Christopher Tolkien: kill HOBBIT film

[Sauron the White]

just posted on the Timesonline site in the entertainment sections
================================================== ====

The son of JRR Tolkien will try next week to halt Hollywood plans to follow the critical and commercial triumph of the Lord of the Rings trilogy by filming The Hobbit and a sequel.

Christopher Tolkien, 83, is calling for “one last crusade” in a long-running court battle against the producers of The Lord of the Rings only weeks before carpenters are due to begin work in New Zealand on the sets for the latest Middle-earth epic.

He claims the Tolkien family is owed £80m by New Line Cinema under a deal for a 7.5% share of profits that was signed in 1969, when his father reluctantly sold film rights to pay a tax bill.

Today the film-makers will confirm that Sir Ian McKellen is returning to his role as the wizard Gandalf in The Hobbit and that Andy Serkis will reprise his role as the murderous creature Gollum.

Sir Ian Holm, who played the hobbit Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings, is expected to narrate. Viggo Mortensen has unexpectedly been asked to return as Aragorn, a character who does not appear in the original Hobbit story, published in 1937.

Peter Jackson, who directed the Rings trilogy, is to produce the Hobbit films. The director will be Guillermo del Toro, the Mexican whose grim fantasy Pan’s Labyrinth won three Oscars last year.

However, at a hearing on June 6 Christopher Tolkien will ask a Californian judge to back his claim that he can “terminate” film rights to The Hobbit. He is said to be furious with the New Line studio, which earned £3 billion from the Rings trilogy. Tolkien’s lawyers accuse New Line of “accounting chicanery”. Warner Bros, owner of New Line, declined to comment.

In an internet press conference last night, Jackson and del Toro answered questions about the new films, which will cost about £150m to make over the next three years.

The first will be rooted firmly in the original book The Hobbit, following the naive young Bilbo on a quest for dragon’s gold and showing how he obtained his all-powerful ring. The second will cover the 50 years between his return home and the events of The Lord of the Rings.

That period is described in The Silmarillion, a collection of notes and tales assembled by Christopher Tolkien and published four years after his father’s death in 1973.

Tolkien Jr, described by his biographer as “cantankerous”, is unlikely to allow the film-makers free access to The Silmarillion. He has always been sceptical of Hollywood. Even now relatives are unsure whether he has watched The Lord of the Rings, which won a total of 17 Oscars.
================================================== =

Which is pretty much what I expected all along would happen when this first came out months ago.

[Morthoron]

Which is pretty much what I expected all along would happen when this first came out months ago.

Good for C. Tolkien. If the movie doesn't get made, I won't shed a tear.

[skip spence]

Tolkien Jr, described by his biographer as “cantankerous”

Cantankerous eh? I had to look that up you know...

Anyway, even though there surely will be enough for us to complain about in the movie, I'm apparently not old enough to help getting a wee bit exited about it. Let's hope the movie gets done on time and the Tolkien estate get what they deserve too. What is their legal claim btw? That NEW LINE says the movie made less money than it in actually did?

[ArathornJax]

I've followed what is happening online with the suit and I have to say that I agree with Kristin Thompson over at The Frodo Franchise that this article is "rubbish." The lawyers for New Line/Warner asked for a 30 day extension several weeks ago and the Estate did not balk probably because negotiations were progressing. Furthermore it makes little sense for Warner not to pay $80 to $100 million out to make $1.5 to $2 billion that the next to films will earn. Like it or not, The Hobbit and Film Two are going to be made, and the Estate will get the money owed to them (which they should). We can debate whether we want them to be made, but the stark reality is that they are going to be made.

Here is a link to The Frodo Franchise article: http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/?p=271#more-271

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I always knew good old young master Christopher is a nice person! ;) :p

And I shouldn't have read the article in the first place. Aragorn? If that's true, I suggest building up a process against them. And the second film? Horrifying just to think of it. (If anyone feels offended, it's just my personal opinion, and seriously, a honest Tolkien fan can't stand back in such a case of blasphemy - it's immoral!)

