Jackson could still make The Hobbit

[Mistwell]

It's not about very carefully going over the contract. It's about oppression and self-dealing in terms of New Line's international film distribution and properly accounting for expenses. There is no way to provide for these things contractually under reasonable business conditions. Better said, they are already provided for and New Line is not supposed to do what they are accused of doing. These are accounting and fairness / oppression issues, not a matter of a true construction of a contractual clause.

Frankly, I think Jackson should just press forward with his claim and march straight to trial. He has the money to do it and that's really the only barrier to this sort of commercial litigation. Go get 'em.

When he gets to the courtroom door, the smart money is on New Line blinking.

There is nothing like the focus provided by a trial that is about to commence where there is a hundred million plus on the table - payable by one party to the other - that motivates parties to stop being asses and frickin' settle. If he allows his case to be dicked around in disclosure and discovery issues, this will go on and on and on.

Plaintiffs run to the courtroom; defendants run away. It has ever been thus. Get the bastards to trial.

THAT will get you The Hobbit quicker than anything else. Otherwise, Ian McKellan will be dead before we see that movie filmed at this rate.

You assume Jackson is right and New Line is wrong. I don't assume that.

 

[horacethegrey]

You assume Jackson is right and New Line is wrong. I don't assume that.

Much of the facts pertaining to this feud between New Line and Peter Jackson points to Jackson being in the right.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, it seems like Bob Shaye got smart...

We can but hope.

I just don't know if Mr. Shaye is sincere about it, is all.

 

[Mistwell]

Much of the facts pertaining to this feud between New Line and Peter Jackson points to Jackson being in the right.

We don't have most of the facts. All we have is what has been leaked by PR people and reporters, which isn't much and most of which is spin.

It's easy to side with one of our favorite directors, and against a faceless corporation. But having represented my share of both individuals and corporations, I think it is fair to say we don't have sufficient facts to really form a conclusion. Either side could be right, or it could be something in between, or something entirely different from both sides.

 

[Steel_Wind]

We don't have most of the facts. All we have is what has been leaked by PR people and reporters, which isn't much and most of which is spin.

It's easy to side with one of our favorite directors, and against a faceless corporation. But having represented my share of both individuals and corporations, I think it is fair to say we don't have sufficient facts to really form a conclusion. Either side could be right, or it could be something in between, or something entirely different from both sides.

Mistwell, I'm in the business - like you - and my suspicion that many of Jackson's allegations are probably correct stems from my experience representing plaintiffs in similar cases, not the identity of the plaintiff.

However, when you add in the very significant blow to the deal-making ability of Jackson on a going forward basis as a result of pursuing the litigation, and evaluate the comments from New Line that Jackson has been "blacklisted" as a result of this litigation? That indicates to me a plaintiff who is very convinced of the rightness of his cause and a defendant who is playing the only card it has.

Put that together: it looks EXACTLY like a defendant who has been a bully and is continuing to be one.

Having litigated oppression cases in the film and TV industry and having seen how international distribution agreements with associated corporations are typical and pervasive devices used in the industry to channel profits away from the corporations that are otherwise obliged to share them, yes, I am inclined to think that many of Jackson's accusations of oppression and self-dealing are more likely than not to be true.

Add in hundreds of millions in revenue flow and the motivation to use self-dealing distribution agreements as are frequently (if not typically) employed in the industry = yes, I'm going to assume that many of Jackson's allegations have merit. Not because they are made by Jackson, but because I have seen and represented plaintiffs in similar situations.

As for the suggestion that plaintiffs run to the courtroom and defendants run away- that's true in virtually every case, without any gloss. Similarly, the observation that nothing fosters settlement like an imminent trial is also true. You can etch those statements in stone.

I wish I could claim that I invented them - but we both know that's not true.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, I'm in the business - like you - and my suspicion that many of Jackson's allegations are probably correct stems from my experience representing plaintiffs in similar cases, not the identity of the plaintiff.

However, when you add in the very significant blow to the deal-making ability of Jackson on a going forward basis as a result of pursuing the litigation, and evaluate the comments from New Line that Jackson has been "blacklisted" as a result of this litigation? That indicates to me a plaintiff who is very convinced of the rightness of his cause and a defendant who is playing the only card it has.

Put that together: it looks EXACTLY like a defendant who has been a bully and is continuing to be one.

Having litigated oppression cases in the film and TV industry and having seen how international distribution agreements with associated corporations are typical and pervasive devices used in the industry to channel profits away from the corporations that are otherwise obliged to share them, yes, I am inclined to think that many of Jackson's accusations of oppression and self-dealing are more likely than not to be true.

Add in hundreds of millions in revenue flow and the motivation to use self-dealing distribution agreements as are frequently (if not typically) employed in the industry = yes, I'm going to assume that many of Jackson's allegations have merit. Not because they are made by Jackson, but because I have seen and represented plaintiffs in similar situations.

As for the suggestion that plaintiffs run to the courtroom and defendants run away- that's true in virtually every case, without any gloss. Similarly, the observation that nothing fosters settlement like an imminent trial is also true. You can etch those statements in stone.

I wish I could claim that I invented them - but we both know that's not true.

I could say similar things about Jackson at the way he is pursuing this matter, but I don't see the point.

It sounds like most of your experience is with plaintiff cases, while most of mine is with defense. I think we each have a different perspective and bias in this kind of matter. Which is why I say the truth is probably something in between. I think it's folly to assume the side we are most comfortable with usually represents the truth.

 

[Mark]

I hope the deal gets done. I have been holding off on watching LotR since they came out so that I can watch The Hobbit first and see them in their proper order.

 

[Hijinks]

Is Jackson planning on using the same actors for Bilbo and Gandalf?

If so, I'm all for him doing it. If not, well... I'd probably be ok with another director, unless it looked a lot different from the LoTR films.

 

[Umbran]

You assume Jackson is right and New Line is wrong. I don't assume that.

If Jackson were in the wrong, New Line's best tactic would be to allow a third-party audit and get the facts out in the open, rather than obstructing such measures. All that's needed to settle this, once and for all, is a good team of accountants.

 

[Mistwell]

If Jackson were in the wrong, New Line's best tactic would be to allow a third-party audit and get the facts out in the open, rather than obstructing such measures. All that's needed to settle this, once and for all, is a good team of accountants.

I disagree. New Line's tactics have nothing at all to do with who is right and who is wrong. It's basic defense - oppose the other side for a long time, to foster settlement. They could be very confident they are correct, and still not want an audit any time soon.

None of this has to do with personalities, despite all the PR surrounding it. Each side is run by a team of lawyers doing what they do. You cannot read much from it.