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.
My subject is a quote from TFA.
Let's break this down.
"The Lord of teh Ring's trilogy"
You know what, I'm not even going to bother. What kind of retard submitted this?
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
the site's doing everything in its power to -be- Digg down to the very look and feel, and failing miserably.
Surely failing to imitate Digg is a good thing...
Blank until
I suspect you'll find that no-one at the Tolkien Trust created "The Lord of the Rings". Although I don't approve of the studio's alleged wrongdoing with regards payment, I think it is a bit of a joke how long ownership on these things lasts. (Life + 70 years comes to mind, but that is probably wrong).
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.
They haven't won their suit yet. The studios haven't yet gotten what they deserve. But I'm with you -- I hope they lose BIG. The judge should award triple damages.
Anyone else remember Dragon magazine and the spoof on getting sued by the Tolkien estate - they weren't allowed to say "ring".
"Someone get the phone, its circular metal banding off the hook!"
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
That's a very good point, and I agree with you. But I would bet Christopher Tolkien has had some hand in the Tolkien Trust and he has done quite a bit of work on the Lord of the Rings Universe, whether you agree that's good or bad.
But I can't believe that New Line is trying to say that they made less than one million dollars on the movies though. That's got to be worst than Cutthroat Island.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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'm with you 100% there. Copyright is supposed to encourage authors/composers/etc. to create new works to enrich society. Tolkien isn't even enriching the ground he's buried in anymore, so there's *zero* need for a copyright to continue to exist on his works. Copyright is only providing an income stream for his heirs (and New Line) at the expense of society now.
I think that New Line is scummy for their shady accounting practices, but they really should not have had to negotiate for the film rights to begin with.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
shouldn't the MPAA be thanking filesharers, since they're diluting their losses? (just using Hollywood accounting logic here)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Since I'm someone who makes a living off his "intellectual property", I've thought about this a lot. I just can't see any benefit (as far as the original purpose of copyright is concerned) for any rights to a work of art to be transferable in any manner. I might go so far as to say an artist should be able to "license" his idea to someone else who wants to extend the work somehow, but there's no reason his grandchildren should be able to reap direct benefits from it.
If I get rich off my work (probability: imperceptible), I'll leave the dough to my wife and daughter (who both happen to be younger and healthier than me, and thus likely to survive me). I feel the same way about patent. If an inventor wants to monetize his invention, he should either develop it himself or license it to a company to develop. When he dies, it should become public domain.
And don't tell me this will "hinder innovation". Innovators innovate. It's what they do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Now there is a great idea - have Terry Gilliam do the Hobbit. Only the plot would need some twisting to make it into Gilliam territory.
When the dwarves are captured by the elves, at least one needs to die during interrogation while believing that they are escaping. Sting would need to be a vorpal blade. Smaug would swallow its victims and then spit out the bones. Some time travel would be inevitable while leaving Dale. Shelley Duval would make a cameo appearance asking Thorin to return the map. Thorin would become delusional and would try to reach the Mountain in a balloon. It would all end with Bard declaring that he was not the Messiah.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Very well put. One thing that struck me after studying German for a while is that, much like "sit" and "set" or "lie" and "lay" are intransitive/transitive verb pairs differentiated by the central vowel ("sitzen" and "setzen" / "liegen" and "legen" in the German), so too are "live" and "love" ("leben" and "lieben") -- "love" is the transitive form of "live". So in that sense, loving someone is helping them live well, helping them grow and be healthy. Romance doesn't *have* to enter into this picture, which is why you can just as well love your siblings even despite a very rocky growing up. Which is also why I know that I'm loving my wife the most not when I'm feeling all lovey-dovey, but when she's annoying the crap out of me or I'm pissed as hell at her, but *still* try my damnedest to make things work.
Love is work. Marriage is work. And the truer measure of how much you love your partner/spouse doesn't happen during the easy times -- it's how you behave and how you work at it during the rough times, even if you happen to hate each other's guts right at that moment. *That's* when you fulfill whatever promises or vows you've made.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."