Re: [mythsoc] Re: To Hobbit or not To Hobbit?
- Excuse me if I'm replying to the wrong person. I can't figure out who's
saying what here. I wish people would be more careful in showing what is being
quoted and who said it.
In a message dated 2/12/2008 11:37:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Back around the time Film I came out either The Economist
or The Financial Times reported that Tolkien got a
percentage above a certain sum, on top of IIRC $250,000 US-
which meant he only realised $10,000, the other 96% going
to the Inland Revenue.
What does Film I mean? Does this mean the first of the Jackson films? The
top income rate in the U.K. is 40% and hasn't been 96% since at least the
1970's. Is this talking about the money paid to Tolkien in 1968 when he sold
the film rights to the books? According to everything I've read before,
Tolkien got about $250,000 and didn't get any future percentages.
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In email@example.com, WendellWag@...
> What does Film I mean? Does this mean the firstof the Jackson films? The
> top income rate in the U.K. is 40% and hasn'tbeen 96% since at least the
> 1970's. Is this talking about the money paid toTolkien in 1968 when he sold
> the film rights to the books? According toeverything I've read before,
> Tolkien got about $250,000 and didn't get anyfuture percentages.
>By Film I I meant The Fellowship of the Ring, so the story
appeared at the end of '01 or early '02. The top tax rate
was indeed 96% in 1969, when JRRT sold the rights to UA,
and so it's correct in a way to assert he got either a)
$250,000 or b) $10,000. Both have been reported.
Anyway, six years ago the press, quoting someone from
HarperCollins, confirmed that there was a percentage deal
in the contract.