January
4Shooting Down the Legal Eagles
The legal battle over which studio releases “Watchmen” has taken on a surreal twist with Warner Bros. and Fox each denigrating its rival’s marketing prowess. Lawyers for Warner Bros. claim in their legal motions that Fox is an “underperforming” studio. Fox in turn insists that it’s “the very best in the business.”It seems to me that the relevant argument is not over which studio has the worst marketers but which has the worst lawyers. Time and again studio lawyers let their companies start movies without clarity over ownership.
Warner Bros. shot “Watchmen” and plans to open it March 6 even though Fox claims it holds the rights. It’s reminiscent of Columbia not long ago starting the sequel to “Fun With Dick and Jane” without controlling the rights -- a not infrequent exercise.
Just as the town keeps a scorecard on the performance of rival distributors, a similar record should be kept for attorneys. Warner Bros., which is famously litigious, would thus have gotten a demerit for ripping Alan Ladd Jr.’s credit off a movie a couple of years ago, then going to court to defend its action (it lost). Whoever loses the “Watchmen” case should get a similar knock.
Then there should be a black mark for the studio lawyer who writes the longest, clumsiest and most repetitive admonition appearing at the front of studio screeners. They all but warn of serious testicular damage if the screener ever finds its way into the public eye.
There’s also the delightful command at the end of one screener that the viewer must break the disk in half the moment he’s finished watching it. I admit there are a few movies I’d like to tear apart, but I don’t like being ordered to do so.
Anyway, I hope “Watchmen” is a big hit. At least it will compensate for all the clumsy legal work.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
I think a personal attack on Mr. Bart is uncalled for. If you disagree with his blog post and perhaps you are an attorney, one would think you could generate a more insightful response rather than this distasteful ethnic slur and personal assault.
Posted by: Producer | 1/17/2009 7:49:17 PM
that peter bart...he knows everything about everything..the auteur of every movie in the history of paramount and mgm(none)..a legal expert....a jew faking it as a quaker...a personal manager in charge of will smiths career...move over disraeli peter bart is among us
Posted by: elderstatesman | 1/7/2009 8:59:45 AM
don't forget WB's dropping of the ball with Dukes of Hazard... the original writer of the book moonshiners on which the tv show was based suing and winning 17M just weeks before the opening of the film!
Posted by: nosey ass | 1/5/2009 4:50:12 PM
Thanks Peter. Your book was excellent but you should be litigated for your poor introspect into this matter. Sincerely,
Mr. Know it all
P.S
You should be sued....
Posted by: Mr. KnowItAll | 1/5/2009 3:03:32 PM
Hey Bob- The lawyer who screwed this up probably will be doing that exact same thing....in Chattanooga, TN.
Posted by: Geoff | 1/5/2009 1:11:08 PM
Finally!
It's about time somebody talked about the shoddy legal work at the root of this whole mess.
Posted by: MikeA | 1/5/2009 12:36:27 PM
Litigation attorneys in entertainment are like IRS agents in an audit... not much fun, but necessary if you want the system to work. And the way I understand it, since Warner Bros. has the most to lose by not doing their "homework", I'd say their attorneys are, if not 2nd rate, then certainly absent-minded or distracted. But hey... it's not easy keeping track of all those details. Some guys have a hard time getting the name of a movie right, even if they're staring right at the cover of the comic book it's based on. :P
Posted by: Watchmen | 1/5/2009 11:06:23 AM
Hey Peter- Hollywood lawyers got to make a living. if they didn't do this, they would be buying tv commercials and offering their services to car accident victims.
Posted by: bob | 1/5/2009 6:08:07 AM