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.'"

Comments

might be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

how much did THEY make from the films?

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:might be fair

[angel'o'sphere]

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.
It depends on yoour point of view. In Europe its a) not considered fair, and b) prohibited by our version of copyrigiht law. So e.g. if he indeed had made the movie for 10 bucks, a court would assign a suiting part of the revenew to him, of course he had to sue first ... but he would always win.

OTOH, under which law did he sign the contract? US or Australian? Note: if he "earned" 250 million, then certainly that is fair, regardless how much the movie played in ... But: probably they sat together and estimated 5 billion earnign s and concluded from that 250 millino is fair, but made in fact 20 billion earning and this he fidns it unfair ... understandable IMHO.

angel'o'sphere

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:might be fair

[astromog]

under which law did he sign the contract? US or Australian?

Contrary to popular opinion across the ditch, Australian law doesn't hold in NZ just yet.

Re:might be fair

[Nimey]

But isn't NZ part of Australia?

gd&r

Re:might be fair

[HexRei]

Not that I know of...

http://www.govt.nz/record?tid=6&recordid=6163

Re:might be fair

[edwardpickman]

I'm sure they did short him it's a time honored tradition in Hollywood but he was paid the bulk of his money and he is the luckiest SOB that ever lived. All he contributed was writing, directing and the services of Weta which they were paid for. For that I believe his cut was a third of the gross. Considering he'd never had a big hit, Frighteners was his biggest and it didn't do that well, that was one hell of a deal. The studio had the rights to the material and provided all the cash. One slight other issue he went 100% over budget. The reason he got the deal originally was he agreed to do the films cheap and they got more for their money in NZ. He also was offering for Weta to do the effects cheap. Considering it went 100% over he was lucky they honored the deal. If the films had tanked he wouldn't have seen a dime even if there were some profits. I'm not saying he didn't deserve a chunk of money but for some one that didn't have a hit to get a deal like that was unheard of. I dealt with him on the film and I'm guessing he got testy with the studio rather than being diplomatic and they said screw you. They all stood to make a lot more than the disputed amount on a Hobbit film but the squabbling on both sides killed the deal. You can't agrue with the final results on the trilogy but I have to say King Kong was unwatchable crap so they may have been hesitant to give him that much rope again. There was a lot of ego on the screen with Kong. A real editor could have hacked an hour out of it and had a dramatically better movie. The weak acting, writing and directing couldn't be fixed but there were some amazing effects shots you just needed to get rid of the godawful character stuff between the effects shots. Even a lot of the effects scenes got boring because the dragged on too long.

Re:might be fair

[angel'o'sphere]

That was not my point ;D

So was it a NZ, US or Australian contract ;D

angel'o'sphere

Re:might be fair

[Nordrick Framelhamme]

No. BTW, which part of Canada do you live in? Alberta, Quebec? New York? Rhode Island.

Re:might be fair

[NorQue]

You're 100% right about King Kong. I still can't believe that he managed to make an "extended edition" out of the original three hour theatrical cut... and I can't believe I have it sitting here waiting to be watched, too.

Re:might be fair

[cranos]

So what you're saying is that in some other universe Jackson screwed the pooch on the films and they bombed so in this universe he doesn't deserve to ask for an independant audit of the books?

Say hi to bizarro when you see him.

Re:might be fair

[frost22]

It depends on yoour point of view. In Europe its a) not considered fair, and b) prohibited by our version of copyrigiht law.

This is nonsense. Nothing in European law prohibits Jackson from having and enforcing contracts guaranteeing him whatever amount the parties have agreed upon. Contracts between companies are perfectly valid - the only thing that might be invalid is a contract that does not give any benefit to one party.

Re:might be fair

[Tatarize]

His suit is based on unfair practices by Time Warner. The movies made a crapload and the secondary profits the merchandising rights, which Jackson gets a cut of, were sold off to other Time Warner companies for less than they could have gotten.

This is happens a lot with these giant places, they just sell the rights within the companies and don't make as much profit because they undersold it. This is the same crap that Fox pulled with X-Files having sold the syndication rights to FX for much less than they were worth. The studio bitching that Jackson got 250 million dollars on a trilogy which made like 20 billion is pathetic.

He should be allowed to see the records and prove his case. Just because the studio thinks 250 million dollars is *enough* doesn't make the studio able to ignore the contract.

Re:might be fair

[worldthinker]

The deal is the deal. All of what you're talking about is really irrelevant. The correct disposition of the deal depends on a proper accounting of the revenues and profits of the films. Not about Mr. Jackson's previous experience or an assessment of his talents.

The studio took a gamble; that is the nature of their business. The gamble has obviously paid off handsomely. How interesting in the case of another blockbuster, Titanic, the studio bosses actually rewarded its director with a huge bonus far beyond the terms of his contract.

I did not watch King Kong because I wasn't interested in the subject to begin with so I can't comment on its quality or lack there of. But, I am convinced that Jackson and his team are singularly qualified to interpret Tolkien's work to the screen. How do you take the dense (and in my opinion dry) words of Tolkien and present them in such a way that their richness and three dimensional qualities show forth? Jackson I believe has done that. Can another director even begin to take this on? I seriously doubt it.

In Mr. Jackson's corner are people that control the rights and they have indicated that if Jackson doesn't get to make the Hobbit then no one does. So the studio boss that made Mr. Jackson persona non-gratis may find himself in that very condition.

Re:might be fair

[reklusband]

As a Rhode Islander, I'd be happy if Canada annexed New England. We'd have socialized medicine, a (relatively) intelligent government, the ability to say "Eh," Kids in the Hall would be hometown heros instead of "Those Funny Gay Men" and we'd not have to deal with how frigging cold it is there.

Re:might be fair

[pertelote]

Probably more than Tolkien made......

Re:might be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy for Rhode Island to say... you're already irrelevant. But can you imagine the Red Sox or the Patriots as Canadian teams? Yuck!

Cheers indeed

[nagora]

I hope I speak for all fans of quality movies when I say "Don't let that talentless hack bastard near another set as long as he lives.". Terrible, terrible director.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you speak for somewhat fewer than all fans of quality movies.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Pumpkin Tuna]

You don't. Most people think Jackson was pretty much spot on in his adaptation. If anything, a new director, handpicked by the studio clowns, will be much, much worse.

Who wants to bet we'll see "younger, edgier" hobbits and a "rockin'" soundtrack. Justin Timberlake is getting some good buzz for his new movie. I wonder what his version of "The Road Goes Ever On and On" would sound like . . .

Re:Cheers indeed

[adamlazz]

Seconded. If his adaptation was terrible, because he is a terrible director, then, the books must have been 'terrible'. Wasn't he supposed to direct a Halo film? :\

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: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.

Re:Cheers indeed

[dangitman]

Jackson is a terrible director? I don't think so. What about his work on Meet the Feebles, Heavenly Creatures or even The frighteners? Also, he's a lot more than just a director. He's also a writer and knows a lot about cinematography and effects. Are you just basing your opinion on the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Sure, that's not his best work, but it's not his entire body of work by any means.

Re:Cheers indeed

[nagora]

I admit that I've not seen Feebles, and the other two are better than his LotR; but they're still fairly bland. I get the impression from interviews that he does know a lot about cinematography, but he can't actually do it. I know a lot about art but I can't paint to save my life.

All the strong points of LotR (and there were many) were in technical areas like design. Anything Jackson himself touched turned to crap. Breakdancing wizards spring to mind. Dear GOD!

Re:Cheers indeed

[Hal_Porter]

Don't forget Bad Taste and Brain Dead. No one can deny that they are works of cinematic genius.

Re:Cheers indeed

[wakejagr]

Woo-hoo! He's being a dumbass, and insulting wikipedia in his sig. I've got myself a new foe!

Re:Cheers indeed

[king-manic]

I felt that it didn't really change anything with faramir. You do have to consider that the film was going to be seen by mostly those who did read the book. So the temptation of the ring needs to be more blatant. Consider that out of a cast of about a dozen protagonists we already have 2 resisting the ring. As well as 2 other incidental characters who ignore it's charms. Now shows a third who isn't power or special who also resists it and you kind of seriously deluted it's danger.

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:Cheers indeed

[king-manic]

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. The connection between boromirs temptation and his death seem unrelated. Since it's his redeption that gets him killed. That and being ambushed by a dozen orcs. The arguement could be made that he wouldn't have been there had he not gone off for frodo but I think the link is non exsistant in the film and tenious in the actual book. They made a decision, I can see his point and so be it. You need ot be far more blatant in film then in writing. Perhaps they over did it, they might have been able to show the same "conflict" without dragging the two hobbits to osgiliath. But I felt the alteration wasn't that bad.

Re:Cheers indeed

[dangitman]

I admit that I've not seen Feebles, and the other two are better than his LotR; but they're still fairly bland.

But that's not the same thing as being a terrible director. I don't think that Peter Jackson is a brilliant director, but he certainly is not terrible as you claimed. I would say a terrible director is whoever directed Speed 2 and other Hollywood tripe. I think Jackson is commendable for the diversity of films he makes, and the novel ideas he comes up with. And especially for doing so many decent films in his early years on basically no budget.

I get the impression from interviews that he does know a lot about cinematography, but he can't actually do it.

And that's exactly what being a director is all about - not doing everything yourself, but understanding enough about the methods and language of the specialists, and being able to work with them well. As for whether he can do cinematography, I'm not so sure he hasn't done any of it himself. As I said, the early films were very low budget, and he probably got much more involved in the hand-on making of the films than most directors would be. My sister gave me a biography of Jackson for Xmas - so I'll guess I'll find out when I get around to cracking that tome.

Anything Jackson himself touched turned to crap.

Well, that seems patently untrue to me. Again, if I give the example of Meet the Feebles which is brilliant. Nothing crap about it.

Re:Cheers indeed

[dangitman]

Well, Lord of the Rings was a total crapfest of a book, so if the films turned out crappy, then he must have done a pretty accurate job of the adaptation. That's why i don't particularly like the LotR films - they were based on such shitty material.

Re:Cheers indeed

[myowntrueself]

At least The Frighteners wasn't *wing commander* bad.

It was way too bland to be that bad.

Re:Cheers indeed

[(negative video)]

If anything, a new director, handpicked by the studio clowns, will be much, much worse.

I dunno, I'd pay good money to see a version of The Hobbit directed by Harold Ramis, with Bilbo played by Danny DeVito, and Thorin played by Warwick Davis. It would be a thing of beauty, like watching a Nascar race for the crashes. Mind you, not at the expense of not making a Peter Jackson version too.

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:Cheers indeed

[(negative video)]

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, ...

The thing is, books are omniscient. The author can occasionally spoon-feed the reader direct insight into a character's motivations and mental state. A sentence or two can convey immensities. A reader who gets confused can skip back a page or two, or stop and think for a few seconds.

Whereas in a movie the spectator has to infer it by being shown people doing things, in real time, with unstoppable story progression. If you do exposition, you either need a narrator to be set up and used consistently, or you have to make the watcher view the exposition through the lens of the character doing the talking. (Or, God help you, you can scroll text across a black screen. "It is the year 2147 and robots rule the Earth...") If the exposition is important, it has to be simplified and repeated to make sure the audience doesn't miss it. A flashback to Faramir and Boromir's boyhood could have been used to show their differences, but it would have broken the story flow and introduced at least two new (but not really) characters. Contrast that with how, upon Faramir seeing Pippin's uniform, the movie used a reminiscence to their youth instead of a flashback, which flowed well, burned only a couple of seconds of precious screen time, and gave a great deal of insight into Faramir and his essential humility.

