Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
How Much Will Fox Get?
"A scheduled Tuesday court conference between Fox and Warner Bros. attorneys has been canceled," the Hollywood Reporter's Borys Kit wrote late last night, "fueling talk that a settlement in the contentious Watchmen case is imminent.
"Fox sued Warners last February, saying the Burbank-based studio infringed on its rights to make the comic book adaptation. In December, when federal judge Gary A. Feess ruled that Fox has distribution rights to the film, Warners faced the prospect of having the film's March 6th release blocked.
"Settlement talks between the two sides became serious over the weekend and continued to heat up yesterday.
"A settlement could cost Warners tens of millions of dollars. A case involving copyright ownership of Warners' The Dukes of Hazzard, which Feess blocked from release in 2005, ended in a settlement worth a reported $17.5 million.
"With Watchmen, an adaptation of the Alan Moore graphic novel with a budget in the $130 million range, the financial stakes are higher. According to sources, Fox is asking for upfront fees as well as a percentage of the back-end."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 14, 2009 at 3:51 AM
comment #1
The Playlist
says ...
just a copy and paste THR job? hmmm
Posted by The Playlist
at January 14, 2009 7:55 AM
comment #2
DavidF
says ...
Wait - this Feess buy tried to block the release of Dukes of Hazzard and it worked for a while?
I wonder if we can pull him off of this Watchmen thing and put his talents to better use....A little more work on that Dukes of Hazzard movie and he could have been a hero.
Posted by DavidF
at January 14, 2009 9:51 AM
comment #3
Ray
says ...
With the settlement and marketing, Warners will have $200 million in the thing before it ever hits a movie screen.
I hope Snyder hit it out of the ballpark ... if not, this will be a baseball bat shot to Warner's knees.
Posted by Ray
at January 14, 2009 10:15 AM
comment #4
Bart Smith
says ...
"With the settlement and marketing, Warners will have $200 million in the thing before it ever hits a movie screen."
That's still a better starting position than they had with SUPERMAN RETURNS. And if nothing else, it's done wonders for DC Comics on its WATCHMEN trade paperback sales.
Posted by Bart Smith
at January 14, 2009 10:40 AM
comment #5
theultimatebiu
says ...
Well the amount of publicity this movie has gained already guaranteed it several front page stories around the world when its released. I have a feeling this movie will be alot bigger than most assume.
Posted by theultimatebiu
at January 14, 2009 1:05 PM
comment #6
JChasse
says ...
It's not my $200 million, so take it with a grain of salt, but with "Dark Knight" money last year and "Harry Potter" money coming in July, and whatever DVD money that "Watchmen" brings in in late 3Q09, I think Warners is going to be just fine.
Posted by JChasse
at January 14, 2009 1:07 PM
comment #7
D.Z.
says ...
"How Much Will Fox Get?"
Hopefully, the entire 60s Batman.
ultimate: V for Vendetta got a lot of "publicity" over its delay due to that London terrorist attack, too. But that wasn't enough to make it a blockbuster.
JChasse: Some of that TDK money already had to cover the losses on Speed Racer. As for Watchmen, well, if V for Vendetta couldn't make a lot of money with recognizable actors in it, I'm not sure this one will be lucky to break even.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 14, 2009 3:16 PM
comment #8
D.Z.
says ...
I'm also kind of curious if Harry Potter will be the same cash-cow for the studio that it has been in the past, since the fans already finished the series in book form.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 14, 2009 3:47 PM
comment #9
MovieBob
says ...
Here's the thing: If the marketing continues to be as good as it's been, if the buzz stays hot and the reviews are good (and if it's as awesome as it LOOKS)... this is very likely going to OPEN to absolutely massive business for an R-rated big-length March release. But will it be sustained? That I'd be worried about.
The fact is, Warners has been (wisely) selling this so far as Dark Knight 2: "here's another big, violent, dark superhero movie." And that'll put butts in seats... except the final "truth" of the story is that it's a DEVASTATING downer. Without giving anything away, if even a THIRD of the basic breakdown of the conclusion from the book is kept... this will instantly be one of the grimest, meanest, most deflating endings most of the audience will have ever seen.
We're talking Godfather 2. We're talking Vertigo. The wrapup to "Watchmen" is designed to make you utterly, helplessly, fist-shakingly FURIOUS. The fans are prepared for that, the serious filmgoers in general will welcome it... but the broader audience? I can see a lot of people taking what will be their SEETHING hatred for certain characters "out" on the movie, and the word-of-mouth turning toxic fast if that happens. I hope that's not the case, but it's ALWAYS been the danger in making this movie.
Posted by MovieBob
at January 14, 2009 9:27 PM
comment #10
D.Z.
says ...
I'm wondering if the teen girl contingent will skip a second weekend of Jonas Bros. the way they did for Twilight. If not, this flick could be Snyder's own Sky Captain or Serenity-but hopefully without the suck. Also, the problem with Watchmen is that it's an anti-superhero comic. No action whatsoever, and no explicitly-defined "villains". That might not fly with movie-goers as well as 300 or TDK did.
