What Does The Watchmen Ruling Mean?

By Graeme McMillan

So now that we know that the Watchmen movie case has been resolved in Fox's favor, we're left wondering what happens next. Who owns the movie? Will it be released? Will anyone watch the Watchmen?

What Did The Ruling Say?
Short version is that Judge Gary Feess' ruling said that Fox was right. The most important sentence from the ruling is:

Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture.

It's what that "at the very least" means that is now the point of contention. In addition to the five-page ruling issued on Wednesday, a longer and more in-depth ruling is apparently to be released soon.

Does This Mean No Court Case?
Not necessarily; this was a pretrial ruling, requested by both Fox and Warners due to the closeness of Watchmen's release date. Although the ruling encourages both sides to find a non-trial resolution, officially the trial will still begin on January 20th unless further action is taken.

So Will There Be A Court Case?
I doubt it, unless Warners is somehow convinced that their lawyers are so good that they can not only overturn the pretrial ruling, but do it very, very quickly. Much more likely, conversations are already taking place amongst appropriate parties to sort this whole thing out as quickly and profitably for both parties involved.

Is This All Really A Convoluted Way For Fox To Get Warners To Release The DVD Rights To The Batman TV Show?
That's a rumor that's been going around for a few months, thanks to Comic Book Resources' Rich Johnston. Thing is, says website TV Shows On DVD, it's not true:

[E]verybody will have to remember that DC Comics is only ONE of the rights-related hurdles that Fox needs to leap over! In fact, the sheer scope, depth and breadth of all the right-holders who have to be brought into various agreements, to get this program released on DVD, can be absolutely frightening!

Amongst the frightening agreements: A lawsuit from the estate of one of the show's producers, claiming owed residuals from the show's TV broadcasts. Even if Watchmen freed up DC's share of the rights, it wouldn't mean that the show could be released on DVD immediately... and isn't worth as much as Watchmen itself is, right now.

How Is The Fanbase Taking The News?
Let's look at Ain't It Cool talkbackers, shall we?:

"I have never been one to jump on the whole "Boycott" bandwagon, but not a CHANCE will I see Wolverine in theatres now. This studio is the worst movie studio in the history of film. And as much as I am dying to see Watchmen, if the final outcome of this is greatly in Fox's favor, I'll pass on it just to say "fuck you.""

"The fact that Fox waited until the movie was in the can to bring up some shit like this speaks to their intentions. They couldn't get the job done, someone else did - let the shit go. And in the end the people who suffer the most are the fans, fans that will not soon forget shenanigans like this, that is for certain. You blew it Fox, let it go. Try harder next time. Pricks."

"For those of you who were not aware, this is a call to open war. Tom Rothman is like some nasty douche bag rich kid who broke all of his cool toys (X-Men, FF, Aliens, Predators, and pretty soon, Wolverine). So what does he do now that his meddling ways have flat-lined his company, leaving him an entire year without a single $100 million blockbuster? Well, he gets his cronies to go to Warner Brothers and steal the coolest toy they got running right now. Worst part is, Rothman is too stupid to appreciate this toy, and the chances he might break it are very likely. Now the question remains, what can we do about this? ...The answer is simple. Until Fox pulls their creatively flaccid member out from the rectums of WB and the greater fanboy community, we should ignore any good or potentially good property they've got on the line, and only talk about the bad. In other words, if you can't say anything bad about Fox, don't say anything at all. They are our Sauron, they are our Palpatine, and they are our Voldemort. Until their evil ways have been stopped, WE MUST FIGHT!"

Yes, that's right; a movie studio is the combination of a giant floating flaming evil vagina, a wrinkled old man who can shoot electricity out've his fingertips, and Ralph Fiennes without a nose. As you can see, they're taking it very well.

Will We See Watchmen In Theaters March 6th As Planned?
Most likely. With so much promotion already having been done for the movie's release, and with merchandising tie-ins both already in stores and on their way, there's no real alternative for Warners at this point. Yes, they could pull the movie altogether to spite Fox, but that would be both embarrassing and an insanely high loss of money for them.

Admit It; You Think The Surprise Last Minute Change Of Heart And Ruling From The Judge Was The Work Of Alan Moore's Magical Powers, Trying To Halt The Release Of The Movie Altogether, Don't You?
Mmmmmmaybe.

So What Next?
We wait for the more lengthy ruling or, perhaps, the sight of Fox and Warners issuing a press release letting us know that everyone is friends and that the movie will be released by the two studios jointly. Either way, expect something to happen within the next couple of weeks. No-one involved has that much time before the movie's due date in March, after all.

