Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Media Movies The Almighty Buck

The Lawsuit of the Rings 446

Posted by CmdrTaco from the pay-the-man-and-make-the-hobbit dept.
securitas writes "The New York Times' Ross Johnson reports that Lord of the Rings trilogy director, Peter Jackson, is suing New Line Cinemas for underpaying him by as much as $100 millon. The lawsuit filed Feb. 28 alleges that New Line committed fraud. Jackson 'reportedly receives about 20 percent of the gross revenue realized by New Line for the trilogy, minus expenses such as taxes.' Jackson's lawyer confirmed that of the more than $4 billion that New Line collected from revenues, merchandise and licensing, Jackson has received 'almost $200 million to date from New Line for the trilogy.' If the opening line doesn't make you want to read the article, I don't know what will: 'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Lawsuit of the Rings More

The Lawsuit of the Rings

Comments Filter:

  • Never happen. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:32AM (#12931864)

    From TFA:
    What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?

    Well, that's a silly question...between 'professional courtesy' and 'conflict of interest', no lawyer would ever take the case against the evil empire.... ^_^
    • He tooks the precious from us, he did, your honor! The filthy hobbitses took it from us! *gollum!*

    • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:07PM (#12932308) Homepage Journal
      What do you mean? Lawyers sue the US government all the time.
    • 'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'

      I wonder what would happen if Jackson got himself a magic invisibilty ring, snuck into New Line studios and stabbed everyone with a dagger.

  • Sauron called... (Score:5, Funny)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:32AM (#12931872) Journal
    ...he wants his troll back.

  • Meh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El Neepo ( 411885 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:32AM (#12931875)
    I guess this doesn't look good for PJ to make The Hobbit with New Line.

    • He'll still make it...even for NewLine (Score:5, Informative)

      by sgant ( 178166 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:46AM (#12932071) Homepage Journal
      Lawsuits in Hollywood are hardly personal. PJ may be taking it personally, but the corperate zombies at a Hollywood studio only look at making more money.

      This lawsuit will get taken care of then it will pave the way for The Hobbit if NewLine thinks they can make even more money. Money money money. It may even get resolved by promising PJ that he can produce/direct The Hobbit and take an even bigger stake in the profits...or something.

      It's all red tape and shady book-keeping anyway. Arthur Anderson and the accounting they did for Enron were amatuers compared to Hollywood accountants.
      • Indeed. Even if they lose this lawsuit, Newline and Time Warner will still be raking in the cash from these movies. I'm sure they'll rake in some more if they have Jackson do the Hobbit too.

      • Re:He'll still make it...even for NewLine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @01:13PM (#12933076)
        "It's all red tape and shady book-keeping anyway. Arthur Anderson and the accounting they did for Enron were amatuers compared to Hollywood accountants."

        Amen! The correct term, however, is not "shady bookkeeping" but "outright fraud". The Hollywood studios have been functioning this way since the end of the prevalence of the studio "contract star" ended. The lure of an ephermeral percentage on the back-end instead of cash for services rendered has been a siren song many actors/actresses/directors/producers have been unable to resist. Two percent of a bottom line of zero is still worth nothing.

        Only Hollywood accountants can take a movie that costs $100 Million USD to make, that generates $500 Million USD in revenue worldwide (theaters, TV and cable rebroadcasts, DVD rentals and sales) and have a zero (or negative) bottom line balance.

        Of course, both the MPAA and the RIAA use the same dubious accounting methods. Artists and customers both continue to get screwed -- a 95% lockdown on marketing and distribution is still defined as a monopoly. Except to the Dubya regime and the neo-Con(artists) in control of Congress.
    • This kind of thing happens all the time. It's really rediculous, I mean, if you pay someone $200 million dollars, and hold back another billion, obviously they are going to have the resources to sue you. It would be quite annoying, though. Waiting years to get your personal A380 or whatever you were planning on spending all that money on.

