New Line's Robert Shaye Blacklists Peter Jackson

[Ranger REG]

Sources:
http://www.mania.com/53284.html
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=39462

This bodes ill for The Hobbit film(s). :\

Then again, who needs New Line Cinema? Perhaps it is time for the license to expire and be returned to Saul Zaentz (of Tolkien Enterprises), so he and PJ can collaborate with just MGM.

 

[werk]

Meh, it's just money. Peter thinks he is owed more money because the gross amount that his films brought in, the backers want to keep the money. The issue is that Peter was given producer status, so that money should probably go to him, but you don't win financial backers with an attitude like that because every film is a complete gamble. Just because he had one good film, doesn't mean he is Kubrick, nor does he deserve to be paid like Kubrick or have the artistic license that Kubrick enjoyed.

But, I've already read the hobbit and seen at least a couple movies, so I don't care if this film ever gets made, Jackson or not.

 

[horacethegrey]

It's more than just about money, it's also about respect, and Peter Jackson feels New Line owes him and Weta some.

From I've read of the lawsuit, PJ isn't demanding the money upfront. No, he merely wants a third party to look at New Line's earnings on The Fellowship of the Ring and see whether New Line owes him and Weta a couple of more million than what was paid. So far though, New Line has refused to show their account books to anyone, hence the lawsuit.

Now, I certainly don't think he's the be and all of directors despite my love for what he did LOTR. But I'll have to side with him on this one, as I think he's made his position and argument on this case very clear. New Line however, tries to act like some whipped dog, and has to paint a bad picture of PJ in their attempts to discredit his claim, which is not cool in my book.

Bob Shaye may feel betrayed all he wants, but his statements on this situation I think is going to turn away some fans from whatever Hobbit movie he plans to make. Lord knows he's already turned away this one. :\

 

[Mistwell]

Pretty sure Hobbit will be made, by Jackson, and without New Line. That seems to be the way the wind is blowing.

 

[Vocenoctum]

It's more than just about money, it's also about respect, and Peter Jackson feels New Line owes him and Weta some.

From I've read of the lawsuit, PJ isn't demanding the money upfront. No, he merely wants a third party to look at New Line's earnings on The Fellowship of the Ring and see whether New Line owes him and Weta a couple of more million than what was paid. So far though, New Line has refused to show their account books to anyone, hence the lawsuit.

From what I recall, the dispute is over whether New Line unfairly gave preference to their own companies for other marketing such as toys or whatnot, as opposed to soliciting for bids from lots of companies. Considering the amount of money put into the trilogy, and the doubt that seemed to plague whether it would be a success or not, I'm not sure how they can prove what a "fair bid" would be for lots of these things.

Either way, these deals were inked long before the movies made it to theater, AFAIK, and protesting now seems more about the money to me than anything else.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's more than just about money, it's also about respect, and Peter Jackson feels New Line owes him and Weta some.

From I've read of the lawsuit, PJ isn't demanding the money upfront. No, he merely wants a third party to look at New Line's earnings on The Fellowship of the Ring and see whether New Line owes him and Weta a couple of more million than what was paid. So far though, New Line has refused to show their account books to anyone, hence the lawsuit.

So, is it an invasion of privacy, or is New Line hiding something? I smell a hint of Enron.

 

[horacethegrey]

So, is it an invasion of privacy, or is New Line hiding something? I smell a hint of Enron.

Well, according to a recent statement by PJ in response to Shaye's blacklist comments, it's not an invasion of privacy, but a film audit, which is a totally acceptable practice in the entertainment biz. Here's what he said in full, first posted here.

Here's the official statement from Wingnut:

"Our issue with New Line Cinema has only ever been about their refusal to account for financial anomalies that surfaced from a partial audit of The Fellowship of the Ring. Contrary to recent comments made by Bob Shaye, we attempted to discuss the issues raised by the Fellowship audit with New Line for over a year but the studio was and continues to be completely uncooperative. This has compelled us to file a lawsuit to pursue our contractual rights under the law. Nobody likes taking legal action, but the studio left us with no alternative.

For over two years, New Line has denied us the ability to audit The Two Towers and The Return of the King, despite repeated requests. Film auditing is a common and straightforward practice within the industry and we don't understand why New Line Cinema has taken this position.

In light of these circumstances, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to be involved in New Line Cinema's 40th Anniversary video. I have never discussed this video with any of the cast of The Lord of the Rings. The issues that Bob Shaye has with the cast pre-date this law suit by many years.

Fundamentally, our legal action is about holding New Line to it's contractual obligations and promises. It is regrettable that Bob has chosen to make it personal. I have always had the highest respect and affection for Bob and other senior management at New Line and continue to do so."

 

[Umbran]

So, is it an invasion of privacy....

If you are in a contract, there's no such thing as "privacy" in the relevant documents. New Line was contractually obligated to fork over certain percentages. They darned well ought to be willing to submit to an audit to make sure they did so.

 

[werk]

Well, according to a recent statement by PJ in response to Shaye's blacklist comments, it's not an invasion of privacy, but a film audit, which is a totally acceptable practice in the entertainment biz. Here's what he said in full, first posted here.

Aww, you beat me to it.

http://www.canmag.com/nw/6368-wingnut-response-shaye (nice article)

 

[Ranger REG]

If you are in a contract, there's no such thing as "privacy" in the relevant documents. New Line was contractually obligated to fork over certain percentages. They darned well ought to be willing to submit to an audit to make sure they did so.

Then why is New Line and Mr. Shaye refusing to submit the books for an audit?