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.

Faramir's actions in the movie clearly showed him to be good, not instantly and not starkly, but surely and strongly nonetheless. In his reflection upon the slain enemy, wondering if the enemy's duty and character were any less than his own. In the flashback to Boromir's lament to the king that "He tries to do well and you give him no credit." He held a sword in anger to Frodo's throat, with no possibility of the Ring escaping his grasp, then drew his hand back because the Ring was not his to wield. At Osgiliath, a trusted lieutenant reminded him of his supposed duty to bring the Ring back, and how failing that duty would cost him his honor in his father's eyes and his life, yet Faramir sent the Ring away with a smile and a clear heart, the cobwebs having been shaken away by the Enemy's hand. Likewise, his unselfconscious kindness and optimism with Eowyn were an echo of the grace of the kings of old; it is no trouble to imagine a prideful Boromir in the same circumstance snapping at Eowyn and raging at the wounds that keep him from battle.

Showing a story simply does not work the same way as telling it. That makes it different, not worse. And more's the luck, with this one you get both.

Re:Cheers indeed

[adamlazz]

I see where you are coming.
But was King Kong bad? Even though it wasn't a book, I'm sure you have an opinion on the film that Peter Jackson directed.

This may just be a differience in opinion. ;)

Re:Cheers indeed

[Enderandrew]

He is producing the Halo film. A first-time director was directing it.

Re:Cheers indeed

[MotorMachineMercenar]

While I agree to a point about extraneous Arwen scenes, having one or two short scenes of a 10+ hour film which is otherwise magnificent make you not watch it again is just sad.

Now, if you were talking about the endless, boring and slow-paced ent scenes I'd understand your pain completely. I feel like pouring battery acid in my eyes every time the droning idiots congregate.

Re:Cheers indeed

[Yunzil]

yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?

A) He's a human, and as said in the prologue, men, above all the other races, desire power, and B) he did resist in the end, so what's the problem?

If you watch the documentaries on the extended DVDs they explain the changes to Faramir pretty well. The main problem is that after spending hours beating it into the audience's head that the Ring is the most evil thing ever created, and then to have a character say, as in the books, "I would not take it if I found it by the wayside" just sucks all the power out of the Ring.

You should be asking, in the books, why wasn't Faramir even tempted?

Re:Cheers indeed

[Dachannien]

He held a sword in anger to Frodo's throat, with no possibility of the Ring escaping his grasp, then drew his hand back because the Ring was not his to wield.

Boromir came to the eventual realization that the Ring was not for him to take, either. The difference is supposed to be that Faramir realizes this from the outset, because at his core, he is different from Boromir. This wasn't just hinted at in the book. It was incredibly glaringly obvious. Faramir actually says to Frodo that he would never take the Ring under any circumstances.

Jackson's version of the story is analogous to telling the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree by saying that he lied to his father about it at first, but owned up to it a few days later. Does it extend that section of the plot by inserting conflict? Sure. But it's telling the story wrong.

Re:Cheers indeed

[(negative video)]

This wasn't just hinted at in the book. It was incredibly glaringly obvious.

Exactly my point. In a few sentences, Tolkien gave us omniscient insight into Faramir's character and motivation. Books are built of high-level symbolic statements and can make that sort of thing believable.

Movies are built of pictures of things happening to people. In a movie, that would have had Frodo meeting a pack of strange soldiers in the middle of a pitched battle, a battle to kill those summoned to Mordor. Frodo would say "I'm going to Mordor too, and by the way I have a powerful weapon of the Enemy's, the one your king has bidden you to collect," and the soldiers would instantly shrug off the king's orders and throw themselves at Frodo's feet.

It would have been utterly unbelievable.

A pervasive narrator could have made it work after a fashion, but at a high cost to smooth flow. And at the cost of main plot becoming "tell" instead of "show".

Boromir came to the eventual realization that the Ring was not for him to take, either.

But because the Power of the Enemy tore it from his grasp, not because his own strength of will won. Faramir prevailed despite having is nose practically rubbed in the Ring's power, time after time, and the extent of his temptation was temporarily continuing to follow duties drummed into him since birth. The movie made their essential differences pretty clear.

Re:Cheers indeed

[computer_chacham]

Then why wasn't Faramir the one sent to Mt. Doom with the ring?

Re:Cheers indeed

[Dachannien]

Denethor liked Boromir better - he perceived Faramir as being weak, but what was weakness in Denethor's mind was actually a good heart in reality. Boromir was prideful (which was his undoing), which Denethor perceived as strength. Ultimately, this is why Denethor sent Boromir to Rivendell instead of Faramir. Had Faramir gone instead, then it's quite likely that the entire fellowship would have made it to Mordor.

Re:Cheers indeed

[nagora]

But was King Kong bad?

Mixed. Far too long and the sequence of running through that canyon with the Brontos was just naff "this-will-be-a-level-in-the-game" material, but I enjoyed it more than most of my friends, who pretty well hated it. Perhaps I had such low expectations that I was bound to feel better after having the opposite experience with LotR where I was feeling optimistic even after seeing the trailer.

I particularly liked the touch of the other giant skeletons in Kong's cave. But, like I said, far too long and a decent editor could have cut an hour out and still had a good film; indeed, a better film.

TWW

Re:Cheers indeed

[crotherm]

Are you much of a fan of Tolkien? I am and I liked the movies. Sure, they could have made it better. They did not need the weak love story, but over all it was well done. The only way to make it better is to make it much longer.

Re:Cheers indeed

[computer_chacham]

I meant why wasn't Faramir the Ring-bearer? Didn't Gandalf know that he existed?

well

[mastershake_phd]

He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars. ...Z

With that kinda cash he can finance his own movies.

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:well

[Captain Splendid]

It's about the rights, dumbass.

Oops! Sorry, Red!

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.

Re:Please don't kill me...

[norman619]

More famous name? YOu must be joking. He was not very well known until AFTER he did LOTR. He's demontrated his ability to make very profitable films. Not many peopel can calim to have made 3 incredibly expencive films and have the first one pay for the entire cost of filming all 3. I seriously doubt they would have made anywhere near what they did had they gone with someone else. Give credit where credit is due.

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: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:Please don't kill me...

[gbjbaanb]

Oh I don't know, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, George Lucas even.. there are a lot of extremely good directors who are far more talented than Jackson. I hope one of them get to do the Hobbit, then we might have better plot, characters and far, far intrusive CGI nonsense. 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.

Bear in mind, that if *I* directed the LoTR trilogy, they'd have still made a fortune at the box office, and if he had a script that wasn't as instantly profitable as LoTR (say, a movie about a giant gorilla), then it would not have nearly the following or critical acclaim.

Credit where its due? He did alright, but he cannot be described as one of the truly great directors.

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?

Re:Please don't kill me...

[DaSH Alpha]

Yeah, that and, I don't know, maybe he also directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy which IMHO were really, really good and I don't want some other director screwing it up because I know Jackson would do it as well as he did the others.

Re:Please don't kill me...

[gbjbaanb]

you have a point, I am an idiot. At least he started off good :)

Stephen Soderberg perhaps, or Luc Besson or.. oh sod it - get them to bri.. offer a quarter billion dollars to Ridley Scott to do it.

He'd bring some excellent lighting to it - plenty of dawn shots of the Shire, mix greens and browns and produce a story of wanderlust that doesn't just repeat the book, but explores the need of us all to escape from mudane lives in search of big adventure, danger and excitement.

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.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, any references or anything to back up what you're saying?

Like, anything?

At all?

Thanks.

Re:this guy's full of it

[topical_surfactant]

It would seem the disagreement comes over "creative accounting" practices over at New Line.

That was my take on it as well.

Peter Jackson is being reasonably civil about it in the public eye, while Shaye is acting like a shitcock.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA, dicknose

Re:this guy's full of it

[russ1337]

Here is Peters e-mail (posted here http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.ht ml):

I think it says it all.

Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. 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". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordes

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

[mblase]

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.

When you're the guy with the money, instead of the guy creating the art... yeah, that is more important.

The first rule of Hollywood is simple: they're there to MAKE MONEY. Hollywood always has been about making money, not making great art. People who want to tell a great story on a shoestring budget write novels. People who want to make billion-dollar special effects blockbusters go to Hollywood, where they expect a return on their billion-dollar investment, because there, motion pictures are a billion-dollar business, not a billion-dollar creative grant.

Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up. Nobody is going to be completely honest and reasonable with anybody else when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

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:this guy's full of it

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Absolutely correct. Jackson's contract calls for him to be compensated with a certain percentage of the income from the movies in question. New Line tried to screw him by cooking the books.

Of course it's about money. Money he's entitled to.

The statement "he will never make another movie for us" is better framed as "we will never have another successful movie".

Directors aren't stupid. If they see Jackson getting screwed here, only worthless hacks like Uwe Boll will bother with New Line in the future.

(and no, Uwe, I won't box you. In fact, if you take a swing at me, I'll own everything you currently have. Fuck off)

Re:this guy's full of it

[jcr]

I'd never heard of Uwe Boll, so I just looked him up on the old wikipedia..

Does that clown think he's the Idi Amin of filmmaking or something?

-jcr

Re:this guy's full of it

[mgiuca]

That sucks :(

I can see where he's coming from to say "we don't want to make a film just to settle a lawsuit - you don't make films as a matter of convenience".

But it seems to me that the better thing to do would be to settle a lawsuit just to make a film, when clearly everybody's hearts *are* in it. In other words, even if PJ is owed another $50M, would it not be better for him to settle, go ahead and make The Hobbit, and earn another $250M from that - wouldn't everybody be happier?

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

you're missing the point that was very clearly articulated. it's not about the money, it's about making sure good directors get a good environment to work in so that they can produce good work. you don't hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to be creative, that's just silly

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows Material Defenders get put on retainer for 48 hours.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Kierthos]

Uwe Boll is dead on convinced that his feces are not odiferous, and that he is a directoral genius. In reality, he is a hack. He will always be a hack. And boxing out of shape web critics does not change the fact that he is a hack.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... it's called "bad vibes" and they destroy creativity.
Non-artists need to understand this.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I doubt New Line would be installing an unstable warp core in Jackson's cameras. All hail the glorious Post-Terran Mining Corporation. Huzzah.

Re:this guy's full of it

[GhaleonStrife]

Jackson: This is Vertigo 1, requesting clearance to land on PTMC station MIL132. Operator: Clearance granted. Ordesky: Welcome back, Mr. Jackson, I assume your trip was... restful. Jackson: Your concern is as underwhelming as ever, Ordesky. Ordesky: We've tracked the fan demand to a Hobbit movie and a 2nd prequel. We're sending you to New Zealand to film it. Jackson: I've already fulfilled my contractual obligations, Ordesky! Ordesky: Indeed you have, Mr. Jackson. But if you studied your standard filmmaker's agreement, you'd find that New Line reserves the right to hold you on retainer for up to 72 hours. If you refuse, you will be considered in default of your contract, and your fee will be suspended, pending litigation! Jackson: Ordesky, you son of a- Ordesky: Good luck, Mr. Jackson. Ordesky out. Jackson: Dammit! I knew New Line would find a way to screw me! I hope this is just a filmmaking mission and nothing more...

Re:this guy's full of it

[macadamia_harold]

Nobody is going to be completely honest and reasonable with anybody else when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

Absolutely, which is why contracts exist, and why contract negotiations happen before anyone starts a project. So everyone agrees on the same terms and payment.

