Or no Hobbits at all...

[ArathornJax]

On page 7 and 8 of the compliant, the compliant traces the history of the rights from UA, to Zaentz to Miramax to New Line.

The compliant says, on point 27 on page 7
"In or about August, 1998, Zaentz consented to Miramax's assignment to defendant New Line of Miramax's rights and obligations under the Miramax agreement.

Pursuant to a written agreement effective May 9, 2000 between New Line and Zaentz (the "New Line/Zaentz Agreement"), New Line expressly assumed the obligations to pay plaintiffs their Gross Receipts Participation required by the 1969 Agreements with respect to any films based on the Literary Works produced by or pursuant to the authority of New Line. In sum, UA, Zaentz and Miramax are predecessors in interest of New Line and New Line "stands in their shoes." "

My question then is this. Is the compliant saying that New Line holds all the obligations and rights of the former holders, thus they must be held to them? I would assume that the answer is yes. Thus could you take say that later in the compliant, when the plaintiffs ask the court to rule on whether they have the right to cancel New Line's rights to making films on based on any of the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien, could the plaintiffs legal team argue that since New Line "stands in their shoes" (UA, Zaentz, Miramax) that this would also cancel the rights of Zaentz and MGM and give the rights back to them, the plaintiffs (especially since Zaentz agreed to to the transfer of rights from Miramax to New Line)? This would allow them to sell the rights again under more profitable terms and thus would be a further punitive damage to the parties concern (in addition to the money NL will have to pay to them)? I guess I'm asking that if a breech by New Line to the agreement, voids the agreement for all parties since New Line is "standing in their shoes?" Can that be argued and if so, what are the chances that a court would do that, restore all rights back to the plaintiffs?

Any clarification would be appreciated.

[Sauron the White]

ArathornJax has asked the jackpot question. And I thank him for making it so clear. I also would like answers on that issue and ask in a slightly different way.

Is it possible that once they get into court (or before for that date) the Estate can make a demand that since Zaentz is the actual rights holder and New Line only a temporary lessee, that Zaentz is somehow someway responsible in the final analysis for making sure that the Estate got their rightful payment?

And .... if Zaentz did not somehow someway make sure that the Estate got their rightful payment then he is just as guilty of not paying the Estate theri rightful cut as New Line is?

And ... the rub would then be ..... take away the rights from not only New Line but also from Zaentz too since he is guilty of not protecting the Estate.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Complaint never proposes ending anyone's rights other than New Lines; and allows for protecting the interests of 'innocent parties.'

The court will look, not at one big indivisble parcel of rights- 'THE' rights- but as several chunks of rights which have been split up. UA never sold the Hobbit distribution rights to anybody, and there's no way they can lose them. Zaentz effectively split the rights he held in the licensing deal with Miramax- he sold the right to make films which commence production through 2008, but held onto the right to all films after that. The court can't take away Zaentz' 'reversionary interest' just because the other chunk of rights was mishandled after he sold them.

Although creative lawyers could in theory try to make a case that Zaentz is somehow at fault for New Line's non-performance, this suit *does not do so*. Zaentz is not a defendant, nor does the complaint allege any wrongdoing or negligence on his part.

It's a basic rule of plaintiff-side pleading that "The court can't give you what you don't ask for." The Estate has *not* asked for the termination of any rights not in New Line's hands. Again- were the Estate interested in taking rights away from Zaentz, then the Complaint would have named him as a defendant and alleged why he deserves to lose the rights. It didn't.

[ArathornJax]

Thank you WCH for clarifying that for me. It will be interesting to see how this falls out.

[Sauron the White]

from Galin

if Jackson was so concerned with accuracy he could have easily achieved it by incorporating only the Elvish from the books. Ok he didn't, so, so much for 'accuracy' step one.

What Peter Jackson was concerned with was making the best possible film he could make and having that film be a success by the standard measurements common in the commercial film business. And by those measurements it was a wild success.

Accuracy ---- what the heck is that? No film adaption is anything near the realm of "accuracy". Its an entirely different medium. One cannot adapt anything accurately from a book into the far different medium of film unless you use the book as your shooting script . Anything else is change. Accuracy regarding something as an obscure language which hardly anyone speaks is irrelevant as far as a films success is concerned. It would mean nothing either way and as such is a non issue.