Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

NEW LINE claiming "No profits" from LOTR Trilogy!?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

NEW LINE claiming "No profits" from LOTR Trilogy!?

Old 11-25-03, 03:40 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NEW LINE claiming "No profits" from LOTR Trilogy!?

Looks like this studio is no better than any of the others.

here is an excerpt from NEWSWEEK

"Fellowship" and "The Two Towers" made a combined $650 million in the United States alone, but the cast's devotion to the trilogy clearly has more to do with their love for the story in general and Jackson in particular than with money. As it happens, New Line hired most of them for a song--many of the cast, including Bloom, were unknowns at the time--and has asked them to return to New Zealand every year for reshoots, and to commit to never-ending press and premieres. "When they offered me the part, I had to sit down and think about whether I was willing to work on this for a year and a half," says Tyler. "But actually it's been four and a half years." There's no bitterness in her voice, but the truth is that this past year has been a volatile one for relations between the cast and the studio. Some observers predict that, in the grand Hollywood tradition of creative accounting, New Line may try to prove that it did not make a profit on "The Lord of the Rings." news-week has learned that early this year, the studio offered some cast members an initial round of "Two Towers" bonuses. Though the movie had been an even bigger hit than "Fellowship," the bonuses were smaller and left far more cast members out in the cold. The actors wanted assurances that there would be a more equitable offering in the future. When the studio declined to make promises, 18 actors are said to have banded together and composed a letter to Time Warner chairman Richard Parsons pleading their case. You want a fellowship? You got it.

--end article


Greed knows no bounds! The studio doesnt want to reward those who made so much money for them. sickening.

No profits?! lemme see.

Cost of all 3 films = $270 million

Fellowship Gross worldwide = $862.2 million

Two Towers Gross Worldwide = $920.5 million

I am sure it is safe to assume ROTK will earn around $900 million, probably more.

I guess the rest of the money was spent on the executives salaries.
Old 11-25-03, 03:44 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Welcome to the world of Hollywood accounting.

"Forget about the net! The net is fantasy!" -- Dot Warner
Old 11-25-03, 03:46 PM
  #3  
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hear this happens all the time in Hollywood. Unless you are a big name star, the chances of you seeing any of a "back end" deal are slim to none. I still remember Warners claim that BATMAN didn't make any money.

What really grinds my gears here is that The Lord of the Rings trilogy SAVED New Line Cinema from possibly no longer existing...that's gratitude for you, heh?

It will come back to sting them, though...Jackson's under no obligation to direct for them again...if they screw his cast and crew out of deserved money, he can just stay away from any future projects with them. Same goes for the actors.
Old 11-25-03, 04:00 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rushmore, you forgot to quote the part of the article where New Line agreed to the actor's demands and cut a new profit-sharing deal. Hollywood's not quite as evil as you think.

From the article:

"The actors were ultimately convinced that going over New Line’s head to Parsons would only initiate mutually assured destruction between the cast and the studio. They did not send the letter. Instead, they made what New Line executive vice president Mark Ordesky diplomatically calls “a vigorous appeal” to the studio’s leadership, telling them that it was difficult to imagine spending the final quarter of 2003 attending press junkets and premieres when some of them, particularly those with smaller roles, really did need to get other jobs to make a living. (The actors approached for this article would not confirm any of this; Jackson, who’s said to be a merciless negotiator when he believes the occasion warrants it, would say only that whatever did happen happened between the cast and the studio.) New Line agreed to create a new bonus pool. Crunching numbers with one of the actors everyone trusted—without any agents at all, and with a lawyer only to type up the agreement—the studio struck an egalitarian deal for both “The Two Towers” and “The Return of the King,” paying cast members above and beyond their profit-participation deals, and even rewarding the many actors with no deal in place at all."
Old 11-25-03, 04:04 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,744
Received 2,677 Likes on 1,847 Posts
Hollywood accounting. Movies never make money when it comes to paying off the non-marquee people.

Paramount dicked around the author of the novel "Forrest Gump," for years. Might still be dicking him around for all I know.
Old 11-25-03, 04:07 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 4,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Josh-da-man
Hollywood accounting. Movies never make money when it comes to paying off the non-marquee people.

Paramount dicked around the author of the novel "Forrest Gump," for years. Might still be dicking him around for all I know.
That movie didn't make any money..
Old 11-25-03, 04:34 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any official word on who the 18 are?
Old 11-25-03, 04:41 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 4,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't believe that these people are requesting more money...


Clinton Ulyatt .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Paul Bryson .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Lance Fabian Kemp .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Jono Manks .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Ben Price .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Kate O'Rourke .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Thomas McGinty .... Hero Orcs, Goblins, Uruks & Ringwraiths
Billy Jackson .... Cute Hobbit Child
Katie Jackson .... Cute Hobbit Child
rest of cast listed alphabetically
Peter Corrigan .... Otho (Extended Version)
Lori Dungey .... Mrs. Bracegirdle (extended edition)
Norman Forsey .... Gaffer Gamgee (extended edition)
Bill Johnson .... Old Noakes (extended edition) (as William Johnson)
Elizabeth Moody .... Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (extended edition)
Brian Sergent .... Ted Sandyman (extended edition)
Timothy Bartlett .... Hobbit (uncredited)
Taea Hartwell .... Child Hobbit (uncredited)
Old 11-25-03, 04:44 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Um... where do you see that New Line is making the claim? All i see read was that "Some observers predict that, in the grand Hollywood tradition of creative accounting, New Line may try to prove that it did not make a profit on "The Lord of the Rings."

