The Lawsuit of the Rings 446
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?'"
Never happen. (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA:
Well, that's a silly question...between 'professional courtesy' and 'conflict of interest', no lawyer would ever take the case against the evil empire.... ^_^
Re:Never happen. (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Never happen. (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder what would happen if Jackson got himself a magic invisibilty ring, snuck into New Line studios and stabbed everyone with a dagger.
P2P software is hurting the artists.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LoTR was Funded by Copyright Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
Sauron called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sauron called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sauron called... (Score:3, Funny)
Meh... (Score:5, Interesting)
He'll still make it...even for NewLine (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:He'll still make it...even for NewLine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He'll still make it...even for NewLine (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stan Lee sued marvel over _Spider Man_ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stan Lee sued marvel over _Spider Man_ (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously
Besides, $200m is enough to make it on your own, without interference from studio suits.
D
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Interesting)
For a movie like the Hobbit, I'd put $7 worth of trust in Peter Jackson to deliver a film that was worth that investment 2-3 years down the road. He'd probably make more money as well since he'd get more than a 20% share of the pr
A much different movie (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:What if Frodo had sued? (Score:2)
Hmmm... I thought that's were all lawyers come from...
Lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone knows Sauron has the best lawyers in the land.
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Hob-bit! Hob-bit!
Ring, a riiinnnng, ohhhh, there's the riiiing!
Forest Gump (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forest Gump (Score:4, Informative)
Many are run this way (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Yes, and then there's the hollywood quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, and then there's the hollywood quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem in principles here. If i were getting screwed out of 100 million, even if i already had 200 million, i'd be pissed. If Bill Gates or Carnegie let big chunks of money slide because they already had enough, their companies might not have succeeded.
Besides, maybe he was expecting that money so he could donate it somewhere. You never know.
Re:Forest Gump (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:3, Insightful)
The reports they send to the film-makers are broken down for the individual film, and of course, how you attribute various costs and revenues are easier to
Re:Forest Gump (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
And I quote..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:And I quote..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And I quote..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And I quote..... (Score:5, Funny)
"(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)
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).
Re:And I quote..... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Apart from that, isn't it too precious to hear a lawyer complaining about "piggishness".
Smeagol Jackson: (Score:5, Funny)
"Nassty New Line Cinemas...we hates them!"
"I told you they were tricksy...I told you they were false..."
^_^
Re:Smeagol Jackson: (Score:3, Funny)
"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?
Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
So kinda don't know how to come down on this one.
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Except this isn't what happened.
A better version of this analogy would be:
Imagine this - you have
Possession (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Gollum played by Peter Jackson (Score:2, Funny)
"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)
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?
Re:Typical Media Conglomerate Attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers are less powerful then the rings (Score:2)
Both he and his lawyer would be dead. A judgment is just a piece of paper unless you have the power to enforce it.
Wow this is a hard one? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wow this is a hard one? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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!
Re:From TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, if you are going to use an anonymous source to just do a cheap-shot on someone, the NY Times is not supposed to provide anonymity.
I Like This (Score:2, Insightful)
If Frodo Had to Choose a Lawyer Who Would It Be? (Score:2)
Gee... (Score:2)
What if...? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
Cast of Lord of the Lawsuits (Score:4, Funny)
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)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121636 [msn.com]
...as common as hobbits in Middle Earth... (Score:3)
fuck new line (Score:2)
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)
Problem with Media Integration (Score:2, Insightful)
And while I don't re
Top Middle-Earth Lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
I'm not surprised though, that this type of tactic is being used on purpose all of the time.
Amazing Hypocrisy (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:$200m!! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
Re:$200m!! (Score:2)
Oh wait wait here comes the negative mods. Someone mod it insightful so i can be an Insightful troll
Re:$200m!! (Score:2)
*Provided the evidence "proves" as such.
Re:$200m!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I RTFA and it is a little weak on detail, but it appears that PJ got what he was entitled to.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL would have made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
For everyone who posted that a contract is a contract, it would seem that if NL never promised to sell to the highest bidder, then NL met all the terms of the contract and PJ got what he deserved.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
I wonder if I could sue our sales department for not generating enough revenue?
