New Line And Jackson - Irreconcilable Differences

Petersko writes to mention a CNN article about an escalation between Peter Jackson and New Line that likely means we'll never see a Jackson-helmed "Hobbit" film. From the article: "In an interview with the Sci Fi Channel news service Sci Fi Wire, [New Line co-chairman Bob] Shaye said Jackson will never make another movie for the studio and said the filmmaker just wants more money. 'I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore,' Shaye said. 'He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars. ... Cheers, Peter.'"

Please don't kill me...

[QueePWNzor]

Does it really matter? If they find a competant guy, who cares for him. He just has a more famous name, that's all.

this guy's full of it

[macadamia_harold]

'He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.

It would seem the disagreement comes over "creative accounting" practices over at New Line. It would also seem that Peter Jackson has already tried to "sit down and talk about it".

What's really sad is that Shaye is such typical Hollywood; he actually believes an ego-driven pissing contest is more important than creating good work, and paying artists what the contract specifies.

I'd say...

[KoshClassic]

I don't know what the terms of the contract were, but if Jackson's contract calls for him to be paid more, then I'd say he's completely justified in thinking they owe him something after they've paid him a quarter of a billion dollars. That's why contracts are negotiated - otherwise he could have taken his business elsewhere. They can't retroactively say "We paid you $250 million and that's an awful lot of money, don't be greedy" if they agreed to $300 million.

Give it a week

[sammyo]

Who says Shaye will be there next week? Things could change in
an hour. An active lawsuit certainly affects business partners
but the studios board just needs to make the tiny conceptual
leap that another couple billion dollars is better than Shaye.

Sheesh, anyone believe ANYTHING said in H'wood? Give me a break.

Bob Shaye is a fool...

[mbone]

and if I was Chairman of his board he would be fired.

Nevermind how much Peter Jackson was paid - how much did he make for them ? Yes, I am sure he can be replaced - after all, movies of the quality and popularity of LOTR are so common.

Re:well

[Xybot]

Mr Bob Shaye is a multi billionaire, I'm sure he wouldn't be shy in questioning dodgy accounting practises if he was on the recieving end

Re:Its amazing

[morpheus343]

Nice way to ignore the move studio's greed.

Is it crazy to pay anyone millions of dollars for their work? Maybe, maybe not, but if a major company agrees to pay someone $X for their work and what they bring to a project it's utterly wrong to turn around and play the "you're being greedy wanting more money" card. If you agree to a deal with someone and they meet (and agruably exceed) your esxpectations then you should honor the deal, if you don't your a greedy slimeball who should be avoided at all costs.

New line agreed to pay Jackson according to some formula based on how well the movies did. Jackson is questioning their accounting practices and instead of turning around and saying "fine, look at the books, we paid you what we agreed to pay you", New Line has resorted to school yard tactics and they're basically calling him names. They have the information that could settle this case once and for all and the fact that they refuse to provide it makes it look like they do have something to hide.

You can lament that some people's salaries exist in a range that most of us can't even pretend to dream of, but think about what the big company is going to do to the average consumer if they'll turn on Jackson after he made them an amount of money that is many times greater than the what they paid him.

Good job at looking at just one side of the situation.

Jackson's right

[popo]

Movie studios do this kind of thing all the time. Frequently they give actors and directors "points on the back" which is supposed to mean a portion of "profit".

What the studios do is claim the film hasn't made any profit, and cite an enormous number of line items which cost the producers money.

What the studios have actually done is just shuffled money around: Spending in one place, and earning back somewhere else. Its an effort to avoid paying for those points.

There's a famous story of Forrest Gump which was smash hit, but supposedly never made any money because of creative financing. The studio got rich, and those with backend points never got a dime.

The audit Jackson wants to do would very likely trace those lost profits right back to the producers.

Re:Its amazing

[Xybot]

It works like this: Someone says "I'll give you $X to do this, You do the job and receive $Y. When they refuse to explain the difference you take them to court. The reason they get paid soo much, is supply and demand. If you make 3 movies like Lord of the Rings, you can ask for that much money. It's called capitalism.

Re:Its amazing

[rob1980]

I totally agree about Bob Nardelli - what I've read about his resignation from Home Depot seems to indicate it came from the stock losing ground vs. a competitor over a six-year period, and you're right that most of us would simply be shown the door without a golden handshake for doing a poor job.

That said, this has absolutely nothing to do with Peter Jackson vs. New Line.

