The New York Times seems to have a lot of keen interest in the 20th Century Fox/Warner Bros. legal battle surrounding the film, “Watchmen” that’s due in courts in January 6. They’ve already done a few interesting pieces on the story and now they’ve checked in again, this time sharpening their gaze on Watchmen producer Lawrence Gordon.
As the Times is wont to do, they don’t really throw specific blame at the 72-year-old producer who’s credits include an eclectic plate like “Die Hard” the “Hellboy” franchises and “Field of Dreams.” Or at least they don’t throw aspersion in a blatant manner, but Gordon seems to be the crux of the problem here shopping the project around to studios who assumed he owned the turnaround rights, and never doing their own due diligence to check the facts of the matter.
While Gordon’s not being named in the suit — obviously Warner has deeper pockets than one man does, but people from both sides of the lawsuit who spoke to the Times on conditions of anonymity — no one was willing to talk on the record — said the producer is in a “particularly delicate position.” Times euphemism for: shit could get worse for him down the road at one point.
The Grey lady writes:
“Even though he has not so far been named as a defendant in the suit, Warner insists that Mr. Gordon is ultimately responsible for the validity of his claimed rights to the project. If Warner does not prevail in court, or chooses to settle, the producer could be pressed to cover any losses.”
Apparently big on rescuing films in ‘turnaround,’ [the crux of the legal argument here – a contractual mechanism that allows a studio to release its interest in a dormant film project, while recovering costs, plus interest, from any rival that eventually adopts the project.”], Gordon was granted the right to “Watchmen” in 1991 from Fox who first bought the rights in 1986.
The legalese problems seem to center around a new deal in 1994. Gordon left the company that was granted the “Watchmen” rights and Fox “again accommodated him, with a new agreement that granted Fox a right to become involved with the project any time a star, director, budget or other material element changed.”
But apparently these conditions were never met by Gordon. First off, “the 1994 turnaround agreement did not find its way into Universal’s pile of documents when that studio checked the movie’s rights before putting “Watchmen” into development (before Warners had the project, Universal and Paramount had it with Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass attached, respectively).
When the project finally reached Warner Bros. in 2006, the in-question ’94 turnaround document wasn’t delivered either. When “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder announced he was making the film at Comic-Con 2007, keeping a watchful eye, “Fox lawyers immediately “sent Warner a letter claiming rights under both the 1991 agreement and the later turnaround.”
This is in keeping with the Entertainment Weekly story that basically said, Warner Bros. knew about 20th Century Fox’s rights issues way in advance, but did jack about it, probably because they assumed it would be dismissed in initial court proceedings, which it of course, it was not.
“Fox has said in its court filings that Mr. Gordon never complied with a requirement that he resubmit the project to the studio when elements changed.”
When Snyder and the new cast came about? Consider that a major element that changed. WB will obviously maintain that Gordon shopped it around to everyone including Fox, but that may not matter not. Many people including us have contended that is seems like Fox is throwing a sour grapes wet blanket on the project because they let it go, but legally, they might be in the right here, which could cost Warner Bros. and the film, a bundle. More and more this is looking like a lawsuit that is not Fox’s fault.
For a guy allegedly, “well versed in the art of turnaround” Gordon seemed to let things fall through the cracks here bigtime. It’s a piece worth a read. After some googling we found a similar piece written by ScreenRant that does a good job of summarizing the lawsuit and the history of the film in more depth too.