Nobody's expecting this shit to happen on a handshake; they are expecting a written, signed and agreed-upon document to be followed. Look at it this way: would it be acceptable for Peter Jackson to take full payment, and then deliver 75% of a film?

Re:this guy's full of it

[gordo3000]

don't jump the gun. he may not be entitled to anything more than what he got (look up what happened to the guy to wrote the story for Forest Gump).

You would think that guy deserved loads as the film made tons of money. he got nothing because the accounting said the movie actually made no profit. judge said the studio was right. Jackson might very well lose and New Line might be pissed that they are being dragged through the mud on this in the public eye.

Re:this guy's full of it

[Duds]

I don't know the full situation but the letter appears to read between the lines as.

"We've given him enough money, why should he care it's not what we agreed to give him."

I wonder how he'd react if, next time new line bring out a film we all pay $2 at the cinema because "We've given them enough money, why should they care it's not the agreed price to see the film".

Re:this guy's full of it

[Duds]

[Insert King Kong jokes here]

Re:this guy's full of it

[Nordrick Framelhamme]

So then I guess you would have absolutely no problem witholding some of your wages/salary just so that it improves their bottom line?

What a nice guy.

Re:this guy's full of it

[russ1337]

>>> "Yeah... it's called "bad vibes" and they destroy creativity."

Which probably explains all the crappy films we've been seeing in recent years - no creativity, just a re-hash of 'templates' with same/different actors / CGI.

Hey this might actually explain why Stalone is doing that new Rocky movie:

Stalone: "Where is my royalty check?"
MGM: "ah, about that... you have to do another movie if you want that money we owe you..."
Stalone: "ADRIAN!!"

Re:this guy's full of it

[frost22]

Indeeed.

And knowing they are sharks its perfectly reasonable and correct for Jackson do deal with them as sharks. The funny thing here isn't that they are sharks - the funny thing is the poor sharks are whining because they get a hefty beating from Jackson in court. The sharks are sort of getting out-sharked here :-)

So that embarassing Mr Shaye should stop whining and take it like a man. Or shark :-)

Re:this guy's full of it

[Rogerborg]

I love how he doesn't actually deny that New Line owe him the money, just that it's unreasonable of him to expect more than $250,000. If that's what they've actually delivered, which I wouldn't take on trust. If a movie exec told me that the sky was blue, I'd look out the window to check.

Re:this guy's full of it

[xmpcray]

Does Shaye have a stallion in his stables which can be "taken care" of?

Re:this guy's full of it

[Chris Mattern]

> It's unreasonable of him to expect more than $250,000.

Actually, they're complaining that it's unreasonable of him to expect more than *$250,000,000*. However, your point about whether they've actually paid him that much is well taken. In any case, as others have pointed out, if they haven't paid what they're contractually obligated to pay, it doesn't matter how much they've already paid him.

Chris Mattern

Re:this guy's full of it

[ocbwilg]

But it seems to me that the better thing to do would be to settle a lawsuit just to make a film, when clearly everybody's hearts *are* in it. In other words, even if PJ is owed another $50M, would it not be better for him to settle, go ahead and make The Hobbit, and earn another $250M from that - wouldn't everybody be happier?

Probably not. I mean, if he wants to make the film then he could certainly tie the film to the lawsuit, make the next film, and then get whatever they pay him for it as well as get some sort of settlement from the lawsuit. But there's no guarantee that the settlement for the lawsuit in that case would necessarily be what he is legally entitled to. And there's no guarantee that he wouldn't be in the same boat over "creative accounting" for the next two movies.

It's kind of like saying that he believes that he was entitled to $325 million from the original three movies, but only got $250 million. Then he filed a suit to get the other $75 million sorted out. So the studio comes back to him and says that rather than sort out that $75 million, they want him to make another movie and they'll tie that movie to some sort of out of court settlement of his lawsuit. Say he would be entitled to $100 million for making "The Hobbit", and they tell him that they'll pay him $125 million to make it and settle his other suit. Sure, he gets more money on the next movie than he normally would, but he's still been shorted to the tune of $50 million dollars. That's hardly fair. In Jackson's mind, his contract is probably solid enough that he could make the bulk of what they would offer him for "The Hobbit" if New Line just paid what they already "owe" him contractually. And then there's the whole issue of how the accounting for "The Hobbit" is done on top of that.

It makes perfect sense to me that if you think that someone screwed you on a business deal, that you wouldn't sign a new deal with them until you got the previous situation resolved. Otherwise you're just asking to be screwed again. That's just common sense.

Re:this guy's full of it

[mgiuca]

Well yeah, that's all very true but if in his heart he wants to make The Hobbit, then it has to be a decision from the heart, based on creative urges and not money. So whether he's getting screwed or not, if he truly wants this then he has to say "yeah, OK I might get screwed one more time but at least I'll be able to go Back Again*".

He seems pretty well off anyway if indeed he is getting paid so many millions (unless this is millions for Wingnut, not him personally, I'm confused about that).

*That's Back Again as in "There and Back Again", not as in working with NL again after this is over!

Re:this guy's full of it

[ocbwilg]

Well yeah, that's all very true but if in his heart he wants to make The Hobbit, then it has to be a decision from the heart, based on creative urges and not money. So whether he's getting screwed or not, if he truly wants this then he has to say "yeah, OK I might get screwed one more time but at least I'll be able to go Back Again*".

It's never that simple. He has a business to run too (which makes movies), and that means that to a certain extent he is responsible (professionally speaking) for the people who work for him. That makes this a business decision, and if you start making business decisions from the heart then you're probably going to lose your business. A business decision to do something can't be taken simply because it is in your heart to do so, no matter how badly you want it. It also has to make business sense. From what PJ has said, he seems to think that it doesn't make business sense to sign up with New Line for the next movie until they have resolved their dispute over the previous three movies. I can't say that I disagree with that, as much as I would like to see him do "The Hobbit".

From some of the rumblings elsewhere in this thread it sounds like there's still more to this than a simple case of "either make it for New Line or don't make it at all".

Re:this guy's full of it

[Rogerborg]

I typed $250,000,000, but after subtracting my ISP's expenses, there was only $250,000 net remaining.

Re:this guy's full of it

[OfficeSubmarine]

Uwe's willing to fight people? I don't box, but I'd be thrilled to take him up on a real fight. I watched house of the dead I because I thought there was no way 'anyone' could totally fail in as formula friendly genre as a zombie movie. To this day, it's the only movie that I felt actually injured after watching. I never, never, would have thought a movie could be that bad.

Re:this guy's full of it

[ponzio]

This Western Hairless Monkey (Shayeusw Horriblus) needs to return to his natural habitat; snorting cocaine off the asses of cheap hookers and leave the actual human interaction to just that : humans.

Re:this guy's full of it

[mblase]

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"?

No, just that no one should be surprised, because we all knew they were selfish jerks before this all started.

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.

Re:I'd say...

[lawrenlives]

His whole claim is that they defrauded him on millions based on merchandising and other subsidiary rights. If a contract is based on a percentage, and they ferried all these deals off to various companies that are *part* of New Line's enterprise, they pocket a pile of cash and he gets screwed, right? Right. The claim is more or less valid, no matter how greedy he seemed. 250 million? Pocket change!

Re:I'd say...

[ivan256]

It's common for movie studios to come up with fees that they charge themselves to make the bottom line whatever they want it to be. If they owe somebody a percentage of the bottom line, they are very good at making that number be as low as possible. The thing is that when you charge yourself a fee, you still get all the money. It's a ridiculous scam, and it seems to me like people in Hollywood are either too worried about the glamour, or are busy suing each other over it.

I don't know the specifics of this dispute, but I'd bet money that it boils down to "my contract says I get x% of this pool of money, and you are lying about the size of that pool of money".

Re:I'd say...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the NYT, 2005

Use or misuse of corporate synergy is at heart of Peter Jackson's lawsuit against New Line Cinema, which financed and distributed The Lord of the Rings, his film trilogy; suit charges that New Line committed fraud in handling revenues generated by 2001's The Fellowship of the Ring and in that way underpaid him by millions; faults New Line's use of pre-emptive bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as Lord of the Rings books, DVD's and merchandise, most of which went to other companies in New Line family or other units of Time Warner, New Line's parent; says that while Time Warner's bottom line was not hurt by these deals, overall gross revenues for film, on which Jackson's percentage is based, would have been greater if open bidding had been used; claim strikes at heart of modern vertically integrated media company, painting corporate synergy as 'self-dealing'; Stanton Stein, Jackson's lawyer, has specialized in vertical integration litigation in television and movie industries

and so on. Man, when did ./ become such a hotbed of communist propaganda. People want to make money. Lots and lots of money. Shock and horror.

Re:I'd say...

[R_Growler]

I have worked for [big] movie studios and you are unfortunately very right.
oh, how I wish you weren't!

(before you ask.. accounting software is my game...)

-RG.

Re:I'd say...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Man, when did ./ become such a hotbed of communist propaganda

Since you changed to the wrong directory.

Re:I'd say...

[CharonX]

This is Soviet Russia.
Prepeare to be Dot-Slashed.





(Oh well, I had Karma to burn :p)

Re:I'd say...

[Ucklak]

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

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:I'd say...

[malkavian]

Not really. That's why they have such a huge beaurocracy, paper filling, and banks of administrators and accountants.
If they didn't have everything auditable, you can bet your behind the IRS would look VERY closely. And nobody wants a tax audit, they're painful and extremely expensive.
Basic accounting is very easy. The difficult part is knowing enough about tax law (as of the current moment in time) to make use of various loopholes and sinks to make money disappear in a required amount.

Re:I'd say...

[ocbwilg]

and so on. Man, when did ./ become such a hotbed of communist propaganda. People want to make money. Lots and lots of money. Shock and horror.

I wondered what was at the core of the dispute. Basically what he's saying is that his contract guaranteed him a percentage of the revenues generated by the films and the film merchandising. Then New Line sold the merchandising rights to another division of their company for a flat fee which was substantially lower than what they were actually worth. Then Jackson's percentage of the merchandising was paid from that single low-ball sale, rather than a percentage of overall merchandising sales. That way New Line/Time Warner could still make massive profits from the merchandising (which is often more profitable than the movie itself) and not have to share those with Jackson. It's just a corporate shell game.

I'm not sure if that's legal, but it's certainly dirty. All Jackson wants is to have a judge rule on whether or not what they did was legal, and he wants that ruling before he's willing to sign another contract with them. That makes perfect sense to me. I would want legal clarification too, because if it was legal then that a significant part of the wording of that next contract is going to need to be changed to address this. For example, I would want the next contract to stipulate that the merchandising rights couldn't be sold to another company or division unless they were subject to open bidding by external companies as well.

I'm not sure how trying to negotiate a fair contract and getting it enforced qualifies as communist propaganda.

Re:I'd say...

[osu-neko]

I'm not sure how trying to negotiate a fair contract and getting it enforced qualifies as communist propaganda.

It's the word fair here that's at issue. I'm a political moderate, so I end up being called a communist by my right-wing friends. If you suggest you should actually fight for fairness rather than letting big corporations screw you right and left, and if you have to audacity to actually suggest laws be enforced against corporations as well as individuals, right-wingers call you an anti-corporate left-wing pinko commie. It's their way of dismissing you without having to actually think about what you've said. You can always tell they've lost an argument completely as soon as they use the word "communist". They've run out of legit points, they've decided to resort to branding in order to dismiss you.

