Christopher Tolkien: kill HOBBIT film - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Sauron the White · 06-11-2008, 01:18 PM

So you have the contracts that were attached to the filing?

Are these available on line or in some way other than paying high downloading fees?

Is there also a definition of what cost is? That would seem to be crucial given the 2.6 multiplier.

William Cloud Hicklin · 06-11-2008, 02:18 PM

Unfortunately they are only available for, yes, high downloading fees.

The definition of 'cost' is also extremely long, more that I feel like typing out (what I have are graphic scans, not text files), but it boils down to monies expended in order to produce and deliver the Master Print, plus certain extras like taxes, union/guild assessments and so on. Marketing/advertising aren't part of it (the strong impression I get is that costs associated with distribution were what the 2.6 multiplier was for- in effect the sellers were saying "no Hollywood tricks here- we're going to define how much expense you can claim.")

Significantly, the contract language carefully included 'subsidaries,' which would bar exactly the sort of dodge New Line pulled with the DVD's (selling them for $.20 on the dollar to New Line Video).

Sauron the White · 06-11-2008, 03:24 PM

Thank you for that WCH. In your opinion, are costs, fees paid to talent associated with the film - not just up front payments but payments after the films are completed and shown? In other words, the rumored $150 million paid to Jackson - would that be part of the cost?

You say the definition is rather lengthy. Were there any clauses or terms in there which would give New Line some wiggle room to expand in the direction they want to?

William Cloud Hicklin · 06-11-2008, 07:16 PM

Where there are lawyers and accountants, there's always wiggle room

William Cloud Hicklin · 06-23-2008, 08:04 AM

although in very small print:

Quote:

In our report of the litigation between the Tolkien family and New Line Cinema, producers of The Lord of the Rings (May 25), we did not make it clear that Christopher Tolkien is suing as a trustee of the Tolkien Trust, a registered charity, and the JRR Tolkien 1967 Discretionary Settlement. It was another member of the family who referred to the action as “one last crusade”, not Mr Tolkien, and the hearing on June 6 was to fix a date for the eventual trial, not actually to halt Hollywood plans to film The Hobbit. We apologise to the trustees and Mr Tolkien for these errors.

ArathornJax · 06-29-2008, 02:46 PM

The court on Friday sustained New Line's Demurrer that the only thing that the suit brought by the Estate only sustains a breach of contract action. I'm sure others can speak to what this means more to me but as I understand it it means that the Estate cannot seek punitive damages against New Line. Interesting . . . still doesn't change the fact that I think New Line needs to honor the contract and pay to the Estate what they are owed.

Sauron the White · 06-30-2008, 05:20 AM

Does this mean that
1- with the prospect of punitive damages off the table, negotiations towards a settlement should be easier?
2- the prospect of stripping NL of film rights is either removed or significantly lessened?
3- the California courts sees this as a mere dispute about money owed as opposed to someone acting in a fraudelent manner?

06-11-2008, 01:18 PM	#1
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	So you have the contracts that were attached to the filing? Are these available on line or in some way other than paying high downloading fees? Is there also a definition of what cost is? That would seem to be crucial given the 2.6 multiplier. Last edited by Sauron the White; 06-11-2008 at 01:28 PM.

06-11-2008, 02:18 PM	#2
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	Unfortunately they are only available for, yes, high downloading fees. The definition of 'cost' is also extremely long, more that I feel like typing out (what I have are graphic scans, not text files), but it boils down to monies expended in order to produce and deliver the Master Print, plus certain extras like taxes, union/guild assessments and so on. Marketing/advertising aren't part of it (the strong impression I get is that costs associated with distribution were what the 2.6 multiplier was for- in effect the sellers were saying "no Hollywood tricks here- we're going to define how much expense you can claim.") Significantly, the contract language carefully included 'subsidaries,' which would bar exactly the sort of dodge New Line pulled with the DVD's (selling them for $.20 on the dollar to New Line Video). __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

06-11-2008, 07:16 PM	#4
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	Where there are lawyers and accountants, there's always wiggle room __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

06-29-2008, 02:46 PM	#6
ArathornJax Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Out West near a Big Salty Lake Posts: 76	Court Sustains DeMurrer The court on Friday sustained New Line's Demurrer that the only thing that the suit brought by the Estate only sustains a breach of contract action. I'm sure others can speak to what this means more to me but as I understand it it means that the Estate cannot seek punitive damages against New Line. Interesting . . . still doesn't change the fact that I think New Line needs to honor the contract and pay to the Estate what they are owed. __________________ "At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts." JRR Tolkien in 6 October 1940 letter to Michael Tolkien

06-11-2008, 03:24 PM	#3
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Thank you for that WCH. In your opinion, are costs, fees paid to talent associated with the film - not just up front payments but payments after the films are completed and shown? In other words, the rumored $150 million paid to Jackson - would that be part of the cost? You say the definition is rather lengthy. Were there any clauses or terms in there which would give New Line some wiggle room to expand in the direction they want to?

06-30-2008, 05:20 AM	#7
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Does this mean that 1- with the prospect of punitive damages off the table, negotiations towards a settlement should be easier? 2- the prospect of stripping NL of film rights is either removed or significantly lessened? 3- the California courts sees this as a mere dispute about money owed as opposed to someone acting in a fraudelent manner?