    • Re:Meh... (Score:5, Funny)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @01:07PM (#12933011) Homepage
      Oh, come on. The Lord of the Rings saga didn't make much at all. You know, the zero box office, the complete lack of anyone even vaguely interested in the DVD. I'm sure there's no movie studio in the world who would be interested in picking it up.

      Seriously ... if this guy wants to make anything involved with Middle Earth, it will get made. Heck, if he wanted to film an earthworm orgy it would probably get made, because he has a track record of doing Great Things. When you have that, your movies get made.

      Besides, $200m is enough to make it on your own, without interference from studio suits.

      D

  • A much different movie (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:33AM (#12931882) Homepage Journal
    'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'

    Well, the movie wouldn't have been as good, though we probably would have seen more riots on TV, with the police whacking/tear gassing geeks dressed up as elves and hobbits. It certainly would have made the evening news more entertaining anyway.

  • What if Frodo had sued? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crip42 ( 891808 ) <lbarbs@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:34AM (#12931900) Homepage
    ...He would have lost the case because Sauron would be able to afford better lawyers.

  • Lawyers (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?"


    Everyone knows Sauron has the best lawyers in the land.

  • Forest Gump (Score:5, Informative)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:36AM (#12931927)
    At least he was smart enough to get a percentage of the gross. The author of Forest Gump was promised a percentage of the profit. The studio claimed that there was no profit. Some of the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants.

    • Re:Forest Gump (Score:4, Informative)

      by Loco3KGT ( 141999 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:44AM (#12932049)
      Stan Lee is also a victim of that on all of the Marvel movies out so far. He signed for a percentage of the profits and not revenues.

    • Many are run this way (Score:3, Informative)

      by tacokill ( 531275 )
      It doesn't take creative accounting to make zero profit. MANY MANY small businesses are run like this so as to minimize the tax impact.

      My point is that it's not just Hollywood. It is a preferred method for many people all across America.

      Now, having said that, negotiating for a cut of the net profit is just a bad idea. For anything. By doing so, you give the payor the opportunity to let his costs get out of control without any negative consequences.

    • Re:Forest Gump (Score:4, Informative)

      by MattW ( 97290 ) <matt@ender.com> on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:48AM (#12932090) Homepage
      From TFA:

      According to Peter Hoffman, a tax lawyer for leading Hollywood producers in the 1980's and a former chief executive of Carolco Pictures, all the legal saber rattling around claims of self-dealing and pre-emptive bidding could be avoided if studios turned the clock back and compensated stars based on net profits, not gross revenues.

      "Once upon a time, Hollywood studios paid a lot of money to net profit participants, and it was a fair deal," said Mr. Hoffman, who is known in Hollywood for his knowledge of arcane deal making. "Then the studios got greedy and stopped paying, and now we have gross players who used to be net players fighting over vertical integration. The studios brought this problem on themselves."

      In other words, Hollywood basically caused people to stop taking net deals specifically because of what you just noted. I think it would be pretty difficult to hide all the profits from a bonanza like Lord of the Rings, of course, since only a scant few ever imagined the success it enjoyed.

    • Re:Forest Gump (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:54AM (#12932171) Homepage Journal
      It's a pretty standard deal for films, no matter how successful, to fail to make a "profit". There are a wide variety of ways that the studio manages to orchestrate this. There is a nice article here [hollywoodnetwork.com] that outlines most of them.

      Reading through all the little tricks and traps is a little frightening - things like the legacy "only 20% of actual home video receipts are booked, the remaining 80% goes to the studio as 'costs'", or the blanket exclusion of 50% of gross reciepts for merchandising and music are pretty blatant scamming. The rest is more subtle, but really just as bad. Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

      Jedidiah

      • Re:Forest Gump (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dachannien ( 617929 )
        They probably justify ripping off the artists just like the recording industry does - to make up for all of the lost sales due to filesharing.