Aroo?

[inphinity]

I could be mistaken, but I was pretty sure that Peter Jackson is only suing to have an audit done, as his main allegation has always been that accounting practices on the previous LotR movies were a bit, er, shady.

Sure, he'll probably get some more money out of it (if he's right), but it sounds to me like New Line is attempting one hell of a mischaracterization...

Re:Aroo?

[NormalVisual]

I think you're spot on. From the e-mail that Jackson sent to TheOneRing.net:

"You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses."

It sounds to me that Jackson is being quite reasonable and is simply trying to exercise his rights under his contract with New Line, and the studio is being a total ass about it.

Just give him the money

[Dice Fivefold]

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.

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:Just give him the money

[Red Flayer]

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).

You hit the nail on the head there -- it'd be a dangerous precedent.

The other issues would be the forthcoming fraud and income tax evasion charges. Those dodgy practices would probably land a lot of movie execs in a federal golf resort.

Re:Just give him the money

[frost22]

Those dodgy practices would probably land a lot of movie execs in a federal golf resort.

Well, their putting is probably in need of improvement, anyway. OTOH, maybe other people's putting qualities would improve more by Mr Shaye reporting the federal bend-over institute....

Its amazing

[Billly Gates]

How does greed work?

I can not imagine ever thinking $250 million is not enough FOR MY OWN back account. It would be different if I owned a company but still that is more money than the GDP of some countries. Good god.

Add to the recent news of the golden parachute of $250 million for the former CEO of home depot when he was fired. He was fired right? I wonder why these people get compensated so much?

If i got fired I think I would get 0 cents and be shown the door like %99.9 of the slashdotters reading this.

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?

I do not blame the studio's and would certainly not want to hire him back again. For 1/10th the cost I could find a top hollywood director which has better talent.

Re:Its amazing

[maynard]

Can you shoot a commercial grade movie? He can. How much that skill is worth? Well... apparently, that's in dispute.

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't take out your anger on one issue against another.

The difference between Peter Jackson and the Home Depot CEO is that Peter Jackson made New Line money. Billions of dollars.

Plus as others have pointed out, this is a matter of ensuring his contract is executed correctly. If New Line agreeded to give him a percentage cut, and they try change the books to make his cut smaller , he has every right to 'stick it to the man' trying to shaft him. And let's face it, it's not the first time a movie company has tried this.

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.

Re:Its amazing

[TheCodeFoundry]

for 10 years despite a %400 increase in the cost of living?

Instead of pulling numbers out of your arse, how about backing up that 400% increase in the cost of living?

$1US in 1996 is $1.29US in 2006. I'm not seeing the 400% increase. http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/ca lc//

Feel free to actually use real statistical data to prove your point. Try here: http://www.newsengin.com/neFreeTools.nsf/CPIcalc?O penView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=1#1/

Repeating the same ol' dKos/DU/lib talking points about how bad the economy is, how bad minimum wage is, etc. will get you no where until you can put some data where your mouth is.

Instead of allowing the gov't to force you to pay someone a set price, how about letting the marketplace determine what the price should be? Seriously, how many people are married and have 4 kids and are working for minimum wage? Sounds like Darwin in action, if so.

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.

Re:Its amazing

[EvanED]

I can not imagine ever thinking $250 million is not enough FOR MY OWN back account. It would be different if I owned a company but still that is more money than the GDP of some countries. Good god.

What if he wanted to start a company?

Or finance his own movie? Become the next Lucas. (Though hopefully without the decline into sucktitude.)

Or what if he's just concerned about the principle of the thing and is tired of seeing the studios screw the actual artists out of money through "questionable" accounting that produces values like Spiderman making no profit. (Stan Lee said he wasn't wasn't paid anything until he sued Marvel despite the movie grossing over $800m worldwide, having a production budget of under $140 million, and a contract that said he was to be paid 10% of profits.)

Re:Its amazing

[Simon Garlick]

It's not Peter Jackson the person suing New Line to reveal whether or not it's cooked the books (and it certainly looks like it has), it's Wingnut Films. Peter Jackson founded the company and I'm sure he owns a big chunk of it, but it's a company nevertheless. A company with shareholders and employees, people who have bills and rent and mortgages.

It looks like the issue is something like this.

Wingnut does a deal with New Line, something like "You lend us X dollars, and we'll make three movies that make you a whole lot more than X. In return, when other companies distribute and license the movies, the characters, the music, and all that stuff, you give us a fair share -- let's call it Y% -- of the money that you make, because after all we made the movies and did all the hard work. Deal? Deal."

Time passes. The movies are huge. They are, in fact, the most profitable movies in history. Rather than just getting back "more than X", New Line is getting something around "more than thirteen times X". Seriously. For every dollar invested, New Line is getting thirteen back.

So, after the chaos of openings and Oscars and awards left and right has calmed down a bit, Wingnut's accountants notice that Y% is turning out to be a lot less money than they expected. So much less that getting Y% is starting to look like a bad deal, especially given that New Line is laughing all the way to the bank. So Wingnut has a preliminary audit done of the first movie's finances, and it turns out that New Line is actually GIVING AWAY THE MOVIES FOR FREE because the partners and licensees it has signed up all turn out to be, surprise surprise, NEW LINE SUBSIDIARIES. And guess what Y% of FREE is. (note: the subsidiaries didn't actually pay nothing, but it was so much less than market value, it's basically the same thing. Especially when Wingnut's deal was based on market value.)

So the accountants alert Wingnut's executives to the fact that Y% of something that is being given away for free isn't very much. Wingnut's executives then go "Holy shit, are you serious? OK, New Line, we've got to have proper audits down, including the second and third movies, to see what the story is".

New Line: "Um, no."
Wingnut: "Seriously guys, something's not right here, we have to go through the books."
New Line: "No."
Wingnut: "OK, well we'll have to get the lawyers involved, because this is starting to look really dodgy."
New Line to the media: "PETER JACKSON IS A GREEDY MOTHERFUCKER AND WE'RE NEVER WORKING WITH HIM AGAIN"
Peter Jackson: "WTF?"

Re:Its amazing

[AusIV]

Repeating the same ol' dKos/DU/lib talking points about how bad the economy is, how bad minimum wage is, etc. will get you no where until you can put some data where your mouth is.

I completely agree with you, but you'd be amazed how many people will ignore data. I frequently find myself giving detailed, well supported data in arguments, only to have it completely ignored by people who know (in their gut) that they're right.

Re:Its amazing

[Simon Garlick]

Those of you who remember the Browser Wars of last century might recognise the Spyglass/Microsoft/Internet Explorer story in a different guise.

Re:Its amazing

[timmarhy]

your a fucking idiot. new line is trying to screw him out of money with creative accounting. peter brought them BILLIONS he only made a small % of what LOTR will bring in over it's life time.

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the fix to this is to simply place a 100% tax on all earnings above say 100,000 per year and then we can give that money to poor people in the form of a check from the government.

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:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You care to back this up with some real figures? If the cost of living increase over the last 10 years was 400% we'd be praising God to "only" be paying 2.35 for a gallon of gas.

Not to mention that the increase of minimum wage is the most likely thing to (ta-fucking-da!) increase the cost of living! It's a token gesture. The only real effect it has is chiseling away what's left of the middle class.

Thank you Democrats! Thanks for fucking over the last of what use to be the backbone of the American economy. Now we can all bow to MaoMart or do without.

We're being sold down river a la Kunta Kinte.

So go fuck yourself.

Re:Its amazing

[dangitman]

I can not imagine ever thinking $250 million is not enough FOR MY OWN back account. It would be different if I owned a company but still that is more money than the GDP of some countries. Good god.

So, it would be perefectly OK to you, if you created a work that was worth $500 million - and then some shitbag Hollywood executive who had little to do with making your work then took the extra $250 million you were owed, and used the money to buy Ferraris and child prostitutes, while arguing "Hey - isn't $250 million enough for you?

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?

Peter Jackson is famous for giving people a break. He has lifted many people out of near minimum wage work and given them creative and technical careers. That money is muchy better in Peter Jackson's hands than some Hollywood shitbag's. He will do much more good with it. It's not like the movie companies are going to donate that money to charity. But Peter Jackson will do good with it (and probably donate to charity as well.)

I mean, damn, he gave the whole nation of New Zealand a great break - and it's not exactly the richest or widely acknowledged country in the world.

Re:Its amazing

[Dunbal]

place a 100% tax on all earnings above say 100,000 per year and then we can give that money to poor people

      And guess what, wiseguy? Poor people will STILL be poor.

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.

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a sec. New Line has subsidiaries that they pretend are full fledged independent corporations. Didn't Enron do something like this?

Re:Its amazing

[EvanED]

It might be naivety on his part, but I can't really say that it's his fault because the studios' accounting practices should be (if they are not) illegal. Wikipedia says he won his case, so I guess the courts agreed.

The BBC article I read also is not fully clear; it's possible that his contract was in place a long time ago.

Re:Its amazing

[sottitron]

I can not imagine ever thinking $250 million is not enough FOR MY OWN back account.

If you ever get your hands around $250M, I'd suggest you not put it all in one bank account. The FDIC only insures your deposits up to $100,000 per bank.

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.

Re:Its amazing

[An ominous Cow art]

Billly Gates (198444) wrote:

How does greed work?

Imposter! This isn't Bill Gates at all! :-)

Re:Its amazing

[Guiness17]

You probably side with the owners in baseball, too. Why should anyone make $5million/year to play baseball, right?

Re:Its amazing

[packeteer]

Your social darmwinism wil get you nowhere.

We tried having the market determine the wage years ago and people starved to death. There was a big enough deal that we wanted a "new deal".

You only refer to the cost of living increase by taking into account inflation. Now 400% is too high but there are many factors involved. Housing and food costs have been increasing. Almost all consumer goods are increasing in price faster than inflation. Debt is a huge issue and although it may be a person's mistake that gets them into debt it is the nation's problem that debt is ruining our social fabric.

Re:Its amazing

[GaryPatterson]

Is anyone else seeing the irony of a poster named "Billy Gates" decrying a company getting large sums of money?

But to the point - this isn't about greed. All the lawsuit is asking for is the opening of the books for independant auditing. There is absolutely no way to spin that negatively, but the studio has now descended into attempting it.

Re:Its amazing

[Billly Gates]

Easy I live in California and houses in 1999 that cost $110k now cost over $400k. FUel has trippled in price and wages have been cut in half thanks to illegal immigration.

Sure you can quite nice averages but I have seen first hand nice neighborhoods turn to hell as illegal multiple families move into a single home because of the $350,000 price tag for a 1400 square foot home. Hell I have people living in a van next to where I live and my home is worth over $350,000.

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, damn, he gave the whole nation of New Zealand a great break - and it's not exactly the richest or widely acknowledged country in the world.

You're damn right it's not! Peter Jackson can make all the great movies he wants, but I still refuse to acknowledge New Zealand. I may recognize it, but I won't acknowledge it!

Re:Its amazing

[larry bagina]

Back in the early 1990s, congress passed a law making salaries over $1 million not tax deductable as a business expense (hollywood was exempt; this only applied to CEOs and such). For those of you not paying attention (I'm looking at you, Mr AC), it worked. If by "worked" you mean that high salaries were replaced with stock grants, options, private jets, and other creative ways to transfer the money without showing up in a line figure.

Re:Its amazing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Ayn Rand called, she wants her Atlas back.