Signing a contract with somebody saying you're going to pay them a certain amount of money, then covering your tracks so you don't have to pay them as much - if this is indeed what occurred - deserves to be pursued just on principle, regardless of the amount of money involved. I don't care if we're talking $250 million for making a trilogy that grosses $3 billion dollars as the box office, or $25 for fixing a friend of a friend's computer. There's still something to be said these days about giving your word to somebody and then following through with it.

waa waaa

[Lehk228]

waa waa we already paid so much we shouldn't have to follow the law and pay what we agreed to. following the law is for other people not us.

Good, give someone else a try

[schwaang]

Slashdot karma be damned, but IMHO LOTR almost completely failed to capture that Tolkienesque feel that I get from reading the books.

As a Tolkien fan, it could have been far far worse, and it was still an epic movie-making acheivement. I enjoyed the films for what they were. Seeing a cave troll was neat and all, but that over-the-top style, blaring music, and constant cgi-on-steroids action missed the finer points of Tolkien's sense of history and especially language. For god's sake man, let's hear a riddle or two!

So I say let someone with a lighter touch try to capture the spirit of Tolkien on film for The Hobbit.

Re:this guy's full of it

[rob1980]

Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done".

That almost sounds like blackmail.

Re:this guy's full of it

[NormalVisual]

Yeah, except for the "almost" part.

Re:this guy's full of it

[russ1337]

Yeah, its like "if you want the money we owe you, you're going to have to work for it... again"

Re:this guy's full of it

[Tim Browse]

Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up.

So your logic is, if someone has a history of acting like a selfish jerk, you should just let them get away with it, because "that's what they do"?

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Jackson to make a Hollywood picture, in the knowledge that some people at Hollywood are dishonest sharks. If he then calls them on being dishonest sharks, more power to him.

Just because they always do it, doesn't mean it's right, or that they should continue to get away with it.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Dachannien]

I think he's directed some good movies, the LotR trilogy included, but I don't think he was "spot on" in his adaptation. If anything, there were very significant plot elements for which he opted to "adapt" them as being completely opposite to what Tolkien wrote.

I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy or removing Tom Bombadil. Some things just don't play well on the screen, and it's understandable that changes were made (even if I'm not a big fan of those changes).

I'm talking about, among other things, completely reinterpreting a character such as Faramir, who was at his core good and uncorrupted by a desire for power, unlike his brother Boromir. Rewriting Faramir to attempt to deliver the ring to Gondor, instead of seeing it for what it truly was, demonstrated Jackson's (and Walsh's and Boyens's) ignorance of, or refusal to appreciate, Faramir's significance in the story. There was (supposed to be) no conflict in Faramir's mind between helping to save his homeland by destroying the ring and bringing home a prize to please his unappreciative father. He had long ago resigned himself to being considered weak by his father in comparison to Boromir, because his weakness in the eyes of his father - acting for the good of all rather than the glory of Gondor - was actually a strength worthy of his Numenorean lineage.

Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?

Re:More to come

[cptgrudge]

Meanwhile, MGM holds the distribution rights for the Hobbit, and has already said on record that they would want Peter Jackson to direct the film.

In a movie trilogy such as LOTR with such a large cast, the director kinda becomes the Superstar. MGM knows this, and would have no problem raking in a few hundred million by getting Peter Jackson to do it when they get the rights back. For many fans and even normal people, Peter Jackson is LOTR, and New Line is foolish if they think that the majority wouldn't just dismiss it outright, even if a comparable director was at hand and they could convince those few of the cast to reprise their roles.

I wouldn't watch it, and most of the people in my family that are just the "average moviegoer" wouldn't watch it. It has transcended the geek world and reached the status of cultural icon. Unlike something such as DRM, which maintains a visibility only to our sphere, nearly everyone knows about the LOTR movies. "Don't go see it, Peter Jackson didn't direct it." would be a common phrase if New Line did it. At least that's what I'd tell everyone that would listen.

Re:might be fair

[NeutronCowboy]

Irrelevant. What's fair is that he gets paid what was in the contract. Doesn't matter whether that's 250 million, 10 bucks or a billion. If he thinks that dodgy accounting practices are responsible for reducing his cut, he has every right to challenge the accounting.

Re:Its amazing

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay...
Let's say that you agreed to work for 30% of the take.
They make $1 "Billion" dollars.

They give you $250 "Million" dollars.

Are you being greedy to ask for your other bloody 50 MILLION dollars?

Re:I'd say...

[Ucklak]

Don't forget that George Lucas built his empire on the merchandising - a throw away right back then.

Re:Just give him the money

[StrongAxe]

Why don't they just give him whatever he wants. It's not like they are going to lose money on another of those films.

Because what he actually WANTS is to have an independent third party to look at their books and decide what is fair (he probably believes they owe him money, but he said he would be happy with whatever the auditors decide).

