Harvey Weinstein lives for Oscars. Whether they mean as much monetarily as they did a few years ago remains to be seen, but he still loves the race and everything it entails. At one point in his career he was a master of the Oscar campaign (somehow convincing the Academy that “Shakespeare In Love” was a better movie than “Saving Private Ryan”).
So just asked week we asked, what’s the status of the Weinstein Company lawsuit against Lawsuit and the producers of the film for the rights to “Precious: Based on the Novel by Sapphire,” especially after receiving a huge Oscar bump last week when it won the People’s Choice audience award at the 2009 Toronto Intl. Film Festival (it’s not usually a bellwether, but “Slumdog Millionaire,” did take this award last year).
With irons in the fire for Oscar hopefuls, “Nine,” and “A Single Man,” now more than ever, Harvey probably wants the urban drama, “Precious,” back, no?
But according to the Big Picture, his lawsuit, or one of them because there are four suits in total, has been dealt a severe blow. In the original suit, TWC alleges that “Precious” producers sold the film to TWC, but then re-sold it to Lionsgate when it came along with a richer deal.
But on Friday, TWC’s breach-of-contract suit against the producers of the film was dismissed by a federal judge. It also happened the same day theatrical chief Tom Ortenberg stepped down, perhaps seeing the writing clearly on the wall, and just coming off layoffs again, it’s been a pretty bad week for the Weinsteins. Lionsgate has been sued and has countersued TWC as well, but those cases have not been ruled on yet, but this recent decision does favor them heavily.
A federal judge ruled… that TWC’s lawsuit failed to state a valid legal claim that it was entitled to distribute the award-winning movie about a troubled young African American woman. Friday’s order by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald will likely benefit Lionsgate, which claims it is the rightful distributor of the film. In its legal papers, TWC admits there was never a written contract, but cites the e-mails as proof of a deal. Buchwald disagreed. “A signed writing is required to effectuate a transfer of copyright ownership,” she ruled. “
Sounds like this case could be dead in the water and TWC probably don’t have a ton of money to keep dragging this one out. The latest TWC rumors are now this. If “Nine” doesn’t cut the mustard financially the company could be done, but a) they said that about “Inglourious Basterds,” and b) this seems ridiculous considering “Nine,” won’t be a financial blockbuster like Quentin’s film and will have to have a sure-fire build that could be supported by potential Oscar nominations.