Jackson Suing New Line
How much money needs to be in play for this suit to actually be taking place out in the public eye?
April 29, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
why do studios always try and screw over the people getting paid? like jackson isn’t going to hire the best lawyers and accountants to make sure hes paid his points??
What New Line must also understand is that the average person will, by default, be on Jackson’s side. They see the immense success and box office take of the trilogy, and that it’s one guy against a big company.
In other words, Jackson could ask for a solid-gold briefcase full of money, and a magic carpet, and a unicorn, and most of us would call that reasonable.
I know it’s not up to the “average person” to judge the merits of the case, but public perception is important.
I don’t know the details, but I hope the New Line-ers involved remember that cast & staff made sure the three were filmed back-to-back in good time etc to save New Line a bundle. It didn’t cost NL 3 movies, but one long shoot basically with extra footage etc to make sure all could be feasible. The merchandising profits were also extraordinary.
To Eric’s pithy observation, I would add only this: Average peope are the folks who serve on trial juries.
One thing I am positive about. New Line does not care about the average person and what they think. They care about the money and the contract. Every studio tries this. Problem is now theres too much money involved for the talent to say screw it. They fight for it now. And rightfully so.
Let me assure you that NL will regret their position verily. It may drag on for years but the goodwill they got from the fanbase will be decimated and they will lose no matter how long they intend to drag this out. The NZ taxpayer underwrote the entire cost of this freaking series. There was close to zero risk to NL in the way the NZ government changed legislation so the trilogy to be made in NZ. That loophole doesn’t exist anymore. NL have royally screwed Wingnut in ways that haven’t been spoken about in the media – but believe me, I have it from as high as you can go – they are going down. Big time down. Over this debacle. Can you imagine a company that made such disgusting amount of profit on a film would then try and skint the creators? Oh yeah… NL .. you definitely a major now… that’s for sure. Two words are going to change throw a spanner in the works as well… THE HOBBIT.
and Universal is opening another bottle of Crystal as we speak š that is until the Kong 2nd wknd numbers come in !
Knowing a little bit about this from just reading
some articles last year. NL seem to have taken
this stance due, in some part, to the EE DVDs each
of the three films had. According to NL they believe
that the production, cost, and advertising of those
three DVD sets gave them all the right in the world
to give PJ on down the amount of cash they gave
them.
Of course, NL, can easily demonstrate they took a
chance on a project even Academy Award winning
producers would not want to make. They put up
the money. They have Odesky, who PJ states on
those EE DVD, was a vital part of the production.
NL may have to give PJ some money. It always
works out that way when you go to an arbitraitor.
Yet Wingnut films really has no case. They signed
contracts when they were not in a position of power.
They were given even more money, as were the stars,
before ROTK arrived in theatres. They have no case
really, but I wish them luck.
I am not about backing the man. Not exactly my thing
but New Line took on a financial risk with those
films. I guess no one has memory enough to remember
how much of a RISK that who production was. NL
could have been stuck with a turkey. Yet they get
stuck with an undeserved Oscar winner (Two Towers
such a better film), and now they have to pay?
Bollocks. Total and utter bollocks.
seriously, don’t doubt jackson and king kong. u are gonna be surprised
Harvey Weinstein should be a defendant as well. Miramax put “The Lord of the Rings” cycle into turnaround — then Weinstein had the gall to insert himself as an executive producer. He didn’t pull that crap when Miramax was getting rich off other studios’ rejects.
I love how people voice uninformed opinions.
New Line is okay with the lawusit as is Peter. It has to do with Corporate procedures. They weren’t going to give him some documents without having to- and now they have to.
That’s all.
thanks dooley. know it all. obviously its about money. not some document. genuis.
You tell’em bike bob! Yeah. Everyone just LOVES
to use litigation! It’s so much fun for a girl, boy,
and their 87 mutual lawyers!
When you are not paid what you were owed, you have a right to sue. These companies used to be able to get away with this crap. Not anymore.
Hey Bicycle
You are just another American who cannot take reality.
I do NOT know it all.
I know this case.
