Middle Earth movies must be the most litigated in history. Everyone's had a go: Bob Shaye and New Line and Peter Jackson and the Weinsteins and the Australian actors union and Warner Bros and the Tolkien Estate. Then there was the whole MGM debacle that dragged on for years.

The Desolation of the Lawyers.

Right, I just don't understand why it happens all the time. If you have a very successful book, and a studio is interested in making it a movie, where are the lawyers screaming in the author's ears pointing out what the studios have done in the past.

Last edited by FireFighter214 (2013-12-19 06:25:10)

You mean those same lawyers who will make a killing litigating a multibillion dollar lawsuit? Sure is a mystery why they wouldn't try to put a stop to it early.

EDIT: Like Trey says, it's all about money. Why do authors do it? Because they stand to make a fuckton of money. The studio makes a movie, makes money, tries to keep as much of the money as it can. The author lawyers up and they spar, and in the end the author settles for a percentage of what he's "owed." Which is still a metric fuckton of money he wouldn't have if he said no.

Last edited by Dorkman (2013-12-19 07:18:30)

Just occurred to me that Saving Mr. Banks is an entire movie about this exact thing - except that movie wants us to cheer for the corporation when it successfully undercuts the original writer's intentions.   

I'm amused by her instructions with regard to the stage show done after her death: it could use songs from the movie, but no non-Brit, and certainly nobody associated with Disney, could be the one writing new material. I saw the touring version, which was changed from the Broadway show, and it wasn't bad.

My thing is, if you sign your book to be adapted into a movie, YOU'RE NOT MAKING THE MOVIE, they are.  Therefore, your right to complain is a bit minimized.  If you don't want it fucked with, don't sell the rights.

I'm not sure why we're talking about artistic integrity when the article is just about the Tolkien estate getting screwed on the back-end points.

Not to mention that when it comes to staying out of the way artistically, WB is one of the BETTER ones around.

And I'm totally fine with conversation evolving naturally -- it's pretty much the same thing we do on the show, too -- just wanted to make sure we track with the fact that it's a different conversation than the legal conflict in the first post, as I feel like they're being conflated together. (In part because the article conflates them by quoting Christopher Tolkien's artistic dissatisfaction, granted.)

I need to find that story and do some clicks

Also, right now is the time when WB, PJ and several other initials are being sued over The Hobbit and profits. I think it must be the season. There is a lot of legal problems going on, regardless of the artistic conflict, so I don't see any other Tolkien films being done. Strangely, I am ok with that. I know many here don't like the Hobbit, and I completely understand Christopher Tolkien's objections, since his father voiced similar ones when animated adaptations of LOTR were being done. CT will always have the books and his father's imaginings but changes to it will never be understood.

I know I am in the minority for liking the Hobbit around here, but artistic variation, especially in book adaptations is just par for the course, in my opinion. If I ever write a book and want an adaptation, I have no doubt that I will struggle with similar opinions

Different departments within the studios can charge each other for services (studio & equipment hire, marketing, etc) and artificially inflate the expenses to cancel any profits on movies that have high backend deals. It's not actually illegal as the government can't dictate what department services should be worth.

In a similar way, multinationals do this all the time to minimize tax in high-tax countries. It's called 'transfer pricing'. All the profit is artificially and officially earned in a 0% tax haven, usually some island.

Last edited by avatar (2013-12-20 18:45:02)