What is Digg?263 Comments
- cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+307Sure he can. Holywood makes movies without talent all the time.
- whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -13/+303My bet - Shaye will be out of a job soon. He's alienating the talent - can't make movies without it.
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+167Goodbye Mr. Shaye, we hardly knew yah.
- timetogo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+97Hobbit Movie - Peter J. = at least one less person in attendance (me)
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+88"He will never make any movie with New Line Cinema again while I'm still working for the company."
BREAKING: New Line Fires Robert Shaye - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+79Wasn't New Line in danger of losing the film rights to The Hobbit anyways?
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+73This Shaye guy seems to think it's a matter of greed on Jackson's part. But Jackson says New Line rightfully owes him more money because they're using bad accounting practices to screw him out of what's his. I wouldn't put it past this Shaye guy to try that. Just judging by his tone in this article, he's a douchebag and I wouldn't want to work with him either.
If Newline moves ahead with The Hobbit sans Peter Jackson and WETA, they should expect it to flop, hard. No other team is going to be able to bring Middle Earth back to film the way Jackson and company did. If Ian McKellan also sides with Jackson as several other actors have and New Line casts a different Gandalf, they should just forget the whole thing. New Line is *****. They should pay the man what they owe him because The Hobbit will bring them another couple of billion dollars (1 bil for each Hobbit movie, just like 1 bil for each LoTR movie). What's 50 or 100 million when you're about to screw yourself out of 2 billion? - jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57In other news, 6.5 billion people blacklist New Line Cinemas.
- cvindustries, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51I've read the Hobbit a few times and I've concluded that the story arc is not suitable for a movie. Having said that, however, The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, has a much more rhythmic momentum, and each chapter in and of itself, has an up and down cycle to it (it is a children's book after all). With the events in the Hobbit, there woud be no way to squash it all into a 2-3 hour movie without severly truncating most of the substantive content. Am I the only one who thinks that the Hobbit would be much better served as a 21 episode mini-series? Think Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc. Each chapter becomes an episode. Much of the storyline would therefore remain intact (a lot more happens in 302 pages of the Hobbit than the 900-or so pages of LOTR), and the original flow would be better observed.
When its all done, release a nine disc super DVD set. For an entire year, this will be the number one viewed show on television. That alone would be worth so much money to the channel that airs it. Seriously, why isn't anyone pitching this? Haven't LOST, The West Wing, Heroes, 24 and these other dramas shown that the mini-series format is what people are now looking for in movies (big sweeping story arcs with smaller plots along the way)? Am I crazy? Please, somebody give me some honest feedback on this. Thanks! - xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+49If we dont get peter jackson, then you SHALL get a FLOP
- lordofruin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46BREAKING: apache2 has no sense of humor.
- gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43what an *****. LOTR without peter jackson is like 24 without Jack Bauer as the main character, IT WAS MEANT TO BE LIKE THAT. i don't care if jackson ***** this guys wife, he needs to be the director of the hobbit.
- fubarsnafu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44On a similar note, you don't get a crack at driving the fastest car unless you're an outstanding driver.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35Basically, New Line completely underestimated how popular the LOTR films would be, and agreed to a lucrative back-end deal with Peter Jackson. When the trilogy became the highest grossing of all time, they realized they'd be paying him out the ass, and used dirty accounting tricks to hide the money. From what I've read, Jackson has a good case.
Peter Jackson shouldn't be directing any films for New Line while the case is ongoing, because it's a conflict of interest. But you also can't make PJ out to be the greedy bastard here. New Line is cheating him out of money lawfully owed him! Well, guess what, Ian McKellan and Ian Holm will likely follow PJ out the door, a filmmaker significantly less talented than Peter Jackson will take the reins, and the whole thing will be a ***** joke that grosses a third of ROTK. The smart thing to do is just pay the genius what they contractually agreed to and let another billion dollars roll in. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -3/+34The Lord of the Rings films SAVED New Line from bankruptcy. The credit goes to BILL MECHANIC for making those films happen, who was summarily FIRED by New Line (Shaye?) for taking such a risk...BEFORE LOTR went on to big one of the biggest and best made film franchises in all of movie history. That's the kind of people Peter is dealing with....ahem.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33http://www.boycottnewline.com
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Have you even read The Hobbit?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39Well theres one idiot out of the company (Shayne)
- jk_baller23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31"To think that Peter Jackson is the only person who could direct the hobbit is just silly. If you're a fan of the book then you'll go watch it regardless of who was behind the camera and you know it."
I'm a fan of the video games that have been turned in to movies, but when Uwe Boll is behind the camera, it'll most likely be garbage. So, it does matter who is behind the camera, at least to me. - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Lucas got the same treatment and look how well he's done for himself.
- KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27"Their biggest mistake yet."
Only until they get the idea to get Michael Bay to make it, that would be a bigger mistake - Fragalishus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23"it would take a lot to "fire" him"
Didn't Apple "fire" Steve Jobs? Wouldn't take much at all. Just the board saying "gtfo, kthx". - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22The problem is that they basically cheated him while technically staying within his contract, so there's little for them to discuss. New Line used "pre-emptive bidding" to sell the merchandising rights to other Time Warner subsidiaries rather than accepting open bidding. Basically, they kept it all in house and didn't accept higher bids from other companies which would have improved the total sales from the movie. Then (he says) they fudged the gross receipts, keeping it all in house, and because Jackson's deal was for a percentage of the gross, he got the shaft. He's not contending that they did this to intentionally screw him over, but he is claiming damages because of their unusual actions. He's down about $100 million bucks. Okay, so yeah, they paid him $250 mill, but he was expecting $350-400 based on the rest of the numbers.