It is common industry practice to shuffle expenses around from one department to another, so that on paper, even a multi-billion-dollar movie never makes any profit, so the studios get away without paying any royalties. If they gave him what he wanted, these practices would be exposed for all to see. This is much more than a few hundred million from one blockbuster movie - it is about similar practices from every blockbuster movie ever made. No studio in their right minds would dare to have this kind of thing become publicly known (or worse, proven so that all the people they have defrauded out of royalties be able to sue them over it).

Re:Cheers indeed

[nagora]

Seconded. If his adaptation was terrible, because he is a terrible director, then, the books must have been 'terrible'.

Uhn? A bad director took a book, made a complete fucking mess of adapting it to a screenplay and in addition directed the resulting crap-fest badly, and so you think the fault lies in the book? How strange.

MGM can fix this

[Dracos]

New Line may have the production rights to The Hobbit, but MGM has the distribution rights. IT was MGM who approached New Line about doing the Hobbit movie(s), and MGM wants Jackson to direct. So does Saul Zaents.

IIRC, production rights revert back to Saul Zaents some time this year if New Line has not legitimately begun production.

Since MGM and New Line are partnering up to do the Hobbit (neither can do it alone, since the rights are split up), MGM could simply stall the process until New Line loses the production rights. Then MGM relicenses production from Zaents, asks Jackson to direct, and everyone is happy.

Except the fans (who may have to wait a while longer for a "proper" Hobbit film to get done), and Bob Shaye, who will miss out on the preciousss profitses from the Hobbit. He simply needs to STFU and allow the audits of the LOTR films to happen.

Re:well

[Captain Splendid]

It's about the rights, dumbass.

Oops! Sorry, Red!

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[cranos]

Fine, you go and make the twenty-six three hour movies it would take to truly bring to life the Tolkien vision then ;)

People are making the mistake of comparing the books and films in a literal sense. The movies were never going to be able to do full justice to the vision, however I believe they are the only ones so far that have come within a mile of doing that.

Re:Its amazing

[AJWM]

and a contract that said he was to be paid 10% of profits.

That was his mistake. If you're ever in a position to negotiate a deal with Hollywood, never, ever, go for a percentage of the profits (or net). Go for a percentage of gross. Sure, it'll be a smaller percentage, but the number itself would be non-zero. (Consider if Stan Lee had a contract that said he got, say 1/4 % of the gross. He'd be owed $2 millon.)

As others have pointed out, studios have all kinds of creative accounting practises that will reduce the net to zero, if not negative.

Re:Its amazing

[Dunbal]

Can you shoot a commercial grade movie? He can.

      I dunno. After King Kong I am not too sure anymore.

Reminds Me of Stan Lee and Marvel

[GaryPatterson]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/60II/mai n527513.shtml [cbsnews.com]

Stan Lee had a contract for a percentage of the profits of the films and merchandise, but the company didn't want to pay him. He sued and was awarded a cut of the profits.

Not immediately relevant, but reminiscent.

No loss

[SideshowBob]

After what he and his writers did to Two Towers and Return of the King, I think the material might be better served by someone else.

(Not that I'm holding out hopes of a Hollywood studio being able to find that person)

Errors of omission are to be expected with such a long work, but completely altering some of the major themes of the two works is unforgivable.

Re:might be fair

[MinutiaeMan]

But don't forget that profits from films and other forms of entertainment are often divided based on percentages. How can one be certain they're getting their contractually agreed-upon share without open and equal access to the financial numbers? Based on my reading of the various articles, that seems to be the core of the dispute. Peter Jackson's open letter specifically stated it's not primarily about the money... it's about fulfilling contractual obligations and receiving the (perfectly normal) right to have full access to the accounting information.

Re:Its amazing

[alienmole]

Why do we allow our culture to pay people so much money while the minimum wage remains the same for 10 years despite a %400 increase in the cost of living?

Because the people working for minimum wage don't contribute much to the economy. If they did, they'd be able to earn more money -- that's what money is, it's an abstraction of the value of the contribution you make to the economy.

Aside from that, as others have pointed out, this isn't a personal paycheck for Peter Jackson -- it's for a company full of ordinary (well, somewhat extraordinary) people who worked their asses off to make three movies which millions of people enjoyed. New Line Cinema's dodgy accounting practices is screwing those people out of money they have earned.

an act of charity

[gijoel]

You know if New Line gave $250 Million to a hobo as an act of charity then I think this numbat would have a point. But they didn't. They gave it to Wingnut films, a business that they had signed a contract with.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Hollywood is known for, err, "creative" accounting practices, where a movie that makes piles of money is suddenly unprofitable because they've shuffled the money into other divisions of their own corporation, and now they don't have to pay people based on the amount of money that comes in.

