The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

**The Saucepan Man** · 11-22-2006, 06:30 AM

I believe that Child's assessment is spot on.

Increasingly, litigation is being played out in the public arena rather than in the courts where it belongs, where the media perceives a "public interest" and one or both of the litigants see it in their interests to do so. Witness, for example, the very public dispute surrounding the break up between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

It is now common, in such cases, for the litigants (and even the lawyers) to engage PR consultants to handle the public side of their disputes. Any advantage that may be gained through the use of the media and other means of public reporting is seen as fair game.

So I would agree that their is a fair amount of public posturing going on, for tactical reasons related to the ongoing disputes. And there are, to my knowledge, at least two disputes involved here - between New Line and MGM, and between Jackson and New Line. There may be more (indeed, that is quite possible given the huge amounts of money at stake).

I have no idea as to the precise provisions of this "rights rental" agreement between New Line and Zaentz, as I am not familiar with these types of agreement. But it seems that, in order to retain the rights to make the film, New Line have to have taken certain steps in connection with realising the project and this, it would appear, involves lining up a director, and probably a core production team, at the very least. I would have thought that some sort of legally binding committment will be required.

If New Line are unable to meet these requirements then, yes, it does appear that the rights will revert back to Zaentz and that he will then be free to negotiate with the various parties himself or licence the rights to a different company. Perhaps MGM are angling to acquire the production rights, in addition to the distribution rights (which would certainly resolve the issue between them and New Line).

I do get the impression from what I have seen that Zaentz is very keen for this film to be made, one way or another, and for Jackson to direct. One thing is for sure. Given the potential financial rewards involved, the film (or films) will almost certainly be made. The only question is by whom. And that, it seems, is what all this legal wrangling and public posturing is all about.

11-22-2006, 06:30 AM	#69
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,390	I believe that Child's assessment is spot on. Increasingly, litigation is being played out in the public arena rather than in the courts where it belongs, where the media perceives a "public interest" and one or both of the litigants see it in their interests to do so. Witness, for example, the very public dispute surrounding the break up between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. It is now common, in such cases, for the litigants (and even the lawyers) to engage PR consultants to handle the public side of their disputes. Any advantage that may be gained through the use of the media and other means of public reporting is seen as fair game. So I would agree that their is a fair amount of public posturing going on, for tactical reasons related to the ongoing disputes. And there are, to my knowledge, at least two disputes involved here - between New Line and MGM, and between Jackson and New Line. There may be more (indeed, that is quite possible given the huge amounts of money at stake). I have no idea as to the precise provisions of this "rights rental" agreement between New Line and Zaentz, as I am not familiar with these types of agreement. But it seems that, in order to retain the rights to make the film, New Line have to have taken certain steps in connection with realising the project and this, it would appear, involves lining up a director, and probably a core production team, at the very least. I would have thought that some sort of legally binding committment will be required. If New Line are unable to meet these requirements then, yes, it does appear that the rights will revert back to Zaentz and that he will then be free to negotiate with the various parties himself or licence the rights to a different company. Perhaps MGM are angling to acquire the production rights, in addition to the distribution rights (which would certainly resolve the issue between them and New Line). I do get the impression from what I have seen that Zaentz is very keen for this film to be made, one way or another, and for Jackson to direct. One thing is for sure. Given the potential financial rewards involved, the film (or films) will almost certainly be made. The only question is by whom. And that, it seems, is what all this legal wrangling and public posturing is all about.