Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Does it really matter? If they find a competant guy, who cares for him. He just has a more famous name, that's all.
'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.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
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.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
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.
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.
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.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
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.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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?
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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.