Filmstalker: Hobbit delayed in courts again?

Despite Peter Jackson and New Line settling their differences in court so that The Hobbit can finally continue, it seems that New Line and the story are not yet done in court, and Peter Jackson has nothing to do with it this time.

The estate behind the creator of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien is suing the studio claiming that they failed to pay them a cut of the gross profits for the films, just as Peter Jackson did.

Now surely those that thought Peter Jackson was in the wrong must now be thinking there's something to this claim?

I was convinced that I had written about this ages ago, I'm sure that I read this before, but I can't search out the article. I did find one about a group of actors suing New Line over unpaid profits, something we never really heard about again.

However now the estate of Tolkien, The Tolkien Trust, looks set to take New Line back to court and possibly put a halt to The Hobbit film.

The law suit claims that New Line was required to pay seven and a half percent of gross profits from the films to Tolkien's estate and to other parties, a figure which the law suit places at more than US $150 million in damages.

However the Associated Press report that the biggest part of the suit is the fact that part of it has been filed to ask the court for an order to terminate any rights New Line may have to make films which are based on Tolkien works, and that means The Hobbit.

A quote comes from Steven Maier, the attorney for the estate:

“The Tolkien trustees do not file lawsuits lightly, and have tried unsuccessfully to resolve their claims out of court...”

So if you were thinking that a nice out of court settlement would come, well I think you could well be wrong. That is unless New Line decide to settle in full before heading forward with The Hobbit, and that would mean that the film is already facing a healthy deficit in the company that has to be filled – could the film series be destined not to recoup New Line the profits it once thought?

Could the film be destined never to be made? New Line might just abandon the idea altogether.

Add a comment

Track comments made to this post with co.mments

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

I read somewhere (I'll send you the link separately)that there will be 2 movies for The Hobbit, what do you think of that?

Posted by: Simone | February 12, 2008 12:47 PM

Ermmm, I thought this when I wrote about the two film split.

Posted by: Richard Brunton | February 12, 2008 1:43 PM

HAHAHAHA I knew you would do that! I remember now posting in that topic too, I was the first!

But the link I saw recently was in The Guardian. I am emailing you that now.

Posted by: Simone | February 12, 2008 2:08 PM

It's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but is there really enough material there for two films?

Don't worry about the film getting made...I'm sure greed will resolve everyone's differences in the end.

Posted by: hap | February 12, 2008 3:05 PM

I have read The Hobbit and I am SURE that there is no need for a sequel. You're absolutely spot on hap, it's all about greed, bleed the audience dry, they'll pay for a sequel so let's give them another. And you know what, I think he's right!

Posted by: Simone | February 12, 2008 3:45 PM

Just because other people are suing New Line does not automatically mean "Peter Jackson was [not] in the wrong".

Suggest you read the "official" biography of Peter Jackson that came out a year or so ago - there is quite some evidence there on the way Jackson works, even in spite of the fact Jackson himself had to approve the book.

Not to say New Line aren't crooks (I have no idea whether they are or not). But that doesn't automatically mean the other party is wholly innocent (and frankly that extends to Harper Collins and the Tolkien Estate too).

Posted by: Ian Smith | February 12, 2008 8:31 PM

Woah there Ian, you can't quote me and then insert one of your own words which then totally changes the meaning of the sentence.

"Now surely those that thought Peter Jackson was in the wrong must now be thinking there's something to this claim?"

Is what I said. I never stated either way, and certainly not the way you've quoted there.

At no point am I saying that this "automatically" means "the other party is wholly innocent"

Posted by: Richard Brunton | February 12, 2008 9:11 PM