He has a valid point, basically. May or may not be a valid *legal* point, but it's a valid point nevertheless. - TheSaladMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Their biggest mistake yet.
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26True but Jackson has proven he can do Tolkien and I wont watch The Hobbit unless he is in creative control.
- Falldog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Well, part of the title is in CAPITAL LETERS.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"He will never make any movie with New Line Cinema again while I'm still working for the company."
Better fire up Resume Wizard, *****. - nickelbagoffunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"He got a quarter of a billion dollars paid to him so far, justifiably, according to contract, completely right, and this guy, who already has received a quarter of a billion dollars"
I don't think it's asking too much when "The Return of the King" grossed over $1.3 Billion alone. Shaye makes it out to seem like Peter's holding them hostage for all the profits. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The trilogy grossed over $4 billion total, all things considered.
Jackson's deal was for 20% of the gross.
They paid him "a quarter of a billion".
Seems like he's got a legitimate beef here to me. - RTourn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Shaye talks like money is the only thing. I’ve seen big budget movies that just suck. I wish we could vote you off like Survivor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16it would take a lot to "fire" him -- "Robert Shaye founded New Line Cinema in 1967 and has guided the company's growth from a privately held distributor of art films into one of the entertainment industry’s leading independent motion picture production and distribution companies." (from http://www.newline.com/about/shaye.shtml)
- kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15If people like Ian McKellon and Ian Holm refuse to participate, what will New Line do then? Hire Vin Diesel and Ice Cube?
- stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14From what I understand, Jackson isn't specifically suing for more money. He suspects that he's owed more money so he's suing New Line to force them to publicly display how they determined how much he was owed.
- WatsonFilms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Yes, the use of "breaking" in headlines on this site can be a little overdramatic, but he was clearly poking fun at it in his post.
- kansascowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14if i remember correctly new line was in deep ***** before LOTR-they were pretty much bankrupt. Peter Jackson came along made them a few billion and now theyre cutting him off? if you look at new lines films most of them are just bad horror flicks and Peter Jackson did something amazing. its sickening
- LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The trick now is try and distinguish boycotting from utter disinterest in their line-up.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -3/+15NewLine has a couple hundred MILLION reasons to cheat the guy...are you kidding me?
- jwigum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I notice that he plays up how much money they've given him, not how much he was contracted for. It's crap to say "Why's he angry, we paid him X amount of money..." when he was contracted for more.
- chownrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@ whereisian "He's alienating the talent - can't make movies without it."
You obviously haven't seen 99% of the garbage that Hollywood churns out. Talent means nothing to these clowns. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"Wasn't New Line in danger of losing the film rights to The Hobbit anyways?"
If they don't make it by the end of this year I think the rights revert back to whomever held them originally (saul zaentz or something I think).
Its a shame what NewLine are doing/have done to Jackson regarding screwing him out of his contracted payment.
A new LOTR movie just won't 'feel' the same without the newline logo at the start, a bit like how without the Fox logo a starwars movie just seems wrong.
Ok, MORE wrong! - nato64, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14As a crappy amature director, I know that the director ALWAYS gets paid last on a film. After all the special effects people, actors, distributors, advertisers, producers get paid. He probably got screwed out of the deal since LotR was so damn successful.
- TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What upcoming New Line Movies are in the pipe? I want to make sure I don't pay for them.
- numlocked, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16From the article though, if what Shaye says is correct, it does sound like he is acting like a primadonna. New Line really doesn't have any reason to try and cheat the guy, and he has been paid plenty. If he really won't sit down and talk and instead went straight into lawsuit mode, I can't blame the studio for trying to out him from the project.
- pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Ignore factor = one
- ButterBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Because of New Line's BS, Sir Ian McKellen is going to be dead by the time filming starts....
- skankyBacon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@hifigi
"If you're a fan of the books, you really, REALLY can't like Peter Jackson."
Not true. Some of us are fans of the books, but realize that movies SHOULDN'T and CAN'T be 100% verbatim copies of the books on which they're based. The movies can be amazingly good anyway (LotR), or horrible (Eragon), but they can only be good if you can bring yourself to judge it on its own merits. "They didn't have xxxxxx scene" isn't really a valid critique of a film's quality. - TedTschopp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Wow, a studio exec making a bone headed move. I can't belive it.
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10it was offtopic and unwarranted, why are you so surprised?
- gdmfsob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Is there something I'm missing here? Everybody is on Jackson's side, which is understandable as his work is impeccable. What if Jackson really is trying to get more money than was originally contracted for? Regardless of how much the movies/merchandise have grossed, he shouldn't receive anything more than originally intended. If anybody has any further details regarding the case, I'd love to read a link. Cheers =)
- architimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think this line says about all you need to know about how this guy approaches the situation.
"he's either had very poor counsel or is completely misinformed and myopic to think that I care whether I give him [anything]."
What he fails to add to that comment is that he cares a great deal about what he IS giving Peter Jackson.
I would imagine the dispute runs something along the lines of...
1. Peter Jackson agrees to make movie for X% of movie profits
2. Movie grosses insane amounts of money
3. Peter Jackson rubs hands together in glee
4a. Using sketchy accounting practices New Line subtracts 50% of movie gross for "unspecified expenses" calculates Jackson's X% share from remaining 50% "gross profit"
or
4b. Specifies in earlier contracts that movie gross actually refers to box office revenue and excludes all other revenues from the movie, forgets to notify Peter Jackson that this term applies to all movies produces by New Line
or... A combination of 4a and 4b
5. Peter Jacksons sues New Line because they are unethical *****
6. New Line tries to buy Peter Jackson off by offering a "better" contract for directing the "Hobbit"
7. Peter Jackson says "I ain't no fool"
8. Old man gets angry, goes on power trip, pisses off of LOTR fans -
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is