Lord of the Rings ... Trilogy? Not so fast!

[FlashLackey]

No. I agree. Your arguments have been intelligent. But, yours have not been his.

"that = bull****" || "you sound like a life insurance salesman." != intelligent

[no big deal. i can enjoy giving as i recieve on occasion. doesn't need to be serious. especially over hobbits. ]

[silverx2]

No. I agree. Your arguments have been intelligent. But, yours have not been his.

"that = bull****" || "you sound like a life insurance salesman." != intelligent

[no big deal. i can enjoy giving as i receive on occasion. doesn't need to be serious. especially over hobbits. ]

are you serious right now.

here let me make my argument a little more intelligent for you. I know you only get into these kinds of arguments because you like to argue for the sake of arguing but here.

Noun 1. blackball - the act of excluding someone by a negative vote or veto
barring
expulsion, riddance, ejection, exclusion - the act of forcing out someone or something; "the ejection of troublemakers by the police"; "the child's expulsion from school"

Newline has a contract with peter Jackson to make the three movies. In the contract they have put in how much Peter's team will make based off profits from the movie. Also in the movie is the option for both parties to have a 3rd party come in and make sure everyone got what they should have gotten. its all legit and by the book. pretty basic stuff.

The movies start coming out and people are getting crazy money.

Peter Jackson is keeping track of what his team is getting based on reports of how much money the movie has made, and hes noticing that he is not getting what he is supposed to be getting, so he opts to use the 3rd party clause.

new line says "no dont do that, Well just give you some money and well let you make the next movie with us"

Peter Jackson says "no i dont want to settle and make the next movie, id rather have the 3rd party team come in and make sure everything is even steven"

new line says "dont do that"

peter Jackson does it

head honcho at newline says "peter Jackson will never make another movie for us ever"

So tell me Please in an intelligent way, what is wrong with peter Jackson getting all the money is deserves as was in his contract? Why wont new line uphold that contract? Why is new line Blackballing peter jackson because he's trying to get the money that HE earned.


ill just sit here for you to change the subject and start talking about something relevant to this post just to cause waves.

the life insurance salesman is a valid analogy as much like what newline is doing they have been know to screw people over before too.

[Visionray]

Silver, Is Peter Jackson your new man-fetish?
This could make Jack Bauer and Tom Brady very jealous.

[silverx2]

no hes not everyone here knows your my new man crush what with the garbage pail kids and stuff, i just think its dumb that people are bashing him for trying to get what hes entitled to.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

i just think its dumb that people are bashing him for trying to get what hes entitled to.

Agreed. And when a bigger company is playing hardball what's the best - and often smartest - way to get a solution? Go public. Good on him.

( but like I said, this is going on the info that is currently publicly available)

[Jimbrowski]

All I'm saying is that LOTR was a collaborative effort, and I just think it's odd that people adulate Jackson as if he's some kind of messiah.

Just to add my 2 pence......

I had a few film classes thrown in with my degree course, (down under, a couple of years ago) our lecturer told us that Peter Jackson's movies are 50% directed by him...............and 50% by his wife !!

I'm not kidding - Mrs Jackson doesn't like the limelight, but shares half the creative work.......just thought i'd put that out there.....

Jimmy

[FlashLackey]

are you serious right now.

I wouldn't say serious. But, I mean what I'm saying. If thats what you're wanting to know.

here let me make my argument a little more intelligent for you. I know you only get into these kinds of arguments because you like to argue for the sake of arguing but here.

Thank you. I only ask that arguments be intelligent if they include insults.

Newline has a contract with peter Jackson to make the three movies. In the contract they have put in how much Peter's team will make based off profits from the movie. Also in the movie is the option for both parties to have a 3rd party come in and make sure everyone got what they should have gotten. its all legit and by the book. pretty basic stuff.

The movies start coming out and people are getting crazy money.

Peter Jackson is keeping track of what his team is getting based on reports of how much money the movie has made, and hes noticing that he is not getting what he is supposed to be getting, so he opts to use the 3rd party clause.

First problem with your argument. You are already assuming that Peter Jacksons interperetation of the contract is correct and that the studios is not. What is your basis for that? Have you reviewed the contract? Has some neutral party, qualified to do so, come out and stated that Peter Jackson is not getting paid enough? Do employees ever think incorrectly that they aren't being paid enough?

new line says "no dont do that, Well just give you some money and well let you make the next movie with us"

If Peter Jacksons account is true, your statement is simply false. They did not tell him "dont do that". They said that they would be willing to settle if they could get commitment from him to do the next movie and they needed to do that because they have limited time rights for the story. In other words, they were being forced to settle because they didn't have time to wait for a legal battle which has an indefinite timeline.