Re:$200m!! (Score:5, Informative)
The suit contends that NL made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
Not exactly. According to this article at Slate [msn.com], the issue is that the "pre-emptive bidding" process used to sell the rights within Time Warner allowed New Line to suppress the total amount of money they made on the films. It appears that Peter Jackson contends that they shortchanged him and were able to hide it by using this method of selling the rights.
Re:$200m!! (Score:3, Funny)
By knowing how to read and write and having access to a computer capable of posting that comment, you have put yourself in the top 2% in the world. From the viewpoint of 95% below you, you are obscenely rich.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Re:$200m!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you about wealth concentrating in a few hands, and I also agree it's not a good thing.
But for a large corporation to decry paying an individual for the amount they contracted for -- one can hardly say this has any
Re:$200m!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$200m!! (Score:2)
Won't someone please think of the shareholders?
Re:$200m!! (Score:2)
Besides, I only want $1M, and nobody feels sorry for me
Re:$200m!! (Score:2)
Who will make better use of the funds: Peter Jackson, or New Line? I'm biased towards the former, although in at least one case, a brilliant filmmaker got rich off merchandizing rights, and then proceeded to make a series of flawed movies. Pixar, ILM, THX, and Skywalker Sound partially make up for this...
Re:Worlds colliding (Score:2)
-
We have been trolled. [slashdot.org]
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
Please. They signed a contract giving him 20% (of gross), and now he wants them to make good. The fact that it's a _lot_ more money than they thought it would be shouldn't really factor into it...
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
Would you be happier if NewLine got to keep the money?!? The money belongs to someone. I say give it to the guy who created it.
Where do you draw the line (Score:2)
If an actor is shorted and receives $50k instead of $75 is it fine for them to sue?
Except in that case, the lawyers fees would probably negate any value in suing.
Also when you start to reach the level of wealth that Jackson has, the only valuable thing to do with it is to start donating to charity. Jackson might be a money-hungry whore, but i'm certain he'll make better use of the cash than new line cinema.
Re:Where do you draw the line (Score:3, Funny)
I wish I could be shorted like that
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
What a load of garbage. He agreed to do the picture for $x. He was given $y. He wants his $x back.
Is it greedy, if I agree to work for someone for $50, and when I get paid $45 I complain?
IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT!
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
Gee "mentally retarded" and "lawyer" in the same sentence. Who would have thought? :-p
Seriously, though, some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have come from having to deal with lawyers. The old tactic of throwing everything you can out there and seeing what sticks leads to vast amounts of idiotic shit being thrown about.
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
if you read the article (which it appears you neglected to, surprise surprise) Mr. Jackson claims that new line basically sold away the merchandise rights without taking bids, which would have resulted in millions of more dollars being made. a poor business decision no doubt, since it resulted in significantly lower profits.
the writeup itself is also flawed, as the NYT is using an anonymous quote from one of the parties involved, ostensibly the defense, which is against its own policies regarding anonymous quotes.
Re:When artists go bad. (Score:2)
What do they do with all the money?
There is a limit to the number of houses, cars, computers,... you, as a person/family, can use at any given time. And I would guess a few hundred million dollars should be able to buy you that easily.
Re:Ah, /. bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubt it. Because even as greedy a pig as the director might seem for making well into nine digits and still wanting more, the studios are EVEN GREEDIER PIGS for trying to keep the director's money for themselves.
If there's no Little Guy to root for in this case, there's at least still The Smaller of Two Giants.
Re:Frodo (Score:2)
The Nazgul on his horse came at the hobbit farmer. They were about slap him with a death subpeona if he didn't fess up to where the hobbits were. Thats total lawyer tactics "Tell us what we want to know, or we will take your life from you."
Re:Frodo (Score:2)
Re:Lawsuits in Hollywood (Score:2)
Too true, too true. You should see the Boulevard at this time of year. SWARMING with Ents it is. They're a pain in the ass but we put up with them 'cos they bring in the Green.
Re:slashdot double standards (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's not as much a double standard as it is some misconception on your part. We (as slashdot users) are not the borg. Please do not lump me in with the majority of users. That's not even to be trollish, I'm just sick of stereotypical geek values being assumed to be mine by the public.
most of you guys have no problem at all taking from the rich and justifying it because they're rich
That's pretty much a universal way of thinking and certainly is not l