What someone is paid has only a fleeting connection with "the value of their contribution to the economy." Just look at all those golden parachutes for CEO's that fuck up their companies and have to be pushed out by the board - how do you reconcile the fact that Frank Nardelli gets a $210M golden parachute while under his ~6 year watch, the share value of Home Depot was just about halved? Especially considering the unprecedented housing boom during that period - Home Depot should have been raking it in if Nardelli had been even remotely valuable, Lowes' share price almost doubled during the same period.

The only thing a wage represents is how much one person is able to convince another person to pay them, nothing more significant than that.

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think Jackson doesn't deserve to get his due, because he's an individual, and it's OK for the movie studio to rip him off because they are a big corporation?

Are you really that dense or are you just pretending?

Re:Its amazing

[dangitman]

In Jackson's Middle Earth, New Zealand acknowledges YOU!

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And then the highest reported income in the country will be exactly $100,000. But the companies will then offer additional income through nice loopholes: Stock options, living expenses, company car/house, educational funding for family members, access to a huge expense account, etc...

Re:Its amazing

[stilz2]

I can't imagine a summary that is easier to understand. Kudos to you, sir!

Re:Its amazing

[alienmole]

Ayn Rand called, she wants her Atlas back.

Shrug. I'm not an Ayn Rand nut, and I'm not defending high pay to incompetent CEOs. However, when it comes to minimum wage, as raised by the OP, there's usually a good reason that a person is earning minimum wage, which as I said, has to do with the value they're providing to others. You hinted at this yourself:

The only thing a wage represents is how much one person is able to convince another person to pay them, nothing more significant than that.

Precisely. And if you can't convince someone to pay you more than minimum wage, you're probably not doing anything that's of great value to anyone else. If you want to raise some counterexamples, I'd be interested to hear them.

(Note that this has nothing to do with whether they're capable of more, but about what work they're actually doing. In a kind of reverse of the CEO case, all sorts of distortions might conspire to make someone who's capable of more end up in a minimum wage job - it could be as simple as not having, or knowing about, opportunities.)

Re:Its amazing

[lupine_stalker]

Apparently somewhat over 250 million dollars US.

Re:Its amazing

[Petrushka]

You have a house worth over $350,000 and you expect people to feel sorry for you because of the evil poor people next door? Diddums.

Re:Its amazing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And if you can't convince someone to pay you more than minimum wage, you're probably not doing anything that's of great value to anyone else.

You forget that scarcity is as much a driver of price as value. Our society would break down in less than a month if there were no people working as garbage men or even just janitors - I've seen it myself on the small scale when janitors went on strike at a school district, even with parents coming in to do the cleaning the schools had to close down until the strike was settled.

Yet those jobs pay very little despite their absolutely critical nature. The reason they pay so little has nothing to do with their value to society, it is almost solely an effect of the supply of people who are capable of doing those jobs.

Re:Its amazing

[dj_virto]

His point being that in many areas $350,000 is the price of a home in a marginally unsafe, lower class, often lawless neighbourhood. And the parent a few levels back set themself up pretty good with the statement about families with 4 kids living on minimum wage. In my experience, I'd argue that MOST families with 4 kids earn close to minimum wage, if they work at all. The trouble with these discussions is that there really are at least 2 Americas, and middle class libertarian/republican/social darwinists do not understand the reality of the ghetto/barrio at all. I didn't either until after I had lived in one for 5 years. And to answer previous poster, yeah, the cost of living has surely gone up substantially for lower income people. Lower income people pay a much larger portion of their income to housing and transportation so when those costs go up without wage increases, they get poorer. Still want statistics? I can swear to these. Typical low wage income in 1996: $4 - $9 per hour. Typical low wage income in 2006: $5 - $10 per hour. Price of a cheap new car in 1996? $6000-$9000. Cheap new car in 2006? $10,000-$15,000. Rent in a somewhat safe apartment in Houston, Texas in 1996? $300 per month. That same place in 2006? $600 per month. Electricity bill for said apartment in the summer of 1996? around $100 AC bill for a window unit in the same Texas apartment in 2006? around $300 Gas? I don't even have to tell you about that one. Groceries? I don't have the numbers but I guarantee it's gone up more than income. Wal-mart consumer goods? Well thank god the poor can afford DVD players. Yeah I guess if you are in the top third that is still getting richer (and making everything get more expensive by throwing your weight around buying houses, etc) this must all seem like a joke. But for people caught in the reality of this situation, it's nothing but pure existential fear. As these price increases continue without significant wage increased, what are people supposed to do, pull them out of their asses? They're already working two jobs, already put both spouses to work, never travel anywhere, don't eat out, etc, etc. It just means more people will be living in a van- maybe in your neighbour's driveway!

Re:Its amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant summary - best I've read!

hmm

[Phil246]

Dont newline cinema have a finite period of time in which they can do the hobbit before they lose the rights to it?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and that time is running out. The Tolkien family is quite keen to see PJ do The Hobbit, so it may happen in a few years.

Re:hmm

[earnest murderer]

Pretty much, and from what I've read (certainly I could have misunderstood) a Peter Jackson Hobbit movie is pretty much inevitable. The question is wether he does it for New Line soon, or (directly?) for the estate later. The question is how long would they wait after New Line finishes their Hobbit movie?

Certainly if New Line really makes a real smash of a flick without Peter Jackson they may not bother.

It's a shame that you have to be such a run away success in order to have enough money to sue for what you are due.

Re:hmm

[steve_bryan]

It's a shame that you have to be such a run away success in order to have enough money to sue for what you are due.

It was on a different scale financially and quite a while ago but I recall a similar incident with the actor James Garner as the aggrieved party concerning a great deal of shady accounting (a claim that "The Rockford Files" never made a profit). But he had been in so many successful TV series that he had enough money finally to get his much delayed day in court and prevail. The people who were being sued were always at great pains to explain that Garner was paid plenty for all the success he had achieved with the implication that he should accept being screwed out of the contractual obligations that he had negotiated.

When you think of all the times these producers put out huge sums of money for some incredibly lackluster work which leaves them scrambling to try to recover, you might think they would gladly forgo their usual shady accounting tricks for work that seems to be successful on every level. But they seem to be biologically incapable of that sort of self control. Being predatory is probably an important factor in how they got to be where they are and they probably have no ability to control it even in their own self interest.

Greedy, dishonest Hollywood executives. Nothing new here. They should do a TV show about them. Wait, they did, it was called Action! and it was hilarious. It is even available on DVD.

More to the story....

[Anonymous Coward]

MGM apparenly owns rights to the Hobbit movie also. Though Jackson may never make another movie for New Line, MGM may not be out of the question?. Another side of the story here. http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.ht ml

Re:More to the story....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/articles/06/09/11/1218208.shtm l
  MGM owning the rights is old article.

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.

Re:Cheers indeed - Mod parent troll

[Xybot]

Just stay in Moms basement and keep quiet.

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:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating the quality of the films being uncommonly good with the director being uncommonly good.

Anyway...

This is a petty argument on both sides and an unimportant dispute, even within the film world.

"Oh noes, I only made $250 million for a few good movies compared with many directors who've made as many good films and not made a tenth as much."

"Oh noes, he's trying to take more from the billions we made."

Cry me a fuckin' river for both sides. They're both just greedy entities who should be rejoicing to God, Alla, Buddha, or whomever the fuck that they got to do what they wanted and made hundreds of millions of dollars as a result. They hit the fucking lottery and now they're both being petty.

(Since I think Jackson is more prone to being thought of as innocent - yes, there's some slop in the accounting but show me a project that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and many millions more to promote and yet has no questionable expenses by any contractor, subcontractor or other involved party. I've gotten basic jobs like installing a furnace or new electrical service panel to have bids for the exact same product and job vary by as much as 25%. Jackson just wants to squeeze everything out of New Line that he can. Do you think if the result of an audit was that he was overpaid $50M, he'd happily and immediately return the money?)

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten basic jobs like installing a furnace or new electrical service panel to have bids for the exact same product and job vary by as much as 25%.

Big difference between a fucking bid and an agreed-upon percentage that is actually owed for services already rendered, moron. I'll bet you'd be hauling your ass to a courtroom if one of your customers decided they were just going to pay you half or less of what you had agreed on, especially if it was a job big enough to affect your future business.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jackson isn't arguing that he wasn't given the right percentage, he's arguing against the point that you're defending - he's saying, after the fact, that charges for services rendered in the course of making or distributing the film are higher than he wants and should be lowered so he can make more money. If he was so concerned with it, he should have been on top of the costs during the production and not allowed the services to be rendered until the contracts were in line. Like numerous directors, though, he apparently doesn't care much about budgets until they affect his income. He's basically spelunking for dollars.

Next time you call someone a moron, you better have your argument straight. Arguing against your own point isn't exactly a sign of intelligence.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[dangitman]

Do you think if the result of an audit was that he was overpaid $50M, he'd happily and immediately return the money?

I think he would. I know quite a few people who have worked with him, and they all say he's a very honest, scrupulous person.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Dunbal]

If he was so concerned with it, he should have been on top of the costs during the production

      Instead of doing trivial things like DIRECTING THE DAMNED MOVIE you mean?

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:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said before, neither one of them are to be pitied - they're both completely motivated by greed. And, as I said before, show me a $300,000,000+ project where there isn't overcharging, creating accounting or what-not at some level. My example of getting basic projects like a furnace install vary in cost by 25% was to show that even the most basic projects can get inflated. On a furnace job using the same equipment, about 40% is the cost from the manufacturer, meaning that a 25% difference in job cost is actually 35-45% difference on the flexible costs for the same job. You can either say the higher firm is cooking the books, or you can accept that's their pricing scheme in this free market and that you need to pay attention before you sign it off.

Jackson isn't doing this out of some sort of sense of righteousness, he's just trying to pinch every penny from others so he can get more. And, as I said before, if the audit comes back and says he was overpaid by fifty million dollars, do you think he'd give in without a huge fight?

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the "I'm an artist so I don't have to be responsible for costs" defense. That's extremely reasonable in every way possible and isn't at all a cheap cop-out allowing artists to fritter away other people's money and then if there's some commercial success, do whatever they can to say it wasn't their responsibility to track costs so ex post facto they should be able to cut costs and get more money. It belongs right up there with the "I'm a big fat ass and going to sue the people who sold me food" line of thinking.

The reason why I'm so harsh on this subject is because I am an artist and I track every dollar I spend or invest. I understand with larger projects comes more complex charges but I would never simply throw my hands up until well after the project was done and then try to renegotiate the costs. At the very least I would run a weekly audit on expenses. Maybe that's not how it's normally done, but if you're going to play by other rules you need to accept the consequences of your actions.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Dunbal]

Ah yes, the "I'm an artist so I don't have to be responsible for costs" defense.

      No, I don't think THAT has anything to do with it. Just like the CEO of Wal Mart probably has no idea how much store number 78 spends per month on electricity compared to store 139. It's called delegation, and specialization. After a while the project becomes too complex for a single person to keep track of. That's why there's a producer - to keep track of budgets, cost, expenses, etc. Eventually you have to trust people to do their job properly, and get on with yours.

I understand with larger projects comes more complex charges

      Yes. Imagine a $300M project, which is what LOTR was. They were spending almost a million dollars A DAY. You expect to be able to have an accountant keep track of THAT on a day by day basis? Or exactly how large did you want the bureaucracy/accounting department to be? This also adds to your cost, by the way. More accountants = less movie.

but if you're going to play by other rules you need to accept the consequences of your actions.