Original here

Disney scuppered Peter Pan movie starring Audrey Hepburn

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor

Disney which had animated Peter Pan in 1953 blocked plans for a live film version with Laurence Olivier as Captain Hook Photo: WALT DISNEY

Audrey Hepburn was set to play the title role Photo: Allstar/Cinetext

The London hospital, which was gifted the rights to the play by JM Barrie in 1929, had hoped a new cinema version of the classic children’s story would generate tens of thousands of pounds towards patient care.

The $10 million movie, proposed in 1964, was to have been made by George Cukor, the director of My Fair Lady and The Philadelphia Story. But it never got off the ground because Disney’s Hollywood studio threatened legal action, claiming it owned all the cinematic rights to the play.

The studio had paid the relatively low sum of £5,000 for the animation rights to Peter Pan in 1939, and had released its classic cartoon version in 1953.

The row, which is outlined in confidential documents in the hospital’s own archive, will prove embarrassing for Disney. Correspondence in the files reveals that hospital managers believed that the film maker was putting its own commercial needs before the needs of sick children.

While tensions between the studio and the hospital have surfaced in public over the decades, the aborted movie starring Hepburn and Olivier remained under wraps until now.

In 1964, Cukor and an enthusiastic Hepburn, whom he had just directed in his Oscar-winning classic My Fair Lady, began negotiations with an equally-excited hospital.

But the film, which was to be produced by Hepburn’s then-husband Mel Ferrer, was stopped in its tracks after Disney threatened court action. On 24 Aug, 1964, a furious Cukor vented his anger to Gordon Piller, the hospital’s secretary.

Cukor wrote: “Quite apart from the serious inconvenience that Disney has caused us all, I find his behaviour unconscionable. He [Walt] cannot honestly believe that he has any legal or moral claim to the title.

"He must or should recognise that he’s trying to appropriate something for himself that belongs to a hospital for sick children. I don’t think he’d cut a very good figure, in his eyes or anyone else’s, if this was generally known. All the more so because he represents 'wholesome entertainment’ to the world.”

In an handwritten postscript, Cukor adds: “We’ll stick right with it until we succeed!”

Cukor later complained to the hospital about Disney’s decision to release a big screen version of Mary Poppins, starring a flying Julie Andrews, while he was still trying to get the Peter Pan film off the ground.

In another letter to Mr Piller, Cukor wrote: “I haven’t seen it yet but Mary Poppins flies and flies all over the place. That makes Disney’s behaviour all the clearer. He is determined that not only does he own the title Peter Pan but he and he only is permitted to make characters fly.”

On 15 Sep, Mr Piller told Cukor: “My feelings are getting more roused towards Disney ... I believe we should pull no punches in dealing with him.”

To defend its rights over Peter Pan the hospital launched legal action against Disney, but the courtroom wrangling dragged on for years, meaning that Cukor and Hepburn were no longer able to make the film.

The dispute carried on after Walt’s death in 1966 and was not finally settled until 1969, when the hospital was awarded £14,000 in compensation as well as £30,000 in costs.

The manner in which the studio and its chiefs conducted themselves during the legal action seems to have infuriated the hospital staff. On 14 Nov, 1969, Peter Sneath, the hospital’s legal adviser, wrote that Disney would have to pay for its “very rash acts”.

The row over the planned film followed a series of earlier clashes between the two sides.

The documents show that in 1962, Walt Disney had offered the hospital £10,000 for the live action film rights to Peter Pan, plus one per cent of the gross box office receipts of the animated version which it wanted to re-release.

The hospital initially accepted the offer but the following year called it “unfair” and proposed an alternative contract which would have given it a greater share of box office receipts, TV sales revenue and merchandising royalties.

The hospital’s U-turn infuriated Walt and his brother Roy, who had presided over the negotiations.

A letter dated 15 Mar, 1963, from Disney’s legal adviser to Mr Sneath, reads: “Mr Roy Disney ... is frankly shocked that the Governors of the hospital should think themselves free for any reason to go back on the basic terms which were agreed for the acquisitions by Disney of live rights ... We hope that even at this late stage the governors in reconsideration will come to the conclusion that nothing not even their desire to serve charity justifies bad faith of this kind.”

Other internal memos reveal that Great Ormond Street was advised in 1939 that it was selling the animation rights to Disney too cheaply, but went ahead with the transaction anyway.

The 1964 dispute was not the last time the two sides would clash. In 2003 The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Walt Disney had pulled out of a live action cinema version of Peter Pan by the Australian director PJ Hogan, starring Jason Isaacs, Olivia Williams and Richard Briers, only a month before its release, after it objected to sharing royalties from the sale of merchandise with the hospital.

