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.'"
how much did THEY make from the films?
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.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
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
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...
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.
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 . . .
Dont newline cinema have a finite period of time in which they can do the hobbit before they lose the rights to it?
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.
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.
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? :\
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)
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
Can you shoot a commercial grade movie? He can. How much that skill is worth? Well... apparently, that's in dispute.
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?
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.
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.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
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.
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/c
Feel free to actually use real statistical data to prove your point. Try here: http://www.newsengin.com/neFreeTools.nsf/CPIcalc?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?"
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
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
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.
Those of you who remember the Browser Wars of last century might recognise the Spyglass/Microsoft/Internet Explorer story in a different guise.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
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.
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.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"They wants the precious for themselves, the stinking dirty thieving little Newline'ssss!"
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.
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?
If you ask me, New Line got a deal..
"quarter of a billion dollars" ha ha.. come on...
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?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
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.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
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!
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
then please do not make this film. Enough said.
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
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Don't forget Bad Taste and Brain Dead. No one can deny that they are works of cinematic genius.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
"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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Woo-hoo! He's being a dumbass, and insulting wikipedia in his sig. I've got myself a new foe!
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
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.
-- Alastair
Can you shoot a commercial grade movie? He can.
I dunno. After King Kong I am not too sure anymore.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
>> 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.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Whoa, Its just a theory, man.
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.
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.
This is total spin and should have never been posted on slashdot, my god.
/feeling cynical tonight
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.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
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.
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.
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.
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."
How does greed work?
Imposter! This isn't Bill Gates at all!
Ever try to make a movie?
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
completely screw up The Hobbit, cause it to go straight to DVD, and then Bob Shaye can change his name to treboR Rushdie...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
You probably side with the owners in baseball, too. Why should anyone make $5million/year to play baseball, right?
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
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.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
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".
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.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
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.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
+0 Meh
"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
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.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
We should express our displeasure with this and that it will not fly: http://www.dpsinfo.com/boycottnewline
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
In Jackson's Middle Earth, New Zealand acknowledges YOU!
... and then they built the supercollider.
I can't imagine a summary that is easier to understand. Kudos to you, sir!
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:
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.)
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.
Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
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.
Apparently somewhat over 250 million dollars US.
Ninjas use italics.
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 am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
At least The Frighteners wasn't *wing commander* bad.
It was way too bland to be that bad.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
"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?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
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.
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.
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.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Saw the eragone book at borders, 60% discount, lots of them.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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!
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
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%
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
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.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
He is producing the Halo film. A first-time director was directing it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
"We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
What's to stop Jackson to produce and direct it on his own? It's not like he doesn't have enough money!
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
i am endorsed for the carrying of dangerous goods, please be giving me your depleted uranium
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.
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".
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.
Then why wasn't Faramir the one sent to Mt. Doom with the ring?
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.
I believe he could have done a lot better than he did.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
Oh wait, he's thin now, isn't he?
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
I meant why wasn't Faramir the Ring-bearer? Didn't Gandalf know that he existed?