      No. If you are going to be on a team, you have to hope that everyone is playing on your side.

Re:Bob Shaye is a fool...

[Chris Mattern]

> Just like the CEO of Wal Mart probably has no idea how much store number 78
> spends per month on electricity compared to store 139.

If the CEO of WalMart needed that information he could almost certainly have it in
very short order, possibly in a matter of minutes. WalMart's management information
systems are frighteningly efficient and detailed.

Chris Mattern

More to come

[martijnd]

Ok, the story as I understand it now, or at least as far as it is reported in the various press releases.

NewLine has limited time left to produce the Hobbit, before the movie rights return back to another company. Peter Jackson is suing New Line because their own audit of Fellowship of the Ring came up with figures that didn't match what NewLine paid to them. Their contract has regulations for this , and since NewLine refuses give more insight into their accounting, they are left with a courtcase.

NewLine then tried to get Peter Jackson to drop the lawsuit by telling him "drop the lawsuit, and you can make the hobbit". This was refused by PJ in a public letter, who stated that he wouldn't want to invest time and efford into a new project while the courtcase is still unresolved.

NewLine can now make a Hobbit without PJ, or do nothing and see the rights to a valuable movie franchise revert to its previous owners within the not too far future.

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.

(and as for whom owns what, Google the details)

Re:More to come

[Anonymous Coward]

Your final "whom" was an example of hypercorrection. "Whom" is used as an object, and "who" as a subject. In the phrase "who owns what", "who" is the subject, and "what" is the object. You would use "whom" when saying "who owns whom".

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:More to come

[Maxo-Texas]

I'd probably wait for the reviews.

I'm betting without PJ it would suck badly but if they got the director of the first 3 Harry Potters or some of the other recent fantasy movies that didn't butcher the source material it might not come out too badly.

PJ is a great director and respects the material.
There are 5 billion plus people and many directors on the planet.
PJ is not the ONLY great director who respects source material.

But there are many who do not.

And hollywood always wonders why people won't see the latest hack job where they keep the name and butcher the material.

Re:More to come

[scdeimos]

"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.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Rings Geeks like us might hold that viewpoint, but the Average Joe who just goes to the movies to be entertained won't know or care who directs the movie (or movies, since it sounds like New Line has another movie planned to slot in between The Hobbit and LOTR).

Making gross (and I mean horrible) estimates, Rings Geeks might account for 10% of the movie-going audience. Even if every single one of them boycotts a non-PJ-made Hobbit, New Line would still do exceedingly well out of it.

Personally, I hope that everyone New Line approaches to direct The Hobbit tells them where to stick it, that the rights will revert to Tolkien Enterprises and MGM so that they get PJ to make it for them. Take that, New Line! :)

For anyone who's forgotten, it's not just Peter Jackson who questioned New Line's creative accounting over the Rings movies - In 2004 (I think) Tolkien Enterprises also sued New Line for over $20 million in unpaid royalties for Fellowship of The Ring.

Re:More to come

[Anonymous Coward]

What your post doesn't consider is that most directors suck at their job. I don't meant that to be negative - but seriously, how many good movies do you see?
If Peter Jackson is not involved, the likelihood of another Eragon, Dinotopia or similar flop is increased significantly.

We've already seen one terrible LOTR version with the cartoon edition ... I'd rather not see a bad Hobbit produced this time around.

Re:We are the fodder in this

[maxume]

You actually care? I enjoyed the LoTR movies, but I couldn't care less if they make another Hobbit, or if it is any good. It isn't injurious to me if it is bad, the one in my head is actually pretty good.

Bombadil

[jstrain]

Yeah, but would it have had Tom Bombadil in it?

Re:Bombadil

[Hal_Porter]

I bet if he'd put Tom Bombadil in it, he'd have got his money Tom^H^H^HEru Ilúvatar works in mysterious ways. He's actually lucky that Wingnut films hasn't disappeared under the sea like Númenor.

I smell astroturf.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If you want to flame Peter Jackson you should at least do it under a handle with a reputation.

Anonymous Coward postings on the subject are likely to be dismissed as studio astroturfing, trying to head off fan pressure on the studio administrators through their product sales prospects and stockholder/board pressure.

I for one...

[liquidMONKEY]

Welcome our new New Line overlords. .... Wait.

New line probably does own Jackson more...

[origin2k]

The LOTR movies are in the lists of top grossing films. Adding up the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-gross ing_films seem to indicate that ~3 Billion has been made. Assuming Jacking is getting a percentage of gross (if he was smart) would mean that 300 million would be ~10 % which sounds reasonable. Of course this doesn't include rentals and DVD purchases etc. which could easily be another billion. $0.02

Re:New line probably does own Jackson more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming Jacking is getting a percentage of gross

Why would you assume that when the whole basis of this dispute is that he's not being paid gross?

Is this slashdot or is it Fox news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I know this is slashdot and all that, but please. That article says it is not likely that Peter Jackson will make another movie with the film studio. It says nothing about him not doing a hobbit film for other studio, as is apparently favoured by some of the tolkien family.

So enough with the cheap selling news, ok?

Re:Is this slashdot or is it Fox news?

[slumberer]

It says nothing about him not doing a hobbit film for other studio, as is apparently favoured by some of the tolkien family. So enough with the cheap selling news, ok? Umm, New Line currently own the rights to the Hobbit films so no one else can make them no matter how much they want to.

Also I think what most people aren't impressed about is that New Line is trying to cast Jackson in a bad light saying that he is greedy, just wants more money and won't even talk to them. Since he has said that he just wants to have an audit on their accounting as it doesn't match what they expected this seems a little unfair. Basically the impression you get is that they are trying to screw him out of money that he is legally entitled to and are saying that he shouldn't be worried about it because they have already given him a lot. Really it seems that they are the ones who are greedy and refuse to talk.

Re:Is this slashdot or is it Fox news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, New Line currently own the rights to the Hobbit films so no one else can make them no matter how much they want to.

And those rights expire some time this year which is why they are desperate to get it strarted before then

Re:We are the fodder in this

[Xybot]

Insightful? How? Back this up with some facts otherwise it's just another bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit. I really dislike trolls trying to build up their lousy self esteem by trying to pull others down. You're a troll. I can assure Mr Jackon could not give two hoots for Hollywood and all the associated bullshit, infighting and internal politics surrounding it and I'm also certain that New Line will live to regret it's bullshit accounting practises.

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:Jackson's right

[CheshireCatCO]

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. Philip Henslowe: But I have to pay the actors and the author.
Hugh Fennyman: Share of the profits.
Philip Henslowe: There's never any.
Hugh Fennyman: Of course not.
Philip Henslowe: Oh, oh, Mr. Fennyman. I think you might have hit upon something.

--"Shakespeare in Love"

Re:Jackson's right

[gordo3000]

unfortunately for him, there was a lawsuit about this on Forrest Gump. JUdge ruled the accounting was perfectly legal, as specified in the contract. so Jackson is basically trying to steam role the studio in giving him far more than he deserves contractually.

Re:Jackson's right

[hughk]

WIngnut just want an audit and an independent ruling on some of the more questionable accounting practices. Newline seem to be scared of someone seeing the books. It seems reasonable to say that if you were promised 10% of the net, than you have rights as to review how that was calculated.

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:Jackson's right

[MadUndergrad]

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.

Addendum: This is a very special case of "if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide" because of the contractual nature of the issue and the fact of the lawsuit. I don't support that quote in general as it relates to privacy issues.

Peter Jackson doesn't belong in New Line

[Anonymous Coward]

.....And neither does Al Gore!

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.

so why sell the LOTR movies?

[fermion]

'Why would they want to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever they are suing you tube, et al for. They don't want to sit down and talk about it. TWX thinks that the fans owe them something after we've paid them over FIVE billion dollars, helping TWX achieve a gross profit of 17 billion dollars. Cheers'

p.s. if then need a new director, try Robert Rodriguez. As wonderful as the panoramic were, the funky way the actors were shot, not to mention the random acting, was pitiful.

Re:so why sell the LOTR movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, great, the Adventures of Frodo and Lava Girl. It'll be awesome.

Re:so why sell the LOTR movies?

[H0D_G]

Robert Rodriguez isn't a guild member, most studios won't hire a non guild director. It's why he dropped out of "John Carter of Mars"

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: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:Good, give someone else a try

[dangitman]

capture that Tolkienesque fee

Is "Tolkienesque" a euphemism for "really terribly written"?

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[JeffElkins]

Amen.

I enjoyed the films and own the extended edition. That said, I was disappointed with Jackson's take. For me, the entire point of the book was the Scouring of the Shire and he left that out. I won't even go into how he butchered Frodo.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[bunbuntheminilop]

Yeah. Where's Tom Bombadill! I want dancing and singing for hours upon hours dammit!

Anyway, you're comparing your own interpretation of Tolkien to Jackson's. It's Jackson's version of Tolkien's story, remember.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[Anonymous Coward]

[sarcasm]Yeah, like that guy who made Eragon. He did a great job.[/sarcasm]

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[eharvill]

Slashdot karma be damned, but IMHO LOTR almost completely failed to capture that Tolkienesque feel that I get from reading the books. Hah! You are absolutely correct. The movies were actually very engaging and entertaining (minus the last 30 minutes of RoTK). I couldn't stand the books and the way Tolkien writes - very William Faulkner-esque IMHO and very difficult to read. It is a fantastic story and incredible world that he created, but maybe it was written too "properly" for my taste. I'm a big fan of the genre - Feist, Salvatore, Jordan, Weis/Hickman, Goodkind, Brooks are among my favorites.

Anyway, I would still watch a "Hobbit" movie regardless of PJ's involvement. Heck, I really enjoyed the animated versions of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[RexRhino]

LOTR almost completely failed to capture that Tolkienesque feel that I get from reading the books.

Based on the limitations of the medium, do you think it would be remotely possible for LOTR to capture the feel that you got from reading the books? One is cinema, the other is books.

A movie can never be the book... if that was the case, they would have stopped selling the book when the movie was made! :)

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[Mikey-San]

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

What does this have to do with the notion that New Line may be screwing the production teams involved in making three feature-length films that have generated $3bn in revenue for the people potentially doing the screwing?

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[myowntrueself]

Is "Tolkienesque" a euphemism for "really terribly written"?

I think its something to do with the ratio of the word "ere" to other words. It seems to have been his favorite word.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of the genre - Feist, Salvatore, Jordan, Weis/Hickman, Goodkind, Brooks are among my favorites. ack....exactly which genre is that? cheesy mass market schlock?

Try reading some real fantasy.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[atezun]

I'm a big fan of the genre - Feist, Salvatore, Jordan, Weis/Hickman, Goodkind, Brooks are among my favorites. ack....exactly which genre is that? cheesy mass market schlock?

Try reading some real fantasy.

I make no claim to be an expert on the fantasy genre or to have even read material from all of the authors mentioned, but I'll be damned if Robert Jordan doesn't write some impressive fantasy.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[Jeff DeMaagd]

This is Hollywood. As much as you don't like the changes, I think Tolkien fans got lucky here. I think it's going to be hard to find a production group that would do better in in the eyes of the fans. For all I know, the changes that you don't like might have been demanded by New Line, even if the bonus material might suggest otherwise.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[eharvill]

I'm a big fan of the genre - Feist, Salvatore, Jordan, Weis/Hickman, Goodkind, Brooks are among my favorites.

ack....exactly which genre is that? cheesy mass market schlock? Try reading some real fantasy. What what exactly constitutes "real fantasy?" George RR Martin, Robin Hobb, Stephen Donaldson? Or maybe JK Rowling and CS Lewis? Please, do enlighten me.

