Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Miramax brothers decide that selling the rights to the Hobbit movies 13 years ago was a stupid move   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Harvey Weinstein, Miramax, hobbits, movies, New York Supreme Court, New Line, The Hobbit, Warner Bros  
•       •       •

4806 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Dec 2013 at 1:43 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-12 12:49:10 PM  
 
2013-12-12 01:51:04 PM  
Meh if the sold the right and all the paperwork is onthe op and up they have no case.
 
2013-12-12 01:52:08 PM  
This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.
 
2013-12-12 01:52:52 PM  
How does splitting one movie into 3 parts, make the 2nd two parts "remakes." Eh?...eh?
 
2013-12-12 01:53:54 PM  
media.screened.com
 
2013-12-12 02:00:16 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.



Thread over.  We're done here, close up and shut off the lights please!
 
2013-12-12 02:03:05 PM  
Yes, they made the second two movies instead of just one in a cunning ploy to deprive the Weinsteins of the revenue from the second two movies.
 
2013-12-12 02:05:31 PM  
This thread is like Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" while the previous one is Michael Mann's "Manhunter".
 
2013-12-12 02:05:47 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.


"Deslide of the Rings"
 
2013-12-12 02:07:35 PM  
Again?
 
2013-12-12 02:08:09 PM  

Beerguy: Repeat?

http://www.fark.com/comments/8056435/Annoyed-that-The-Hobbit-is-spli t- into-three-films-So-are-Weinstein-Brothers


I hear they're going to stretch it out to a threepeat.
 
2013-12-12 02:08:38 PM  
I was going to post something meaningful but I'll just save it for the next thread about this story.
 
2013-12-12 02:26:38 PM  
You know what Weinsteins? As a lifelong fan of the Tolkein books... I'm happy with the way it turned out so far.

/Have tickets to see it on Sunday
 
2013-12-12 02:26:51 PM  
I've
 
2013-12-12 02:27:35 PM  
got
 
2013-12-12 02:28:17 PM  
nothing.
 
2013-12-12 02:30:04 PM  
Rankin-Bass H/LOTR are vastly superior adaptations in every way. Peter whatsisname is a dreary hack.

that is all
 
2013-12-12 02:31:05 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.


Hey, whatever ups my greenlit count...
 
2013-12-12 02:31:20 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.


OK that made me laugh.  Please please modmins greenlight a third link.
 
2013-12-12 02:33:44 PM  
If they were not going to doing anything worthwhile with the "rights" for whatever reason, lack of financing  or whatever, why not sell them?
 
2013-12-12 02:34:02 PM  
Oh God.

Whoever wants to roll themselves through Ralph Bakshi's rotoscoped dreck, more power to you. The Lord of the Rings by him was a headache in a can. 'Groundbreaking' from Bakshi = I was really stoned. And cheap.

And this is coming from someone who likes Bakshi.

/Wizards was amazing and more coherent
//Still the best surprise ending, ever
 
2013-12-12 02:45:42 PM  
Eat it Harvey!
 
2013-12-12 02:45:57 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org


Did somebody say something about Miramax splitting (or slicing) a movie into two parts to make more cash?
 
2013-12-12 02:53:30 PM  
Again? Wow they must be really pissed about this to complain twice in a day
 
2013-12-12 02:58:26 PM  
FTA:"Richard Corliss hailed the new film as "livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source" than its predecessor"

I think I missed some of that slavishness.
 
2013-12-12 02:59:03 PM  

mongbiohazard: You know what Weinsteins? As a lifelong fan of the Tolkein books... I'm happy with the way it turned out so far.


Yea I don't understand the hate on splitting it up.  They've done a good job on it so far and they're including a lot of material from the other books. Are people really that annoyed that they're going get to watch another epic saga with a multimillion dollar budget? Are they that desperate to get back to watching Sharknado knockoffs?
 
2013-12-12 02:59:53 PM  
They would have only gotten revenue for one movie anyway so what does it matter? Are a lot of people going to go watch parts 2 and 3 without watching part 1? Stupid lawsuit, verdict butthurt.
 
wee
2013-12-12 03:03:28 PM  

willfullyobscure: Peter whatsisname is a dreary hack


So edgy!
 
2013-12-12 03:04:58 PM  
Weinstein, you say?  Are they Jewish?
 
2013-12-12 03:05:33 PM  

mechgreg: Did somebody say something about Miramax splitting (or slicing) a movie into two parts to make more cash?


After years of waiting for a definitive edition of those two movies to be released, I finally caved and bought the Blu-Ray two-pack on the cheap at Target.

This, of course, means that said definitive edition will be announced any day now.
 
2013-12-12 03:11:19 PM  
I highly doubt that the first movie would have made three times as much money if it were one movie.
 
2013-12-12 03:13:37 PM  
Soooo, in order to increase revenues roughly 200% they concocted a plan to not have to spend 5% of 2/3rds of the movies to... umm... what?
 
2013-12-12 03:14:12 PM  

willfullyobscure: Rankin-Bass H/LOTR are vastly superior adaptations in every way. Peter whatsisname is a dreary hack.


Rankin-Bass was shiat.  The first time I saw it as a kid I wondered "What the hell is this?"
 
