Slashdot Mirror
Tolkien Trust Sues New Line, May Kill "Hobbit"
oboreruhito writes "The AP is reporting that the Tolkien Trust and HarperCollins are suing New Line Cinema for $150 million in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages, and a court order revoking New Line's rights to produce any more films on Tolkien properties. The Tolkien Trust says that New Line paid them only $62,500 to make 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy of films — instead of the agreed-upon 7.5 percent of gross receipts of all film-related revenue. The suit may set back, if not kill, a film adaptation of Lord of the Rings prequel 'The Hobbit,' which Peter Jackson had recently signed up to make after his own legal row with the studio over payment for the sequels."
Studios are scumbags. They do "creative" accounting so that no film ever makes money on paper. If you get suckered into accepting net points you will never EVER see a dime. Gross points are the real money and even then they find ways of hiding that money.
This is why you see lots of big actors and big name directors and talent working on more and more "indie" films. they actually get what they are promised from the indie companies.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm shocked! Shocked!
We all know that Hollywood Accounting is a complete scam.
Provided you happen to be an accountant who works in a movie studio.
Has anyone ever figured out the arithmetic to find out how much profit a given studio is making on the assumption that the takings they quote to people who should be getting X% of the total are accurate? I am pretty sure it would demonstrate a massive loss year-on-year.
Everybody loves bashing RIAA, MPAA and the big bad studios, but come on: The Lord of the Rings was originally published in *1955* (more than 50 years ago). Tolkien died in 1973 (more than 35 years ago). The publishers really had enough time to make money; it should be public domain by now. Yes, I know copyright usually expires 50/70 years after the author's death, but these laws really need updating.
It looks like most of those around adaptations of Tolkien's works are one by one falling prey to the same
sad curse that overtook Gollum...
"My Precious, My Precious!... Must have the Precious!"
If I may say so, I truly wonder what Tolkien himself would think of all this pathetic bickering and bitter lawsuits.
Z.
It is not standard practice. It is a how companies deal with business.
Are you surprised? But this is what you get when company as entity have nor moral nor serious legal obligations to law. Surprise, it is cornerstone of so called American business thinking.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
You misspelled "loser", and I can't even guess what you were aiming for with @#$%.
Blank until
Quite a bit north, actually. In point of fact, just shy of three billion dollars. And that's not considering merchandising tie-ins, DVD sales, and all the rest of the "film related" revenue.
So I guess we now know the answer to "what has it got in its pocketses?" A shitload of other people's money!
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
I agree that 50 years is too long (or about right).
But what do you think the same studios would say if you took a film made in 1954 and just started distributing it? They'd sue you into oblivion. Further, it was the film studios themselves who pushed for such long copyright terms.
So I don't see they have either the legal or moral standing to complain about this. They should pay their damned bills, frankly.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Digg can be a neat site for the sheer volume of articles, but it has some serious and aggravating problems. To give one example: it was refreshing to come here this morning and find only one story about the Anonymous protests of Scientology instead of, oh, say, ten.
The Anonymous group seems to have taken a page from Ron Paul supporters: they've positively Digg-bombed the place, putting multiple (and entirely redundant) stories onto the front page, as if this will somehow raise awareness about the CoS amongst a demographic that is vulnerable to the Church's tactics. But they can't do that on Slashdot because of the editorial control here. Add to this the fact that Digg is no longer news for nerds in the way Slashdot is (sports articles now show up with alarming frequency on Digg), and that the comments on Digg absolutely stink compared with those here (yes, they're even worse than ours).
I enjoy Digg for its constant volume of new articles, but Slashdot's articles are much better presented (yes, even with the "teh" in TFA). If this site posted more frequent stories to compete with Digg's volume I'd have little reason to go to Digg. Volume is about the only advantage they have.
. Then again, why should they make money for someone elses work that they didn't make themselves?