Jackson, Ordesky and Shaye are all fine.
He sued because he needed to to get some money he is owed.
Get your ass out of your mouth you know NOTHING.
i love when foreigners, who we bail out every which way, tell americans how it really is. sorry dooley. saying new line will be fine? sure it will. but they will be a little less fine with this lawsuit and the fact that they’ll have to pay some people who deserve it. then they won’t be as “fine”. so get ur head out of ur ass, chief.
Doesn’t everyone sue studios these days? It has become the standard as opposed to the exception.
If I signed a contract and they tried to screw me over on profits with funny accounting, I’d sue them too. Especially when we are talking over billions made.
It is about time someone took these movie companies to task for fudging the books. Jackson is a leader.
FILM DIRECTOR Peter Jackson wants a jury to decide whether The Lord of the Rings distributor New Line Cinema “wilfully, wantonly and maliciously” cheated him out of profits.
Jackson’s production company, Wingnut Films, is suing New Line and its subsidiary Katja Motion Pictures, for allegedly failing to account for profits from the first film in the trilogy, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
A film industry expert believes the claim could run to tens of millions of dollars, with any outcome being used to settle claims for the two other Rings movies.
Papers filed in the Los Angeles federal court reveal Wingnut agreed to cut its normal fees in half to get its share of gross receipts for all three films.
Yet, Jackson’s lawsuit claims that New Line:
* Sold the film for less than market rate, enabling New Line to pocket “secret profits”.
* Entered into sweetheart deals with affiliates, short-changing Wingnut.
* Improperly charged expenses to the film and allowed subsidiaries to charge higher than market fees.
* Failed to pay for the right to use Fran Walsh’s lyrics in video games and refused to share earnings from the sale of soundtrack albums.
* Duped Wingnut into agreeing to a deal that capped its pay television earnings.
Ben Fritz, film reporter for Hollywood trade magazine Variety, said the fact a lawsuit had been laid indicated a lot of money was at stake.
Wingnut also alleges New Line actively prevented the New Zealand company from discovering its wrongdoing and its actions were “wilful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent”. Jackson’s company now demands a jury trial to decide the matter.
It also demands the appointment of a receiver to oversee all future distribution of the film’s revenues, the imposition of a trust for Wingnut’s share of revenues, and a permanent injunction against New Line. The suit does not specify the amount sought in damages, but demands exemplary and punitive damages, as well as interest on any compensation awarded by the court.
Papers state the film grossed more than $US314 million (about $NZ440m) at the United States box office and more than $US556m overseas, plus revenue from video and merchandise sales.
Sources said court action was not uncommon in the film world, where “creative accounting” allowed movie companies to claim films had not made profits.
Kiwi director Gaylene Preston, who directed Perfect Strangers, said producers often had to resort to lawyers to get studios to cough up.
“Studios use myriads of ways of making sure that when the money flows it flows down their rivers and streams and into their little sludgy creeks rather than back to the producer,” she said.
“They get away with it a lot of the time because people can’t afford to sue them. It’s a lawyers’ game.”
Wingnut Films declined to comment on the lawsuit, but Jackson’s lawyer, Peter Nelson, said attempts to resolve differences with New Line Cinema had proven unsatisfactory. “This lawsuit is the logical next step.”
New Line spokesman Richard Socarides would say only that it was company policy not to comment on pending litigation.
The case could be precedent-setting if Wingnut Films wins, at least making Hollywood contracts tougher, but was unlikely to damage Jackson’s career, Fritz said.
“Peter Jackson is one of the most sought after directors in Hollywood still,” he said. “If it turns out New Line has treated his company badly it will hurt them more. You don’t want a reputation for screwing over your talent.”
I’m glad that Mr. Jackson is sticking up for his rights. It is about time for someone to start a movement against “Creative Accounting”. Everybody knows it exists, yet nobody has gotten the gutts to fight it big time and make it as public as it seems to be here.
NL is getting a lot of publicity here, the kind they rightfully deserve. I’ll make sure they never distribute my films.
Fight on Mr. Jackson!!! The non business people in the film industry worldwide is on your side!