Dungeons and Dragons Movie Rights go to trial

[Umbran]

I'm not sure why they would settle now, after they have committed the $ to the trial, when they were unable to reach an agreement in the two months of negotiation before the trial.

Because now they have their feeling about how the trial went to inform negotiations. "Settle now, and it might cost you less than what the Judge will do."

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Because now they have their feeling about how the trial went to inform negotiations. "Settle now, and it might cost you less than what the Judge will do."

Sure, if you had factual issues in dispute and needed to see if a witness testifies particularly well or poorly. But here the primary issue is really a legal one of contract interpretation. Also, the judge might give a clue on how she would rule, but the statement looked neutral. Of course article can't cover everything from the trial, so there could have been surprises. Maybe an expert on industry standards for what constitutes a 'sequel' flubbed on cross. Just seems unlikely in this particular case that the risk calculation would have changed.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, if you had factual issues in dispute and needed to see if a witness testifies particularly well or poorly. But here the primary issue is really a legal one of contract interpretation.

The primary *legal* issue is contract interpretation.

The primary real and practical issue for the litigants is who gets to make a movie, and how much does this whole thing cost them?

There is a secondary issue of "does development of the Chainmail script constitute copyright infringement". A settlement on that issue, even separate from making of movies, would mean the judge does not have to make a ruling on that portion of the case. And, to be honest, I think the judge would prefer *not* to make a ruling on that. It has far reaching implications, and unless the judge feels strongly, avoiding a precedent may not seem like a bad idea.

 

[Jiggawatts]

I'm torn here, I think I would rather Hasbro have the rights to their IP back, without the copyright infringement precedent being set (I'm also one of the people who wants Marvel to get X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four back from Fox/Sony). But judging purely from a movie perspective I think I would rather watch the Chainmail movie, as from everything I heard it generated quite a positive buzz, so I cant really figure out why Hasbro passed on it. But ultimately Universal and Hasbro do not have my faith that they can make a stellar movie, Battleship was horribly atrociously bad, and I'm afraid that's exactly what a D&D movie by them would be, cheesy and stupid, just with a higher budget than the earlier cheesy and stupid D&D movies.

 

[Umbran]

I'm torn here, I think I would rather Hasbro have the rights to their IP back, without the copyright infringement precedent being set (I'm also one of the people who wants Marvel to get X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four back from Fox/Sony).

I'd prefer they just dodge the copyright infringement precedent. If that has to happen, let it happen on a more clear-cut case, so the precedent has less room for interpretation.

I doubt you're the only one around here who wishes Marvel had the rights to their IP back, simply because for the most part Marvel does a better job with them.

But judging purely from a movie perspective I think I would rather watch the Chainmail movie, as from everything I heard it generated quite a positive buzz, so I cant really figure out why Hasbro passed on it.

Scuttlebutt is that Hasbro passed on it because they wanted a better deal. The story goes: Hasbro got into negotiations with one studio, then went to the other and said, "Hey, you know, if you can beat their offer, you can make the movie instead." Then, having gotten that better deal, they dropped the initial negotiation. That sent WB heading to Sweetpea...

But ultimately Universal and Hasbro do not have my faith that they can make a stellar movie

Nobody gets complete faith. I mean, most movies aren't very good, right?

 

[qstor]

I was wondering what happened to this. The the trial ended on 10/24/2014. I know federal courts are backed up. So its just waiting for the judge to enter a decision. I checked on PACER and nothings happened in several months.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I was wondering what happened to this. The the trial ended on 10/24/2014. I know federal courts are backed up. So its just waiting for the judge to enter a decision. I checked on PACER and nothings happened in several months.

Trial was over at the of September, they just had post-trial motions and filing of transcripts and such. Unfortunately I can't find any statistics on average time from trial to judgment. But nine months does seem like a long time.
I don't think the Judge wants to dodge the issue of whether Chainmail is an infringement; that's application of existing copyright law and standard fare for CD Ca. My suspicion is that the judge really does not want to make a ruling regarding the "sequel" issue, since it is new law and will be a contentious issue in the industry and likely to go to the 9th circuit But there's not even joint motion requesting further time for the parties to negotiate.

 

[MechaPilot]

To be fair, if you ask the general public to name a rpg, chances are it would be D&D. . .

I don't think that's the case. Tabletop rpgs are not nearly as mainstream as video game rpgs. I think most people when asked to name an rpg would say Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Diablo, or World of Warcraft.

 

[Kaodi]

"Most" people still probably do not even know what "role-playing game" means. I cannot be sure as to whether D&D or WoW is more broadly known across demographics, but LoZ and Diablo are not even in the same league, and FF's potential spot at that table has more to do with the movies than the games.

 

[Hand of Evil]

WarCraft movie coming in 2016