New Line Looking to Profit Even More From LOTR
02-13-04, 02:08 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Line Looking to RAPE LOTR
Very disturbing News here, read on Counting Down.
Seems New Line is a little too desperate to make a sequel or prequel to LOTR. At any cost. If they cant do The Hobbit, they may do their own.
Note to MODERATOR; I know there is a LOTR forum, just thought this might interest people who might not otherwise go into that very quiet, rarely posted forum.
For those who have questioned the validity of news bits from my past posts, here is the link.
http://www.countingdown.com/movies/3...tem_id=3361815
February 13, 2004 ¡X Fans who long for a Peter-Jackson-directed "The Hobbit" have to wait for New Line and MGM to resolve a complicated rights situation, described in an article today in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Tolkien, an Oxford professor who dreamed up the idea of the hobbits while marking exam papers, sold the rights to his Middle-earth tales, including "The Hobbit," to MGM's United Artists in 1969 for an estimated $10,000 to pay off a tax bill. MGM subsequently sold most of the film rights to Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz, who made an often-derided animated "Lord of the Rings" in 1978.
After a series of twists and turns that included settling a lawsuit with United Artists, Mr. Zaentz eventually sold the rights to New Line after approving a treatment put forward by Mr. Jackson. However, MGM retained the distribution rights for "The Hobbit." It's unclear what rights Mr. Zaentz has going forward; he declined to discuss the matter.
New Line and MGM have yet to sit down to seriously discuss "The Hobbit." When they do make it to the negotiating table, it is likely that MGM will want to retain some sort of cut. A possible proposal could include the two sharing the costs and splitting the profit, with New Line taking the domestic distribution rights and MGM taking the international rights. Such a split isn't unusual -- in the case of the "Rings," New Line used independent distributors for the international release.
"We're open to any discussions that the other rights holders would like to have," says MGM Vice Chairman Chris McGurk.
If New Line can't do a deal with MGM, it says it may go back to the drawing board and either pursue its own prequel filling in the period between "The Hobbit" and the first "Rings" book, or a sequel that follows on from "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." However, that option faces a number of potential complications, including the Tolkien family. While the family still benefits from sales of the books, they signed away their say on any films based on the "Lord of the Rings" or "The Hobbit" when J.R.R. Tolkien sold the rights to MGM. But a new prequel or sequel could be another matter.
Unfortunately, the full article is only available to paid subscribers at WSJ.com.
UGH! I know why, but WHY?
Do they have to destroy these movies? I could see doing a few stories from The Silmarillion and The Hobbit is obvious, but let's not water down the tremendous work that is Lord of the Rings.
Seems New Line is a little too desperate to make a sequel or prequel to LOTR. At any cost. If they cant do The Hobbit, they may do their own.
Note to MODERATOR; I know there is a LOTR forum, just thought this might interest people who might not otherwise go into that very quiet, rarely posted forum.
For those who have questioned the validity of news bits from my past posts, here is the link.
http://www.countingdown.com/movies/3...tem_id=3361815
February 13, 2004 ¡X Fans who long for a Peter-Jackson-directed "The Hobbit" have to wait for New Line and MGM to resolve a complicated rights situation, described in an article today in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Tolkien, an Oxford professor who dreamed up the idea of the hobbits while marking exam papers, sold the rights to his Middle-earth tales, including "The Hobbit," to MGM's United Artists in 1969 for an estimated $10,000 to pay off a tax bill. MGM subsequently sold most of the film rights to Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz, who made an often-derided animated "Lord of the Rings" in 1978.
After a series of twists and turns that included settling a lawsuit with United Artists, Mr. Zaentz eventually sold the rights to New Line after approving a treatment put forward by Mr. Jackson. However, MGM retained the distribution rights for "The Hobbit." It's unclear what rights Mr. Zaentz has going forward; he declined to discuss the matter.
New Line and MGM have yet to sit down to seriously discuss "The Hobbit." When they do make it to the negotiating table, it is likely that MGM will want to retain some sort of cut. A possible proposal could include the two sharing the costs and splitting the profit, with New Line taking the domestic distribution rights and MGM taking the international rights. Such a split isn't unusual -- in the case of the "Rings," New Line used independent distributors for the international release.
"We're open to any discussions that the other rights holders would like to have," says MGM Vice Chairman Chris McGurk.