        It's unfortunate that Hollywood is so far away from New York. Otherwise, Eliot Spitzer would be all over the movie studios like white on rice.

    • Re:Forest Gump (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I found some details [hmco.com] on how this works.

      Apparently part of the secret is that private contracts and generally accepted accounting principles don't have to have anything to do with each other (according to the link). Leading to some pretty creative techniques -- I like the Interest section in particular.

      This kind of reminds me of Albini's paper on the recording industry, although I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the movie industry treats its people better.

  • Lawyer Of the Rings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kotku ( 249450 )
    "Justice IS Tenacious" - a new inscription from our collection of lawyer rings. The tradition of giving lawyers rings upon admittance to the Bar began in England in the early 1400's. These simple bands were inscribed in Latin around the outside with a verse that referred to a legal ideal. Our's reads "Justice Tenax" (Justice is Tenacious). The original of this ring can be found in the collection of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, London. Ring is cast in sterling silver or in 14 kt. gold and comp

  • And I quote..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sallgeud ( 12337 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:37AM (#12931936)
    "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    So let me get this straight.... he doesn't deserve what the contract you signed with him says because he can already choke all the worlds hippos with his cash?

    • I wonder if the readers who are against Jackson asking for his fair share would mind if the companies they work for would just cut 33% out of their paychecks?

    • Re:And I quote..... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SlayerofGods ( 682938 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:01PM (#12932243)
      What makes that statement even worse is the irony of the fact that he is speaking on behalf of a company that apparently took in 4 billion from the movies and refuses to share that with the man that made it for them. P.S. Someone should really explain to him how little 100 million goes toward rebuilding a whole city ;)

    • Re:And I quote..... (Score:5, Funny)

      by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:43PM (#12932717) Journal
      Yeah, I hope someone quotes this the next time the studios take someone to court for downloading thier movies ;-)

      "(put studio name here) makes incredible movies and did an amazing job on (insert movie you were downloading here), but there's a certain piggishness involved here. Consumers already gave them enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for them."

    • And notice the verb, "gave" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pac ( 9516 )
      The lawyer makes it sound as if New Line was some kind of magnanimous benefactor, "giving" Jackson money because he was a great filmmaker and an all-around good guy.

      I wonder if we can not freely start copying and sharing our LoTR DVDs, since we have already "given" New Line enough money to rebuild Baghdah, New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo (by this lawyer's math - if 300 or 400 million are enough to rebuilt Baghdad, imagine what 4 billion can't do).
    • "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

      In other news the Iraqi people are looking to contact that lawyer after comparing his estimate to the bill for rebuilding they recieved from Haliburton...

    • NYT broke its own rules quoting the lawyer (Score:5, Informative)

      by toby ( 759 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @03:02PM (#12934167) Homepage Journal
      Slate.com [slate.com] rightly points out that the NYT broke its own code of conduct [nytco.com] in quoting a partisan source (case lawyer) and allowing them to freely slander Jackson:
      In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story. ...

      We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.

      Apart from that, isn't it too precious to hear a lawyer complaining about "piggishness".

  • Smeagol Jackson: (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:38AM (#12931941)

    "Nassty New Line Cinemas...we hates them!"

    "I told you they were tricksy...I told you they were false..."

    ^_^

    • "I told you they were tricksy...I told you they were false..."

      When I read 'Smeagol Jackson' for some reason I thought Elvish, motherf*cker, do you speak it??

      Smeago L. Jackson?
  • On the one hand, Newline is MPAA and pulling this kind of stunt is just what you'd expect from them. On the other hand, they did bet the farm on Peter Jackson, and they were the ones who tossed out his original all-in-one movie and said, "let's make a three-parter." I think we all agree that was a blessed moment.

    So kinda don't know how to come down on this one.

    • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:00PM (#12932231) Journal
      There really shouldn't be any mixed feelings. We should not call Peter Jackson greedy, we should not say that New Line "bet the farm" - because honestly, if the movie tanked they would still be around. All you have to do is look at the facts: Peter Jackson had a contract, New Line is trying to violate that contract, hence New Line is in the wrong. The one line their lawyer said about Jacksons "Piggishness" is flagrant and I would hope to get better out of a lawyer. New Line, if anything is the greedy bastards here. Jackson just wants his due. He helped make New Line 4 Billion dollars.

      Imagine this - you have a contract with your boss that any new inventions you make, you get 2.5% of the gross profit (remember no gross profit = no paycheck). You make your boss an invention that gets him 10 billion dollars. You are entitled to 250 million. They want to give you half of that because they think half is more then enough... How would you feel? Also remember, it was your reputation on the line.

      • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jonathan_S ( 25407 )

        Imagine this - you have a contract with your boss that any new inventions you make, you get 2.5% of the gross profit (remember no gross profit = no paycheck). You make your boss an invention that gets him 10 billion dollars. You are entitled to 250 million. They want to give you half of that because they think half is more then enough... How would you feel? Also remember, it was your reputation on the line.

        Except this isn't what happened.
        A better version of this analogy would be:

        Imagine this - you have

  • Possession (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dolly_Llama ( 267016 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:39AM (#12931971) Homepage
    What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?

    Possession is 9/10 of the law. Even had Frodo been able to get a restraining order in time, even a +5 vorpal restraining order ain't gunna stop a pack of Nazgul from performing an early morning BATF raid at Bag End.

    Real life example: Someone I know(tm), had a large (~$30,000) amount taken by the IRS over a disputed tax account. Just taken, as in dissappeared from bank accounts. Someone at the IRS actually said verbatim, "Yeah we're probably wrong, but we have your money. Now try and get it back."

    • Re:Possession (Score:3, Insightful)

      by imr ( 106517 )
      Actually, the biggest problem in such a trial would be that no matter the trial is about, it would lead to the ring being returned to its "rightfull" owner: sauron, since everyone agree that it is really his ring.
  • I think this lawyer from New Line sums it up pretty well....
    "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    Jackson was quoted as saying "yessss. my precioussss 100 million dollarsss." and then proceeded to devour a live sea bass.

  • Typical Media Conglomerate Attitude (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nganju ( 821034 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:40AM (#12931992)

    Says one of New Line Cinema's lawyers FTA:
    "..there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    Why does it matter if he already has tons of money? How is that an argument to not give him what you owe him? You can rip him off because he's rich already?
  • 'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"

    Both he and his lawyer would be dead. A judgment is just a piece of paper unless you have the power to enforce it.
  • I mean who do you hope wins?
    The guy that claims he is getting ripped off after he got paid 200 million dollars?
    Or the company that made four billion?

    My question is how much money did the Tolkien family get?

    How about we take all of it except for say $400,000 and use it to build some schools? I am not usually in the screw the rich club but this is just annoying.
    • Let's say you make $30,000 a year.

      The company you work for decides to ignore the contract you signed and give you "only" $60,000 a year.

      You'd be screaming about that $30,000.

      "But...but... $90,000 is a lot different than $200M"

      and the people fighting to make ends meet making $10,000 a year on minimum wage are saying "Oh boo hoo..."

      See the point?

      It doesn't matter the amount. He had a contract and he desrves what was agreed upon.

  • Fallacies? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Barkmullz ( 594479 )

    From TFA:

    "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    I think that statement falls under the Ad Hominem [nizkor.org] fallacy category.

  • From TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by razmaspaz ( 568034 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:42AM (#12932023)
    this lawyer said. "New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    It doesn't matter if new line gave him $1 or $1 billion. If it is not what his contract says he gets then it doesn't matter if it is too much money. Shouldn't a lawyer be keenly aware of that.

