New Line made a bunch of money? I'd say that was the point of their investing nearly $300 million in the three movies.
Without the enormous gamble of a huge amount of someone else's money, Peter Jackson would be unknown to most of the world.
Greed does not look good on people.
I noticed he ain't fighting over the disappointing King Kong money.
Tolkien's heirs probably deserve a lot more of the profits than anyone.
Good post. Excellent points.
"It's hard to feel sorry for Mr. Jackson. Is he having a hard time living on the $200 million he's earned on the trilogy?"
I do - he earned every cent.
I doubt he's missing any meals. (Actually, he's lost a significant amount of weight, he looks good) This isn't about that.
The money was made off his work. Why should'nt he be compensated appropriately? Do artists only "deserve" enough to survive on?
"New Line made a bunch of money? I'd say that was the point of their investing nearly $300 million in the three movies."
I'd say it has more to do with them using the profits of LoTRs to fund their other failed movies, and being their usual greedy selves. Yes, they took a chance, but if they agreed to share the money in a certain way, and are now going back on that, they deserve to lose the lawsuit, and lose HARD.
Until anyone sees the books and the docs from the lawsuit, it's all speculation, but from the quotes in the story, and past experience with Hollywood, I can fully believe they are blackmailing him with the Hobbit movie and a prequel to stave off a lawsuit where he's going to prevail. NLC can surely afford the best of the best in lawyers, and that they are reacting this way speaks volumes.
"Without the enormous gamble of a huge amount of someone else's money, Peter Jackson would be unknown to most of the world."
And the key person here is Peter Jackson. Period. Without him, these movies would not exist. He had the vision. He assembled the vast army of technicians and animators and created an entire company to produce the movies. He entered into the project, which is a long, long story before NLC came into the picture, and he paid his dues, and then some.
Do you begrudge George Lucas any of the money he made? Steven Speilberg? If George Lucas had been stiffed on movie sales and merchandising, would you also say "you made enough, shaddap"? (Lucky for Lucas, he kept ALL of the merchandising, at least for the first one)
Peter Jackson delivered the goods. His lawsuit says that he has not been compensated fairly. Does he not deserve the money? He made the movies. He lived in hell for years toiling to make them happen. Would you put your life on virtual hold for 6-8 years to produce your dream? And then take less than promised and walk away?
I say, if they promised him a percentage and are'nt giving it to him, then they should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. Peter Jackson broke no laws, harmed no one, broke no rules, sacrified far beyond what most people would even consider idly, delivered a product that performed beyond anyone's wildest dreams, yet you think he's just being greedy.
Ever hear of a thing called "honor"?
This is very much like the music business, where people accuse musicians of being greedy, when the labels take over 90% of all products sold. Does an artist only "deserve" 5%? Or is it simply the business as it exists, when it's the only game in town, you gotta play to play? Yes, the record label take a chance on a musician, but it it pays off, the artist deserves at LEAST the same as the investor, not 5%. I've always found that to be repugnant. Without the artist, there is no chance being taken. It's a codependancy, that's rigged heavily and unfairly to one side.
"Greed does not look good on people."
Especially when it's NLC and it's execs who are blackmailing a talented man because they don't want to give him what he earned. If we go by past behavior of movie companies and Hollywood execs in general, I'll side against them everytime, you have not experienced greed, true, unadulterated, greasy greed until you've been in Hollywood.
"I noticed he ain't fighting over the disappointing King Kong money."
Irrelevant.
"Tolkien's heirs probably deserve a lot more of the profits than anyone."
This is the only intelligent statement you've made. If anything, I would have thought Tolkein's estate would have final say over things like this, as they are fierce about protecting J.R.R.'s work, but sadly the Hollywood weasels have final say in this.
Flatly put, I don't trust many to have the same spirit and vision that Jackson would bring to the project. To reject the people who are ready to go NOW with all of the cg, props, sets, knowledge of the material, and vision, presided over by a man who's deeply talented and has a true, respectful love of the material...over dollars, that is the real tragedy here.
If the Hobbit is made, without Jackson, I have grave doubts as to it's quality, and expect a Hollywoodified piece of schlock thats more about merchandising toys and video games than bringing a wonderful and important book to many to life.
Yet again, Hollywood fails to promote art, and instead chooses to line it's pockets. I would not be surprised to see Jackson pull out of Hollywood completely, he has the name and clout and company to go it alone from now one, ala Mel Gibson. Screw New Line Cinema.
Yeah, you'd think 200 million would be plenty. But if New Line is breaching their contract, then Jackson is entitled to sue. 'Course, I don't think any of us really knows what's going on legally.
I have to stick up for Jackson here. It's the principle of the thing. Hollywood is notorious for stiffing actors and directors of the cut. Alot of them will take a reduced salary in exchange for a cut of the profits. It's a risk for them because if the movie tanks, they don't get paid. But then the studio will use creative accounting to pretend there are no profits.
A studio exec takes a college buddy out to lunch, and that goes against the "profits" of the picture. Security guards at the studio where it wasn't filmed get charged to the movie. All sorts of creative ways to screw the talent. If Jackson signed a contract for a cut of merchandise etc and they stiffed him, they should pay him. Period.