If New Line can't do a deal with MGM, it says it may go back to the drawing board and either pursue its own prequel filling in the period between "The Hobbit" and the first "Rings" book, or a sequel that follows on from "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." However, that option faces a number of potential complications, including the Tolkien family. While the family still benefits from sales of the books, they signed away their say on any films based on the "Lord of the Rings" or "The Hobbit" when J.R.R. Tolkien sold the rights to MGM. But a new prequel or sequel could be another matter.
Unfortunately, the full article is only available to paid subscribers at WSJ.com.
UGH! I know why, but WHY?
Do they have to destroy these movies? I could see doing a few stories from The Silmarillion and The Hobbit is obvious, but let's not water down the tremendous work that is Lord of the Rings.
02-13-04, 02:47 PM
#4
DVD Talk Legend
The first thing I thought of was the Silmarillion. That's a tough read, and if they get the right person, it might be interesting to see brought to life. There's also about 14 or so books of notes that Tolkien's son has published that's bound to have a few movies worth of stories.
They treated the property good so far, I don't seem them totally crapping on it.
They treated the property good so far, I don't seem them totally crapping on it.
02-13-04, 02:57 PM
#5
DVD Talk Legend
As for a sequel that isn't based on Tolkien's writings, I can't see Peter Jackson wanting anything to do with it. And if Peter isn't involved, I doubt Viggo, Ian, Elijah, Sean, etc. would sign on. Furthermore, it would turn off the die hard fans, which would cut at least half the auidence away. Having none of the original cast would chip away even more. Bad idea all around.
02-13-04, 03:51 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was already posted a while back. This is just New Line posturing to put the heat on United Artists, who controls the distribution rights for The Hobbit. New Line is trying to convince them they don't need UA and thus bring UA's price down.
But they do need UA, for exactly the reasons DRG stated--Jackson is unlikely to do anything other than The Hobbit, and without Jackson & co., New Line no longer has a blockbuster on their hands. At best they'd have a SciFi channel original movie.
So it's in everybody's best interests for New Line and UA to do a deal for the Hobbit: it means more money for everyone.
But they do need UA, for exactly the reasons DRG stated--Jackson is unlikely to do anything other than The Hobbit, and without Jackson & co., New Line no longer has a blockbuster on their hands. At best they'd have a SciFi channel original movie.
So it's in everybody's best interests for New Line and UA to do a deal for the Hobbit: it means more money for everyone.
02-13-04, 04:05 PM
#7
Banned
Originally posted by El-Kabong
And when Luca$ Bashers start talking about how he's raping their childhood for money, I'll just sit back and laugh and laugh and laugh.
And when Luca$ Bashers start talking about how he's raping their childhood for money, I'll just sit back and laugh and laugh and laugh.
The difference here is the STUDIO is PROPOSING to extend this story in ways that are illogical if they need to, for obvious reasons.
Lucas himself has already forever tarnished his series because he's an idiot.
02-13-04, 04:23 PM
#9
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have to use RAPE in caps in a title? I know the word gets thrown around the forum all the time, but to have it as a gross exageration in the title and all CAPS is insensitive and pretty ridicoulous.
02-13-04, 04:45 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I firmly believe a trilogy can be hashed out of the Silmarillion.
Something like...
1) Forming of the world, forming of the jewels, stealing of the jewels, first wars with Feanor.
2) Aftermath, morgoth's reign, Beren,
3) How Earendil came to be, including Gondolin, defeat of Morgoth.
If those were successful, maybe even a stand alone movie about Numenor.
Definitely possible, don't be so quick to dismiss. People were quick to dismiss LOTR as movies but they were made (albeit shoddily)
Perhaps a true visionary director for Silmarillion...
Spielberg in vintage form?
Ridley Scott in Blade Runner form?
Something like...
1) Forming of the world, forming of the jewels, stealing of the jewels, first wars with Feanor.
2) Aftermath, morgoth's reign, Beren,
3) How Earendil came to be, including Gondolin, defeat of Morgoth.
If those were successful, maybe even a stand alone movie about Numenor.
Definitely possible, don't be so quick to dismiss. People were quick to dismiss LOTR as movies but they were made (albeit shoddily)
Perhaps a true visionary director for Silmarillion...
Spielberg in vintage form?
Ridley Scott in Blade Runner form?
02-13-04, 04:47 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chanster
Do we have to use RAPE in caps in a title? I know the word gets thrown around the forum all the time, but to have it as a gross exageration in the title and all CAPS is insensitive and pretty ridicoulous.
Do we have to use RAPE in caps in a title? I know the word gets thrown around the forum all the time, but to have it as a gross exageration in the title and all CAPS is insensitive and pretty ridicoulous.