Peter Jackson says "no i dont want to settle and make the next movie, id rather have the 3rd party team come in and make sure everything is even steven"

new line says "dont do that"

peter Jackson does it

Again. New Line doesn't say "dont do that". They say "we can't have you work on the next film if we do that. here is an alternative solution."

head honcho at newline says "peter Jackson will never make another movie for us ever"

Is this a fabrication or do you have a source for that statement? Even if that is the case, I wouldn't blame them.

So tell me Please in an intelligent way, what is wrong with peter Jackson getting all the money is deserves as was in his contract? Why wont new line uphold that contract? Why is new line Blackballing peter jackson because he's trying to get the money that HE earned.

There is nothing wrong with Peter Jackson getting the money that he deserves. The problem here is that there is no evidence that he deserves any more money. There is no evidence that you have that shows that new line has not upheld the contract already. Your use of Blackballing is wrong here too. Peter Jacksons services for a fourth movie, as he states himself, had never been secured. Therefore, its not possible for him to be "forced out" of anything. He chose a route that made it difficult for the studio to go with him. They feel that their interests would be best served by looking for alternatives. Nothing Blackballing about that.

ill just sit here for you to change the subject and start talking about something relevant to this post just to cause waves.

this must be more hobbit trickery. how can i change the subject AND start talking about something relevant?

the life insurance salesman is a valid analogy as much like what newline is doing they have been know to screw people over before too.

ill take this as a joke since its too feeble to be considered insulting. how am i trying to screw anyone over?

look, Peter Jackson obviously feels that he is owed more money. he may very well get more. but, he may not. my problem with him is his disclosure of business matters that should remain private. i also feel that his rationalization for why he made the decisions he did are not genuine.

i suspect that its a case of a director, arrogantly thinking that his capabilities umbrella over expertise that he doesn't have. in other words, he should be consulting with someone of experience with contracts, etc. before opening his mouth and making such decisions. i have some evidence that this is true just by his comments. "this is just what audit clauses are for" for example. i happen to have a lot of experience with contracts that include such clauses. coincidentally, a lot of them involve movie studios and probably come from some of the same types of lawyers that drafted his contract. i can assure you that those types of clauses are last resort protections. they aren't just random options to be used lightly and everyone will be ok with it. they are there to prevent lawsuits from getting too expensive. PJ makes it sound like he asked his payment to be mailed rather than direct deposit. in reality, invoking an audit clause is the most severe option he has to breach the relationship. he is effectively calling his employer a liar. would you hire someone who calls you a liar?

[FlashLackey]

no hes not everyone here knows your my new man crush what with the garbage pail kids and stuff, i just think its dumb that people are bashing him for trying to get what hes entitled to.

i think its dumb that people give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger simply because they liked their movie.

[FlashLackey]

Just to add my 2 pence......

I had a few film classes thrown in with my degree course, (down under, a couple of years ago) our lecturer told us that Peter Jackson's movies are 50% directed by him...............and 50% by his wife !!

I'm not kidding - Mrs Jackson doesn't like the limelight, but shares half the creative work.......just thought i'd put that out there.....

Jimmy

that fact is made pretty clear in the documentaries in the special editions. i dont see why theres anything wrong with that though?

[silverx2]

i think its dumb that people give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger simply because they liked their movie.

i think your dumb because apparently you didn't even read the article listed in the thread ill bold the important parts for you.

Moments ago we received this email from Peter Jackson and his crew down in New Zealand, take a look...

Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh

Xoanon here, this is a big blow to the LOTR community. I feel like there has been a death in the family...there are a LOT of questions that will remain unanswered for the time being. Why couldn't New Line come to an agreement with PJ? Is there really a time option on the film rights for New Line? Who will they get to direct? Those are some massive shoes to fill if you ask me. I hope that whoever they get to direct will not try something 'new' with the look and feel of PJ's Middle-earth...and what is this LOTR 'prequel' project?

There have been rumors about The Hobbit being split into two films, will this prequel project then become the third film in another trilogy? Who knows...

I'm sure Peter and Fran aren't going to want to talk more about this, but that doesn't mean we won't be begging for a sitdown and chat! Stay tuned for more...


Update: Demosthenes here. Like yourselves, many of us here have been getting more and more excited by the news that the Hobbit, whether via one or two movies, seems to be gradually drawing closer to production. The news that Jackson and MGM studios were in close talks and that production could begin as soon as 2008 or 2009 was particularly promising.