A spokesman for the Walt Disney Company said: “Disney has supported Great Ormond Street Hospital over many years and in January 2008 the Company announced that it would join forces with Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity to raise £10 million towards the Hospital’s capital appeal.”

Original here

Busted! Taking Down Miss Hispanic America

By Ioan Grillo / Mexico City

Laura Zuniga, as she won the beauty contest Nuestra Belleza Sinaloa in 2008

In October, Laura Zuniga, athletic and 5 feet 7 inches tall, posed sleekly for the paparazzi. She wore an alluring pink dress and, more importantly, the coveted crown of Miss Hispanic America. Just before Christmas, she again stood before a scrum of Mexican photographers, this time holding her head low and wearing a pair of handcuffs while police showed the 9-mm pistols, semiautomatic rifles and $53,000 in cash she was allegedly caught with. Her problems only deepened on Friday, when a judge ordered her and a man described as her boyfriend, along with six others found with the stash, to be detained for 40 days pending charges on racketeering, drug trafficking, guns and money laundering.

The arrest of the 23-year-old Zuniga — who was also the reigning beauty queen in her native state of Sinaloa — provided some variety in the news for a nation weary of piles of corpses and vicious firefights in its relentless drug war. Newspapers plastered their front pages with images of Zuniga in bikinis and high heels. All seemed to be competing for the wittiest headlines. "Miss Narco," blared the tabloid El Metro. "Miss Sinaloa and the Seven Narcos," said the normally high-brow El Universal. She was compared to the heroine of Queen of the South, a fictional work about a beautiful drug trafficker currently being made into a Hollywood movie with celebrated Latina actress Eva Mendes. (See pictures of the center of Mexico's drug-trafficking industry.)

But beneath the media frolics, the tale of the fallen beauty queen highlights the dark side of how sprawling crime syndicates have penetrated so many areas of Mexican life. With the cartels estimated to make $30 billion from smuggling narcotics, the U.S. Treasury has named dozens of Mexican companies, from dairy farms to clothing chains, as money launderers. In November, the owner of a third-division soccer club, the Mapaches of Michoacán state, was charged with drug trafficking. Crime kingpins are also alleged to finance popular Mexican singers, who croon about the gangsters' exploits.

Following Zuniga's detention, there were new calls to investigate modeling agencies and pageant organizers for dirty dollars. "We need to follow the money in these organizations to wherever it takes us," said Representative Francisco Rivera, president of the security committee in the lower house of Congress. "And if we find anything illicit, then punishments must be handed out." In reaction, several companies who had worked with Zuniga ran for cover, denying any knowledge of her actions. She was also stripped of her titles. "This organization separates itself from any activities, situations or personal relations that Laura Zuniga had outside of her participation in Miss Sinaloa," said a statement from Lupita Jones, director of Nuestra Belleza Mexico, which crowned Zuniga in her home state and planned to take her to various international contests in 2009. "We are a serious, respectable organization whose interest has been to heighten the beauty, capacity and values of the Mexican woman." (Read TIME's top 10 crime stories of 2008.)

It remains to be seen how deep the Sinaloan beauty queen was in the pockets of the drug capos. Soldiers made the bust in the western Mexican city of Guadalajara after a tip-off from an informant. They stopped Zuniga and the seven men as they cruised around town in a pair of bulky SUVs. Police allege the beauty queen's boyfriend, Orlando Garcia Urquiza, who was in the cruiser with her, is a high-ranking member of the Juarez Cartel, which controls smuggling into west Texas. Garcia's brother Ricardo was identified as the cartel's operational commander when he was arrested three years ago. Police also allege that Zuniga made trips to Colombia this year that were unconnected to her work as a model. The beauty queen's father denied that his daughter was involved in any illegal activity, telling local reporters in Sinaloa that she had been going to a Christmas party and knew nothing of her boyfriend's connections.

Sinaloa is home to some of Mexico's most powerful crime families. A "narco culture" of bulletproof trucks, lavish clothes and gold-plated guns dominates its streets. In this environment, the girlfriends of gangsters have become a subculture — buchonas — identified by diamond-studded finger bling, fake breasts and expensive dresses by foreign designers. "What a shame that there are ladies who get dazzled by the false shine of that money, who only aspire to be the girlfriends or loved ones of these vulgar thugs," wrote a Sinaloan resident identified as Gonzo on a Web discussion of Zuniga's arrest by the state's Noroeste newspaper. "These guys have taken a promising future and thrown it into the garbage."

Original here