Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Weinsteins sue Warner over Hobbit film


Dec 12 2013, 1:12pm

Post #1 of 22 (1073 views)
Weinsteins sue Warner over Hobbit film Can't Post



Dec 12 2013, 1:26pm

Post #2 of 22 (629 views)
Dragon sickness [In reply to] Can't Post

Strikes again. Laugh


Dec 12 2013, 1:31pm

Post #3 of 22 (608 views)
Wow. [In reply to] Can't Post

Yep, the only reason it became two, and later three films, was to deprive them of their money. Makes sense.

God, some people...

I don't really get what grounds they could possibly sue on, though? Although, I am from Ireland, where suing isn't nearly as common as it is in the U.S.

I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil.


Dec 12 2013, 1:44pm

Post #4 of 22 (638 views)
As an attorney, that is one of the funniest things that I have ever read [In reply to] Can't Post

I had to make sure that it wasn't really from the Onion or some other satirical source, it is that ridiculous. The only reason they made three films was to deny payment to the Weinsteins? That is hubris on level that almost can't be believed.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Dec 12 2013, 1:45pm

Post #5 of 22 (577 views)
That is indeed a silly thing to say [In reply to] Can't Post

but it still seems like they've got a point. If I wrote a book and sold some studio the film rights, and they made three films out of it, I would expect my share of all three. The argument that DoS and TaBA count as "remakes" of AuJ sounds like the worst sort of legal loopholing.

Edit: It seems that the contract stated they would receive a share of the "first motion picture", but (expressly) not of any "remakes". Of course, no one ever imagined anyone would try to stretch the thing into more than one movie, so now they're in something of a legal no man's land.

This article in the Wall Street Journal has a lot more detail:

(This post was edited by dave_lf on Dec 12 2013, 1:56pm)


Dec 12 2013, 1:55pm

Post #6 of 22 (527 views)
Funny to hear... [In reply to] Can't Post

... Harvey Weinstein talk about greed without a trace of irony. Evil He's still probably privately kicking himself for letting LOTR get away.

Anyway, it was PJ & Co. themselves who made the decision to do 3 movies, not Warners. Tongue

(This post was edited by BalrogTrainer on Dec 12 2013, 2:09pm)


Dec 12 2013, 2:54pm

Post #7 of 22 (457 views)
Let them come [In reply to] Can't Post

There is still one lawyer in Warners who still draws breath


Dec 12 2013, 3:14pm

Post #8 of 22 (445 views)
I agree... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's a bit like the thing with Unfinished Tales vs the Hobbit rights. If they separate the content in the first film to three movies (and specifically not a remake) I think it goes to follow that the definition of "first motion picture" is reflective of content, not format. If they truly get away with this, they would be able to release a handycam-shot 25$ 15 minute spoof movie of some unimportant detail of the story, and releasing it as the "first motion picture" satisfying their obligations in the contract - and then going on to "properly" shoot 3 films that includes the actual content without paying any percentile.

The word "film" is clearly to be understood as "adaptation" and not "single film". But I guess that would be up to a jury to decide.

If rights have nothing to do with content but only to whatever labels some lower exec sticks on it - I think there's going to be problems.

Grey Havens

Dec 12 2013, 3:29pm

Post #9 of 22 (429 views)
On the flip side... [In reply to] Can't Post

"AUJ" *was* a serious movie, and a billion-dollar blockbuster. One can never know for sure one way or another, but a 1 movie "Hobbit" would probably have landed in the same neighborhood, netting the Weinsteins roughly the same as their cut of the proceeds. So the argument that WB made three movies in order to deprive the Weinsteins of their fair share, seems ridiculous to me. One might argue they made them to make more money (as I am sure they will compared to a one movie scenario) but that is not money they, or the Weinsteins, could have had with just one film.


Dec 12 2013, 3:36pm

Post #10 of 22 (426 views)
VtFaithful? Did you realize you are NOW... [In reply to] Can't Post

in Valinor!

Bomby may catch up
to YOU
By New Years...