The words "observers" and "may" change things quite a bit.
Old 11-25-03, 04:49 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 3,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It amazes me that anybody makes movies these days. Apparently none of them make any money. I guess they just do it for fun & charity.
Old 11-25-03, 04:51 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 4,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Movie_Man
It amazes me that anybody makes movies these days. Apparently none of them make any money. I guess they just do it for fun & charity.
same reason why artists record music
Old 11-25-03, 05:25 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't see why Kate and Billy Jackson would be lobbying for more cash. I hear they come from a family that's recently come into a *lot* of money.
Old 11-25-03, 06:51 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Virginia Beach, VA USA
Posts: 3,583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I heard Jack Valenti (MPAA head) say that the average cost to make and market a movie is $90 million. And that only 40% of them make their money back in the theatres.

What I want to know is, if this is true (and I doubt it is) how could the studios possibly stay in business? If this were true, some exec with half a mind would figure out how not to spend $90 million to make and market a 90 minute movie.

D
Old 11-25-03, 07:41 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,249
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally posted by Derrich
I heard Jack Valenti (MPAA head) say that the average cost to make and market a movie is $90 million. And that only 40% of them make their money back in the theatres.

What I want to know is, if this is true (and I doubt it is) how could the studios possibly stay in business? If this were true, some exec with half a mind would figure out how not to spend $90 million to make and market a 90 minute movie.

D
Well the ones that do make money, can make tons of it, plus the video sales, marketing tie-ins, TV rights, and so forth have to be added in there. Maybe just from theater revenues only 40% make their money back, but many more break even or better in the long-run.
Old 11-25-03, 08:15 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: A little bit here and a little bit there.
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They didn't do it for the money.
They did it because new line is a company that is happy enough just to be associated with wee little people into sorcery.
Old 11-25-03, 10:43 PM
  #16  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Right Behind You
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh puhleaze. The actors need to be just as happy they are in LOTR as the New Line is owning it.
Old 11-26-03, 12:39 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, it's not really set in stone, but studios generally get a 55% return of the theater grosses from domestic box office receipts.

International grosses are a bit trickier, but it's still probably around 50% when it's all said and done.

Cost of LOTR trilogy: $300 million
Cost of marketing: $140 million

Estimated domestic grosses for all 3: $1 billion

So not counting international grosses, DVD sales (where the real $$$ is at), and other huge revenue sources (apparel, TV rights, toys, video games, etc) New Line is more than breaking even. This series will end up being monstrously profitable for New Line, no doubt about it.
Old 11-26-03, 03:02 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 1,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Inverse
rushmore, you forgot to quote the part of the article where New Line agreed to the actor's demands and cut a new profit-sharing deal. Hollywood's not quite as evil as you think.
But there is also the part where the cast is demanding an audit of the LOTR finances:

"The bonuses restored good will. For the most part. Sources tell NEWSWEEK that the cast is now auditing the studio. And Jackson and Miramax, which launched “The Lord of the Rings” years ago but ultimately couldn’t afford to make it, have teamed up for an audit of their own. New Line’s Ordesky, an old friend of Jackson’s from the days when the director needed a couch to sleep on in L.A., insists that the studio does not consider the audits confrontational. The irony is that, in the midst of all this, Jackson is delighted with New Line’s financial commitment to the making of “Return of the King.”"

The article downplays the audit saying that Jackson is pleased with the money he's been getting to finish "Return of the King." While that is all nice and swell, there is no guarantee that more actors will be coming back to get their share of the pot. I would love to see New Line prove that LOTR didn't make any money.

If you paid $60 for the FOTR:EE w/collector's bookends and another $60 for the TTT:EE w/Gollum figurine and another $30 for the theatrical version of both movies, you should be angry if New Line ever says that LOTR never made any money.
Old 11-26-03, 10:08 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Thoradin
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lesson 1: Bad news sells more magazines than good news.

Some observers predict that, in the grand Hollywood tradition of creative accounting, New Line may try to prove that it did not make a profit on "The Lord of the Rings."

In the same vein, some folks predict that, in the grand Times Square tradition of creative predictions, the earth may try to destroy itself by colliding with a giant cheeseball.
Old 11-26-03, 10:43 AM
  #20  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL,
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ad marketing and the overhead for the studio, I can easily see how the triology might not make any money.

It WILL take care of any outstanding losses though.
Old 11-26-03, 11:13 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asking for an audit is a perfectly normal thing when a film earns a huge amount of revenue. Tom Hanks asked for an audit after Forrest Gump, for example.

It's standard procedure in any business deal based around royalties, really. If you have a piece of the gross, you need to know exactly what that gross is. Hence the audit.

The world must be really desparate for LOTR news if this sort of stuff is making headlines. Next up: the sordid truth behind Viggo Mortensen's lunch vouchers!
Old 11-26-03, 11:36 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 18,009
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Scot1458
Ad marketing and the overhead for the studio, I can easily see how the triology might not make any money.

It WILL take care of any outstanding losses though.
$3 billion in revenue versus $300 million in costs? I don't see how it can't profit.
Old 11-26-03, 01:12 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by DodgingCars
$3 billion in revenue versus $300 million in costs? I don't see how it can't profit.
Unless the people who run New Line also ran Enron.
Old 11-26-03, 01:16 PM
  #24  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ouch
Old 11-26-03, 01:20 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah and they make nothing off the DVD sales.

This has to be one of the most successful franchises ever. I liked how the article stated that Peter Jackson is netting $150 million from these movies. Holy shit that's a lot. He deserves it.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.