As for the opening? The highest I've ever seen these types of flicks earn is when Terminator 3 got $44 million. [I don't count Matrix Reloaded's opening weekend, because that's an anomaly.] So I'm assuming that that's the figure WB is shooting for on Watchmen, or at least T2 and Blade 2's $30million+ openings. Anything lower, and the company's probably screwed.
But I'd imagine even the $30m+ range is too low after those legal fees. So that sucker does in fact need to make $40 million, or the film's a wash. I think its ceiling is $35 million, though, with the best possible take of $80-$90 million until Monsters vs Aliens.
My bet, though, is the flick is going to only score $60-$70 million max on the entire American run, with a $45-$55 million likely box office take in total. Why? Niche audience, no recognizable names, too "Sweeney Todd-esque" Tim Burton for the casual viewers expecting another 300, and an audience too young to remember Nixon or Vietnam. [See what happened to Ron Howard's movie a few months ago.]
Posted by D.Z.
at January 14, 2009 11:12 PM
comment #11
D.Z.
says ...
If not=If so
Posted by D.Z.
at January 14, 2009 11:13 PM
comment #12
D.Z.
says ...
"My bet, though, is the flick is going to only score $60-$70 million max on the entire American run, with a $45-$55 million likely box office take in total."
Sorry, that last one didn't make sense. Get rid of that second part.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 14, 2009 11:15 PM
comment #13
Wiggumx
says ...
The US trailers, smartly, aren't playing up Nixon or Vietnam. The marketing is great for this. It will definitely clear $100 million, easy. If you think it will only make $55 mil, you are seriously deluded. You are comparing this WAY too closely to V for Vendetta, which (I felt) looked like crap from the trailers, and performed about as well as I thought it would.
And, since when did only incomplete book series make money as films? I'm sure all of those Lord of the Rings ticket buyers assumed that a new series of books was coming out soon.
Posted by Wiggumx
at January 15, 2009 12:31 AM
comment #14
D.Z.
says ...
Why shouldn't I compare Watchmen to V for Vendetta? The latter's the only profitable (vaguely) Alan Moore adaptation so far. ["From Hell" would've probably done better, if Depp was well known with casual viewers at the time.] And yeah, the marketing is decent, but does it scream "Must-see" as opposed to "visual masterpiece"? If just the latter, then it could suffer the same fate as Speed Racer. [Even though, unlike Speed Racer, it'll actually deliver on the latter description.]
As for the LOTR films, those made money *because* so few people nowadays want to read the books. The Harry Potter stuff's a different beast, though. The fans were going along with the movie adaptations because the were waiting for Rowling to finish the series. So will they still care, now that it's "over"?
Posted by D.Z.
at January 15, 2009 12:51 AM
comment #15
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
70 million MAX on Watchmen?! Are you out of your mind (rhetorical question...you are D.Z., after all)? That is more like the movie's absolute floor if Fox somehow delays it 6 months. You vastly, vastly underestimate this flick. This is one of the most well-respected graphic novels of all time, it's not really comparable to any comic book properties that have been released up until this point (not VfV, Blade, or even 300). The geeks will be out in full force to see this one on repeated viewings (that goes double for the IMAX sites). In that respect, the best comparison for Watchmen is probably the LotR series, although I do doubt it does *quite* that well financially. Yes, it has a downer of an ending, the public might not embrace the picture the same way the fans have embraced the novel, and there aren't any big names in the cast. I still say a $100 domestic gross is absolutely guaranteed. Chalk it up.
On the subject of V for Vendetta, you noted that it had "recognizable actors" in it. Name one performer outside of Natalie Portman that the average moviegoer would recognize on sight from that film. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Btw, your comment about the rights to the 1960s Batman may well be the most (the only?) reasonable thing you've ever typed on this site. I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at January 15, 2009 11:18 AM
comment #16
D.Z.
says ...
Kane: "This is one of the most well-respected graphic novels of all time,"
The same could be said for Moore's other works.
"it's not really comparable to any comic book properties that have been released up until this point (not VfV, Blade, or even 300)."
Not comparable in approach to the material, true. But it's the same in the non-traditional comic book superhero sort of way.
"The geeks will be out in full force to see this one on repeated viewings (that goes double for the IMAX sites)."
They were supposed to be out in full force for Serenity and Snakes on a Plane, too.
"Name one performer outside of Natalie Portman that the average moviegoer would recognize on sight from that film."
Dunno about on sight, since he wears a mask, but I assume people would know Weaving from the Matrix and LOTR films by now. He definitely adds credibility to most productions-except for Transformers. But then no amount of talent can legitimize a Bay film.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 15, 2009 7:31 PM
comment #17
D.Z.
says ...
Hell, the most accessible Alan Moore-based movie didn't make $100 million domestic. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=leagueofextraordinarygentlemen.htm Why would Watchmen do any better?
Posted by D.Z.
at January 15, 2009 7:33 PM
comment #18
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
Presumably because Watchmen isn't an abortion of a film like LxG. But I haven't seen it yet. So here's hoping.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at January 16, 2009 1:46 AM
Post a comment