Search form

WB, Fox Working on Watchmen Settlement, Producers Weigh In

Warner Bros. and Fox are actively working toward a settlement over the WATCHMEN distribution rights case, according to news reports.

The attorneys for both studios agreed Friday to delay a federal court hearing until Monday so that settlement discussions can continue over the weekend. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess had been scheduled to rule on WB's request for an expedited hearing on the main issue: whether to block WATCHMEN from theatrical release on March 6, as Fox is requesting.

Feess agreed to the delay but said a trial over the matter is still set for Jan. 20. Per the ASSOCIATED PRESS, Fox's lawyer Lou Karasik told Feess that the delay would be "very, very helpful" to settlement discussions he classified as "productive."

WB has invested about $150 million in the Zack Snyder-directed graphic novel adaptation.

Feess ruled on December 24 that Fox does own the distribution rights to the film and advised the studios to either reach a settlement or prepare their appeals.

The original suit said that producer Lawrence Gordon's option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in the novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons was never exercised, leaving Fox with its rights under a 1994 turnaround agreement.

WB in turn has denied that Fox holds the copyright. Fox bought the rights in the late 1980s, spending more than $1 million developing the project before it went to Universal, then Paramount and later Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures, where it was made with Snyder.

Paramount is handling the international release, planning day-and-date rollouts in many major markets.

Gordon and fellow producer Lloyd Levin weighed in this week. Per THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, Gordon wrote a letter this week to Feess blaming Fox and his then-lawyers for the situation and offering his version of events. Levin also lashed out at Fox in an open letter posted on Hitfix.com. Feess refused to read the letter from Gordon, citing it an "improper communication" and in violation of court rules.