[Sauron the White]

Kristin Thompson of THE FRODO FRANCHISE is not reporting that the Times article is "a tempest in a teapot" and its conclusions are wrong.

http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/

I hope she is correct.

[ArathornJax]

Kristin IS reporting in her blog that this article on the times IS a tempest in a teapot. She writes:

"My reaction on reading it is that this is probably a tempest in a teapot, with the Times over-dramatizing the upcoming June 6 meeting in the lawsuit the Tolkien Trust brought against New Line. The author claims that Christopher Tolkien will use the occasion to try and halt the production of The Hobbit. I don’t buy it. There’s absolutely nothing new . . . "

Just wanting to clarify what her words were and I'm sure that Sauron the White met this in their post.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Presumably most any Tolkienista could see that this article is so full of errors that its credibility is close to nil.

Anyway, this "one last crusade" stuff is so completely unlike Christopher, in style and sentiment, in personality and disposition, that I can easily dismiss this as one more instance of the complete fabrications the Brit press and in particular The Times don't scruple to print about him.

They are determined to create this artificial villain, this ogre, this obsessed, bitter crank who paces the floors all night muttering and plotting how to destroy those horrible movies....

When in fact the truth is about as opposite as one can imagine: Christopher ignores them. Doesn't think about them. Has been largely successful in ignoring them for ten years now. He would not have assented to this lawsuit (being personally unconcerned with riches) but for the legal duty he carries as executor and trustee: he's responsible for many, many people's financial interests besides his own.

It's bilge, I tell you: bilge. Another non-story from a Fleet Street paparazzo.

[davem]

I can easily dismiss this as one more instance of the complete fabrications the Brit press and in particular The Times don't scruple to print about him.



Which I don't get - The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper Collins (Tolkien's UK publisher). That simple fact alone should put paid to any idea that there is a real desire on the part of the plaintiffs to get the Hobbit movies banned - the case is being brought by the Estate & Harper Collins - & anyone who thinks Mr Murdoch is going to pass on the income from increased sales of TH, not to mention the numerous tie-in volumes, simply doesn't understand the man at all. What RM wants (& will get) is his share of the LotR movie profits & then to get on negotiating all those luvverly Hobbit licensing deals.

In short, I absolutely guarantee that Rupert will ensure the case will be sorted to his er.. the Estate's satisfaction, that the movies will be made & that come Christmas 2011 the shops will be filled with more Hobbit related tat than a dragon could comfortably curl up on. Anyone currently suffering nightmares that they won't be able to get their hands on a $50 plush talking Smaug or Arkenstone nightlight can now turn over & sleep peacfully...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

RM doesn't personally vet every story in his huge empire as some sort of Grand Propaganda Strategy. The one dominant watchword at the RuperTimes is- SELL! Sex it up, create scandal, do whatever it takes to move the rag. Oh, how Trollope's Thunderer has fallen!

If RM is concerned at all, it's along the lines that 'no press is bad press.' Any and all coverage helps generate the hypestorm desired.

[Sauron the White]

I very much liked the posts of WCH and Davem -- even when I differ with you ... (which is not now) -- I still respect your wisdom.

I never thought about the Murdoch connection with Harper Collins and the movies and the lawsuit. very interesting ...

in the end... its all about money from the Murdoch perspective ... and I think Davem is 100% right ---- there will be swag for all come 2011.

Look, I will be honest here ... I just want to have my grandson play hookey from his fifth grade class in December of 2011 and take him to see HOBBIT. I am 58 years old and hope to live that long. He loves the LOTR movies and I hope he will soon love the books as much or more ... hopefully more. I just want to live to see all this.

