The Lawsuit of the Rings

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?'"

Comments

Forest Gump

[rlp]

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.

He'll still make it...even for NewLine

[sgant]

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.

Re:From TFA...

[rogueuk]

Here's a nice article from Slate that discusses how the NY Times has violated it's code on confidential news sources.

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.

Re:$200m!!

[jdgeorge]

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 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, 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.

NYT broke its own rules quoting the lawyer

[toby]

Slate.com rightly points out that the NYT broke its own code of conduct 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".