    As for what he should get. It seems that he is complaining that the rights to the toys he made were sold below market value to a sister company of newline. If he wanted to get revenue from the toys he should have added a clause in his contract. On the one hand I am disgusted at newline trying to hide money, on the other I don't feel all that bad for Peter Jackson not getting $100M in toy sales.

    Just another example of huge conglomerates not serving the country's best interest anymore. Time to start revoking some corporate charters if you ask me!

  • I Like This (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SafteyInNumbers ( 706315 )
    "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him." Sure it's a lot of money. But his contract was for more. I like how they think they have paid him enough and NOT what his contract was for. And then turn around and say it's piggishness
  • I'm gonna go with Tom Bombadil since he would just overwhelm the defense with lively song and dance. Oh and the article says Hobbits are common in Middle Earth when in reality they aren't as common as many as the other races.... (Geek Out)

  • Gee... (Score:2)

    by Shads ( 4567 )
    ... he ONLY got 200 million? He got so fucked. Poor guy. *cough*.

  • What if...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TooMuchEspressoGuy ( 763203 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:49AM (#12932106)
    What if Frodo had sued, you say?

    Hobbiton: Wealthy hobbit Frodo Baggins today filed a lawsuit against the Dark Lord Sauron claiming damages from an army of orcs, as well as personal injury from the so-called "One Ring."

    The charges brought up against Sauron include: The invasion of Rohan and Gondor via orcs, trolls, and evil men; the scouring of the Shire; the corruption of Saruman the White and the subsequent turning of Isengard into a fortress of evil; and, last but certainly not least, the use of a Ring of Power to twist the mind of the young hobbit.

    Frodo's legal counsel, one Tom Bombadil, believes that the prosecution has a very good chance of winning. "La de da," Mr. Bombadil sang, "all of my elves are very happy and joyous! And we love singing too! La la la..." At that, this reporter proceded to stab him several times with a nearby broadsword.

    In court today, the defense for Mr. Sauron called forth one Smeagol, more commonly known as Gollum. When asked whether Mr. Baggins could be trusted, Gollum commented, "They STOLES it from us! Filthy, tricksy hobbitses! They STOLES my preciousssss!" Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield, and the fact that he did indeed steal the ring from Mr. Gollum, Frodo's entire testimony concerning the ring was suspect. Frodo's counsel did not offer a rebuttal.

    Sauron's lawyers declined to comment on any of the charges being brought up before them, except with a very cryptic, "One Countersuit to rule them all..."

    • Re:What if...? (Score:4, Funny)

      by curunir ( 98273 ) * on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @02:00PM (#12933603) Homepage Journal
      I'd add:

      Mr. Baggins also claimed that Sauron's agents threatened him with force on many occasions and even physically assaulted him while on a camping trip between Bree and Rivendale. However, his lawyers were unable to substantiate that claim as the judge rejected introducing a bladeless sword handle into evidence.

      and:

      When asked about possible next moves, Sauron's representatives indicated that they believed they could use the fact that their client's lifespan is significantly longer than that of a Hobbit. When asked how they would use this to their advantage, the replied, "We believe the ent, Treebeard, may have significant testimony that will be beneficial to our case."

      and:

      Attorneys for Sauron indicated that even if the court ruled against them, they would appeal the case directly to the Middle Earth Supreme Court. One observer speculated that while most people are aware of the 3 elvish rings, 7 dwarvish rings and 9 rings of men, there may be some truth to the rumor of the 5 judicial rings given to the 5 most senior justices on the court. The rumor, if true, would provide an explanation for each of their 2000+ year tenures.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:50AM (#12932120)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Cast of Lord of the Lawsuits (Score:4, Funny)

    by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:51AM (#12932123)
    What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?

    Hmm, who would have been cast?

    Frodo: Joe Pesci
    Sam: Chris Farley
    Merry: Adam Sandler
    Pippin: Ben Stiller
    Gimli: The Pat character from SNL
    Legolas: Calista Flockheart (Ally McBeal)
    Gandalf: Jack Nicholson
    Aragorn: Antonio Banderas
    Boromir: Ahnold

    Elrond: Christopher Walken
    Saruman: Crispin Glover
    Arwyn: never happen, because this was a hokey non-character to begin with...

