Slashdot Mirror
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?'"
It has nothing to do with whether or not he *needs* the money. If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
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?
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?
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
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 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
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
more like covering up for the fact hes getting screwed, whether or not he has enough money already.
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.
"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.