The news of New Line's apparent veto is quite cutting. What does it mean for the viability of the production? Will anyone back two films if Jackson is not directing? Who are the alternatives anyway? Will WETA still do the FX, and will the production be based in New Zealand? And will actors such as Ian McKellen still want to come on board? A few of us are discussing these things in TheOneRing.net's IRC channel. If you to care to join us, simply drop in and join us through our java chat using your browser. Alternatively, point your favourite IRC client to our server:irc.theonering.net and join #theonering.net. Come along and vent and discuss. All we request is that you do so politely!

yes i think sometimes people incorrectly think they are being paid incorrect amounts, that's why he wants the audit. Read about contracts have that audit clause. If it wasn't there none of this would be going on. that's pretty simple logic, try to wrap your head around it.

Them telling him to settle the law suit is basically like saying don't do the audit.

PJ Chose not to make the movie with the lawsuit not the other way around

Now New Line chief exec Robert Shaye, in a classic Hollywood pissing contest, boldly asserts that New Line will not work with Jackson again, ever-ever-ever. So there. In a story on Sci-Fi Wire giving the low-down on the squabble, Shaye is quoted as saying, "He got a quarter of a billion dollars paid to him so far, justifiably, according to contract, completely right, and this guy, who already has received a quarter of a billion dollars, turns around without wanting to have a discussion with us and sues us and refuses to discuss it unless we just give in to his plan. I don't want to work with that guy anymore. Why would I? So the answer is he will never make any movie with New Line Cinema again while I'm still working for the company."

the above is a direct quote giving by the CEO.



Anything else you want to say isnt true flash lackey? maby his real name isnt peter jackson.

[FlashLackey]

i think your dumb because apparently you didn't even read the article listed in the thread ill bold the important parts for you.

careful now. you're leaning back into the lack of intelligent argument mode again.

the quoting of the article with the bold was quite impressive looking. but, the highlighted statements dont really add any light to what we've been discussing. perhaps they aren't as "important" as you think they are?

yes i think sometimes people incorrectly think they are being paid incorrect amounts, that's why he wants the audit. Read about contracts have that audit clause. If it wasn't there none of this would be going on. that's pretty simple logic, try to wrap your head around it.

yes. the logic being used there is simple. too simple to accomodate the reality of the situation. i try to not wrap my head around ideas that are too simple for the subject.

the lack of a right-to-audit clause would not mean that none of this would be happening. instead, there would be a law suit that would be more costly for both parties. the purpose of the clause is to provide less expensive forums to resolve such differences. as i already pointed out, invoking the right-to-audit is akin to "suing the bastards". this is why i believe PJ is over is head in thinking that it should "naturally" blow over.

Them telling him to settle the law suit is basically like saying don't do the audit.

Again, and again and again, they did not "tell" him to do anything. They made an offer. He declined their offer. PJ's options:

A) Accept New Lines settlement offer and make the Hobbit.
B) Decline their settlement offer and not make the Hobbit.

Peter Jackson CHOSE B. New Line did not tell him what to do. They just made an offer that he declined. No blackballing. Nothing wrong there. In fact, they have a practical reason for needing to move on because they have limited rights to the story.

Anything else you want to say isnt true flash lackey? maby his real name isnt peter jackson.

I never said that the CEO did not say that. I asked because it was not in any of the articles posted and I hadn't read that. Thank you for substantiating that. But, you'll also note that I said I wouldn't blame them for not hiring him. So, please explain to me where I've said anything that isnt true.

[silverx2]

If you might be entitled to money that was not paid to you, would you want to find out if in fact you are owed that money?

if say your work had not given you the money you were owed, but they offered you a contact to work for them for 2-3 more years plus a settlement of less money then you might possibly be owed would you take it?

[FlashLackey]

If you might be entitled to money that was not paid to you, would you want to find out if in fact you are owed that money?

Yes. I would want to find out. I would do that by hiring and consulting with experts on the situation. if i did ultimately decide it was worth it to demand the payment, i would know that invoking arbitration-like clauses would mean the end of the relationship. so, i would factor that into the decision.

if say your work had not given you the money you were owed, but they offered you a contact to work for them for 2-3 more years plus a settlement of less money then you might possibly be owed would you take it?

it depends on the circumstances. but, in most cases, yes, i would. i actually do that in a way already. with new clients, i sometimes eat more expense in order to win future business because longer term income from them will off-set initial losses.

in this case, PJ has already recieved a "quarter billion" dollars. he hadn't secured the job for The Hobbit yet. but, from the sounds of it, they really wanted him for that. so, he had some leverage to demand a nice contract for the next movies which could be more profitable than the last ones. i would have accepted a compromise settlement from New Line for the previous disagreement, even if it favored them heavily, and just considered making stronger demands in the new contract. i think he over-played his cards.

in any event, i respect that you have a different opinion on it. we may just have to agree to disagree. sorry if i pushed your buttons too much on this. i was hoping to spark some jokes out of you as i tend to enjoy them.

[silverx2]

those questions were set to to decide if agreeing to disagree were in order. they are.