[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/131211165605-the-hobbit-620xa.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=CNN][B]A dispute over the latest Hobbit movie -- which releases this weekend -- has gone to court.[/B]
Miramax, the studio founded by Harvey and Robert Weinstein, filed suit in a New York state court Tuesday claiming film producer Warner Bros. owes them proceeds from two forthcoming movies in the Hobbit trilogy, including the one opening this weekend.
At the center of the dispute: a 1998 deal between Warner Bros., a corporate cousin of CNNMoney's parent Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500), and Miramax over movie rights to J.R.R. Tolkien's books "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The deal gave Miramax rights to a portion of proceeds from the first "Hobbit" movie, according to court documents.
Warner Bros. split "The Hobbit" into three films. In the court filing. Miramax alleges Warner Bros. exhibited "greed and ingratitude" by dividing the story, and claimed it is entitled to a portion of receipts from each of the films.
That could amount to $75 million or more, Miramax claimed.
Warner Bros. responded that Miramax's decision to sell the rights was "one of the great blunders in movie history," but a decision Miramax must live with.
"No amount of trying to rewrite history can change that fact," Warner Bros. spokesman Paul McGuire said in a statement. "They agreed to be paid only on the first motion picture based on "The Hobbit." And that's all they're owed."
Miramax didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The two parties are separately entering arbitration over the dispute.
The second movie in the series, "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" opens this weekend. A third installment in the trilogy, a tale of hobbit Bilbo Baggins set in pre-historic middle-Earth, is expected to open in December 2014.
The first installment, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," has grossed a little more than $1 billion worldwide since its release a year ago, according to ticket sales tracker Box Office Mojo. A source with knowledge of the situation said Miramax's portion of that film's receipts is about $25 million so far.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/11/news/companies/the-hobbit-movie-lawsuit/index.html?source=cnn_bin"]Source[/URL]
Meh, The Hobbit was alright. There were enough fuck-ups to the story to kinda ruin parts of it for me. It was still good, don't get me wrong, but the LOTR movies were way better.
From the article, it seems the deal was legitimate, and WB does indeed owe them money.
[QUOTE=draugur;43153292]Meh, The Hobbit was alright. There were enough fuck-ups to the story to kinda ruin parts of it for me. It was still good, don't get me wrong, but the LOTR movies were way better.[/QUOTE]
thanks for your review
[QUOTE=Medevila;43153380]Miramax is owed nothing more than what was agreed upon regardless of how bad it [B]stings[/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.newsweek.pl/g/i.aspx/670/0/newsweek/634922275572970000.jpg[/img]
basically when Miramax sold the movie rights for Tolkien's LOTR and the Hobbit, Miramax was supposed to get a portion of the proceeds from the films. Miramax likely didn't foresee Warner Bros splitting the Hobbit into three films seeing as it was only one book, and is now claiming that Warner Bros basically only did it so that they could take in all of the money from the second and third installments and only pay Miramax for the first Hobbit film. this lawsuit will settle whether the language of the original rights deal should have Miramax get paid for all three movies in the Hobbit trilogy or only the first one.
seeing as the Hobbit was only originally supposed to be two movies and was split into three later with plotlines added that weren't even in the book, it would seem that Miramax has some credibility in saying that Warner Bros was just trying to make as much money as they could here. unfortunately for them, that doesn't affect whether the contract indicates Miramax still should be paid for anything more than the first Hobbit film.
[QUOTE=Medevila;43153380]Maybe if you have poor reading comprehension
[editline]12th December 2013[/editline]
Miramax is owed nothing more than what was agreed upon regardless of how bad it stings[/QUOTE]
Considering the article doesn't include any text from the actual agreement, how can you determine whether or not their agreement was met with the funds from the first film?
The key thing is that the rights were sold back in 1998, but back then how would they have know that the Hobbit would have been split into multiple films? It does seem like WB is in the right here, but I find it unlikely that back before even the Fellowship of the Ring was finished they had already planned to make 3 films based on the Hobbit. It is entirely dependent on the wording of the agreement, which isn't included in the article.
And if they really did manage to sneak "you only get money from the first film" into the contract, that was a really sly move of them so that they could go and make it into a trilogy and cut Miramax out of the other two films.
Wording is so important.
So, they are only entitled to money from the first film, but is WB entitled to make as many films as they want? Or were they just supposed to make one film?