[ArathornJax]

As someone who is in their early forties, and waiting to hear if I have cancer or another disorder in my upper G I understand your point. The last week has brought to my face the issue of my own mortality and in a way though scary, it has been a very good thing. It has made me re-evaluate my priorities in life and as I hope and pray for one of the three things I may have outside of cancer (and it probably is not cancer but always the chance as the Doctor told me) I too would agree with you that I would love to go with my son who will be 17 at the time and my wife and my daughter who will be 18. I could almost day as much as I am excited about some things about The Hobbit movie adaptation, I am more excited to wake up each day and feel the wind on my face, raindrops dropping, seeing lightning and hearing thunder, the laughter of my kids and my wife and their affection. In the end what more does one need in life? Loved ones, a few good friends, good food and enjoyment in the simple things of life. Perhaps we are in the end, we all need to be more Hobbit like than human like as we get caught up in this crazy world we call life.

But I digress. I also agree with davem and William that money controls this and so in 2011 and 2012 there will be movies whether we view that as a good or a bad thing. Though I enjoy most of the adaptations (there are a couple . . . ) for me, the books are in the end, the cannon, the very source of all and I enjoy them the most.

[Sauron the White]

Arathorn -- wishing you all the best news..... lighting a candle for you.

[Lush]

!!!

Good luck, Arathorn.

Movies will get made. Lush will enjoy (if she's around, when you're living in the most unstable region in the world, you never really know). Christopher Tolkien? Don't really have an opinion on him either way. It would be kinda morbidly cool if he did pace all night, muttering to himself, but then again, he's not a character, but a person.

[Knight of Gondor]

I'm disturbed by how many people have filed legal gripes against New Line. Extras and actors (there's a list on a thread somewhere in these hollows) filed suit, PJ was upset with them, and now Christopher Tolkien is upset. New Line had better clean up shop!

[Galin]

Mr. Hicklin (or anyone) do you know what the deal is with this 'tax bill'? I might have missed something, but I don't recall Hammond and Scull mentioning it.

The 'picture' (albeit general) that I get from Chronology is that Tolkien was in need of cash during the 'Zimmerman Days' due to retiring IIRC -- but later JRRT appears to leave the film stuff largely up to A&U, due to his earlier promise.

No?

[Sauron the White]

The tax liability incurred by JRRT is no different than the tax liability incurred by any other British citizen: the law is applied and he pays his determined share under the law. It is said that he needed money to pay his tax bill. We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them.

In any case, the sale of film rights to UA was a decision made by a grown man of sound mind acting of his own free will.

[Galin]

I meant was this a specific bill that caused Tolkien to 'reluctantly' agree to sell the rights, as is implied in this excerpt from Timesonline (and elsewhere).

'... We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them. In any case, the sale of film rights to UA was a decision made by a grown man of sound mind acting of his own free will.'

No one said otherwise. I'm looking to see if any tax bill was really part of the scenario here, as far as Tolkien's ultimate decision; especially as this story seems to give it prime importance.

[Sauron the White]

Yes, I do believe that was his stated motivation at the time.

[Galin]

Can anyone reference this statement please... I don't recall the source and don't remember it in H&S's Chronology (though perhaps I missed it there).

[Mithalwen]

The tax liability incurred by JRRT is no different than the tax liability incurred by any other British citizen: the law is applied and he pays his determined share under the law. It is said that he needed money to pay his tax bill. We all need money to pay all of our bills - taxes are merely one of them.



I don't think you appreciate the fiscal situation in UK the late sixties early seventies. This is from the HM Revenue & Customs website:

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. ...over
£8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Even now the basic rule of taxation here is that if you become suddenly wealthy you will get clobbered because what we like to call "tax planning" and lay people call loopholes usaully require time to be efficient. Therefore those who have always have had money can plan to hand it on to the next generation as intact as possible through trusts, limited companies and offshore arrangements.

People who become unexpectedly wealthy in later life are liable to get squeezed until the pips squeak. When I was in private practice our wealthiest private client was worth over £6million. Our genius of a Tax manager managed to get that down to an "official" lsiting of £2million. There is one accountancy joke - "Q, What is 2+2? - A. What do you want it to be?":cool:

Decisions may be different and less free when the determined share is one and a third.

[Sauron the White]

While not being a tax accountant or attorney, I do know this much: you never have to pay income tax unless you first generate the income. JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line.

