movie in my collection: Yes.") you've encouraged their complacency, explicitly telling them they done good, and the rule of evolution is that characteristic which is successful will be reproduced and reproduced infinitum.

I wasnt that big a fan of Iron Man either, though I think it was better than Hulk (Not by that much), For super hero comic movies I'd go something like #1 Watchmen (I'm pretty confident from what I've seen), #2 TDK (regardless of the I heart the Bush administration thing going on in it with the message that warrantless wiretapping and torture are cool if youre fighting a violent enemy, lying to the public is totally justified, and that democracy makes bad decisions and that instead elite individuals make better decisions IE justifying every monarchy dictatorship and junta the world has every suffered) , #3 the original batman movie, once you get there it falls off pretty steeply, but I have hope for the future if we reward the really good ones like Watchmen is going to be.

Also back to Watchmen I'm quite happy and satisfied with the settlement as consistent with the way our copyright and legal system work atm, I do have strong objections about that system, but it is what it is, and FOX did well enough in letting the film go forward for a cash reward.
comicb00kguy - 1/16/2009, 11:12 AM
As far as Thor goes, the Donald Blake origin always worked for me, but I guess that's because I'm older, and that's the origin I remember. After all, who would imagine that a skinny little doctor who walks with a cane could turn into Thor? I don't much care for the Ultimate Thor. His origin just doesn't have anything special about it to me. He just seems to be a platform for Millar to hang his radical liberal views on to me.

And yes, I do want to see Thor with the big winged helmet. That thing just LOOKS like something a god would wear. Remember when Thor showed up on the Hulk TV-movie back in the day? He didn't look god-like at all in that costume! Again, I'm older, so the costume with the winged helmet and the big cape is the Thor I know.

I do agree with you on one thing- I was never much of a fan of Thor overall- I just always thought his book was kind of hard to follow. He worked as an Avenger because there weren't all those Asgard characters around that I just couldn't get interested in.
adamant877 - 1/16/2009, 11:18 AM
The WHOLE reason that the character of Thor existed in the Marvel universe, was because his father (Odin) decided to teach the thunder god humility... So he attached his essence to a mortal being, and anchored him to midgard! (That's "Earth", for the laymen) It just wouldn't make any sense to just have Norse, Greek, Roman, or any other pantheons of Gods just APPEAR after hundreds of years of absenteism!
Now, with that said... Why the hell would we NOT see Donald Blake in the Thor movie?! Half of the character of "Thor" as he exists in the Marvel universe IS Donald Blake!
Sure, there have been alterations to this as of the last few decades, but look at any other character that goes through alterations, they're cyclical, and are important for character development and keeping the characters interesting.
(But I'm getting off point...)
If what I've read about the adapted screenplay online proves even remotely accurate, you won't even see the "Donald Blake" change up until the end of the Thor film, so what's the deal?!
WeaponX - 1/16/2009, 1:59 PM
loganoneil - There you are. The movie will be out(like I assumed it would the whole time), it looks like waiting and seeing worked out after all. You can stop polishing your rifle.

Anyway, I'd be pissed too at Gordon, throughout all the information given to us about this case, between the lines it always looked like Gordon was trying to pull a fast one and save a few of his own dollars, now he made Warner Bros. look like retards and Warner Bros. doesn't like to be made to look like retards, least of all by someone else. They take pride in doing that job themselves because no one does it better. It's never been a secret FOX are shifty bastards, so not much can be said about them that hasn't been said before. But stupid Larry Gordon has signed his own death warrant over at WB, it'll be a cold day in hell before they do business with him again.

But then again they are retards...
Shaman - 1/16/2009, 1:59 PM
For all the people who didn't understand what i had written about TIH as a movie, it meant it's a very enjoyable movie but not a great one. Great being TDK, IRONMAN etc. It also links to what i meant about Hulk's and Thor's character not having any depth or character development. The difference between them and Ironman/Batman is that in this case multi-billionaires that live double identities having to fight crime on each side of the medal all while upholding their values but having to live with solitude so no one around them gets hurt is called character developement. In the other case, two halfs of two different characters mixed into one doesn't leave much room for development. If i take Hulk's character, he's half bruce, half Hulk. That means he'll spend half the time smashing stuff and half the time trying to control himself to not spend more time smashing stuff he doesn't want smashed. That's not depth, that's not development, it goes nowhere. As for thor's character, he spends half the time as a wuss of a doctor and half the time as the god of thunder. Asgard meets ER, wow i can't wait. Donald "changes" into Thor being a "host" for him meaning that when he is donald he isn't Thor and when he's Thor, he isn't Donald. Now it really doesn't seem to show much learning ability from Thor having to do with humility now does it? If Odin wanted to teach Thor humility, he could've just emprisonned Thor on earth having to actually pose as a human. But the way it works with the good doctor doesn't go anywhere. No development what so ever. The only slight depth you could add to a character of that concept is by throwing in a love interest which is incredibly lame for our day and age. It worked back then but not today. People are sick of seeing Superman having to save lois every day, they want him to ditch the bitch and kick alien ass! Romance is LAME, it isn't considered depth anymore by today's standards. And it made TDK that much better having Rachel choose Harvey instead of Bruce. Killing her was the cherry on the sunday actually. Incidently, it was also one of the major problems with Spider-man 3. The more Peter grows as a character, the more love interests he gets which is lame. Is that all there is to life? Shit, if that's all it takes, they should make a movie about me, it would sell to the masses... NOT!!! By looking at all the characters in that movie, none of them had developement which is exactly what made Mary jane suck. She had developement in the first one and was amazing, she had some in the second one and was okay but she had none in the third and sucked. Now you've got people including myself, wanting her to be pushed down an elevator shaft! So if Adamant877 is right and the Doctor shows up at the end, well it might be a good movie but would mean that his next one will be less. UNLESS!!! Unless they fix it differently. If let's say... he was THOR all the time but TRAPPED in Donald Blake's body... THEN we would have intrigue, depth and character development. That would be interely different.
Shadowelfz - 1/16/2009, 2:19 PM
See, there you go Xaojerk. Thats better theres no need to attack people. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and hell I'm even interested in what other people think even if I do not agree with them or their politics. I like visiting this websight because I can get the lowdown on the next adaptation being made. What I don't like is being insulted for thinking differently than someone else. Would you like it if I were to call you stupid for not liking the Hulk? No, so unless you like being attacked, please people dont insult anyone here for thinking differently. We all come here for news on comic book movies, not to be unnecessarily attacked. Remember that before you post something.

