Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Line And Jackson - Irreconcilable Differences

Posted by Zonk on from the [vader]noooooooo[/vader] dept.

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.'"

15 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. might be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    how much did THEY make from the films?

  2. Aroo? by inphinity · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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...

  3. Re:I'd say... by lawrenlives · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    --
    Frankly, I prefer the company of nitwits.
  4. New line probably does own Jackson more... by origin2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  5. Re:I'd say... by R_Growler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Its amazing by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

  7. so why sell the LOTR movies? by fermion · · Score: 1, Interesting
    '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.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. Saul Zaentz has already said Peter will direct by CandideEC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  9. Yeah, me too. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  10. Re:Good, give someone else a try by JeffElkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
  11. Re:Cheers indeed by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  12. Re:Cheers indeed by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  13. Re:Cheers indeed by (negative+video) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:I'd say... by malkavian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Cheers indeed by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?