  • Slap NY Times on the hand (Score:4, Informative)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:51AM (#12932131)
    And here's Slate's take on how NY Times violated it's own ethics standards by quoting a defaming lawyer anonymously:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2121636 [msn.com]

  • I seem to remember most characters in Middle Earth didn't recognise what hobbits were at all. Hobbits don't travel much and so outside of the Shire they were bascially unknown. I'm not even a Tolkien geek and I know this.
  • "Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    I like how the author of the article uses anonymous sources to slam PJ without any merit. PJ not only made 1.5 Billion for New Line he finally made New Line a major player and he deserves every penny due.

  • Could lead to more competition (Score:3, Informative)

    by m50d ( 797211 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @11:57AM (#12932192) Homepage Journal
    AIUI the essence of his suit is that the company gave merchandising etc. deals to members of the same conglomerate when they could have made more money on the film by opening them up for competition. If he wins we should see more contracts being opened up for everyone to bid on, and possibly more separation of the big media conglomerates.
  • It seems to me that there is a big problem with media integration today. The big media empires are interested in merchandising an idea to death. They take a popular (and sometimes unpopular) story and transform it into every medium possible: books, movies, TV shows, music, Musicals, toys, icecapades, etc. Just look at what disney does to its movies. You will see it spun-off in every possible way within their own company to make money (Disney Channel, RadioDisney, Disney Books, etc.)

    And while I don't re

  • Top Middle-Earth Lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:06PM (#12932294)
    Discrimination: no trolls in the Fellowship.

    Little old ladies spill orc-draught on their laps and sue McDurthang's.

    Constant environmental-impact lawsuits from Fangorn every time someone does as much as mow their lawn or trim a bush.

    Pippin sues "The Prancing Pony" for lodging payment, saying "Nazgul stabbing my pillows in the night was a traumatic lodging experience".

    Sam, didn't you know that Shelob was the last of an endangered species? PETA is now suing you!

    Unfair labor practice suits by Fellowship hobbits who were denied their "elevensies" breaks during journey.

  • Corporate Nepotism (Score:4, Interesting)

    by byronne ( 47527 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @12:57PM (#12932892) Homepage
    One ought to read the article rather than bitch about whether PJ is rich enough or not. What's at issue here is that New Line used preferred vendors within the Time Warner structure to underbid any other competitors. It's equivalent to Time Warner giving itself money under the table so that the gross (which PJ is paid by) is demonstrably lower. From the article:

    The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.

    Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.

    I think he's within his rights, because it sure sounds to me like he's being treated unfairly according to the contract he has with New Line. Whether he makes $200M or $300M is immaterial, it's the company thinking they can get away with ripping him off.

    And what if $100M (or whatever) is the difference between PJ financing his own films completely independently, away from all this corporate BS?

  • Details... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jesus IS the Devil ( 317662 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @02:13PM (#12933715)
    The article is short on details. Without the exact wording of the signed contracts all we have here is an imperfect conversation.

    I'm not surprised though, that this type of tactic is being used on purpose all of the time.

  • Amazing Hypocrisy (Score:3, Informative)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2005 @03:45PM (#12934634) Homepage
    From the article:"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

    Wow, that statement demonstrates astonishing hypocrisy. He's essentially arguing that as long as someone gets a lot of money, they aren't owed anything more, regardless of contract. As if the contract really said "20%, or as much as we feel is enough".

    Well, I am happy to apply this logic across the board. Newline got enough money in my opinion. So I feel it's a bit piggish for them to suggest anyone in the whole world should fork over more money to watch any of the films they've released.

    You heard it straight from the Newline lawyer: ignore the law and download at wi
    ll.

    Cheers.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close