There is a certain conservative element in todays politics who bring up the word TAXES as if it is the filthiest profanity one can utter. They use it like a broadsword making you think they are wielding a weapon from God fighting against all types of sinful governmental behavior.

JRRT had to pay his taxes because of income earned from the books. He apparently did not put aside the money and instead had to generate new income so he sold the film rights. Thats the way life works - for him and the rest of us. At least he had some film rights to sell.

[Galin]

'... JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line. (...) He apparently did not put aside the money and instead had to generate new income so he sold the film rights. Thats the way life works - for him and the rest of us. At least he had some film rights to sell.

How do we know what Tolkien did and did not do here, what he spent and so forth, or how he saved with respect to taxes in 1969?

The picture painted by the very detailed Chronology of H&S is that Tolkien made a deal with Stanley Unwin well before 1969. And in 1961 Rayner reminded Tolkien of the policy he had agreed to with Stanley Unwin: cash or Kudos (source Hammond and Scull) when Rembrandt Films became interested in cartoon films of the Hobbit. Tolkien wrote to Raynor:

'I clearly understand that one must either turn the matter down or put up with many objectionable things that they are sure to perpetrate in their production. I am sure advice or argument would be quite unavailing (except to make them throw the whole thing up) and I have no time for either. In any case I do not feel so deeply about The Hobbit; and anyway I am now mainly dependent for my support on my earnings as an author I feel justified in sinking my feelings in return for cash.' JRRT

In September 1967 Rayner Unwin sent Tolkien various letters from their American agent, a Mr. Swanson: 'Swanson has also written about an offer for film rights of the Lord of the Rings.' (H&S). In November, Rayner, having just returned from the United States, writes to Tolkien, stating that he thinks 'agreement is close with United Artists for the Lord of the Rings film rights.'

In 1969 (near the rumors of the Beatles and a film surfaced) Rayner Unwin again reminded Tolkien of their agreement (Hammond and Scull): that if a film brings cash, they will waive any kudos. He points out to Tolkien that whatever the film is like 'the book remains inviolable and that is the main thing. What they do with the property in other media will, I regret to say, be entirely their responsibility from an aesthetic point of view, will only vary in degrees between bad at best and execrable at the worst.'

OK, negotiations had begun in 1967. The implication I get is that the agreement in the 1950s was in play, and that A&U and Swanson were basically handling things; and the deal was finally ready in 1969. Of course I've read this before about the bill, and so it would seem to be true; but if so I would hope it has a fairly reliable source (and probably does).

I just want to know the source of this statement to see if it is true and to consider for myself its reliability -- Rayner Unwin? Joy Hill? Tolkien himself? some 'deduction' made by some lawyer?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The tax bill story has been repeated often in the press- and although the press is notoriously unreliable on these things, I believe the tax bill line appeared in the very accurate story printed in 2001 in The Financial Times, which for the first time (TMK) gave the correct cash consideration and the fact that there were residuals.

The problem which afflicted Tolkien in the late 1960's was that the Ballantine paperbacks and ensuing Tolkien Craze generated royalties vastly beyond anything he had anticipated even in 1962- and *suddenly* exposed him to Surtax. (The Inland Revenue, at least back then, had a nasty habit of 'surprising' you with a bill- calculated on an accrual, not a cash, basis). There was also the fact that Tolkien had been forced in 1968 to make an unplanned move to Bournemouth and buy a very expensive house, which probably consumed most of his liquid cash.

[Mithalwen]

While not being a tax accountant or attorney, I do know this much: you never have to pay income tax unless you first generate the income. JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line.




I think that you are missing the point that the tax rate was potentially over 100% ie he was expected to pay more than he had actually earnt. Which is not something most of us could cope with especially without the benefit of collateral.
. It isn't quite the same as me knowing that when I receive my dividends I should put aside 10-20% for the bill that will arrive at Christmas. He didn't just go mad at Blackwells or anywhere. This was a man who had worked hard and struggled to feed and educate his family, who lived in a modest house with very basic amenities in Oxford, hit by a punitive tax regime from a Labour Government that was actually socialist and was trying to redistribute wealth as well as shore up a dire economy. To make a man who lived as frugally as Tolkien seem a irresponsible spendthrift while wilfully ignoring the reality of the situation is neither fair nor charitable.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH
There was also the fact that Tolkien had been forced in 1968 to make an unplanned move to Bournemouth and buy a very expensive house, which probably consumed most of his liquid cash.