They've been doing this crap forever, and while Jackson isn't the first to call them on it, he's actually been successful enough recently that they can't just roll their eyes and dismiss him as a crackpot. Although they're certainly trying to characterize him as one with the public.

Re:I have no respect for Jackson

[Kalriath]

Erm, it's Peter Jackson's COMPANY doing the whining here, because the COMPANY (with all those people you say that made it successful) that didn't get as much as it should have, which affects those people you say made it successful. You know, the cast and crew?

Re:I'd say...

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

In all fairness trying to do 'true accounting' on a three movie, billion dollar series production, merchandising, etc etc. must be a frigging nightmare.

Re:Please don't kill me...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just about losing him, more importantly it's losing WETA. If you think that doesn't matter compare the battle scenes from Episode 3 to the ones in LOTR, hell even compare them to Narnia.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Dachannien]

The temptation of the ring was so blatant it led to Boromir's demise. By making Faramir resist the temptation to take it back to Gondor from the get-go, Tolkien sharply contrasted the two brothers, something that was largely missing from the movie. Jackson could have played up that contrast even more with some dialogue that showed that while Faramir desired it as much as everyone else, he was willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good because he was a truly honorable person.

Re:Please don't kill me...

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't a famous name until he proved that he is a VERY competent guy - that's what he's famous for.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Godwin O'Hitler]

"I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy"

I recently rewatched the whole of LOTR on DVD and it'll be the last time I do watch it. And Arwen is the main reason for that. To be honest, once the initial CGI wow factor has worn off I find it a supremely boring, disjointed film, and Arwen is the main source of that boredom. I'm willing to bite the bullet and accept silly changes and dumbing down, like the cavalry coming to the rescue in TTT, but I can't accept being bored. Would the film REALLY have suffered without all those endless scenes between Arwen and her dad?

Re:Jackson's right

[MadUndergrad]

Wow, that's a pretty big assumption. You think that PJ is using the exact same contract as the author of Forrest Gump did? What nonsense. He's not even suing for more money, just an impartial audit of New Line's finances for the movies. Given his behavior, and their behavior, I'd say that New Line is the sleazyn greedy bastard party in this dispute. If he wins this suit, and he's not entitled to more money, he gets no more money. If New Line is doing no wrong they have no reason not to allow an audit, as it will not hurt them in any way.

Re:Please don't kill me...

[hotdiggitydawg]

George Lucas even.. there are a lot of extremely good directors who are far more talented than Jackson... hope one of them get to do the Hobbit, then we might have better plot, characters and far, far intrusive CGI nonsense.

Eeeeeexcuse me? George Lucas is the grand-master of intrusive CGI nonsense. I'm not a huge fan of Peter's work, but compared to him, PJ is only halfway up the chain.

We'll look back at LoTR in a few years and say 'god, it looks so dated, those CGI battles are just crap', whereas no-one says that about the very first Star Wars.

Correct - they're too busy saying it about the new Star Wars movies instead. The old versions are works of art made as skilfully as was possible with the tools of the day. The new one, on the other hand... seriously, how can you whinge about CGI in movies at the same time as praising the guy who created Jar Jar Binks?

Minimum wage considered harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

When people do valuable work, they get paid more than minimum wage. Have you ever heard of a skilled doctor who earns only minimum wage?

The minimum wage sets a floor, below which people may not be paid. That means that a business will never take a chance on some job candidates. If some guy Joe with no education shows up to sweep the floors for $2 an hour, and the boss notices that Joe always shows up on time and does a great job, Joe can get promoted (not hard to get promoted from a bottom-rung job like floor sweeping); pretty soon Joe is getting $8 or $10 an hour. Compare with the minimum wage: Joe applies for a job, and the boss says "this guy has no education, no way am I paying him $7.25 an hour".

Also, instead of hiring several people at $2 per hour, and promoting the ones who turn out to be good workers, businesses will hire a single person at $7.25 an hour, and try to hire only workers that will turn out to be good workers. So not only is it harder to get a job, there are fewer jobs to get.

In short, a minimum wage saws off the bottom rungs of the ladder. This doesn't hurt me, or anyone else who is above the bottom of the ladder already. It only hurts the very people it is supposedly helping.

If the minimum wage is such a good idea, why don't we set it at $1000 per hour? I'd like to earn $1000 per hour. Well, most people can tell right away that a $1000 minimum wage would have some bad effects. A $7.25 minimum wage has the same bad effects, but they aren't as obvious.