As for Thor, I don't know I never found the character particularly compelling in the first place to make a movie about him. I'd prefer if they used the Ultimate Thor where hes just a strange man with strange powers who shows up and helps his teammates when they need him before taking off. Adds a whole new level of depth for the character, and they wouldn't have to make a big budget film for an otherwise two-dimensional character. But, I am glad that they are making a Thor movie for the fans.
BillyBlack - 1/16/2009, 3:18 PM
I don't know your politics Xaosjerk, but I share your opinion on The Incredible Hulk. It sucked, save for the final battle scene. But that could not save it from Liv Tylers bloodless turn as Betty Ross. In fact, I found most of the performances to be fairly bland. Ang Lee's Hulk was the superior film IMO. Less smash yes, but far more substance and character.
xaosjerk - 1/16/2009, 8:04 PM
If someone called me stupid for not liking TIH I wouldn't dislike it, I'd merely be amused, sort of the way I'm amused when people try to tell me that Bush 2 kept me safe these last several years, and I shouldn't go burning mockups of him in my yard in effigy every christmas. I hear ya BillyBlack (90%er there goodun)

Not really a Thor fan, seems kinda wierd that theyre doin a movie of him, I guess we'll see, anything can be done well, and I'm open to being pleasantly surprised (I'm looking at you Dawson's Trek).
saintc - 1/17/2009, 2:59 PM
Yay! Finally...
xaosjerk - 1/19/2009, 4:06 PM
lots of new stuff on the main watchmen website new audio and video, the character focused interface has videos and audio for each char now go check it out
DeadWebHead - 1/20/2009, 4:08 AM
xaos, you're not a jerk, you're just one of those pretentious dolts that finds something wrong in things that are liked on a mass level simply for the sake of being different. The only reason you couldn't find something negative to say about the Dark Knight was because there was nothing wrong with the Dark Knight so you just accepted it. Your entire scale of judgment is warped. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE HULK TO BATMAN (or the watchmen for that matter). Batman is a very deep character with many personality quirks and emotional turmoil and the Watchmen is developed around the concept of deep, personal faults within the characters. The Hulk... never that deep. The mechanics of his character are pretty simple... Internal struggle with the monster within, fugitive, in love with his greatest antagonist's daughter, that's the big green machine at his core. Sure they emphasize on him in certain story archs (Illuminati) but he's a pretty basic character. I'd say he's on a pretty low tier of complexity, only over characters such as Doomsday (Destroy... the end).
Basically what I'm saying is that you can't expect a deep meaningful movie for a character like the hulk. The Incredible Hulk was a perfect comic book movie for the kind of comic book it was based off of, without being too ridiculous like THE HULK (Ang Lee).

As for Ironman, sure they didn't get into how deep that character really is (substance abuse) but this was an introductory movie, hopefully the next SOLO movie will be much darker and delve more into his issues
xaosjerk - 1/20/2009, 11:42 AM
I really don't see how batman (guy who has parents killed by mugger and then wants to fight criminals in responce) is more complicated than the Hulk, sure when he becomes Hulk he's just all "Hulk smash!" but whatever bad directing is bad directing. The Hulk has a fascinating internal struggle that essentially is a good man with a temper trying to control it. The 300 didnt have complex characters except perhaps the humpback, and yet was a fantastic film, don't give me this 'there must be a complex psychology in a character for them to be filmed well.

I liked batman because of the Joker mostly, and dent and his heartthrob weren't bad either.

I'm not pretentious, in fact I'm one of the least pretentious people I know. I say what I think regardless of it being unpopular (actually with TIH I thought I'd be more in the mainstream camp, but then there are a lot of tweens into comic movies now)

Having a different opinion than most doesnt make one pretentious (It can of course depending on the person). Usually a pretentious person is seeking acceptance and pretends to be of whatever cultural group they want to be accepted into like nouveau riche housewives. Most people are modest pretentious, they hide in the crowd saying what they don't believe because they don't want to be rejected and mocked by their social circles. Every agnostic who sits in church with their wives and chats up the openly agnostic as awful people is pretentious, cheerleaders and jocks are often quite modest pretentious, they're liars, something I am not.

I'm not pretending to be from any group I'm not and I'm saying things that are true in my mind uncensored, you'll find few that offer you that, the pretentious man also would generally not admit to being a jerk as very few social circles would find that acceptable.

Did I love TIH and am sitting here saying I didn't? No. I was falling asleep watching it, it was terrible, I liked die hard 3 much more. I've been watching pop movies since I was a baby, my parents had an insane collection of thousands of titles. So I have a bit more of a discriminating critical view than most of movies, and find the negative comment as valid as the positive. If I were interested in unqualified exuberance over something I'd be on my way to DC right now.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.