2013-12-12 03:15:05 PM  

Larry Mahnken: I highly doubt that the first movie would have made three times as much money if it were one movie.


That was what i initially thought, but i think the arguement here is that technically, all 3 films are Hobbit movies...   They made the same film 3 times, albeit different parts of the story.
 
2013-12-12 03:15:52 PM  

rudemix: FTA:"Richard Corliss hailed the new film as "livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source" than its predecessor"

I think I missed some of that slavishness.


It was present in the scene were Bilbo and Gandalf smoke unfiltered cigarettes, eat pljeskavica and complain about the Serbians.
 
2013-12-12 03:19:28 PM  

bill4935: rudemix: FTA:"Richard Corliss hailed the new film as "livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source" than its predecessor"

I think I missed some of that slavishness.

It was present in the scene were Bilbo and Gandalf smoke unfiltered cigarettes, eat pljeskavica and complain about the Serbians.



*Applause*
 
2013-12-12 03:22:30 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.


With 5 additional threads that have no original content.

Oh and preview threads. And additional features threads. Plus a Blu-ray thread, an ultraviolet thread, a subsonic thread, an alternative universe thread, a Betamax thread, a VHS thread, a Laserdisc thread, a Viewmaster thread, a wax cylinder thread, a petroglyph thread...
 
2013-12-12 03:22:39 PM  
Again?
 
2013-12-12 03:33:12 PM  
mockingjaymovienews.com

You know who else is breaking a book up into 2 movies?
 
2013-12-12 03:38:57 PM  

willfullyobscure: Rankin-Bass H/LOTR are vastly superior adaptations in every way. Peter whatsisname is a dreary hack.

that is all


You obviously never saw the Ralph Bakshi version.
 
2013-12-12 03:43:51 PM  
You could pretty much read the Hobbit in the time it would take to wait in line and watch three movies.
 
2013-12-12 03:50:59 PM  

Erix: This story should get broken into three threads for more clicks.


*applause.gif*
 
2013-12-12 03:52:14 PM  

Clutch2013: mechgreg: Did somebody say something about Miramax splitting (or slicing) a movie into two parts to make more cash?

After years of waiting for a definitive edition of those two movies to be released, I finally caved and bought the Blu-Ray two-pack on the cheap at Target.

This, of course, means that said definitive edition will be announced any day now.


Me too!! Like $7.50.
 
2013-12-12 03:53:57 PM  

puckrock2000: willfullyobscure: Rankin-Bass H/LOTR are vastly superior adaptations in every way. Peter whatsisname is a dreary hack.

that is all

You obviously never saw the Ralph Bakshi version.


You mean the movie Pedo Hackson literally lifted entire scenes from and reshot, frame for frame? that movie? Yes, I saw it. So did Fatson. He liked it so much he made a copy of it.
 
2013-12-12 03:54:23 PM  
how many people have they stolen money from?
 
2013-12-12 04:00:11 PM  

Znuh: Oh God.

Whoever wants to roll themselves through Ralph Bakshi's rotoscoped dreck, more power to you. The Lord of the Rings by him was a headache in a can. 'Groundbreaking' from Bakshi = I was really stoned. And cheap.

And this is coming from someone who likes Bakshi.

/Wizards was amazing and more coherent
//Still the best surprise ending, ever


Dude, I know! I've long said "I'm glad you changed your last name, you son of a biatch" is the best line in movie history, but nobody knows what I'm talking about!

/let's hang out
 
2013-12-12 04:01:23 PM  

BalugaJoe: how many people have they stolen money from?


Besides the people who paid to see The Matrix: Reloaded and Revolutions?
 
2013-12-12 04:25:57 PM  

StrikitRich: [mockingjaymovienews.com image 495x700]

You know who else is breaking a book up into 2 movies?


Part I:  Mocking
Part II:  Jay
 
2013-12-12 04:32:00 PM  

Znuh: Oh God.

Whoever wants to roll themselves through Ralph Bakshi's rotoscoped dreck, more power to you. The Lord of the Rings by him was a headache in a can. 'Groundbreaking' from Bakshi = I was really stoned. And cheap.

And this is coming from someone who likes Bakshi.

/Wizards was amazing and more coherent
//Still the best surprise ending, ever


Wizards was good, as was The Hobbit. Not sure how it all fell apart when he did LOTR though... I've tried to watch that a few times and just can't. Hobbit, on the other hand, kind of gives you a Cliff's Notes to brush up on before going to the theatre for the latest installment.
 
2013-12-12 04:32:29 PM  

Johnsnownw: How does splitting one movie into 3 parts, make the 2nd two parts "remakes." Eh?...eh?


It doesn't.  The key here is that the IP selling agreement only specified that they would be paid 5% of gross for royalties from the FIRST motion picture made using that IP.  One side argues that the first part was the first one made and therefore it's all the other side is entitled to.  The other side is essentially saying that they've only paid for 1/3rd of what they sold, because they've essentially decided to generate 3 times the profit off using the IP in it's entirety once but over three installments, but only pay them for the portion they used in the first one.

They may have some argument.  You have to wonder what the ramifications would have been if they had decided to release the first part for free and told the people they bought the IP from to go eat a dick on their royalties since there were no gross profits.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report