Re:Good, give someone else a try

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! I nominate Paul Verhoeven.

It's not a personal paycheck

[jesterzog]

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? I do not blame the studio's and would certainly not want to hire him back again. For 1/10th the cost I could find a top hollywood director which has better talent.

Would you care so much if it was a $250 million dispute between Microsoft and IBM? I doubt that Peter Jackson is personally being paid $250 million, and it's not going into his personal bank account. I also doubt that he negotiated the original deal with his personal fortune in mind. I wouldn't be surprised for a minute, however, to hear that he always had plans to use the money for building his film-making businesses into something really impressive. And that's effectively what he's been doing. This guy's about as down-to-Earth as you'd get, except that he has an interest in making expensive movies. I doubt he really cares about how much money he has with the exception of wanting to be treated fairly so he can continue to make the types of movies he wants to.

From everything I've read so far, it sounds to me as if the studios are acting like retarded morons to try and avoid fronting up. Jackson's main complaint is that a partial audit of the first movie showed a lot of ambiguity about where the money had gone. Now Newline is preventing the rest of that movie, or the other two movies from being audited, and they're simply spinning the media to avoid the bad publicity of talking about the real issue, which is probably that they've cooked the books to avoid giving him money. It sounds completely reasonable to me to want a fuller audit.

Running these types of businesses isn't exactly cheap. The amount of money involved could make a big difference to the ability of Jackson's companies to compete with others in the industry. It's a misconception to believe that this is nothing more than a personal paycheck, when it's really useful income for companies like Weta Workshop or Three Foot Six, and sorting this out will affect everyone who has an interest in those organisations.

Gollum

[nighty5]

"They wants the precious for themselves, the stinking dirty thieving little Newline'ssss!"

Re:Gollum

[sharkey]

...he remembered teaching Newline to suck "Eggses!! Eggses!!"

Saul Zaentz has already said Peter will direct

[CandideEC]

Saul Zaentz, the producer that the Hobbit rights return to very soon, has already publicly announced that he could give a crap what New Line does, (he sued them for dough back in 2004...around the same time the cast sued them for dough) Peter Jackson will be directing the Hobbit when the rights return to him whether New Line tries to make a version on their own or not. Obviously this can't be guaranteed, but I don't think it would surprise anyone.

Re:Saul Zaentz has already said Peter will direct

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Probably true, but Saul Zaentz is teh debil.

Peter Jackson only made $250 million from LOTR ?

[nadanumber]

If you ask me, New Line got a deal..

"quarter of a billion dollars" ha ha.. come on...

Yeah, me too.

[Weaselmancer]

At the risk of making a "me too" post - me too.

First off, we all know how corrupt the movie industry is, and I hope PJ nails those guys to the wall and gets his due. But that being said, I'd like to see someone else make The Hobbit. PJ made too many arbitrary changes to the story for me to truly enjoy his work. He's a brilliant director and makes lovely visuals, but shouldn't be doing the screenplays.

Re:Yeah, me too.

[ozbird]

PJ made too many arbitrary changes to the story for me to truly enjoy his work.

And another director will be better how? The changes weren't arbitrary - if you haven't done so already, watch the (hours of) behind-the-scenes extras on the Special Edition DVDs. While I don't agree with all of them, I can understand why they were made.

It's also worth noting that The Hobbit is a much simpler - and shorter - tale that The Lord of the Rings, which should made the transition to film that much easier. If The Hobbit isn't a Peter Jackson/Wingnut Films/Weta Digital film, I ain't watching it.

Re:Yeah, me too.

[Weaselmancer]

And another director will be better how? The changes weren't arbitrary - if you haven't done so already, watch the (hours of) behind-the-scenes extras on the Special Edition DVDs. While I don't agree with all of them, I can understand why they were made.

Well, another director might make more simple cosmetic changes and less sweeping story altering changes. I've watched all the behind the scenes stuff, I have all the DVDs. They're good. Just not great is all. You have to admit - a lot of the changes were simply there because PJ felt he could tell a better story, or had better ideas than Tolkien. Which, I'm sorry, simply isn't true.

An example. The elves at Helm's Deep. PJ likes the elves, pre-screening audiences preferred having the elves show up, so they're in.

Except, if you're more into the books, you know how absolutely wrong it is to have the elves show up then. The Third Age is ending. The elves are leaving - why stay and defend something you're abandoning? And more than that, it's the beginning of the Fourth Age - the age of Man. It's up to mortal man to determine the fate of Middle Earth. That's the point. Having the elves show up and bail out mankind goes against the whole idea of the Fourth Age.

I could go on like this for hours (and have), but hopefully it's enough to where you'll understand my take on this. Will another director do a better job? Probably not. But I'd be willing to gamble Good to get Great. Here's hoping.

Re:Yeah, me too.

[Raenex]

My 2 cents:

Your point is a subtle one based on familiarity with the books. Myself, I had read the books as a child and forgotten most of the details and background. Something like the elves showing up didn't bother me in the least, and I suspect that's true for a lot of movie goers that only had a passing familiarity with Tolkien.

What did bother me was stuff like "dwarf tossing" (was that in the book?), silly Hollywood action sequences like Gandalf and Strider riding out of the keep and casting aside hordes of enemies, and the incredibly over-extended ending after the ring is destroyed.

What I liked were the visuals, scenery, and great character casting (except for Agent Smith as Elrond).

After watching King Kong suffer many of the same problems, I'd actually prefer a different director for The Hobbit.

Fuck New Line

[jeffasselin]

I've said it before, and will repeat it, despite being one of the biggest Tolkien fans out there, I will not go to see a Hobbit movie not done by Peter Jackson. Period.

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:MGM can fix this

[RoboRay]

"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"

This is pretty much what I expect to happen. It's also exactly what I HOPE happens, so my position may be a little biased. Anyway, while I don't agree with 100% of what PJ did with LotR, I can't imagine any other director doing BETTER with the material than he did. I'm quite pleased with his effort and would love to see him give the Hobbit similar treatment.

If Peter Jackson isn't making it.....

[blankoboy]

then please do not make this film. Enough said.

I think it's so funny...

[localman]

He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars

I like how the studio thinks the percentage that they agreed to pay him turned out to be "a lot" that they can reneg. And they keep throwing out this line about how much money he's made to kill people's sympathy for him. But, er, well, why should they get to keep the money? The fact is (at least from what I've read) is that they agreed to pay him on certain terms in the contract, and now they're whining because it was more successful than they expected. Which means they got more than they planned too. But the suits just don't like the idea of the grubby artist personally making so much.

Screw you NewLine. Go Peter.

And heck, I didn't even like the films that much.

Cheers :)

Faramir ring bearer?

[ClosedSource]

"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?"

Wow, I missed the part of the movie where Faramir took the ring of power from Frodo and slipped it on his finger.

  I don't entirely agree with the change in Faramir's story either, but the point of it wasn't that he couldn't resist the ring, the point was that he was tempted to use it to secure his father's respect but that in the end he resisted that temptation. Like it or not, it gave Faramir's story some arc that was missing in the books.

Re:We are the fodder in this

[solitas]

>> It isn't injurious to me if it is bad, the one in my head is actually pretty good.

Spot on! Movies can never replace "the theatre of the mind" amongst discerning readers. I watched all three movies - director's cuts, ALL the soundtracks - but it seemed like every-third-scene there was a "where the f*ck did THAT come from?"-type of plot-twitch.

I first read the trilogy 39 years ago and I revisit Middle Earth every couple of years and while I have my own preferred conceptions about the looks of the characters and the environment of Middle Earth - nothing to disparage WETA, they did a fantastically, heroically detailed job - but the plot and characters shifted all OVER the place at times which were enough to put me off.

Quite a bit in 'Fellowship'; progressively more in 'Towers' and even more in 'Return'. The dialogue markedly changes in the "director's soundtrack" across the DVDs too - it almost sounded like they _wanted_ to do a better job in 'Fellowship' but had to make concessions to the PTB, but by 'Return' the attitude seemed more like "screwyou - we know you bought the tickets, we know you bought the DVDs, we know we've got you hooked, and we'll do what we damn well please".

From my experiences with the three movies I wouldn't have wasted the time to watch a jackson/Hobbit movie for free, if one came out.

Reminds Me of Stan Lee and Marvel

[GaryPatterson]

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

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.

Re:We are the fodder in this

[Dunbal]

You're a troll.

      Just because someone voices an opinion that you don't agree with doesn't make them a troll. There's a certain amount of malicious intent behind a post that should be manifest before considering the poster a troll.

Shaye sounds like he's covering somthing

[N8F8]

Jackson just wants an audit of the payments for the second two movies. The studio wants to sit back and refuse. I sugget they are hiding something. Probably cooking the books.

Re:Shaye sounds like he's covering somthing

[Anonymous Coward]

I sugget they are hiding something.

      WMD's! Let's invade!

Re:We are the fodder in this

[sottitron]

Whoa, Its just a theory, man.

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:No loss

[spwolfx]

which is why I find "tolkien fans" who say that they wont see non-jackson hobbit pretty funny.
LOTR has been great success and and great movie, however it certainly did not keep to the books themselves, as any real tolkien fan could tell you.

so you have two types of toliken fans now - ones that re-read the books at least 10 times and ones that re-watched the movies 10 times but never read the book :-).

There is no big difference between Jackson and New Line - they both want more money. It is easy to argue now, but New Line got a lot of heat before movies were released for investing such huge amounts of money into the "unknown" director and movie that if it failed, might have brought the whole company down. So we have to commend both New Line for taking big risk, and giving jackson unlimited funds, and Jackson for having an vision to create such epic movie as well.

talk about spin

[lordsid]

This is total spin and should have never been posted on slashdot, my god.

Here is a link with a statement from the real owner of the Tolkien rights saying that Jackson will definitely do the Hobbit. The rights for the movies revert back to him sometime within the next year.

This Shaye guy can sit on it and spin himself, greedy fuck.

/feeling cynical tonight

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:I have no respect for Jackson

[byronne]

Ever try to make a movie?

Or Bob Shaye can start production now

[Travoltus]

completely screw up The Hobbit, cause it to go straight to DVD, and then Bob Shaye can change his name to treboR Rushdie...

Without Peter there would be no money.

[erexx23]

Piss on Bob Shaye
Without Peter there would be no money.

I won't watch The Hobbit in theaters unless Jackson makes the film.

Shaye wantes to rob the people of this and cover his tracks with shady accounting.
Somethings never change.

Re:Without Peter there would be no money.

[east coast]

Yeah, no one but Jackson could have done LoTRs. [rolling of eyes]

Why does everyone call his name up like he's some kind of God? A ton of directors could have done the same job with the talent Jackson had. Jackson is such a small part of this puzzle that he's hardly worth mentioning and given the template that currently exists for fantasy film success things aren't going to change much from large studios in the near future.

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?

"/." can be a fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, I am sure he can be replaced - after all, movies of the quality and popularity of LOTR are so common."

According to slashdot it is. Just read some of the abolishing copyright threads, or the "you're stealing from the public domain" posts. Funny how the tune changes when it's something you all want, and suddenly artists are golden. Otherwise it's "they're making too much money".