Because the author chose to give it to them.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
First, as everyone should know: you never, ever sign a contract for royalties on net profit. There will never be ANY net. Period. It is far too easy to make that happen, especially if you are not on equal footing. It doesn't metter what the relationship is, if you are signing a contract where you get royalties for anything, it is always on the gross revenue, never anything else. End of story.
Second. Studios lie about their revenue. The WGA strikes have shown this, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows that they lie about revenue. Essentially what you shuold be doing when you saying when you sign a contract with the studio is this: I get to choose the highest available estimate of revenue as my basis for what you owe me on royalties. If you put out figures claiming the film has grossed $1.2b at the box, then we go by that figure, unless you have other figures that are higher. You can't claim one figure publicly and then sell me on another, lower, figure in private. On the other hand, those in estate situations like this should be able to to demand open accounting on projects. I know I would. If you sell the movie rights to a book, then you should probably say something like: I need to have access to the accounting procedures for complete independent review.
Third, I am also ambiguous about copyright length. I strongly maintain that authors, even those doing work for hire, should retain private copyright. Corporations should not own copyrights in the same way that private authors do. Who then would own the story for Pixar's movie 'Toy Story'? I don't know. I think that when a team of individuals are doing a collaborative work, then the corporation can own the copyright for a period of time not greater than 25 years (or some other period of time). This gives the studio sufficient time to reap profit from works, but then allows them to become public domain in an appropriate fashion. Individuals or private teams (say co-authored works) become copyrighted for the life of the author or primary author. After this time, the estate may continue to produce related material and any new material is under copyright of the new author using their life as the benchmark. I think provisions for the immediate descendents garnering automatic royalties for major deritive works would be appropriate, which would be mean that Tolkien's children would get money for the production of anything made related to Middle Earth, but they would have no control over what actually got made. It would then be up to consumers to decide what was worthy of purchase and what was crap. A rare and shocking concept, true, but I think an important one.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Ooh, I'd love to see that one argued in court. Unfortunately, since studios stopped paying their employees and started buying politicians, you damages aren't actual, they're statutory and punitive.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Here's basically how it works..
New Line makes movie, movie costs $100MM to make.
Movie is a moderate hit, Movie makes $150 MM in theaters and tie-ins in the first year.
The $150 MM Profit number gets reported by New Line to your little website.
But, there's more...
The actual studio and sound stages aren't owned by New Line, they're owned by New Line Studios and Sound Stages, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And, of course, the post-production is done by New Line Post Production, Inc.
Andd they must be compensated. $10 MM.
And then there's the TV advertising. This is done by New Line Trailer Production, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $30 MM.
And we can't forget the costs of booking travel and making the logistical operations. This is done by New Line Logistics
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And when it's all said and done...
Damn...
The movie JUST broke even.
Sorry little fella, but New Line made a big investment here, and we just don't have the ability to pay you out of our pockets: As it is we just broke even!
Of course, all those Subsidiaries will be kicking most of that back upstairs, but hey, that's THE BIZ!!!!
A couple breaking the promise of marriage, or a parent breaking a promise to their son or daughter is really no different...
Marriage is a tad different, in that the things that are promised ("vowed," which is a word we don't hear often enough without irony) are impossible to promise. You may say you will love, cherish, and respect another until the day you die, but you are not promising something you can, in good faith, honestly *know* you can deliver.
People change. Feelings change. Circumstances change. To promise to love someone forever is not a realistic promise. You can promise to *try*. But you can't promise you *will.* At least, not with any real certainty.
In business (and in promises to kids or spouses about realistic promises), you are promising to deliver something that is within your ability. If you promised something you *can't* deliver, you are a liar. If you renege, you are a cheat (in the case of business).
I do wish there were a code of honor these days, but there isn't. Instead, misinformation, lies, and manipulation are the norm in politics and business. So, why shouldn't it be the norm in our day-to-day lives, as well?
Oh, well. If you do your best to be honorable, I will also do my best to be honorable. If we can get a few hundred thousand to also be honorable, we might be able to change things for the better.
I wouldn't count on it, though.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.