Either way, contract law stuff is all sharp dealing and the foundation of every "why lawyers should just die" joke.
-edit
Ah, "first Hobbit film". Cut and dry. This whole thing might just be for free press exposure.
[QUOTE=Medevila;43153380]Maybe if you have poor reading comprehension
[editline]12th December 2013[/editline]
Miramax is owed nothing more than what was agreed upon regardless of how bad it stings[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're some kind of wizard but I'm reading the [URL="http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Hobbit-complaint-Weinsteins-WB__131211183619.pdf"]damn thing[/URL] now and can't make head or tail of it.
[QUOTE=tirpider;43153590]Ah, "first Hobbit film". Cut and dry. This whole thing might just be for free press exposure.[/QUOTE]
It's not quite that simple, though. It's:
[QUOTE]The "Original Pictures" means with respect to each of the four books separately which comprise "The Hobbit: Or There And Back Again" and "The Lord of the Rings", the first motion picture, if any, based in whole or in part upon such book which is produced by or pursuant to the authority of the purchaser, but excluding remakes.[/QUOTE]
"Motion picture" is never defined. What Miramax is arguing is that the sum of these movies comprise one cohesive "motion picture", and the release schedule just happens to be installment-based. Warner is arguing a "motion picture" is one single released film, and thus their one "Hobbit" movie based in part upon such book yadda yadda fulfills the contract requirements.
What I think would be more likely to shoot Miramax in the foot is that they're quoting Jackson about filming and such to indicate that all three movies are one movie being broken into chunks. Since the entirety of LotR was also filmed over one massive period of time, it'd be very easy to look at how Miramax treated those films in correspondence and then quote them on it and ask why their definition of "motion picture" is fluid.
I love how people go "herp it was greed that they made 3 movies"
The hobbit is a long journey, like they would have to cherry pick the best 2-3 scenes just from the journey to fit it into a movie let alone get the entire book in one. Just having read the book I could tell where they were likely going to split it up due to time, I'd rather have 3 amazing movies than 1 super trimmed movie
[editline]11th December 2013[/editline]
Also aren't the "new" plotlines not part of the hobbit anyway since they were from Tolkien's notes so they really would be only able to collect on this movie as they have already said the third reads heavily from those notes as the book basically drops off at that point
[QUOTE=Sableye;43154076]I love how people go "herp it was greed that they made 3 movies"
The hobbit is a long journey, like they would have to cherry pick the best 2-3 scenes just from the journey to fit it into a movie let alone get the entire book in one. Just having read the book I could tell where they were likely going to split it up due to time, I'd rather have 3 amazing movies than 1 super trimmed movie
[editline]11th December 2013[/editline]
Also aren't the "new" plotlines not part of the hobbit anyway since they were from Tolkien's notes so they really would be only able to collect on this movie as they have already said the third reads heavily from those notes as the book basically drops off at that point[/QUOTE]
Some yes, others like the Tauriel parts seem to be completely new.
"They agreed to be paid only on the first motion picture based on "The Hobbit." And that's all they're owed."
How delightfully greedy and high on the asshole-radar. They really think that it's okay for the studio to make two movies, while they sit on their asses and just collect all profits?
Yeah no. They agreed to that deal under the understanding that there was only going to be one Hobbit film. Now just because there isn't you can't expect them to make 2 more movies for you and also not pay them. Fuck off. Also how Hobbit 1 produced $1b and there still isn't enough money to go around and share? Twats.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43154076]I love how people go "herp it was greed that they made 3 movies"
The hobbit is a long journey, like they would have to cherry pick the best 2-3 scenes just from the journey to fit it into a movie let alone get the entire book in one. Just having read the book I could tell where they were likely going to split it up due to time, I'd rather have 3 amazing movies than 1 super trimmed movie
[editline]11th December 2013[/editline]
Also aren't the "new" plotlines not part of the hobbit anyway since they were from Tolkien's notes so they really would be only able to collect on this movie as they have already said the third reads heavily from those notes as the book basically drops off at that point[/QUOTE]
the first movie actually felt kind of padded to me
they also didn't fix that nice plothole everyone was talking about (google it if you must, not spoiling it here)
$75,000,000 of $1,000,000,000? That's chump change. Give it to em and let it be.
Well, the devil is in the details
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.