Jackson to LIKELY direct the Hobbit with LOTR cast

[Purity Of Essence]

He just might not do it for New Line. When New Line's option for the Hobbit runs out and rights revert to Saul Zaentz another studio can pick it up and hire Jackson and the relevant members of the LOTR cast who support and want Jackson to direct, which would be a very smart business decision of any studio -- New Line doesn't seem to get that when it should be scaring them stupid.

Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Is Peter a Slashdotter? Is anybody who works with him a Slashdotter? Then please pass this on:

"Peter, Sorry you won't be doing another Hobbit movie, but Lord of the Rings would be pretty hard to top anyway. I won't be seeing the Hobbit movie if you're not directing it. This isn't a boycott threat. I'm just not going to see it, period. I don't care what Newline does, and neither will most of your fans.

Instead, walk across the hall and see your good friend and LOTR visual effects supervisor, Richard Taylor. He's been pushing the idea of doing a Live Action NEON GENESIS EVANGELION movie. This is every bit as deserving a franchise as Lord of the Rings. And because it's barely been tapped outside of Japan, it's got incredible potential. I can't stress that enough. This is one of the most phenomenal stories ever to be told. Evangelion may be underground in the West, but it has a huge cult following; Robin Williams even voiced the promo for the live action because he's a huge Evangelion fan.

Richard has been working on this for several years. WETA have done conceptual art. AD who own the rights backed off making it as an Americanized version. This has huge potential. Talk to Richard. He can give you the animated Boxset. Why do Halo or remakes of old movies, when you can do this?

Good luck! Talk to Richard and cllick here to learn more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion

Re:Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[lupine_stalker]

*/REM soul* *Puts on executive hat (with an extra +5 to cynicism!)* I'd like to see a Neon Genesis movie as much as the next anime geek who lives in his parents house, but do you really think that a story with themes that are as intellectual/profound/subtle as Evangelion would ever have enough mainstream appeal in the world of slackjawed idiots we live in? I mean, sure, it has robots fighting aliens, but come on, it doesn't have a charismatic male lead, or monster trucks! *takes off executive hat* *EQUIP soul*

Re:Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Entirely understand. Jackson did manage to take a fantasy epic and turn it into something slackjaws and fanboys alike weeped to with joy. If I had to trust anyone with Evangelion, it would be him.

But Jackson and Taylor know each other. I'd wager money it's been discussed at least casually, and for whatever reason Jackson didn't take it on. His choice of projects since LOTR has been remakes of old movies that were childhood favourites of his, and Halo which is, lets face it, a kiss-of-death assignment for any director. Choosing Halo (now postponed) ahead of Evangelion seems like bad judgement IMHO.

Re:Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[lupine_stalker]

Yes, I think the Halo movie would be very hard to pull off, but Peter Jackson was producing the Halo movie, not directing it. A nice way to have his cake and eat it too.

Re:Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

I've got the byline for it: "If you thought DOOM the Movie was great, wait till you see Halo!"

Good luck there, PJ :-)

Re:Desparate Message to Peter Jackson!

[lupine_stalker]

Ah, yeah. The track record for video game movies isn't great (by that I mean... well... nonexistant). I was hoping that Peter Jackson's Halo would do to the Game/Movie franchise what Sin City and Batman Begins did to the Comic Book/Movie franchise.

Re:Peter Jackson only made $250 million from LOTR

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, the films have made billions, and will probably go on making making hundreds of millions over the next few decades as New Line license the rights. In which case quibbling about a $50-$100million looks downright mean, and it's not even a good business if Jackson ends up making the Hobbit with another studio as seems likely. Presumably if they'd played straight, they'd have made way more than $50-100 million out of the Hobbit if he'd directed it for them.

Boycott New Line

[ylon]

We should express our displeasure with this and that it will not fly: http://www.dpsinfo.com/boycottnewline

Re:I have no respect for Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a thing in this world called a contract. When you sign it, both parties are bound by the rules set forth in this contract. When it says you get x% of the revenue, then you get x% no matter how important you were or whether they really needed you. All that matters is the numbers. He's not asking for more than his share. He's asking for all of the share that he was promised. Sounds like the other people are the greedy ones.

Re:I have no respect for Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but you're a complete and utter fucking jerk! He's entitled to what he was promised no matter how high the figure...New Line made billions off those pictures, and I'm sure in typical Hollywood fashion has cooked the books to try to screw PJ AND his people over...

HELL NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

I REALLY hope you're joking mate!

Surely people arn't still that ignorant in the information age?
You'd probably get murdered here in New Zealand for saying shit like that!

Re:HELL NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try to find out what 'gd&r' means...

Re:I have no respect for Jackson

[talon_262]

You know, I hope you never run a business of your own, because you wouldn't (or shouldn't) be in business very long with that "holier-than-thou" attitude of yours. Now that I've attempted to be civil, I have two things to say to you: STFU and STFD.

Gotta love studios

[dysjunct]

When Jackson wants to be paid $250 million, he's just being greedy. But when the studios want to NOT pay $250 million, they're not greedy at all.

pseudo-mod: "+1 Informative"

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're already at 5 pts, but this was a really, really good summary. I also kudos you. *thumbs up*

talk is cheap

[l3v1]

He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars

All I can say is, talk is cheap. It doesn't matter how much you've payed him. It only matters how much you promised to pay and then how much you really payed. Rest is rubbish.
 

I like this bit...

[myowntrueself]

Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience.

'Frighteners'?

Peter, did that really come from the heart? If it did, it didn't show.

Re:I like this bit...

[ZJVavrek]

I haven't seen the movie in question, but I have to think: Maybe he's speaking from experience. A movie /should/ come from the heart, doesn't mean it always does or it always has.

Re:I like this bit...

[MotorMachineMercenar]

I don't get this. Frighteners is very much in line with what Mr Jackson had been doing before it, and was a natural continuation in his development as a director. Or are you one of those people who think money spoils everything it touches?

Re:I like this bit...

[comradeeroid]

Frighteners was a wonderfull movie and it had Michael J Fox as the lead, what more could you ask for?

Re:I have no respect for Jackson

[cheekyboy]

What movies have you made besides a 3min porno with your hand?

The 250m is not all for himself dude, he does have staff.

So who deserves the 'profits' more.... New line or Wing Nut?

Just like with music, does Sony deserve 50 years of obscene profits, or the artists?

Distributors are a dime a dozen, artists are rare.

The Sequal will be called Fragon!

[cheekyboy]

Saw the eragone book at borders, 60% discount, lots of them.

no 'the hobbit' from peter jackson?

[Anonymous Coward]

thank christ!

he ruined enough when he did LoTR

Sounds like most DOT COM companies too

[cheekyboy]

Ahh remember the old days 98-2001

The boss promising the programmers that MAKE THE REAL WORK, "dudez, you guys will be driving the porsche boxters soon, we'll give your 3% share in the company"

But that 3 gets dilluted fast after your share goes to the VC, to the lawyers, to the bosses mom! and relatives.

Oh sorry, during the 4 years, we made ZERO PROFIT, so there goes your share too. Yeah we spent all the profits on lawyers
securing a corporate take over!

You believe fake government statistics? STOOGE

[cheekyboy]

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data

read the real stats.

Its closer 100%/10years.

Now re Gold, wow thats like 350%

So if GOLD is REAL MONEY, then yeah, its closer to 400%

Production rights?

[Jugalator]

How long do New Line keep their rights to the Hobbit movie?

I heard something about it not being many years at all after not starting production.

And many other movie execs would probably be eager to orgasm levels to make a Hobbit movie with Peter Jackson.

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of those people who confuse a good book with a good screenplay. They're related, but not the same thing.

As to the books, you can keep them. I've tried reading them several times, and found them, um, don't know a nice way to put this... the nicest thing I can think of is I can see why people who read this stuff really like D&D. And I don't mean that in a particularly good way.

Copyright law and contract law

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law in Europe traditionally limit what rights you can sign away, which put limits on the contract.

Contract law everywhere requires a contract to be mutual, the implication of this varies. Often you will see people sell something for a symbolic amount (a dollar) rather than give it away, in order to ensure that the contract is mutual. A symbol amount may not be enough everywhere for the contract to be valid, and 10 bucks would certainly be a symbolic amount.

Re:We are the fodder in this

[MeanderingMind]

They made all three films simultaneously, it's not as though they got lazy at the end. Any changes were already made when "Fellowship" first came out.

Wait, isn't Tolkien public domain by now?

[1 reply beneath your]

What's to stop Jackson to produce and direct it on his own? It's not like he doesn't have enough money!

Re:Wait, isn't Tolkien public domain by now?

[east coast]

He would need rights to the works. Given the popularity of JRRT's works today I'd find it hard to believe that he has enough money to buy the rights, produce and promote the film. There's a ton of cash he'd need.

Re:Wait, isn't Tolkien public domain by now?

[1 reply beneath your]

He wrote the Hobbit in the thirties, right? Isn't that public domain by now? If it's not, if fucking should be!

Re:Wait, isn't Tolkien public domain by now?

[east coast]

Tolkien died in the early 70s. His works won't be PD for another 40 years or so.

Re:Wait, isn't Tolkien public domain by now?

[1 reply beneath your]

Right, it's life+70years, not date of creation+70 years

Just what I was thinking, i.e. "so what?"

[walterbyrd]

Jackson may be a good director, but it's not as if he's the only one. And LoTR may have been a good trillogy, but it's not as if that is entirely due to Jackson.

As long as they get a top drawer director for "The Hobbit" why give a rat's azz whether is Jackson or not?

I think Jackson may be a good director, but I don't worship the guy.

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.

It's dodgier than a dodgy thing...

[Bloodrage]

I'm not sure if anyone on the discussion noticed, but this suit is for Peter's rights to the profits to only the first movie in the trilogy, LOTR:The Fellowship of the Rings.

Newline has refused Wingnut films to audit the profits from the two subsequent films despite that they are contractually obligated to do so.

Re:It's dodgier than a dodgy thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us who have been following the films since they were announced in 1998, it was well known that New Line, because of the enormous financial risk involved (unknown director, B/C-list actors, source material that had been deemed "unfilmable"), had heavily pre-sold the film to raise the requisite production capital.

Also, by Jackson's own account on the "making of" features on FOTR:EE, It was Shaye who, as a long time fan of the trilogy, insisted on three films rather than Jackson's initial pitch of two films. Shaye had basically bet the entire studio on Jackson's trilogy. New Line also insisted on making the trilogy films simultaneously. This article gives a good accounting of the process: http://tolkien.cro.net/
The article makes it clear and it wasn't a secret, that those involved would make relatively little on the first film but would be entitled to greater percentages of the gross on TTT and ROTK. Credit has to be given to New Line and Peter Jackson for the resulting trilogy. I'm of the opinion that the success of the FOTR (which helped ensure the success of subsequent films) was due mostly to its fidelity to the book. As a movie, it is extremely well done. It's also fairly faithful as an adaptation. Neither can be said about TTT and ROTK.

A totally CG Hobbit?

[Trackbug]

Wouldn't it be better to wait a few years and make a totally CG larger-than live Hobbit movie in the Tolkien universe? Buy your infrared goggles now.

Re:We are the fodder in this

[solitas]

Well, they were accumulating footage all along and each movie's-worth went to the editors while footage for succeeding movies still had to be shot - they shot a lot of footage that never made it to the finished prints: stuff that would have better filled-out, and lent more continuity to, the saga. And, there was a lot of re-shooting done during editing when what he had wasn't exactly what he wanted.

I believe he could have done a lot better than he did.

Never trust a fat director

[Vacardo]

Oh wait, he's thin now, isn't he?