Carpenter says that JRRT and Edith decided to move for several reasons including to be with people of their own class. I find no evidence that Tolkien had been forced to do anything that he did not himself elect to do including use of that cash to buy what he wanted to buy instead of putting it aside for taxes.

This entire line of excuse - that JRRT was thrust into this terrible tight spot where he had to swallow hard, grit his teeth and give up his beloved baby to an evil government is a bit much.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This entire line ofexcuse - that JRRT was thrust into this terrible tight spot where he had to swallow hard, grit his teeth and give up his beloved baby to an evil government is a bit much.

Any government that imposes the draconian, sadistic levels of taxation Harold Wilson's did is ipso facto evil.

[Morthoron]

Any government that imposes the draconian, sadistic levels of taxation Harold Wilson's did is ipso facto evil.

I seem to remember at that point in time in Britain there was a great drain of talent (actors and rock stars with large amounts of disposable income mostly) who fled to the US or France to escape the ridiculous taxation. George Harrison's 'Taxman' sums it up nicely (including a snide jab at Harold Wilson):

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

(If you drive a car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk) I'll tax your feet

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for
(Tax man, Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Tax man, Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (Taxman!)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one, but me
(Taxman!)

[Sauron the White]

I did not think we were debating the merits of high tax versus low tax. In fact, I thought there was a strict policy here of NOT discussing political issues and keeping it on point of Tolkien and his creations. I am not a British citizen and have no opinion on their tax system, its history or its application and impact. All I know, and what I have stated, is that every citizen has to pay their taxes just like any other expense.

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Undercurrent?

[Mithalwen]

I

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

No, the only undercurrent is some of us like to put the record straight.... you make unfounded accusations such as Tolkien was financially profligate with only genaralities like "we all have to pay tax". Then when those of us who are British citizens, accountants, lawyers point out the facts we are some how contravening Downs rules.

Stating historical fact is not political ... I very much doubt that referring to forty year old fiscal legislation will get me banned but you are welcome to try. Just don't pin some secret agenda from your own imagination on me.

[Sauron the White]

Mith - you do tend to overstate the point.
Trying to get you banned? Invited to try? Absurd. I am simply sick and tired of every once in a while voicing an opinion on some currents events topic and then I get the obligitory slap on the wrist message or post from a moderator saying in no uncertain terms that such discussion is not welcome here and take it elsewhere. If I did bother to take a day or two and educate myself to the history, advantages and disadvantages of the British tax system and then posted factual information to rebutt what you or others posted, there would follow a stern posting from a moderator saying this is not the place for it. So what would be the point of that? But a discussion about film rights becomes a cause for the anti-government crowd to bash taxation policy.

That is not the issue and never has been the issue.

Was this British tax law passed with JRRTolkien as its only target or was this a law which applied to the entire populace of Great Britain who earned those levels of income? Thats all I need to know.

I am not making judgments about how Tolkien spent his money. It was his to spend how he wanted. WCH mentioned his purchase of a more expensive house at the time he owed the tax. Carpenter, in his biography of JRRT, states that Edith wanted a better place to be with people of the class she believed she had attained.

Again, there is a clear undercurrent at work here. People who hate the movies for their own reasons seem to cringe when they are reminded that JRRT freely sold those rights without any artistic control of his own over how they were used. Tolkien was a willingly participant in allowing anyone with that license to make whatever changes to his work they so wanted to make. He knew that when he signed the contract and cashed the check.

But now, its because something of a minor cause here to puff out your Purist chest and flail away at the films and cry to the heavens that poor old JRRT was literally forced to sell those rights by the mean old government and it really is not his fault for doing so. The poor old man was mugged in the alleyway.