Dec 12 2013, 3:40pm

Post #11 of 22 (405 views)
I will look for you there, my friend [In reply to] Can't Post


'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Dec 12 2013, 3:50pm

Post #12 of 22 (386 views)
What about a Mud Wreastlin' Match? [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ ..Dressed as a Mexican Wrestler
(Ala Jack Black)

& Richard Taylor as an Orc?

Those guys get to wear their

Bomby's $$$
izz on PJ&RT


Dec 12 2013, 4:00pm

Post #13 of 22 (406 views)
Another view [In reply to] Can't Post



May 1910: The Nine Kings assembled at Buckingham Palace for the funeral of Edward VII.
(From left to right, back row: Haakon VII of Norway, Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, Manuel II of Portugal, Wilhelm II of Germany, George I of Greece, and Albert I of Belgium. Front row: Alphonso XIII of Spain, George V of England, and Frederick VIII of Denmark.)


Dec 12 2013, 4:06pm

Post #14 of 22 (393 views)
Sorry, but he is wrong [In reply to] Can't Post

The key part of the language of the contract is not what he bolds, it is this: "first motion picture, if any, based in whole or in part upon such book."
That unambiguously makes it clear that any following films based in part on the book is not covered. It's not even a close call.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Dec 12 2013, 4:11pm

Post #15 of 22 (359 views)
sure [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no reason to side with anyone here, and I think both are equally wrong actually.

I don't think anything was done to be a personal spite to anyone (especially not coming from WB) so if they go to court donning that angle - they are going to lose. Regarding to content however, I still think they are entitled to proceeds over the content they have the rights to - say for instance, Smaug, or the Bo5A.

This smells so badly of out-of-court settlement as anything I've seen in a long long time.


Dec 12 2013, 4:20pm

Post #16 of 22 (359 views)
That does seem to make it open-and-shut [In reply to] Can't Post

None of the news articles mention that part, for some reason (at least that I've seen).

I still think they're getting something of a raw deal, but it's one they signed for. At least they didn't find themselves in peterLF's scenario! (by the way, peter, are you a long-lost relative or something? Wink)

(This post was edited by dave_lf on Dec 12 2013, 4:23pm)

Tol Eressea

Dec 12 2013, 4:20pm

Post #17 of 22 (348 views)
Shocking.// [In reply to] Can't Post


Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."

Tol Eressea

Dec 12 2013, 4:59pm

Post #18 of 22 (314 views)
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's the Weinstein's....so that says it all.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Dec 12 2013, 6:35pm

Post #19 of 22 (263 views)
Oh Bomby [In reply to] Can't Post

How I Heart your comments. Smile


Dec 12 2013, 8:09pm

Post #20 of 22 (238 views)
Let's be real here [In reply to] Can't Post

Everything about these movies has been geared toward maximizing profits, period. Everything. BS leading man looking dwarfs to bring in the ladies? Check. Inane and juvenile bodily function humor for the grade school kiddies? Check. Massively ridiculous, way over the top, brain dead "action" to entice the gamer crowd? Check. Stretched to as many movies as possible to sell more tickets? Check. The list goes on and on and on. It's patently obvious to anybody that wants to be honest with themselves. The whole project is a pathetic commercial sell out. Understandable from the studio's point of view but PJ has no excuse. I'm sure he's sleeping well at night on his piles of cash though since he apparently has no artistic integrity any longer.



Dec 12 2013, 8:55pm

Post #21 of 22 (225 views)
sign of a weak point [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
I'm sure he's sleeping well at night on his piles of cash though since he apparently has no artistic integrity any longer.

Awww it's quite cute really.

The sleeping on piles of cash line, the sure sign that the poster has just posted a load of nonsense and has quite a pathetic argument. Never fails to make posters look stupid.

Forum Admin / Moderator

Dec 12 2013, 9:37pm

Post #22 of 22 (215 views)
We've known it was going to be at least two films for how many years now? [In reply to] Can't Post

And the 3-film split was announced well before the release of AUJ. They seem to have taken their time about getting all indignant, and of course the timing does just neatly coincide with release-time to provide maximum publicity....this sort of thing does not help my resolve to be less cynical. Tongue


"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."


Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.