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?'"

44 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. Never happen. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.... ^_^
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Never happen. by ArielMT · · Score: 3, Funny

      He tooks the precious from us, he did, your honor! The filthy hobbitses took it from us! *gollum!*

      --
      It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  2. Sauron called... by metlin · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...he wants his troll back.

    1. Re:Sauron called... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought he wanted his RING back. Oh, wait... he did.

  3. Meh... by El+Neepo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess this doesn't look good for PJ to make The Hobbit with New Line.

    1. Re:Meh... by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

  4. A much different movie by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny
    '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.

  5. What if Frodo had sued? by Crip42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...He would have lost the case because Sauron would be able to afford better lawyers.

    --
    Truely cripped...
  6. Forest Gump by rlp · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Forest Gump by Loco3KGT · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    2. Re:Forest Gump by MattW · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Forest Gump by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  7. Re:$200m!! by mdvolm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  8. And I quote..... by sallgeud · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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?

    1. Re:And I quote..... by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 ;)

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    2. Re:And I quote..... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 5, Funny

      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."

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  9. Smeagol Jackson: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny


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

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

    ^_^

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  10. Possession by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."

    --

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  11. Re:Lawyers by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny
    Everyone knows Sauron has the best lawyers in the land.
    Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul and Nazgul, attorneys-at-law.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  12. Typical Media Conglomerate Attitude by nganju · · 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?

    --
    There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
    1. Re:Typical Media Conglomerate Attitude by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that pretty much the (internal) argument that a lot of /.'ers make in regards pirating Microsoft software? Bill Gates is filthy rich, what me worry?

      --
      -Styopa
  13. From TFA... by razmaspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    1. Re:From TFA... by rogueuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  14. Re:When artists go bad. by rootofevil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    yea, it really sucks when people get the compensation they deserve for producing great works! the nerve of that man! movie producers deserve all the money in the world. all that work they have to do surely justifies the stranglehold they have on the creative medium known as movies.

    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.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  15. He'll still make it...even for NewLine by sgant · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:He'll still make it...even for NewLine by quarkscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

  16. What if...? by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 5, Funny
    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..."

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    1. Re:What if...? by curunir · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  17. Re:Lawyers by ArielMT · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...And in other news tonight, the nine attourneys for Sauron descended the steps of the courthouse in Minas Morgul to deliver a press conference. In it, they announced that the case against Sauron has been dismissed on the grounds that the plantiff's lawyers have all been either slain, bent to the Dark Lord's will, or checked into a mental institution in neighboring Osgiliath, and therefore failed to appear in court on time."

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  18. Just keep one thing in mind by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All MPAA companys play with the books so that everyone involved in the movie gets underpayed while they get over. Same with RIAA, Oil companies, what have you.

    Its called marketing, I mean seriously, none of you actually beleive they lose money doing it? I mean they are BUYING services from a subsidiary of their own freaking company. Thats why half the "Box Office Bombs" actually end up making money for these assholes, they never spent the money to begin with, they just transfered it around.

    The day companies like New Line legitimatly dont cook the books and underpay directors and writers etc, is the day the earth will be consumed by 500,000 mile tall aliens as a snack.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  19. Cast of Lord of the Lawsuits by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  20. Slap NY Times on the hand by null+etc. · · Score: 3, Informative
    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

  21. Re:Ah, /. bias by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it wasn't Peter Jackson, people would be raising all sorts of "greedy pig" ruckus.

    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.

  22. Yes, and then there's the hollywood quote by MattW · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love the quote where they say they gave Jackson "enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it wasn't enough". They try to make him sound greedy, to cover up the fact that he's basically suing them for... being greedy.

    1. Re:Yes, and then there's the hollywood quote by Loconut1389 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  23. Re:Mixed Feelings by AviLazar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  24. Re:$200m!! by danzona · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.

    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?

  25. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Funny

    What do you mean? Lawyers sue the US government all the time.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  26. Re:Stan Lee sued marvel over _Spider Man_ by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    actually he is using the money for his own production company, so he's not just pised that his bank account isn't more unlimited than it should be.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  27. P2P software is hurting the artists.... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The MPAA goes on and on about how P2P is hurting the artists....but they never mention what really goes on. If PJ can't get paid, what hope for the smaller musicians/actors?

    --
    No sig today...
  28. Re:Lawyers by ThrasherTT · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul, Nazgul

    Hob-bit! Hob-bit!

    Ring, a riiinnnng, ohhhh, there's the riiiing!

    --

    All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
  29. Corporate Nepotism by byronne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

    --
    "Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
  30. Re:$200m!! by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  31. NYT broke its own rules quoting the lawyer by toby · · Score: 4, Informative
    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".

    --
    you had me at #!