Gimmeabreak.

[ArathornJax]

Over at theonering.net it is reported that one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management on June 27th. Here is the link and the quote. Just so you know based on the posters previous posts I believe that they are a lawyer but not out of California. They say:

"Apparently, one or both of the parties refused to agree to the court's request to continue the case management conference to June 27, the date the court wants the hearing on New Line's Demurrer and Motion to Strike (currently set for 6/24) to be held. It appears that the case management conference did occur as scheduled on Friday, June 6. The court's website now shows that a trial date has been set, for October 19, 2009. It is scheduled to be a jury trial, with a 15-20 day time estimate. The court also scheduled two more status conferences, for December 8, 2008 and October 9, 2009.

I should caution that it is very common for trial dates to get continued, so there is no guarantee at all that the trial will happen then, even if the case does not settle for then. And there will be a lot more legal manuevering between now and then."

Here is the court site for this case:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

You'll need the case number which is BC385294

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

And I shouldn't have read the article in the first place. Aragorn? If that's true, I suggest building up a process against them. And the second film? Horrifying just to think of it. (If anyone feels offended, it's just my personal opinion, and seriously, a honest Tolkien fan can't stand back in such a case of blasphemy - it's immoral!)Oh, how terrible! Horrible really... TH has NO Aragorn, there is NO second book!... They'll probably put Legolas in there too... I am sorry, but this really makes me mad... but if TH comes out in movie form then I will go to see it, my school mates will mad at me three weeks later when I am still complaining about it... But if it DOES come out in 2011, then I will be a junior in high school... That seems far off...

But Tolkien selling the rights for his books to be made into movies was his choice and he did it, so there really shouldn't be an argument about whether he should've done it or not... as was said before, he was a grown man and could make his own decisions... and it seems for a good reason too!

[ArathornJax]

Brad D. Brian who is representing the New Line/Time Warner. Not sure if any cares but I think he has a pretty impressive resume: Brad D. Brian (http://www.mto.com/lawyers/bio.cfm?attorneyID=19)

Here is the link to the Tolkien Estate Lawyer and she also is equally impressive. I'll add a note to below: Bonnie Eskenazi (http://www.ggfirm.com/attorneys/attorneys.php3?act=l3&id=33)

Ms. Eskenazi is noted for some worth while items (she is out of Stanford Law School I believe):

Her first listing is the TE lawsuit and it states, "the Estate is seeking a damage award of at least $150 million and has also requested that the Court declare New Line’s rights terminated."

I've studied this case for fun of it: Bagdasarian Productions v. Universal Studios Successfully obtained the return of the "Alvin & The Chipmunks" characters to the original owners from a major motion picture studio.

Hmm, does the Chipmunk sound similar to the above statement on New Line losing righs? Universal had made movies and sold them on DVD etc for many years and then yank, the rights were pulled. This was based on a breach of contract also.

DIC Entertainment v. Speed Racer Enterprises: Successfully represented the children's animation company in an action concerning its intellectual property rights in the "Speed Racer" property

Stephen Slesinger Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co.: Represented the owners of rights in Winnie The Pooh in their action against Disney for fraud and breach of contract relating to Disney's obligation to pay royalties

want to do something fun, research the Pooh Lawsuit(s) that goes back to the 1980's and is still on going. Wikipedia has a quick overview with some links to papers if you don't want to look at papers, journals and legal case studies.

• Hans Zimmer v. The Walt Disney Co.: Successfully represented the Oscar-winning composer of "The Lion King" against Disney for failure to properly pay contractually required royalties for Disney's use of the "The Lion King" film score in a legitimate theatrical production


Her experience goes both ways and I have to say that I think were in for a roller coaster ride up and down. I truly hope that Time Warner does the right thing and pay what is truly due to the Estate.

[davem]

Her experience goes both ways and I have to say that I think were in for a roller coaster ride up and down. .

Well - yesterday's Sunday Times speculated it might get nasty (second story on page) http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4072239.ece

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If TW really is trying to use this Carrie creature as a weapon, they are plumbing levels of sleaze remarkable even by Hollywood standards.

[Sauron the White]

Mr. Hicklin and I are usually firmly on opposite sides of many issues, but I have to agree strongly with his above statement. This sort of thing has no place in this suit.

I do have a question if it does not involve billable hours:

So what happens in these continuance hearings later this month .... and does the October 2009 date mean that there will be another 16 months of protracted negotiations?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, StW, initial trial dates usually represent wishful thinking- they are for the most part placeholders in the docket, subject to myriad reschedulings.

Negotiations move at their own pace, largely unmoved by trial dates (most judges will happily postpone if the parties show any likelihood of getting out of his hair). On the flipside, parties who are nearing asgreement have every incentive to hurry up and get it done, because ongoing litigation is bloody expensive.

The principal purpose of the hearing on the 27th will be the defense' Demurrer and Motion to Strike. If those motions were to succeed (I don't think so, but another lawyer-Tolkienist disagrees), the most that would happen would be that punitive damages would be taken off the table and TW/NL only on the hook for the contractual damages- which of course still represent a gargantuan sum (remember, studios don't keep tens of millions sitting around in the bank- when they need to finance a big-budget film they borrow the money).

[Sauron the White]

Thank you WCH for that bro bono work.:)

[Sauron the White]

I feel like Pippin asking Gandlaf endless questions............. one more .............

this motion to Strike later this month..... are those damages tied to punishing New Line and would the request to revoke New LInes film rights be part of that punishment?

In other words, if New Line prevails at removing punitive damages from the litigation and only actual monies owed to the Estate are then part of the suit, is the question of revoking film rights also removed from the suit?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That's a separate matter, which has to do with the interpretation of a specific clause in the contracts.

The rights-recission issue has to do with how the court reads a term in the 1969 Agreements, which provides that if the studio is found to have failed to pay up, then Tolkien or his heirs can cancel the deal (again, this doesn't apply to Zaentz or MGM).

It's not related at all to the punitive-damages question punitive damages (which are a creation of the law, not any specific agreement) can only be awarded for torts, not brach of contract: TW is trying to get rid of the tort claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty).


Oh, what is a tort? A tort occurs when a person causes harm by breaching a duty imposed on him by the general law: like the duty to drive sober and not run people over. Breach of contract refers to breaching a duty imposed not by the law generally but only by the voluntary obligations of an agreement.

[Sauron the White]

One more question: given the trigger mechanism which is in the contract saying there is a measurable point where the profit royalties kick in, does the contract provide for a clear and agreeable definition of terms? Are such important terms as COST, REVENUE and PROFIT clearly defined?

To my laymans way of thinking, that would be important.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes. In fact, the definition of "total gross revenues" alone runs to three and a half pages.

[Sauron the White]

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]

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]

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]

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

[William Cloud Hicklin]

although in very small print:

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]

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]

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?

[ArathornJax]

Voronwe the Faithful over at two other sites states that (he is a lawyer in CA) he believes that yes, it could make it easier for the Estate to settle in time with New Line at a reduce amount probably, and that is what will probably happen next year. The prospect of stripping New Line is still in play but may be unlikely as he points out that the ruling "does show that the judge does not seem to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs' rather over the top legal positions. I think the judge, like myself, sees this as a straightfoward breach of contract case. But it certainly can be very tricky to predict what a judge will do on one issue based on what she does on other issue."

The court found that the compliant supports nothing more than a breach of contract cause of action, so no fraud was attempted. The plantiffs (the Tolkien Estate and their lawyers) have 20 days now to amend the compliant to show new evidence of fraud, something probably unlikely.

It would be nice to if New Line would just pay what they owe the Estate, but I guess that is the issue, how much they feel they actually owe the Estates, or how little they can get away with paying them. Again though this is only round one of a very long fight more than likely.

[davem]

More here:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-brief2-2008jul02,0,2775685.story

[Sauron the White]

Good article.